natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, in order to prevent fiscal circumvention when switching to the new scheme, the eventual positive difference between the fiscal depreciation and the accounting one is also fully taxed at normal rates when the ship is sold, so to avoid that lower than fiscal accounting depreciation transforms itself in a lower nominal capital gain, thus partly eluding full tax payment for capital gains.’ (our underlining)
Glej tudi zadevo 265/85, Recueil, str.
See recital 73 of Commission Decision C(2011) 4494 final.
1155, točka 44, in zadevo C-152/88, Sofrimport proti Komisiji, Recueil, str.
See http://petete.meh.es/scripts/know3.exe/tributos/CONSUVIN/texto.htm?NDoc=12728&Consulta=buques&Pos=230
I-153, točka 26.
See, in particular, Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671, paragraph 11; Case C-53/00 Ferring [2001] ECR I-9067, paragraph 21; Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraph 44.
Člen 108(3) PDEU državam članicam nalaga obveznost, da Komisijo obvestijo o novih ukrepih pomoči in da počakajo na njeno odobritev, preden začnejo izvajati ukrep.
Case T-214/95 Het Vlaamse Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR II-717.
Poglavje II postopkovne uredbe (UL L 83, 27.3.1999) določa podrobna pravila za uporabo člena 107 za priglašeno pomoč.
As explained in Sections 5.3.2.1 and 5.3.2.3, the Commission does not regard the provisions of Articles 115(6) (Accelerated depreciation) and 48 TRLIS (EIG legal status) as State aid.
Glej združeni zadevi C-183/02 P in C-187/02 P, Demesa in Territorio Histórico de Álava proti Komisiji, ZOdl., str.
See Maritime Guidelines, Section 3.1 Fiscal Treatment of shipowning companies, paragraph 12: ‘These guidelines apply only to maritime transport.’
I-10609, točke 44, 45 in 52.
See Maritime Guidelines, Section 3.1 Fiscal Treatment of shipowning companies, 11th, 12th and 16th paragraphs: ‘Ship management companies may qualify for aid only in respect of vessels for which they have been assigned the entire crew and technical management. … to be eligible, ship managers have to assume from the owner the full responsibility for the vessel’s operation as well as take over from the owner all the duties and responsibilities imposed by the ISM code’; ‘The Commission can accept that the towing at sea of other vessels, oil platforms, etc. falls under that definition.’ and ‘ “Dredging” activities are in principle not eligible for aid to maritime transport.
Glej združeni zadevi T-427/04 in T-17/05, Francija proti Komisiji (France Télécom), ZOdl., str.
However, fiscal arrangements for companies (such as tonnage tax) may be applied to those dredgers whose activities consist in “maritime transport” … ’
II-4315, točka 263.
See Commission Decision of 11 December 2002 in Case N 504/02, Ireland, Introduction of a tonnage tax, recital 28; Commission Decision of 20.12.2011 in SA.30515, Finland, Amendments to the tonnage taxation aid scheme, recital 10.
Glej uvodno izjavo 187 navedene odločbe.
See Maritime Guidelines, point 2.2 General objectives of revised State aid guidelines.
Odločba Komisije z dne 30. junija 2004 o državni pomoči, ki jo Nizozemska namerava nameniti za šest pogodb o gradnji ladij v štirih ladjedelnicah.
See Section 2.4 Recipients: ‘Recipients of the Tonnage Tax scheme can be maritime companies registered under Spanish law whose activity includes the operation of owned and chartered ships’ and Section 2.5 Qualifying activities/ships: ‘The Tonnage Tax scheme only covers income from seagoing ships operated in maritime transport activities.
Glej razpredelnico 2 v uvodni izjavi 9 Odločbe Komisije z dne 11. novembra 2003, UL C 11, 15.1.2004, str.
Qualifying activities are targeted to include only maritime transport’.
7.
It should be noted that EIGs, like other forms of undertakings, can in principle enter the TT scheme if they carry on eligible activities.
Glej uvodno izjavo 8 navedene Odločbe Komisije z dne 11. novembra 2003: „Namen priglašene pomoči je izenačitev s subvencioniranimi obrestmi, ki jih domnevno ponuja Španija.
Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport, OJ C 205, 5.7.1997, p.
Nizozemska trdi, da … cene, ki jih navajajo španske ladjedelnice, vključujejo subvencionirane obresti za financiranje izvoza s podporo španskih organov na podlagi španske kraljeve uredbe (RD) 442/94“.
3 (applicable from 17.1.2004).
1.
Framework on State aid to shipbuilding, OJ C 317, 30.12.2003, p.
UL C 317, 30.12.2003, str.
However, given that the shipyards are not recipients or the aid and it is impossible to quantify an economic flow to their benefit, it is not necessary to assess the aid under this Framework.
Glej uvodno izjavo 24 navedene končne Odločbe z dne 30. junija 2004: „V postopkih za odobritev državne pomoči se mora Komisija zanašati na izjave države članice, ki bo (naj bi) odobrila pomoč.“.
See Maritime Guidelines, Section 2.1 Scope of revised State aid Guidelines, first paragraph: ‘These guidelines cover any aid granted by Member States or through State resources in favour of maritime transport’ and Section 3.1 Fiscal Treatment of shipowning companies, 12th paragraph: ‘These guidelines apply only to maritime transport.’
Glej uvodno izjavo 14 navedene Odločbe Komisije z dne 11. novembra 2003.
See Maritime Guidelines, Section 3.1 Fiscal treatment of shipowning companies, last paragraph: ‘the fiscal advantages mentioned above must be restricted to shipping activities; hence, in cases where a shipowning company is also engaged in other commercial activities, transparent accounting will be required in order to prevent ‘spill-over’ into non-shipping activities. ’
Glej Obvestilo Komisije o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka, UL C 384, 10.12.1998, str.
State aid C 46/2004, Commission Decision of 20.12.2006 on the aid scheme implemented by France under Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code (OJ L 112, 30.4.2007, p.
3.
43).
Glej združeni zadevi C-74/00 P in C-75/00 P, Falck in Acciaierie di Bolzano proti Komisiji, Recueil, str.
As indicated above, Spain invoked the 2002 Commission Decision authorising the Spanish Tonnage Tax as a basis for compatibility.
I-7869, točka 140.
In fact, the conclusion that the TT is compatible with the internal market is based on the Maritimes Guidelines.
Glej zadevo T-308/00, Salzgitter proti Komisiji, ZOdl., str.
See Joined Cases T-115/09 and T-116/09 Electrolux AB and Whirlpool Europe BV v Commission.
Zadeva C-408/04P, Komisija proti Salzgitter, ZOdl., str.
See Case C-110/03 Belgium v Commission, paragraph 71 and the case-law cited.
I-2767.
Coordination Centres (DE); Coordination Centres and Finance Companies (LU); Vizcaya Coordination Centres (ES); Headquarters and International Treasury Pools (FR); Foreign Income (IE); International Financing Activities (NL).
Zdi se, da so bili prvi posli na podlagi SPN v praksi organizirani v juliju 2002.
Answer given on 12 July 1990 to Written Question No 1735/90 from Mr G. de Vries to the Commission (OJ C 63, 11.3.1991, p.
UL L 12, 15.1.2002, str.
37).
33.
Case C 167/06 P Komninou and others v Commission, paragraph 63, and Case C-537/08 P Kahla Thüringen Porzellan v Commission [2010] ECR I-12917, paragraph 63.
Osem zahtev za informacije je bilo Španiji poslanih na naslednje datume: 15.9.2006, 30.1.2007, 6.11.2007, 5.2.2008, 3.3.2008, 23.9.2008, 11.1.2010, 12.5.2010.
Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR I 5479, paragraph 147; Case C-167/06 P Komninou and Others v Commission [2007] ECR I-141, paragraph 63; Case T-107/02 GE Betz v OHIM — Atofina Chemicals (BIOMATE), [2004] ECR II-1845, paragraph 80, and the case-law cited.
Glej uvodno izjavo 196 navedene odločbe.
Case C-289/81, Mavridis v Parliament [1983] ECR 1731; Case T-290/97, Mehibas Dordtselaan BV v Commission [2000] ECR II-15, paragraph 59.
Glej zlasti zadevo C-348/93, Komisija proti Italiji, Recueil, str.
See also Case 265/85 [1987] ECR 1155, paragraph 44 and Case C-152/88 Sofrimport v Commission [1990] ECR I-153, paragraph 26.
I-673, točka 26.
Under Article 108(3) TFEU, Member States have an obligation to notify new aid measures to the Commission and to seek its approval before implementing the measure.
Zadeva C-277/00, Nemčija proti Komisiji, Recueil, str.
Chapter II of the Procedural Regulation (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999) lays down detailed rules for the application of Article 107 to notified aid.
I-3925, točka 76.
See Joined Cases C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P Demesa and Territorio Histórico de Álava v Commission, [2004] ECR I-10609, paragraphs 44-45 and 52.
Zadeva C-350/93, Komisija proti Italiji, Recueil, str.
See Joined Cases T-427/04 and T-17/05 France v Commission (France Télécom) [2009] ECR II-4315, paragraph 263.
I-699, točka 22.
See recital 187 of that Decision.
Sodba z dne 8. decembra 2011 v zadevi C-275/10, Residex Capital IV, ZOdl., str.
Commission Decision of 30 June 2004 on the State aid which the Netherlands is planning to implement in favour of four shipyards to support six shipbuilding contracts.
I-13043, točke 43–45.
See Table 2 in recital 9 of Commission Decision of 11 November 2003, OJ C 11, 15.1.2004, p.
Glej podobno zadevo C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time, Recueil, str.
7.
I-3055, točke 36–41.
See recital 8 of the abovementioned Commission Decision of 11 November 2003: ‘The purpose of the notified aid is to match the interest subsidies allegedly offered by Spain.
UL L 140, 30.4.2004, str.
The Netherlands allege that … prices quoted by the Spanish yards included interest subsidies for export financing supported by the Spanish authorities, on the basis of the Spanish Royal Decree (RD) 442/94’.
1.
OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p.
UL L 82, 25.3.2008, str.
OJ C 317, 30.12.2003, p.
PRILOGA
11.
Podatki o prejetih zneskih pomoči, ki jih je treba vrniti oziroma so že bili povrnjeni
See recital 24 of the abovementioned final Decision of 30 June 2004: ‘In State aid proceedings the Commission has to, in the last analysis, rely on the statements of the Member State supposed to (have) grant(ed) the aid.’
Identiteta upravičenca
Case C-350/93 Commission v Italy [1995] ECR I-699, paragraph 22.
Z dopisi z dne 23. februarja, 7. marca, 11. julija in 29. oktobra 2012 ter 12. in 25. februarja in 22. aprila 2013 je pripombe posredovala Španiji in ji dala možnost odgovora.
Judgment of 8 December 2011 in Case C-275/10, Residex Capital IV, not yet published, paragraphs 43-45.
Španija je svoje pripombe predložila v dopisih z dne 30. aprila, 24. maja, 9. in 23. julija in 14. novembra 2012 ter 25. februarja, 12. marca in 21. maja 2013.
on compensation to be paid to Simet SpA for public transport services provided between 1987 and 2003 (state aid measure SA.33037 (2012/C) – Italy)
o nadomestilu, ki ga je treba plačati družbi Simet SpA za storitve javnega prevoza, opravljene med letoma 1987 in 2003 [opatrenie štátnej pomoci SA.33037 (2012/C) – Taliansko]
(notified under document C(2013) 6251)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2013) 6251)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above [1], and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu zainteresiranim stranem, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenima členoma [1], in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
By electronic notification of 18 May 2011, the Italian authorities notified, in accordance with Article 108(3) of the Treaty, compensation given to Simet SpA (‘Simet’) for the provision of inter-regional bus transport services under a public service obligation carried out during the period 1987–2003, as ordered by the Council of State (Consiglio di Stato), Italy’s Supreme Administrative Court (‘the notified measure’).
Italijanski organi so z elektronskim dopisom z dne 18. maja 2011 v skladu s členom 108(3) Pogodbe priglasili nadomestilo, ki je bilo plačano družbi Simet SpA (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Simet) za storitve medregionalnega avtobusnega prevoza v okviru obveznosti javnih služb, opravljene v obdobju 1987–2003, in ki ga je določil državni svet (Consiglio di Stato), tj. italijansko vrhovno sodišče za upravne zadeve (v nadaljnjem besedilu: priglašeni ukrep).
This notification was registered under case number SA.33037.
Ta priglasitev je bila evidentirana pod številko zadeve SA.33037.
Further information on the notified measure was provided by the Italian authorities by submissions of 12 July 2011, 5 October 2011, 20 February 2012, 2 and 28 March 2012, and 17 April 2012.
Italijanski organi so predložili dodatne informacije o priglašenem ukrepu v navedbah z dne 12. julija 2011, 5. oktobra 2011, 20. februarja 2012, 2. in 28. marca 2012 ter 17. aprila 2012.
By letter dated 31 May 2012, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty (‘the opening decision’).
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 31. maja 2012 italijanskim organom sporočila, da bo začela postopek v skladu s členom 108(2) Pogodbe (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sklep o začetku postopka).
The following submissions were received within the accepted deadlines:
V dogovorjenih rokih so bile prejete naslednje navedbe:
Its submissions were received on 4 August 2012, 31 October 2012 and 13 December 2012.
edina tretja stran, ki je predložila pripombe kot odgovor na sklep o začetku postopka, je bila družba Simet, tj. morebitna upravičenka priglašenega ukrepa; njene navedbe so bile prejete 4. avgusta 2012, 31. oktobra 2012 in 13. decembra 2012,
The Italian authorities provided comments on third party submissions by letters of 28 November 2012, 4 December 2012, 19 December 2012 and 10 January 2013.
italijanski organi so predložili pripombe v zvezi z navedbami tretje strani v dopisih z dne 28. novembra 2012, 4. decembra 2012, 19. decembra 2012 in 10. januarja 2013.
THE COMPANY AND THE SERVICES PROVIDED
DRUŽBA IN OPRAVLJENE STORITVE
Simet is a private company providing scheduled passenger transport services by bus based on concessions granted by the Italian State under Law 1822/39 [2].
Simet je zasebna družba, ki opravlja storitve linijskega avtobusnega potniškega prevoza. Te storitve opravlja na podlagi koncesij, ki jih je odobrila Italija na podlagi zakona št. 1822/39 [2].
More specifically, Simet operates a network of inter-regional scheduled bus connections between the Calabria Region and other Italian regions.
Natančneje, družba Simet upravlja omrežje medregionalnih linijskih avtobusnih povezav med deželo Kalabrijo in drugimi italijanskimi deželami.
In addition to these services, which account for approximately two thirds of its revenue, Simet also provides other services, including international travel services, tourism services and bus hire with driver [3], which account for the remaining third of its revenue.
Poleg teh storitev, ki ustvarjajo približno dve tretjini njenih prihodkov, družba Simet ponuja tudi druge storitve, vključno z mednarodnimi potovalnimi storitvami, turističnimi storitvami in storitvami oddajanja avtobusov z voznikom v najem [3], ki zajemajo preostalo tretjino njenih prihodkov.
In October 1999 Simet for the first time asked the Ministry for Infrastructure and Transport (‘the Ministry’) for compensation for its inter-regional bus service with respect to the years starting from 1987 [4].
Družba Simet je oktobra 1999 od Ministrstva za infrastrukturo in promet (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Ministrstvo) prvič zahtevala nadomestilo za izvajanje medregionalnega avtobusnega prevoza v obdobju, ki se začne z letom 1987 [4].
The Ministry denied this and subsequent requests, as it considered that it had not entrusted Simet with public service obligations.
Ministrstvo je to in poznejše zahtevke zavrnilo s trditvijo, da družbi Simet ni naložilo obveznosti javnih služb.
According to the Italian authorities, Simet, like other providers of inter-regional scheduled bus transport services, operated on the basis of provisional licences (concessions) renewed annually at the request of the company.
Po navedbah italijanskih organov je družba Simet tako kot drugi izvajalci storitev medregionalnega linijskega avtobusnega prevoza opravljala dejavnosti na podlagi začasnih dovoljenj (koncesij), ki so bila na zahtevo družbe vsako leto obnovljena.
Those concessions gave the company the exclusive right to provide the relevant services.
Te koncesije so družbi dale izključno pravico do opravljanja zadevnih storitev.
The annual concession specifications stated that delivering the service did not give the company the right to any subsidy or compensation of any kind and that the service was operated entirely at the company’s own risk.
V specifikacijah letnih koncesij je bilo navedeno, da opravljanje storitev družbi ne daje pravice do kakršne koli subvencije ali nadomestila in da storitve v celoti opravlja na lastno odgovornost.
The fares proposed by the company itself were also reflected in the annual concession specifications accepted by the Ministry.
Prevoznine, ki jih je predlagala družba, so bile upoštevane tudi v specifikacijah letnih koncesij, ki jih je odobrilo Ministrstvo.
Over time, the company submitted a number of requests to change the arrangements for delivery of the services provided, which were usually approved in accordance with the procedure laid down in Presidential Decree 369/94 [5].
Družba je postopoma vložila več zahtevkov za spremembo ureditev v zvezi z opravljanjem storitev, ki so bili običajno odobreni v skladu s postopkom iz odloka predsednika republike št. 369/94 [5].
Articles 4 and 5 of Presidential Decree 369/1994 provided for a detailed procedure for the assessment and comparative analysis of applications related to the introduction of any new service on the basis of a concession.
Člena 4 in 5 predsedniške uredbe št. 369/94 opredeljujeta natančen postopek za oceno in primerjalno analizo zahtevkov za uvedbo nove storitve na podlagi koncesije.
THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE PRIOR TO THE OPENING DECISION
SODBE DRŽAVNEGA SVETA PRED SKLEPOM O ZAČETKU POSTOPKA
In response to the Ministry’s refusal to grant public service compensation for the period starting from 1987, Simet brought a legal action before the Italian administrative courts requesting compensation for the discharge of public service obligations.
Ker Ministrstvo ni hotelo odobriti nadomestila za opravljanje javne službe za obdobje, ki se začne z letom 1987, se je družba Simet pritožila na italijanskem upravnem sodišču, v okviru katere je zahtevala nadomestilo za opravljanje obveznosti javnih služb.
On appeal, in judgment 1405/2010 of 9 March 2010 (‘judgment 1405/2010’), the Council of State recognised Simet’s right to receive compensation for its scheduled (predominantly inter-regional) bus services, provided under the concessions granted by the Italian State.
Po vloženih pritožbah je državni svet s sodbo št. 1405/2010 z dne 9. marca 2010 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sodba št. 1405/2010) priznalo pravico družbe Simet, da prejme nadomestilo za (večinoma medregionalni) linijski avtobusni prevoz, opravljen v okviru koncesij, ki jih je odobrila Italija.
The precise amount of the compensation was to be determined on the basis of reliable data from the company’s accounts.
Sodišče je odločilo, naj se točen znesek nadomestila določi na podlagi zanesljivih podatkov iz računovodskih izkazov podjetja.
As explained in more detail in the opening decision, judgment 1405/2010 does not precisely identify by which legal act the public service obligation was imposed, or in what form.
Kot je podrobneje pojasnjeno v sklepu o začetku postopka, sodba št. 1405/2010 ne opredeljuje natančno, na podlagi katerega pravnega akta ali v kakšni obliki je bila naložena obveznost javnih služb.
Order 2072 of the Council of State issued on 18 January 2011, following the failure of the administration to comply with judgment 1405/2010, is more explicit in this respect, stating that ‘the Ministry has repeatedly denied the company the opportunity to change routes, times and stops and ordered it to keep fares at or below those charged by Ferrovie dello Stato (Italian State Railways) – these are elements that the company believes are indicative of carrying out a public service.’
Odredba št. 2072/2011, ki jo je državni svet izdal 18. januarja 2011, ker uprava ni izvršila sodbe št. 1405/2010, je v zvezi s tem bolj izrecna, saj navaja, da „je Ministrstvo družbi večkrat odreklo možnost spremembe prog, voznega reda in postajališč ter je od nje zahtevalo, da prevoznine ohrani na ravni, ki jo zaračunava družba Ferrovie dello Stato (italijanske železnice), ali pod to ravnjo – ti elementi po mnenju družbe jasno kažejo, da gre za izvajanje javnih služb“.
While judgment 1405/2010 does mention the new Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council [6], which governs public service compensation, insofar as it ‘lays down compensation criteria which are not dissimilar to those laid down in previous Community regulations’, the Council of State ordered the responsible authorities to pay compensation to Simet on the basis of Articles 6, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 [7].
Čeprav sodba št. 1405/2010 dejansko omenja novo Uredbo (ES) št. 1370/2007 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [6], ki ureja nadomestilo za opravljanje javne službe, saj „določa merila za nadomestilo, ki se ne razlikujejo od meril iz prejšnjih uredb Skupnosti“, je državni svet pozval odgovorne organe, naj družbi Simet plačajo nadomestilo na podlagi členov 6, 10 in 11 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 1191/69 [7].
The Italian authorities have decided to await the assessment of the notified measure by the Commission before executing the rulings of the Council of State (judgment 1405/2010 and order 2072/2010) and paying Simet the compensation.
Italijanski organi so sklenili, da bodo počakali na oceno priglašenega ukrepa s strani Komisije, preden bodo začeli izvrševati sodbe državnega sveta (sodba št. 1405/2010 in odredba št. 2072/2010) in družbi Simet izplačali nadomestilo.
INITIALLY NOTIFIED SUM OF POSSIBLE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPENSATION
PRVOTNO PRIGLAŠENI ZNESEK MOREBITNEGA NADOMESTILA ZA OPRAVLJANJE JAVNE SLUŽBE
As regards the amount of compensation to be paid to Simet for the services rendered, the Italian authorities submitted a report to the Commission, commissioned by Simet and prepared by an outside consultant (‘the initial report’), without endorsing the estimates it contained.
Italijanski organi so v zvezi z zneskom nadomestila, ki ga je treba plačati družbi Simet za opravljene storitve, Komisiji predložili poročilo, ki ga je naročila družba Simet in ki ga je pripravil zunanji svetovalec (v nadaljnjem besedilu: začetno poročilo), ne da bi potrdili ocene, ki jih to poročilo vsebuje.
The initial report estimated the compensation due at approximately EUR 59,4 million [8].
Glede na ocene iz začetnega poročila naj bi dolgovano nadomestilo znašalo približno 59,4 milijona EUR [8].
Subsequently, however, the claims for compensation were reassessed as, following the opening decision, the Council of State asked for an independent evaluation of the appropriate level of compensation.
Pozneje so bili zahtevki za nadomestilo ponovno ocenjeni, saj je državni svet po sklepu o začetku postopka zahteval neodvisno oceno ustrezne stopnje nadomestila.
The outcome of that evaluation is discussed in sections 2.6 and 2.7.
Rezultat te ocene je obravnavan v oddelkih 2.6 in 2.7.
Although SIMET claims compensation for services provided until the end of 2013 [9], the Italian authorities consider that the relevant period for the purposes of this notification covers only 1987 to 2003, as judgment 1405/2010 relates only to the appeal covering that period.
Čeprav družba SIMET zahteva nadomestilo za storitve, opravljene do konca leta 2013 [9], italijanski organi menijo, da ustrezno obdobje za namene te priglasitve zajema le obdobje od leta 1987 do 2003, saj se sodba št. 1405/2010 nanaša le na pritožbo v zvezi s tem obdobjem.
In particular, point 3.1 of judgment 1405/2010 clearly refers to compensation for the years 1987 to 2003.
Predvsem točka 3.1 sodbe št. 1405/2010 se jasno nanaša na nadomestilo za obdobje od leta 1987 do 2003.
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NATIONAL COURT PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWING THE OPENING DECISION
RAZVOJ NACIONALNIH SODNIH POSTOPKOV PO SKLEPU O ZAČETKU POSTOPKA