natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission considers that the necessity of the aid has not been demonstrated.
Komisija meni, da potreba po pomoči ni bila dokazana.
The German authorities argue that the measure has to be seen in the light of the transition actually being undertaken by the German authorities from a tax-based motorway charge to a mileage-based user charge.
Nemški organi trdijo, da je treba ukrep obravnavati v okviru prehoda iz pristojbine za avtoceste na podlagi davka na cestnino na podlagi kilometrine, ki ga nemški organi trenutno izvajajo.
The Commission understands the wish to introduce transitional measures in view of the increase of the total charges for road hauliers, however notes that the level of the toll has been fixed at a lower level than initially planned, i.e. at 12,6 cents/km instead of 15 cents/km.
Komisija razume željo po uvedbi prehodnih ukrepov, katerih namen je povišanje skupne pristojbine za cestne prevoznike, kljub temu pa ugotavlja, da je višina cestnine nižja, kot je bilo prvotno načrtovano, tj. 12,6 centov/km namesto 15 centov/km.
Refraining from the intended increase of the toll rate would be a more straightforward way of compensating in a transitional period than increasing the toll rate up to 15 cents/km and at the same time, introducing the TRS and reimburse 2,6 cents/km.
Neizvršitev načrtovanega zvišanja višine cestnine bi bil enostavnejši način nadomeščanja v prehodnem obdobju kot povišanje cestnine na 15 centov/km ter istočasno uvajanje SPC in vračilo 2,6 centov/km.
Moreover, the currently applicable lower rate equally applies to all road hauliers that use German motorways and is therefore non-discriminatory.
Poleg tega se trenutno veljavna nižja cestnina uporablja enako za vse cestne prevoznike, ki uporabljajo nemške avtoceste in je zato nediskriminatorna.
The intended reimbursement would change this balance, which is not necessary to achieve the intended goal.
Načrtovano vračilo bi to izravnavo spremenilo, kar ni nujno za dosego želenega cilja.
In addition, the German authorities have not provided arguments in favour of the TRS which would counterbalance the higher administrative burden, for road hauliers, of the technically complicated introduction of the TRS as compared to simply maintaining the lower toll rate.
Poleg tega nemški organi niso navedli argumentov v korist SPC, ki bi izenačili višjo upravno obremenitev cestnih prevoznikov pri tehnološko zahtevni uvedbi SPC z enostavno ohranitvijo nižje cestnine.
Road hauliers should present filling station receipts or credit card company vouchers from Germany, each stating the registration number of the concerned vehicle, and request for a toll reimbursement within the deadline each year.
Cestni prevozniki morajo vsako leto do določenega roka predložiti zahtevek za vračilo cestnine skupaj s potrdili bencinskih črpalk ali dokazili podjetij iz Nemčije o plačilu s kreditnimi karticami, na katerih je navedena registrska številka zadevnega vozila.
Such a burden is likely to be particularly heavy for occasional users of German motorways, particularly from other Member States.
To verjetno predstavlja veliko breme predvsem za občasne uporabnike nemških avtocest, zlasti iz drugih držav članic.
The Commission reminds the German authorities that they could increase the level of the toll at any time, provided that the provisions of the Directive 1999/62/EC are taken into account, at the moment they consider it necessary.
Komisija nemške organe opozarja, da lahko kadar koli povišajo višino cestnine, če pri tem upoštevajo določbe iz Direktive 1999/62/ES, kadar menijo, da je to potrebno.
In view of these arguments, the Commission concludes that the aid measure does not respect the principle of necessity either, which again constitutes a sufficient ground to declare it incompatible with the common market.
Komisija glede na te argumente zaključuje, da ukrep pomoči prav tako ne upošteva načela nujnosti, kar je zadosten razlog, da se ukrep razglasi za nezdružljivega s skupnim trgom.
Distortion of competition contrary to the common interest
Izkrivljanje konkurence v nasprotju s skupnim interesom
In view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the last condition of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 that the aid should not give rise to a distortion of competition to an extent contrary to the common interest is not fulfilled, either.
Komisija glede na zgoraj navedeno meni, da zadnji pogoj iz člena 3(1)(b) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1107/70, da pomoč ne sme povzročati izkrivljanja konkurence v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom, prav tako ni izpolnjen.
As explained above, the aid will unduly favour German hauliers over their competitors from other Member States, which goes against the correct functioning of the common transport market and the very principle of freedom to provide transport.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, bo pomoč neupravičeno dajala prednost nemškim prevoznikom pred konkurenti iz drugih držav članic, kar je v nasprotju s pravilnim delovanjem skupnega prevoznega trga in samim načelom svobodnega opravljanja prevozov.
For this reason, too, the aid must be declared incompatible with the common market.
Tudi zaradi tega razloga mora biti pomoč razglašena za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom.
Finally, it should be noted that the German authorities have not invoked any compatibility grounds other than Article 73 of the EC Treaty.
Upoštevati je treba, da nemški organi niso navedli nobene druge podlage za združljivost, razen člena 73 Pogodbe ES.
In any event, the Commission confirms its preliminary assessment in paragraph 57 of the decision to open the formal investigation procedure: the aid cannot be declared compatible in accordance with Article 87(3)(a), (b) and (c), nor indeed by virtue of any other derogation.
Komisija vsekakor potrjuje svojo predhodno oceno iz odstavka 57 odločbe o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave: pomoči ni mogoče razglasiti za združljivo v skladu s členom 87, odstavkom 3, (a), (b) in (c) kot tudi ne na podlagi kakršnega koli drugega odstopanja.
The Commission concludes that the TRS is an aid measure which does not fulfil the conditions of Article 73 and Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 and is therefore incompatible with the common market,
Komisija zaključuje, da je SPC ukrep pomoči, ki ne izpolnjuje pogojev iz člena 73 in člena 3(1)(b) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1107/70 in je zato nezdružljiv s skupnim trgom –
The aid which the Federal Republic of Germany is planning to implement and which is based on Section 3, paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Law on the imposition of mileage-based charges for the use of motorways by heavy goods vehicles is incompatible with the common market.
Pomoč, ki jo namerava izvajati Zvezna republika Nemčija na podlagi 2. točke 3. odstavka 1. paragrafa Zakona o uvedbi pristojbin na avtocestah za težka tovorna vozila na podlagi kilometrine, je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
OJ C 202, 27.8.2003, p. 5.
UL C 202, 27.8.2003, str. 5.
This has been confirmed by a study carried out by the Ősterreichisches Institut für Raumplanung, Wien, in which the conclusion has been drawn that the costs of the infrastructure have been determined properly in accordance with Directive 1999/62/EC.
To je potrdila študija, ki jo je izvedel Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung, Dunaj, v kateri je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bili infrastrukturni stroški pravilno določeni v skladu z Direktivo 1999/62/ES.
227 million per 100 km; 227 × 30 : 100 = 68 million.
227 milijonov na 100 km; 227 × 30 : 100 = 68 milijonov.
2,6 × 3,3 = 8,6 (cents).
2,6 × 3,3 = 8,6 (centov).
G 5702, 2002, Part I No 23, published at Bonn on 11 April 2002, p. 1234, modified by the Law dated 28 June 2003, BGBl.
G 5702, 2002, del I št. 23, objavljen v Bonnu dne 11. aprila 2002, str. 1234, spremenjen z zakonom z dne 28. junija 2003, BGBl.
I, p. 1050.
I, str. 1050.
Statutory Order on the fixing of the toll rate for heavy goods vehicles, 24 June 2003, BGBl.
Zakonska odredba o določitvi stopnje cestnine za težka tovorna vozila, 24. junij 2003, BGBl.
I, p. 1001.
I, str. 1001.
I, pp. 2150, 2185; 1993, p. 169.
I str. 2150, 2185; 1993, str. 169.
Since 1 January 2004, Directive 92/81/EEC has been replaced by Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ L 283, 31.10.2003, p. 51).
Direktiva 92/81/EGS je bila po 1. januarju 2004 nadomeščena z Direktivo 2003/96/ES z dne 27. oktobra 2003 o prestrukturiranju okvira Skupnosti za obdavčitev energentov in električne energije (UL L 283, 31.10.2003, str. 51).
Belgium: FEBETRA (Fédération Royale Belge des Transporteurs) sent on 11 September 2003 and registered on 15 September 2003 (A/29597); SAV (De Beroepsorganisatie van de Vlaamse Goederentransport Ondernemers en Logistieke Dienstverleners), sent on 15 September 2003 and registered on 19 September 2003 (A/30036); Danmark: DTL (Dansk Transport og Logistik), sent on 26 September 2003 and registered on 30 September 2003 (A/30852); Germany: BGL (Bundesverband Güterverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung), sent on 22 September 2003 and registered on 23 September 2003 (A/30304); Netherlands: TLN (Transport en Logistiek Nederland), sent on 25 September 2003 and registered on 26 September 2003 (A/30535); Spain: ASTIC (Asociación del Transporte Internacional por Carretera), sent on 26 September 2003 and registered on 13 October 2003 (A/31891); ATRADICE (Asociación de Empresas de Transporte de la Región Centro), sent on 25 September 2003 and registered on 26 September 2003 (A/30540); CETM (Confederación Española de Transporte de Mercancías) sent on 26 September and registered on 9 October (A/31648); FENADISMER (Federación Nacional de Asociaciones de Transporte de España) sent on 25 September 2003 and registered on 2003 (A/30502); FROET (Federación Regional de Organizaciones Empresariales de Transporte de Murcia), sent on 22 September 2003 and registered on 23 September 2003 (A/30273).
Belgija: FEBETRA (Fédération Royale Belge des Transporteurs), poslano 11. septembra 2003 in evidentirano 15. septembra 2003 (A/29597); SAV (De Beroepsorganisatie van de Vlaamse Goederentransport Ondernemers en Logistieke Dienstverleners), poslano 15. septembra 2003 in evidentirano 19. septembra 2003 (A/30036); Danska: DTL (Dansk Transport og Logistik), poslano 26. septembra 2003 in evidentirano 30. septembra 2003 (A/30852); Nemčija: BGL (Bundesverband Güterverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung), poslano 22. septembra 2003 in evidentirano 23. septembra 2003 (A/30304); Nizozemska: TLN (Transport en Logistiek Nederland), poslano 25. septembra 2003 in evidentirano 26. septembra 2003 (A/30535); Španija: ASTIC (Asociación del Transporte Internacional por Carretera), poslano 26. septembra 2003 in evidentirano 13. oktobra 2003 (A/31891); ATRADICE (Asociación de Empresas de Transporte de la Región Centro), poslano 25. septembra 2003 in evidentirano 26. septembra 2003 (A/30540); CETM (Confederación Española de Transporte de Mercancías), poslano 26. septembra in evidentirano 9. oktobra (A/31648); FENADISMER (Federación Nacional de Asociaciones de Transporte de España), poslano 25. septembra 2003 in evidentirano leta 2003 (A/30502); FROET (Federación Regional de Organizaciones Empresariales de Transporte de Murcia), poslano 22. septembra 2003 in evidentirano 23. septembra 2003 (A/30273).
United Kingdom: Permanent Representation, sent on 2 October 2003 and registered on 8 October 2003 (A/31558); Spain: Dirección general de Transportes del Ministerio de Fomento, sent on 24 September 2003 and registered on 26 September 2003 (A/30588).
Združeno kraljestvo: stalno predstavništvo, poslano 2. oktobra 2003 in evidentirano 8. oktobra 2003 (A/31558); Španija: Dirección general de Transportes del Ministerio de Fomento, poslano 24. septembra 2003 in evidentirano 26. septembra 2003 (A/30588).
Contributions defending the reimbursement system: BGL and United Kingdom.
Prispevki v prid sistemu povračila: BGL in Združeno kraljestvo.
See e.g. ASTIC.
Glej npr. ASTIC.
See e.g. DTL, FROET.
Glej npr. DTL, FROET.
See e.g. TLN.
Glej npr. TLN.
See e.g. ATRADICE, ASTIC, CEMT, FROET.
Glej npr. ATRADICE, ASTIC, CEMT, FROET.
See e.g. ATRADICE.
Glej npr. ATRADICE.
See e.g. ASTIC, ATRADICE, CEMT.
Glej npr. ASTIC, ATRADICE, CEMT.
See e.g. ASTIC, CEMT.
Glej npr. ASTIC, CEMT.
In this context, interested parties refer to Case C-6/97, Italy v Commission [1999] ECR I-2981, in particular paragraph 21.
Zainteresirane stranke se v zvezi s tem sklicujejo na zadevo C-6/97. Italijanska republika proti Komisiji, [1999] ECR I-2981, zlasti odstavek 21.
See e.g. ATRADICE, CEMT, FROET.
Glej npr. ATRADICE, CEMT, FROET.
Now Article 19 of the Directive 2003/96/EC.
Zdaj člen 19 Direktive 2003/96/ES.
See e.g. Dirección general de Transportes del Ministerio de Fomento.
Glej npr. Dirección general de Transportes del Ministerio de Fomento.
See Case C-205/98, Commission v Austria [2000], ECR I-7367, in particular paragraphs 76, 78 and 86; Case C-6/97 Italy v Commission [1999], ECR I-2981, in particular paragraphs 15, 21, 23; Case C-200/97 Ecotrade [1998]; Case C-90/94, Haar Petroleum [1997], ECR I-4085, in particular paragraphs 34, 35, 37 and 40.
Glej: C-205/98, Komisija proti Avstriji –[2000] ECR 2000, I-07367, zlasti odstavki 76, 78 in 86; zadeva C-6/97, Italija proti Komisiji, [1999], I-02981, zlasti odstavki 15, 21, 23; zadeva C-200/97, Ecotrade [1998] ECR I-7907; zadeva C-90/94 Haar Petroleum [1997], ECR I-04085, zlasti odstavki 34, 35, 37 in 40.
In this context, it is also referred to Commission v Austria in particular paragraphs 76, 78, 85, 86, 101 and 104.
V tem smislu se nanaša tudi na Komisija proti Avstriji, (zlasti odstavki 76, 78, 85, 86, 101 in 104.
Such as the lack of authorised workshops for the installation of OBUs, the non-access of road hauliers to the Internet system, the problem of registration and re-routing and the language problem at terminals, insufficient forms of payment (OBU, Internet, Terminal), language problems, etc.
Kot je pomanjkanje pooblaščenih delavnic za namestitev OBU, onemogočen dostop cestnih prevoznikov do internetnega sistema, težava z registracijo in preusmerjanjem ter jezikovne težave na terminalih, nezadostne oblike plačila (OBU, internet, terminal), jezikovne težave itd.
See also Joined Cases C-430/99 and C-431/99 Sea-Land Service and Nedlloyd Lijnen [2002] ECR I-5235, paragraph 43 of the judgment and in particular paragraphs 85, 101 and 120 to 123 of the Opinion of Advocate General Alber, together with the case-law cited there.
Glej tudi združeni zadevi C-430/99 in C-431/99, Sea-Land Service. in Nedlloyd Lijnen [2002], odstavek 43 sodbe in zlasti odstavke 85, 101, 120 122 in 123 mnenja generalnega pravobranilca Alberja, skupaj s tam navedeno sodno prakso.
See also Haar Petroleum in particular paragraphs 34, 35, 37 and 40.
Glej tudi Haar Petroleum, zlasti odstavki 34, 35, 37 in 40.
Towards gradual charging for the use of infrastructure, p. 71.
K postopnemu zaračunavanju uporabe infrastrukture, str. 71.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (COM(2003) 448 final).
Predlog za Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o spremembi cestnih pristojbinah za uporabo določene infrastrukture za težka tovorna vozila, (COM(2003) 448 konč).
Council Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 of 26 March 1992 on access to the market in the carriage of goods by road within the Community to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States (OJ L 95, 9.4.1992, p. 1) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 of 25 October 1993 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road haulage services within a Member State (OJ L 279, 12.11.1993, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 881/92 z dne 26. marca 1992 o dostopu na trg znotraj Skupnosti pri cestnem prevozu blaga na ozemlje države članice ali z njega ali prek ozemlja ene ali več držav članic (UL L 95, 9.4.1992, str. 1) in Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 3118/93 z dne 25. oktobra 1993 o pogojih, pod katerimi lahko prevozniki nerezidenti opravljajo notranje cestne prevoze tovora v državi članici (UL L 279, 12.11.1993, str. 1).
European transport policy for 2010: time to decide, European Commission 2001, Table 3, p. 72.
„Evropska prometna politika za leto 2010: čas odločitve“, Evropska komisija 2001, tabela 3, str. 72.
Former Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81/EEC.
Prejšnji člen 8.4 Direktive 92/81/EGS.
Case C-276/97 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-6251, paragraph 36 of the judgment and the Opinion of Advocate General Alber, together with the case-law cited there.
Zadeva C-276/97, Komisija proti Franciji (2000) ECR, I-6251, odstavek 36 sodbe in mnenja generalnega pravobranilca Alberja, s tam navedeno sodno prakso.
Agreements EU-Bulgaria and Hungary, C-211/01, point 50 (not yet published).
Sporazumi EU-Bolgarija in Madžarska, C-211/01, točka 50 (še ni objavljeno).
Article 19(1) stipulates that the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise any Member State to introduce further exemptions or reductions for specific policy considerations.
Člen 19(1) določa, da lahko Svet na predlog Komisije s soglasno odločitvijo dovoli kateri koli državi članici uvedbo nadaljnjih izjem ali znižanj zaradi upoštevanja posebnih politik.
See Commission Decision of 18 December 2002, N 287/02 — Denmark (OJ C 34, 13.2.2003, p. 7), Commission Decision of 19 September 2001, N 500/01 — United Kingdom, Network Grants to Licensed Heavy Rail Infrastructure Managers (OJ C 333, 28.11.2001, p. 7); Commission Decision of 20 June 2001, N 219/01 — Austria (OJ C 224, 1.9.2001, p. 2); Commission Decision of 22 December 1999, N 617/98 — The Netherlands (Utrecht) (OJ C 71, 11.3.2000, p. 7); Commission Decision of 8 December 1999, N 412/98 — Italy (Marche) (OJ C 55, 26.2.2000, p. 11); Commission Decision of 8 July 1999, N 121/99 — Austria (OJ C 245, 28.8.1999, p. 2); Commission Decision of 21 April 1999, N 588/98 — Denmark (OJ C 166, 12.6.1999, p. 6); See also Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway (COM(2000) 5 final) of 26 July 2000).
Glej Odločbo Komisije z dne 18. decembra 2002, N 287/02 – Danska (UL C 34, 13.2.2003, str. 7), Odločbo Komisije z dne 19. septembra 2001, N 500/01 – Združeno kraljestvo, Omrežne dotacije za pooblaščene upravljavce železniške infrastrukture za težka vozila (UL C 333, 28.11.2001, str. 7), Odločbo Komisije z dne 20. junija 2001, N 219/01 – Avstrija (UL C 224, 1.9.2001, str. 2), Odločbo Komisije z dne 22. decembra 1999, N 617/98 – Nizozemska (Utrecht) (UL C 71, 11.3.2000, str. 7), Odločbo Komisije z dne 8. decembra 1999, N 412/98 – Italija (Marche) (UL C 55, 26.2.2000, str. 11), Odločbo Komisije z dne 8. julija 1999, N 121/99 – Avstrija (UL C 245, 28.8.1999, str. 2), Odločbo Komisije z dne 21. aprila 1999, N 588/98 – Danska (UL C 166, 12.6.1999, str. 6); glej tudi Predlog Komisije za uredbo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta v zvezi z dodelitvijo pomoči za usklajevanje prevoza po železnici, cesti in celinskih plovnih poteh (COM(2000) 5 konč.) z dne 26.7.2000.
Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraphs 86 and 87.
Zadeva C-156/98, Nemčija proti Komisiji, [2000] ECR I-6857, odstavka 86 in 87.
Case C-351/98 Spain v Commission [2002] ECR I-8031, paragraph 57: ‘It must first of all be pointed out that the Commission’s argument that there is discrimination against undertakings from other Member States, since the mechanism makes access to aid more difficult for them, is without foundation.
Zadeva C-351/98, Španija proti Komisiji, [2002] ECR I-8031, odstavek 57: „Najprej je treba poudariti, da je argument Komisije, da obstaja diskriminacija podjetij iz drugih držav članic, ker mehanizem otežuje njihov dostop do pomoči, neutemeljen (…).
A measure to support investment adopted by a public authority can by definition apply only in respect of the territory for which it is responsible and the authority cannot be criticised for not extending the benefit of the measure to undertakings not established in its territory, since such undertakings are in a wholly different position vis-à-vis the authority from undertakings established within the territory.
Ukrep za podporo naložbe, ki ga je sprejel javni organ, se lahko po definiciji uporablja samo v zvezi z območjem, za katerega je odgovoren, in organa ni mogoče kritizirati, ker ni razširil koristi ukrepa na podjetja, ki na njegovem ozemlju še nimajo sedeža, saj so takšna podjetja v popolnoma drugačnem položaju kot organ podjetij, ki imajo sedež na tem ozemlju.
That statement does not, however, mean that such a measure of support cannot be classified as “aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty if it fulfils the conditions laid down by that provision.”’
Vendar ta izjava ne pomeni, da je mogoče takšen ukrep kvalificirati kot ‚pomoč v smislu člena 92(1) Pogodbe, če izpolnjuje pogoje, ki jih določa ta določba.‘“
Source: Report on the economic effects on road hauliers of the German reimbursement system linked to the toll system for heavy goods vehicles, 21.4.2005, MVV Consultants and Engineers.
Vir: Poročilo o ekonomskih učinkih nemškega sistema povračila na cestne prevoznike, povezanega s cestninskim sistemom za težka tovorna vozila, 21.4.2005, MVV Consultants and Engineers.
See also Report on the economic effects on road hauliers of the German reimbursement system linked to the toll system for heavy goods vehicles, 21.4.2005, MVV Consultants and Engineers.
Glej tudi: Poročilo o ekonomskih učinkih nemškega sistema povračila na cestne prevoznike, povezanega s cestninskim sistemom za težka tovorna vozila, 21.4.2005, MVV Consultants and Engineers.
The indicator for the use of the motorway by vehicles is the transport performance measured in vehicle kilometres
Kazalec uporabe avtoceste z vozili je opravljanje prevozov, izmerjeno v prevoženih kilometrih.
Case C-381/93 Commission v France [1994] ECR I-5145, paragraphs 17 to 21, and Case C-92/01 Stylianakis [2003] ECR I-1291, paragraph 25.
Zadeva C-381/93, Komisija proti Franciji (1994) ECR I-5145, odstavka 17-21, in zadeva C-92/01Stylianakis (2003) ECR 1291, odstavek 25.
See footnote 25.
Glej opombo 25.
See also Case C-298/00 P Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-4087, paragraphs 61 and 62, Case C-382/99, Netherlands v Commission [2002] ECR I-5163, paragraphs 60 to 66, C-6/97 Italy v Commission [1999] ECR I-2981, paragraph 22.
Glej tudi zadevo C-298/00P, Italija proti Komisiji„Alzetta“, (2004) ECR I-4087, odstavka 61 in 62, zadevo C-382/99, Nizozemska proti Komisiji, (2002) ECR I-05163, odstavki 60–66, zadevo C-6/97, Italija proti Komisiji, (1999) ECR I-02981, odstavek 22.
Case C-18/93 Corsica Ferries Italia [1994] ECR I-1783, paragraph 35; Stylianakis, paragraph 25.
Zadeva C-18/93, Trajekti na Korziki-Italija, (1994) ECR I-1783, odstavek 35; zadeva C-92/01 Stylianakis (2003) ECR 1291, odstavek 25.
Commission v Austria, paragraphs 74 to 88 and 109 to 115.
Zadeva C-205/98, Komisija proti Avstriji, navedeno zgoraj, odstavki 74–88 in 109–115.
Case 73/79 Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 1533, paragraph 11.
Zadeva 73/79, Komisija proti Italiji (1980) PSES 1533, odstavek 11.
Case 74/76 Iannelli & Volpi v Meroni [1977] ECR 557.
Zadeva 74/76, Iannelli in Volpi proti Meroniju (1977) PSES 557.
As regards the TRS, the Federal Government of Germany has proposed a new section to be introduced in the existing ‘Statutory Order on the fixing of the toll rate for heavy goods vehicles’ dated 24 June 2003 [11].
Nemška zvezna vlada je v zvezi s SPC predlagala, da se obstoječi „zakonski odredbi o višini cestnine za težka tovorna vozila z dne 24. junija 2003“ [11] doda novo poglavje.
The proposal is based on Article 1, section 3, paragraph 3 of the Law.
Predlog temelji na 3. odstavku 3. paragrafa 1. člena zakona.