natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Judgment by the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 in Case T-233/04, Netherlands v Commission (‘the NOx-judgment’), [2008] ECR II-591, judgment of 22 December 2008 in Case C-487/06 P, the British Aggregates Association v Commission, ECR number not available, and judgment of 18 December 2008 in joined Cases T-211/04 and T-215/04, Gibraltar v Commission (‘the Gibraltar judgment’), ECR number not available.
Sodba sodišča prve stopnje z dne 10. aprila 2008 v zadevi T-233/2004 (Nizozemska proti Komisiji („sodba NOx“)), Recueil 2008, str. II-591, sodba z dne 22. decembra 2008 v zadevi C-487/2006 P (British Aggregates Association proti Komisiji), številka Recueil ni na voljo, in sodba z dne 18. decembra 2008 v združenih primerih T-211/04 in T-215/04 (Gibraltar proti Komisiji („Gibraltarska sodba“)), številka Recueil ni na voljo.
The Commission has appealed the Gibraltar judgment, but the appeal does not concern the fact that the analysis must normally contain the three points mentioned.
Komisija se je pritožila na Gibraltarsko sodbo, vendar pritožba ne vpliva na dejstvo, da mora analiza običajno vključevati navedene tri točke.
See footnote 5.
Glej sprotno opombo 5.
It should be noted that the NOx judgment has been appealed by the Commission for its findings on selectivity.
Treba je opozoriti, da se je Komisija pritožila na sodbo NOx zaradi svojih ugotovitev o selektivnosti.
See point 13, first indent, of the Commission notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (OJ C 384, 10.12.1998, p. 3).
Glej točko 13, prva alinea obvestila Komisije o uporabi pravil državnih pomoči za ukrepe, povezane z neposredno obdavčitvijo podjetij (UL C 384, 10.12.1998, str. 3).
For example, heat and electricity production is covered by the EU ETS but not by the tax relief.
Proizvodnja toplote in električne energije je na primer zajeta v sistemu EU ETS, ne pa tudi v oprostitvi davka.
For example, Joint State aid cases C 44/04 and C 47/04 (OJ C 268, 27.9.2006, p. 19) (Slovenia), and State aid case N 22/08 (OJ C 184, 22.7.2008, p. 5) (Sweden).
Na primer združeni zadevi državne pomoči C44/2004 in C47/2004 (UL C 268, 27.9.2006, str. 19 (Slovenija)) in zadeva N 22/2008 (UL C 184, 22.7.2008, str. 5 (Švedska)).
See point 57 of the EAG 2008.
Glej točko 57 EAG 2008.
ECR II-3145.
Recueil, str. II-3145.
In view of the analysis below (recital 52 et seq.), the question whether Article 17(4) of the Energy Taxation Directive extends to the tradable permit scheme under the EU ETS or whether, for the purposes of this provision, the operators in question have to enter into schemes separate therefrom and which are not obligatory under Community law, can be left open.
Glede na analizo v nadaljevanju (uvodna izjava 52 in naslednje) se lahko vprašanje, ali je člen 17(4) Direktive o obdavčitvi energije razširjen na shemo trgovanja s pravicami v sistemu EU ETS oziroma ali morajo za namene te določbe zadevni upravljavci sodelovati v shemah, ki so ločene od tega in niso obvezne po predpisih Skupnosti, pusti odprto.
Green Paper on market-based instrument for environment and related policy purposes (COM(2007) 140 final) (SEC(2007) 388).
Zelena knjiga o tržnih instrumentih za namene okoljske politike in z njo povezanih politik (COM(2007) 140 konč. (SEC(2007) 388)).
Revision of the Energy Taxation Directive is part of the Commission’s legislative and work programme.
Revizija Direktive o obdavčitvi energije je del zakonodajnega in delovnega programa Komisije.
According to the comments by third parties (two Danish companies), such an approach would lead to serious problems with allocation to the correct period, etc., which is due, inter alia, to the fact that the time of the purchase of the allowances does not necessarily have to reflect the time of the energy consumption.
Glede na pripombe tretjih strank (dveh danskih podjetij) bi takšen pristop povzročil resne težave pri razporeditvi v pravo obdobje itd., med drugim zato, ker ni nujno, da obdobje nakupa pravic izraža tudi obdobje, ko je energija porabljena.
Since the decision to open the formal investigation procedure was taken, new Community Guidelines on State aid for Environmental Protection [3] OJ C 82, 1.4.2008, p. 1. (EAG 2008) have been adopted.
Od sprejetja odločitve za sprožitev formalnega postopka so bile sprejete nove smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja (EAG 2008) [3] UL C 82, 1.4.2008, str. 1.
on the restructuring aid for Combus A/S
o pomoči za prestrukturiranje za podjetje COMBUS AS
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarske prostoru in zlasti člena 62(1)(a) Sporazuma,
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above [1], and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z zgoraj navedenimi določbami [1], in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
By letter dated 30 November 2000, the Danish authorities notified their intention to provide financial support to the state owned bus company Combus A/S (hereinafter referred to as ‘Combus’) in association with its sale to Arriva Denmark A/S (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arriva’).
Z dopisom z dne 30. novembra 2000 so danski organi priglasili svojo namero, da zagotovijo finančno pomoč državnemu avtobusnemu podjetju Combus A/S (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Combus) v povezavi z njegovo prodajo podjetju Arriva Denmark A/S (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Arriva).
Prior to the notification, the Commission had received a letter, dated 25 June 1999, and a complaint, dated 11 November 1999, from the trade association ‘Danske Busvognmaend’ [2] in which the association criticised financial support granted to Combus in the past and a possibly forthcoming new financial support.
Pred priglasitvijo je Komisija prejela dopis z dne 25. junija 1999 in pritožbo z dne 11. novembra 1999 od trgovinskega združenja „Danske Busvognmaend“ [2], v katerem je slednje kritiziralo finančno podporo, ki je bila v preteklosti dodeljena podjetju Combus, in morebitno prihodnjo novo finančno podporo.
The Commission requested further information from the Danish authorities by letter dated 15 December 2000, to which the Danish authorities answered by letter dated 18 December 2000.
Komisija je danske organe zaprosila za dodatne informacije z dopisom z dne 15. decembra 2000, na katerega so danski organi odgovorili z dopisom z dne 18. decembra 2000.
The Danish Competition Authority also provided information by letter dated 20 December 2000.
Danski organ, pristojen za konkurenco, je prav tako posredoval informacije z dopisom z dne 20. decembra 2000.
The Danish authorities provided further information by letter dated 8 January 2001.
Danski organi so posredovali dodatne informacije z dopisom z dne 8. januarja 2001.
The Commission requested further information on 9 January 2001 to which the Danish authorities replied on the same day.
Komisija je zaprosila za dodatne informacije 9. januarja 2001, danski organi pa so odgovorili še isti dan.
The Danish authorities provided further information by letter dated 23 January 2001 and by letter dated 26 February 2001.
Danski organi so posredovali dodatne informacije z dopisoma z dne 23. januarja 2001 in 26. februarja 2001.
Meetings between the Danish authorities and the Commission's services have taken place in Brussels on 23 November 2000 and 19 December 2000 and in Copenhagen on 4 January 2001 and on 15 January 2001.
Srečanja med danskimi organi in službami Komisije so potekala v Bruslju 23. novembra 2000 in 19. decembra 2000 ter v Kobenhavnu 4. januarja 2001 in 15. januarja 2001.
By decision SG(2001) D/287297 of 28 March 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the initial decision’), the Commission, following a preliminary assessment, decided not to raise objections to the notified measures, considering that they
Po predhodni oceni se je Komisija z odločbo SG(2001) D/287297 z dne 28. marca 2001 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: prvotna odločba) odločila, da ne bo nasprotovala priglašenim ukrepom glede na to, da
did not constitute State aid (as regards the compensation payment of DKK 100 million for pension charges), or
niso pomenili državne pomoči (kar zadeva plačilo nadomestila v višini 100 milijonov DKK za pokojninske obremenitve) ali
By letter of 8 May 2001, the Commission informed ‘Danske Busvognmaend’ of the initial decision.
Z dopisom z dne 8. maja 2001 je Komisija obvestila podjetje „Danske Busvognmaend“ o prvotni odločbi.
By letters dated 6 November 2002, received by the Commission on 12 November 2002, and dated 19 January 2004, received by the Commission on 20 January 2004, the Danish authorities reported to the Commission about the implementation of the restructuring plan for Combus.
Z dopisom z dne 6. novembra 2002, ki ga je Komisija prejela 12. novembra 2002, in z dopisom z dne 19. januarja 2004, ki ga je Komisija prejela 20. januarja 2004, so danski organi poročali Komisiji o izvajanju načrta prestrukturiranja za podjetje Combus.
On 11 July 2001, ‘Danske Busvognmaend’ filed an action with the Court of First Instance (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CFI’) for annulment of the initial decision.
Dne 11. julija 2001 je podjetje „Danske Busvognmaend“ vložilo tožbo na Sodišču prve stopnje (v nadaljnjem besedilu: SPS) za razveljavitev prvotne odločbe.
By judgment of 16 March 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Combus judgment’), the CFI annulled the initial decision ‘in so far as it declares aid granted by the Danish authorities to Combus A/S in the form of capital injections in the amounts of DKK 162 million and DKK 328 million to be compatible with the common market’ [8].
S sodbo z dne 16. marca 2004 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sodba Combus) je SPS razveljavilo prvotno odločbo „ker ta navaja, da je pomoč, ki so jo danski organi dodelili podjetju Combus A/S v obliki kapitalskih vložkov v zneskih 162 milijonov DKK in 328 milijonov DKK, združljiva s skupnim trgom“ [8].
As far as the capital injection in the amount of DKK 328 million is concerned, the CFI found, firstly, that the initial decision is ‘vitiated by an error in that it finds the payment of DKK 328 million to be compensation for public service obligations for the purposes of Articles 2 and 10 to 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1191/69. […] Accordingly, the contested decision must be annulled in so far as it authorised the payment of DKK 328 million pursuant to that regulation, without its being necessary to rule on the other pleas put forward on this point’ [9].
Kar zadeva kapitalski vložek v višini 328 milijonov DKK, je SPS ugotovilo, prvič, da je v prvotni odločbi „napačno ugotovljeno, da je plačilo 328 milijonov DKK nadomestilo za obveznost javne službe za namene členov 2 in 10 do 13 Uredbe št. 1191/69. […] Ustrezno s tem je treba sporno odločbo razglasiti za nično, kolikor dovoljuje plačilo 328 milijonov DKK v skladu z navedeno uredbo, ne da bi bilo treba odločiti o drugih ugovorih, predloženih o tej točki“ [9].
Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR p. I-7747, paragraphs 107 and 108 (hereinafter referred to as the “Altmark Judgment”) ’ [11].
Zadeva C-280/00, Altmark Trans in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, Recueil 2003, str. I-7747, točki 107 in 108 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sodba Altmark)“ [11].
Accordingly, the plea directed against the contested decision in so far as it authorises the payment of the DKK 328 million on the basis of Article 73 EC must be upheld.
Skladno s tem je treba sprejeti ugovor proti sporni odločbi, kolikor dovoljuje plačilo 328 milijonov DKK na podlagi člena 73 Pogodbe ES.
As far as the capital injection in the amount of DK 162 million authorised in application of Article 87(3)(c) EC in combination with the 1999 Restructuring Guidelines is concerned, the CFI found that ‘the contested decision cannot be interpreted as meaning that the college of Commissioners granted clear, unconditional and definitive authorisation for payment of DKK 162 million on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) EC and the Guidelines. On the contrary, the Commission's reasoning must be considered as expressing serious doubt as to Combus’s viability for the purposes of that article and the Guidelines, a doubt which the Commission did not, however, believe it was bound to clarify since Article 73 EC seemed to it to be a sufficient legal basis for the authorisation of the aid in question. Since that latter provision may not be so relied on (see paragraphs 100 and 101 above), the payment of the DKK 328 million is no longer validly authorised in the contested decision. It follows from the foregoing that the authorisation for the payment of the DKK 162 million must be annulled in its entirety, without its being necessary to rule on the other pleas in law submitted on this point’ [12].
Kar zadeva kapitalski vložek v višini 162 milijonov DKK, odobren na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES skupaj s smernicami o prestrukturiranju iz leta 1999, je SPS ugotovilo, da „sporne odločbe ni mogoče razlagati, kot da pomeni, da je kolegij komisarjev odobril jasno, brezpogojno in dokončno dovoljenje za plačilo 162 milijonov DKK na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES in smernic. Ravno nasprotno, utemeljitev Komisije je treba razumeti kakor izraz resnega dvoma o sposobnosti preživetja podjetja Combus v smislu navedenega člena in smernic, dvoma, glede katerega pa je Komisija menila, da ga ni dolžna izraziti, ker je člen 73 Pogodbe ES po njenem mnenju zadostna pravna podlaga za odobritev zadevne pomoči. Ker se na to zadnjo določbo v ta namen ni mogoče opreti (glej točki 100 in 101 zgoraj), se plačila 328 milijonov DKK na podlagi sporne odločbe ne more več upravičeno dovoliti. Iz zgornjega izhaja, da je treba dovoljenje za plačilo 162 milijonov DKK razglasiti za nično v celoti, ne da bi bilo treba odločati o drugih ugovorih, predloženih o tej točki“ [12].
Following the judgment of the CFI, the Commission prepared a new decision.
Po sodbi SPS je Komisija pripravila novo odločbo.
On 11 January 2005, the Commission services met with the Danish authorities in order to get further information on the development of Arriva/Combus in the time lapsed since the initial decision.
Dne 11. januarja 2005 so se službe Komisije sestale z danskimi organi, da bi pridobile dodatne informacije o razvoju zadeve Arriva/Combus od prvotne odločbe.
On 1 March 2005, the Danish authorities sent the Commission a memo on the development of the Danish bus market, which had been prepared by the Danish Office for transport (Trafikstyrelse).
Dne 1. marca 2005 so danski organi poslali Komisiji obvestilo o razvoju danskega trga avtobusnih prevozov, ki ga je pripravil danski urad za promet (Trafikstyrelse).
By letter of 3 March 2005 (SG (2005) D/200926), the Commission informed Denmark of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC with regard to these measures (hereinafter referred to as ‘the decision to initiate the procedure’), and invited Denmark to submit its comments.
Z dopisom z dne 3. marca 2005 (SG (2005) D/200926) je Komisija sporočila Danski, da bo sprožila postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES v zvezi s tema ukrepoma (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločitev o sprožitvi postopka), in pozvala Dansko, da predloži svoje pripombe.
The Danish government requested twice a prolongation of the period to submit its observations, which the Commission granted by letters of 5 April 2005 (TREN D (2005) 106964) and 24 June 2005 (TREN D (2005) 113062).
Danska vlada je dvakrat zaprosila za podaljšanje roka za predložitev svojih pripomb, kar je Komisija odobrila z dopisoma z dne 5. aprila 2005 (TREN D (2005) 106964) in 24. junija 2005 (TREN D (2005) 113062).
On 21 June 2005, a meeting between the Commission and the Danish government took place.
Dne 21. junija 2005 je potekalo srečanje med Komisijo in dansko vlado.
On 30 June 2005, the Danish authorities sent their observations with regard to the decision to initiate the formal proceedings.
Dne 30. junija 2005 so danski organi poslali svoje pripombe glede odločitve o sprožitvi formalnega postopka.
The decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [13] on 22 September 2005.
Odločitev o sprožitvi postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [13]22. septembra 2005.
The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the measures covered by this decision within one month of the date of publication, that is to say by 23 October 2005.
Komisija je pozvala vse zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo svoje pripombe o ukrepih, zajetih v odločbi, v enem mesecu od datuma objave, to je do 23. oktobra 2005.
The Commission informed Danske Busvognmaend of its decision to initiate the procedure by letter of 12 May 2005 (TREN (2005) D 109473).
Komisija je obvestila podjetje Danske Busvognmaend o svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka z dopisom z dne 12. maja 2005 (TREN (2005) D 109473).
The Commission, following requests of the Danske Busvognmaend, twice prolonged the delay for receiving its observations (letter of 15 July 2005, TREN (2005) D 115786 and letter of 16 August 2005, TREN (2005) D 117806).
Komisija je na prošnjo podjetja Danske Busvognmaend dvakrat podaljšala odlog za predložitev pripomb (z dopisom z dne 15. julija 2005, TREN (2005) D 115786, in z dopisom z dne 16. avgusta 2005, TREN (2005) D 117806).
In a letter dated 17 June 2005 (TREN (2005) A 15223), Danske Busvognmaend asked the Commission to send it a copy of the decision to initiate the procedure including the information which had been removed following a request from Denmark.
Z dopisom z dne 17. junija 2005 (TREN (2005) A 15223), je podjetje DanskeBusvognmaend prosilo Komisijo, da pošlje izvod odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, vključno z informacijami, ki so bile umaknjene na podlagi zahteve Danske.
By letter of 15 July 2005, the Commission answered that according to Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules on the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [14], the Commission shall not disclose information which it has acquired through the application of the Regulation and which is covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.
Z dopisom z dne 15. julija 2005 je Komisija odgovorila, da skladno s členom 24 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [14] Komisija ne bo razkrila informacij, ki jih je pridobila z uporabo Uredbe in za katere velja obveznost varovanja poslovne skrivnosti.
The Commission further on explained that as the pieces of information which had been deleted from the copy of the decision sent to Danske Busvognmaend were covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, the Commission could not disclose them to it.
Komisija je nato pojasnila, da ne sme razkriti tistih informacij, ki so bile izbrisane iz izvoda odločitve, ki jo je poslala podjetju Danske Busvognmaend, ker zanje velja obveznost varovanja poslovne skrivnosti.
In the same letter of 17 June 2005, Danske Busvognmaend also asked the Commission for a copy of the observations of the Danish government on the decision to initiate formal proceedings.
V istem dopisu z dne 17. junija 2005 je podjetje Danske Busvognmaend prosilo Komisijo tudi za izvod pripomb danske vlade o odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka.
The Commission answered that Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which stipulates the rights of interested parties, does not provide for the transmission of the reply of the Member State to the plaintiff and that accordingly, the Commission could not transmit a copy of the observations of the Danish government to Danske Busvognmaend.
Komisija je odgovorila, da člen 20 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999, ki opredeljuje pravice zainteresiranih strank, ne predpisuje pošiljanja odgovora države članice tožeči stranki in da skladno s tem Komisija podjetju Danske Busvognmaend ni mogla poslati izvoda pripomb danske vlade.
With letter of 23 September 2005, Danske Busvognmaend submitted its observations.
V pismu z dne 23. septembra 2005 je podjetje Danske Busvognmaend posredovalo svoje pripombe.
The Commission transmitted these observations with letter of 25 October 2005 (TREN D (2005) 122503) to the Danish authorities, giving Denmark the opportunity to respond to the comments within a period of one month.
Komisija je te pripombe poslala danskim organom z dopisom z dne 25. oktobra 2005 (TREN D (2005) 122503) in dala Danski priložnost, da odgovori na pripombe v roku enega meseca.
The Commission received Denmark’s response to these observations with letter of 23 December 2005 (SG (2006) A 80), after having prolonged the time period for the reply by one month following a request of the Danish government.
Komisija je prejela danski odgovor na te pripombe z dopisom z dne 23. decembra 2005 (SG (2006) A 80), pred tem pa je na podlagi zahteve danske vlade za en mesec podaljšala rok za odgovor.
The Commission received comments from one interested party, Arriva Denmark A/S, by letter of 21 October 2005 (TREN (2005) A 27196).
Komisija je prejela pripombe od ene izmed zainteresiranih strank, podjetja Arriva Denmark A/S, z dopisom z dne 21. oktobra 2005 (TREN (2005) A 27196).
It transmitted these comments to Denmark by letter of 24 November 2005, giving Denmark the opportunity to respond to the comments within a period of one month.
Te pripombe je posredovala Danski z dopisom z dne 24. novembra 2005 in ji dala priložnost, da nanje odgovori v roku enega meseca.
The Commission received Denmark’s response to the comments from Arriva also with letter of 23 December 2005, cited above.
Z dopisom z dne 23. decembra 2005, ki je naveden zgoraj, je Komisija prejela tudi danski odgovor na pripombe podjetja Arriva.
The Danish authorities submitted additional factual information with letters of 22 February 2007 and 2 April 2007 (TREN (2007) A 28850).
Danski organi so predložili dodatne stvarne informacije z dopisoma z dne 22. februarja 2007 in 2. aprila 2007 (TREN (2007) A 28850).
THE DANISH BUS MARKET
DANSKI TRG AVTOBUSNIH PREVOZOV
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE MARKET
SPLOŠEN OPIS TRGA
The decision to initiate the procedure gives (recitals 13 to 22) a detailed description of the Danish bus market.
Odločitev o sprožitvi postopka (uvodne izjave 13 do 22) vsebuje podroben opis danskega trga avtobusnih prevozov.
Accordingly, the description of the bus market is limited here to the most important features of the market for the present case and to additional factual information submitted by the Danish government and the interested parties.
Glede na to je opis trga avtobusnih prevozov v pričujočem primeru omejen na najpomembnejše lastnosti trga v pričujočem primeru in na dodatne stvarne informacije, ki so jih predložile danska vlada in zainteresirane stranke.
Starting in 1990, Denmark has gradually opened its bus market to competition, in the form of public tendering of the public service contracts, which public authorities conclude with bus operators in Denmark.
Od leta 1990 Danska postopoma odpira svoj trg avtobusnih prevozov za konkurenco prek javnih razpisov za javna naročila storitev, ki jih javni organi sklepajo z avtobusnimi prevozniki na Danskem.
Since 1994, the applicable Community rules on public procurement (Council Directive 92/50/EC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of public procurement procedures for service contracts [15]) oblige Denmark to tender public service contracts for the provision of bus transport, except if these services are provided ‘in house’ [16].
Od leta 1994 veljavni predpisi Skupnosti o javnih naročilih (Direktiva Sveta 92/50/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev [15]) obvezujejo Dansko, da razpiše javni razpis za javna naročila storitev za zagotavljanje avtobusnega prevoza, razen če se te storitve zagotovijo „interno“ [16].
In 1999, the year in which Combus for the first time received financial support from the Danish State, 9 out of the 12 Danish counties were tendering out 100 % of their lines.
Leta 1999, ko je podjetje Combus prvič prejelo finančno podporo danske države, je devet izmed 12 danskih okrožij izvajalo javne razpise za 100 % svojih linij.