natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο , α φ ο ύ υ π ε ν θ ύ μ ισ ε τ ο υ ς σ κ ο π ο ύ ς σ τ ο υ ς ο π ο ί ο υ ς α π ο β λ έ π ε ι η υ π ο χ ρ έ ω σ η π ο υ π ρ ο β λ έ π ε τ α ισ τ η ν π α ρ ά γ ρ α φ ο 2 τ η ς δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ω ς α υ τ ή ς ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ η δ η μ ο σ ί ε υ σ η τ ω ν τ ι μ ο κ α τ α λ ό γ ω ν π ο υ ε φ α ρ μ ό ζ ο ν τ α ισ τ η ν κ ο ι ν ή α γ ο ρ ά α π ό τ ι ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ι ς , δ έ χ θ η κ ε ό τ ι τ ο κ α θ ε σ τ ώ ς τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 60 και, ειδικότερα, η α π α γ ό ρ ε υ σ η α π ο κ λ ί σ ε ω ς , έστωκαιπροσωρινής, α π ό τ ο ν τ ι μ ο κ α τ ά λ ο γ ο σ υ ν ισ τ ά σ ο β α ρ ό π ε ρ ι ο ρ ισ μ ό τ ο υ α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ .
So far as concerns the admissibility of actions pursuant to the fourth paragraphof Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the Court had to determine an application(ARAP and Others v Commission, under appeal in Case C-32L199 P) for the annulmentof a decision adopted by the Commission under the preliminary examinationprocedure provided for by Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC)as well as applications for the annulment of decisions adopted following theexamination procedure laid down in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty.
Ωστόσο, τογεγονόςαυτό, δ ε ν ε μ π ο δ ίζ ε ι τ η ν ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή τ η ς α π α γ ο ρ ε ύ σ ε ω ς τ ω ν σ υ μ π ρ ά ξ ε ω ν π ο υ π ρ ο β λ έ π ε τ α ισ τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 65, παράγραφος1, τ η ς ί δ ι α ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς .
With regardto the latter decisions,the Court confirmed that, of the criteria referred to in thefifth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty, that of publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities must be adopted when determining thestarting point for the period within which a person other than the Member Stateto which a decision is notified may institute proceedings (Salomon v Commissionand Kneissl Dachstein Sportartikel v Commission) even where the Commissionhas sent to the applicant the text of its press release announcing the adoption ofthe decision (Case T-14196 BAI v Commission). t7
Συγκεκριμένα, τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι ο ι τ ι μ έ ς π ο υ π ε ρ ι λ α μ β ά ν ο ν τ α ισ τ ο υ ς τ ι μ ο κ α τ α λ ό γ ο υ ς π ρ έ π ε ι ν α κ α θ ο ρ ίζ ο ν τ α ι α π ό κ ά θ ε ε π ιχ ε ί ρ η σ η α ν ε ξ ά ρ τ η τ α , χωρίςσυμφωνία, έστωσιωπηρή, μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ ο υ ς (α π ό φ α σ η Τ Η γ 55β ή ).
In Arbeitsgemeinschafi Deutscher Luffahrt-Unternehmen and Hapag-Lloyd v Commission, the Court dismissed as inadmissible an action brought by anassociation and an undertaking for the annulment of a Commission decisiondeclaring fiscal aid given to Germanairlines in the form of a depreciation facilityto be incompatible with the common market.
Ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ ο ν ν ο μ ικ ό χ α ρ α κ τ η ρ ισ μ ό τ ω ν σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ώ ν π ο υ θ ί γ ο υ ν τ ο ν α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ό , α π ό τ ι ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς α υ τ έ ς π ρ ο κ ύ π τ ε ι ό τ ι υ φ ί σ τ α τ α ισ υ μ φ ω ν ία υ π ό τ η ν έ ν ν ο ι α τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 65, παράγραφος1, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ Α Χ ό τ α ν ο ι ε μ π λ ε κ ό μ ε ν ε ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ι ς έ χ ο υ ν ε κ φ ρ ά σ ε ι τ η ν κ ο ι ν ή β ο ύ λ η σ η τ ο υ ς ν α α κ ο λ ο υ θ ή σ ο υ ν σ τ η ν α γ ο ρ ά κ α θ ο ρ ισ μ έ ν η σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά .
Judgments in Joined CasesT-129 /95,T-2/96 andT-97 /96 Neue Maxhüne Stahlwerke and Lech-Stahlwerke v Commission !l999l ECR II-17 (under appeal, Case C-111/99P); of 25 March 1999 in Case T-37/97Forges de Clabecqv Commission, notyetreported in the ECR (underappeal, Case C-179199P); of l2May
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο δ ι ε υ κ ρ ί ν ισ ε (α π ό φ α σ η Τ Η γ π β η ) ό τ ι δ ε ν β λ έ π ε ικ α ν έ ν α ν λ ό γ ο γ ι α τ ο ν ο π ο ί ο θ α έ π ρ ε π ε ν α ε ρ μ η ν ε ύ σ ε ι τ η ν έ ν ν ο ι α «σ υ μ φ ω ν ία » τουάρθρου65, παράγραφος1, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς δ ι α φ ο ρ ε τ ικ ά α π ' ό , τ ι τ η ν έ ν ν ο ι α «σ υ μ φ ω ν ία » τουάρθρου85, παράγραφος 1, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ (βλ. ε π ί τ ο υ σ η μ ε ί ο υ α υ τ ο ύ α π ό φ α σ η τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ τ η ς 24η ς Ο κ τ ω β ρ ί ο υ 1991, Τ-1/89, Κ Η ό η β - Ρ ο η Ι β η ο κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , Συλλογή1991, σ.
1999 in Joined Cases T-164196 to T-167/96. T-I22/97 and T-130/97 Moccia lrme and Others v Commission, not yet reported in the ECR (under appeal, Cases C-280199 P, C-28L199P and C282/99 P);of 7 July 1999 in Case T-106/96Wirtschafisvereinigung Stahl v Commission, not yet reported in the ECR; of 7 July 1999 in Case T-89/96 British Steel v Commission, not yet reported in the ECR; of 9 September1999 in Case T-110198 klB Mining v Commission, not yet reported in the ECR (under appeal, Case C4 271 99 P); and of 16 December 1999 in Case T-158/96 Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission, notyetreported in the ECR.
Ηαπαγόρευσητων «ε ν α ρ μ ο ν ισ μ έ ν ω ν π ρ α κ τ ικ ώ ν » πουπεριέχεταιστοάρθρο 65, παράγραφος 1, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ Α Χ ε π ι δ ιώ κ ε ι , κατ' αρχήν, τ ο ν ί δ ι ο σ κ ο π ό μ ε τ η ν π α ρ ε μ φ ε ρ ή α π α γ ό ρ ε υ σ η τ ω ν «ε ν α ρ μ ο ν ισ μ έ ν ω ν π ρ α κ τ ικ ώ ν » π ο υ π ε ρ ι έ χ ε τ α ισ τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 85, παράγραφος1, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ .
A similar interpretation was placed on Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty in Forges de Clabecq v Commission,in British Steel v Commission (Case T-89/96) and in Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl v Commission, all cited above.
μ ε π ρ α κ τ ικ ή α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ σ τ ο ν ο π ο ί ο α ν α φ έ ρ ε τ α ι η Σ υ ν θ ή κ η σ υ ν ε ρ γ α σ ία μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ ο υ ς (α π ό φ α σ η Τ Η γ 556ΐ ϊ ).
In other words, a natural orlegal person may be individually concerned by reason of its status as an interestedthird party only by a Commission decision refusing to initiate the examinationstage provided for by Article 93(2).
Αρκείναδιαπιστωθεί, ενδεχομένως, ό τ ικ ά θ ε ε π ιχ ε ί ρ η σ η υπόψη, άμεσα ή έλαβεκατ' ανάγκηπαρασχέθηκαν έμμεσα, τιςτηςμετους π ο υ τ η ς τ ι ς ε π α φ έ ς π λ η ρ ο φ ο ρ ί ε ς α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ τ έ ς κ α τ ά ε π ί σ η ς της.
In its judgments in Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia v Commission and Freistaat Sachsen and Volkswagen v Commission, the Court declared admissibleactions brought by infra-State authorities, thereby conflrming its previous case-law
Δενείναι τ η ς α β ε β α ι ό τ η τ α ς σ χ ε τ ικ ά α γ ο ρ ά κ α ισ υ ν ε π ά γ ε τ α ι , τ ι ς π λ η ρ ο φ ο ρ ί ε ς π ο υ τ η ς σ υ ν ε π ώ ς α ν α γ κ α ί ο ν α
The case of Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia v Commission arose froma decision addressed to the Italian Republic by which the Commission declaredaid granted by the Friuti-Venezia Giulia Region in Italy to road haulagecompanies in the Region to be incompatible with the common market and ordered
π λ η ρ ο φ ο ρ ιώ ν σ τ η σ χ ε τ ικ ή α π ο δ ε ιχ θ ε ί ό τ ι ο ι ε π ί μ α χ ε ς σ υ γ κ ε κ ρ ι μ έ ν ο α π ο τ έ λ ε σ μ α ή
The Court found that the contested decision concerned the Region individually since the decision not only affected measuresadopted by it but, in addition, prevented it from exercisingits own powers as itsaw fit.
Τέλος, στονβαθμόπουτοάρθρο 65, παράγραφος1, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς α ν α φ έ ρ ε τ α ισ ε σ υ μ π ρ ά ξ ε ι ς π ο υ «τείνουν» ν α ν ο θ ε ύ σ ο υ ν τ η ν κ α ν ο ν ικ ή λ ε ι τ ο υ ρ γ ία τ ο υ α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ , η έ κ φ ρ α σ η α υ τ ή π ε ρ ικ λ ε ί ε ι τ η δ ι α τ ύ π ω σ η «έχουνωςαντικείμενο» τουάρθρου 85, παράγραφος 1, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ .
Furthermore, the decision prevented it from continuing to apply thelegislation in question, nullified the effects of that legislation and required it toinitiate the administrative procedure for the recovery of the aid from thebeneficiaries. The Region was also directly concerned by the decision since the national authorities, to which the decision was addressed,did not act in theexercise of a discretion when communicating it to the Region.
Ο ρ θ ώ ς σ υ ν ε π ώ ς η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ ε , μ ε τ η ν π ρ ο σ β λ η θ ε ί σ α α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς , ό τ ι δ ε ν ό φ ε ι λ ε ν α α π ο δ ε ίξ ε ι τ η ν ύ π α ρ ξ η α π ο τ ε λ έ σ μ α τ ο ς ε π ι ζ ή μ ι ο υ γ ι α τ ο ν α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ό γ ι α ν α κ α τ α λ ή ξ ε ισ τ η ν π α ρ ά β α σ η τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 65, παράγραφος1, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ Α Χ (α π ό φ α σ η Τ Η γ Ξ 8β ή ).
Nor did the Region's interest in bringing proceedingsmerge with that of the Italian Stateinasmuch as it had rights and interests of its own: the aid with which thecontested decision was concerned constituted a set of measures taken in theexercise of the legislative and financial autonomy which was vestedin it directly under the Italian constitution.
Στησυνέχεια, ε π ισ η μ α ί ν ο ν τ α ι ά λ λ α σ τ ο ιχ ε ία τ ω ν α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ν τ η ς 11η ς Μ α ρ τ ί ο υ 1999, σ χ ε τ ικ ά μ ε τ ο ν κ α τ α λ ο γ ισ μ ό τ ω ν σ υ ν ισ τ ω σ ώ ν π α ρ ά β α σ η σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ώ ν , τ ο ν σ ε β α σ μ ό τ ω ν δ ικ α ι ω μ ά τ ω ν ά μ υ ν α ς κ α ι τ ω ν ό ρ ω ν υ π ό τ ο υ ς ο π ο ί ο υ ς α π α γ ο ρ ε ύ ε τ α ι η α ν τ α λ λ α γ ή π λ η ρ ο φ ο ρ ιώ ν κ α τ ά τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 65 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ Α Χ .
The Court adopted a similar legal analysisin the case brought by the Freistaat Sachsen(Free State of Saxony),a land in the Federal Republic of Germany, forthe partial annulment of Commission Decision 961666/EC of 26 June L996concerning aid granted to the Volkswagen Group for works in Mosel and Chemnitz.
ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ε ς δ ι ε υ κ ρ ι ν ί σ ε ι ς τ ο ν κ α τ α λ ο γ ισ μ ό τ ω ν
The Court thus accepted that this territorial entity had standing tobring the proceedings (Freistaat Sachsen and Volkswagen v Commission).
Καταρχάς, ο ι α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς α υ τ έ ς π ε ρ ι έ χ ο υ ν ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ ο υ ς κ α ν ό ν ε ς π ο υ δ ι έ π ο υ ν σ υ ν ισ τ ω σ ώ ν π α ρ ά β α σ η σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ώ ν .
In UPS Europe v Commission the Court allowed the objection of inadmissibilityraised by the Commission, on the ground that the letter which the Commissionhad sent to the applicant, the author of the complaint containing allegations of State aid, had no legal effects.
Σ τ η ν π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν η π ε ρ ί π τ ω σ η , δεδομένου, πρώτον, ό τ ι η έ ν ν ο ι α τ η ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ς , κατάτοάρθρο 65 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ Α Χ , έ χ ε ι ο ικ ο ν ο μ ικ ό π ε ρ ι ε χ ό μ ε ν ο , δεύτερον, ό τ ικ α τ ά τ η ν η μ ε ρ ο μ η ν ία ε κ δ ό σ ε ω ς τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς η π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο υ σ α ή τ α ν α υ τ ή π ο υ α σ κ ο ύ σ ε τ η ν ο ικ ο ν ο μ ικ ή δ ρ α σ τ η ρ ι ό τ η τ α π ο υ α φ ο ρ ο ύ σ α ν ο ι π α ρ α β ά σ ε ι ς κ α ι , τρίτον, κ α τ ά τ η ν η μ ε ρ ο μ η ν ία α υ τ ή ο δ ρ ά σ τ η ς , υπότηντυπικήέννοια, τ ω ν π α ρ α β ά σ ε ω ν ε ίχ ε π α ύ σ ε ικ ά θ ε ε μ π ο ρ ικ ή
Inthis instance, in order to assess whether, at the time when the Commission wascalled upon to act pursuant to Article L75 of the Treafy, it had been under anyobligation to act, the Court had regard to the period from the date on which thecomplaint was lodged (in March 1993) to the date on which the Commission was
η δραστηριότητα, τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο θ ε ώ ρ η σ ε ό τ ι δ ικ α ί ω μ α ν α κ α τ α λ ο γ ί σ ε ι τ η ν ε π ί δ ικ η π α ρ ά β α σ η
Since no circumstances ofthat kind were established, the Commission had unlawfully failed to act once thetwo-month period starting from the request to act expired.
99), ο δ ή γ η σ ε σ ε α ν τ ί σ τ ρ ο φ ο κ α τ α λ ο γ ισ μ ό , κ α τ α λ ο γ ίζ ο ν τ α ς σ τ η θ υ γ α τ ρ ικ ή ε τ α ι ρ ία τ η ν π α ρ ά β α σ η τ η ς μ η τ ρ ικ ή ς τ η ς ε τ α ι ρ ία ς .
In its judgment in Case T-14196 BAI v Commission, the Court annulled thedecision by the Commission to terminatea review procedure initiated in relationto an agreement concluded by the Regional Council of Biscay and Ferries Golfode Vizcaya on the ground that it did not constitute State aid.
Συνεπώς, η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή β α σ ί μ ω ς μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α κ α τ α λ ο γ ί σ ε ι τ η σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά τ η ς μ η τ ρ ικ ή ς ε τ α ι ρ ία ς (Ό δ ΐ η ο Γ δ α ο ϋ ο Γ ) σ τ η θ υ γ α τ ρ ικ ή τ η ς (ϋ τ ι ί τ η έ ί ^ΐ ), ε φ ό σ ο ν δ ι α π ισ τ ώ θ η κ ε ό τ ι η τ ε λ ε υ τ α ία ή τ α ν ο κ ύ ρ ι ο ς δ ρ ά σ τ η ς κ α ι ο ε π ω φ ε λ ο ύ μ ε ν ο ς α π ό τ ι ς δ ι α π ρ α χ θ ε ί σ ε ς π α ρ α β ά σ ε ι ς , ε ν ώ η μ η τ ρ ικ ή τ η ς ε τ α ι ρ ία π ε ρ ι ο ρ ί σ τ η κ ε σ τ ο ν π α ρ ε π ό μ ε ν ο ρ ό λ ο τ η ς δ ι ο ικ η τ ικ ή ς σ υ ν δ ρ ο μ ή ς , χ ω ρ ί ς ν α έ χ ε ικ α μ ία β α ρ ύ τ η τ α σ τ η λ ή ψ η α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς κ α ικ α μ ία ε λ ε υ θ ε ρ ία π ρ ω τ ο β ο υ λ ία ς .
In this instance, the Court found, first, that it had notbeen established that the purchaseof travel vouchers by the Regional Council of Biscay was in the nafureof a normal commercial transaction and, second, that theaid in question affected trade between Member States because the undertakingwhich received it provided transport between towns situatedin different MemberStates and competedwith shipping lines established in other Member States.
ε π ί τ η ς ο π ο ία ς ε κ δ ό θ η κ ε η α π ό φ α σ η Α ή δ Ι τ α ί η κ α τ ά π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο υ σ α , μ ό ν η α π ο δ έ κ τ ρ ι α τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς , ότιμπορούσε, αφενός, νατηςκαταλογιστείη
In its judgment in Forges de Clabecq v Commission the Court dismissed an actionfor annulment of a decision by the Commission declaring financialassistancegranted to the applicant to be incompatible with the common market.
Σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , η α μ φ ισ β η τ ο ύ σ ε σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά τ η ς α δ ε λ φ ή ς ε τ α ι ρ ία ς α ν ε ξ ά ρ τ η τ η ς κ α ι μ ό ν η ς υ π ε ύ θ υ ν η ς γ ι α
By the judgment in Neue Maxhüue Stahlwerke and Lech Stahlwerke v Commission, the Court dismissed applications brought by two German steelundertakings, Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke and Lech Stahlwerke for the annulment
εργασιών, α λ λ ά κ α ι τ η σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά κ α ι τ ο ν κ ύ κ λ ο ε ρ γ α σ ιώ ν τ η ς ε ν λ ό γ ω α δ ε λ φ ή ς ε τ α ι ρ ία ς .
of three Commission decisions. In essence, the applicants disputed thecategorisation as State aid, within the meaning of the ECSC Treaty, of certainfinancial measures adopted in their favour by the Land of Bavaria.
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι , ε ν ό ψ ε ι τ ο υ ε ν ι α ί ο υ χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α τ ο υ ο ικ ο ν ο μ ικ ο ύ ο μ ί λ ο υ π ο υ σ χ η μ α τ ίζ ε τ α ι α π ό μ ι α μ η τ ρ ικ ή ε τ α ι ρ ία κ α ι τ ι ς θ υ γ α τ ρ ικ έ ς τ η ς , ο ι ε ν έ ρ γ ε ι ε ς τ ω ν θ υ γ α τ ρ ικ ώ ν ε τ α ι ρ ιώ ν μ π ο ρ ο ύ ν , υ π ό ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ε ς π ρ ο ϋ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς , ν α κ α τ α λ ο γ ισ τ ο ύ ν σ τ η μ η τ ρ ικ ή ε τ α ι ρ ία .
In thecontested decisions,the Commission had considered that a normal private investoroperating in a market economy would not have granted them the benefit of suchmeasures. The Court confirmed that analysis,holding that the Commission hadnot infringed Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty.
Κ α τ ά τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο , μ ι α τ έ τ ο ι α π α ρ ά λ ε ιψ η θ α μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α σ τ ο ιχ ε ι ο θ ε τ ε ί δ ι α δ ικ α σ τ ικ ή π λ η μ μ έ λ ε ι α , π ρ ο σ β ά λ λ ο υ σ α τ α δ ικ α ιώ μ α τ α
As regards the derogations under Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty, the cases of Salomon v Commission and Kneissl Dachstein Sportartikel v Commission may benoted. Here the applicants contested a Commission decision declaring that,
ά μ υ ν α ς τ ο υ ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ο μ έ ν ο υ , τ α ο π ο ία ε γ γ υ ά τ α ι τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 36 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ Α Χ .
The two judgments, in which the applications for annulment were dismissed,define the scope of the review carried out by the Court when it assesses whether
σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά τ ω ν α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ τ ώ ν α υ τ ώ ν , β ά σ ε ισ τ ο ιχ ε ί ω ν τ α ο π ο ία ή τ α ν σ α φ ώ ς π ι ο π ρ ό σ φ α τ α κ α ι α κ ρ ι β ή α π ό ε κ ε ί ν α π ο υ ή τ α ν δ ι α θ έ σ ι μ α μ ε ά λ λ α μ έ σ α .
In ARAP and Others v Commission, the applicants challenged a Commissiondecision concerning State aid granted by Portugal to an undertaking for the establishment of a beet sugar refining plant in Portugal.
Κατάσυνέπεια, τ έ τ ο ι α σ υ σ τ ή μ α τ α α ν τ α λ λ α γ ή ς π λ η ρ ο φ ο ρ ιώ ν μ ε ί ω ν α ν α ισ θ η τ ά τ η ν α υ τ ο ν ο μ ία α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς τ ω ν σ υ μ μ ε τ ε χ ό ν τ ω ν π α ρ α γ ω γ ώ ν , α ν τ ικ α θ ισ τ ώ ν τ α ς τ ο υ ς σ υ ν ή θ ε ι ς κ ι ν δ ύ ν ο υ ς τ ο υ α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ μ ε π ρ α κ τ ικ ή σ υ ν ε ρ γ α σ ία μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ ο υ ς .
The aid comprised, inparticular, tax relief which, in the applicants' submissions, was incompatible with the common agricultural policy in the sugar sector. The Court found that, sincethat aid was designed to permit use of the quota of 70 000 tonnes of sugarexpressly allocated to Portugal by the Community legislation so that undertakings could "start up" production there, it could not be denied that it contributed toattainment of the aims pursued in the context of the common agricultural policy.
Τ α π ρ ό σ η μ α π ο υ ε π ι β λ ή θ η κ α ν σ τ ι ς 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 κ α θ ο ρ ί σ τ η κ α ν μ ε β ά σ η τ α κ ρ ι τ ή ρ ι α π ο υ α π α ρ ι θ μ ε ί τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 65, παράγραφος 5, τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ Α Χ , τ ο ο π ο ί ο υ π ο χ ρ ε ώ ν ε ι τ η ν Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ν α λ α μ β ά ν ε ι υ π ό ψ η ω ς β α σ ικ ό κ ρ ι τ ή ρ ι ο τ ο ν κ ύ κ λ ο ε ρ γ α σ ιώ ν τ η ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ς .
ln Freistaat Sachsen and Volkswagen y Commission the Community judicaturewas called on for the first time to interpret Article 92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty,under which aid is compatible with the common market where it is "granted tothe economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by thedivision of Germany, in so far as such aid is required in order to compensate forthe economic disadvantages caused by thatdivision".
Σ χ ε τ ικ ά μ ε τ η ν ε π ι β α ρ υ ν τ ικ ή π ε ρ ί σ τ α σ η τ η ς υ π ο τ ρ ο π ή ς , τ η ν ο π ο ία η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ε ίχ ε λ ά β ε ι υ π ό ψ η τ η ς α υ ξ ά ν ο ν τ α ς τ ο ύ ψ ο ς ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ω ν π ρ ο σ τ ί μ ω ν , τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο τ ό ν ισ ε ό τ ι η έ ν ν ο ι α τ η ς υ π ο τ ρ ο π ή ς , ό π ω ς γ ί ν ε τ α ι δ ε κ τ ή σ ε ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ε ς ε θ ν ικ έ ς έ ν ν ο μ ε ς τ ά ξ ε ι ς , σ υ ν ε π ά γ ε τ α ι ό τ ι τ ο ά τ ο μ ο δ ι έ π ρ α ξ ε ν έ ε ς π α ρ α β ά σ ε ι ς α φ ο ύ τ ο υ ε π ι β λ ή θ η κ α ν κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ι ς γ ι α π α ρ ό μ ο ι ε ς π α ρ α β ά σ ε ι ς .
In the context of the ECSC Treaty, the derogations founded on Article 95 of that Treaty were considered in the judgments in Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl v Commission and in British Steel v Commission (Case T-39/96).
τ η ς π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο υ σ α ς ή τ α ν π ρ ο γ ε ν έ σ τ ε ρ ο τ η ς η μ ε ρ ο μ η ν ία ς ε κ δ ό σ ε ω ς τ η ς π ρ ώ τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς .
governing aid to the steel industry ("the Fifth Steel Aid Code") did not providefor such aid, the Court held that the Commission had not manifestly erred in itsassessment.
Ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ η λ ή ψ η υ π ό ψ η τ υ χ ό ν ε λ α φ ρ υ ν τ ικ ώ ν π ε ρ ισ τ ά σ ε ω ν , τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο , ε π ικ υ ρ ώ ν ο ν τ α ς σ υ ν α φ ώ ς π ρ ο η γ ο ύ μ ε ν η ν ο μ ο λ ο γ ία (α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ τ η ς 24η ς Ο κ τ ω β ρ ί ο υ 1991, Τ-2/89, Ρ β ΐ τ ο β η α κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , Συλλογή1991, σ.
In that regard, it noted that the measures for restricting productionand sales imposed on Irish Steel in return for approval of the aid were sufficientto eliminate distortion of competition and stated that the Commission was notrequired to imposecapaciry reductions as a conditionfor granting State aid in thecoal and steel sector - such a reduction would in this instance have broughtabout the closure of the undertaking, which possessed only one mill.
Π-1087, κ α ι τ η ς 14η ς Μ α ΐ ο υ 1998, Τ-308/94, Ο α Ξ ο α ά ε χ κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , Συλλογή1998, σ.
The Courtalso found that the restorationof the undertaking receiving the aid to economichealth, which was liable to prevent the economic difficulties in the area concernedfrom worsening, served the objectives of the ECSC Treaty.
Π-925), θ ε ώ ρ η σ ε ό τ ι τ ο γ ε γ ο ν ό ς ό τ ι μ ι α ε π ιχ ε ί ρ η σ η , π ο υ α π ο δ ε ικ ν ύ ε τ α ι ό τ ι μ ε τ έ χ ε ι μ ε τ ο υ ς α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ τ έ ς τ η ς σ ε σ υ ν ε ν ν ό η σ η ω ς π ρ ο ς τ ι ς τ ι μ έ ς , δ ε ν σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ έ ρ θ η κ ε σ τ η ν α γ ο ρ ά ό π ω ς ε ίχ ε σ υ μ φ ω ν ή σ ε ι μ ε τ ο υ ς α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ τ έ ς τ η ς δ ε ν σ υ ν ισ τ ά κ α τ ' α ν ά γ κ η ν σ τ ο ιχ ε ί ο π ο υ π ρ έ π ε ι ν α λ η φ θ ε ί υ π ό ψ η , ω ς ε λ α φ ρ υ ν τ ικ ή π ε ρ ί σ τ α σ η , κ α τ ά τ η ν ε π ι μ έ τ ρ η σ η τ ο υ ε π ι β λ η τ έ ο υ π ρ ο σ τ ί μ ο υ .
The Court also heldin these judgments that, under the ECSC Treaty, failure to give prior notificationof aid did not excuseor even prevent the Commission from taking action on thebasisof Article 95 of that Treaty and, where appropriate, declaring the aidcompatible with the common market.
Συγκεκριμένα, μιαεπιχείρησηπου, π α ρ ά τ η δ ι α β ο ύ λ ε υ σ η μ ε τ ο υ ς α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ τ έ ς τ η ς , α κ ο λ ο υ θ ε ί μ ι α λ ί γ ο ω ς π ο λ ύ α ν ε ξ ά ρ τ η τ η π ο λ ι τ ικ ή σ τ η ν α γ ο ρ ά ε ν δ έ χ ε τ α ι α π λ ώ ς ν α ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ε ί ν α χ ρ η σ ι μ ο π ο ί η σ ε ι τ η σ ύ μ π ρ α ξ η π ρ ο ς ό φ ε λ ο ς τ η ς (α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς Ο ο ο ^ε ή Ι Ι^ α π ώ ΐ β κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς κ α ι Α ή ζ ΐ τ α ϊ η κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς ).
Since the Commission had found that theaid for the restructuring of Irish Steel was necessary for the proper functioningof the common market and that it did not give rise to unacceptabledistortion ofcompetition, the fact that notification had not been made did not affect the legalityof the contested decision, whether as a whole or solely in so far as the non-notified aid was concerned.
Εξάλλου, η μ ε ί ω σ η τ ο υ π ρ ο σ τ ί μ ο υ λ ό γ ω τ ο υ ό τ ι η ε π ιχ ε ί ρ η σ η σ υ ν ε ρ γ ά σ τ η κ ε κ α τ ά τ η δ ι ά ρ κ ε ι α τ η ς δ ι ο ικ η τ ικ ή ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς δ ικ α ι ο λ ο γ ε ί τ α ι μ ό ν ο ν α ν η σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά τ η ς κ α τ η γ ο ρ ο υ μ έ ν η ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ς δ ι ε υ κ ό λ υ ν ε τ η ν ε κ μ έ ρ ο υ ς τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ η τ η ς π α ρ α β ά σ ε ω ς κ α ι , ενδεχομένως, τοντερματισμότης.
By contrast, in Forges de Clabecq v Commission, the Commissionrefrained fromauthorising by way of derogation under Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty aid fallingoutside the Fifth Steel Aid Code which the Belgian authorities had granted to theundertaking Forges de Clabecq.
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο , σ τ ι ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς Α Κ Β Ε ϋ κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , Ο ο ά ί β ή Ι Ι -§α η ώ ΐ β κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς η α ι Α ί ΊΞ ΐ τ α ΐ η κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι ο ρ θ ώ ς η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή θ ε ώ ρ η σ ε ό τ ι η σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ ά 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 κ α τ ά τ η δ ι ο ικ η τ ικ ή δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία (ο ι ο π ο ί ε ς , μεκάποιεςεξαιρέσεις, δ ε ν ε ίχ α ν α ν α γ ν ω ρ ί σ ε ι τ ο β ά σ ι μ ο κ α ν ε ν ό ς α π ό τ ο υ ς π ρ α γ μ α τ ικ ο ύ ς ισ χ υ ρ ισ μ ο ύ ς π ο υ π ρ ο β ά λ λ ο ν τ α ν ε ι ς β ά ρ ο ς τ ο υ ς ) δ ε ν δ ικ α ι ο λ ο γ ο ύ σ ε κ α μ ία μ ε ί ω σ η τ ο υ ύ ψ ο υ ς τ ω ν π ρ ο σ τ ί μ ω ν .
According to the Court, the Commission had notmade a manifest error in coming to that decision on the ground that there was noaim in the ECSC Treaty requiring the aid to be authorised. Noting that, in spiteof numerous generous measures to assist it, the undertaking was almost bankrupt,the Court stated that it was not unreasonable of the Commission to take the viewthat the fresh measuresenvisaged would not secure the undertaking's viability over any period.