natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As far as the Commission is aware, the United Kingdom authorities kept the Government of Gibraltar informed as to the conduct of the investigation.
Kolikor je Komisiji znano, so organi oblasti Združenega kraljestva obveščali gibraltarsko vlado o vodenju preiskave.
The Government of Gibraltar was also given the opportunity to discuss the investigation into its offshore tax regimes at the meeting held on 19 October 2000 and at all stages had the opportunity to enquire as to its progress, timing and likely outcome.
Gibraltarska vlada je imela na srečanju 19. oktobra 2000 priložnost razpravljati o preiskavi njenih eksteritorialnih davčnih režimov in se je v vseh njenih fazah tudi imela možnost pozanimati o njenem napredovanju, časovnih okvirih in o predvidenem izidu.
It may be true that there were some doubts as to the utility of opening the State aid procedure on certain tax measures pending progress on the rollback of harmful measures.
Morda je bilo nekaj dvomov glede koristnosti sprožitve postopka državne pomoči v zvezi z nekaterimi davčnimi ukrepi, dokler niso bili znani vplivi odpravljanja škodljivih ukrepov.
However this related in part to those existing aid measures, for which, if rolled back in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation, a State aid investigation would no longer have any meaning.
To je delno povezano s tistimi obstoječimi ukrepi pomoči, za katere velja, da preiskava pomoči ne bi imela nobenega pomena, če bi te ukrepe povrnili v skladu s Kodeksom ravnanja za obdavčenje podjetij.
The Commission also took the view that in the interests of equality of treatment, it would be better to initiate proceedings on a number of measures concerning a wide range of Member States at the same time, rather than to adopt a piecemeal approach.
Komisija je tudi sprejela stališče, da bi bilo v interesu enakovrednega obravnavanja bolje hkrati uvesti postopek na večjem številu ukrepov in večjem številu držav članic, kot pa da so sprejeli posamezni pristop.
As for the claim that there should be a limitation period, such a period does in fact exist and is provided for in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
V zvezi z zahtevo, da mora obstajati rok zastaranja, tak rok dejansko obstaja in je določen v členu 15 Pogodbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
It precludes recovery of aid established more than 10 years before the Commission's first intervention, in this case, 10 years before the Commission's letter of 12 February 1999.
Izključuje povrnitev pomoči, prejete več kot 10 let pred prvim posredovanjem Komisije, v tem primeru 10 let pred pismom Komisije, poslanim 12. februarja 1999.
The Commission notes the Government of Gibraltar's comments on the significance of the Commission's specific request for observations on the recovery of aid.
Komisija upošteva pripombe gibraltarske vlade o pomenu posebne zahteve Komisije po pripombah o povračilu pomoči.
Whilst the request clearly expressed the Commission's uncertainties on the question of recovery, it also served as an explicit signal to the beneficiaries that, in the event that the measure was found to constitute illegal and incompatible aid, recovery remained a distinct possibility and was in principle the logical outcome.
Zahteva je jasno izrazila dvome Komisije v zvezi z vprašanjem povračila, služila pa je tudi kot izrecen signal upravičencem, da obstaja možnost zahteve po povračilu in je le-ta načeloma njen logični rezultat, če se odkrije, da je ukrep nezakonita in nezdružljiva pomoč.
Whilst the President of the Court of First Instance observed that this ‘unusual request must, at first sight, allay to a considerable extent any concerns that beneficiaries might have’, he did not conclude that such concerns had been dispelled [37].
Medtem ko je predsednik sodišča prve stopnje ugotovil, da „mora ta nenavadna zahteva na prvi pogled dovolj pomiriti morebitne skrbi upravičencev“, pa ni zaključil, da so bile skrbi pregnane [37].
If he had done so, the Commission would have been put in the absurd situation where the perverse consequence of seeking views on a course of action precluded that very course of action itself.
Če bi bil to ugotovil, bi bila Komisija postavljena v absurdno situacijo, v kateri bi neobičajne posledice iskanja pogledov na potek dejanj izključevale prav ta potek dejanj.
Similarly, any doubts that the Commission may have publicly expressed on the existing or illegal nature of the aid measure would serve to emphasise that a finding of illegal aid, with all its consequences, was a clear possibility.
Podobno bi morebitni dvomi, ki bi jih javno izrekla Komisija v zvezi z obstoječo ali nezakonito naravo ukrepa pomoči, služili za poudarek, da je bilo odkritje nezakonite pomoči z vsemi njenimi posledicami jasna možnost.
The claim that an order for recovery would infringe the principle of proportionality must also be rejected.
Trditev, da bi zahteva po povračilu kršila načelo proporcionalnosti, je treba prav tako zavrniti.
The Court of Justice has consistently held [38] that the recovery of unlawfully granted State aid with a view to re-establishing the previously existing situation cannot in principle be regarded as disproportionate.
Sodišče je dosledno odločilo [38], da se povračilo nezakonito dodeljene državne pomoči z vidika ponovne vzpostavitve prejšnje situacije načeloma ne more obravnavati kot nesorazmerno.
The Commission rejects the assertion that an order for recovery would place a disproportionate administrative burden on the Gibraltar authorities.
Komisija zavrača trditev, da bi zahteva po povračilu nesorazmerno upravno obremenila gibraltarske oblasti.
According to the United Kingdom, there are around 140 Qualifying Companies.
Po trditvah Združenega kraljestva je kvalificiranih podjetij približno 140.
This represents less than 10 % of the companies assessed for taxation each year in Gibraltar.
To je manj kot 10 % podjetij, vsako leto zavezanih obdavčitvi v Gibraltarju.
Given that most, if not all, Qualifying Companies pay some income tax, albeit at a reduced rate, and that such companies tend to have a ‘bricks and mortar’ presence in Gibraltar, the Commission concludes that the administrative burden would not be excessive.
Komisija v zvezi s tem, da plačuje večina, če že ne vsa kvalificirana podjetja, nekaj davka na dobiček, pa čeprav po nižji stopnji, in da so taka podjetja večinoma „fizično“ prisotna v Gibraltarju, zaključuje, da upravno breme ne bi bilo pretirano.
As for the suggestion that the powers of investigation of Gibraltar Tax Department are limited, the Court of Justice has ruled that national provisions cannot be invoked in such a way as to render recovery impossible [39].
Sodišče je v zvezi z omembo, da so preiskovalne pristojnosti gibraltarskega davčnega oddelka omejene, odločilo, da se nacionalne določbe ne morejo uveljavljati na tak način, ki bi povsem preprečeval povrnitev [39].
Arguments similar to those in recital 37 on the consequences of recovery for the Gibraltar economy were used by the Government of Gibraltar in an attempt to prevent publication of the decision to open the formal investigation procedure [40].
Gibraltarska vlada je poskušala z utemeljitvami, podobnimi tistim v uvodni navedbi (37) zgoraj, o posledicah, ki bi jih imelo povračilo za gibraltarsko gospodarstvo, preprečiti objavo odločitve o začetku postopka uradne preiskave [40].
They have not materialised.
Posledice se niso uresničile.
It is far from certain that they would do so as a result of a recovery order in this case.
Povsem negotovo je, da bi se uresničile kot rezultat naloga o povračilu v tem primeru.
The Commission also notes that the arguments on the impact of recovery on the Gibraltar economy encompassed both the Qualifying Companies and the Exempt Companies regimes.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so utemeljitve o vplivu povračila na gibraltarsko gospodarstvo vključevale tako režim kvalificiranih podjetij kot tudi režim izvzetih podjetij.
However, since the Government of Gibraltar made its observations, the threat of recovery has diminished to the extent that following the annulment of the Commission's decision initiating the formal State aid investigation procedure [41], the original 1967 Exempt Companies legislation is now under investigation as an existing aid scheme.
Odkar je gibraltarska vlada posredovala pripombe, se je grožnja o povračilu zmanjšala do te mere, da je po razveljavitvi odločitve Komisije za začetek uradnega postopka preiskave o državni pomoči [41], zdaj v preiskavi izvirna zakonodaja o izvzetih podjetjih iz leta 1967 kot obstoječa shema pomoči.
There can be no recovery order in respect of this legislation and consequently the impact forecast by the Government of Gibraltar, to the extent it materialises at all, will be reduced.
V zvezi s to zakonodajo ne more biti nobenega naloga za povračilo, posledično pa bo zmanjšan tudi vpliv napovedi gibraltarske vlade, če se te sploh uresničijo.
In any event, the Commission cannot allow such hypothetical considerations to impede the restoration, as far as possible, of the competitive situation that existed before the implementation of an illegal aid measure.
Komisija v nobenem primeru ne more dovoliti, da bi hipotetična ugibanja, kolikor je to mogoče, ovirala obnovitev konkurenčnega stanja, kakršno je bilo pred uvedbo nezakonitega ukrepa pomoči.
The Commission notes the Government of Gibraltar's comments that some Qualifying Companies would not be assessable to taxation in Gibraltar, that some would have no assets within its jurisdiction, that some would have ceased trading and that some would be in receipt of aid below the de minimis threshold.
Komisija upošteva pripombe gibraltarske vlade, da nekatera kvalificirana podjetja niso davčno zavezana v Gibraltarju, da nekatera kvalificirana podjetja nimajo sredstev znotraj njihove zakonodaje, da so nekatera prenehala poslovati in da nekatera kvalificirana podjetja prejemajo pomoč, ki je pod pragom de minimis.
However, such considerations cannot, by themselves, preclude a recovery order.
Vendar pa taki premisleki ne morejo sami po sebi izključiti naloga o povračilu.
Nor can they relieve a Member State's authorities of the obligation to take the necessary steps to give full effect to a recovery order, since they become relevant only in the context of an examination of an individual case.
Prav tako ne morejo oprostiti obveznosti oblasti držav članic, da z ustreznimi koraki v največjem mogočem obsegu uveljavijo nalog o povračilu, ker postanejo pomembni šele v smislu preučevanja posameznega primera.
In this context, the Commission notes that the benefits of Qualifying Company status are not limited to de minimis aid, nor are they limited to enterprises that are assessable to taxation in Gibraltar or that have no assets within the jurisdiction of the Gibraltar authorities.
Komisija v tem smislu ugotavlja, da ugodnosti statusa kvalificiranega podjetja niso omejene na pomoč de minimis, prav tako pa niso omejene na podjetja, ki so davčni zavezanci v Gibraltarju ali ki nimajo sredstev znotraj zakonodajne oblasti Gibraltarja.
The Commission makes no observation on the good faith, or otherwise, of the Gibraltar authorities.
Komisija nima pripomb o dobri veri ali drugih pripomb v zvezi z gibraltarskimi oblastmi.
However, it follows from the rulings of the Court of Justice [42] that, when an existing aid measure is altered, in order for the measure to become new aid by virtue of the modification or for the modification itself to be new aid, the alteration must widen the scope of the measure and/or increase the advantage available.
Iz odločitve Sodišča [42] pa sledi, da mora sprememba razširiti obseg ukrepa in/ali povečati ugodnost, ki je na voljo, če se obstoječi ukrep pomoči spremeni, zato da bi postal nova pomoč zaradi spremembe ali da je sprememba sama nova pomoč.
In the present case, the Commission notes the ruling by the Court of First Instance that Gibraltar's 1967 Exempt Companies legislation must be considered to be an existing aid measure [43].
Komisija v pričujočem primeru priznava odločitev Sodišča prve stopnje, da je treba gibraltarsko zakonodajo o izvzetih podjetjih iz leta 1967 obravnavati kot obstoječi ukrep pomoči [43].
The Commission also notes that the Qualifying Companies legislation was modelled very closely on the Exempt Company legislation.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da je bila zakonodaja kvalificiranih podjetij oblikovana na osnovi zakonodaje izvzetih podjetij.
The conditions for eligibility are largely identical.
Pogoji za uvrstitev mednje so zelo podobni.
The substantive differences concern the determination of the annual tax due.
Bistvene spremembe so pri določanju letnega davka.
Rather than pay only a very low, fixed annual tax, Qualifying Companies pay a percentage of their annual profits.
Namesto da bi kvalificirana podjetja plačevala nizek, fiksen letni davek, plačujejo odstotek od svojega letnega prihodka.
It therefore follows that Qualifying Companies pay tax on their profits at a higher rate than Exempt Companies.
Iz tega sledi, da plačajo kvalificirana podjetja davek od dobička po višji stopnji kot izvzeta podjetja.
The more restrictive Qualifying Companies regime can therefore be considered to offer a reduced advantage, within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, compared with the Exempt Companies regime.
Strožji režim kvalificiranih podjetij ponuja torej v primerjavi z režimom izvzetih podjetij manjše ugodnosti v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
The Commission also notes that in the unlikely event that the tax paid by a Qualifying Company would be lower than the fixed annual tax of an equivalent Exempt Company, the difference would fall below the de minimis threshold.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da bi v malo verjetnem primeru, da bi kvalificirano podjetje plačalo davek, ki bi bil nižji od fiksnega letnega davka ekvivalentnega izvzetega podjetja, razlika padla pod prag de minimis.
The legislation provides for a minimum tax rate of 0 % for a Qualifying Company, whilst Exempt Companies pay a fixed annual tax of between GBP 225 and 300.
Zakonodaja zagotavlja minimalno davčno stopnjo 0 % za kvalificirano podjetje, medtem ko izvzeta podjetja plačujejo fiksen letni davek med 225 in 300 GBP.
The Court of Justice has consistently ruled that where a diligent businessman could have foreseen the adoption of a Community measure likely to affect his interests, he cannot rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations if the measure is adopted [44].
Sodišče je dosledno odločilo, da se prizadeven poslovnež tedaj, ko lahko predvideva, da bo ukrep Skupnosti vplival na njegove interese, ne more zanesti na načelo zaščite zakonitih pričakovanj, če je ukrep sprejet [44].
Given the similarities between the Exempt Companies and Qualifying Companies regimes, it is hard to see how a diligent operator could have anticipated that the two regimes would be subject to different State aid procedures.
Zaradi podobnosti režimov izvzetih in kvalificiranih podjetij je težko vedeti, kako bi prizadeven delavec lahko pričakoval, da bo za oba režima veljal različen postopek državne pomoči.
The differences between the two schemes, rather than being inherent in their design, reflect the practice of the Gibraltar authorities to require those offshore companies with a physical presence in Gibraltar to pay tax, albeit at a low level.
Razlike med režimoma, bolj kot sorodnost po obliki, odsevajo prakso gibraltarskih oblasti, ki zahtevajo od eksteritorialnih podjetij s fizično prisotnostjo v Gibraltarju, da plačujejo davek, pa čeprav po nizki stopnji.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that a conscientious businessman, acting in good faith, could legitimately have believed that by opting for the less generous Qualifying Companies regime rather than the manifestly legal (in State aid terms, existing) Exempt Companies regime, he would also enter a regime whose legality was not in doubt.
Zato je upravičeno domnevati, da bi lahko vesten poslovnež, ki deluje v dobri veri, zakonito verjel, da tudi s tem, ko se odloči za manj ugoden režim kvalificiranih podjetij namesto za javno pravni (v smislu državne pomoči obstoječi) režim izvzetih podjetij, tudi vstopi v režim, ki pravno ni vprašljiv.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that an order for recovery would, in the exceptional circumstances of this case, be contrary to a general principle of Community law.
Zato Komisija zaključuje, da bi bil nalog za povračilo, v izjemnih okoliščinah tega primera, v nasprotju s splošnim načelom pravnega reda Skupnosti.
It is concluded that the Gibraltar Qualifying Companies regime constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and that none of the derogations provided for in Article 87(2) or Article 87(3) apply.
Ugotovljeno je, da predstavlja režim gibraltarskih kvalificiranih podjetij državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe in da ne velja nobeno od odstopanj iz člena 87(2) ali (3).
It is also concluded that the United Kingdom has unlawfully implemented the scheme in question, in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Ugotovljeno je tudi, da je Združeno kraljestvo nezakonito uvedlo zadevno shemo, ki krši člen 88(3) Pogodbe.
However, beneficiaries of the scheme were entitled to entertain a legitimate expectation that the legality of the scheme was not in doubt.
Vendar pa so upravičenci sheme upravičeno zakonito pričakovali, da zakonitost sheme ni bila vprašljiva.
Recovery of aid granted under the Qualifying Companies legislation should therefore not be required,
Vračilo pomoči, dodeljene po zakonodaji kvalificiranih podjetij, se torej ne sme zahtevati –
The State aid which the United Kingdom has implemented under the Qualifying Companies regime, contained in the Gibraltar Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance of 14 July 1983 and the Gibraltar Income Tax (Qualifying Companies) Rules of 22 September 1983, is incompatible with the common market.
Državna pomoč, ki jo je uvedlo Združeno kraljestvo v okviru režima kvalificiranih podjetij, določena z gibraltarskim Odlokom o davku od dohodka (sprememba) z dne 14. julija 1983 in z gibraltarskimi Pravili o davku od dohodka (kvalificirana podjetja) z dne 22. septembra 1983, je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
The United Kingdom shall withdraw the scheme referred to in Article 1.
Združeno kraljestvo bo umaknilo shemo iz člena 1.
The United Kingdom shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Združeno kraljestvo bo v dveh mesecih po obvestilu o tej odločbi obvestilo Komisijo o ukrepih, ki so jih sprejeli za upoštevanje te določbe.
OJ C 26, 30.1.2002, p. 9.
UL C 26, 30.1.2002, str. 9.
Joined Cases T-195/01 R and T-207/01 R Gibraltar v Commission R [2001] ECR II-3915.
Združena primera T-195/01 R in T-207/01 R Gibraltar proti Komisiji R[2001] ECR II-3915.
Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01 Gibraltar v Commission [2002] ECR II 2309.
Združena primera T-195/01 in T-207/01 Gibraltar proti Komisiji [2002] ECR II-2309.
Approximately 12 companies fall outside this 2 to 10 % range.The tax rates for such companies have been negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
Približno dvanajst podjetij ne spada v ta razpon od 2 % do 10 %. Davčne stopnje za taka podjetja bodo določene za vsak primer posebej.
They range from 0,5 to 1,5 % and from 21 to 34 %.
Segajo od 0,5 % do 1,5 % in od 21 % do 34 %.
There is no correlation between the tax rate applied and the area of activity of the company.
Nobene povezave ni med uporabljeno davčno stopnjo in področjem dejavnosti podjetja.
The companies operate in diverse sectors including private investment holdings, marketing and selling holiday homes, offshore banking, ship repair and marketing consulting services.
Podjetja delujejo v različnih sektorjih, vključno z zasebnimi naložbami kapitalskih deležev, s trženjem in s prodajo počitniških domov, z eksteritorialnim bančništvom, s popravljanjem ladij in s trženjem svetovalnih storitev.
Exempt Companies do not pay tax on their profits, but instead pay a fixed annual tax of GBP 225 to 300.
Izvzeta podjetja ne plačujejo davka na dobiček, ampak določen letni davek v višini od 225 GBP do 300 GBP.
OJ C 2, 6.1.1998, p. 2.
UL C 2, 6.1.1998, str. 2.
OJ L 150, 23.6.2000, p. 50, recitals 90, 91 and 93.
UL L 150, 23.6.2000, str. 50, točke 90, 91 in 93.
OJ C 384, 10.12 1998, p. 3.
UL C 384, 10.12.1998, str. 3.
OJ C 395, 18.12.1998, p. 19.
UL C 395, 18.12.1998, str. 19.
Case 43/75 Defrenne v Sabena [1976] ECR 455, paragraphs 72, 73 and 74.
Primer 43/75 Defrenne proti Sabeni [1976] ECR 455, odstavki 72, 73 in 74.
Joined cases T-132/96 and T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen and others v Commission [1999] ECR II-3663 p. 167 et seq.
Združena primera T-132/96 in T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen in drugi proti Komisiji [1999] ECR II-3663 str. 167 et seq.
Joined Cases T-195/01 R and T-207/01, paragraphs 104 and 113.
Združena primera T-195/01 R in T-207/01, odstavka 104 in 113.
Case 223/85, Rijn-Schelde-Verolme v Commission [1987] ECR 4617.
Primer 223/85, Rijn-Schelde-Verolme proti Komisiji [1987] ECR 4617.
See, for instance, Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraph 26.
Glej npr. Primer C-156/98 Nemčija proti Komisiji [2000] ECR I-6857, odstavek 26.
Commission decision of 30 March 2004, not yet published.
Odločba Komisije z dne 30. marca 2004, še neobjavljena.
See Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01, paragraphs 117-131.
Glej združena primera T-195/01 in T-207/01, odstavke 117–131.
Case 173/73, Italy v Commission, [1974] ECR 709, paragraph 13.
Primer 173/73, Italija proti Komisiji, [1974] ECR 709, odstavek 13.
Joined cases T-269/99, T-271/99 and T-272/99, Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoaand others v Commission [2002] ECR II-4217, paragraph 79.
Združena primera T-269/99, T-271/99 in T-272/99, Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa in drugi proti Komisiji, [2002] ECR II-4217, odstavek 79.
See Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01.
Glej združena primera T-195/01 in T-207/01.
OJ C 395, 18.12.1998, p. 14.
UL C 395, 18.12.1998, str. 14.
Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01, paragraphs 120 and 123.
Združena primera T-195/01 in T-207/01, odstavka 120 in 123.
Case C-295/97 Piaggio v Ifitalia and others, [1999] ECR I-3735.
Primer C-295/97, Piaggio proti Ifitalia in drugim, [1999] ECR I-3735.
Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01, paragraph 121.
Združena primera T-195/01 in T-207/01, odstavek 121.
See point 6 of the Notice.
Glej točko 6 Obvestila.
OJ C 74, 10.3.1998, p. 9.
UL C 74, 10.3.1998, str. 9.
OJ C 272, 23.9.2000, p. 43 and Commission approval letter No SG(2000) D/106293 of 17 August 2000.
UL C 272, 23.9.2000, str. 43 in odobritveno pismo Komisije št. SG(2000) D/106293 z dne 17. avgusta 2000.
See Joined cases T-132/96 and T-143/96, Freistaat and others v Commission, ECR [1999] II-3663, paragraphs 166, 167 and 168.
Glej združena primera T-132/96 in T-143/96, Freistaat & drugi proti Komisiji, ECR [1999] II-3663, odstavki 166, 167 in 168.
Joined cases T-132/96 and T-143/96.
Združena primera T-132/96 in T-143/96.
See for example Case C-169/95, Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-135, paragraph 47.
Glej npr. primer C-169/95, Španija proti Komisiji, [1997] ECR I-135, odstavek 47.
See for example Cases C-5/89 Commission v Germany [1990] ECR I-3437), T-67/94 Ladbroke Racing v Commission [1998] ECR II-1, T-459/93 Siemens v Commission (ECR [1995] II 1675.
Glej npr. primere C-5/89, Komisija proti Nemčiji, ([1990] ECR I-3437), T-67/94, Ladbroke Racing proti Komisiji [1998] ECR II-1), T-459/93, Siemens proti Komisiji (ECR [1995] II-1675).
See footnote 23.
Glej opombo 23.
See, for example, Commission Decision 95/452/EC of 12 April 1995 on State aid in the form of tax concessions to undertakings operating in the Trieste Financial Services & Insurance Centre pursuant to Article 3 of Italian Law No 19 of 9 January 1991 on, OJ L 264, 7.11.1995, p. 30, recital 10.
Glej npr. Odločbo Komisije 95/452/ES z dne 12. aprila 1995 o državni pomoči v obliki davčnih olajšav za posle v centru Trieste Financial Services & Insurance Centre v skladu s členom 3 italijanske zakonodaje št. 19 od 9. januarja 1991 dalje (UL L 264, 7.11.1995, str. 30, odstavek 10).
Joined Cases T-195/01 R and T-207/01 Gibraltar v Commission, paragraph 113.
Združena primera T-195/01 R in T-207/01, Gibraltar proti Komisiji, odstavek 113.