natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
aid measures which prior to the date of accession were assessed by the State aid monitoring authority of Hungary and found to be compatible with the acquis, and to which the Commission did not raise an objection on the ground of serious doubts as to the compatibility of the measure with the common market.
ukrepi pomoči, ki jih je pred datumom pristopa ocenil madžarski organ za nadzor državne pomoči in za katere je ugotovil, da so združljivi s pravnim redom, ter ki jim Komisija ni nasprotovala na podlagi resnih dvomov o združljivosti ukrepa s skupnim trgom.
Annex IV.3 further provides that all measures still applicable after the date of accession which constitute State aid and which do not fulfil the conditions set out above shall be considered as new aid upon accession for the purpose of the application of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
Za uporabo člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES Priloga IV.3 nadalje določa, da se štejejo vsi ukrepi, ki veljajo tudi po pristopu, pomenijo državno pomoč in ne izpolnjujejo zgoraj določenih pogojev, za novo pomoč ob pristopu.
The measure at hand was not put in place before 10 December 1994; it was not listed in the Appendix to Annex IV.3 of the Act of Accession; and neither was it covered by the interim mechanism procedure upon accession.
Zadevni ukrep ni bil vzpostavljen pred 10. decembrom 1994, ni bil naveden v Dodatku iz Priloge IV.3 k Aktu o pristopu ter ga postopek začasnega mehanizma ob pristopu ni vključeval.
The Hungarian authorities and the American Chamber of Commerce consider that this Annex contains only provisions about aid put into effect and reviewed prior to the date of accession referred to in Article 1(b)(i) of the procedural regulation [45].
Madžarski organi in Ameriška gospodarska zbornica menijo, da ta priloga vsebuje le določbe o pomoči, ki so začele veljati in so bile pregledane pred datumom pristopa iz člena 1(b)(i) Postopkovne uredbe [45].
As a consequence, the rules set forth in Article 1(b)(ii)-(v) of the Regulation should also be taken into account for the purpose of identifying existing aid.
Zaradi tega je treba za opredelitev obstoječe pomoči upoštevati tudi pravila iz člena 1(b)(ii)–(v) Uredbe.
The Commission agrees with this interpretation of Annex IV to the Act of Accession.
Komisija se strinja s to razlago Priloge IV k Aktu o pristopu.
Such an interpretation is confirmed by the wording of Article 1(b)(i) of the procedural regulation.
To razlago potrjuje besedilo člena 1(b)(i) Postopkovne uredbe.
As a consequence, it considers that the existing character of the aid should be assessed pursuant to Article 1(b)(ii)-(v) of the procedural regulation.
Zato Komisija meni, da je treba obstoječo naravo pomoči oceniti v skladu s členom 1(b)(ii)–(v) Postopkovne uredbe.
With respect to the application of Article 1(b)(ii) and (iii), the Commission does not agree with Hungary on the fact that the measure at stake was authorized by the Commission, since it was not notified pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 2 of the procedural regulation.
V zvezi z uporabo člena 1(b)(ii) in (iii) se Komisija ne strinja z Madžarsko glede dejstva, da je zadevni ukrep odobrila Komisija, ker ni bil priglašen v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES in členom 2 Postopkovne uredbe.
The Commission considers that Article 1(b)(iv) does not apply either as the aid granted under the scheme is not covered by the limitation period of ten years.
Komisija meni, da se prav tako ne uporablja člen 1(b)(iv), ker pomoč, ki je dodeljena v skladu s shemo, ni vključena v zastaralni rok desetih let.
As regards Article 1(b)(v), this provision does not apply as such in the case at hand, since it cannot be considered that at the time the intra-group interest scheme was put into effect it did not constitute aid and became aid owing to the evolution of the market.
V zvezi s členom 1(b)(v) ta določba kot taka ne velja v zadevnem primeru, ker se ne more šteti, da ukrep v času začetka veljavnosti sheme obresti znotraj skupine ni pomenil pomoči in je postal pomoč zaradi razvoja skupnega trga.
However, the Commission notes that the measure under examination bears some similarities to the Belgian Coordination Centre (BCC) scheme.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da so obravnavani ukrepi nekoliko podobni shemi belgijskega centra za usklajevanje.
In this respect, it is worth recalling the previous Commission decisions of 2 May 1984 [46] and 9 March 1987 where the Commission ruled that the Belgian scheme was not aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti na prejšnje odločbe Komisije z dne 2. maja 1984 [46] in 9. marca 1987, v katerih je Komisija odločila, da belgijska shema ni pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Similarly to the Belgian Coordination Centres scheme which was exclusively applicable to multinational companies, the Commission found on the basis of the data provided by the Hungarian authorities that the main beneficiaries of the scheme were also multinational companies.
Podobno kot za shemo belgijskih centrov za usklajevanje, ki se je uporabljala izključno za večnacionalne družbe, je Komisija na podlagi podatkov madžarskih organov ugotovila, da so bili glavni upravičenci sheme prav tako večnacionalne družbe.
In addition the Hungarian scheme has other similarities with the Belgian scheme in that both of the measures concern the taxation of intra-group activities.
Poleg tega ima madžarska shema še druge podobnosti z belgijsko shemo, pri čemer oba ukrepa zadevata obdavčitev dejavnosti znotraj skupine.
As a consequence, the qualification as aid of this type of measure related to intra-group activities was not self-evident at the time it was put into effect.
Zato uvrstitev takšnega ukrepa v zvezi z dejavnostmi znotraj skupine med pomoč ni bila samoumevna, ko je začela veljati.
Hungary points out that the Hungarian State Aid Monitoring Office (SAMO) examined the measure in the summer of 2002, prior to its adoption.
Madžarska poudarja, da je madžarski urad za nadzor državne pomoči ukrep proučil poleti 2002, preden je bil sprejet.
Despite the fact that the measure did constitute State aid at the time it was implemented, the Commission considers that owing to the very specific circumstances of the case at hand, in particular the pre-accession context and the previous Commission decisions in 1984 and 1987 on the Belgian scheme, the Hungarian State Aid Monitoring Office had no reason to consider that the measure constituted aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, especially since the measure was adopted before the Commission reconsidered its position on the Belgian scheme [47].
Kljub dejstvu, da je ukrep v času izvajanja pomenil državno pomoč, Komisija meni, da zaradi zelo posebnih okoliščin zadevnega primera, zlasti predpristopnega okvira in prejšnjih odločb Komisije iz let 1984 in 1987 o belgijski shemi, madžarski urad za nadzor državne pomoči ni imel razloga, da šteje ukrep za državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, zlasti ker je bil ukrep sprejet, še preden je Komisija ponovno obravnavala svoje stališče glede belgijske sheme [47].
It is therefore considered that there is a body of exceptional circumstances suggesting that the Hungarian authorities may have been misled in thinking that the measure did not constitute State aid in a pre-accession context.
Zato se šteje, da obstaja vrsta izjemnih okoliščin, na podlagi katerih se domneva, da so bili madžarski organi zavedeni pri mišljenju, da ukrep ni pomenil državne pomoči v predpristopnem okviru.
In such circumstances, at the time the measure was adopted, Hungary had valid reasons not to submit the measure to the Commission as provided for under the interim mechanism procedure laid down in Annex IV to the Act of Accession.
V takih okoliščinah in v času sprejetja ukrepa je Madžarska imela utemeljene razloge, da ukrepa ni predložila Komisiji v skladu s postopkom začasnega mehanizma iz Priloge IV k Aktu o pristopu.
The Commission further notes that following Hungary accession to the EU, neither the scope of the measure nor the importance of the advantage conferred were altered in a substantial way.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da se po pristopu Madžarske k EU nista bistveno spremenila niti področje uporabe ukrepa niti pomembnost dodeljene prednosti.
It is true that, as mentioned in recital 14 of the present decision, some modifications were introduced.
Res je, da je bilo uvedenih nekaj sprememb, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 14 te odločbe.
However, they mainly consisted in technical adaptations relating to either the inclusion of certain types of companies that did not exist in Hungary before accession (European companies and European cooperative societies), or the exclusions of certain other types of companies which were abolished (venture capital companies).
Te spremembe so večinoma zadevale tehnične prilagoditve v zvezi z vključitvijo nekaterih vrst družb, ki na Madžarskem niso obstajale pred pristopom (evropske družbe in evropske zadruge), ali izključitvijo nekaterih drugih vrst družb, ki so bile ukinjene (družbe s tveganim kapitalom).
The measure at stake was thus not substantially altered following Hungary’s accession to the European Union, and must thus be considered as existing aid.
Zadevni ukrep se zato po pristopu Madžarske Evropski uniji ni bistveno spremenil in se mora zaradi tega šteti za obstoječo pomoč.
Owing to the peculiarities of the case at hand and the pre-accession context described above, the intra-group interest scheme must be considered as an existing aid scheme by analogy to Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Zaradi posebnosti obravnavane zadeve in zgoraj opisanega predpristopnega okvira se mora shema obresti znotraj skupine šteti za obstoječo shemo pomoči po analogiji s členom 1(b)(v) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999.
Since the procedure regarding existing aid schemes is laid down in Articles 17 to 19 of the same regulation, the present procedure initiated on 21 March 2007 is redundant.
Ker je postopek v zvezi z obstoječimi shemami pomoči določen v členih 17–19 navedene uredbe, je ta postopek, ki je bil uveden 21. marca 2007, nepotreben.
Since the Hungarian authorities already enacted the repeal of the scheme as from 1 January 2010, the Commission does not see the need to start the cooperation procedure provided for in Article 17 of the procedural regulation,
Ker so madžarski organi že sprejeli razveljavitev sheme s 1. januarjem 2010, Komisija ne vidi potrebe po začetku postopka sodelovanja, določenega v členu 17 Postopkovne uredbe –
The Commission decision of 21 March 2007 opening the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the scheme implemented by Hungary for the taxation of intra-group interest is redundant, since the scheme in question must be considered as an existing aid scheme.
Odločba Komisije z dne 21. marca 2007, ki sproža postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES glede sheme, ki jo izvaja Madžarska za obdavčitev obresti znotraj skupine, je nepotrebna, ker se mora zadevna shema šteti za obstoječo shemo pomoči.
OJ C 142, 27.6.2007, p. 12.
UL C 142, 27.6.2007, str. 12.
For example, if a company receives interest of 100 from affiliated companies and pays interest of 60 to affiliated companies, the balance is 40, which is the net interest received.
Na primer, če družba od povezanih družb prejme obresti v višini 100 enot in povezanim družbam plača obresti v višini 60 enot, je razlika 40 enot, kar je znesek prejetih čistih obresti.
If a company receives interest of 100 from affiliated companies, while it pays interest of 160 to affiliated companies, the balance is 60, which is the net interest paid.
Če družba od povezanih družb prejme obresti v višini 100 enot in povezanim družbam plača obresti v višini 160 enot, je razlika 60 enot, kar je znesek plačanih čistih obresti.
Article 4(23) of Act LXXXI of 1996 on Corporate Tax and Dividend Tax.
Člen 4(23) Zakona LXXXI iz leta 1996 o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb in davku od dividend.
Article 7(14) of the Act LXXXI of 1996 on Corporate Tax and Dividend Tax.
Člen 7(14) Zakona LXXXI iz leta 1996 o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb in davku od dividend.
Article 29/D(15) of the Act LXXXI of 1996 on Corporate Tax and Dividend Tax.
Člen 29/D(15) Zakona LXXXI iz leta 1996 o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb in davku od dividend.
Hungarian Forint — approximate exchange rate for the years concerned is HUF 250 for EUR 1.
Madžarski forint – približen devizni tečaj za zadevna leta je 250 HUF za 1 EUR.
No information has been provided by Hungary for the following years.
Madžarska za naslednja leta ni predložila informacij.
Recital 82 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities, (OJ L 180, 18.7.2003, p. 52).
Uvodna izjava 82 Odločbe Komisije 2003/515/ES z dne 17. februarja 2003 o ureditvi pomoči, ki jo izvaja Nizozemska za dejavnosti mednarodnega financiranja (UL L 180, 18.7.2003, str. 52).
Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (OJ L 177, 30.6.2006, p. 1).
Direktiva 2006/48/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 14. junija 2006 o začetku opravljanja in opravljanju dejavnosti kreditnih institucij (UL L 177, 30.6.2006, str. 1).
C-308/01 GIL Insurance Ltd and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2004] ECR I-4777.
Zadeva C-308/01, GIL Insurance Ltd in drugi proti Commissioners of Customs & Excise, Recueil 2004, str. I-4777.
Commission Decision in Case N 354/04 — Ireland, Company Holding Regime (OJ C 131, 28.5.2005, p. 11).
Odločba Komisije v zadevi N 354/2004 – Irska, Režim holdinške družbe (UL C 131, 28.5.2005, str. 11).
Commission Decision 2003/755/EC of 17 February 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ L 282, 30.10.2003, p. 25).
Odločba Komisije 2003/755/ES z dne 17. februarja 2003 o ukrepu pomoči, ki jo je Belgija namenila centrom za usklajevanje s sedežem v Belgiji (UL L 282, 30.10.2003, str. 25).
OJ C 63, 11.3.1991, p. 37.
UL C 63, 11.3.1991, str. 37.
Judgment of 27 November 2004 in Case T-190/00 Regione Siciliana v Commission, [2003] ECR II-5015, paragraph 136; see Case 120/73 Gebrüder Lorenz GmbH v Germany et Land de Rhénanie-Palatinat [1973] ECR-1471, paragraph 4.
Sodba z dne 27. novembra 2004 v zadevi T-190/00, Regione Siciliana proti Komisiji, Recueil 2003, str. II-5015, točka 136; glej zadevo 120/73, Gebrüder Lorenz GmbH proti Nemčiji in zvezni deželi Porenje-Pfalško, Recueil 1973, str. 1471, točka 4.
Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Kingdom of Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2003] ECR I-6887, paragraph 147.
Združeni zadevi C-182/03 in C-217/03, Kraljevina Belgija in Forum 187 proti Komisiji, Recueil 2003, str. I-6887, točka 147.
Case 265/85 Van den Bergh en Jurgens BV et Van Dijk Food Products (Lopik) BV v Commission [1987] ECR 1155, paragraph 44.
Zadeva 265/85, Van den Bergh en Jurgens BV in Van Dijk Food Products (Lopik) BV proti Komisiji, Recueil 1987, str. 1155, točka 44.
Paragraphs 27-28 of Commission Decision 2001/168/ECSC of 31 October 2000 on Spain’s corporation tax laws (OJ L 60, 1.3.2001, p. 57).
Odstavka 27 in 28 Odločbe Komisije 2001/168/ESPJ z dne 31. oktobra 2000 o španskih zakonih o davku na dohodke pravnih oseb (UL L 60, 1.3.2001, str. 57).
Paragraph 43 of the English version, of Commission Decision 2003/512/EC of 5 September 2002 on the aid scheme implemented by Germany for Control and Coordination Centres, (OJ L 177, 16.7.2003, p. 17).
Odstavek 43 angleške različice Odločbe Komisije 2003/512/ES z dne 5. septembra 2002 o sistemih pomoči, ki jih je Nemčija izvajala v korist nadzornih centrov in centrov za usklajevanje (UL L 177, 16.7.2003, str. 17).
Commission Decision 2003/81/EC (OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 26) and Commission Decision 2003/501/EC (OJ L 170, 9.7.2003, p. 20).
Odločba Komisije 2003/81/ES (UL L 31, 6.2.2003, str. 26) in Odločba Komisije 2003/501/ES (UL L 170, 9.7.2003, str. 20).
Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Kingdom of Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2003] ECR I-6887, paragraph 149.
Združeni zadevi C-182/03 in C-217/03, Kraljevina Belgija in Forum 187 proti Komisiji, Recueil 2003, str. I-6887, točka 149.
Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities (OJ L 180, 18.7.2003, p. 52).
Odločba Komisije 2003/515/ES z dne 17. februarja 2003 o ureditvi pomoči, ki jo izvaja Nizozemska za dejavnosti mednarodnega financiranja, (UL L 180, 18.7.2003, str. 52).
The number of potential beneficiaries is based on a rough estimate as there is no data about the exact number of companies eligible to apply the measure, since tax authorities have no information about the number of taxpayers having affiliated companies.
Število morebitnih upravičencev temelji na grobi oceni, ker ni podatkov o točnem številu družb, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje za uporabo ukrepa, saj davčna uprava nima informacij o številu davčnih zavezancev povezanih družb.
By undertakings potentially applying the measure, Hungary means every undertaking that is not a micro or small enterprise, a credit institution, an investment company or an insurance company, irrespective of whether it is an affiliated company or not.
Med podjetja, ki bi lahko uporabila ukrep, Madžarska šteje vsako podjetje, ki ni mikrodružba ali malo podjetje, kreditna institucija, investicijska družba ali zavarovalnica, ne glede na to, ali je povezana družba ali ne.
In 2006 the total number of companies subject to the Act LXXXI of 1996 on Corporate Tax and Dividend Tax was 316498.
Leta 2006 je Zakon LXXXI iz leta 1996 o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb in davku od dividend veljal za 316498 družb.
The data relating to the following years were not provided by the Hungarian authorities.
Podatkov v zvezi z naslednjimi leti niso predložili madžarski organi.
These benefits include extra amortization deductions on certain investments such as real estate, machinery, vehicles, and intellectual property; special allowances for certain employee salaries; and exemption from innovation tax.
Te ugodnosti vključujejo dodatna znižanja amortizacije za nekatere naložbe, kot so nepremičnine, stroji, vozila in intelektualna lastnina; posebne dodatke za plače nekaterih uslužbencev; ter oprostitev davka na inovacije.
See, inter alia, Case C-487/06 P British Aggregates v Commission [2008] paragraph 82; Case C-409/00 Spain v Commission [2003] ECR I-1487, paragraph 47; Case C-88/03 Portugal v Commission [2006] ECR I-7115, paragraph 54; and Joined Cases C-428/06 to C-434/06 UGT-Rioja and Others, not yet published, paragraph 46.
Glej med drugim zadevo C-487/06, P British Aggregates proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2008, točka 82; zadevo C-409/00, Španija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2003, str. I-1487, točka 47; zadevo C-88/03, Portugalska proti Komisiji, Recueil 2006, str. I-7115, točka 54; in združene zadeve od C-428/06 do C-434/06, UGT-Rioja in druge, še neobjavljeno, točka 46.
See for instance Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723, paragraph 79; Case C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR I-4551, paragraph 20; Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR I-3671, paragraph 25; and Case C-409/00 Spain v Commission [2003] ECR I-10901, paragraph 46.
Glej na primer zadevo C-56/93, Belgija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1996, str. I-723, točka 79; zadevo C-241/94, Francija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1996, str. I-4551, točka 20; zadevo C-75/97, Belgija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1999, str. I-3671, točka 25; in zadevo C-409/00, Španija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2003, str. I-10901, točka 46.
See for instance Case C-66/02 Italy v Commission [2005] ECR I-10901, paragraph 101.
Glej na primer zadevo C-66/02, Italija proti Komisiji, ZOdl 2005, str. I-10901, točka 101.
OJ C 384, 10.12.1998, p. 3
UL C 384, 10.12.1998, str. 3.
See paragraphs (15) to (17) of the opening decision.
Glej odstavke od (15) do (17) uvodne odločbe.
Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709, paragraphs 22-33.
Zadeva 173/73, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1974, str. 709, točki 22 in 23.
In this regard, it must be observed that, in its assessment of the tax regime for coordination centres established in Belgium (see Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03, paragraphs 86 to 118), the Court of Justice considered that the flat-rate assessment of income under the cost-plus method constitutes an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 87 of the EC Treaty and that ‘that analysis cannot be called into question either by the fact that the inclusion of the financial charges could, in some cases, lead to a tax base that was unduly high or by the scale of the tax burden that might be imposed on the group, nor can it be called into question by the fact that a centre may be taxed when it has not made any profits’.
V tej zvezi je treba upoštevati, da je v svoji oceni davčne ureditve za centre za usklajevanje s sedežem v Belgiji (glej združeni zadevi C-182/03 in C-217/03, točke od 86 do 118) Sodišče menilo, da pavšalno obračunavanje davka od dohodka po metodi dodatka na stroške pomeni gospodarsko prednost za namene člena 87 Pogodbe ES in da „v to analizo ni mogoče dvomiti niti zaradi dejstva, da bi lahko vključitev finančnih dajatev v nekaterih primerih povzročila neupravičeno visoko davčno osnovo, niti zaradi obsega davčne obremenitve, ki bi utegnila biti naložena skupini, prav tako pa v to analizo ni mogoče dvomiti zaradi dejstva, da bi lahko bil center obdavčen, če ne ustvari dobička“.
The Court further considered that the exemption from property tax in favour of coordination centres conferred an economic advantage on them and that ‘the fact that only 5 % of the coordination centres benefit from it in practice, as all the others hold their buildings under lease, does not affect that assessment, since the choice between owning a building and leasing it is a matter entirely at the discretion of the centres.’
Sodišče je nadalje menilo, da oprostitev centrov za usklajevanje od plačila davka na nepremičnine tem centrom daje gospodarsko prednost in da „okoliščina, da ugodnosti te oprostitve dejansko uživa le 5 % centrov za usklajevanje, ker so vsi ostali najemniki nepremičnin, na to presojo ne vpliva, ker je izbira med lastništvom in najemom nepremičnine povsem stvar odločitve navedenih centrov.“
Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraph 30, and the case law cited therein.
Zadeva C-156/98, Nemčija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2000, str. I-6857, točka 30, in sodna praksa, navedena v zadevi.
Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671, paragraphs 11 and 12.
Zadeva 730/79, Philip Morris proti Komisiji, Recueil 1980, str. 2671, točki 11 in 12.
Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraphs 44 and 45, and, on the unlawfulness of the scheme at issue, paragraphs 153-155.
Zadeva C-372/97, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2004, str. I-3679, točki 44 in 45, ter o nezakonitosti zadevne sheme v točkah 153-155.
Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Uredba (ES) št. 659/1999.
Although this decision was not published, it was referred to in the 14th Competition Report and in an answer to a parliamentary question published in 1991 that the Commission had not lodged any objections to the scheme in question.
Čeprav ta odločba ni bila objavljena, se je nanjo sklicevalo 14. poročilo o konkurenci in odgovor na parlamentarno vprašanje, objavljeno leta 1991, da Komisija ni vložila nobenega ugovora na zadevno shemo.
It should be noted that in the case of existing aid, only final decisions of the Commission produce legal effects (see Case T-276/02 Forum 187 asbl v Commission).
Opozoriti je treba, da imajo v primeru obstoječe pomoči pravne učinke le končne odločbe Komisije (glej zadevo T-276/02, Forum 187 asbl proti Komisiji).
Comments were submitted by the American Chamber of Commerce in Hungary on 20 July 2007, by the Netherlands on 26 July 2007 and by MOL Plc on 26 July 2007.
Ameriška gospodarska zbornica na Madžarskem je pripombe predložila 20. julija 2007, Nizozemska 26. julija 2007 in družba MOL Plc 26. julija 2007.
These comments were forwarded to the Republic of Hungary, which replied by e-mail dated 6 September 2007.
Te pripombe so bile posredovane Republiki Madžarski, ki je odgovorila v elektronski pošti z dne 6. septembra 2007.