natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Point 1 of Protocol No 8 stipulates that State aid granted by Poland for the restructuring of ‘specified parts of the Polish steel industry’ shall be deemed compatible with the internal market provided that ‘the period provided for in Article 8(4) of Protocol 2 on ECSC products to the Europe Agreement […] has been extended until the date of accession’, the terms set out in the NRP are respected, the conditions set out in Protocol No 8 are met and ‘no State aid for restructuring is to be paid to the Polish steel industry after the date of accession’.
Točka 1 Protokola št. 8 določa, da se državna pomoč, ki jo Poljska dodeli za prestrukturiranje „določenih delov poljske jeklarske industrije“, šteje za združljivo z notranjim trgom, pod pogojem, da „se obdobje iz člena 8(4) Protokola 2 o proizvodih ESPJ k Evropskemu sporazumu […] podaljša do datuma pristopa“, da se upoštevajo pogoji iz NPP, da se izpolnijo pogoji iz Protokola št. 8 in „da se poljski jeklarski industriji od datuma pristopa ne izplača nobena državna pomoč za prestrukturiranje“.
Point 1 of Protocol No 8 refers explicitly to Article 8(4) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement, as extended by Decision of the Association Council.
Točka 1 Protokola št. 8 se nanaša izrecno na člen 8(4) Protokola 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu, kakor je bil razširjen s Sklepom Pridružitvenega sveta.
Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement only applied to ‘ECSC steel products’ (Article 8(4) of Protocol 2) and even listed the steel products in an Annex.
Protokol 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu je veljal samo za „jeklene izdelke ESPJ“ (člen 8(4) Protokola 2) in je celo navajal jeklene izdelke v prilogi.
The latter reproduced the list of ECSC products as laid down in Annex I to the ECSC Treaty, where the definition of ‘ECSC steel products’ expressly excludes tubes (‘steel tubes (seamless or welded) […] bright bars and iron castings (tubes, pipes and fittings, and other iron castings)’).
Slednji je navajal proizvode ESPJ iz Priloge I k PESPJ, kjer opredelitev da „jeklenih izdelkov ESPJ“ izrecno izključuje cevi („jeklene cevi (brezšivne ali varjene) […] svetle palice in železne odlitke (različne cevi in pribor ter drugi železni odlitki)“).
On that occasion it was decided to broaden the definition of the European steel sector to include tube producers.
Ob tej priložnosti je bila razširjena opredelitev evropskega jeklarskega sektorja z namenom vključitve proizvajalcev cevi.
This was codified in Article 27 and Annex B to the Multisectoral Framework, which defined the EU steel sector as including ‘seamless tubes, pipes and hollow profiles’ as well as ‘welded iron or steel tubes and pipes’.
To je bilo kodificirano v členu 27 in Prilogi B k Večsektorskemu okviru. Jeklarski sektor EU je bil opredeljen kot sektor, ki vključuje „brezšivne cevi, cevi in votle profile“, pa tudi „varjene železne ali jeklene cevi“.
This extended definition of the steel sector was subsequently taken over in Annex I to the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 [12], and in Point 29 of Article 2 of the General Block Exemption Regulation [13].
Ta razširjena opredelitev jeklarskega sektorja je bila pozneje povzeta v Prilogi I k Smernicam o državni regionalni pomoči za obdobje 2007–2013 [12] in v točki 29 člena 2 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah [13].
However, neither Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement nor the Decision of the Association Council was explicitly amended to incorporate this broadened definition of the EU steel sector including tube producers.
Vendar pa niti Protokol 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu niti Sklep Pridružitvenega sveta nista bila izrecno spremenjena z namenom vključitve te razširjene opredelitve jeklarskega sektorja EU, ki vključuje proizvajalce cevi.
Article 1 of the Decision of the Association Council refers to ‘steel products’ in general, but its scope of application is also specifically linked to Article 8(4) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement, which covered ECSC steel products only.
Člen 1 Sklepa Pridružitvenega sveta se nanaša na „jeklene izdelke“ na splošno, vendar pa je njegovo področje uporabe posebej povezano tudi s členom 8(4) Protokola 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu, ki je zajemal samo jeklene izdelke ESPJ.
In particular, the extension of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement was made conditional on the submission by Poland to the Commission of a NRP and business plans for its beneficiaries that both met ‘the requirements listed in Article 8(4) of Protocol 2 and that have been assessed and agreed by its national State aid monitoring authority (the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection)’ (Article 2 of the Decision of the Association Council).
Zlasti je bilo podaljšanje Protokola 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu pogojeno s tem, da Poljska Komisiji predloži NPP in poslovne načrte za upravičence, ki so izpolnjevali „zahteve iz člena 8(4) Protokola 2 in ki jih je ocenil in odobril poljski organ, pristojen za nadzor državnih pomoči (Urad za varstvo konkurence in varstvo potrošnikov)“ (člen 2 Sklepa Pridružitvenega sveta).
In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that point 18 of Protocol No 8, interpreted in the light of points 1 to 3 of Protocol No 8 together with Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement and the Decision of the Association Council, does not give the Commission competence to control aid granted to Polish tube producers prior to accession.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega Komisija zaključuje, da točka 18 Protokola št. 8, ki se razlaga glede na točke 1 do 3 Protokola št. 8 skupaj s Protokolom 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu in Sklepom Pridružitvenega sveta, Komisiji ne daje pooblastil za nadzor pomoči, dodeljene poljskim proizvajalcem cevi pred pristopom.
Implementing Rules for the Europe Agreement as an interpretation instrument
Izvedbena pravila za Evropski sporazum kot instrument razlage
In addition to the legal interpretation of the scope of the relevant legal bases (i.e. Protocol No 8, Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement and the Decision of the Association Council — see recitals 59 to 65 above), the Commission also examined the question of whether the Implementing Rules for the application of the State aid provisions in the Europe Agreement and Protocol 2, as adopted by the EU-Poland Association Council in 2001 (‘the Implementing Rules’) [14], are of relevance in order to determine the scope of the Commission’s retroactive control competence with respect to pre-accession measures awarded to Polish tube producers.
Poleg pravne razlage obsega zadevnih pravnih podlag (tj. Protokola št. 8, Protokola 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu in Sklepa Pridružitvenega sveta – glej zgornje uvodne izjave 59 do 65) je Komisija preučila tudi vprašanje, ali so izvedbena pravila za uporabo določb o državni pomoči v Evropskem sporazumu in Protokolu 2, kot jih je leta 2001 sprejel Pridružitveni svet EU-Poljska („izvedbena pravila“) [14], pomembna za določitev obsega pristojnosti Komisije za retroaktivni nadzor v zvezi s predpristopnimi ukrepi, dodeljenimi poljskim proizvajalcem cevi.
As a matter of general principle, the Implementing Rules contain rules of procedure to be distinguished from the substantive State aid provisions in the Europe Agreement and Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement.
Na splošno izvedbena pravila vsebujejo pravila postopka, ki jih je treba razlikovati od vsebinskih določb o državni pomoči v Evropskem sporazumu in Protokolu 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu.
It must be noted however that the Implementing Rules also contain specific provisions on the criteria for assessing the compatibility of aid with the Europe Agreement and with Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement respectively.
Vendar pa je treba upoštevati, da izvedbena pravila vsebujejo tudi posebne določbe o merilih za oceno združljivosti pomoči z Evropskim sporazumom in s Protokolom 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu.
The first sentence of Article 2(1) of the Implementing Rules states: ‘The assessment of compatibility of individual aid awards and programmes with the Europe Agreement, as provided for in Article 1 of these Rules, shall be made on the basis of the criteria arising from the application of the rules of Article 87 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, including the present and future secondary legislation, frameworks, guidelines and other relevant administrative acts in force in the Community, as well as the case law of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice of the European Communities and any decision taken by the Association Council pursuant to Article 4(3)’. This phrase establishes the general principle that the substantive criteria for assessing compatibility of State aid in general with the Europe Agreement are ‘evolutive’ in the sense of incorporating along the way changes/developments in EU law and jurisprudence.
Prvi stavek člena 2(1) izvedbenih pravil določa: „Ocena združljivosti posameznih dodeljenih pomoči in programov z Evropskim sporazumom, kot je določeno v členu 1 teh pravil, se izvede na podlagi meril, ki izhajajo iz uporabe pravil člena 87 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, vključno s sedanjo in prihodnjo sekundarno zakonodajo, okviri, smernicami in drugimi zadevnimi upravnimi akti, ki veljajo v Skupnosti, kot tudi iz sodne prakse Sodišča prve stopnje in Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti ter sklepov, ki jih Pridružitveni svet sprejme v skladu s členom 4(3).“ Ta stavek vzpostavlja splošno načelo, da so vsebinska merila za oceno združljivosti državne pomoči na splošno z Evropskim sporazumom „razvojna“ v smislu vključitve vseh sprememb/razvojnih dogodkov v pravu in sodni praksi EU.
The second sentence of Article 2(1) of the Implementing Rules refers in particular to the compatibility criteria under Protocol 2: ‘Insofar as the aid awards or aid programmes are destined for products covered by Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement, the first sentence of this paragraph applies fully with the exception that the assessment shall not be made on the basis of the criteria arising from the application of the rules of Article 87 of the Treaty establishing the European Community but on the basis of the criteria arising from the application of the rules on State aid of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community’. The wording of this sentence clearly indicates that, contrary to the situation of general aid covered by the first sentence of Article 2(1) (see recital 68 above), for the purposes of aid covered by Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement, the compatibility criteria evolve by reference to the ECSC Treaty.
Drugi stavek člena 2(1) izvedbenih pravil se zlasti nanaša na merila združljivosti v skladu s Protokolom 2: „Če so dodeljene pomoči ali programi pomoči namenjeni izdelkom iz Protokola 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu, prvi stavek v tem odstavku v celoti velja, s to izjemo, da se ocena ne izvede na podlagi meril, ki izhajajo iz uporabe pravil člena 87 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, temveč na podlagi meril, ki izhajajo iz uporabe pravil glede državnih pomoči Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti za premog in jeklo.“ Besedilo tega stavka jasno navaja, da se, v nasprotju s splošno pomočjo, zajeto v prvem stavku člena 2(1) (glej zgornjo uvodno izjavo 68), za namene pomoči, ki jo zajema Protokol 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu, merila združljivosti razvijajo glede na PESPJ.
No specific indications are given as to the evolution of the compatibility criteria after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty in 2002.
V zvezi z razvojem meril združljivosti po izteku veljavnosti PESPJ leta 2002 ni nobenih posebnih navedb.
Articles 2(2) and 2(3) of the Implementing Rules lay down the mechanism whereby changes to the EU compatibility criteria have to be incorporated by Poland.
Člena 2(2) in 2(3) izvedbenih pravil določata mehanizem, s katerim mora Poljska vključiti spremembe evropskih meril združljivosti.
In particular, Poland shall be informed of any changes in the Community compatibility criteria which were not published, and ‘[w]here such changes do not encounter objections from the Republic of Poland within three months from the date of receiving the official information about them, they shall become criteria of compatibility as provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article.
Zlasti se Poljsko obvešča o vseh spremembah meril združljivosti Skupnosti, ki niso bile objavljene, in „če Republika Poljska tem spremembam ne ugovarja v roku treh mesecev po prejemu uradnih informacij o spremembah, spremembe postanejo merila združljivosti, kot je določeno v odstavku 1 tega člena.
Where such changes encounter objections from the Republic of Poland and having regard to the approximation of legislation as provided for in the Europe Agreement, consultations shall take place, in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of these Rules’.
Če Republika Poljska tem spremembam ugovarja, se izvedejo posvetovanja v skladu s členoma 7 in 8 teh pravil, ob upoštevanju približevanja zakonodaje, kot je določeno v Evropskem sporazumu.“
Even if Poland did not object within three months to the change made in 2002 to the Community definition of the steel industry to include tube producers, these changes in Community law could not have become applicable to measures that fall outside of the scope of the Europe Agreement, i.e. those that were not covered by the ECSC Treaty.
Četudi Poljska v roku treh mesecev ni ugovarjala spremembi iz leta 2002 v zvezi z opredelitvijo jeklarske industrije s strani Skupnosti za vključitev proizvajalcev cevi, te spremembe v pravu Skupnosti ne bi mogle začeti veljati za ukrepe, ki ne spadajo v področje uporabe Evropskega sporazuma, tj. tiste ukrepe, ki jih PESPJ ni zajemala.
Furthermore, Protocol No 8 is lex specialis, and therefore, for determining its scope of application, the Commission cannot rely on the broadening of the definition of the EU steel sector following the expiry of the ECSC Treaty.
Poleg tega je Protokol št. 8 lex specialis, zato se Komisija za določitev njegovega področja uporabe ne more opirati na razširitev opredelitve evropskega jeklarskega sektorja po izteku veljavnosti PESPJ.
It must therefore be concluded that a clear distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the ‘evolutive’ nature of the law applicable to State aid for the steel sector in Poland before accession under the Europe Agreement, and on the other hand, the necessarily strict interpretation of the scope of the Commission’s retroactive control competence as stemming from Protocol No 8, Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement and the Decision of the Association Council.
Zato je treba zaključiti, da je treba jasno razlikovati med „razvojno“ naravo zakonodaje, ki velja za državno pomoč za jeklarski sektor na Poljskem pred pristopom po Evropskem sporazumu, na eni strani, in na drugi strani nujno ozko razlago obsega pristojnosti Komisije za retroaktivni nadzor, kot izhaja iz Protokola št. 8, Protokola 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu in Sklepa Pridružitvenega sveta.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission must conclude that it is not competent to review measures in favour of Polish tube producers before accession, and in particular over the period from 1997 to 2003, on the basis of Protocol No 8.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega mora Komisija zaključiti, da ni pristojna za preverjanje ukrepov v korist poljskih proizvajalcev cevi pred pristopom, in zlasti v obdobju med letoma 1997 in 2003, na podlagi Protokola št. 8.
This procedure is closed in view of the fact that the Commission is not competent to assess the measures caught by this procedure,
Ta postopek je zaključen, ker Komisija ni pristojna za oceno ukrepov, ki jih zajema ta postopek –
The formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU initiated by letter addressed to Poland dated 23 October 2007, is closed in view of the fact that the Commission is not competent under the provisions of Protocol No 8 to the Accession Treaty of Poland to review the measures granted by Poland to WRJ and WRJ-Serwis in 2001, 2002 and 2003.
Formalni postopek preiskave iz člena 108(2) PDEU, ki je bil sprožen z dopisom Poljski dne 23. oktobra 2007, se zaključi, ker Komisija na podlagi določb Protokola št. 8 k Pristopni pogodbi Poljske ni pristojna za preverjanje ukrepov, ki jih je Poljska dodelila WRJ in WRJ-Serwisu v letih 2001, 2002 in 2003.
Done at Brussels, 6 July 2010.
V Bruslju, 6. julija 2010
OJ C 282, 24.11.2007, p. 21.
UL C 282, 24.11.2007, str. 21.
With effect from 1 December 2009, Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty became Articles 107 and 108 respectively of the TFEU.
Člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES sta z učinkom od 1. decembra 2009 postala člena 107 in 108 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
The two sets of provisions are, in substance, identical.
Člena sta vsebinsko istovetna.
For the purposes of this Decision, references to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU should be understood as references to Articles 87 and 88, respectively, of the EC Treaty where appropriate.
Kadar je to primerno, se v tem sklepu sklicevanja na člena 107 in 108 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije razumejo kot sklicevanja na člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES.
See Annex B to the Multisectoral Framework (OJ C 70, 19.3.2002, p. 8), which has applied since 24 July 2002 (paragraph 39) and which was replaced by Annex 1 to the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-12 (OJ C 54, 4.3.2006, p. 13).
Glej Prilogo B k Večsektorskemu okviru (UL C 70, 19.3.2002, str. 8), ki je veljala od 24. julija 2002 (odstavek 39) in ki je bila nadomeščena s Prilogo 1 k Smernicam o državni regionalni pomoči za obdobje 2007–2012 (UL C 54, 4.3.2006, str. 13).
OJ L 348, 31.12.1993, p. 2.
UL L 348, 31.12.1993, str. 2.
Case C-482/99 Stardust Marine [2002] ECR I-4397.
Zadeva C-482/99 Stardust Marine, Recueil 2002, str. I-4397.
Decision No 3/2002 of the EU-Poland Association Council of 23 October 2002 extending the period set in Article 8(4) of Protocol 2 on European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) products to the Europe Agreement (OJ L 186, 25.7.2003, p. 38).
Sklep Pridružitvenega sveta EU-Poljska št. 3/2002 z dne 23. oktobra 2002, s katerim je bilo podaljšano obdobje, določeno v členu 8(4) Protokola 2 o proizvodih Evropske skupnosti za premog in jeklo (ESPJ) k Evropskemu sporazumu (UL L 186, 25.7.2003, str. 38).
Council Decision 2003/588/EC of 21 July 2003 on the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in Article 3 of Decision No 3/2002 of the EU-Poland Association Council of 23 October 2002 extending the period set in Article 8(4) of Protocol 2 on European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) products to the Europe Agreement (OJ L 199, 7.8.2003, p. 17).
Sklep Sveta 2003/588/ES z dne 21. julija 2003 o izpolnjevanju pogojev iz člena 3 Sklepa št. 3/2002 Pridružitvenega sveta EU-Poljska z dne 23. oktobra 2002 o podaljšanju obdobja iz člena 8(4) Protokola 2 o proizvodih Evropske skupnosti za premog in jeklo (ESPJ) k Evropskemu sporazumu, UL L 199, 7.8.2003, str. 17.
Case T-288/06 Huta Czestochowa [2009] ECR II-2247, paragraph 44.
Zadeva T-288/06 Huta Czestochowa, ZOdl. 2009, str. II-2247, točka 44.
Decision No 3/2001 of the EU-Poland Association Council of 23 May 2001 adopting the implementing rules for the application of the provisions on State aid referred to in Article 63(1)(iii) and (2) pursuant to Article 63(3) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part, and in Article 8(1)(iii) and (2) of Protocol 2 on European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) products to that Agreement (OJ L 215, 9.8.2001, p. 39).
Sklep št. 3/2001 Pridružitvenega sveta EU-Poljska z dne 23. maja 2001 o sprejetju izvedbenih pravil za uporabo določb o državni pomoči iz člena 63(3)(iii) in (63) v skladu s členom 1(2) Evropskega sporazuma med Republiko Poljsko na eni strani ter Evropskimi skupnostmi in njihovimi državami članicami na drugi strani in iz člena 8(1)(iii) in (2) Protokola 2 o proizvodih Evropske skupnosti za premog in jeklo (ESPJ) k Evropskemu sporazumu (UL L 215, 9.8.2001, str. 39).
The Commission requested information from the Polish authorities by letters dated 6 April 2005, 4 August 2005, 3 November 2005, 4 May 2006, 17 November 2006 and 11 July 2007.
Komisija je od poljskih organov zahtevala informacije z dopisi z dne 6. aprila 2005, 4. avgusta 2005, 3. novembra 2005, 4. maja 2006, 17. novembra 2006 in 11. julija 2007.
The Polish authorities replied by letters dated 7 June 2005, 29 September 2005, 2 December 2005, 18 May 2006, 31 May 2006, 10 January 2007 and 3 August 2007.
Poljski organi so odgovorili z dopisi z dne 7. junija 2005, 29. septembra 2005, 2. decembra 2005, 18. maja 2006, 31. maja 2006, 10. januarja 2007 in 3. avgusta 2007.
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 24 November 2007 [4].
Sklep Komisije o sprožitvi postopka je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije dne 24. novembra 2007 [4].
The Commission invited interested parties to submit comments on the measures.
Komisija je pozvala zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo pripombe v zvezi z ukrepi.
It forwarded them to Poland, which was given the opportunity to react; its comments were received by letter dated 16 February 2009.
Pripombe Poljske je prejela z dopisom z dne 16. februarja 2009.
Poland’s response to the initiation of the formal investigation procedure was submitted by letters dated 21 January and 1 February 2008.
Odgovor Poljske na sprožitev formalnega postopka preiskave je bil predložen z dopisoma z dne 21. januarja in 1. februarja 2008.
New investors were invited to participate in the WRJ project, which started in 1997.
Novi vlagatelji so bili povabljeni k sodelovanju v projektu WRJ, ki se je začel leta 1997.
Implementation of the project was stopped in 2001 and since then the investors have withdrawn from it.
Izvajanje projekta se je ustavilo leta 2001 in od takrat so se iz projekta umaknili tudi vlagatelji.
WRJ-Serwis was created in 2001 following the transformation of Zakład Usług Energomechanicznych ‘Jedność’ S.A., which had been established in 1999.
WRJ-Serwis je bil ustanovljen leta 2001 po preoblikovanju Zakład Usług Energomechanicznych „Jedność“ S.A., ki je bil ustanovljen leta 1999.
Its shareholders are TFS (share of 54,66 %), PIW ENPOL Sp. z o.o.
Njegovi delničarji so TFS (54,66-odstotni delež), PIW ENPOL Sp. z o.o.
However, WRJ-Serwis has never commenced any investment activities, but has been producing seamless cold drawn steel tubes since May 2004, after Huta Jedność stopped production at the drawing mill at the beginning of 2004.
Vendar pa WRJ-Serwis nikoli ni začel z naložbenimi dejavnostmi, temveč proizvaja brezšivne hladno vlečene jeklene cevi od maja 2004, potem ko je podjetje Huta Jedność v začetku leta 2004 prenehalo s proizvodnjo v jeklovleki.
This activity is conducted on the basis of assets leased initially from Huta Jedność.
Ta dejavnost se izvaja na podlagi sredstev, prvotno najetih od podjetja Huta Jedność.
TFS started looking for a strategic investor for WRJ and WRJ-Serwis in 2004.
TFS je leta 2004 začel iskati strateškega vlagatelja za WRJ in WRJ-Serwis.
In 2005, interested parties were invited to tender, and two submitted bids.
Leta 2005 so bile zainteresirane stranke pozvane k oddaji ponudb; ponudbo sta predložili dve zainteresirani stranki.
The share acquisition agreement was signed on 8 June 2004.
Sporazum za pridobitev deleža je bil podpisan 8. junija 2004.
The capital increase was not registered until 17 August 2007.
Povečanje kapitala je bilo registrirano šele 17. avgusta 2007.
However, the provisions of Protocol No 8 of the Accession Treaty on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry (‘Protocol No 8’) could be regarded as lex specialis in relation to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, which extended State aid monitoring under the TFEU to any aid granted for the restructuring of the Polish steel industry between 1997 and 2006.
Vendar pa je mogoče določbe Protokola št. 8 k Pristopni pogodbi o prestrukturiranju poljske jeklarske industrije („Protokol št. 8“) obravnavati kot lex specialis v zvezi s členoma 107 in 108 PDEU, ki spremljanje državnih pomoči po PDEU razširja na vsako pomoč, dodeljeno za prestrukturiranje poljske jeklarske industrije med letoma 1997 in 2006.
Accordingly, the Commission would in principle be competent to assess such aid.
Zato je Komisija načeloma pristojna za oceno takšne pomoči.