natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Introduced by Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 20), which was transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No 79 of 16 March 1999.
Uvedeno z Direktivo 96/92/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 19. decembra 1996 o skupnih pravilih notranjega trga z električno energijo (UL L 27, 30.1.1997, str. 20), ki se je prenesla v italijansko zakonodajo z zakonskim odlokom št. 79 z dne 16. marca 1999.
The standard tariff reflects the way in which electricity system costs are unbundled and imputed to the various categories of users.
Standardna cena izraža način, na katerega se stroški elektroenergetskega sistema delijo in zaračunajo različnim kategorijam odjemalcev.
The standard tariff was divided into two parts, A and B, each consisting of several tariff components.
Standardna cena se je razdelila na dva dela, A in B, pri čemer je vsak del sestavljen iz več sestavnih delov cene.
Part A reflected fixed system costs, including general system charges, while Part B reflected variable generation costs (notably fuel costs).
Del A je zajemal fiksne sistemske dajatve, vključno s splošnimi sistemskimi stroški, del B pa je zajemal spremenljive stroške proizvodnje (zlasti stroške goriva).
Initially generating system charges included only the following costs: extraordinary costs sustained in 1994, 1995 and 1996 (component A1); costs of dismantling nuclear power plants (component A2) and cost of constructing renewable energy installations under Decision CIP 6/92 (component A3).
Na začetku so proizvodne sistemske dajatve zajemale le izredne stroške, ki so nastali leta 1994, 1995 in 1996 (sestavni del A1), stroške razstavljanja jedrskih elektrarn (sestavni del A2) in strošek izgradnje obratov za obnovljivo energijo v skladu z odločbo medresorskega odbora za cene 6/92 (sestavni del A3).
Subsequently, other categories of costs were included: preferential electricity tariffs (component A4), certain research costs (component A5) and the stranded costs of electricity producers (component A6).
Pozneje so se vključile druge kategorije stroškov: ugodnejše cene električne energije (sestavni del A4), stroški nekaterih raziskav (sestavni del A5) in nasedle naložbe proizvajalcev električne energije (sestavni del A6).
Article 2 of the Decree of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Craft Industries of 26 January 2000 classified the existing preferential tariffs, including Alcoa’s, as a new category of general system charges.
V členu 2 odloka ministrstva za industrijo, trgovino in obrt z dne 26. januarja 2000 so bile veljavne ugodnejše cene, vključno s ceno za družbo Alcoa, opredeljene kot nova kategorija splošnih sistemskih dajatev.
This classification was confirmed in later legislation, most recently by Article 1(1)(c) of Law No 83 of 17 April 2003.
Ta opredelitev se je pozneje potrdila z zakonodajo, nazadnje s členom 1(1)(c) zakona št. 83 z dne 17. aprila 2003.
Introduced by AEEG Decision No 204/99/EC.
Uveden z odločbo AEEG št. 204/99.
More precisely, under the system introduced by AEEG Decision No 204/99, the administration of the preferential tariffs was entrusted to the local distributors and to the Equalisation Fund.
Natančneje, na podlagi sistema, uvedenega z odločbo AEEG št. 204/99, so bili za upravljanje ugodnejših cen zadolženi lokalni distributerji in izravnalni sklad.
Local distributors collected the proceeds of the A4 component and transferred them to the Equalisation Fund, which administered a dedicated account (Conto per la perequazione dei contribute sostitutivi dei regime tariffari speciali or Equalisation Account for contributions replacing Special Tariff Schemes).
Lokalni distributerji so zbrali prihodke od sestavnega dela A4 in jih prenesli na izravnalni sklad, ki je upravljal namenski račun (Conto per la perequazione dei contribute sostitutivi dei regime tariffari speciali ali izravnalni račun za prispevke, ki nadomeščajo sheme posebnih cen).
However, if a distributor had to grant a preferential tariff to one of its customers, it could retain the proceeds of the A4 component paid by its other customers in order to recover the direct deduction from the preferential customer’s bill. If the distributor’s proceeds were insufficient, the balance was to be covered by the Equalisation Fund using the funds in the dedicated account.
Vendar če je moral distributer odobriti ugodnejšo ceno enemu od svojih odjemalcev, je lahko vseeno ohranil prihodke od sestavnega dela A4, ki so jih plačali drugi odjemalci, da je nadomestil neposredne odbitke na računu odjemalca z ugodnejšimi cenami. Če prihodki distributerja niso zadoščali, se je razlika pokrila iz izravnalnega sklada z uporabo sredstev na namenskem računu.
See also AEEG Decision No 228/01/EC, in particular Articles 43 and 56 of the annexed Testo Integrato (the compendium of rules governing the provision of electricity in Italy).
Glej tudi odločbo AEEG št. 228/01, zlasti člena 43 in 56 priložene zbirke pravil o oskrbi z električno energijo v Italiji (Testo Integrato).
It should, however, be noted that part of AEEG Decision No 148/04 has ceased to be applied to Alcoa.
Vendar je treba navesti, da se je del odločbe AEEG št. 148/04 prenehal uporabljati za družbo Alcoa.
The Decision introduced a new calculation method for the complementary contribution paid to the beneficiaries of preferential tariffs.
Z odločbo se je uvedla nova metoda izračuna za nadomestilo, ki se plača upravičencem do ugodnejših cen.
For Alcoa, this method would have entailed a reduction of the subsidy, i.e. a net increase in the preferential price.
Kar zadeva družbo Alcoa, bi ta metoda pomenila znižanje subvencije, tj. neto povišanje ugodnejše cene.
Alcoa challenged this provision before the Lombardy Administrative Court.
Alcoa je vložila pritožbo zoper to določbo pri Upravnem sodišču v Lombardiji.
In its ruling of 10 May 2005, the court partially annulled the Decision insofar as it applied to Alcoa.
Sodišče je s svojo odločitvijo z dne 10. maja 2005 delno razveljavilo odločbo, in sicer del, ki se uporablja za družbo Alcoa.
Therefore, Alcoa’s compensatory contribution continued to be calculated with the method which pre-dated Decision No 148/04, and which ensured that Alcoa paid the Alumix price.
Zato se je nadomestilo še naprej izračunavalo z metodo, ki je bila sprejeta pred odločbo št. 148/04 in s katero se je zagotovilo, da je družba Alcoa plačevala ceno Alumix.
Commission Decision C(2004) 4329 of 16 November 2004 (OJ C 30, 5.2.2005, p. 7).
Sklep Komisije C(2004) 4329 z dne 16. novembra 2004 (UL C 30, 5.2.2005, str. 7).
Letter of 3 March 2006.
Dopis z dne 3. marca 2006.
See footnote 12 for the full text of Article 11(11) of Law No 80/2005.
Glej opombo 12 za celotno besedilo člena 11(11) zakona št. 80/2005.
Article 11(13) of Law No 80/2005.
Člen 11(13) zakona št. 80/2005.
OJ C 74, 10.3.1998, p. 9, points 4.15–4.17.
UL C 74, 10.3.1998, str. 9, točke 4.15–4.17.
OJ C 74, 10.3.1998, p. 9, point 4.
UL C 74, 10.3.1998, str. 9. točka 4.
Commission Decision C(2002) 3715 of 16 October 2002, Aid towards the energy costs of SMEs (OJ L 91, 8.4.2003, p. 38).
Odločba Komisije C(2002) 3715 z dne 16. oktobra 2002, Pomoč za stroške energije malih in srednje velikih podjetij (UL L 91, 8.4.2003, str. 38).
Case T-332/06 Alcoa Trasformazioni, not yet reported (appeal pending).
Zadeva T-332/06, Alcoa Trasformazioni, poročila še ni (pritožba v obravnavi).
This figure provided by Alcoa includes not only the smelting of primary aluminium, but also its further processing, which is more labour-intensive.
Ta številka, ki jo je predložila družba Alcoa, vključuje taljenje primarnega aluminija in tudi nadaljnjo obdelavo, ki je bolj delovno intenzivna.
Under this agreement, the Icelandic power utility undertook to build a new hydropower plant and supply electricity to the Alcoa smelter at a price ensuring a rate of return to the power utility of 5,5 % per year.
Na podlagi tega sporazuma se je islandska elektrarna zavezala, da bo zgradila novo hidroelektrarno in oskrbovala talilnico Alcoa z električno energijo po ceni, s katero bi se elektrarni zagotovila stopnja donosa 5,5 % na leto.
The project was approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority by Decision No 40/03/COL of 14 March 2003.
Projekt je odobril Nadzorni organ Efte z odločbo št. 40/03/COL z dne 14. marca 2003.
See Energy Sector Inquiry – Communication from the Commission – Inquiry pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 into the European gas and electricity sectors (Final Report) SEC(2006) 1724, COM(2006) 851 final.
Glej preiskavo energetskega sektorja – Sporočilo Komisije – Preiskava na podlagi člena 17 Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003 v panogi plina in elektroenergetski panogi (končno poročilo) SEC(2006) 1724, COM(2006) 851 konč.
First Report of the High Level Group, ‘Contributing to an integrated approach on competitiveness, energy and environment policies’ (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/environment/hlg_en.htm).
Prvo poročilo Skupine na visoki ravni „Prispevek k celostnemu pristopu k politikam o konkurenčnosti, energiji in okolju“ (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/environment/hlg_en.htm).
The High Level Group is a forum in which representatives of the Commission and business leaders take part.
Skupina na visoki ravni je forum, v katerem sodelujejo predstavniki Komisije in vodje podjetij.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi C-379/98, PreussenElektra, Recueil 2001, str. I-2099.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-345/02 Pearle [2004] ECR I-7139.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi C-345/02, Pearle, Recueil 2004, str. I-7139.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479, paragraph 77.
Sodba Evropskega sodišča v združenih zadevah C-182/03 in C-217/03, Belgija proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2006, str. I-5479, točka 77.
Article 1(b)(v), second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 reads: ‘Where certain measures become aid following the liberalisation of an activity by Community law, such measures shall not be considered as existing aid after the date fixed for liberalisation’.
Drugi stavek člena 1(b)(v) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 določa: „Če nekateri ukrepi postanejo pomoč zaradi liberalizacije dejavnosti s pravnimi predpisi Skupnosti, se takšni ukrepi ne štejejo kot veljavna pomoč po datumu, določenem za liberalizacijo“.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97, T-1/98, T-3/98, T-6/98 and T-23/98 Alzetta and others v Commission [2000] ECR II2319, upheld by the Court of Justice in Case C-298/00 [2004] ECR I-4087, paragraphs 142-143.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje v združenih zadevah T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97, T-1/98, T-3/98, T-6/98 in T-23/98, Alzetta in drugi proti Komisiji, Recueil 2000, str. II-2319, ki jo je potrdilo Evropsko sodišče v zadevi C-298/00, Recueil 2004, str. I-4087, točki 142-143.
Commission Decision 2002/347/ECSC (OJ L 126, 13.5.2002, p. 27) paragraph 33.
Odločba Komisije 2002/347/ECSC (UL L 126, 13.5.2002, str. 27), odstavek 33.
Case E 24/95 Direct Guarantee Scheme in the New Länder, Commission Decisions SG(96) D/5500 of 18 June 1996 and SG(98) D/54570 of 11 November 1998.
Zadeva E 24/95, Shema neposredne garancije v novih deželah, odločbi Komisije SG(96) D/5500 z dne 18. junija 1996 in SG(98) D/54570 z dne 11. novembra 1998.
Before it was split, case C 38/04 also concerned other beneficiaries: Portovesme (zinc), ILA (aluminium products) and Euroallumina (alumina).
Preden se je zadeva C 38/04 razdelila, je zajemala tudi druge upravičence. Portovesme (cink), ILA (izdelki iz aluminija) in Euroallumina (aluminij).
Case C 13/06 relates to the extension of the Alcoa tariff to Portovesme, ILA and Euroallumina pursuant to Article 11(12) of Law No 80/2005.
Zadeva C 13/06 je povezana z razširitvijo cene za družbo Alcoa na družbe Portovesme, ILA in Euroallumina v skladu s členom 11(12) zakona št. 80/2005.
Following ENEL’s acquisition of ENDESA, ENDESA’s assets in Italy were sold to E.ON (see Merger Decision M 5171 of 13 June 2008), http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m5171_20080613_20310_en.pdf
Potem ko je družba ENEL kupila družbo ENDESA, je bilo premoženje družbe ENDESA v Italiji prodano družbi E.ON (glej odločbo o združitvi M 5171 z dne 13. junija 2008), http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m5171_20080613_20310_en.pdf
ENEL’s ability to influence prices in various Italian regions was recognised in the ‘Indagine conoscitiva sullo stato della liberalizzazione dei settori dell’energia elettrica e del gas’ conducted jointly by the AEEG and the Italian competition authority in 2004.
Zmožnost družbe ENEL, da vpliva na cene v različnih regijah v Italiji, je bila priznana v preiskavi „Indagine conoscitiva sullo stato della liberalizzazione dei settori dell’energia elettrica e del gas“, ki sta jo opravila AEEG in italijanski organ za konkurenco leta 2004.
Public consultation on the competitiveness of the European metal industry following the impact of raw material and energy supplies:http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/non_ferrous_metals/consultation.htm
Javno posvetovanje o konkurenčnosti evropske kovinske industrije glede na vpliv zalog surovin in energije:http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/non_ferrous_metals/consultation.htm
The Commission notes, however, that the 2004 Decree was never repealed or amended in order to restrict its scope to beneficiaries other than Alcoa.
Komisija kljub temu ugotavlja, da odlok iz leta 2004 ni bil nikoli razveljavljen ali spremenjen, s čimer bi se področje uporabe omejilo na upravičence, ki niso del družbe Alcoa.
The Alcoa tariff continued to be paid de facto on the basis of the regulatory framework put in place by the AEEG (and mentioned in the 2004 opening decision).
Cena za družbo Alcoa se je še naprej plačevala de facto na podlagi regulativnega okvira, ki ga je vzpostavil organ AEEG (in je navedena v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka iz leta 2004).
By contrast, in the case at hand, the Italian authorities intervene selectively, in a liberalised market, in favour of certain undertakings, in order to compensate the difference between the market price that may be agreed with any energy producer and the preferential tariff established in 1996.
Nasprotno pa v tej zadevi italijanski organi na liberaliziranem trgu posegajo selektivno v korist določenim podjetjem, da se izravna razlika med tržno ceno, za katero se je mogoče dogovoriti z vsakim proizvajalcem energije, in ugodnejšo ceno, določeno leta 1996.
As implemented by AEEG Decisions Nos 148/04 and 217/05.
Kot je izvedeno z odločbama AEEG št. 148/04 in 217/05.
Irrespective of the legal basis, there remains the change in the administrative mechanism described above in particular in recital 42, and for that reason the conclusion that there was a changeover from a real tariff to an operating aid and that the issue at hand is that of new aid is still valid.
Ne glede na pravno podlago ostaja upravni mehanizem, opisan zgoraj zlasti v uvodni izjavi 42, spremenjen, zaradi česar je sklepna ugotovitev, da gre za prehod z dejanske cene na pomoč za tekoče poslovanje ter da gre pri tem vprašanju za novo pomoč, še vedno veljavna.
Commission Decision 85/215/EEC of 13 February 1985 on the preferential tariff charged to glasshouse growers for natural gas in the Netherlands (OJ L 97, 4.4.1985, p. 49).
Odločba Komisije 85/215/EGS z dne 13. februarja 1985 o ugodnejši ceni, ki se zaračunava pridelovalcem v rastlinjakih na Nizozemskem za zemeljski plin (UL L 97, 4.4.1985, str. 49).
See, for example, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraph 67.
Glej na primer sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-372/97, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2004, str. I-3679, točka 67.
The first Liberalisation Directive, Directive 96/92/EC (see footnote 21), was implemented in Italy by Decree No 79/1999.
Prva direktiva o liberalizaciji, Direktiva 96/92/ES (glej opombo 21) se je v Italiji izvajala z odlokom št. 79/1999.
Peak hours are generally between 8.00 a.m. and 8.00 p.m. on weekdays.
Obdobje večje porabe je običajno od 8.00 do 20.00 ure ob delovnikih.
Power plants are ranked in so-called merit order, ranging from plants with the lowest short-run marginal costs (variable costs of producing electricity including fuel and CO2 costs) to plants with the highest costs.
Elektrarne so razvrščene po tako imenovani pomembnosti, tj. od elektrarn z najnižjimi kratkoročnimi mejnimi stroški (spremenljivi stroški proizvodnje električne energije, vključno s stroški goriva in CO2) do elektrarn z najvišjimi stroški.
At any one time, plants compete on the basis of their marginal costs and are called to produce according to their ranking in the merit order: hydroelectric plants first, then nuclear, gas, oil, until the output of all the plants called meets demand.
Istočasno elektrarne tekmujejo na podlagi svojih mejnih stroškov in so pozvane, da proizvajajo glede na svojo razvrstitev po pomembnosti: najprej hidroelektrarne, nato jedrske, plinske, naftne elektrarne, dokler proizvodnja ne zadosti povpraševanju.
The last plant is known as the marginal plant, and its marginal costs set the price of the electricity at this time (the system clearing price).
Zadnja je mejna elektrarna, njeni mejni stroški pa določajo ceno električne energije v tem obdobju (končna cena po sistemu).
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR I-4551, paragraph 34.
Sodba Sodišča v zadevi C-241/94, Francija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1996, str. I-4551, točka 34.
See for example PreussenElektra, paragraph 58.
Glej na primer zadevo PreussenElektra, točka 58.
See for example judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-482/99 France v Commission (Stardust Marine) [2002] ECR I-4397, paragraph 24.
Glej na primer sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-482/99, Francija proti Komisiji (Stardust Marine), Recueil 2002, str. I-4397, točka 24.
See the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-78/76 Steinike & Weinlig [1977] ECR 595 and in Case C-47/69, French textiles [1970] ECR 487.
Glej sodbi Sodišča v zadevi C-78/76, Steinike & Weinlig, Recueil 1977, str. 595 in v zadevi C-47/69, French textiles, Recueil 1970, str. 487.
See footnote 45.
Glej opombo 45.
See footnote 46.
Glej opombo 46.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-136/05 Earl Salvat v Commission, not yet reported, paragraphs 137-165.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T-136/05, Earl Salvat proti Komisiji, poročila še ni, točke 137-165.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-57/86 Greece v Commission [1988] ECR I-2855, paragraph 12; PreussenElektra, ibid.; preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C-126/01 Gemo [2003] ECR I-13769, paragraph 23.
Sodba Sodišča v zadevi C-57/86, Grčija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1988, str. I-2855, točka 12; PreussenElektra, prav tam; predhodna sodba Sodišča v zadevi C-126/01, Gemo, Recueil 2003, str. I-13769, točka 23.
Judgments Stardust Marine, ibid.; Pearle, ibid.; and Earl Salvat, ibid.
Sodbe Stardust, prav tam; Pearle, prav tam; in Earl Salvat, prav tam.
Alcoa submits that, under the tariff arrangement prior to the introduction of Article 11(11) of Law No 80/2005, the funds required to finance the tariff were handled by privately-owned distributors, and therefore did not constitute State resources.
Družba Alcoa meni, da so v okviru dogovora o ceni pred uvedbo člena 11(11) zakona št. 80/2005 s potrebnimi sredstvi za financiranje cene upravljali distributerji v zasebni lasti, zato ta sredstva niso pomenila državnih sredstev.
Even though that tariff arrangement is not in dispute in the present proceedings, the considerations outlined in this paragraph mean that the Commission must dismiss Alcoa’s argument.
Čeprav dogovor o ceni v tem postopku ni sporen, pa ugotovitve, poudarjene v tem odstavku, pomenijo, da mora Komisija zavrniti trditev družbe Alcoa.
The private nature of the distributors is not, in itself, determinant for the purpose of defining the nature of the resources involved.
Zasebna narava distributerjev sama po sebi ni odločilna za namene opredeljevanja narave zadevnih sredstev.
Judgment of 17 July 2008 in Case C-206/06 Essent Netwerk Noord v Aluminium Delfzijl, not yet reported, paragraphs 69 and 70.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 17. julija 2008 v zadevi C-206/06, Essent Netwerk Noord proti Aluminium Delfzijl, poročila še ni, točki 69 in 70.
Commission Decision C(2004) 4333 of 1 December 2004, case No 490/2000 Italy — stranded costs.
Odločba Komisije C(2004) 4333 z dne 1. decembra 2004, zadeva št. 490/2000 Italija – nasedle naložbe.
Judgment of 11 February 2009 in Case T-25/07 Iride, not yet reported, paragraph 39.
Sodba z dne 11. februarja 2009 v zadevi T-25/07, Iride, poročila še ni, točka 39.
Ibid., paragraph 28.
Prav tam, točka 28.
See the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission [1988] ECR I-1433 and Case C-47/69 France v Commission [1970] ECR 4393; see also the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-351/02 Deutsche Bahn v Commission [2006] ECR II-1047.
Glej sodbi Sodišča v zadevi C-303/88, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1988, str. I-1433, in zadevi C-47/69, Francija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1970, str. 4393; glej tudi sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T-351/02, Deutsche Bahn proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2006, str. II-1047.
See, for example, Decision M.2404 Elkem/Sapa of 26 June 2001 and Decision M.1663 Alcan/Alusuisse of 14 March 2000.
Glej na primer Odločbo M.2404, Elkem/Sapa, z dne 26. junija 2001 in Odločbo M.1663, Alcan/Alusuisse, z dne 14. marca 2000.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-307, paragraphs 32 and 33; judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-214/95 Vlaamse Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR II-717, paragraph 67; and judgment of the Court of First Instance in Alzetta v Commission, ibid., paragraph 79.
Sodba Sodišča v zadevi C-301/87, Francija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1990, str. I-307, točki 32 in 33; sodba Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T-214/95, Vlaamse Gewest proti Komisiji, Recueil 1998, str. II-717, točka 67; in sodba Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi Alzetta proti Komisiji, prav tam, točka 79.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-102/87 France v Commission [1988] ECR-4067, paragraph 19; judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraph 26.
Sodba Sodišča v zadevi C-102/87, Francija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1988, str. 4067, točka 19; sodba Sodišča v zadevi C-305/89, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1991, str. I-1603, točka 26.
See footnote 65.
Glej opombo 64.
See, for example, the Commission decisions to open proceedings in respect of regulated electricity tariffs in France (case C 17/07, Commission Decision of 13 June 2007 No C/2007/2392, OJ C 164, 18.7.2007, p. 9) and Spain (case C 3/07, Commission Decision of 24 January 2007 No C/2007/123/3, OJ C 43, 27.2.2007, p. 9).
Glej na primer odločitve Komisije o sprožitvi postopka v zvezi z reguliranimi tarifami električne energije v Franciji (zadeva C 17/07, sklep Komisije z dne 13. junija 2007 št. C/2007/2392, UL C 164, 18.7.2007, str. 9) in Španiji (zadeva C 3/07, sklep Komisije z dne 24. januarja 2007, št. C/2007/123/3, UL C 43, 27,2,2007, str. 9).
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases 6/69 and 11/69 Commission v France [1969] ECR 523.
Sodba Sodišča v združenih zadevah 6/69 in 11/69, Komisija proti Franciji, Recueil 1969, str. 523.
See for example the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671, paragraph 11 and in Joined Cases C-393/04 and C-41/05 Air Liquide Industries v Ville de Seraing et Province de Liège [2006] ECR I-5293.
Glej na primer sodbe Sodišča v zadevi 730/79, Philip Morris proti Komisiji, Recueil 1980, str. 2671, točka 11, ter v združenih zadevah C-393/04 in C-41/05, Air Liquide Industries/Ville de Seraing et Province de Liège, ZOdl. 2006, str. I-5293.