natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The analysis of the existence of a circumvention of the obligation to recover such aid is based on a set of objective criteria, including the purpose of the transfer (assets and liabilities, continuity of the workforce, bundled assets, etc.), the transfer price, the identity of the shareholders or owners of the acquiring firm and of the original firm, the moment at which the transfer was carried out (after the start of the investigation, the initiation of the procedure or the final decision) and, lastly, the economic logic of the transaction [73].
Analiza obstoja izogibanja obveznosti vračila temelji na vrsti objektivnih meril, vključno z namenom prenosa (sredstva in obveznosti, kontinuiteta delovne sile, sredstva v paketu itd.), ceno prenosa, identiteto delničarjev ali lastnikov prevzemnega podjetja in prvotnega podjetja, trenutkom, v katerem je bil izveden prenos (po začetku preiskave, sprožitvi postopka ali končni odločitvi) in nazadnje gospodarsko logiko transakcije [73].
This has been confirmed by the CFI in a judgment delivered on 1 July 2009 in Case T-291/06 Operator ARP v Commission [74] in which it is stated that the widening of the group of entities required to repay the aid can be justified only if the transfer of assets leads to the risk of circumvention of the effects of the recovery order, and in particular if, as a result of the takeover of assets, the original beneficiary of the aid is left like an ‘empty shell’ from which it is not possible to secure repayment of the unlawful aid.
To je SPS potrdilo v sodbi z dne 1. julija 2009 v zadevi T-291/06 Operator ARP proti Komisiji [74], v kateri je navedlo, da je razširitev kroga subjektov, ki so solidarno zavezani za vračilo pomoči, utemeljena le, če zaradi prenosa sredstev obstaja nevarnost, da se obidejo učinki naloga za vračilo in zlasti če po odkupu sredstev prvotni upravičenec do pomoči ostane kot „prazen zapis v registru gospodarskih družb“, in od njega ni mogoče dobiti vračila nezakonitih pomoči.
(39 3) In its notice ‘Towards an effective implementation of Commission decisions ordering Member States to recover unlawful and incompatible State aid’ [75], the Commission stated that as long as the aid has not been fully recovered, the Member State concerned should oppose any transfer of assets that is not carried out on market terms and/or that is organised so as to circumvent the recovery decision.
V svojem obvestilu „Za učinkovito izvajanje odločb Komisije, ki od držav članic zahtevajo dosego vračila nezakonite in nezdružljive državne pomoči“ [75], je Komisija navedla, da dokler ni bila pomoč vrnjena v celoti, mora država članica nasprotovati vsakemu prenosu sredstev, ki se ne izvede pod tržnimi pogoji in/ali je prirejen zaradi izogibanja odločbi o vračilu.
It is therefore necessary to verify, applying these criteria, whether the asset deal between Combus and Arriva Scandinavia A/S had the purpose of circumventing State aid recovery.
Zato je treba z uporabo teh meril preveriti, ali je bil namen posla s sredstvi med podjetjema Combus in Arriva Scandinavia a/s izogniti se vračilu pomoči.
The Commission notes that all assets and liabilities were transferred as an on-going concern and that the transfer took place between two companies controlled by the same mother company, Arriva Denmark.
Komisija opominja, da so bila vsa sredstva in obveznosti prenesena po načelu delujočega podjetja in da je prenos potekal med dvema podjetjema, ki ju upravlja isto matično podjetje, Arriva Denmark.
In addition, the transfer took place 9 days after the share deal between the Danish State and Arriva Denmark A/S.
Poleg tega je bil prenos izveden devet dni po delniškem poslu med dansko državo in podjetjem Arriva Denmark a/s.
Although those indicia are of relevance in the context at hand, the Commission notes that at the time this transaction occurred, the Commission had adopted a decision not to raise objections concerning the notified measures.
Čeprav ti kazalci niso pomembni v tem kontekstu, Komisija opozarja, da je v času transakcije sprejela odločitev, da ne bo nasprotovala priglašenim ukrepom.
Therefore, at that time, any recovery decision by the Commission was purely hypothetical.
Zato je bila takrat odločba Komisije o vračilu povsem hipotetična.
Moreover, Arriva had on its books no provisions in regard of possible State aid recovery claims, and that neither the share agreement between the Danish government and Arriva Denmark, nor the sales contract for the asset deal between Combus and Arriva Scandinavia mention possible State aid recovery claims, whereas they do list in exhaustive manner all other litigation-related risks.
Poleg tega ni imelo podjetje Arriva v svojih knjigah zavedenih nobenih rezervacij v zvezi z možnimi zahtevami po vračilu državne pomoči, poleg tega pa ne delniški sporazum med dansko vlado in podjetjem Arriva Denmark ne prodajna pogodba za posel s sredstvi med podjetjema Combus in Arriva Scandinavia ne omenjata možnih zahtevkov po vračilu državne pomoči, medtem ko izčrpno naštevata vsa druga tveganja, povezana s sodnim postopkom.
Finally, it has to be noted that at the moment the capital injections were granted to Combus, it was already considered that integrating Combus into another undertaking present in the market was the best way of introducing cost-reductions and efficiency-promoting measures which could not be implemented by Combus on its own.
Na koncu je treba upoštevati, da je v času odobritve kapitalskih vložkov podjetju Combus že veljalo, da je vključitev podjetja Combus v drugo podjetje na trgu najboljši način, da se izvedejo ukrepi za zmanjšanje stroškov in spodbujanje učinkovitosti, ki jih podjetje Combus samo ne bi moglo izvesti.
Full implementation of the restructuring plan presented to the Commission at the time of the notification of the second tranche of the capital injection, based, inter alia, on increased efficiency and reduced costs, was possible principally because of the integration of Combus activities into Arriva’s business, which given in addition the nature of the business in question (network industries) and the economies of scale possible was rational from Arriva’s perspective.
Popolna izvedba načrta prestrukturiranja, ki je bil predložen Komisiji v času priglasitve druge tranše kapitalskega vložka, ki med drugim temelji na večji učinkovitosti in nižjih stroških, je bila načeloma možna zaradi vključitve dejavnosti podjetja Combus v poslovanje podjetja Arriva, ki je bila glede na naravo zadevne poslovne dejavnosti (mrežne dejavnosti) in možno ekonomijo obsega smiselna s stališča podjetja Arriva.
This explains why the asset deal took place little after the share deal.
To pojasnjuje, zakaj se je posel s sredstvi izvedel nekoliko pozneje kot delniški posel.
In the light of the above, taken into account the very specific circumstances of the case, the Commission therefore considers that there is insufficient indication to form the view that the purpose of the asset deal was to circumvent a recovery order.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno in upoštevajoč zelo posebne okoliščine primera Komisija torej meni, da ni dovolj znakov, da bi izoblikovali stališče, da je bil namen posla s sredstvi izogniti se nalogu za vračilo.
This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that at the time the sale agreements were concluded the Commission was consulted by the Danish authorities on their intention to introduce a liability clause according to which the Danish government was to guarantee Arriva for possible claims from public institutions regarding Combus (e.g. competition authorities and the EU Commission).
Ta ugotovitev podpira dejstvo, da so se v času sklenitve prodajnih pogodb danski organi posvetovali s Komisijo o svoji nameri, da uvedejo klavzulo o odgovornosti, skladno s katero bi danska vlada podjetju Arriva jamčila za možne zahtevke javnih ustanov v zvezi s podjetjem Combus (npr. organi, pristojni za konkurenco, in Komisija EU).
The Danish authorities were however advised to wait for the adoption of a final decision before proceeding with the sale proceedings in question [76].
Danskim organom je svetovala, naj počakajo na sprejetje končne odločitve, preden nadaljujejo z zadevno prodajo [76].
As a consequence, the Commission considers that there is no reason to extend the recovery order to Arriva Scandinavia.
Posledično Komisija meni, da ni razloga, da bi razširili nalog za vračilo na podjetje Arriva Scandinavia.
ASSET DEAL BETWEEN ARRIVA SCANDINAVIA A/S AND CONNEX
POSEL S SREDSTVI MED PODJETJEMA ARRIVA SCANDINAVIA A/S IN CONNEX
The Commission also has no indication that the price paid by Connex to Arriva Scandinavia for the assets was below the market price.
Komisija tudi nima nobenega znaka, da je cena, ki jo je podjetje Connex plačalo podjetju Arriva Scandinavia za sredstva, nižja od tržne cene.
This price, which has been agreed between two privately owned undertakings on the marketplace, can be presumed to correspond to the market price.
Domneva se lahko, da ta cena, o kateri sta se dogovorili dve zasebni podjetji na trgu, ustreza tržni ceni.
Hence, there is no reason to extend the recovery obligation to Connex.
To pomeni, da ni razloga, da bi obveznosti vračila razširili na podjetje Connex.
As a conclusion, the Commission considers that the unlawful and incompatible aid must be recovered from Combus,
Za konec Komisija meni, da je treba nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč dobiti nazaj od podjetja Combus –
The State aid which the Kingdom of Denmark has implemented in 1999 and 2001, in the form of capital increase, subordinated loan and guarantees, is incompatible with the common market.
Državna pomoč, ki jo je Kraljevina Danska izvedla v letih 1999 in 2001 v obliki dokapitalizacije, podrejenega dolga in jamstev, je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
The Kingdom of Denmark shall take all necessary measures to recover from Combus the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully made available to the latter.
Kraljevina Danska sprejme vse potrebne ukrepe, da od podjetja Combus izterja pomoč iz člena 1, ki mu je bila zagotovljena nezakonito.
The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.
Za zneske, ki jih je treba izterjati, se od datuma, ko so bili dani na razpolago upravičencu, do datuma dejanske izterjave zaračunavajo obresti.
The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [77] and to Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 [78] amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.
Obresti se izračunajo na podlagi obrestnoobrestnega računa v skladu s poglavjem V Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2000 [77] in Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 271/2008 [78] o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2000.
The Kingdom of Denmark shall ensure that this decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.
Kraljevina Danska zagotovi, da se ta odločba izvede v štirih mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tej odločbi.
Within two months following notification of this Decision, the Kingdom of Denmark shall submit the following information to the Commission:
Kraljevina Danska v dveh mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tej odločbi Komisiji predloži naslednje podatke:
the total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary;
skupni znesek (glavnica in obresti na terjatev), ki ga je treba izterjati od upravičenca;
The Kingdom of Denmark shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed.
Kraljevina Danska Komisijo obvešča o napredku nacionalnih ukrepov, sprejetih za izvajanje te odločbe, do dokončne izterjave pomoči iz člena 1.
It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision.
Na zahtevo Komisije takoj predloži podatke o že sprejetih in načrtovanih ukrepih za uskladitev s to odločbo.
It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.
Prav tako predloži podrobne podatke o zneskih pomoči in obresti na terjatev, ki so bili od upravičenca že izterjani.
OJ C 233, 22.9.2005, p. 28.
UL C 233, 22.9.2005, str. 28.
This association represents more than 90 % (in terms of number of companies) of the regional public bus transport undertakings in Denmark.
To združenje zastopa več kot 90 % (po številu podjetij) podjetij za regionalni javni avtobusni prevoz na Danskem.
See Table 7 of the initial decision; this sum is expressed in 2001 net present value.
Glej tabelo 7 prvotne odločbe; ta vsota je izražena v neto sedanji vrednosti za leto 2001.
OJ C 133, 5.5.2001, p. 21.
UL C 133, 5.5.2001, str. 21.
See Case T-157/01, Danske Busvognmaend v Commission [2004] ECR p. II-917 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Combus Judgment’).
Glej zadevo T-157/01, Danske Busvognmaend proti Komisiji, Recueil 2004, str. II-917 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sodba Combus).
Combus Judgment, paragraphs 83 and 99.
Sodba Combus, točki 83 in 99.
Combus Judgment, paragraphs 100 and 101.
Sodba Combus, točki 100 in 101.
Combus Judgment, paragraph 114 ff.
Sodba Combus, točka 114 in naslednje.
See Trafikredegorelse 2004, published by the Danish Ministry of Transport, p. 121, and the Court’s case law on in house procurement.
Glej Trafikredegorelse 2004, ki ga je objavilo dansko Ministrstvo za promet, str. 121, in sodno prakso Sodišča o notranjih naročilih.
See the decision to initiate procedure, paragraph 16 and Table 1.
Glej odločitev o sprožitvi postopka, odstavek 16 in razpredelnica 1.
Arriva acquired Unibus Rutetrafik A/S and Bus Danmark A/S, Connex acquired Liniebus A/S.
Podjetje Arriva je prevzelo podjetji Unibus Rutetrafik a/s in Bus Danmark a/s, podjetje Connex pa podjetje Liniebus a/s.
Act. No 1046 of 23 December 1998.
Zakon št. 1046 z dne 23. decembra 1998.
Bill of 21 May 1999 regarding the capital injection of DKK 300 million.
Predlog zakona z dne 21. maja 1999 o povečanju kapitala v višini 300 milijonov DKK.
Agreed by the Finance Committee on 27 May 1999.
Finančni odbor ga je odobril 27. maja 1999.
Report 10/01 on Combus A/S 1995-2001.
Poročilo 10/01 o podjetju Combus A/S 1995-2001.
Pages 49-60 of the report give a detailed description of the sales process, Arriva’s offer and the guarantees provided in connection with it.
Na straneh 49–60 poročila so podrobno opisani postopek prodaje, ponudba podjetja Arriva in jamstva, zagotovljena v zvezi s tem.
A further provision of EUR 5 million is to be made for 2002.
1: Za leto 2002 je treba oblikovati dodatne rezervacije v višini 5 milijonov EUR.
These requirements foresaw that the companies equity capital had to be at least 10 % of its balance sheet until 1998, and at least 20 % of its balance sheet as of 1999.
Te zahteve so predvidevale, da mora znašati lastniški kapital podjetja najmanj 10 % njegove bilančne vsote do leta 1998 in najmanj 20 % bilančne vsote od leta 1999.
At the end of 1998, the company’s balance sheet was DKK 1,24 billion and the balance sheet was expected to increase that year (1999).
Konec leta 1998 je bilančna vsota podjetja znašala 1,24 milijarde DKK in po pričakovanjih naj bi se tisto leto (1999) povečala.
With the expected deficit of around DKK 25 million in 1999, the equity capital would be reduced to DKK 20 million at the end of 1999.
Zaradi pričakovanega primanjkljaja 25 milijonov DKK leta 1999 bi se lastniški kapital zmanjšal na 20 milijonov DKK konec leta 1999.
If the balance sheet at the end of 1999 was set, for example at DKK 1,3 billion, a requirement for 20 % solidity would mean equity capital of at least DKK 260 million.
Če bi bila bilančna vsota konec leta 1999 določena, na primer v višini 1,3 milijarde DKK, bi zahteva po 20-odstotni trdnosti pomenila, da mora znašati lastniški kapital najmanj 260 milijonov DKK.
A capital injection of DKK 300 million would mean there was a reserve of DKK 60 million, which, with the inherent uncertainties, could hardly be considered too high, according to the adviser.
Kapitalski vložek v višini 300 milijonov DKK bi pomenil, da je na voljo rezerva v višini 60 milijonov DKK, kar po mnenju svetovalca glede na neizogibno negotovost še zdaleč ni preveč.
See also Combus Judgment, paragraph 87.
Glej tudi sodbo Combus, točka 87.
These costs are split as follows: Redundancy costs management DKK 5,2 million, redundancy costs other headquarters DKK 6,7 million, redundancy costs other DKK 2,0 million.
Ti stroški se razdelijo na naslednji način: stroški upravljanja presežnih delavcev 5,2 milijona DKK, stroški nepotrebnega sedeža 6,7 milijona DKK, drugi stroški presežkov 2 milijona DKK.
See row 5, column 3, and row 6, column 3, in Table 8 of the decision to initiate the procedure.
Glej vrstico 5, stolpec 3, in vrstico 6, stolpec 3 v tabeli 8 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka.
See recital 83.
Glej uvodno izjavo 83.
Case C-278/92 Spain v Commission [1994] ECR p. I-4103, paragraphs 13 and 14, and joined cases T-126/96 and T- 127/96 Breda Fucine Meridionali [1998] ECR p. II-3437, paragraph 79.
Zadeva C-278/92, Španija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1994, str. I-4103, točki 13 in 14 ter združeni zadevi T-126/96 in T-127/96, Breda Fucine Meridionali, Recueil 1998, str. II-3437, točka 79.
Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR p. I-1603, paragraph 20.
Zadeva C-305/89, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1991, str. I-1603, točka 20.
Post Danmark is one of the biggest employers in Denmark with a turnover of DKK 11227 million (EUR 1509 million) in 2004, a pre-tax profit of DKK 836 million (EUR 112 million) and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) of DKK 1115 million (DKK 244 million).
Post Danmark je eno izmed podjetij z največ zaposlenimi na Danskem, s prometom 11227 milijonov DKK (1509 milijonov EUR) v letu 2004, dobičkom pred davki v višini 836 milijonov DKK (112 milijonov EUR) in dobičkom pred obrestmi, davki in amortizacijo (EBITDA) v višini 1115 milijonov DKK (244 milijonov EUR).
Prior to 1 March 2004, Banedanmark was called Banestyrelsen.
Pred 1. marcem 2004 se je podjetje Banedanmark imenovalo Banestyrelsen.
Banedanmark manages the State’s railway infrastructure and also carries out duties as infrastructure manager on some other parts of the railway network.
Podjetje Banedanmark upravlja državno železniško infrastrukturo in opravlja naloge kot infrastrukturni upravitelj na nekaterih drugih delih železniškega omrežja.
Bill 273 of 27 June 2001.
Zakon 273 z dne 27. junija 2001.
The unit, which is called ‘Enterprise’ is today an independent organisational unit of Banedanmark.
Enota, ki se imenuje „Podjetje“ je danes samostojna organizacijska enota podjetja Banedanmark.
The unit sells railway-engineering services by means of turnkey contracts, major contracts, specialist contracts and sub-contracts.
Prodaja storitve železniškega inženiringa prek pogodb na ključ, glavnih pogodb, posebnih pogodb in podizvajalskih pogodb.
Combus Judgment, paragraph 109.
Sodba Combus, točka 109.
Case T-11/95 BP Chemicals Ltd v Commission, [1998] ECR p. II-3235, paragraph 171.
Zadeva T-11/95, BP Chemicals Ltd proti Komisiji, Recueil 1998, str. II- 3235, točka 171.
‘Beretning om Granskning af Combus A/S’, April 2001; ‘Advokatundersogelse om Statens Varetagelse af Ejerskabet til Combus A/S’, August 2001; ‘Beretning fra Rigsrevisionen, April 2002’.
„Beretning om Granskning af Combus A/S“, april 2001; „Advokatundersogelse om Statens Varetagelse af Ejerskabet til Combus A/S“, avgust 2001; „Beretning fra Rigsrevisionen“, april 2002.
See case C-17/99 France v Commission [2001] ECR p. I-2481, paragraph 43.
Glej zadevo C-17/99, Francija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2001, str. I-2481, točka 43.
Page 60.
Stran 60.
See Case C-17/99, cited above.
Glej zgoraj navedeno zadevo C-17/99.
Case T-11/95, cited above, paragraph 171.
Zadeva T-11/95, navedena zgoraj, točka 171.
See also the earlier Communication to the Member States from the Commission on 17 September 1984 concerning public authorities holdings in company capital, published in the Bulletin September 1984.
Glej tudi prejšnje sporočilo Komisije državam članicam z dne 17. septembra 1984 o deležih javnih organov v kapitalu družbe, ki je bilo objavljeno v Biltenu septembra 1984.
Case C-482/99 France v Commission (Stardust) [2002] ECR I-4397, paragraph 56.
Zadeva C-482/99, Francija proti Komisiji (Stardust), Recueil 2002, str. I-4397, točka 56.
See also the Opinion of Advocate-General Geelhoed in Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00 Italy and Sim 2 Multimedia v Commission [2003] ECR I-4035.
Glej tudi mnenje generalnega pravobranilca Geelhoeda v združenih zadevah C-328/99 in C-399/00, Italijanskarepublika in Sim 2 Multimedia SpA. proti Komisiji, Recueil 2003, str. I-4035.
Joined Cases 296/82 and 318/82 Netherlands and Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek v Commission [1985] ECR I-809, paragraph 17.
Združeni zadevi 296/82 in 318/82, Nizozemska in Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek Bv proti Komisiji, Recueil 1985, str. 809, točka 17.
Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission (Alfa Romeo) [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraph 20.
Zadeva C-305/89, Italija proti Komisiji („Alfa Romeo“), Recueil 1991, str. I-1603, točka 20.
Commission Decision 2006/947/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning State aid granted by Belgium to ABX Logistics (OJ L 383, 28.12.2006, p. 21).
Odločba Komisije 2006/947/ES z dne 7. decembra 2005 o državni pomoči Belgije za ABX Logistics (UL L 383, 28.12.2006, str. 21).
Altmark Judgment, paragraph 95.
Sodba Altmark, točka 95.
Combus Judgment, paragraph 98.
Sodba Combus, točka 98.
Combus Judgment, paragraph 99.
Sodba Combus, točka 99.
Altmark Judgment, paragraph 78.
Sodba Altmark, točka 78.
Altmark Judgment, paragraph 79.
Sodba Altmark, točka 79.
See, inter alia, Case C-513/99 Concordia Bus Finland v Helsingin kaupunki and HKL-Bussiliikenne, paragraph 56.
Glej med drugim zadevo C-513/99, Concordia Bus Finland Oy Ab proti Helsingin kaupunki in HKL-Bussiliikenne, točka 56.
See case C-17/99 France v Commission [2001] ECR I-2481, paragraph 46.
Glej zadevo C-17/99, Francija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2001, str. I-2481, točka 46.
Case C-17/99 France v Commission [ECR] 2001, I-2481, paragraph 41.
Zadeva C-17/99, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2001, str. I-02481, točka 41.
See note 51.
Glej opombo 51.
See note 52.
Glej opombo 52.
See note 53.
Glej opombo 53.
Points 31 and 32 of the Guidelines.
Točki 31 in 32 smernic.
Combus Judgment, paragraphs 114 and 115.
Sodba Combus, točki 114 in 115.
See Table 7 in the initial decision; as explained above, these figures are expressed in 2001 net present value, rather than real terms.
Glej tabelo 7 v prvotni odločbi; kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, so te vrednosti izražene v neto sedanji vrednosti za leto 2001 in ne v realni vrednosti.
Underline added by the Commission.
Podčrtavo je dodala Komisija.“
Combus Judgment, paragraph 78 et seq., notably paragraph 88.
Sodba Combus, točka 78 in naslednje, predvsem točka 88.
See recital 110 of the opening decision.
Glej točko 110 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka.
OJ L 296, 12.11.2005, p. 19.
UL L 296, 12.11.2005, str. 19.
Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1433, paragraph 57, and Case C-277/00, Germany v Commission [2004] ECR I-3925, paragraph 75.
Zadeva C-303/88, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1991, str. I-1433, točka 57 in zadeva C-277/00, Nemčija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2004, str. I-3925, točka 75.
Case C-328/99 and C-399/00, cited above, paragraph 83.
Zadevi C-328/99 in C-399/00, navedeni zgoraj, točka 83.
Case C-277/00, cited above, paragraph 80.
Zadeva C-277/00, navedena zgoraj, točka 80.
Case C-277/00, cited above, point 86.
Zadeva C-277/00, navedena zgoraj, točka 86.
Case C-415/03 Commission v Greece (‘Olympic Airways’) [2005] ECR I-3875 and Joined cases C-328/99 and C-399/00, cited above, paragraph 69.
Zadeva C-415/03, Komisija proti Grčiji („Olympic Airways“), ZOdl. 2005, str. I-3875 in združeni zadevi C-328/99 in C-399/00, navedeni zgoraj, točka 69.
Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00, cited above, point 69.
Združeni zadevi C-328/99 in C-399/00, navedeni zgoraj, točka 69.