natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Decision 2003/757/EC recognised for all the coordination centres the existence of a legitimate expectation based on the 10-year duration of the authorisations in force on the date of notification of that Decision and defined the appropriate transitional period on that same basis.
Odločba 2003/757/ES je priznavala upravičeno pričakovanje centrov za usklajevanje na podlagi trajanja potrditev, odobrenih za 10 let, ki se na datum vročitve zadevne odločbe še niso iztekle, in na isti podlagi opredelila ustrezno prehodno obdobje.
The Court ruled that, in the case of a scheme that had become permanent, renewal of authorisation was a simple administrative formality.
Sodišče je menilo, da je bila obnovitev potrditve v okviru sheme, ki je postala stalna, le upravna formalnost.
The coordination centres could, therefore, legitimately expect to benefit from an appropriate transitional period and, as expiry of their authorisation approached, they could also expect to have their authorisation renewed so that they could benefit from that appropriate transitional period.
Centri za usklajevanje so lahko torej upravičeno pričakovali, da bodo upravičeni do ustreznega prehodnega obdobja, in so lahko pred iztekom njihove potrditve pričakovali tudi, da bodo pri obnovitvi navedene potrditve upravičeni do tega ustreznega prehodnega obdobja.
As indicated in paragraphs (31) to (34), the Court also ruled that the granting of different transitional periods as a function of the date of expiry of the authorisations amounted to an inequality of treatment.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah (31) do (34), je Sodišče prav tako menilo, da bi odobritev različnih prehodnih obdobij glede na datum izteka potrditev povzročila neenako obravnavanje.
The Commission concludes from this that it should have fixed a single — appropriate — transitional period for all the coordination centres.
Komisija ugotavlja, da bi morala predvideti enotno ustrezno prehodno obdobje za vse centre za usklajevanje.
However, the Court annulled the definition of the transitional measure contained in Decision 2003/757/EC only insofar as the measure was insufficient, i.e. shorter than the appropriate transitional period, for certain coordination centres with authorisations due to expire shortly.
Vendar je Sodišče razveljavilo opredelitev prehodnega ukrepa iz Odločbe 2003/757/ES le, če to obdobje ni bilo ustrezno, kar pomeni, da je bilo krajše od ustreznega prehodnega obdobja, in sicer za nekatere centre za usklajevanje, katerih potrditev bi se kmalu iztekla.
As it has already explained, the Commission considers that the annulment pronounced by the Court relates only to the coordination centres with authorisation renewed between 17 February 2003 and 31 December 2005 and that the appropriate transitional period ended on 31 December 2005.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, Komisija ocenjuje, da je razveljavitev, ki jo je sprejelo Sodišče, zadevala le centre za usklajevanje, katerih potrditev se je obnovila med 17. februarjem 2003 in 31. decembrom 2005, ter da se je ustrezno prehodno obdobje končalo 31. decembra 2005.
Consequently, the Commission considers that the Court's judgment did not annul the definition of the transitional period contained in Decision 2003/757/EC for the coordination centres with an authorisation still running on 17 February 2003 and due to expire on 31 December 2005 or at a later date.
Zato Komisija meni, da se s sodbo Sodišča ni razveljavila opredelitev prehodnega obdobja iz Odločbe 2003/757/ES za centre za usklajevanje, katerih potrditev, ki je veljala 17. februarja 2003, bi se iztekla 31. decembra 2005 ali pozneje.
Although, in the light of the Court's judgment, the Commission now takes the view that the transitional period set for those coordination centres was too long, it notes that, inasmuch as it provides for a transitional period ending for each centre concerned on the expiry of the authorisation in force on the date of its notification, Decision 2003/757/EC has not been annulled and is still, therefore, applicable.
Čeprav Komisija ob upoštevanju sodbe Sodišča zdaj meni, da je bilo prehodno obdobje, določeno za te centre za usklajevanje, predolgo, ugotavlja, da Odločba 2003/757/ES, ker predvideva prehodno obdobje, ki se za vse zadevne centre konča na datum izteka potrditve, veljavne na datum vročitve Odločbe 2003/757/ES, ni bila razveljavljena in se torej še naprej uporablja.
Accordingly, in so far as Decision 2003/757/EC is still applicable, it does not allow the Commission to shorten the duration of the transitional period as fixed in that Decision for the coordination centres concerned.
Ker Odločba 2003/757/ES še vedno velja, ne dovoljuje, da bi Komisija za zadevne centre za usklajevanje skrajšala trajanje prehodnega obdobja iz navedene odločbe.
Any Commission decision introducing for all the coordination centres an identical transitional period ending on 31 December 2005 would, moreover, be deprived of any practical effect on account of the legitimate expectation raised by Decision 2003/757/EC for the coordination centres referred to in paragraph (62).
Nobena odločba Komisije, s katero bi se za vse centre za usklajevanje določilo enotno prehodno obdobje, ki bi se končalo 31. decembra 2005, ne bi imela praktičnega učinka zaradi upravičenega pričakovanja centrov za usklajevanje iz uvodne izjave (62), ki izhaja iz Odločbe 2003/757/ES.
Status of the Law of 27 December 2006
Stanje zakona z dne 27. decembra 2006
The Commission notes that, although it did not notify the provisions of the Law of 27 December 2006 extending the authorisations of all the coordination centres until the end of 2010, Belgium suspended its entry into force pending explicit approval of the scheme by the Commission.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Belgija, čeprav ni priglasila določb zakona z dne 27. decembra 2006 o odobritvi podaljšanja potrditev za vse centre za usklajevanje do konca leta 2010, odložila začetek njegove veljavnosti, dokler Komisija ne bo jasno odobrila te sheme.
For the reasons set out below, the Commission takes the view that it is unable to approve those provisions and thus calls on Belgium not to apply them.
Komisija na podlagi razlogov iz tega oddelka meni, da teh določb ne more odobriti, in zato poziva Belgijo, naj jih ne uporablja.
At the end of 2005, with the exception of the authorisations for the four coordination centres referred to in Section 4, the authorisations that were renewed on the basis of the order of 26 June 2003 expired.
Konec leta 2005 so se iztekle potrditve, obnovljene na podlagi sklepa z dne 26. junija 2003, razen potrditev štirih centrov za usklajevanje, ki so obravnavani v oddelku 4.
Apparently, no further extension was envisaged, either by Belgium or by the coordination centres, until the judgment was delivered on 22 June 2006.
Očitno niti Belgija niti centri za usklajevanje niso predvideli nobenega dodatnega podaljšanja do izdaje sodbe 22. junija 2006.
The new legal basis for the renewal of all the coordination centres' authorisations until the end of 2010 was not adopted until 27 December 2006, i.e. one year after the expiry of the said authorisations.
Nova pravna podlaga, ki omogoča obnovitev potrditev vseh centrov za usklajevanje do konca leta 2010, je bila sprejeta šele 27. decembra 2006, kar je eno leto po izteku navedenih potrditev.
The Law also allows retroactive application, where appropriate to undertakings no longer covered by the coordination centre scheme.
Ta zakon med drugim omogoča uporabo za nazaj, po potrebi za podjetja, ki so medtem izgubila pravico do sheme centrov za usklajevanje.
Unlike Belgium, the Commission regards the Law of 27 December 2006 not as an act that simply implements the judgment of 22 June 2006 with regard to the existing measure, but as a new scheme which, if it entered into force without the prior approval of the Commission, would probably trigger the procedure applicable to unlawful aid.
Komisija v nasprotju z Belgijo meni, da zakon z dne 27. decembra 2006 ne pomeni le izvršitve sodbe z dne 22 junija 2006 v okviru obstoječega ukrepa, ampak novo shemo, ki bi, če bi začela veljati brez predhodne odobritve Komisije, verjetno povzročila uporabo postopka, ki velja za nezakonite pomoči.
The judgment of 22 June 2006 confirms the incompatibility of the coordination centre scheme as of the date of notification of Decision 2003/757/EC.
Sodba z dne 22. junija 2006 dejansko potrjuje, da je shema centrov za usklajevanje nezdružljiva od datuma vročitve Odločbe 2003/757/ES.
From that date at the latest, the scheme ceased to be a scheme involving existing aid and the coordination centres are now in the transitional period during which they may continue to benefit from the scheme but may no longer rely on the legitimate expectation based on the Commission decisions or notices in 1984, 1987 and 1990 [30].
Shema najpozneje na dan vročitve ni bila več shema obstoječih pomoči, pri čemer se je za centre za usklajevanje začelo prehodno obdobje, v katerem so bili lahko še naprej upravičeni do sheme, vendar se niso mogli več sklicevati na upravičeno pričakovanje na podlagi odločb ali sporočil Komisije iz leta 1984, 1987 in 1990 [30] kot v preteklosti.
The appeals lodged and the confirmation by the Court, only in June 2006, of the scheme's incompatibility are not apt to alter this fact.
Vložene tožbe in potrditev te nezdružljivosti s strani Sodišča, kar se je zgodilo le junija 2006, ne morejo spremeniti te ugotovitve.
As such, the appeals do not have suspensory effect and the order of 26 June 2003 did not suspend the description of the aid scheme as being incompatible.
Tožbe same po sebi dejansko nimajo odložilnega učinka in s sklepom z dne 26. junija 2003 se ni spremenila ugotovitev, da je shema pomoči nezdružljiva.
For the same reasons, Belgium's legitimate expectation regarding the compatibility of the scheme was infringed at the latest by Decision 2003/757/EC and Belgium knowingly restricted to 31 December 2005 the authorisation extensions granted on the basis of the order of 26 June 2003.
Zaradi istih razlogov se je upravičeno pričakovanje Belgije glede združljivosti sheme centrov za usklajevanje končalo najpozneje z Odločbo 2003/757/ES, pri čemer se je Belgija zavestno odločila, da do 31. decembra 2005 omeji podaljšanja potrditev, odobrenih na podlagi sklepa z dne 26. junija 2003.
The Commission considers a fortiori that the decision taken by Belgium following the Court's judgment definitively confirming the incompatibility of the scheme with the common market to renew upon request the authorisations for all the coordination centres until the end of 2010 cannot form part of the existing measure or even be covered by some legitimate expectation or other raised by the Commission.
Komisija zlasti meni, da odločitev Belgije, da bo na zahtevo obnovila potrditve vseh centrov za usklajevanje do konca leta 2010, ki je bila sprejeta po sodbi Sodišča, s katero se je dokončno potrdila nezdružljivost sheme s skupnim trgom, ne more biti del obstoječega ukrepa in ne more biti predmet nobenega upravičenega pričakovanja, ki bi ga ustvarila Komisija.
In particular, the legitimate expectation raised for the coordination centres with approvals that were renewed on the basis of the order of 26 June 2003 could not be extended to renewals granted under the Law of 27 December 2006.
Upravičeno pričakovanje centrov za usklajevanje, katerih potrditve so bile obnovljene na podlagi sklepa z dne 26. junija 2003, se zlasti ne bi moglo razširiti na obnovitve, odobrene na podlagi zakona z dne 27. decembra 2006.
As they were granted after the date of the Court's judgment as to the substance, they would no longer be covered by the effects of the order of 26 June 2003 and no legitimate expectation would, therefore, flow any longer from the Commission press release of 16 July 2003.
Ker so bile te obnovitve dejansko dodeljene po datumu izdaje sodbe Sodišča o vsebini zadeve, sklep z dne 26. junija 2003 nanje ni več vplival in sporočilo Komisije za javnost z dne 16. julija 2003 ni moglo ustvariti nobenega upravičenega pričakovanja več.
Accordingly, any future extension of the incompatible aid scheme would probably have to be regarded as illegal aid that could be recovered.
Zato bi bilo verjetno treba vsako podaljšanje nezdružljive sheme pomoči, ki bi se odobrilo v prihodnosti, obravnavati kot nezakonito pomoč, za katero se lahko zahteva povračilo.
Comparison with the transitional periods defined in other Commission decisions
Primerjava s prehodnimi obdobji iz drugih odločb Komisije
As stated in paragraph (23), Belgium is also seeking application of the principle of equality of treatment in relation to tax measures which, like the coordination centre scheme, were the subject of a State aid decision.
Kot je bilo navedeno v uvodni izjavi (23), Belgija prav tako zagovarja uporabo načela enakega obravnavanja v zvezi z davčnimi ukrepi, ki so prav tako kot shema centrov za usklajevanje zajeti v odločbi v zvezi z državnimi pomočmi.
Particular reference is made to the schemes for 1929 holding companies in Luxembourg, exempt companies in Gibraltar and the free zone of Madeira, for which the Commission approved transitional measures until 2010 and even authorised new members to join.
Navedene so zlasti sheme tako imenovanih holdinških družb 1929 v Luksemburgu, izvzetih podjetij v Gibraltarju in proste cone na Madeiri, v zvezi s katerimi je Komisija odobrila prehodne ukrepe do leta 2010 in dovolila tudi uporabo sheme za nove upravičence.
The Commission takes the view that each case is special.
Komisija meni, da je vsak primer poseben.
In each of the decisions concerned, the transitional measures were determined in the light of the special characteristics peculiar to each scheme, to its beneficiaries and to the Member State concerned.
V vseh zadevnih odločbah so bili določeni prehodni ukrepi ob upoštevanju posebnih značilnosti posamezne sheme, njenih upravičencev in zadevne države članice.
It considers that it took this same approach in the case of the Belgian coordination centres by fixing in Decision 2003/757/EC for the above reasons the date of the end of the appropriate transitional period at 31 December 2010 at the latest.
Komisija meni, da je enako veljalo za belgijske centre za usklajevanje, pri čemer je bilo v Odločbi 2003/757/ES zaradi že navedenih razlogov določeno, da se ustrezno prehodno obdobje konča najpozneje do 31. decembra 2010.
The Commission notes in particular that the present Decision follows on from a Court judgment which it must carry out.
Komisija zlasti ugotavlja, da je ta odločba v skladu s sodbo Sodišča, ki jo mora izvršiti.
Under no circumstances can it replace implementation of that judgment with a simple comparison of the duration of the transitional measures granted in other cases.
Komisija ne more v nobenem primeru nadomestiti izvršitve te sodbe s preprosto primerjavo trajanja prehodnih ukrepov, odobrenih v drugih primerih.
In addition, without going into a detailed justification as to substance as in the decisions referred to in paragraph (23), the Commission notes as to form that some decisions were taken a long time ago while others were taken much more recently, that some of them authorise new entrants while others do not, and that some of them are subject to conditions.
Poleg tega Komisija poleg izčrpne utemeljitve vsebine zadeve, ki jo je obravnavala v odločbah iz uvodne izjave (23), ugotavlja, da je oblika nekaterih odločb zastarela, oblika drugih pa novejša, da nekatere omogočajo uvedbo novih upravičencev, druge pa ne in da za nekatere veljajo določeni pogoji.
Furthermore, other points of comparison could be used that, in the Commission's opinion, are also valid.
Poleg tega bi se lahko uporabile tudi druge vrste primerjave, ki so po mnenju Komisije prav tako sprejemljive.
For instance, in the case of the Dutch scheme for international financing activities (Concernfinancieringsactiviteiten), which was terminated, also on 17 February 2003, by Commission Decision 2003/515/EC [31], the transitional measures were defined in the same way as for the coordination centres, i.e. on the basis of the expiry of the 10-year authorisations.
Tako so bili v zvezi z norveško shemo financiranja mednarodnih dejavnosti (Concernfinancieringsactiviteiten), ki se je prav tako končala 17. februarja 2003 z Odločbo Komisije 2003/515/ES [31], prehodni ukrepi opredeljeni na enak način kot pri centrih za usklajevanje, in sicer glede na iztek potrditev, odobrenih za 10 let.
Similarly, although they were not the subject of a Commission decision, Belgium terminated the special distribution centre and service centre schemes for all undertakings on 31 December 2005.
Belgija je 31. decembra 2005 prav tako za vsa podjetja ukinila posebne sheme distribucijskih in storitvenih centrov, čeprav niso bili zajeti v nobeno odločbo Komisije.
The relevant administrative circular, published on 20 September 2005, states that those schemes were replaced by the rules on advance decisions introduced on 1 January 2003 (Article 20 of the Law of 24 December 2002).
V upravni okrožnici o tej ukinitvi, ki je bila objavljena 20. septembra 2005, je navedeno, da je te sheme nadomestil sistem sprejemanja predhodnih odločb, vzpostavljen po 1. januarju 2003 (člen 20 zakona z dne 24 decembra 2002).
For these reasons, the Commission considers that it cannot accept the arguments based on a comparison with other cases.
Zato Komisija meni, da ne more sprejeti argumentov, ki temeljijo na primerjavi z drugimi primeri.
Legal uncertainty generated by the Commission's failure to act
Pravna negotovost zaradi neukrepanja Komisije
Belgium considers that a longer transitional period would be justified by the legal uncertainty resulting from the Commission's inability to set promptly new transitional measures following the annulment ordered by the Court.
Belgija meni, da bi bilo daljše prehodno obdobje utemeljeno zaradi pravne negotovosti, ki je posledica nesposobnosti Komisije, da bi določila nove prehodne ukrepe takoj po razveljavitvi s strani Sodišča.
The Commission takes the view that responsibility for the delay referred to cannot be imputed to it.
Komisija meni, da se ji ne sme pripisovati odgovornosti za določitev roka.
First, neither the interpretation given by Belgium nor its resulting intention to extend the authorisation for all the coordination centres until 31 December 2010 has been the subject of a notification — or even of an information memo — to the Commission.
Prvič, Belgija o svoji razlagi in nameri, da bo na podlagi te razlage podaljšala potrditve vseh centrov za usklajevanje do 31. decembra 2010, ni uradno ali drugače obvestila Komisije.
Second, the Commission addressed to Belgium on 4 July 2006 a letter aimed at gathering the information necessary to apply the Court's judgment and to obtain confirmation of the proper implementation of Decision 2003/757/EC, due regard being had to the effects of the order of 26 June 2003 and of the said judgment.
Drugič, Komisija je 4. julija 2006 Belgiji poslala dopis, v katerem je zahtevala potrebne informacije za uporabo sodbe Sodišča in potrditev, da se Odločba 2003/757/ES ustrezno izvaja, ob upoštevanju učinkov sklepa z dne 26. junija 2003 in navedene sodbe.
Since Belgium did not reply, a first reminder was sent on 23 August 2006.
Ker ni bilo odgovora, je Komisija 23. avgusta 2006 poslala prvi opomin.
Despite subsequent reminders, both formal and informal, and although Belgium was, on more than one occasion, given further time in which to reply, the information requested was not sent to the Commission until January 2007.
Komisija je kljub poznejšim uradnim in neuradnim opominom ter določitvi dodatnega roka za predložitev odgovorov prejela zahtevane informacije šele januarja 2007.
It transpires from the explanatory memorandum and from Article 379 of the Law of 27 December 2006 that, on 20 July 2006, the Finance Minister had been instructed to accept as quickly as possible the renewal requests for coordination centres.
Tako je mogoče na podlagi obrazložitve in člena 379 zakona z dne 27. decembra 2006 sklepati, da je bil 20. julija 2006 ministru za finance podeljen mandat, da čim prej odobri prošnje za obnovitev potrditev centrov za usklajevanje.
On the basis of the information at its disposal at the time (see paragraph (21)), the Commission expected Belgium to extend the authorisations for all the coordination centres until the end of 2005, as this would, in the Commission's opinion, correspond to the appropriate transitional period ordered by the Court.
Komisija je na podlagi informacij, ki jih je imela takrat na voljo (glej uvodno izjavo (21)), pričakovala, da bo Belgija podaljšala potrditve vseh centrov za usklajevanje do konca leta 2005, tj. za obdobje, za katerega Komisija meni, da je v skladu z ustreznim prehodnim obdobjem, ki ga zahteva Sodišče.
However, the information provided by Belgium in January 2007 made it clear that Belgium intended to extend the authorisations for all the coordination centres until the end of 2010 on the basis of a law adopted in December 2006 but not notified to the Commission.
Vendar je bilo iz informacij, ki jih je Belgija predložila januarja 2007, razvidno, da Belgija namerava podaljšati potrditve vseh centrov za usklajevanje do konca leta 2010 na podlagi zakona, ki je bil sprejet decembra 2006 in ni bil priglašen Komisiji.
These new facts justified the adoption on 21 March 2007 of the decision extending the procedure and the analysis of the new arguments presented by Belgium and third parties.
Ti novi elementi so upravičili sprejetje odločbe o podaljšanju postopka z dne 21. marca 2007 in analizo novih argumentov, ki so jih predložile Belgija in tretje stranke.
Belgium replied on 16 January 2007 to the questions put by the Commission on 4 July 2006.
Belgija je 16. januarja 2007 predložila odgovore na vprašanja, ki jih je Komisija zastavila 4. julija 2006.
First, the Commission must amend Decision 2003/757/EC to the extent that it was annulled by the Court judgment of 22 June 2006.
Prvič, Komisija mora spremeniti Odločbo 2003/757/ES, ker je bila s sodbo Sodišča z dne 22. junija 2006 razveljavljena.
The Court judgment of 22 June 2006 in Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 annuls Decision 2003/757/EC ‘insofar as it does not lay down transitional measures for those coordination centres with an application for renewal of their authorisation pending on the date on which the contested decision was notified or with an authorisation which expired at the same time as or shortly after the notification of the decision’.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 22. junija 2006 v skupnih zadevah C-182/03 in C-217/03 je razveljavila Odločbo 2003/757/ES, „ker ne predvideva prehodnih ukrepov za centre za usklajevanje, katerih prošnja za obnovitev potrditve je bila na dan vročitve izpodbijane odločbe nerešena ali katerih potrditev se je iztekla sočasno z vročitvijo navedene odločbe ali kmalu po njej“.
Following this judgment, the substantive provisions of Decision 2003/757/EC must be amended so that:
V skladu s to sodbo je treba spremeniti besedilo Odločbe 2003/757/ES na naslednji način:
it provides for special transitional measures for the coordination centres with an application for renewal pending on the date on which that Decision was notified or with an authorisation which expired at the same time as or shortly after the notification of that Decision, i.e. between 18 February 2003 and 31 December 2005;
predvideti je treba posebne prehodne ukrepe za centre za usklajevanje, katerih prošnja za obnovitev potrditve je na dan vročitve te odločbe nerešena ali katerih potrditev se izteče hkrati z vročitvijo navedene odločbe ali kmalu po njej, tj. med 18. februarjem 2003 in 31. decembrom 2005;
it authorises as part of these special transitional measures the coordination centres concerned to benefit from the incompatible state aid scheme until 31 December 2005;
omogočiti je treba, da imajo v okviru teh posebnih prehodnih ukrepov zadevni centri za usklajevanje pravico do uporabe nezdružljive sheme državnih pomoči do 31. decembra 2005;