natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 296(1)(b) stipulates that: ‘any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material; such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the common market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes.’ Already in its decision [35] concerning restructuring aid to KSG the Commission stated that ‘[c]onversely, where a measure caught by the definition of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) affects military production as well as commercial or dual-use production, it cannot be fully justified on the basis of Article 296.
Člen 296(1)(b) Pogodbe določa: da „vse države članice lahko sprejmejo ukrepe, za katere menijo, da so potrebni za ohranitev bistvenih interesov za njihovo varnost, in za tiste, ki se nanašajo na proizvodnjo ali trgovino z orožjem, strelivo in vojaška sredstva; ti ukrepi ne bi smeli izkrivljati konkurenčnih pogojev na skupnem trgu za izdelke, ki niso namenjeni izključno vojaškim namenom.“ Že v odločbi [35], nanašajoči se na pomoč za prestrukturiranje družbe KSG, je Komisija določila, da „V nasprotju s tem, ko ukrep, ki je v skladu z definicijo državne pomoči v okviru člena 87(1), vpliva na vojaško proizvodnjo in na komercialno proizvodnjo ali proizvodnjo dvojne rabe, ni jasno utemeljena le na podlagi člena 296.
The Commission does not share the viewpoint … to the effect that, by virtue of the military aspects, the whole measure is caught by Article 296, even if there is a clear effect on competition in non-military sectors.
Komisija se ne strinja s stališčem nizozemskih in španskih javnih organov v smislu, da je na podlagi vojaških vidikov celotni ukrep zajet v členu 296, čeprav očitno vpliva na konkurenco nevojaških sektorjev.
That interpretation clearly conflicts with the wording of the Article.’
Ta razlaga očitno nasprotuje vsebini člena.“.
This decision further states that if it is ‘clear that the measures have indeed affected the conditions of competition as regards commercial products.
Odločba nadalje navaja, da „je očitno, da so ukrepi odločilno vplivali na pogoje trženja komercialnih izdelkov.
Therefore, in accordance with its standard practice, the Commission must assess the measures in the light of the State aid rules in so far as they distort, or threaten to distort, competition in markets for products that are not caught by Article 296.’
Zaradi tega mora Komisija, v skladu z običajno prakso, oceniti, upoštevajoč pravila državne pomoč, do katere mere ukrepi izkrivljajo ali grozijo z izkrivljanjem konkurenčnost izdelkov na trgu, ki niso navedeni v členu 296.“.
The Commission notes that Bazán, which now operates under the name of IZAR, today is active in military and civil shipbuilding.
Komisija ugotavlja, da družba Bazán, ki sedaj deluje pod imenom IZAR, zdaj razvija vojaško in civilno ladjedelniško dejavnost.
The aid provided to the shipyards bought by Bazán was directly and exclusively linked to the production of civil ships.
Pomoč, dodeljena ladjedelnicam, ki jih je kupila družba Bazán, je bila neposredno in izključno namenjena gradnji civilnih ladij.
With reference to its findings in the present case and the decision on KSG, the Commission further notes that the production of civil ships falls under Article 87 of the Treaty and cannot be exempted on ground of Article 296 just because the company that bought the shipyards, Bazán, at the time of the acquisition only was involved in military production.
Sklicujoč se na rezultate zadevnega primera in na odločbo o KSG, Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da je gradnja civilnih ladij zajeta v členu 87 Pogodbe in se ne sme preverjati na podlagi člena 296 le zato, ker je gospodarska družba Bazán, ki je kupila ladjedelnice, v času prevzema izvajala le vojaško proizvodnjo.
The opening decision in Case C 38/03 (ex NN 10/03) lists in paragraphs 44 seq. a number of criteria, which have to be fulfilled for the applicability of Article 296 of the EC Treaty.
Odločitev za sprožitev postopka v primeru C 38/03 (ex NN 10/03) je navedena v odstavku 44 in dodaja več meril, ki jih je treba upoštevati, da se lahko uporabi člen 296 Pogodbe ES.
Although these requirements are well known to them, the Spanish authorities did not submit to the Commission any evidence that the measures described above aimed at promoting the production of military goods or activities.
Čeprav španski javni organi te zahteve dobro poznajo, Komisiji niso predložili nikakršnega dokaza, da so zgoraj omenjeni ukrepi namenjeni izboljšanju proizvodnje vojaške opreme.
It cannot seriously be disputed that the civil shipyards needed massive capital injections in order to survive.
Nedvomno je, da so civilne ladjedelnice potrebovale ogromne kapitalske vložke, da so lahko preživele.
The mere fact that they were sold to a shipbuilding company, which is involved in naval construction, does not alter the nature of these shipyards. In particular, the shipyards do not become military yards through the fact that they are owned by a company which is also involved in naval activities.
Samo dejstvo, da jih je kupila gospodarska ladjedelniška družba, ne spremeni značaja ladjedelnic in dejstvo, da so v lasti gospodarske družbe, ki ravno tako izvaja ladjedelniško dejavnost, jim ne pripisuje vojaškega značaja.
In particular, providing information on these shipyards cannot be contrary to the essential interests of Spain.
Nadalje predložitev podatkov o zadevnih ladjedelnicah ne more biti v nasprotju z bistvenimi interesi Španije.
In the present case, Spain did not simply fail to give any credible explanation, in which way its essential security interests could be affected, but denied to provide any kind of substantial information.
V zadevnem primeru Španija enostavno ni predložila nobene verjetne razlage, zakaj bi bili varnostni interesi življenjskega pomena prizadeti in ni predložila nobenih zahtevanih podatkov.
The Commission concludes that Spain has unlawfully implemented aid to the sum of EUR 500473000 in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty. This has been provided in the form of:
Komisija je sklenila, da je Španija nezakonito dodelila zadevno pomoč v znesku 500473000 EUR in kršila določila iz člena 88(3) Pogodbe, ker je dodelila pomoč v obliki:
SEPI’s purchase from AESA of the three companies Cadiz, Juliana and Manises, on 28 December 1999, at EUR 55948000 above market price, which ultimately benefited AESA’s remaining shipyard companies Sestao, Sevilla and Puerto Real.
Nakupa treh gospodarskih družb Cádiz, Juliana in Manises od družbe AESA s strani družbe SEPI dne 28. decembra 1999 za 55948000 EUR več, kot je bila tržna cena, kar je v končni fazi koristilo ostalim ladjedelnicam družbe AESA: Sestao, Sevilla in Puerto Real.
Loans of EUR 192100000 from SEPI to three companies in difficulties, Cadiz, Juliana and Manises, on 28 December 1999.
Posojil 192100000 EUR družbe SEPI trem gospodarskim družbam v težavah: družbi Cádiz, Juliana in Manises, na dan 28. decembra 1999.
Capital injection of EUR 252425000 from SEPI to AESA, in September 2000, which ultimately benefited the three companies Sestao, Sevilla and Puerto Real.
Kapitalskega vložka v znesku 252425000 EUR družbi AESA s strani družbe SEPI v septembru 2000, kar je v končni fazi koristilo trem gospodarskim družbam: Sestao, Sevilla in Puerto Real.
The aid is not compatible with the common market, since it cannot be authorised as restructuring aid or any other type of aid.
Pomoč ni v skladu z določili skupnega trga, saj ne more biti odobrena kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje ali katera koli druga vrsta pomoči.
The aid should be recovered in their totality from the current owners of these shipyards, IZAR, which took over the companies from AESA respectively SEPI.
Pomoč bi morala biti v celoti povrnjena s strani zdajšnje lastnice zadevnih ladjedelnic, družbe IZAR, ki je prevzela gospodarske družbe družbi AESA-SEPI.
The loans under point 2 above, amounting to EUR 192100000, have in September 2000 been repaid, with interest, by IZAR to SEPI.
Posojila navedena v točki 2, ki znašajo 192100000 EUR, je družba IZAR septembra 2000 vrnila družbi SEPI z obrestmi.
It can therefore be considered that that amount of the illegal and incompatible aid has been recovered,
Zato velja, da je bil ta znesek nezakonite in neupravičene pomoči povrnjen –
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
SPREJELA NASLEDJI SKLEP:
The State aid which Spain has implemented for the public Spanish shipyards, currently owned by IZAR, amounting to EUR 500473000 is incompatible with the common market.
Državna pomoč španskim javnim ladjedelnicam, ki so trenutno v lasti družbe IZAR, v znesku 500473000 EUR, dodeljena s strani Španije, ni v skladu z določili skupnega trga.
Spain shall take all necessary measures to recover from the public Spanish shipyards the aid referred to in Article 1, and unlawfully made available to the beneficiaries, except the EUR 192100000 already recovered.
Španija bo sprejela vse potrebne ukrepe, da bo od upravičencev dobila povračilo pomoči, določene v členu 1, ki se šteje za nezakonito, razen 192100000 EUR, ki so že bili povrnjeni.
Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision.
Vračilo se izvede nemudoma in v skladu s postopkom državne zakonodaje, če ta dopušča takojšnjo in učinkovito izvršitev te odločbe.
The sums to be recovered shall bear interest throughout the period running from the date on which they were first put at the disposal of the beneficiaries until their actual recovery.
Zneski za povračilo vključujejo obresti za vse obdobje od datuma, ko so bila sredstva prvič na voljo upravičencu, do datuma dejanskega povračila.
The interest rate to be applied will be the reference rate used for calculating the grant equivalent of regional aid.
Obresti se izračunajo na podlagi referenčne stopnje za izračunavanje ekvivalenta subvencij v okviru regionalne pomoči.
The interest rate referred to in paragraph 2 will be applied on a compound basis throughout the entire period referred to in paragraph 2.
Obrestna mera, določena v odstavku 2, se izračuna z uporabo obrestno obrestnega računa za vse obdobje, določeno v odstavku 2.
Spain shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures planned and already taken to comply with it.
Španija obvesti Komisijo o načrtovanih in že izvedenih ukrepih za izvršitev te odločbe v dveh mesecih po obvestilu o tej odločbi.
It will provide this information using the questionnaire attached in Annex of this Decision.
Za to uporabi obrazec, ki je določen v Prilogi k tej odločbi.
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.
Odločba je naslovljena na Kraljevino Španijo.
Done at Brussels, 12 May 2004.
V Bruslju, 12. maja 2004
OJ L 148, 6.6.1997, p. 1.
UL L 148, 6.6.1997, str. 1.
OJ C 328, 18.11.2000, p. 16 and OJ C 21, 24.1.2002, p. 17 and OJ C 199, 23.8.2003, p. 9.
UL C 328, 18.11.2000, str. 16 in UL C 21, 24.1.2002, str. 17. ter UL C 199, 23.8.2003, str. 9.
OJ C 354, 21.11.1997, p. 2.
UL C 354, 21.11.1997, str. 2.
OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
UL C 83, 27.3.1999, str. 1.
OJ C 21, 24.1.2004, p. 41, Case T-381/03.
UL C 21, 24.1.2004, str. 41. Zadeva T-381/03.
The monetary amounts in this decision are, in general, rounded figures, in euro, recalculated from Spanish pesetas.
Denarni zneski te odločbe so načeloma zaokroženi zneski, v eurih, preračunani iz španskih pezet.
OJ C 201, 26.8.2003, p. 3.
UL C 201, 26.8.2003, str. 3.
ECR 1205.
PSES 1980, str. 1205 (EE 1980, str. 399).
ECR I-877.
PSES 1994, str. I-877.
ECR I-7907.
PSES 1998, str. I-7907.
OJ L 385, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
UL L 385, 31.12.1994, str. 1.
ECR I-1433.
PSES 1991, str. I-1433.
OJ L 37, 12.2.2000, p. 22.
UL L 37, 12.2.2000, str. 22.
ECR I-3271, paragraph 50.
PSES 2000, str. I-3271, odstavek 50.
ECR I-4397, paragraphs 55-56.
PSES 1994, str. I-4397, odstavek 55-56.
OJ L 296, 30.10.2002, p. 73.
UL L 296, 30.10.2002, str. 73.
OJ C 307, 13.11.1993, p. 3.
UL C 307, 13.11.1993, str. 3.
ECR 2321.
PSES 1986, str. 2321.
ECR I-3243.
PSES 2002, str. I-3243.
Case C-342/96 Spain v Commission [1999] ECR I-2459, paragraphs 41 and 42, and Case C-256/97 DMT [1999] ECR I-3933, paragraphs 22 to 24 and the opinion of AG Jacobs in that case, paragraphs 334 to 336.
Primer C-342/96, España/Comisión PSES 1999, str. I-2459, odstavka 41 in 42, in primer C-256/97, DMT PSES 1999, str. I-3913, odstavki 22-24, in mnenje generalnega pravobranilca g. Jacobsa v odstavkih od 334 do 336 zadevnega primera.
It also owned a number of smaller companies, but their total nominal capital was only ESP 161 million (EUR 1,0 million) compared to ESP 9,5 billion (EUR 57,1 million) for the three shipyard companies (Puerto Real ESP 4 billion, Sestao ESP 4 billion and Sevilla ESP 1,5 billion).
Ravno tako imela v lasti več manjših gospodarskih družb, vendar je njena skupna nominalna vrednost v primerjavi z vrednostjo treh ladjedelnic (Puerto Real: 4000, Sestao: 4000; Sevilla: 1500) 9500 milijonov španskih pezet (57100000 EUR) znaša le 161 milijonov španskih pezet (nekaj manj kot 1 milijon EUR).
See points 21 and 22 of the judgment: ‘It must therefore be accepted that a parent company may also, for a limited period, bear the losses of one of its subsidiaries in order to enable the latter to close down its operations under the best possible conditions.
V členih 21 in 22 sodbe je določeno, da je sprejemljivo, da tudi matična družba lahko za omejeno obdobje krije izgube svojih hčerinskih gospodarskih družb in jim s tem omogoči prenehanje njihovega obratovanja v najboljših možnih pogojih.
Such decisions may be motivated not solely by the likelihood of an indirect material profit but also by other considerations, such as a desire to protect the group’s image or to redirect its activities.However, when injections of capital by a public investor disregard any prospect of profitability, even in the long term, such provision of capital must be regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty, and its compatibility with the common market must be assessed on the basis solely of the criteria laid down in that provision.’
Take odločitve lahko upravičuje ne le možnost za neposredne materialne koristi, temveč tudi drugi razlogi, kot na primer želja po zavarovanju skupinske podobe ali želja po preusmeritvi njihovih dejavnosti.Vendar, ko kapitalski vložki javnega vlagatelja niso dobičkonosni niti dolgoročno, se mora ta dodelitev kapitala šteti kot pomoč v skladu s Pogodbo, člen 92, in skladnost z določili skupnega trga se sme ocenjevati le na podlagi meril, določenih v zadevni uredbi.
However, this information will be used in the other procedure open against IZAR, in order to determine whether some of the capital injections provided to IZAR in year 2000 were used for civil purposes.
Vendar se bo ta podatek uporabil v drugem postopku, sproženem proti družbi IZAR, da bi ugotovili, ali se je del kapitalskih vložkov, namenjenih družbi IZAR v letu 2000, uporabil v civilne namene.
OJ C 354, 21.11.1997, p. 2. Cf. the penultimate paragraph on page 7.
UL C 354, 21.11.1997, str. 2, predzadnji odstavek na strani 7.
COM(1999) 480 final.
COM(1999) 480 konč.
Banks [2001] ECR I-6117, paragraph 77 and C– 277/00 Germany v Commission [2004] not yet published in the ECR, paragraph 80.
Banks, PSES 2001, str. I-6117, odstavek 77, in C-277/00 Alemania c. Comisión (Nemčija proti Komisiji) [2004], še ni objavljen v PSES, odstavek 80.
ECR I-4035.
PSES 2003, str. I-4035.
OJ L 14, 21.1.2003, p. 56.
UL L 14, 21.1.2003, str. 56.
Information regarding the implementation of Commission Decision 2005/173/EC
Obvestilo v zvezi z izvajanjem Odločbe Komisije 2005/173/ES
Calculation of the amount to be recovered
Izračun zneska vračila
Please provide the following details on the amount of unlawful State aid that has been put at the disposal of the beneficiary:
Priskrbite podatke o zneskih nezakonite državne pomoči, ki je bila dodeljena upravičencu:
Comments:
Pripombe:
Please explain in detail how the interests to be paid on the amount of aid to be recovered will be calculated?
Predložite podrobno pojasnilo, kako se izračunajo obresti od zneska vračila pomoči.
Measures planned and already taken to recover the aid
Predvideni in sprejeti ukrepi za vračilo pomoči
Please describe in detail what measures are planned and what measures have already been taken to effect an immediate and effective recovery of the aid.
Podrobno opišite predvidene in sprejete ukrepe za takojšnje in učinkovito vračilo pomoči.
Please also indicate where relevant the legal basis for the measures taken/planned.
Pravno podlago sprejetih in predvidenih ukrepov prikažite tudi v vašem primeru.
What is the timetable for the recovery process?
Kakšen je časovni razpored postopka vračila?
When will the recovery of the aid be completed?
Kdaj poteka vračilo pomoči?
Recovery already effected
Vračilo, ki je že bilo izvedeno
Please provide the following details on the amounts of aid that have been recovered from the beneficiary:
Navedite zneske pomoči, ki jih je upravičenec že vrnil:
Amount of aid repaid
Znesek vračila pomoči:
Please attach proof of the repayment of the aid amounts specified in the table under point 3.1.
Priložite dokaze vračila zneskov pomoči, določenih v tabeli točke 3.1.
Date(s) on which (individual instalments of) the aid has been put at the disposal of the beneficiary.
Datum(i) dodelitve obrokov pomoči upravičencu.
Amount of aid put at the disposal of the beneficiary (in gross aid equivalents).
Znesek pomoči, določen za upravičenca (na ekvivalent bruto zneska pomoči).
Date(s) on which the aid has been repaid.
Znesek vračila pomoči.
In addition, in view of SEPI being a State-owned holding, it needs to be reiterated that financial transactions between SEPI and companies in competition with other companies on the common market always should be based on market principles.
Nadalje, ob upoštevanju, da je SEPI državna matična družba, je treba zanikati, da bi morale kapitalske transakcije med družbo SEPI in gospodarskimi družbami, ki tekmujejo na skupnem trgu, vedno temeljiti na tržnih načelih.
Therefore, if SEPI would pay a price above market price for a company, this would be State aid to the seller, in this case AESA.
Tako bi, če bi družba SEPI za eno gospodarsko družbo plačala več, kot je tržna cena, lahko govorili o državni pomoči prodajalcu, v tem primeru družbi AESA.
Concerning the facts the situation was as follows. The three shipyards companies (Juliana, Cadiz and Manises) had accumulated a debt to AESA of EUR 192100000.
Ob upoštevanju dejstev je bilo stanje sledeče.
When SEPI took over the three companies it also provided them with EUR 192100000‘advance’ payment (Cadiz EUR 120,8 million, Juliana EUR 47,2 million and Manises EUR 24,1 million) which was used to repay the loans to AESA.
Zadevne tri ladjedelnice (Juliana, Cádiz in Manises) so se pri družbi AESA zadolžile za 192100000 EUR. Ko je matična družba SEPI prevzela te tri družbe, jim je zagotovila tudi predplačilo 192100000 EUR (za Cádiz 120,8 milijonov, za Juliano 47,2 milijonov, za Manises 24,1 milijonov), ki so ga porabile za vrnitev posojila družbi AESA.
It can also be excluded that the actual and ultimate beneficiaries of the measures, the shipyards, under the ownership of Bazán/IZAR would generate an acceptable rate of return, due to their past performance and the lack of any restructuring measures foreseen.
Lahko se tudi izključi, da bi zadnji upravičenci ukrepov ladjedelnice, ki so v lasti družbe Bazán/IZAR, ustvarile sprejemljiv donos zaradi svojih preteklih učinkov in pomanjkanja ukrepov za prestrukturiranje.
This is also confirmed by the annual reports for IZAR which state that its civil yards made losses in 2000, 2001, and 2002.
To potrjujejo tudi letna poročila družbe IZAR, ki kažejo, da so njene civilne ladjedelnice v letih 2000, 2001 in 2002 utrpele izgube.
SEPI in turn took over the claim of EUR 192100000 from AESA. The difference between EUR 192100000 and the EUR 194400000 stated in the second extension of the procedure (EUR 2100000) is due to small loans that already had been provided by SEPI to the shipyards at an earlier date.
Tako je družba SEPI od družbe AESA prevzela dolg 192100000 EUR. Razlika med temi 192100000 EUR in 194400000 EUR, navedenimi v drugem postopku širitve, (2100000 EUR) gre na račun manjših posojil, ki jih je že pred tem družba SEPI zagotovila ladjedelnicam.
Case C-390/98, H.J.
Primer C-390/98, H.J.
Spain provided its comments by letters dated 14 March 2001, 4 April 2002 and 10 November 2003. IZAR on 14 November 2003 brought an action [6] against the Commission before the Court of First Instance, requesting an annulment of the second extension of the procedure.
novembra 2003 je IZAR na prvostopenjsko sodišče vložil tožbo proti Komisiji [6] z zahtevkom po razveljavitvi drugega postopka širitve.
establishing guidance notes supplementing part B of Annex II to Council Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms
o uvedbi navodil, ki dopolnjujejo Del B Priloge II k Direktivi Sveta 90/219/EGS o uporabi gensko spremenjenih mikroorganizmov v zaprtih sistemih
(notified under document number C(2005) 413)
(notificirana pod dokumentarno številko K(2005) 413)
Having regard to Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms [1], and in particular the introductory paragraph of part B of Annex II thereto,
ob upoštevanju Direktive Sveta 90/219/EGS z dne 23. aprila 1990 o uporabi gensko spremenjenih mikroorganizmov v zaprtih sistemih [1] in zlasti uvodnega odstavka Dela B Priloge II k Direktivi,
After consulting the European Food Safety Authority [2],
po posvetovanju z Evropsko agencijo za varno hrano [2],
The criteria listed in part B of Annex II to Directive 90/219/EEC must be met in order to establish the safety of a genetically modified micro-organism (GMM) for human health and the environment and its suitability for inclusion in part C of Annex II to that Directive.
Merila, navedena v Delu B Priloge II k Direktivi 90/219/ES, morajo biti izpolnjena, da bi bil gensko spremenjeni organizem (GSM) varen za zdravje ljudi in okolje ter primeren za vključitev v Del C Priloge II k navedeni direktivi.
The application of those criteria should be facilitated through the provision of guidance notes for Member States, as an aid to ensuring that the national competent authorities carry out their preliminary assessment in an appropriate manner and provide appropriate information to users as to the content of dossiers to be submitted.
Uporabo navedenih meril je treba olajšati z zagotovitvijo navodil, ki bi državam članicam pomagala zagotoviti, da pristojni nacionalni organi opravijo svojo predhodno oceno na ustrezen način in uporabnikom zagotovijo ustrezne informacije glede vsebine dokumentacije, ki jo je treba predložiti.
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 21 of Directive 90/219/EEC,
Ukrepi, predvideni s to odločbo, so v skladu z mnenjem odbora, ustanovljenega v skladu s členom 21 Direktive 90/219/EGS –
The guidance notes set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be used to supplement part B of Annex II to Directive 90/219/EEC.
Navodila, opredeljena v Prilogi k tej odločbi, se uporablja kot dopolnilo k Delu B Priloge II k Direktivi 90/219/EGS.
OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 1.
UL L 117, 8.5.1990, str. 1.
The EFSA Journal (2003) 18, pp. 1 to 15.
EFSA Journal [Bilten EFSA] (2003) 18, 1–15.
ANNEXE
PRILOGA
Notes explicatives complétant l’annexe II, partie B, de la directive 90/219/CEE
Navodila, ki dopolnjujejo Del B Priloge II k Direktivi 90/219/EGS
Seuls les types de MGM qui satisfont aux critères généraux et aux critères spécifiques énoncés dans la partie B de l’annexe II sont jugés recevables pour figurer dans la partie C de l’annexe II.
Vrste GSM se lahko vključijo v Prilogo II, Del C, samo, kadar so izpolnjena splošna in posebna merila, opredeljena v Prilogi II, Del B. Vsi GSM, ki so vključeni v Prilogo IIC, bodo objavljeni v Uradnem listu, skupaj z ustreznimi prepoznavnimi lastnostmi ali referenčnimi viri GSM.