natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In accordance with the Court’s judgment of 18 September 1995, the Commission decided, by Decision of 30 July 1996, to open a formal investigation procedure.
Komisija se je 30. julija 1996 v skladu s sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 18. septembra 1995 odločila, da bo začela formalni postopek preiskave. Komisija je zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj ji predložijo pripombe.
Interested parties were invited to submit their comments to the Commission, and these were largely received during December 1996 and January 1997.
Poslale so jih decembra 1996 in januarja 1997.
Once its investigation was complete, on 10 June 1998 the Commission adopted Decision 1999/133/EC [9].
Komisija je po koncu preiskave 10. junija 1998 sprejela Odločbo 1999/133/ES [9].
It confirmed the cultural purpose of aid for small orders and considered that, on the basis of former Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty, the said aid was not likely to affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that was contrary to the common interest with regard to the export market for French-language books.
Potrdila je, da imajo pomoči v zvezi z majhnimi naročili kulturni cilj, in na podlagi prejšnjega člena 87(3)(d) Pogodbe menila, da navedene pomoči niso take, da bi škodovale trgovinskim pogojem in konkurenci v Uniji do take mere, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom na trgu izvoza knjig v francoskem jeziku.
By a judgment dated 28 February 2002 [10], the Court of First Instance annulled the last sentence of Article 1 of the said Decision.
Sodišče prve stopnje je s sodbo z dne 28. februarja 2002 [10] ugotovilo ničnost zadnjega stavka člena 1 navedene odločbe.
The Court concluded that the Commission should have carried out the necessary verifications in order to obtain relevant data enabling it to distinguish the agency market from that of the export of French-language books in general.
Menilo je namreč, da bi morala Komisija opraviti potrebna preverjanja, da bi pridobila ustrezne podatke za razlikovanje trga posredništva od trga izvoza knjig v francoskem jeziku na splošno.
The Court found that, by failing to carry out such verification, the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment in taking the export market for French-language books in general as the reference market when it was established that the contested aid was intended only for export agencies.
Sodišče prve stopnje je menilo, da je Komisija storila očitno napako pri presoji, ker ni opravila tega preverjanja, s tem ko je za referenčni trg izbrala trg izvoza francoskih knjig na splošno, čeprav je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila sporna pomoč namenjena samo izvoznim posrednikom.
However, in its judgment of 22 June 2000 [11], the Court of Justice rejected the appeal brought by the French authorities against the Commission Decision of 10 June 1998, without going into the substance of the case, and confirmed that, even if the aid could be considered compatible with the common market, this was irrelevant to the obligation to notify and that the obligation to give prior notification meant that the aid had to be suspended.
Po drugi strani je Sodišče v sodbi z dne 22. junija 2000 [11] zavrnilo tožbo francoskih organov zoper Odločbo Komisije z dne 10. junija 1998, ne da bi preučilo vsebino zadeve, ter potrdilo, da tudi če bi bilo pomoč mogoče šteti za združljivo s skupnim trgom, to ne bi vplivalo na obveznost priglasitve in da obveznost predhodne priglasitve vključuje začasno ustavitev pomoči.
Third stage
Tretja faza
Following the partial annulment of the Decision of 10 June 1998, the Commission asked the French authorities and SIDE, by letters dated 14 June 2002, to give their views on the grounds for the annulment of the Decision and, in particular, on the aspects relating to the relevant market.
Komisija je po ugotovitvi delne ničnosti Odločbe z dne 10. junija 1998 francoske organe in družbo SIDE v dopisih z dne 14. junija 2002 prosila, naj ji pošljejo pripombe o razlogih za ugotovitev ničnosti Odločbe in zlasti vidikih v zvezi z zadevnim trgom.
The French authorities were asked to comment in particular on the special features of the CELF offer compared with those of other market operators, including SIDE.
Francoske organe je pozvala, naj zlasti predložijo pojasnila o posebnosti ponudbe zadruge CELF v primerjavi z drugimi akterji na trgu, med katerimi je družba SIDE.
SIDE was asked to comment in particular on the notion of small orders and to indicate any special feature its offer might have compared with CELF’s and those of the other market operators.
Družbo SIDE pa je pozvala, naj zlasti predloži pripombe o pojmu majhna naročila ter navede, katera je bila morebitna posebnost njene ponudbe v primerjavi s ponudbo zadruge CELF in drugih akterjev na trgu.
Having asked SIDE, by letter dated 19 September 2002, to say whether its reply contained confidential information, and having obtained a negative reply on 30 September 2002, the Commission, by letter dated 17 October 2002, sent SIDE’s reply together with its annexes to the French authorities for comment.
Potem ko je Komisija z dopisom z dne 19. septembra 2002 družbo SIDE prosila, naj ji sporoči, ali njen odgovor vsebuje zaupne podatke, in je 30. septembra 2002 prejela negativen odgovor, je z dopisom z dne 17. oktobra 2002 odgovor družbe SIDE skupaj s prilogami posredovala francoskim organom, da bi lahko predložili pripombe.
It also asked them a series of further questions on this occasion.
Ob tej priložnosti jim je tudi postavila nov sklop dodatnih vprašanj.
On 9 January 2003, the Commission sent SIDE’s reply of 23 December 2002 to the French authorities for comment.
Komisija je 9. januarja 2003 francoskim organom poslala odgovor družbe SIDE z dne 23. decembra 2002 za predložitev pripomb.
By letter dated 17 January 2003, the French authorities replied to the Commission’s questions sent on 17 October 2002.
Francoski organi so z dopisom z dne 17. januarja 2003 odgovorili na vprašanja Komisije z dne 17. oktobra 2002.
By letter dated 11 March 2003, the French authorities sent their reply to the Commission.
Francoski organi so z dopisom z dne 11. marca 2003 poslali odgovor Komisiji.
In the meantime, SIDE was received by the Commission’s services at its request and was able to explain its view of the case from the beginning, at a meeting held on 4 March 2003.
Družbo SIDE so poleg tega na njeno zahtevo sprejele službe Komisije in je lahko na sestanku 4. marca 2003 predstavila svoj pogled na zadevo vse od njenega začetka.
At the end of this procedure, the Commission adopted Decision 2005/262/EC, concluding that the disputed aid was compatible on the basis of former Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty, having established that the aid did not overcompensate for the costs of processing small orders.
(29) Evropska komisija je po koncu tega postopka sprejela Odločbo 2005/262/ES in v njej menila, da je sporna pomoč združljiva na podlagi prejšnjega člena 87(3)(d) Pogodbe, potem ko je ugotovila, da pomoči ne morejo pomeniti čezmernega nadomestila za stroške, nastale pri obdelavi majhnih naročil.
Fourth stage
Četrta faza
By its judgment of 15 April 2008, the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission Decision of 20 April 2004.
Sodišče prve stopnje je s sodbo z dne 15. aprila 2008 ugotovilo ničnost Odločbe Komisije z dne 20. aprila 2004.
Moreover, the Court concluded that the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment when examining the compatibility of the disputed aid by overestimating the small order processing costs that were actually borne by CELF.
Poleg tega je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da je Komisija storila očitno napako pri presoji pri preučitvi združljivosti sporne pomoči, ko je precenila stroške obdelave majhnih naročil, ki jih je zadruga CELF dejansko imela.
In its Decision of 20 April 2004, the Commission did not take account of the actual costs of processing small orders but estimated these costs on the basis of the total costs borne by CELF (allocating a share of the total costs to the processing of small orders, using a different method of apportioning costs for each cost category).
Komisija namreč v Odločbi z dne 20. aprila 2004 ni upoštevala dejanskih stroškov obdelave majhnih naročil, ampak je te stroške ocenila na podlagi skupnih stroškov, ki jih je imela zadruga CELF (dodelitev dela skupnih stroškov obdelave majhnih naročil na podlagi ključa porazdelitve, ki se razlikuje za vsako kategorijo stroškov).
Multiplying factors were applied for certain categories of cost, bearing in mind the additional difficulties small order processing would entail in relation to CELF’s other activities.
Za nekatere kategorije stroškov so bili zaradi dodatnih težav, ki naj bi jih povzročala obdelava majhnih naročil v primerjavi z drugimi dejavnostmi zadruge CLEF, uporabljeni množilni koeficienti.
The Court, however, considered that these difficulties would have been resolved through the use of tele-transmission, which related to two thirds of small orders.
Sodišče prve stopnje je ocenilo, da bi bilo te težave mogoče rešiti z uporabo prenosa na daljavo, ki je zadeval dve tretjini majhnih naročil.
The Court therefore concluded that the Commission had made an error of judgment by applying multiplying factors to some costs (and, in any case, to the tele-transmitted orders) and concluded that, in the absence of the said multiplying factors, the costs related to small order processing would have been reduced and the trading results for the activity relating to small orders would have been positive (FRF 600000, or EUR 91469).
Menilo je tudi, da je Komisija storila napako pri presoji, ko je za nekatere stroške (in vsekakor za naročila, prenesena na daljavo) uporabila množilne koeficiente, ter ugotovilo, da bi bili stroški, povezani z obdelavo majhnih naročil, brez navedenih koeficientov nižji, poslovni izid te dejavnosti v zvezi z majhnimi naročili pa bi bil pozitiven (600000 FRF ali 91469 EUR).
According to the Court, the Commission had therefore not demonstrated the absence of overcompensation.
Po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje Komisija torej ni dokazala neobstoja čezmernega nadomestila.
Fifth Phase
Peta faza
Following the Court’s judgment of 15 April 2008, the investigation procedure initiated by the Commission Decision of 30 July 1996 therefore remains open and the Commission has to adopt a new decision.
Postopek preiskave, ki se je začel z Odločbo Komisije z dne 30. julija 1996, ostaja torej po sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 15. aprila 2008 odprt, Komisija pa mora sprejeti nov sklep.
Having regard to the grounds for the Court’s judgment of 15 April 2008, and in view of the fact that the decision initiating the procedure dates back to 30 July 1996, the Commission wished to invite the French authorities and the parties concerned to submit their comments again.
Glede na razloge iz sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 15. aprila 2008 in ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je bila odločitev o sprožitvi postopka sprejeta 30. julija 1996, je želela Komisija francoske organe in zainteresirane strani znova pozvati k predložitvi pripomb.
It states that the two decisions should be regarded as forming an inseparable whole, that they will give rise to one and the same formal investigation procedure and that, should the description of facts and law or the Commission’s preliminary assessment in the decision extending the procedure diverge from the decision initiating the procedure on 30 July 1996, it would be appropriate to take into consideration only the decision extending the procedure.
V njej je navedeno, da je treba obe odločitvi obravnavati kot nedeljivo celoto, da bosta privedli do enega samega formalnega postopka preiskave, in da je treba upoštevati samo odločitev o podaljšanju postopka, če bi se opis dejanskega stanja in prava ali predhodna ocena Komisije v odločitvi o podaljšanju postopka razlikovala od odločitve o sprožitvi postopka z dne 30. julija 1996.
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure at issue.
Komisija je zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe o zadevnem ukrepu.
The French authorities did not, however, provide the detailed elements that were requested by the Commission in its decision extending the procedure and, in relation to the proportionality of the aid, merely referred back to information already provided on 17 September 2002, 17 January 2003 and 11 March 2003, which the Commission could not use as such due to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008.
Vendar pa francoski organi niso predložili podrobnih podatkov, ki jih je Komisija zahtevala v odločitvi o podaljšanju postopka, ampak so se glede sorazmernosti pomoči samo sklicevali na podatke, ki so jih predložili že 17. septembra 2002, 17. januarja 2003 in 11. marca 2003 ter jih Komisija ni mogla uporabiti glede na sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 15. aprila 2008.
By letter of 8 October 2009, the Commission’s services therefore reminded the French authorities of their request for information on the specific points mentioned, indicating that if this information were not provided within ten working days, the Commission would have to take a final decision on the basis of the information at its disposal, in accordance with Article 13(1) of the procedural Regulation, after delivering, if appropriate, an information injunction in accordance with Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [13].
Službe Komisije so torej z dopisom z dne 8. oktobra 2009 francoske organe opozorile na svojo zahtevo po predložitvi podatkov o omenjenih določenih točkah in navedle, da bo morala Komisija, če teh podatkov ne bo prejela v desetih delovnih dneh, končno odločbo sprejeti na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov v skladu s členom 13(1) postopkovne uredbe, potem ko bo po potrebi izdala odredbo o predložitvi podatkov na podlagi člena 10(3) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [13].
By letter dated 21 October 2009, the French authorities informed the Commission that CELF had been put into receivership by judgment of the Paris Commercial Court dated 9 September 2009 and had ceased trading.
Francoski organi so z dopisom z dne 21. oktobra 2009 Komisijo obvestili, da se je na podlagi sodbe sodišča „Tribunal de commerce de Pariz“ (gospodarsko sodišče v Parizu) z dne 9. septembra 2009 začela sodna likvidacija zadruge CELF, ki je prenehala delovati.
Moreover, with regard to the elements requested in the Commission’s letter of 8 October 2009, the French authorities indicated that they had no further information to provide and referred back to their comments sent on 9 June 2009.
Poleg tega so v zvezi s podatki, ki jih je Komisija zahtevala v dopisu z dne 8. oktobra 2009, navedli, da nimajo dodatnih podatkov, ki bi jih lahko predložili, in se sklicevali na pripombe, poslane 9. junija 2009.
By decision dated 20 November 2009 (Decision C(2009) 9256, the ‘injunction decision’), the Commission therefore decided to order France to present the information requested since, despite repeated requests, this information had not been provided.
Komisija se je torej z Odločbo z dne 20. novembra 2009 (C(2009) 9256, „Odločba o predložitvi podatkov“) odločila Franciji odrediti, naj predloži zahtevane podatke, ker tega kljub večkratnim zahtevam ni storila.
By letter dated 2 December 2009, the French authorities indicated that they had no further information to give the Commission and referred back to their comments sent on 9 June 2009.
Francoski organi so z dopisom z dne 2. decembra 2009 navedli, da nimajo dodatnih podatkov, ki bi jih lahko predložili Komisiji, in se sklicevali na pripombe, poslane 9. junija 2009.
It should be noted that, on 2 December 2009, the French authorities also sent a letter relating to the aid scheme known as the ‘University and Scientific Books Programme’ also called ‘Programme Plus’.
Navesti je treba, da so francoski organi 2. decembra 2009 poslali tudi dopis v zvezi s programom pomoči „Programme de Livres Universitaires et Scientifiques (program univerzitetnih in znanstvenih knjig)“, imenovanim „Programme Plus“.
This aid scheme does not form the object of this Decision.
Ta program pomoči ni predmet tega sklepa.
By letter dated 22 December 2009, the Commission asked the French authorities for information on CELF’s situation and applicable liquidation procedure.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 22. decembra 2009 od francoskih organov zahtevala podatke o položaju zadruge CELF in njenem likvidacijskem postopku.
Proceedings before the national courts and preliminary questions
Postopek pred nacionalnimi sodišči in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
It should, moreover, be noted that proceedings are under way in France before the national courts, and that they have given rise to referrals to the Court of Justice on the basis of Article 267 TFEU (former Article 234 EC).
Navesti je treba, da v Franciji potekajo postopki pred nacionalnimi sodišči in da je bila v skladu s temi postopki zadeva predložena Sodišču na podlagi člena 267 PDEU (prejšnji člen 234 ES).
The main stages in these proceedings are briefly outlined below.
V nadaljevanju so na kratko povzete glavne faze teh postopkov.
SIDE referred the matter of the direct effect of former Article 88(3) EC to the French courts.
Družba SIDE je zadevo predložila francoskim sodiščem na podlagi neposrednega učinka prejšnjega člena 88(3) ES.
By judgment of 5 October 2004, confirming a judgment of the Paris Administrative Court of 26 April 2001, the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal ordered the French State to recover the aid paid to CELF.
Sodišče „Cour administrative d’appel de Pariz“ (upravno pritožbeno sodišče v Parizu) je s sodbo z dne 5. oktobra 2004, s katero je bila potrjena sodba sodišča „Tribunal administratif de Pariz“ (upravno sodišče v Parizu) z dne 26. aprila 2001, od Francije zahtevalo izterjavo pomoči, izplačane zadrugi CELF.
After appealing to the Council of State, by judgment of 29 March 2006 this body confirmed certain aspects of the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal, particularly the fact that the disputed aid was not of a purely compensatory nature for public service obligations [14], that it could not be described as existing aid by the national judge and that CELF could not claim a legitimate expectation.
„Conseil d’Etat“, ki mu je bila predložena kasacijska pritožba, je s sodbo z dne 29. marca 2006 potrdil nekatere vidike sodbe sodišča „Cour administrative d’appel“, zlasti dejstvo, da zadevne pomoči niso bile preprosto nadomestilo za obveznosti javne službe [14], da jih nacionalno sodišče ne more opredeliti kot veljavne pomoči in da se zadruga CELF ne more sklicevati na upravičeno pričakovanje.
Nevertheless, in its judgment of 29 March 2006, the Council of State also decided to stay proceedings on the appeal until the Court of Justice had issued its judgment on the preliminary questions it had raised with it regarding the national judicature’s obligations in relation to State aid that had not been notified but was subsequently declared compatible with the common market by a decision of the Commission.
Kljub temu pa je „Conseil d’Etat“ v sodbi z dne 29. marca 2006 odločil, da prekine odločanje o pritožbah, dokler Sodišče EU ne odloči o vprašanjih za predhodno odločanje, ki mu jih je postavil glede obveznosti nacionalnega sodišča v zvezi z državno pomočjo, ki ni bila priglašena, vendar je bila pozneje z Odločbo Komisije razglašena za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
In its judgment of 12 February 2008 [15], the Court of Justice ruled:
Sodišče EU je v sodbi z dne 12. februarja 2008 [15] razsodilo:
‘The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is to be interpreted as meaning that the national court is not bound to order the recovery of aid implemented contrary to that provision, where the Commission has adopted a final decision declaring that aid to be compatible with the common market, within the meaning of Article 87 EC.
„Člen 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES je treba razlagati tako, da nacionalno sodišče ni dolžno naložiti vračila pomoči, ki je bila izvajana v nasprotju s to določbo, če je Komisija sprejela dokončno odločitev, da je navedena pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom glede na člen 87 ES.
Applying Community law, the national court must order the aid recipient to pay interest in respect of the period of unlawfulness.
V skladu s pravom Skupnosti mora prejemniku pomoči naložiti plačilo obresti za obdobje nezakonitosti.
Within the framework of its domestic law, it may, if appropriate, also order the recovery of the unlawful aid, without prejudice to the Member State’s right to re-implement it, subsequently.
V okviru svojega nacionalnega prava lahko, če je to predvideno, poleg tega naloži vračilo nezakonite pomoči kljub pravici države članice, da pomoč kasneje ponovno izvaja.
It may also be required to uphold claims for compensation for damage caused by reason of the unlawful nature of the aid.
Prav tako lahko ugodi odškodninskim zahtevkom za škodo, ki je nastala zaradi nezakonitosti pomoči.
In a procedural situation such as that in the main proceedings, the obligation, arising from the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, to remedy the consequences of the aid’s unlawfulness extends also, for the purposes of calculating the sums to be paid by the recipient, and save for exceptional circumstances, to the period between a decision of the Commission of the European Communities declaring the aid to be compatible with the common market and the annulment of that decision by the Community court.’
V postopku, kot je ta iz spora v glavni stvari, obveznost iz člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES, da se odpravi učinke nezakonitosti pomoči, zajema pri izračunu zneskov, ki jih mora plačati prejemnik, razen v izjemnih okoliščinah, tudi obdobje od sprejetja odločbe Komisije, s katero je bila ugotovljena združljivost te pomoči s skupnim trgom, do razglasitve ničnosti navedene odločbe s strani sodišča Skupnosti.“
After considering the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 February 2008, along with the previously mentioned judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 April 2008, in its judgment of 19 December 2008, the Council of State annulled Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the above-stated judgment of 5 October 2004 of the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal and ruled as follows.
„Conseil d’Etat“ je po upoštevanju sodbe Sodišča EU z dne 12. februarja 2008 in zgoraj navedene sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 15. aprila 2008 v sodbi z dne 19. decembra 2008 razveljavil člene 2, 3 in 4 zgoraj navedene sodbe sodišča „Cour administrative d’appel de Pariz“ z dne 5. oktobra 2004 in odločil naslednje.
Firstly, the Minister for Culture and Communication was ordered to recover the interest relating to the State aid paid to CELF since 1980 and up to the date of the Council of State judgment, calculated in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [16].
Najprej, ministru za kulturo in komunikacije je naloženo, naj izterja obresti v zvezi z državno pomočjo, izplačano zadrugi CELF, od leta 1980 do datuma sodbe „Conseil d’Etat“, izračunane v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 [16].
The Minister was then ordered to take the necessary steps to collect the interest due between the date of the Council of State’s judgment and either the date when the compatibility of the aid with the common market was definitively noted or the date when the aid was finally returned.
Ministru je tudi naloženo, naj pozneje izterja obresti, ki bodo dolgovane od datuma sodbe „Conseil d’Etat“ do datuma, ko bo bodisi dokončno ugotovljena združljivost pomoči s skupnim trgom bodisi pomoč dokončno povrnjena.
In addition, the Council of State decided to stay proceedings until the Court of Justice had issued an opinion on the following preliminary questions:
Poleg tega je „Conseil d’Etat“ prekinil odločanje, dokler Sodišče EU ne odloči o naslednjih vprašanjih za predhodno odločanje: