natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
May the national court stay proceedings concerning the obligation to recover State aid until the Commission of the European Communities has ruled, by way of a final decision, on the compatibility of the aid with the rules of the common market, where a first decision of the Commission declaring that aid to be compatible has been annulled by the Community judicature?
Ali lahko nacionalno sodišče prekine odločanje o vprašanju obveznosti povračila državne pomoči, dokler Komisija z dokončno odločbo ne odloči o združljivosti pomoči s pravili skupnega trga, če je sodišče Skupnosti prvo odločbo Komisije, s katero je bila ta pomoč razglašena za združljivo, razglasilo za nično?
Where the Commission has on three occasions declared the aid to be compatible with the common market, before those decisions were annulled by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, is such a situation capable of being an exceptional circumstance which may lead the national court to limit the obligation to recover the aid?’
Ali lahko to, da je Komisija trikrat razglasila pomoč za združljivo s skupnim trgom, preden je Sodišče prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti razglasilo te odločbe za nične, pomeni izjemno okoliščino, zaradi katere lahko nacionalno sodišče omeji obveznost povračila pomoči?“
On 11 March 2010 [17], the Court of Justice deferred judgment on the said preliminary questions and ruled:
Sodišče EU je 11. marca 2010 [17] o navedenih vprašanjih za predhodno odločanje razsodilo:
A national court before which an application has been brought, on the basis of Article 88(3) EC, for repayment of unlawful State aid may not stay the adoption of its decision on that application until the Commission of the European Communities has ruled on the compatibility of the aid with the common market following the annulment of a previous positive decision;
Nacionalno sodišče, ki na podlagi člena 88(3) ES odloča o zahtevku za povračilo nezakonite državne pomoči, ne sme odložiti sprejetja odločbe o tem zahtevku, dokler se Komisija Evropskih skupnosti ne izreče o združljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom, potem ko je bila predhodna pozitivna odločba razglašena za nično.
The adoption by the Commission of the European Communities of three successive decisions declaring aid to be compatible with the common market, which were subsequently annulled by the Community judicature, is not, in itself, capable of constituting an exceptional circumstance such as to justify a limitation of the recipient’s obligation to repay that aid, in the case where that aid was implemented contrary to Article 88(3) EC.’
Sprejetje treh odločb Komisije Evropskih skupnosti, s katerimi je bila pomoč razglašena za združljivo s skupnim trgom in ki jih je sodišče Skupnosti razglasilo za nične, ne pomeni izjemne okoliščine, na podlagi katere je mogoče utemeljiti omejitev obveznosti upravičenca, da vrne to pomoč, če je bila ta izvršena ob kršitvi člena 88(3) ES.“
DESCRIPTION OF THE DISPUTED MEASURE
OPIS ZADEVNEGA UKREPA
The French authorities informed the Commission that, in 1980, the Ministry of Culture had decided, in line with the French Government’s general policy guidelines on promoting French-language books and French literature, to grant aid to export agents accepting any kind of order, irrespective of its amount and profitability.
Francoski organi so Komisiji sporočili, da se je ministrstvo za kulturo leta 1980 v skladu s smernicami splošne politike francoske vlade v zvezi s promocijo knjig in literature v francoskem jeziku odločilo dodeliti pomoči izvoznim posrednikom, ki bodo sprejemali vse vrste naročil, ne glede na njihov znesek in donosnost.
These measures were presumably introduced to alleviate the effects of market failure and to foster the continuation of activity relating to ‘small non-profitable orders’ in the export agency market.
Ti ukrepi so bili sprejeti, da se odpravijo pomanjkljivosti trga in spodbudi ohranjanje dejavnosti v zvezi z nedonosnimi majhnimi naročili na trgu izvoznega posredništva.
According to the French authorities, small bookshops, established in essentially non-French-speaking areas, sometimes with difficult access and/or remote, were experiencing serious supply difficulties, since their orders could not be met by the traditional distribution channels when the quantities of books ordered were insufficient or when the unit price of the books ordered was not high enough to make the service profitable.
Po navedbah francoskih organov so se majhne knjigarne s sedežem na predvsem nefrankofonskih območjih, ki so bila včasih težko dostopna in/ali oddaljena, srečevale z resnimi težavami z oskrbo, ker njihovega povpraševanja ni bilo mogoče zadovoljiti po tradicionalnih distribucijskih poteh, kadar so bile količine naročenih del nezadostne ali skupna cena naročenih knjig ni bila dovolj visoka, da bi bila storitev lahko donosna.
According to the French authorities, the aid at issue was therefore designed to allow export agencies to meet all orders from booksellers established abroad in essentially non-French-speaking areas, irrespective of amount, profitability or destination.
Po navedbah francoskih organov naj bi zadevne pomoči izvoznim posrednikom torej omogočile, da bi izpolnili vsa naročila knjigarnarjev s sedežem v tujini na predvsem nefrankofonskih območjih, ne glede na njihov znesek, donosnost in namembnost.
The aim was to ensure, as part of France’s policy of supporting cultural diversity, the optimum distribution of books in the French language, thus promoting the dissemination of French literature throughout the world.
Cilj pomoči je bil, da bi se v okviru francoske politike podpiranja kulturne raznolikosti zagotovila optimalna distribucija knjig v francoskem jeziku in da bi se tako spodbujalo razširjanje literature v francoskem jeziku po vsem svetu.
The aid mechanism chosen by the French authorities, the Small Orders Programme, consisted of a grant intended to offset the extra costs of handling small orders, defined by the French authorities as being orders of FRF 500 (approximately EUR 76) or less.
Mehanizem pomoči, ki so ga izbrali francoski organi, imenovan „Programme petites commandes“ (program majhnih naročil), je vključeval subvencijo, katere namen je bil nadomestiti dodatne stroške obdelave majhnih naročil, ki so jih francoski organi opredelili kot naročila do vključno zneska 500 francoskih frankov (FRF), kar je približno 76 EUR.
According to the French authorities, the company receiving the grants had to promise to provide the Ministry of Culture’s Book Directorate with all information concerning the general activity of the firm (overall turnover, financial accounts, provisional budgets, copies of the proceedings validating these figures, the auditor’s report where appropriate, and a summary salary scale), along with any documents relating to the activity to be subsidised, including in particular the grant utilisation account, substantiating that the services giving rise to the grant awarded the previous year had been carried out.
Kot navajajo francoski organi, se je moralo podjetje, ki je subvencije prejemalo, obvezati, da bo direkciji za knjigo in branje pri ministrstvu za kulturo sporočilo vse podatke v zvezi s splošno dejavnostjo podjetja (skupni promet, finančne izkaze, predloge proračuna, kopije odločitev, s katerimi so ti podatki potrjeni, če je potrebno, poročilo revizorja in povzetek plač), ter vse dokumente v zvezi s subvencionirano dejavnostjo, zlasti poročilo o porabi subvencij, s katerim je utemeljeno izvajanje storitev, za katere je bila prejšnje leto dodeljena subvencija.
In practice, only one firm, CELF, had qualified under the Small Orders Programme.
V praksi je imelo od programa „majhnih naročil“ korist eno samo podjetje, to je zadruga CELF.
According to the French authorities, the company had to justify the extra costs incurred each year by the small orders service in relation to its application for a grant for the following year.
Po navedbah francoskih organov je moralo podjetje svoji vlogi za subvencijo za naslednje leto vsako leto priložiti utemeljitev dodatnih stroškov, ustvarjenih s storitvijo v zvezi z majhnimi naročili.
Specifically, one quarter of the grant awarded the previous year was paid at the start of the year, the balance being awarded in the autumn, after the authorities had examined the provisional budget of the recipient firm and the flows recorded in the first part of the financial year.
Četrtina subvencije, odobrene prejšnje leto, je bila zadrugi CELF dejansko izplačana na začetku leta, preostanek pa ji je bil dodeljen jeseni, potem ko so javni organi preučili predlog proračuna podjetja prejemnika in nihanja, evidentirana v prvem delu poslovnega leta.
It was agreed that if the amount of aid was not fully utilised, the balance would be deducted from the planned grants for the following year.
Dogovorjeno je bilo, da se preostale vsote odštejejo od subvencij, predvidenih za naslednje leto, če znesek pomoči ni porabljen v celoti.
In addition, the Ministry of Culture attended CELF’s board meetings and general meetings as an invited observer.
Poleg tega je ministrstvo za kulturo kot povabljeni opazovalec sodelovalo na upravnih odborih in generalnih skupščinah zadruge CELF.
After steadily declining from 1997 onwards, the aid at issue was abolished in 2002.
Pojasniti je treba, da se je od leta 1997 zadevna pomoč nenehno zniževala, leta 2002 pa je bila ukinjena.
Every year from 1980 to the end of 2001, CELF therefore received aid to reduce, according to the French authorities, the costs of processing small orders from abroad for books in French.
Zadruga CELF je torej vsako leto od leta 1980 do konca leta 2001 prejela pomoč, ki je bila po navedbah francoskih organov namenjena znižanju stroškov obdelave majhnih naročil iz tujine za knjige v francoskem jeziku.
In all, from 1980 until the end of 2001, CELF received approximately EUR 4,8 million by way of the aid at issue.
Zadruga CELF je od leta 1980 do konca leta 2001 skupaj prejela 4,8 milijona EUR pomoči.
Amounts of aid allocated to CELF since 1980 for processing ‘small orders’
Zneski pomoči, dodeljeni zadrugi CELF od leta 1980 iz naslova obdelave „majhnih naročil“
Information supplied by the French authorities
Podatki, ki so jih predložili francoski organi
(amounts given in euro)
(zneski so zaokroženi v EUR)
COMMENTS FROM FRANCE AND OBSERVATIONS FROM SIDE FOLLOWING THE EXTENSION OF THE PROCEDURE
PRIPOMBE FRANCIJE IN DRUZBE SIDE PO PODALJSANJU POSTOPKA
In their reply of 9 June 2009 to the decision extending the procedure, the French authorities made the following comments in particular.
Francoski organi so v odgovoru z dne 9. junija 2009 na odločitev o podaljšanju postopka izrazili zlasti naslednje pripombe.
They first stated that they shared the Commission’s analysis that the aid to CELF represented State aid and that the exemptions laid down in Article 107(2) and Article 107(3)(a) and (b) TFEU were not applicable.
Najprej so navedli, da se strinjajo z analizo Komisije, v skladu s katero pomoč za zadrugo CELF pomeni državno pomoč ter v skladu s katero se odstopanja iz člena 107(2) in (3)(a) in (b) PDEU ne uporabljajo.
In terms of assessing the aid under Article 107(3)(c) and (d) TFEU, the French authorities did not provide any new information with regard to the proportionality of the aid.
Francoski organi v okviru ocene pomoči glede na člen 107(3)(c) in (d) PDEU niso predložili novih podatkov v zvezi s sorazmernostjo pomoči.
The French authorities also stated that they considered that the tasks allocated to CELF formed a public service within the meaning of Article 106(2) TFEU.
Poleg tega so navedli, da je po njihovem mnenju naloga, dodeljena zadrugi CELF, storitev splošnega pomena v smislu člena 106(2) PDEU.
The French authorities finally, and above all, pleaded the existence of exceptional circumstances that should lead the Commission not to recover the aid.
Nazadnje in predvsem so se sklicevali na obstoj izjemnih okoliščin, zaradi katerih Komisija ne bi smela odrediti izterjave pomoči.
By letter dated 2 December 2009, the French authorities replied that they had no further information to give to the Commission.
Francoski organi so z dopisom z dne 2. decembra 2009 odgovorili, da nimajo dodatnih podatkov, ki bi jih lahko predložili.
In its comments of 23 July 2009, SIDE made the following observations in particular.
Družba SIDE je v pripombah z dne 23. julija 2009 navedla zlasti naslednje.
SIDE recalled that only CELF had benefited from the aid when, in its opinion, this activity was not specific to CELF since the act of honouring orders of all sizes, however small, coming from geographically dispersed bookshops, in order to group them together and issue larger orders to publishers, was specifically, in SIDE’s opinion, the definition of the activity of an export agent.
Družba SIDE je opozorila, da je pomoč prejela samo zadruga CELF, po njenem mnenju namreč dejavnost zadruge CELF ni značilna samo zanjo, saj naj bi bilo izpolnjevanje naročil vseh velikosti, tudi najmanjših, ki jih oddajo geografsko razpršene knjigarne, in njihovo združevanje, da se založnikom oddajo večja naročila, po mnenju družbe SIDE prav opredelitev dejavnosti izvoznega posredništva.
SIDE also stated that it was not due to an alleged lack of transparency that it had been refused the aid but because it was a private company and not a publishing cooperative.
Družba SIDE je še navedla, da ji pomoč ni bila zavrnjena zaradi domnevnega pomanjkanja preglednosti, ampak ker je zasebno podjetje, ne založniška zadruga.
Moreover, SIDE contested in detail the fact that the aid was necessary.
Poleg tega je podrobno izpodbijala dejstvo, da naj bi bile pomoči nujne.
In this context, it considered, in particular, that the notion of ‘small orders’ was arbitrary and rejected the figures presented by the French authorities.
Pri tem je zlasti menila, da je pojem „majhna naročila“ samovoljen, in spodbijala številke, ki so jih predložili francoski organi.
In addition, SIDE considered that the aid could not be justified on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU and based its opinion particularly on national rulings with regard to CELF’s activity.
Poleg tega je menila, da pomoč ne more biti upravičena na podlagi člena 106(2) PDEU, in se oprla zlasti na sodbe nacionalnih sodišč v zvezi z dejavnostjo zadruge CELF.
Finally, SIDE indicated that it considered that, in this particular case, there were no exceptional circumstances that would enable the obligation to recover the aid to be limited.
Nazadnje je družba SIDE navedla, da po njenem mnenju v obravnavanem primeru ni izjemnih okoliščin, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče omejiti obveznost vračila.
It must be established whether the measure at issue constitutes State aid and whether it can, if appropriate, be considered compatible with the internal market.
Ugotoviti je treba, ali zadevni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč in ali ga je po potrebi mogoče šteti za združljivega z notranjim trgom.
In the context of its assessment, the Commission must, in particular, take note of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008.
Komisija mora pri oceni upoštevati zlasti sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 15. aprila 2008.
Assessment of the measure pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU
Ocena ukrepa glede na člen 107(1) PDEU
Article 107(1) TFEU provides that ‘Save as otherwise provided by the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
Člen 107(1) PDEU določa, da „[r]azen če Pogodbi ne določata drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
By way of introduction, as already stated in the decision extending the procedure, the Commission recalls that the Commission’s conclusion that the measure at issue constitutes State aid within the meaning of the Treaty has never been challenged, either at the different stages of the procedure before the Commission or before the courts of the European Union [18], nor even, moreover, before the national courts [19].
Kot je bilo navedeno že v odločitvi o podaljšanju postopka, Komisija najprej opozarja, da njena ugotovitev, v skladu s katero zadevni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu Pogodbe, nikoli ni povzročila pomislekov, ne v različnih fazah postopka pred Komisijo, ne pred sodišči Evropske unije [18], niti pred nacionalnimi sodišči [19].
Thus in their reply of 9 June 2009 to the decision extending the procedure, the French authorities indicated that they shared the Commission’s analysis that the aid to CELF was State aid.
Tako so francoski organi v odgovoru z dne 9. junija 2009 navedli, da se strinjajo z analizo Komisije, v skladu s katero pomoč za zadrugo CELF pomeni državno pomoč.
The Commission considers that the measure in question constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (former Article 87(1) EC), for the following reasons.
Komisija meni, da zadevni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU (prejšnji člen 87(1) ES) iz naslednjih razlogov.
Firstly, the measure gives CELF an advantage, since it enables it to reduce the cost of its small orders.
Najprej, ukrep daje zadrugi CELF prednost, ker lahko zniža stroške majhnih naročil.
It is selective, given that in practice it has only benefited CELF.
Je selektiven, ker je bila v praksi do njega upravičena samo zadruga CELF.
Moreover, the measure is financed from the budgetary resources of the French State, i.e. from state resources.
Poleg tega se financira s proračunskimi sredstvi francoske države, to je iz državnih sredstev.
Its implementation was decided by the Ministry of Culture and the measure is therefore attributable to the French authorities.
O izvajanju ukrepa je odločalo ministrstvo za kulturo, zato so zanj odgovorni francoski organi.
Furthermore, the measure is likely to affect trade between Member States and distort competition.
Ukrep lahko nadalje vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja konkurenco.
The aid is granted to French agents (in practice to CELF) who export books in the French language principally to non-French-speaking countries.
Pomoč je namreč dodeljena francoskim posrednikom (v praksi zadrugi CELF), ki izvažajo knjige v francoskem jeziku, predvsem v nefrankofonske države.
French agents are therefore competing, at least potentially, with other agents for the export of French-language books that may be established in other French-speaking countries of the EU (Belgium and Luxembourg).
Navedeni francoski posredniki torej vsaj potencialno konkurirajo drugim izvoznim posrednikom za knjige v francoskem jeziku iz drugih frankofonskih držav Evropske unije (iz Belgije in Luksemburga).
The fact that the impact on trade and the distortion of competition as a result of the measure seem to be small does not alter this conclusion.
Te ugotovitve ne spremeni dejstvo, da se vpliv na trgovino in izkrivljanje konkurence, ki ju povzroča ta ukrep, zdita majhna.
In line with the Court of Justice’s established case law, the Commission is not required to determine the actual impact of aid on trade between Member States and the actual distortion of competition; it is sufficient that the aid is likely to have an impact on trade and distort competition.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča Komisiji namreč ni treba dokazati dejanskega vpliva pomoči na trgovino med državami članicami in dejanskega izkrivljanja konkurence, ampak zadostuje, da obstaja verjetnost, da lahko pomoč vpliva na trgovino in izkrivlja konkurenco.
Finally, the Commission considers that the conditions for application of the Altmark case law are not met.
Nazadnje Komisija meni, da pogoji za uporabo sodne prakse Altmark niso izpolnjeni.
In its judgment of 24 July 2003 [20], the Court of Justice specified the conditions under which a grant to a company responsible for managing services of general economic interest does not constitute State aid: ‘First, the recipient undertaking is actually required to discharge public service obligations and those obligations have been clearly defined; second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner; third, the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations; fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed has been determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.’
Sodišče je v sodbi z dne 24. julija 2003 [20] pojasnilo, pod katerimi pogoji subvencija za podjetje, pooblaščeno za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, ne pomeni državne pomoči: „prvič, podjetje, ki prejema nadomestilo, mora dejansko izpolnjevati obveznosti javne službe, te pa morajo biti jasno opredeljene; drugič, merila, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, morajo biti določena vnaprej ter objektivno in pregledno; tretjič, nadomestilo ne sme presegati tistega, kar je nujno za kritje vseh ali dela stroškov, ki so nastali zaradi izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička za izpolnjevanje teh obveznosti; četrtič, če podjetje, ki se mu naloži izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe, v konkretnem primeru ni izbrano s postopkom oddaje javnega naročila, ki omogoča, da se izbere tisti ponudnik, ki lahko te storitve opravlja z najnižjimi stroški za skupnost, se mora raven potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, ki je ustrezno opremljeno s prevoznimi sredstvi, zato da lahko zadosti zahtevam javne službe, imelo pri izpolnjevanju teh obveznosti ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti“.
In this particular case, and without it being necessary to consider each of the conditions individually since they are cumulative, the Commission notes that the choice of CELF was not made in the context of a public procurement procedure and that the level of compensation was not determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs incurred by a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with production resources.
V obravnavanem primeru in ne da bi bilo treba preučiti vsakega od pogojev, ker so ti kumulativni, Komisija ugotavlja, da zadruga CELF ni bila izbrana s postopkom za oddajo javnega naročila in da raven nadomestila ni bila določena na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih imelo povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, ki je ustrezno opremljeno s proizvodnimi sredstvi.
In these circumstances, the aid granted to CELF constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since all the constituent elements of the concept of State aid are present.
V teh okoliščinah pomoč, dodeljena zadrugi CELF, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, ker so prisotni vsi sestavni elementi pojma državna pomoč.
And yet the French authorities did not notify the Commission of the measure in question.
Francoski organi zadevnega ukrepa niso priglasili Komisiji.
The aid was therefore granted in violation of Article 108(3) TFEU, which stipulates that the Commission must be informed of projects aimed at instituting or amending aid in sufficient time to be able to submit its comments.
Pomoč je bila torej dodeljena v nasprotju s členom 108(3) PDEU, ki določa, da mora biti Komisija obveščena o vseh načrtih za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči dovolj zgodaj, da lahko predloži pripombe.