natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For the period 2007-2013, no such compatibility provision existed for the routine controls of milk (independent from a certain quality and not for the purpose of improving the quality).
Te pomoči so bile v primeru Baden-Württemberga dodeljene izključno iz sredstev iz dajatve na mleko v skladu z MFG ter v primeru Bavarske iz sredstev iz dajatve na mleko in splošnih proračunskih sredstev –
These provisions typically stipulate express compatibility with the internal market for a given set of circumstances.
SPREJELA NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
However, here for the period 2007-2013.
Člen 1
Instead, Article 16(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 stresses the legislator's intention to rule out expressly the compatibility with the internal market.
Državne pomoči, ki jih je Nemčija v zvezi s preskusi kakovosti mleka, izvedenimi v deželah Baden-Württemberg in Bavarska, dodelila zadevnim podjetjem v sektorju mleka v navedenih deželah, pri čemer je kršila člen 108(3) PDEU, v obdobju od 1. januarja 2007 niso združljive z notranjim trgom.
Already Section 13.3 of the Guidelines 2000-2006 stipulated that the range of controls undertaken routinely during the production process had increased substantially, and the cost of such controls had become a normal part of production costs, and that because of the direct impact of the costs of quality control on production costs, such aids present a real risk of a distortion of competition.
Člen 2
Albeit according to the same provision, aid could be granted in respect of controls undertaken by or on behalf of third parties, such as the competent regulatory authorities, or bodies acting on their behalf.
Nemčija od upravičencev izterja pomoči, nezdružljive z notranjim trgom, ki so bile dodeljene na podlagi ureditve iz člena 1.
Under the Guidelines 2007-2013, the legislator has, taking into account the risk of competition distortion, declared aid towards routine controls of milk quality as incompatible with the internal market.
Znesek, ki ga je treba vrniti, vključuje obresti od dne, na katerega so bile pomoči upravičencem na razpolago, do njihovega dejanskega vračila.
In the light of this clear legislative decision, there is no scope for any declaration of compatibility based on Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU.
Obresti se v skladu s poglavjem V Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2004 in v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 271/2008 [58] o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2004 izračunajo z obrestno obrestnim računom.
The fact that the Commission has regarded the milk quality performed during the period 2001-2006 as compatible with the internal market cannot, as Germany claims (recital 60), automatically lead to the aid in question continuing to be compatible with the internal market in the subsequent period of 2007-2013.
Nemčija na dan sprejetja tega sklepa ustavi vsa neizvedena izplačila pomoči iz člena 1.
It is apparent from Article 108(1) TFEU that the internal market is progressively developing and that the Commission by further developing State aid guidelines and other State aid rules (e.g. block exemption Regulations) may take account of this development to guarantee the functioning of the internal market.
Člen 3
It is in the nature of compatibility provisions that are limited in time, as is the case with the Guidelines issued in the area of agriculture, that a subsequent State aid guidelines respectively Block exemption regulations do not necessarily maintain the provisions of the previous rules.
Pomoči, dodeljene na podlagi sheme iz člena 1, se takoj in dejansko izterjajo.
In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the aid granted in the period 2007-2013 in connection with milk quality tests, funded in the case of sub-measure BW 1 entirely from milk levy resources and in the case of sub-measure BY 1 from the milk levy and general budgetary resources, is incompatible with the internal market.
Nemčija zagotovi, da se ta sklep izvede v štirih mesecih od datuma uradnega obvestila o tem sklepu.
CONCLUSION
Člen 4
Article 15(1) Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 lays down that the powers of the Commission to recover aid are subject to a limitation period of 10 years.
Nemčija v dveh mesecih od datuma uradnega obvestila tega sklepa Komisiji predloži naslednje informacije:
According to Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, ‘any action taken by the Commission with regard to unlawful aid interrupts this limitation period.’
seznam upravičencev, ki so prejeli pomoč na podlagi sheme iz člena 1, in skupni znesek prejete pomoči za vsakega upravičenca iz te sheme;
Further to Germany's submission of the 2010 Annual Report on State aid in the agricultural sector, the Commission asked Germany by letter of 28 November 2011 to provide additional information on the scheme.
skupni znesek (glavnica in obresti), ki ga je treba izterjati od vsakega upravičenca;
This action by the Commission interrupted the limitation period.
podroben opis že sprejetih in načrtovanih ukrepov za izpolnitev tega sklepa;
Since the Commission already through the positive Decision assessed that the milk quality controls at issue were compatible with the internal market during the period from 28 November 2001 to 31 December 2006 and since between 31 December and 28 November 2011 less than 10 years lapsed, the period to which the present Decision applies starts on 1 January 2007.
dokumente, ki dokazujejo, da je bilo od upravičencev zahtevano vračilo pomoči.
The Commission finds that Germany granted aid unlawfully in breach of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU which, insofar as it was granted on or after 1 January 2007 (see recitals160 and 164), is not compatible with the internal market.
Nemčija Komisijo obvešča o napredku svojih ukrepov, sprejetih za izvajanje tega sklepa, dokler ni pomoč, dodeljena na podlagi shem iz člena 1, v celoti vrnjena.
This aid was granted in the case of Baden-Württemberg solely from milk levy resources pursuant to the MFG and in the case of Bavaria from milk levy and general budgetary resources.
Nemčija na zahtevo Komisije takoj predloži podatke o ukrepih, ki so bili sprejeti oz. so nameravani za izpolnitev tega sklepa.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Prav tako predloži podrobne informacije o zneskih pomoči in obresti, ki so jih upravičenci že vrnili.
The State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has granted unlawfully in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU in respect of the milk quality tests carried out by the Länder Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria in favour of dairy sector undertakings in these Länder is during the period starting 1 January 2007 incompatible with the internal market.
Ta sklep je naslovljen na Zvezno republiko Nemčijo.
Article 2
Nemčija je pozvana, naj kopijo tega sklepa takoj pošlje prejemnikom pomoči.
The Federal Republic of Germany recovers from the beneficiaries the aid that was granted in relation to the aid scheme referred to in Article 1 and that is incompatible with the internal market.
V Bruslju, 18. septembra 2015
The sum to be recovered shall bear interest throughout the period running from the date on which it was put at the disposal of the beneficiaries until its actual recovery.
Za Komisijo
The interest shall be calculated in conformity with the provisions laid down in Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 [58] amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 on a compound basis.
Član Komisije
Germany shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this decision.
UL C 7, 10.1.2014, str. 8.
Article 3
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 108 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (UL L 83, 27.3.1999, str. 1).
Recovery of the aid granted on the basis of the scheme referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.
S 1. decembrom 2009 sta člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES postala člen 107 in člen 108 PDEU.
Germany shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.
Člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe Es ter člena 107 in 108 PDEU sta vsebinsko enaka.
Article 4
V tem sklepu je treba sklicevanje na člena 107 in 108 PDEU razumeti kot sklicevanje na člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES, kadar je primerno.
Within two months following notification of this Decision, Germany shall submit the following information:
Glej opombo 1.
a list of the beneficiaries that received aid in accordance with the scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of aid that each of them received in accordance with that scheme;
Nemčiji je bil pred tem z dopisom z dne 9. decembra 2013 vročen popravek.
the total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from each beneficiary;
BGBl.
a detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;
I, str. 878, 1081, kakor je bil nazadnje spremenjen s členom 1 Uredbe z dne 17. decembra 2010 (BGBl.
documents demonstrating that the beneficiaries have been ordered to repay the aid.
I, str. 2132).
Germany shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid granted in accordance with the scheme referred to in Article 1 has been completed.
GBl. št. 8, str. 350.
It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision.
Uradni list št. 30, 2.
It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.
8.
Article 5
2004.
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.
GVBl 2007, str. 727, kakor je bil nazadnje spremenjen z uredbo z dne 29. novembra 2012.
Germany is requested to provide the beneficiaries with a copy of this Decision without any delay.
GBl. str. 350.
Done at Brussels, 18 September 2015.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 6. septembra 2006, Portugalska/Komisija, C-88/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:511, točka 56 in naslednja
For the Commission
Sodba Sodišča z dne 22. maja 2003 v zadevi Freskot, C-355/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:298, točka 84.
Member of the Commission
Sklep o začetku postopka, uvodne izjave 265 in naslednje.
OJ C 7, 10.1.2014, p. 8.
Glej sklep o začetku postopka, uvodna izjava 147.
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1).
UL C 28, 1.2.2000, str. 2.
With effect from 1 December 2009, Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty have become Articles 107 and 108, respectively, of the TFEU.
UL C 319, 27.12.2006, str. 1.
The two sets of provisions are, in substance, identical.
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1857/2006 z dne 15. decembra 2006 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe pri državni pomoči za majhna in srednje velika podjetja, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo kmetijskih proizvodov, in o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 70/2001 (UL L 358, 16.12.2006, str. 3).
For the purposes of this Decision, references to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty should be understood as references to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU, where appropriate.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 2. februarja 1988 v zadevi Komisija proti Nizozemski, 213/85, ECLI:EU:C:1988:39, točka 29 in naslednja.
See footnote 1.
Glej npr.: Komisija, Odločba z dne 27. marca 2012, E 10/2000 – Anstaltslast und Gewährträgerhaftung (državne garancije).
A corrigendum was previously submitted to Germany by letter dated 9 December 2013.
Smernice Skupnosti 2000–2006, točka 13.4.
Federal Law Gazette (BGBl.)
Sodba Sodišča z dne 13. marca 2001 v zadevi PreussenElektra, C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160.
I p. 878, 1081, as last amended by Article 1 of the Regulation of 17 December 2010 (BGBl.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 15. decembra 2005 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji, C-66/02, ECLI:EU:C:2005:768, točka 77; ustaljena sodna praksa, glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 23. februarja 1961 v zadevi Limburg proti Visoki oblasti, 30/59, ECLI:EU:C:1961:2; Sodba Sodišča z dne 7. marca 2002 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji, C-310/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:143, točka 51; Sodba Sodišča z dne 10. januarja 2006 v zadevi Cassa di Risparmio, C-222/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:8, točka 131.
I, p. 2132)
Glej v tem smislu sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Freskot, C-355/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:298, točka 86; Sklepni predlogi generalne pravobranilke Stix-Hackl v zadevi Freskot, C-355/00, ECLI:EU:C:2002:658, točki 76–77; Sklepni predlogi generalne pravobranilke Stix-Hackl v zadevi Nazairdis, združene zadeve od C-266/04 do C-270/04, C-276/04 in od C-321/04 do C-325/04, ECLI:EU:C:2005:408, točka 51.
Law Gazette (GBl.)
Pripomba Komisije: Ta opomba se tudi nanaša na podukrepe „spremljanje škodljivih snovi“ (v skladu s sklepom o začetku postopka podukrepi BW 9, BY 5, HE 8, NI 2, NW 1, RP 3, SL 4 in TH 8), ki niso predmet tega sklepa.
No 8, p. 350.
Sklep Komisije z dne 9. aprila 2014 v zvezi s shemo državnih pomoči SA.23257 (12/C) (ex NN 8/10, ex CP 157/07), ki jo izvaja Francija (medpanožni sporazum, sklenjen v okviru Francoskega združenja za povečanje vrednosti proizvodov in strokovnih sektorjev hortikulture in krajinarstva – Val'Hor) (UL L 192, 1.7.2014, str. 59).
State Gazette [Staatsanzeiger] No 30 of 2 August 2004.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 30. maja 2013 v zadevi Doux Elevage, C-677/11, ECLI:C:2013:348, točka 38.
GVBl 2007, p. 727, as last amended by Regulation of 29 November 2012.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 18. maja 2002 v zadevi Stardust Marine, C-482/99, ECLI:C:2002:294, točka 52.
GBl. p. 350.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 15. julija 2004 v zadevi Pearle BV, C-345/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:488, točka 36.
Judgment of the Court of 6 September 2006, Portugal v Commission, C-88/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:511, paragraph 56.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 27. septembra 2012 v zadevi Plans de Campagne, T-139/09, ECLI:EU:T:2012:496, točka 62.
Judgment of the Court of 22 May 2003, Freskot, C-355/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:298, paragraph 84.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 19. decembra 2013 v zadevi Vent de Colère in drugi, C-262/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:851, točka 11, in jasen sklepni predlog generalnega pravobranilca Jääskinena z dne 11. julija 2013 v zadevi Vent de Colère in drugi, C-262/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:851, točka 49.
Opening Decision, paragraphs 265 et seq.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 15. julija 2004 v zadevi Pearle BV, C-345/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:448, točka 37; Sodba Sodišča z dne 30. maja 2013 v zadevi Doux Elevage, C-677/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:348, točka 40; Sklep 2014/416/EU.
OJ C 28, 1.2.2000, p. 2.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 20. novembra 2003 v zadevi Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie proti GEMO, C-126/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:622, točka 23.
OJ C 319, 27.12.2006, p. 1.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 20. novembra 2003, Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie proti GEMO, C-126/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:622, točka 24.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 (OJ L 358, 16.12.2006, p. 3).
Za prejšnji člen 9 BNatSchG glej sodbo sodišča Bundesverwaltungsgericht z dne 29. aprila 1993, Az: 7 A 4/93, točka 22 („…za odločitev v ‚posvetovanju‘, za razliko od odločitve s ‚soglasjem‘, ni potrebno ujemanje volje.
Judgment of the Court of 2 February 1988, Commission v The Netherlands, 213/85, ECLI:EU:C:1988:39, paragraph 29 et seq.
Ne pomeni več kot (strokovno) posvetovanje z drugim organom, ki s tem dobi priložnost, da v postopek vnese svojo predstavo “) in za prejšnjo točko 2 prvega stavka člena 18(2) AEG sodbe sodišča Bundesverwaltungsgericht z dne 31. oktobra 2000, Az: 11 VR 12/00, točka 5 („Posvetovanje s prosilcem, predpisano v točki 2 prvega stavka člena 18(2), AEG, pri katerem za razliko od sporazuma ni potrebno ujemanje volje …“) ter z dne 7. februarja 2005, Az: 9 VR 15/04, točka 11 („Posvetovanje z vlagateljico, ki je potrebno v skladu s tem, […] je izvedel organ za odobritev načrta, tako da je vlagateljici […] dal priložnost, da poda svoje pripombe“).
See, for example, Commission Decision of 27 March 2012 in case E 10/2000 — Anstaltslast und Gewährträgerhaftung.
Glej tudi šesti stavek člena 22(1) MFG z napotilom na „pristojnosti“ deželnih vlad (in možnost prenosa pristojnosti na najvišje deželne organe) in člen 23(2) MFG, v skladu s katerim pobiranje dajatev poteka v skladu z Abgabenordnung (davčni zakonik), kar pa predpostavlja izdajo odločbe o odmeri dajatev ali podobnega upravnega akta (glej člena 122 in 251 AO).
2000-2006 Community Framework, point 13.4.
V skladu s členom 14(3) MFG pa nasprotno na posamezno deželno združenje ni dovoljeno prenesti naloge javnih organov.
Judgment of the Court of 13 March 2001, PreussenElektra, C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160.
Za Baden-Württemberg: Uredba o uvedbi dajatev v sektorju mleka z dne 18. maja 2004 (UL str. 350), razveljavljena z Uredbo Ministrstva za podeželje in varstvo potrošnikov (Ministerium für Ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz) o razveljavitvi Uredbe o uvedbi dajatev v sektorju mleka z dne 14. februarja 2013.Za Bavarsko: Uredba o dajatvi za mleko (BayMilchUmlV) z dne 17. oktobra 2007 (GVBl 2007, str. 727), nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo z dne 29. novembra 2012.
Judgment of the Court of 15 December 2005, Italy v Commission, C-66/02, ECLI:EU:C:2005:768, paragraph 77; established case law, see the Judgment of 23 February 1961, Limburg v High Authority, 30/59, ECLI:EU:C:1961:2.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 13. marca 2001, PreussenElektra, C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160, točki 7 in 8; Sodba Sodišča z dne 16. julija 2014 v zadevi Grčija proti Komisiji, T-52/12, ECLI:EU:T:2014:677, točki 119 in 120; za razlikovanje od zadeve PreussenElektra glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 11. decembra 2014 v zadevi Avstrija proti Komisiji, T-251/11, ECLI:EU:T:2014:1060, točke 56–71, 82.
Judgment of 7 March 2002, Italy v Commission, C-310/99, ECLI:EU:C:2005:768; paragraph 51; Judgment of 10 January 2006, Cassa di Risparmio, C-222/04, EU:C:2006:8, paragraph 131.
Glej med drugim sklep SA.35932 (2013/N) Nizozemska – Fonds teeltangelegenheden, uvodne izjave od 31 do 35.
See to that effect the Judgment in Freskot, C-355/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:298, paragraph 86, the Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in Freskot, C-355/00, ECLI:EU:C:2002:658, paragraphs 76-77, and the Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in Nazairdis, Joined Cases C-266/04 to C-270/04, C-276/04 and C-321/04 to C-325/04, ECLI:EU:C:2005:480, paragraph 51.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 30. maja 2013, Doux Elevage, C-677/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:348, točka 40.
Comment by the Commission: This comment also relates to the ‘contaminant monitoring’ sub-measures (sub-measures BW 9, BY 5, HE 8, NI 2, NW 1, RP 3, SL 4 and TH 8 in the opening Decision), which are not dealt with in this Decision.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 30. maja 2013, Doux Elevage, C-677/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:348, točka 31.
Commission Decision 2014/416/EU of 9 April 2014 on State aid scheme SA.23257 (12/C) (ex NN 8/10, ex CP 157/07) implemented by France (interbranch agreement concluded under the auspices of the French Association for developing the horticultural and landscaping sectors and their products — ‘Val'Hor’) ( OJ L 192, 1.7.2014, p. 59).
Sodba Sodišča z dne 30. maja 2013, Doux Elevage, C-677/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:348, točka 32.
Judgment of the Court of 30 May 2013, Doux Elevage, C-667/2011, ECLI:EU:C:2013:348, paragraph 38.
Glej na primer člen 6(3) Uredbe o dajatvi za mleko (BayMilchUmlV) z dne 17. oktobra 2007.
Judgment of the Court of 18 May 2002, Stardust Marine, C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, paragraph 52.
Glej na primer člen 5 Uredbe o dajatvi za mleko (BayMilchUmlV) z dne 17. oktobra 2007.
Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2004, Pearle BV, C-345/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:448, paragraph 36.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 11. septembra 2014 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-527/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2193, točki 41 in 56.
Judgment of Court of 27 September 2012, Plans de Campagne, T-139/09, ECLI:EU:T:2012:496, paragraph 62.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 30. maja 2013, Doux Elevage, C-677/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:348, točke 32, 35 in 38.
Judgment of the Court of 19 December 2013, Vent de Colère and Others, C-262/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:851, paragraph 11; as clearly confirmed by the Opinion of Advocate-General Jääskinen of 11 July 2013, Vent de Colère and Others, C-262/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:851, paragraph 49.
Glej tudi sodbo Splošnega sodišča z dne 25. marca 2015 v zadevi Belgija proti Komisiji, T-538/11, ECLI:EU:T:2015:188, točka 96, po kateri „to, da so z nacionalno zakonodajo podjetjem naložene obveznosti, ki so torej nujno povezane z izvajanjem prerogativ javne oblasti zadevne države članice, ne nasprotuje temu, da se navedene obveznosti opredelijo kot ‚obveznosti‘, ki običajno bremenijo proračun podjetja “.
Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2004, Pearle BV, C-345/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:448, paragraph 37.
UL C 8, 11.1.2012, str. 4.
Judgment of the Court of 30 May 2013, Doux Elevage, C-667/2011, ECLI:EU:C:2013:348, paragraph 40.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 6. septembra 2006, Portugalska proti Komisiji, C-88/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:511.
Decision 2014/416/EU.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 6. septembra 2006 v zadevi Philip Morris Holland BV proti Komisiji, 730/79, ECLI:EU:C:1980:209, točki 11 in 12.
See Judgment of 15 July 2004, Pearle BV, C-345/02, EU:C:2004:448, paragraph 37; Judgment of 30 May 2013, Doux Elevage, C-667/2011, ECLI:EU:C:2013:348, paragraph 40.
Glej zlasti sodbo Sodišča z dne 13. julija 1988 v zadevi Francoska republika proti Komisiji, 102/87, ECLI:EU:C:1988:391.
Judgment of the Court of 20 November 2003, Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie v GEMO, C-126/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:622, paragraph 23.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 14. januarja 2015 v zadevi Eventech Ltd proti Parking Adjudicator, C-518/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:9, točka 67.
Judgment of the Court of 20 November 2003, Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie v GEMO, C-126/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:622, paragraph 24.
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 927/2012 z dne 9. oktobra 2012 o spremembi Priloge I k Uredbi Sveta (EGS) št. 2658/87 o tarifni in statistični nomenklaturi ter skupni carinski tarifi (UL L 304, 31.10.2012, str. 1).
See, for example, the third sentence of Section 37(2) of the German Building Code (BauGB).
Vir: Eurostat.
Sections 17(1), (2), 18 (3), (4) and 22(5) BNatSchG, Sections 2(7), 11(2), (3), 12(7), 14(4), second point, 26(3), 35a(3) AEG.
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 z dne 21. aprila 2004 o izvajanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES (UL L 140, 30.4.2004, str. 1).
See in relation to the former Section 9 BNatSchG the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 29.4.1993, Az: 7 A 4/93, point 22 (‘..a decision in “consultation” requires by contrast to a decision in “agreement” no concurrence of will ’.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 30. aprila 2002, Gibraltar/Komisija, T-195/01 in T-207/01, ECLI:EU:T:2002:111, točka 111.
It means no more than the (advisory) hearing of the other authority, which then has the opportunity to make its view known to the proceeding.
UL C 119, 22.5.2002, str. 22.
Regarding the former Section 18, second paragraph, first sentence, point 2 of the AEG, see the judgments of the Federal Administrative Court of 31 October 2000, Az: 11 VR 12/00, point 5 (‘The consultation with the applicant, as provided for in Section 18, second paragraph, first sentence, point 2 AEGDas in § 18 Abs.
Glej tudi uvodno izjavo 17 Uredbe (ES) št. 1857/2006, po kateri pomoč „ne bi smela samo nenehno ali periodično zniževati stroškov poslovanja“.
2 Satz 1 Nr. 2 AEG, requires by contrast to agreement no concurrence of will …’) and of 7 February 2005, Az: 9 VR 15/04, point 11 (‘The required consultation with the applicant has been complied with by the plan authorisation authority by providing the applicant with the opportunity to submit its view’).
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 271/2008 z dne 30. januarja 2008 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2004 o izvajanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES (UL L 82, 25.3.2008, str.