natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For the same reasons as those mentioned in the context of the analysis of the proportionality of the aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(d) TFEU, the Commission therefore considers that it has not been demonstrated that the aid paid was in line with the criterion of proportionality.
Iz enakih razlogov, kot so bili navedeni pri analizi sorazmernosti pomoči glede na člen 107(3)(d) PDEU, po mnenju Komisije torej ni dokazano, da izplačane pomoči izpolnjujejo merilo sorazmernosti.
The Commission therefore considers that the conditions for application of Article 106(2) TFEU are not met.
Komisija zato meni, da pogoji za uporabo člena 106(2) PDEU niso izpolnjeni.
In conclusion, the Commission therefore considers that the aid mechanism known as the Small Orders Programme, implemented by France in favour of CELF between 1980 and the end of 2001, constitutes aid incompatible with the internal market.
Skratka, Komisija meni, da mehanizem pomoči, imenovan program „majhnih naročil“, ki ga je Francija od leta 1980 do konca leta 2001 izvajala v korist zadruge CELF, pomeni pomoč, ki ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
LIMITATION PERIOD, EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE, LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION, PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY, PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY
ZASTARALNI ROK, IZJEMNA OKOLIŠČINA, UPRAVIČENO PRIČAKOVANJE, NAČELO PRAVNE VARNOSTI, NAČELO SORAZMERNOSTI
When a State aid is unlawful and incompatible, the Commission must first order the Member State in question to take all necessary measures to recover the aid from its recipient.
Komisija mora v primeru nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči državi članici načeloma odrediti, naj sprejme vse ukrepe, ki so potrebni za izterjavo pomoči od njenega upravičenca.
Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 states that, ‘Where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.’
Člen 14 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 namreč določa, da „[č]e se v primerih nezakonite pomoči sprejmejo negativne odločbe, Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč“.
The Commission must, nevertheless, take the following elements into account.
Vseeno mora Komisija upoštevati naslednje elemente.
Firstly, Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 stipulates that the powers of the Commission to recover aid are subject to a limitation period of 10 years.
Prvič, člen 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 določa, da imajo pooblastila Komisije zahtevati vračilo pomoči desetletni zastaralni rok.
The limitation period commences on the day when the unlawful aid is granted to the beneficiary, and any measure taken by the Commission, or a Member State acting at the request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful aid suspends the limitation period.
Zastaralni rok začne teči na dan, ko je upravičencu dodeljena nezakonita pomoč, in kakršen koli ukrep glede nezakonite pomoči, ki ga sprejme Komisija ali država članica na zahtevo Komisije, prekine zastaralni rok.
As already stated in its decision extending the procedure, without receiving specific comments on this point from the interested parties, the Commission considers that the limitation rule mentioned in the previous recital is applicable in this particular case.
Kot je bilo navedeno že v odločitvi o podaljšanju postopka, Komisija, ki od zainteresiranih strani ni prejela posebnih pripomb, meni, da se v obravnavanem primeru uporablja zastaralni rok, naveden v prejšnji uvodni izjavi.
In this particular case, the aid having been paid each year since 1980 and the Commission having asked for information from the French authorities in April 1992, the aid paid to CELF in 1980 and 1981 cannot be recovered because it is time barred.
Ker so se v obravnavanem primeru pomoči izplačevale vsako leto od leta 1980 in ker je Komisija podatke od francoskih organov zahtevala aprila 1992, je očitno, da pomoči, ki so bile zadrugi CELF izplačane v letih 1980 in 1981, ni mogoče izterjati ob upoštevanju zastaralnega roka.
Secondly, the Commission is not calling for recovery of the aid if, by so doing, it would run counter to a general principle of EU law.
Drugič, Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Evropske unije.
According to European Union case law, the Commission is required to take exceptional circumstances into consideration that might justify its waiving the order for recovery of the aid unlawfully granted when the said recovery runs counter to a general principle of EU law.
Komisija mora namreč v skladu s sodno prakso Evropske unije upoštevati izjemne okoliščine, zaradi katerih je upravičeno, da ne odredi vračilo nezakonito dodeljene pomoči, če je to vračilo v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Evropske unije.
It was in this context that, in its decision extending the procedure, the Commission called on the French authorities, the beneficiary of the aid and any other interested parties to submit their comments on the application, in this case, of the principle of legitimate expectation, the principle of legal certainty, or any other principles which might lead the Commission not to require the recovery of the aid.
V tem okviru je Komisija v odločitvi o podaljšanju postopka pozvala francoske organe, upravičenca pomoči in vse druge zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo pripombe o tem, kako so se v obravnavnem primeru uporabljala načelo upravičenega pričakovanja, načelo pravne varnosti ali katero koli drugo načelo, ki bi lahko Komisijo privedlo do tega, da ne zahteva vračila pomoči.
The Commission notes that, in their comments, the French authorities considered that exceptional circumstances did exist that would enable the obligation to recover the aid to be limited.
Komisija navaja, da so francoski organi v pripombah menili, da obstajajo izjemne okoliščine, ki omogočajo omejitev obveznosti vračila pomoči.
In contrast, SIDE considered that such exceptional circumstances were not present.
Nasprotno pa je družba SIDE menila, da takih izjemnih okoliščin ni.
In this regard, the Commission recalls that, in the context of the preliminary questions raised in the Court of Justice in the above-cited CELF case, the court that referred the case had asked, in essence, whether the Commission’s adoption of three successive decisions declaring aid compatible, which were then annulled by the Community judicature, was not in itself likely to form an exceptional circumstance that might justify a limitation of the beneficiary’s obligation to return this aid.
Komisija v zvezi s tem opozarja, da je predložitveno sodišče v okviru vprašanj za predhodno odločanje, ki so bila Sodišču postavljena v zgoraj navedeni zadevi CELF, v bistvu spraševalo, ali sprejetje treh zaporednih odločb Komisije, s katerimi je bila pomoč razglašena za združljivo z notranjim trgom in katerih ničnost je nato ugotovilo sodišče Skupnosti, lahko samo po sebi pomeni izjemno okoliščino, na podlagi katere je mogoče utemeljiti omejitev obveznosti upravičenca, da vrne to pomoč.
In its above-cited judgment of 11 March 2010, the Court of Justice first referred to its judgment of 12 February 2008, in which it indicated in paragraphs 65 et seq. that, after the annulment of a positive decision of the Commission, the recipient of unlawfully implemented aid is not precluded from relying on exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it had legitimately assumed the aid to be lawful and thus from declining to refund that aid [22].
Sodišče se je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi z dne 11. marca 2010 najprej sklicevalo na svojo sodbo z dne 12. februarja 2008, v kateri je v točki 65 in naslednjih navedlo, da po ugotovitvi ničnosti pozitivne odločbe Komisije ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da se prejemnik nezakonito izvajane pomoči sklicuje na izjemne okoliščine, na podlagi katerih je lahko legitimno utemeljil svoje zaupanje v zakonitost te pomoči, in tako nasprotuje njenemu vračilu [22].
Nevertheless, the Court of Justice also stated that a legitimate expectation on the part of an aid recipient could not arise from a positive decision of the Commission either when that decision was challenged within the deadlines for judicial appeal then annulled by the EU Courts, or when the deadline for appeal had not passed or, in the case of an appeal, so long as the EU Courts have not delivered a definitive ruling [23].
Vendar pa je Sodišče v tej sodbi navedlo tudi, da upravičeno pričakovanje prejemnika pomoči ne more izhajati iz pozitivne odločbe Komisije, po eni strani, če je bila ta odločba izpodbijana v rokih za tožbo in je sodišče Evropske unije nato ugotovilo njeno ničnost, ter, po drugi strani, dokler rok za vložitev tožbe ni potekel ali, v primeru tožbe, dokler sodišče Evropske unije ni dokončno odločilo [23].
In this particular case, in its judgment of 11 March 2010, the Court of Justice indicated that the annulment of the Commission’s third positive decision by judgment of the Court of First Instance on 15 April 2008 was not, in itself, liable to give rise to a legitimate expectation or to constitute an exceptional circumstance [24].
Sodišče je v obravnavanem primeru v sodbi z dne 11. marca 2010 navedlo, da ugotovitev ničnosti tretje pozitivne odločbe Komisije s sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 15. aprila 2008 ne more vzbuditi upravičenega pričakovanja ali pomeniti izjemne okoliščine [24].
The Court of Justice added that the unusual succession of three annulments demonstrated, a priori, the complexity of the case and, far from giving rise to a legitimate expectation, was more likely to increase the beneficiary’s doubts as to the compatibility of the aid in question.
Sodišče je dodalo, da manj običajno zaporedje treh ugotovitev ničnosti kratko malo kaže na težavnost zadeve, in zdi se, da še zdaleč ne vzbuja upravičenega pričakovanja, ampak povečuje dvome upravičenca o združljivosti sporne pomoči.
It acknowledged that a succession of three actions leading to three annulments amounted to a very unusual situation. Such circumstances, however, arose as part of the normal operation of the judicial system, which granted individuals who believed that they had suffered as a result of the unlawfulness of aid the possibility of bringing proceedings for the annulment of successive decisions which they considered to be the cause of that situation.
Priznava, da je zaporedje treh tožb, ki pripeljejo do treh ugotovitev ničnosti, zelo redek primer, vendar meni, da so take okoliščine del običajnega delovanja pravosodnega sistema, ki posameznikom, ki menijo, da trpijo zaradi posledic nezakonitosti pomoči, daje možnost, da vložijo tožbe na ugotovitev ničnosti zaporednih odločb, ki so po njihovem mnenju vzrok za ta položaj.
The Court of Justice considered, moreover, that in this particular case the existence of an exceptional circumstance could not be upheld in the light of the principle of legal certainty [25].
Poleg tega je Sodišče v obravnavanem primeru menilo, da obstoja izjemne okoliščine prav tako ni mogoče sprejeti glede na načelo pravne varnosti [25].
So long as the Commission had not taken a decision of approval and so long as the period for bringing an action against such a decision had not expired, the recipient could not be certain as to the lawfulness of the aid, with the result that neither the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations nor that of legal certainty could be relied upon.
Dokler namreč Komisija ne sprejme odločbe o odobritvi pomoči in dokler rok za vložitev tožbe zoper tako odločbo ne poteče, prejemnik ne more biti prepričan o zakonitosti pomoči, tako da se ni mogoče sklicevati niti na načelo varstva upravičenega pričakovanja niti na načelo pravne varnosti.
In addition, as the Court of Justice indicated in its judgment of 11 March 2010, [26] the existence of an exceptional circumstance could not be upheld in the case in point in the light of the principle of proportionality.
Poleg tega, kot je Sodišče navedlo v sodbi z dne 11. marca 2010 [26], obstoja izjemne okoliščine v obravnavanem primeru ni mogoče sprejeti glede na načelo sorazmernosti.
Abolishing unlawful aid by means of recovery was the logical consequence of a finding that it was unlawful. Accordingly, the recovery of such aid, for the purpose of restoring the previously existing situation, could not in principle be regarded as disproportionate to the objectives of the provisions of the Treaty relating to State aid.
Odprava nezakonite pomoči z vračilom je namreč logična posledica ugotovitve njene nezakonitosti, tako da povračila te pomoči zaradi ponovne vzpostavitve prejšnjega stanja načeloma ni mogoče obravnavati kot ukrepa, ki je nesorazmeren glede na cilje določb o državni pomoči iz Pogodbe.
Consequently, the Court of Justice concluded that the adoption by the Commission of three successive decisions declaring aid to be compatible, which were subsequently annulled by the Community judicature, was not in itself capable of constituting an exceptional circumstance such as to justify a limitation of the recipient’s obligation to repay that unlawful and incompatible aid.
Sodišče je zato ugotovilo, da sprejetje treh zaporednih odločb Komisije, s katerimi je bila pomoč razglašena za združljivo in katerih ničnost je nato ugotovilo sodišče Skupnosti, samo po sebi ne more pomeniti izjemne okoliščine, na podlagi katere je mogoče utemeljiti omejitev obveznosti upravičenca, da vrne to nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč.
Given the above, and in the absence of any other fact capable of constituting an exceptional circumstance, the Commission therefore concludes that in this particular case there is no exceptional circumstance capable of limiting CELF’s obligation to repay the aid in question (apart from the sums paid in 1980 and 1981, as previously explained).
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega in ker ni nobenega drugega elementa, ki bi lahko pomenil izjemno okoliščino, Komisija torej meni, da v obravnavanem primeru ni izjemne okoliščine, na podlagi katere bi bilo mogoče omejiti obveznost zadruge CELF, da vrne zadevne pomoči (razen za zneske, izplačane v letih 1980 in 1981, kot je bilo pojasnjeno zgoraj).
In application of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the French authorities must therefore recover the amount of aid paid to CELF by way of the Small Orders Programme during the years 1982 to 2001.
Francoski organi morajo na podlagi člena 14 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 torej od zadruge CELF izterjati znesek pomoči, ki ji je bila v letih od 1982 do 2001 izplačana iz programa „majhnih naročil“.
As can be seen from Table [27], the total amount of aid to be recovered from CELF, received during the years 1982 to 2001, amounts to EUR 4631401, to which interest should be added.
Kot je razvidno iz preglednice [27], skupni znesek pomoči, ki ga je treba izterjati od zadruge CELF in je bil prejet med letoma 1982 in 2001, znaša 4631401 EUR, temu pa je treba prišteti še obresti.
In application of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the aid to be recovered must include compound interest from the date on which the unlawful aid was at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date of its effective recovery.
V skladu s členom 14(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 mora namreč pomoč, ki jo je treba izterjati, vključevati obrestne obresti, ki se plačajo od datuma, ko je bila nezakonita pomoč na razpolago upravičencu, do datuma njenega dejanskega vračila.
Nevertheless, it follows from the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 October 2000 in the Magefesa case [28] that, when a company is in liquidation, and the national legislation so provides, interest falling due after the company’s declaration of insolvency on the amount of aid unlawfully received before such declaration is not due.
Vendar pa iz sodbe Sodišča z dne 12. oktobra 2000 v zadevi Magefesa [28] izhaja, da kadar je podjetje v stečaju in kadar je to določeno v nacionalni zakonodaji, ni treba plačati obresti, zapadlih po objavi stečaja podjetja, na znesek pomoči, ki je bila nezakonito prejeta pred to objavo.
In this regard, it should be noted that, in their note sent on 27 January 2010, the French authorities informed the Commission of CELF’s current situation.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da so francoski organi v obvestilu z dne 27. januarja 2010 Komisijo obvestili o položaju, v katerem je trenutno zadruga CELF.
Given CELF’s financial situation, the company was placed in a solvency safeguard procedure on 25 February 2009.
Ob upoštevanju njenega finančnega položaja je bil 25. februarja 2009 uveden zaščitni postopek.
A receiver was appointed.
Imenovan je bil sodni upravitelj.
In the context of the dispute over State aid, the French State declared the following claims: EUR 11885785,02 (by way of interest payments, in accordance with the above-stated judgment of the Council of State of 19 December 2008) and EUR 4814339,9 (by way of possible reimbursement of the aid capital received over the period 1980-2001).
Francoska država je na podlagi spora o državnih pomočeh prijavila naslednje terjatve: 11885785,02 EUR (od plačila obresti v skladu z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Conseil d’État z dne 19. decembra 2008) in 4814339,9 EUR (od morebitnega vračila glavnice pomoči, prejete v letih od 1980 do 2001).
According to the French authorities, the debt statement showed that, out of total declared liabilities of EUR 21254232,29, the contested debts totalled EUR 17045039,50.
Francoski organi so navedli, da je bilo iz stanja terjatev razvidno, da od skupnih prijavljenih obveznosti v višini 21254232,29 EUR sporne terjatve znašajo 17045039,50 EUR.
Noting that a recovery plan was clearly impossible, the insolvency administrator requested that the solvency safeguard procedure be replaced with an official ruling of bankruptcy, particularly in the light of the claims declared by the State.
Ker je sodni upravitelj ugotovil, da je sanacija očitno nemogoča, je zaprosil za spremembo zaščitnega postopka v sodno likvidacijo, zlasti zaradi terjatev, ki jih je prijavila država.
By judgment of 9 September 2009 noting the existence of liabilities that ruled out the prospect of a continuation plan, the Paris Commercial Court ruled on the insolvency of CELF and appointed a receiver.
Sodišče „Tribunal de commerce de Pariz“ je s sodbo z dne 9. septembra 2009, s katero je ugotovilo obstoj obveznosti, zaradi katerih ni bilo mogoče načrtovati nadaljnjega obstoja, razglasilo sodno likvidacijo zadruge CELF in imenovalo likvidacijskega upravitelja.
The Court set a two-year period at the end of which the completion of the bankruptcy proceedings would be examined.
To sodišče je dvoletni rok, po katerem bo treba preučiti končanje sodne likvidacije.
The French authorities have indicated that disputes under way and/or to come could nonetheless justify delaying the date of completion of bankruptcy proceedings.
Francoski organi so navedli, da bi bilo zaradi tekočih in/ali prihodnjih sporov vseeno lahko upravičeno odložiti datum končanja sodne likvidacije.
The French authorities indicated in an e-mail dated 9 March 2010 that the liquidation procedure implemented in respect of CELF was in line with the normal rules for company liquidation procedures.
Francoski organi so v elektronski pošti z dne 9. marca 2010 navedli, da so se pri likvidacijskem postopku, uvedenem za zadrugo CELF, upoštevala običajna pravila postopka likvidacije podjetij.
According to the information that the Commission has received from the French authorities, CELF is therefore no longer exercising any economic activity.
Glede na podatke, ki so jih Komisiji predložili francoski organi, zadruga CELF danes ne opravlja več nobene gospodarske dejavnosti.
Consequently, given the liquidation procedure under way for CELF, and given their obligation to recover the incompatible aid, the French authorities must ensure that the applicable case law is followed in the case of the liquidation of the beneficiary company [29].
Zato morajo francoski organi ob upoštevanju likvidacijskega postopka, ki poteka v zvezi z zadrugo CELF, v okviru svoje obveznosti izterjave nezdružljive pomoči zlasti poskrbeti za upoštevanje sodne prakse, ki se uporablja v primeru likvidacije podjetja upravičenca [29].
This assumes, in particular, that CELF’s assets will be sold at their market price, that the State will register its claims with regard to recovering the incompatible and unlawful aid in the liabilities of the bankrupt company, and that it will fully enforce its creditor’s claim at all stages of the procedure until the liquidation is complete.
To predvideva zlasti, da se sredstva zadruge CELF prodajo po tržni ceni, da država svoje terjatve v zvezi z vračilom nezdružljivih nezakonitih pomoči vpiše v obveznosti podjetja v likvidaciji ter v celoti uveljavlja svoje pravice upnika na vseh stopnjah postopka do konca likvidacije.
With regard to the calculation of interest, it should be noted that, in French law, Article L 622-28 of the Commercial Code stipulates that ‘the issuance of the commencement order [of the safeguard procedure] shall stay the legal and contractual interest, as well as any interest due to late payment and surcharges.’
Kar zadeva izračun obresti, je treba navesti, da v francoskem pravu člen L 622-28 trgovinskega zakonika določa, da s „sodbo o začetku [zaščitnega postopka] prenehajo teči zakonske in dogovorjene obresti ter vse zamudne obresti in povečanja“.
Consequently, in this case, the sums paid to CELF give rise to interest from the date on which they were placed at its disposal until 25 February 2009, the date of the decision of the Paris Commercial Court opening the insolvency safeguard procedure which led to a ruling on its formal receivership on 9 September 2009.
Zato se v tej zadevi na zneske, ki so bili izplačani zadrugi CELF, plačajo obresti od datuma, ko so ji bili zneski dani na razpolago, do 25. februarja 2009, ko je sodišče „Tribunal de commerce de Pariz“ izdalo sodbo o začetku zaščitnega postopka, ki je bil nato s sodbo z dne 9. septembra 2009 preoblikovan v sodno likvidacijo.
The Commission finds that France unlawfully implemented aid in favour of CELF, in violation of Article 108(3) TFEU.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Francija nezakonito odobrila pomoč zadrugi CELF v nasprotju s členom 108(3) PDEU.
This aid is incompatible with the internal market and must be recovered by the French authorities, with the exception of sums paid in 1980 and 1981, which are time barred.
Ta pomoč je nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom in jo morajo francoski organi izterjati, razen zneskov, izplačanih v letih 1980 in 1981, ki so zastarali.
The French authorities must therefore recover from CELF an amount of EUR 4631401, to which interest should be added for aid paid annually since 1982.
Francoski organi morajo torej od zadruge CELF izterjati znesek v višini 4631401 EUR ter mu prišteti obresti za pomoč, ki se je izplačevala vsako leto od leta 1982.
The sums to be recovered give rise to interest from the date on which they were placed at the disposal of the beneficiary until 25 February 2009, the date of the decision of the Paris Commercial Court commencing the insolvency safeguard procedure,
Zneski, ki jih je treba izterjati, vključujejo obresti, ki tečejo od datuma, ko so bili zneski dani na razpolago upravičencu, do 25. februarja 2009, ko je sodišče „Tribunal de commerce de Pariz“ izdalo sodbo o začetku zaščitnega postopka –
The State aid granted unlawfully by France, in violation of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of Coopérative d’exportation du livre français (CELF) is incompatible with the internal market.
Državna pomoč, ki jo je Francija v nasprotju s členom 108(3) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije nezakonito odobrila zadrugi Coopérative d’exportation du livre français (CELF), je nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom.
France is required to obtain reimbursement of the sum of EUR 4631401, corresponding to sums received by CELF over the period 1982 to 2001 by way of the aid referred to in Article 1.
Francija mora izterjati znesek v višini 4631401 EUR, ki ustreza zneskom, ki jih je zadruga CELF prejela med letoma 1982 in 2001 od pomoči iz člena 1.