natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If the comparative method (benchmarking) is not appropriate and other generally accepted methods appear to fail to accurately establish the land value, an alternative method could be employed, such as the Vergleichspreissystem valuation method proposed by Germany (endorsed for agricultural and forestry land in Commission Decision on State aid SA.33167 Proposed alternative method to evaluate agriculture and forestry land in Germany when sold by public authorities (OJ C 43, 15.2.2013, p. 7).
Ako metoda uspoređivanja (benchmarking) nije prikladna, a drugim općeprihvaćenim metodama ne bude točno utvrđena vrijednost zemljišta, može se primijeniti alternativna metoda, poput metode vrednovanja Vergleichspreissystem, koju je predložila Njemačka (prihvaćena za poljoprivredna i šumska zemljišta u Odluci Komisije o državnoj potpori SA.33167 Predložena alternativna metoda za procjenu poljoprivrednih i šumskih zemljišta u Njemačkoj pri prodaji tijelima javne vlasti(SL C 43, 15.2.2013., str. 7.).
On the limitations of other methods see Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 December 2010, Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe, C-239/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:778, paragraph 52.
Kad je riječ o ograničenjima drugih metoda, vidjeti presudu Suda od 16. prosinca 2010., Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe, C-239/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:778, točku 52.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 April 2014, ING Groep NV, C-224/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2014:213, paragraphs 29 to 37.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 3. travnja 2014., ING Groep NV, C-224/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2014:213, točke 29. do 37.
However the prior exposure should not be taken into account if it results from a measure which, on a global assessment of all aspects of that measure, could not have been undertaken by a private investor seeking a profit (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 October 2013, Land Burgenland v Commission, Joined Cases C-214/12 P, C-215/12 P and C-223/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:682, paragraphs 52 to 61.
No prethodna izloženost ne bi se trebala uzeti u obzir ako je rezultat mjere za koju se pri globalnoj procjeni svih aspekata te mjere ustanovi da je ne bi mogao poduzeti privatni ulagač koji želi ostvariti profit (presuda Suda od 24. listopada 2013., Land Burgenland protiv Komisije, spojeni predmeti C-214/12 P, C-215/12 P i C-233/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:682, točke 52. do 61.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 January 2003, Germany v Commission, C-334/99, ECLI:EU:C:2003:55, paragraph 140.
Presuda Suda od 28. siječnja 2003., Njemačka protiv Komisije, C-334/99, ECLI:EU:C:2003:55, točka 140.
However, the necessity of paying such complementary indemnities should be demonstrated thoroughly in the concrete case in which the protection of the image is needed and it should also be demonstrated that such payments are an established practice amongst private companies in similar circumstances (mere examples are not sufficient).
Sudovi su u tom predmetu potvrdili da bi, u načelu, za privatne ulagače, a posebno za veće grupe društava, moglo biti dugoročno ekonomski racionalno da plaćaju komplementarne naknade (primjerice, za zaštitu ugleda robne marke grupe).
For information on the assessment to be carried out concerning the possible grant of State aid in the form of a guarantee, see also Guidelines on State Guarantees, adopted by EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008 amending, for the sixty-seventh time, the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by amending the existing chapters on reference and discount rates and on State aid granted in the form of guarantees and by introducing a new chapter on recovery of unlawful and incompatible State aid, on State aid to cinematographic and other audiovisual works and State aid for railway undertakings (OJ L 105, 21.4.2011, p. 32 and EEA Supplement No 23, 21.4.2011, p. 1).
Međutim, potreba za plaćanje takvih komplementarnih naknada trebala bi biti detaljno dokazana u konkretnom slučaju u kojem je potrebna zaštita ugleda te bi trebalo dokazati i da su takva plaćanja utvrđena praksa među privatnim trgovačkim društvima u sličnim okolnostima (sami primjeri nisu dovoljni). [169] Informacije o procjeni koju treba izvršiti u vezi s mogućom dodjelom državne potpore u obliku jamstva vidjeti i u Smjernicama o državnim jamstvima, donesenima Odlukom Nadzornog tijela EFTA-e br. 788/08/COL (SL L 105, 21.4.2011., str. 32. i Dodatkom o EGP-u br. 23, 21.4.2011., str. 1.).
Those Guidelines are not replaced by the present Guidelines.
Te smjernice ne zamjenjuju se ovim smjernicama.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 December 2011, Residex Capital v Gemeente Rotterdam, C-275/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:814, paragraph 39.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 8. prosinca 2011., Residex Capital protiv Gemeente Rotterdam, C-275/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:814, točku 39.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 March 2015, OTP Bank Nyrt v Magyar Állam and Others, C-672/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:185.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 19. ožujka 2015., OTP Bank Nyrt protiv Magyar Állam i dr., C-672/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:185.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 December 2011, Residex Capital v Gemeente Rotterdam, C-275/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:814, paragraph 42.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 8. prosinca 2011., Residex Capital protiv Gemeente Rotterdam, C-275/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:814, točku 42.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 April 2014, France v Commission, C-559/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2014:217, paragraph 96.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 3. travnja 2014., Francuska protiv Komisije, C-559/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2014:217, točku 96.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 April 2014, France v Commission, C-559/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2014:217, paragraph 98.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 3. travnja 2014., Francuska protiv Komisije, C-559/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2014:217, točku 98.
For instance, through RAROC (Risk Adjusted Return on Capital), which is what lenders and investors require for providing finance of similar benchmark risk and maturity to an undertaking active in the same sector.
Primjerice, metodom povrata kapitala prilagođenog riziku (RAROC), koji zajmodavci i ulagači zahtijevaju za financiranje sličnog rizika mjerila i dospijeća poduzetniku aktivnom u istom sektoru.
See Guidelines on Reference and Discount Rates, adopted by Decision No 788/08/COL.
Vidjeti Smjernice o referentnim i diskontnim stopama, donesene Odlukom br. 788/08/COL.
For subordinated loans, which are not covered in the Reference Rate Communication, the methodology set out in Commission Decision of 11 December 2008 on State aid N 55/2008, GA/EFRE Nachrangdarlehen (OJ C 9, 14.1.2009), can be used.
Za podređene zajmove, koji nisu obuhvaćeni Komunikacijom o referentnoj stopi, može se upotrebljavati metodologija utvrđena u Odluci Komisije od 11. prosinca 2008. o državnoj potpori N 55/2008, GA/EFRE Nachrangdarlehen (SL C 9/2009, 14.1.2009.).
However, where Commission regulations or Authority decisions on aid schemes refer to the reference rate for the identification of the aid amount, the Authority will consider it as a fixed no-aid benchmark (safe-harbour).
Međutim, kad se uredbe Komisije ili odluke Tijela povezane s programima potpora odnose na referentnu stopu za utvrđivanje iznosa potpora, Tijelo će je smatrati fiksnim mjerilom izuzetim od potpore („sigurna luka”).
Guidelines on State Guarantees, adopted by Decision No 788/08/COL.
Smjernice o državnim jamstvima, donesene Odlukom br. 788/08/COL.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 September 2000, Germany v Commission, C-156/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:467, paragraphs 26 and 27; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 July 2011, Mediaset SpA v Commission, C-403/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:533, paragraphs 73 to 77; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 June 2002, Netherlands v Commission, C-382/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:363, paragraphs 60 to 66; Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2009, Italy v Commission, T-424/05, ECLI:EU:T:2009:49, paragraphs 136 to 147.
Presuda Suda od 19. rujna 2000., Njemačka protiv Komisije, C-156/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:467, točke 26. i 27.; presuda Suda od 28. srpnja 2011., Mediaset SpA protiv Komisije, C-403/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:533, točke 73. do 77.; presuda Suda od 13. lipnja 2002., Nizozemska protiv Komisije, C-382/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:363, točke 60. do 66.; presuda Općeg suda od 4. ožujka 2009., Italija protiv Komisije, T-424/05, ECLI:EU:T:2009:49, točke 136. do 147.
See also Article 61(2)(a) of the EEA Agreement.
Vidjeti i članak 61. stavak 2. točku (a) Sporazuma o EGP-u.
In case an intermediary undertaking is a mere vehicle for transferring the advantage to the beneficiary and it does not retain any advantage, it should not normally be considered as a recipient of State aid.
U slučaju da je posredni poduzetnik samo posrednik za prenošenje prednosti korisniku i da ne zadržava nikakvu prednost, obično ga ne bi trebalo smatrati primateljem državne potpore.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 September 2000, Germany v Commission, C-156/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:467, paragraphs 26 and 27; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 July 2011, Mediaset SpA v Commission, C-403/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:533, paragraph 81.
Presuda Suda od 19. rujna 2000., Njemačka protiv Komisije, C-156/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:467, točke 26. i 27.; presuda Suda od 28. srpnja 2011., Mediaset SpA protiv Komisije, C-403/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:533, točka 81.
By contrast, a mere secondary economic effect in the form of increased output (which does not amount to indirect aid) can be found where the aid is simply channelled through an undertaking (for example a financial intermediary) which passes it on in full to the aid beneficiary.
Suprotno tome, samo sekundarni gospodarski učinak u obliku povećane proizvodnje (koja ne čini neizravnu potporu) postoji u slučajevima u kojima se potpora jednostavno prenosi preko poduzetnika (primjerice, financijski posrednik) koji je u cijelosti prenosi korisniku potpore.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 June 1999, DMTransport, C-256/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:332, paragraph 27; Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2002, Territorio Histórico de Álava – Diputación Foral de Álava et al. v Commission, Joined Cases T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99, ECLI:EU:T:2002:59, paragraph 149.
Presuda Suda od 29. lipnja 1999., DMTransport, C-256/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:332, točka 27.; presuda Općeg suda od 6. ožujka 2002., Territorio Histórico de Álava – Diputación Foral de Álava i dr. protiv Komisije, spojeni predmeti T-127/99, T-129/99 i T-148/99, ECLI:EU:T:2002:59, točka 149.
See, for instance, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 June 1999, Belgium v Commission, C-75/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:311, paragraph 32; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 November 2001, Adria-Wien Pipeline, C-143/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:598, paragraph 48.
Vidjeti, primjerice, presudu Suda od 17. lipnja 1999., Belgija protiv Komisije, 40/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:311, točku 32. presudu Suda od 8. studenoga 2001., Adria-Wien Pipeline, C-143/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:598, točku 48.
Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2000, Confederación Espanola de Transporte de Mercancías v Commission, T-55/99, ECLI:EU:T:2000:223, paragraph 40.
Presuda Općeg suda od 29. rujna 2000., Confederación Espanola de Transporte de Mercancías protiv Komisije, T-55/99, ECLI:EU:T:2000:223, točka 40.
See also Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2012, Italy v Commission, T-379/09, ECLI:EU:T:2012:422, paragraph 47.
Vidjeti i presudu Općeg suda od 13. rujna 2012., Italija protiv Komisije, T-379/09, ECLI:EU:T:2012:422, točku 47.
The measure in question in that case was a partial exemption from excise duty on the diesel used for the heating of greenhouses.
Predmetna mjera u ovom slučaju bila je djelomično oslobođenje od trošarine na dizel korišten za grijanje staklenika.
The General Court indicated that the fact that the exemption could benefit all undertakings choosing greenhouse production was not sufficient to establish the general character of the measure.
Opći sud naveo je da činjenica da bi svi poduzetnici koji odaberu proizvodnju u staklenicima mogli imati koristi od oslobođenja nije bila dovoljna za utvrđivanje općeg karaktera mjere.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2011, Paint Graphos and others, Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08, ECLI:EU:C:2011:550, paragraph 52.
Presuda Suda od 8. rujna 2011., Paint Graphos i dr., spojeni predmeti C-78/08 do C-80/08, ECLI:EU:C:2011:550, točka 52.
Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2009, Italy v Commission, T-211/05, ECLI:EU:T:2009:304, paragraph 120, and Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 November 2011, Italy v Commission, C-458/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:769, paragraphs 59 and 60.
Presuda Općeg suda od 4. rujna 2009., Italija protiv Komisije, T-211/05, ECLI:EU:T:2009:304, točka 120., i presuda Suda od 24. studenoga 2011., Italija protiv Komisije, C-458/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:769, točke 59. i 60.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 June 2006, Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission, Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:416, paragraph 122.
Presuda Suda od 22. lipnja 2006., Belgija i Forum 187 protiv Komisije, spojeni predmeti C-182/03 i C-217/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:416, točka 122.
Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016, Heitkamp Bauholding v Commission, T-287/11, ECLI:EU:T:2016:60, paragraph 129 et seq.
Presuda Općeg suda od 4. veljače 2016., Heitkamp Bauholding protiv Komisije, T-287/11, ECLI:EU:T:2016:60, točka 129. i dalje.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 December 1969, Commission v France, Joined Cases 6 and 11/69, ECLI:EU:C:1969:68, paragraph 3; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 June 1988, Greece v Commission, 57/86, ECLI:EU:C:1988:284, paragraph 8; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 2004, Spain v Commission, C-501/00, ECLI:EU:C:2004:438, paragraph 92.
Presuda Suda od 10. prosinca 1969., Komisija protiv Francuske, spojeni predmeti 6 i 11/69, ECLI:EU:C:1969:68, točka 3.; presuda Suda od 7. lipnja 1988., Grčka protiv Komisije, 57/86, ECLI:EU:C:1988:284, točka 8.; presuda Suda od 15. srpnja 2004., Španjolska protiv Komisije, C-501/00, ECLI:EU:C:2004:438, točka 92.
This was the case in the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 November 2011, Commission and Spain v Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom, Joined Cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:732, concerning the Gibraltar tax reform, which de facto favoured offshore companies.
Primjer toga bila je presuda Suda od 15. studenoga 2011., Komisija i Španjolska protiv Vlade Gibraltara i Ujedinjene Kraljevine, spojeni predmeti C-106/09 P i C-107/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:732, o gibraltarskoj poreznoj reformi kojom se offshore trgovačka društva de facto stavljaju u povoljniji položaj.
See paragraphs 101 et seq. of that judgment.
Vidjeti točke 101. i dalje te presude.
The reform introduced a system consisting of three taxes applicable to all Gibraltar companies, namely a payroll tax, a business property occupation tax (BPOT) and a registration fee.
Tom reformom uveden je sustav koji se sastoji od tri poreza primjenjiva na sva gibraltarska trgovačka društva, konkretno od poreza na plaće (payroll tax), poreza na upotrebu poslovne nekretnine (business property occupation tax – BPOT) i naknade za registraciju (registration fee).
Liability for payroll tax and BPOT would have been capped at 15 % of profits.
Gornja granica obveze plaćanja poreza na plaće i poreza na upotrebu poslovne nekretnine iznosila bi 15 % dobiti.
The Court found that such a combination of taxes excluded from the outset any taxation of offshore companies as they had no taxable basis due to the lack of employees and lack of business property in Gibraltar.
Sud je zaključio da je takvom kombinacijom poreza od samog početka isključeno svako oporezivanje offshore trgovačkih društava jer ona nisu imala oporezivu osnovicu zbog toga što nemaju zaposlenike ni poslovnu nekretninu u Gibraltaru.
See, for instance, Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2002, Ramondin SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA v Commission, Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-103/00, ECLI:EU:T:2002:61, paragraph 39.
Vidjeti, primjerice, presudu Općeg suda od 6. ožujka 2002., Ramondin SA i Ramondín Cápsulas SA protiv Komisije, spojeni predmeti T-92/00 i T-103/00, ECLI:EU:T:2002:61, točku 39.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2007, Italy and Brandt Italia v Commission, Joined Cases T-239/04 and T-323/04, ECLI:EU:T:2007:260, paragraph 66; Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2009, Italy v Commission, T-211/05, ECLI:EU:T:2009:304, paragraph 120; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 November 2011, Italy v Commission, C-458/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:769, paragraphs 59 and 60.
Presuda Općeg suda od 12. rujna 2007., Italija i Brandt Italia protiv Komisije, spojeni predmeti T-239/04 i T-323/04, ECLI:EU:T:2007:260, točka 66.; presuda Općeg suda od 4. rujna 2009., Italija protiv Komisije, T-211/05, ECLI:EU:T:2009:304, točka 120.; presuda Suda od 24. studenoga 2011., Italija protiv Komisije, C-458/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:769, točke 59. i 60.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 June 1999, DMTransport, C-256/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:332, paragraph 27.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 29. lipnja 1999., DMTransport, C-256/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:332, točku 27.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 July 2013, P Oy, C-6/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:525, paragraph 27.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 18. srpnja 2013., P Oy, C-6/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:525, točku 27.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 July 2001, Smits and Peerbooms, C-157/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:404, paragraph 90; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 June 2010, Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading ‘Betfair’ v Minister van Justitie, C-203/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:307, paragraph 50.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 12. srpnja 2001., Smits i Peerbooms, C-157/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:404, točku 90.; presudu Suda od 3. lipnja 2010., Sporting Exchange Ltd, trading ‘Betfair’ protiv Minister van Justitie, C-203/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:307, točku 50.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 June 2015, Commission v MOL, C-15/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2015:362, paragraphs 60 et seq.; Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi of 27 June 2013, Deutsche Lufthansa, C-284/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:442, paragraph 52.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 4. lipnja 2015., Komisija protiv MOL-a, C-15/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2015:362, točku 60. i dalje; mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika Mengozzija od 27. lipnja 2013., Deutsche Lufthansa, C-284/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:442, točku 52.
See, for instance, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2011, Commission v Netherlands, C-279/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:551, paragraph 62; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 November 2001, Adria-Wien Pipeline, C-143/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:598.
Vidjeti, primjerice, presudu Suda od 8. rujna 2011., Komisija protiv Nizozemske, C-279/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:551, točku 62.; presudu Suda od 8. studenoga 2001., Adria-Wien Pipeline, C-143/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:598.
See, for instance, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2011, Paint Graphos and others, Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08, ECLI:EU:C:2011:550, paragraph 49 et seq.; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 April 2004, GIL Insurance, C-308/01, ECLI:EU:C:2004:252.
Vidjeti, primjerice, presudu Suda od 8. rujna 2011., Paint Graphos i dr., spojeni predmeti C-78/08 do C-80/08, ECLI:EU:C:2011:550, točku 49. i dalje; presudu Suda od 29. travnja 2004., GIL Insurance, C-308/01, ECLI:EU:C:2004:252.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 December 2008, British Aggregates v Commission, C-487/06 P, ECLI:EU:C:2008:757, paragraphs 85 and 89 and the case-law cited; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2011, Commission v Netherlands, C-279/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:551, paragraph 51; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 November 2011, Commission and Spain v Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom, Joined Cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:732, paragraph 87.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 22. prosinca 2008., British Aggregates protiv Komisije, C-487/06 P, ECLI:EU:C:2008:757, točke 85. i 89. i navedenu sudsku praksu; presudu Suda od 8. rujna 2011., Komisija protiv Nizozemske, C-279/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:551, točku 51.; presudu Suda od 15. studenoga 2011., Komisija i Španjolska protiv Vlade Gibraltara i Ujedinjene Kraljevine, spojeni predmeti C-106/09 P i C-107/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:732, točku 87.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 November 2011, Commission and Spain v Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom, Joined Cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:732.
Presuda Suda od 15. studenoga 2011., Komisija i Španjolska protiv Vlade Gibraltara i Ujedinjene Kraljevine, spojeni predmeti C-106/09 P i C-107/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:732.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 November 2011, Commission and Spain v Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom, Joined Cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:732, paragraphs 101 et seq.
Presuda Suda od 15. studenoga 2011., Komisija i Španjolska protiv Vlade Gibraltara i Ujedinjene Kraljevine, spojeni predmeti C-106/09 P i C-107/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:732, točka 101. i dalje.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 November 2011, Commission and Spain v Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom, Joined Cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:732, paragraph 106.
presudu Suda od 15. studenoga 2011., Komisija i Španjolska protiv Vlade Gibraltara i Ujedinjene Kraljevine, spojeni predmeti C-106/09 P i C-107/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:732, točku 106.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 November 2001, Ferring, C-53/00, ECLI:EU:C:2001:627, paragraph 20.
Presuda Suda od 22. studenoga 2001., Ferring, C-53/00, ECLI:EU:C:2001:627, točka 20.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 November 2001, Ferring, C-53/00, ECLI:EU:C:2001:627, paragraphs 19 and 20.
Presuda Suda od 22. studenoga 2001., Ferring, C-53/00, ECLI:EU:C:2001:627, točke 19. i 20.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2011, Paint Graphos and others, Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08, ECLI:EU:C:2011:550, paragraph 50.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 8. rujna 2011., Paint Graphos i dr., spojeni predmeti C-78/08 do C-80/08, ECLI:EU:C:2011:550, točku 50.
The Court sometimes applies in this context the term of ‘the ordinary tax system’ (see Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 June 2006, Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission, Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:416, paragraph 95) or ‘the general tax scheme’ (see Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 December 2005, Italy v Commission, C-66/02, ECLI:EU:C:2005:768, paragraph 100).
Sud u tom kontekstu katkad primjenjuje izraz „redovni porezni sustav” (vidjeti presudu Suda od 22. lipnja 2006., Belgija i Forum 187 protiv Komisije, spojeni predmeti C-182/03 i C-217/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:416, točku 95.) ili „opći porezni režim” (vidjeti presudu Suda od 15. prosinca 2005., Italija protiv Komisije, C-66/02, ECLI:EU:C:2005:768, točku 100.).
See the Court's reasoning concerning selectivity in Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 March 2005, Heiser, C-172/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:130, paragraphs 40 et seq.
Vidjeti obrazloženje Suda u pogledu selektivnosti u presudi Suda od 3. ožujka 2005., Heiser, C-172/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:130, točki 40. i dalje.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 April 2004, GIL Insurance, C-308/01, ECLI:EU:C:2004:252, paragraphs 75 and 78.
Vidjeti presudu Suda od 29. travnja 2004., GIL Insurance, C-308/01, ECLI:EU:C:2004:252, točke 75. i 78.
See Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2012, British Aggregates Association v Commission, T-210/02 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2012:110, paragraphs 49 and 50.
Vidjeti presudu Općeg suda od 7. ožujka 2012., British Aggregates Association protiv Komisije, T-210/02 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2012:110, točke 49. i 50.
Even if a levy is introduced in the national legal system to transpose a Union directive, incorporated into the EEA Agreement, that levy remains the system of reference.
Čak i ako je pristojba uvedena u nacionalni pravni sustav radi prenošenja direktive Unije koja je uključena u Sporazum o EGP-u, ta pristojba ostaje referentni sustav.