natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See Cases 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671, 142/87 Belgium v Commission [1990] ECR I-959, Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Spain v Commission [1994] ECR I-4103, paragraphs 40 to 42, and Case C-310/99 Italy v Commission [2002] ECR I-2289, paragraphs 84 to 86.
Glej zadeve 730/79 Philip Morris proti Komisij, [1980] PSES 2671, 142/87 Belgija proti Komisiji, [1990] PSES I-959, združene zadeve C-278/92, C-279/92 in C-280/92 Španija proti Komisiji [1994] PSES I-4103, odstavki 40-42, in zadevo C-310/99, Italija proti Komisiji, PSES [2002] I-2289, odstavki 84-86.
See conclusions of the meeting of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers, 3.6.2003.
Glej sklepe seje Sveta gospodarskih in finančnih ministrov, 3.6.2003.
OJ C 272, 23.9.2000, p. 43.
UL C 272, 23.9.2000, str. 43.
See previous footnote.
Glej prejšnjo opombo.
auditor.
revizorje.
The common system should thus first be determined’. However, given that the reform raises issues both of material selectivity and of regional selectivity, the Commission will first examine the regional selectivity aspect.
Zato je treba določiti skupni sistem.“ Glede na to, da reforma vzbuja tako vprašanja o materialni selektivnosti kot regionalni selektivnosti, bo Komisija najprej preučila vidik regionalne selektivnosti.
This states ‘[t]hat the main criterion in applying Article 87(1) to a tax measure’ is that it ‘provides in favour of certain undertakings in the Member State an exception to the application of the tax system’. As pointed out in point 17 of the Notice, ‘the Commission's decision-making practice so far shows that only measures whose scope extends to the entire territory of the State escape the specificity criterion laid down in Article 87(1)’ and ‘the Treaty itself qualifies as aid measures which are intended to promote the economic development of a region’ [21].
Ta navaja „da je glavni kriterij pri uporabi člena 87(1) ES za davčni ukrep“, da „zagotavlja izjemo pri uporabi davčnega sistema v korist določenih podjetij v državi članici.“ Kot je poudarjeno v točki 17 Obvestila „praksa sprejemanja sklepov Komisije do sedaj kaže, da samo ukrepi, ki obsegajo celotno območje države članice, ne izpolnjujejo kriterija specifičnosti, določenega v členu 87(1)“ in „Pogodba sama označuje kot pomoč ukrepe, ki so namenjeni spodbujanju gospodarskega razvoja regije“ [21].
on the aid implemented by France in favour of the Coopérative d'exportation du livre français (CELF)
glede podpore, ki jo je Francija izvrševala v korist Zadruge za izvoz francoskih knjig (CELF)
(notified under document number C(2004) 1361)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko K(2004) 1361)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNTIES,
KOMISIJA EVROPSKIH SKUPNOSTI JE —
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti in zlasti člena 88, odstavek 2, prva alinea Pogodbe,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru in zlasti člena 62, odstavek 1, točka (a) Sporazuma,
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments in accordance with the above Articles [1], and having regard to those comments,
po tem, ko je povabila tretje osebe, da predstavijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenimi členi [1], in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
I. PROCEDURE
I/ POSTOPEK
By judgment of 28 February 2002 [2], the Court of First Instance of the European Communities annulled the last sentence of the Article 1 of Commission Decision 1999/133/EC of 10 June 1998 concerning State aid in favour of the Coopérative d'exportation du livre français (CELF) [3], which stated that:
Sodišče prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti je s sodbo z datumom 28. februar 2002 [2] razveljavilo člen 1, zadnji stavek, odločbe 1999/133/ES Komisije z dne 10. junija 1998 glede državne podpore za Zadrugo za izvoz francoskih knjig (CELF) [3], ki je določal, da:
‘The aid granted to CELF for the handling of small orders of books in the French language constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty.
„Podpora, namenjena Zadrugi CELF za obravnavo naročil na drobno knjig v francoskem jeziku, je podpora v smislu člena 92, odstavek 1, Pogodbe ES.
As the French Government failed to notify the aid to the Commission prior to its implementation, the aid has been granted unlawfully.
Ker je francoska vlada pozabila Komisijo uradno obvestiti o tej podpori pred njeno izvršitvijo, je bila le-ta podeljena nezakonito.
It is, however, compatible aid as it satisfies the conditions for derogation under Article 92(3)(d) of the Treaty’ [4].
Podpora je kljub temu združljiva s Pogodbo, saj izpolnjuje pogoje za izjemo predvideno v členu 92, odstavek 3, točka (d) te Pogodbe.“ [4]
The judgment followed a long procedure, the principle stages of which are set out below.
Ta sodba je sledila dolgemu postopku, katerega glavne faze so povzete tu spodaj.
FIRST STAGE OF THE PROCEDURE
A/ Prva faza postopka
By letter dated 20 March 1992, the Société internationale de diffusion et d'édition (SIDE), which presented itself as ‘a French firm that exports books and has to compete with a publishers' cooperative receiving State aid’ [5], drew the Commission's attention to aid measures for promotion, transport and marketing granted by the French authorities to CELF, which aid had not been notified to the Commission's services in advance in breach of Article 93(3) (now Article 88(3)) of the Treaty.
S pošto z datumom 20. marec 1992 je Mednarodna distribucijska in založniška družba (SIDE), ki se predstavlja kot „francosko podjetje, ki deluje na trgu izvoza knjig in ki mora prenašati konkurenco založniške zadruge, ki je upravičena do državne podpore“ [5], vzbudila zanimanje Komisije za ukrepe podpor za promocijo, prevoz in trženje, ki so jih francoske oblasti dodelile zadrugi CELF, podpor, ki niso bile predhodno prijavljene pri službah Komisije, v nasprotju s členom 93, odstavek 3 (danes člen 88, odstavek 3) Pogodbe.
By letter dated 2 April 1992, the Commission pointed out to the French authorities that any plans to grant or alter aid must be notified in advance to its services and asked the said authorities to inform it about the nature and purpose of the aid measures referred to by SIDE.
S pošto z dne 2. aprila 1992, je Komisija, ki je spomnila francoske oblasti, da mora biti vsak načrt, ki skuša uvesti ali spremeniti podpore, predhodno prijavljen pri njenih službah, zahtevala, da jo francoske oblasti poučijo o naravi in namenu ukrepov podpor, ki jih je omenila družba SIDE.
By letter dated 29 June 1992, the French authorities confirmed to the Commission the existence of grants to CELF.
Francoske oblasti so s pošto z dne 29. junija 1992 Komisiji potrdile obstoj podpor v korist zadruge CELF.
They explained that the measures were designed to make French literature and language known in non-French-speaking countries and that Celf had been asked to manage three schemes of ad hoc aid designed to facilitate access by readers in far-off places to French books.
Natančneje so obrazložile, da so s pomočjo teh ukrepov skušale nefrankofonske države seznaniti s francosko literaturo in francoskim jezikom, in da je bilo v ostalem zadrugi CELF zaupano vodenje treh programov enkratnih podpor, prav tako namenjenih lajšanju dostopa do francoskih knjig oddaljenim bralcem.
By letter dated 7 August 1992, the Commission confirmed to SIDE the existence of aid to CELF, explained its purpose and informed the company that the measures in question had not been notified.
S pošto z dne 7. avgusta 1992, je Komisija družbi SIDE potrdila obstoj podpor v prid zadrugi CELF, točneje obrazložila njihov namen in jo poučila, da ti ukrepi niso bili prijavljeni.
It stated, however, that the disputed aid did not seem likely to adversely affect trade between Member States.
Obrazložila je, da kljub vsemu sporne podpore po vsem videzu niso take, da bi neugodno vplivale na izmenjave med državami članicami.
SIDE was accordingly asked to submit its comments.
V teh razmerah je bila družba SIDE povabljena, naj predstavi svoje pripombe.
By letter dated 7 September 1992, SIDE informed the Commission that it intended to object to the discriminatory nature [6] of the measures and the consequences for intra-Community trade, without however disputing the cultural objective of the Ministry of Culture, which was to see the spread of the French language and French literature.
S pošto z dne 7. septembra 1992 je družba SIDE Komisiji dala vedeti, da namerava vložiti tožbo zoper diskriminacijski značaj [6] ukrepov in posledice, ki jih imajo na trgovanje znotraj Skupnosti, ne da bi pri tem oporekala kulturnemu cilju Ministrstva za kulturo, ki deluje v skrbi za razširjanje francoskega jezika in francoske literature.
Having assessed the disputed measures, the Commission did not endorse SIDE's objections and considered, by Decision dated 18 May 1993 [7], that, given the special nature of competition in the book trade and the cultural purpose of the aid schemes in question, the derogation provided for in Article 92(3)(c) (now Article 87(3)(d)) of the Treaty applied to them.
Potem ko je Komisija začela s presojanjem spornih ukrepov, ni obdržala ugovore družbe SIDE in je menila, z odločbo z datumom 18. maj 1993 [7], da ob upoštevanju posebnega položaja konkurence na področju knjige in kulturnega cilja teh programov podpore, izjema, ki jo predvideva člen 92, odstavek 3, točka (c) (danes člen 87, odstavek 3, točka d)) Pogodbe, zanje uporabna.
SIDE, by application dated 2 August 1993, filed an action for annulment of the Decision with the Court.
Družba SIDE je s tožbo z dne 2. avgusta 1993, ki jo je predložila Sodišču, hotela uveljaviti razglasitev ničnosti te odločbe.
By judgment of 18 September 1995 [8], the Court partially granted SIDE's request, annulling the Commission Decision of 18 May 1993 but only as regards certain measures in favour of small orders.
S sodbo z dne 18. septembra 1995 [8] je Sodišče deloma ugodilo prošnji družbe SIDE s tem, ko je razglasilo odločbo Komisije z dne 18. maja 1993 za ničnostno, toda izključno, kjer se nanaša na določene ukrepe v korist naročil na drobno.
The Court also upheld the following three aid schemes administered by CELF on behalf of the State:
V ostalem je Sodišče potrdilo naslednje tri programe podpore, ki jih vodi zadruga CELF na račun države :
subsidies for air freight or airmail;
podpore letalskemu tovoru ali letalskim poštnim torbam,
the Page à page programme [9] (aid for the dissemination of French-language books in the countries of central and eastern Europe);
program „Stran na Stran“ [9] (podpora distribuciji knjig v francoskem jeziku v državah Srednje in Vzhodne Evrope),
Programme Plus (university textbooks in French for students in sub-Saharan Africa).
„Program Plus“ (univerzitetni učbeniki v francoskem jeziku, namenjeni študentom podsaharske Afrike).
The Court held that the Commission had obtained sufficient information on the three schemes to justify the finding that the impact of their operation on the rules of competition was negligible.
Sodišče je ocenilo, da je Komisija pridobila dovolj podatkov glede teh treh zadnjih programov, da je lahko upravičila ugotovitev, da je njihov vpliv na pravilno delovanje konkurence zanemarljiv.
The Court pointed out in particular that it was possible for any operator meeting the specific conditions of the schemes to apply to CELF for a grant.
Sodišče zlasti spomni, da je lahko vsak operater, ki je izpolnjeval posebne pogoje, določene s temi programi, poleg zadruge CELF vložil prošnjo za subvencije.
It stated that SIDE had not provided any evidence to show that the granting of aid under the three schemes was likely to affect trade between Member States.
Jasno je izrazil, da tožnica ni predložila nikakršnega elementa, ki bi dokazal, da podelitev teh treh programov podpor lahko vpliva na trgovanje med državami članicami.
The Court concluded that the Commission was able to adopt a favourable decision concerning the three aid schemes administered by CELF and that it could therefore reject SIDE's arguments as unfounded.
Sodišče je sklenilo, da Komisija lahko sprejme odločbo, ki je naklonjena tem trem programom podpor, ki jih vodi zadruga CELF, in da lahko zato zavrne navedene razloge družbe SIDE kot neutemeljene.
The Court stated that ‘as regards the cultural purpose of the aids at issue, it is common ground that the aim of the French Government is the spread of the French language and French literature’.
V ostalem Sodišče opozori, da „Glede kulturnega cilja spornih podpor se sprti strani strinjata, da je cilj, ki ga zasleduje francoska vlada, razširjanje francoskega jezika in literature“.
The Court also found that the information available to the Commission when it adopted its Decision of 18 May 1993, including the facts contained in the letter from SIDE's board, dated 7 September 1992, was capable of supporting its assessment that that aim was a real and proper one.
Sodišče vrh tega ugotavlja, da so bili podatki, s katerimi je Komisija razpolagala, ko je sprejemala odločbo z dne 18. maja 1993, vključno s tistimi iz pisma z dne 7. septembra 1992 sveta družbe SIDE, taki, da so podpirali njeno oceno glede resničnosti in zakonitosti tega cilja.
Accordingly, it felt bound to conclude that determining the cultural aim of the aid at issue did not pose any particular difficulties for the Commission and that it was not necessary for it to obtain further information in order to accept that their purpose was cultural.
V takih okoliščinah je Sodišče ocenilo, da je bilo mogoče zaključiti, da ocena kulturnega cilja spornih podpor za Komisijo ni predstavljala posebnih težav in da ni bilo potrebno pridobiti nadaljnje podatke za priznanje kulturnega značaja tega cilja.
As regards the compensation granted exclusively to CELF for small orders, the Court found, however, that the Commission should have thoroughly examined the conditions of competition in the sector concerned before expressing an opinion on the compatibility of the measures with the common market.
Kar zadeva nadomestila, ki so bila dodeljena izključno zadrugi CELF za naročila na drobno, je Sodišče nasprotno ocenilo, da bi morala Komisija začeti poglobljeno preiskavo razmer konkurence na tem področju, preden je izrazila svoje mnenje o združljivosti ukrepov s skupnim trgom.
It concluded (paragraph 76 of the judgment) that the Commission should have initiated the inter partes procedure provided for by Article 93(2) (now Article 87(2)) of the Treaty and that the Commission Decision of 18 May 1993 should be dissolved, ‘in so far as it concerns the aid granted exclusively to CELF for the purpose of offsetting the extra cost involved in handling small orders of French-language books placed by booksellers established abroad’.
Sodišče je v točki 76 sodbe sklenilo, da bi morala Komisija začeti postopek, ki je nasproten členu 93, odstavek 2 (danes člen 87, odstavek 2) Pogodbe, in da je zato primerno razveljaviti odločbo Komisije z dne 18. maja 1993, „kolikor se nanaša na nadomestilo dodeljeno izključno zadrugi CELF za kritje povišanja stroškov pri naročilih na drobno knjig v francoskem jeziku s strani knjigarn na tujem“.
SECOND STAGE OF THE PROCEDURE
B/ Druga faza postopka
By Decision dated 30 July 1996, the Commission decided, in accordance with the Court's judgment of 18 September 1995, to initiate a formal investigation into the aid in question.
Z odločbo z datumom 30. julij 1996, je Komisija odločila, v skladu s sodbo Sodišča z dne 18. septembra 1995, da bo odprla formalni postopek preiskave proti omenjenim podporam.
The decision to initiate was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities [10].
Odločba o odprtju je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti [10].
Interested third parties were invited to submit their comments, and these were received in December 1996 and January 1997.
Tretje prizadete osebe, ki so bile povabljene, naj predložijo svoje pripombe Komisiji, so ji naslovile svoje komentarje v mesecih december 1996 in januar 1997.
Following this examination, the Commission adopted a new, positive Decision: Decision 1999/133/EC.
Na koncu te preiskave je Komisija sprejela novo pozitivno odločbo, odločbo 1999/133/ES.
On 28 September 1998, SIDE applied to the Court to annul the last sentence of Article 1 of the Decision 1999/133/EC.
Družba SIDE je Sodišču predložila pritožbo z datumom 28. september 1998 z namenom, da bi bil člen 1, zadnji stavek, odločbe 1999/133/ES razveljavljen.
The seven grounds of annulment cited by SIDE were as follows:
Družba SIDE je nakazala naslednjih sedem možnosti razveljavitve :
procedural defect;
napaka pri postopku,
inadequate reasoning;
pomanjkljiva utemeljitev,
factual error;
dejanska zmota,
manifest error of assessment;
očitna napaka pri oceni,
breach of the principle of non-discrimination;
kršitev načela nediskriminacije,
breach of former Article 92(3)(d) (now Article 87(3)(d)) of the Treaty;
kršitev člena 92, odstavek 3, točka (d) (danes člen 87, odstavek 3, točka (d)) Pogodbe,
the disputed Decision is inconsistent with former Articles 85 and 86 (now Articles 81 and 82) of the Treaty.
odsotnost skladnosti odločbe, ki jo načenjata člena 85 in 86 (danes člena 81 in 82) Pogodbe.
By judgment dated 28 February 2002, the Court annulled the last sentence of Article 1 of the said Decision on the basis of the ‘manifest error of assessment’, without considering it necessary to examine the other grounds cited in the action.
S sodbo z datumom 28. februar 2002 je Sodišče razglasilo razveljavitev člena 1, zadnji stavek, te odločbe na podlagi očitne napake pri oceni, ne da bi imel za potrebno analizirati ostale možnosti, ki so omenjene v pritožbi.
Having stressed the principles stemming from Community case-law on the degree of product interchangeability, the Court considered that the Commission should have carried out the necessary checks to obtain the relevant data to enable it to distinguish the export agency market from that for the export of French-language books in general.
Sodišče je, potem ko je spomnilo na načela, ki izhajajo iz sodne prakse Skupnosti in se nanašajo na stopnjo medsebojne zamenljivosti proizvodov, menilo, da bi bila morala Komisija začeti s preverjanjem, potrebnim za pridobitev ustreznih podatkov, da bi lahko razločila trg za trgovsko posredovanje od tistega za izvoz knjige v francoskem jeziku na splošno.
The Court found that by failing to carry out such a check the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in selecting the export market for French-language books in general as the reference market, when it was established that the contested aid was intended only for export agencies.
Sodišče ugotavlja, da je Komisija zato, ker tega ni preverila, zagrešila očitno napako pri oceni, s tem ko je obdržala trg za izvoz knjige v francoskem jeziku na splošno kot referenčni trg, medtem ko je bilo določeno, da je bila sporna podpora namenjena samo izvoznim posrednikom.
The Court concluded that under these conditions the Commission was not able to assess appropriately the effects of the contested aid on the relevant market and therefore annuls the last sentence of Article 1 of Decision 1999/133/EC on this basis.
Sodišče je sklenilo, da je bila Komisija v takih okoliščinah nesposobna koristno oceniti posledice spornih podpor na ustreznem trgu, in na tej podlagi razglaša razveljavitev člena 1, zadnji stavek, odločbe 1999/133/ES.
The French authorities applied to the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 September 1998 for Decision 1999/133/EC to be annulled, since it had set aside the application in the case in point of Article 90(2) (now Article 86(2)) of the Treaty.
Sicer pa so francoske oblasti predložile zadevo Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti 8. septembra 1998 z namenom razveljavitve odločbe 1999/133/ES, ker je odstranila v tem primeru uporabo člena 90, odstavek 2 (danes člen 86, odstavek 2) Pogodbe.
According to France, the disputed aid was intended to offset the costs of a service of general economic interest which had been assigned to CELF by the Ministry of Culture.
Po mnenju Francije so sporne podpore dejansko imele za cilj nadomestiti stroške storitve v splošnem gospodarskem interesu, ki je bila zaupana zadrugi CELF s strani Ministrstva za kulturo.
The French Government argued that under Article 92 and Article 93(2) and (3) (now Article 87 and Article 88(2) and (3)) of the Treaty, contrary to an existing aid, a new aid cannot be implemented before it has been declared compatible with the common market, except where the eligible undertaking qualifies for the derogations provided for in Article 90(2).
Francoska vlada je trdila, da izhaja iz člena 92 in člena 93, odstavka 2 in 3 (danes člen 87 in člen 88, odstavka 2 in 3) Pogodbe, da se, v nasprotju z obstoječo podporo, ne more izvesti nove podpore, preden ne bo proglašena za združljivo s skupnim trgom, razen v primeru, ko je podjetje, ki izpolnjuje ukrepe, zmožno izpolnjevati pogoje za izjeme predvidene v členu 90, odstavek 2, Pogodbe.
France defended the view that the obligation of suspension was ‘necessarily’ inapplicable in the case of aid allocated to an undertaking responsible for administering a service of general economic interest.
Francija je zagovarjala stališče „nujne“ neuporabnosti obveznosti do odloga v primeru dodeljenih podpor nekemu podjetju, ki je zadolženo za vodenje storitve v splošnem gospodarskem interesu.
The Court, in its judgment of 22 June 2000 [11], rejected the French claim without going into the substance of the case, having stressed the importance of the safeguard mechanism introduced by the last sentence of Article 93(3) (now Article 88(3)) of the Treaty.
Sodišče v svoji sodbi z dne 22. junija 2000 [11], ovrže francosko utemeljevanje, ne da bi se dotaknilo bistva zadeve, potem ko je spomnilo na pomembnost zaščitnega mehanizma, ki ga uvaja zadnji stavek člena 93, odstavek 3 (danes člen 88, odstavek 3) Pogodbe.
It stated that the fact that a Member State considers an aid to be compatible with the common market does not entitle it ‘to defy the clear provisions of Article 93 of the Treaty’.
Sodišče pojasnjuje, da dejstvo, da neka država članica meni, da je neka podpora skladna s skupnim trgom, še ne pooblašča to državo „da gre preko jasnih določb člena 93“.
Consequently, the Court rejected the French action and confirmed that the obligation of prior notification and the suspensive effect attaching to it are applied in an inseparable manner, since the fact that an aid may be covered by Article 86 of the EC Treaty has no bearing on the obligation to notify.
Zato Sodišče zavrne pritožbo Francije in potrdi, da se obveznost predhodne prijave in posledica odloga, ki se veže nanjo, uporabljata nerazdružljivo. Dejstvo, da gre za podporo, ki izpolnjuje določbe člena 86 pogodbe, ne vpliva na obveznost prijave.
Lastly, SIDE lodged a complaint on 5 October 1999 with the Commission against CELF for restrictive practice and abuse of a dominant position under Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty.
Končno je družba SIDE 5. oktobra 1999 vložila tožbo na Komisiji proti zadrugi CELF zaradi posedovanja in izrabljanja vodilnega položaja na podlagi določb členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe.
SIDE also mentioned France as responsible under Article 10 of the Treaty, since it had encouraged the said anti-competitive practices.
Družba SIDE prav tako omenja odgovornost Francije v skladu s členom 10 Pogodbe, ker je podpirala te protikonkurenčne prakse.
This matter is being treated separately by the competent services of the Commission.
Ta dokument obravnavajo ločeno pristojne službe Komisije.
THIRD STAGE OF THE PROCEDURE
C/ Tretja faza postopka
Following the partial annulment of Decision 1999/133/EC, the Commission asked the French authorities and SIDE by letters dated 14 June 2002 to give their views on the reasons for the annulment of the decision and, in particular, on the aspects relating to the relevant market.
Po delni razveljavitvi odločbe 1999/133/ES je Komisija prosila francoske oblasti in družbo SIDE, s pošto z dne 14. junija 2002, naj se izrazijo glede razlogov za razveljavitev odločbe in še posebej glede podatkov, ki se nanašajo na obravnavani trg.