natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The General Court stated that the scope of discretion of the Hungarian authorities enabled them to preserve equal treatment between mining companies in a comparable situation.
Navedlo je, da obseg proste presoje madžarskim organom omogoča, da se za rudarske družbe v primerljivih položajih ohrani enako obravnavanje.
Therefore, in view of the General Court, if conditions external to an agreement which does not involve State aid change later on in such a way that the party to such agreement is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis other operators that have not concluded a similar agreement, this should not be sufficient to consider the agreement and the subsequent modification of the conditions external to that agreement as constituting State aid.
Zato je menilo, da dejstvo, da se pogoji zunaj pogodbe, ki ne vključuje državne pomoči, pozneje spremenijo tako, da je pogodbenica take pogodbe v ugodnejšem položaju v primerjavi z drugimi subjekti, ki niso sklenili podobne pogodbe, ne zadošča za to, da bi se lahko pogodba in poznejše spremembe zunanjih pogojev obravnavale kot državna pomoč.
The European Court of Justice judgment of 4 June 2015 in Case C-15/14 P, European Commission v MOL Nyrt.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 4. junija 2015 v zadevi Evropska komisija proti MOL Nyrt, C-15/14 P
By its judgment of 4 June 2015 in Case C-15/14 P [11], the Court of Justice upheld the judgment of the General Court annulling the contested decision.
Sodišče je s sodbo z dne 4. junija 2015 v zadevi C-15/14 P [11] potrdilo sodbo Splošnega sodišča, s katero je bil izpodbijani sklep razglašen za ničen.
In its ruling, the Court of Justice confirmed the General Court's assessment that the selective nature of the 2005 agreement was not established and that the combination of the 2005 agreement and the 2008 amendment to the Mining Act could not be categorised as a single State aid measure for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Sodišče je v navedeni sodbi potrdilo ugotovitev Splošnega sodišča, da selektivnost pogodbe iz leta 2005 ni bila dokazana ter da kombinacije navedene pogodbe in spremembe Zakona o rudarstvu iz leta 2008 ni mogoče opredeliti kot enoten ukrep državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Court of Justice underlined that there is a fundamental difference between the assessment of the selectivity of general schemes for exemption or relief which by definition confer an advantage and the assessment of the selectivity of optional provisions of national law prescribing the imposition of additional charges.
Sodišče je poudarilo, da obstaja bistvena razlika med presojo selektivnosti splošnih sistemov oprostitev ali olajšav, ki po definiciji dajejo prednost, in presojo selektivnosti fakultativnih določb nacionalnega prava, ki določajo naložitev dodatnih bremen.
In cases in which the national authorities impose additional charges in order to maintain equal treatment between operators, the simple fact that those authorities enjoy discretion defined by law, and not unlimited, cannot be sufficient to establish that the corresponding scheme is selective.
Kadar nacionalni organi taka bremena naložijo, da bi ohranili enako obravnavanje gospodarskih subjektov, zgolj to, da imajo ti organi določeno polje proste presoje, ki ga določa zakon in ni neomejeno, ne more zadostovati za dokaz o selektivnosti takega sistema.
For the above reason, according to the Court of Justice, the present case can be distinguished from cases in which the exercise of such a margin is connected with the grant of an advantage in favour of a specific economic operator [12].
Po mnenju Sodišča je zaradi navedenega razloga obravnavani primer mogoče razlikovati od primerov, ko je uporaba takega polja povezana z dajanjem prednosti določenemu gospodarskemu subjektu [12].
Furthermore, the Court of Justice stated that the legal framework by which the national authorities impose additional charges in order to maintain equal treatment between operators could be only considered as selective if the national authorities while exercising their margin of assessment would favour certain operators without any objective reason.
Poleg tega je Sodišče navedlo, da je mogoče pravni okvir, s katerim nacionalni organi naložijo dodatna bremena, da bi ohranili enako obravnavanje gospodarskih subjektov, šteti za selektivnega le, če bi nacionalni organi pri uporabi polja proste presoje brez objektivnega razloga ugodneje obravnavali določene gospodarske subjekte.
The Court of Justice pointed out that in the present case there was no evidence that the Hungarian authorities, when exercising their power to increase the mining fees in the event of an extension of authorisation, treated MOL in unjustified, favourable manner [13].
Sodišče je poudarilo, da v obravnavanem primeru ni dokazov, da so madžarski organi pri uporabi proste presoje za zvišanje rudarskih pristojbin v primeru podaljšanja dovoljenja družbo MOL neupravičeno ugodneje obravnavali [13].
Therefore, the Court of Justice concluded that the legal framework governing the conclusion of the extension agreements cannot be considered as selective in the present case.
Zato je sklenilo, da pravnega okvira, ki ureja sklepanje pogodb o podaljšanju, v obravnavanem primeru ni mogoče šteti za selektivnega.
With reference to the combined sequence of actions constituting a single State aid measure, the Court of Justice made reference to the case-law, by stating that a single aid measure may consist of combined elements on condition that, having regard to their chronology, their purpose and the circumstances of the undertaking at the time of their intervention, they are so closely linked to each other that they are inseparable from one another [14].
Kar zadeva kombinirano zaporedje ukrepov, ki sestavljajo enoten ukrep državne pomoči, se je Sodišče sklicevalo na sodno prakso in navedlo, da je mogoče kombinacijo posegov šteti za enoten ukrep pomoči, če so z vidika njihovega časovnega zaporedja, namena in položaja podjetja ob teh posegih tako tesno povezani, da jih ni mogoče ločiti [14].
Nevertheless, in the present case, the Court of Justice underlined that the increase in mining fees, which entered into force in 2008, occurred in a context of an increase in international crude oil prices, i.e. the state exercised its regulatory power in an objectively justified manner following a market evolution.
Kljub temu je Sodišče v obravnavanem primeru poudarilo, da je do zvišanja rudarskih pristojbin, ki je začelo veljati leta 2008, prišlo v okviru naraščanja mednarodnih cen surove nafte, torej je država objektivno utemeljeno izvajala svojo zakonodajno pristojnost glede na razvoj trga.
Furthermore, there were no indications that the 2005 agreement had been concluded in anticipation of the 2008 amendment [15].
Poleg tega ni nič kazalo, da je bila pogodba iz leta 2005 sklenjena v pričakovanju spremembe iz leta 2008 [15].
Therefore, the Court of Justice concluded that there was no chronological and/or functional link between the 2005 agreement and the 2008 amendment to the Mining Act that could allow them to be interpreted as a single State aid measure.
Zato je Sodišče sklenilo, da pogodbe iz leta 2005 in spremembe Zakona o rudarstvu iz leta 2008 zaradi dejstva, da nista medsebojno časovno in/ali funkcionalno povezani, ni mogoče razlagati tako, da sestavljata enoten ukrep državne pomoči.
In view of the annulment of the contested decision by the Court, the formal investigation procedure remains open.
Glede na to, da je Sodišče razglasilo ničnost izpodbijanega sklepa, formalni postopek preiskave ostaja odprt.
Indeed, neither the General Court nor the Court of Justice had considered that the opening decision in the present case was vitiated by any error.
Niti Splošno sodišče niti Sodišče nista menila, da sklep o začetku postopka v obravnavanem primeru vsebuje kakršno koli napako.
The Commission has therefore to adopt a final decision remedying the defects identified by the EU Courts.
Zato mora Komisija sprejeti končni sklep in v njem odpraviti nepravilnosti, ki sta jih ugotovili sodišči EU.
Article 107(1) TFEU provides that 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 and affects trade among Member States, is incompatible with the internal market.
Člen 107(1) PDEU določa, da 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 in prizadene trgovino med državami članicami, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom.
Those conditions are cumulative.
Ti pogoji so kumulativni.
If one of them is not met, the measure at hand does not qualify as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Če eden od njih ni izpolnjen, zadevni ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In the circumstances of the present case, it is appropriate to confine the assessment to the condition of selectivity.
V okoliščinah obravnavanega primera je oceno primerno omejiti na pogoj selektivnosti.
To be considered State aid, a measure must be specific or selective in that it favours only certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.
Da bi se ukrep štel za državno pomoč, mora biti specifičen ali selektiven, tako da daje prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga.
As described above in recitals 12 and 13, Section 26/A (5) of the Mining Act does not constitute a general scheme for an exemption or relief provided to certain undertakings.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 12 in 13, oddelek 26/A (5) Zakona o rudarstvu ne pomeni splošnega sistema oprostitev ali olajšav za nekatera podjetja.
On the contrary, it allows the Hungarian authorities to impose a higher extension fee for the extension of mining authorisations.
Ravno nasprotno, madžarskim organom omogoča, da uvedejo višjo pristojbino za podaljšanje dovoljenj za rudarjenje.
The same terms and conditions are applied to all operators in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Za vse gospodarske subjekte v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju veljajo enaki pogoji.
As described above in recitals 14 and 15, there is no evidence of unjustified favourable treatment of MOL by the Hungarian authorities in relation to any other operator that could have been potentially in a comparable situation.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 14 in 15, ni dokazov, da so madžarski organi družbo MOL neupravičeno obravnavali ugodneje kot druge gospodarske subjekte, ki bi lahko bili v primerljivem položaju.
The fact that the Hungarian authorities enjoy a certain level of discretion which is defined by law but not unlimited when fixing the extension fee cannot be sufficient to establish that the legal framework set out under Section 26/A (5) of the Mining Act is selective.
Dejstvo, da imajo madžarski organi pri določanju pristojbine za podaljšanje na voljo določeno polje proste presoje, ki je opredeljeno z zakonom, vendar ni neomejeno, ne more zadostovati za ugotovitev, da je pravni okvir iz oddelka 26/A (5) Zakona o rudarstvu selektiven.
With reference to the combined effects of the 2005 agreement and the 2008 amendment to the Mining Act, the Commission notes that in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice a single aid measure may consist of combined elements on condition that, having regard to their chronology, their purpose and the circumstances of the undertaking at the time of their intervention, they are so closely linked to each other that they are inseparable from one another [16].
Kar zadeva kombinirane učinke pogodbe iz leta 2005 in spremembe Zakona o rudarstvu iz leta 2008, Komisija ugotavlja, da je lahko enoten ukrep pomoči glede na sodno prakso Sodišča sestavljen iz kombinacije posegov, če so ti z vidika njihovega časovnega zaporedja, namena in položaja podjetja ob teh posegih tako tesno povezani, da jih ni mogoče ločiti [16].
However, in the present case, as described above in recital 18, there is no evidence that Hungary signed the 2005 agreement while having already at that time an intention to subsequently increase the mining fee to the detriment of other market operators already present on the market on the date when that agreement was signed or of new operators.
Vendar, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 18, v obravnavanem primeru ni dokazov, da je Madžarska ob podpisu pogodbe iz leta 2005 že nameravala naknadno zvišati rudarsko pristojbino v škodo drugih gospodarskih subjektov, ki so bili na dan podpisa pogodbe že na trgu, ali novih gospodarskih subjektov.
The increase in the mining fees imposed on the basis of the 2008 amendment to the Mining Act occurred in a context of an increase in international prices.
Do zvišanja rudarskih pristojbin na podlagi spremembe Zakona o rudarstvu iz leta 2008 je prišlo v okviru zvišanja mednarodnih cen.
Therefore, as described above in recital 19, since there is no chronological and/or functional link between the 2005 agreement and 2008 amendment to the Mining Act, they cannot be interpreted as constituting a single aid measure.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 19, zato pogodbe iz leta 2005 in spremembe Zakona o rudarstvu iz leta 2008 ni mogoče razlagati tako, da sestavljata enoten ukrep pomoči, saj nista medsebojno časovno in/ali funkcionalno povezani.
Conclusion on assessment
Sklepna ugotovitev o oceni
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the sequence of actions undertaken by Hungary, i.e. the 2005 extension agreement and the subsequent amendment to the Mining Act, was not selective towards MOL.
Komisija na podlagi navedenega ugotavlja, da zaporedje ukrepov, ki jih je sprejela Madžarska, tj. pogodba o podaljšanju iz leta 2005 in poznejša sprememba Zakona o rudarstvu, ni bilo selektivno v korist družbe MOL.
Considering that the sequence of actions composed of the 2005 agreement and the subsequent amendment to the Mining Act is not selective, it is not necessary to assess whether the other conditions for State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU exist.
Glede na to, da zaporedje ukrepov, ki vključuje pogodbo iz leta 2005 in poznejšo spremembo Zakona o rudarstvu, ni selektivno, ni treba oceniti, ali so izpolnjeni drugi pogoji za državno pomoč iz člena 107(1) PDEU.
In the light of the above, the re-assessment of the alleged aid which was the object of the opening decision leads to the conclusion that the measure in favour of MOL under scrutiny, i.e. the combination of the 2005 agreement and the 2008 amendment to the Mining Act does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU,
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je na podlagi ponovne ocene domnevne pomoči, ki je bila predmet sklepa o začetku postopka, mogoče ugotoviti, da obravnavani ukrep v korist družbe MOL, tj. kombinacija pogodbe iz leta 2005 in spremembe Zakona o rudarstvu iz leta 2008, ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU –
The combination of the fixed mining fee defined in the extension agreement concluded between the Hungarian State and MOL Nyrt. on 22 December 2005 and the subsequent amendments to Act XLVIII of 1993 on Mining does not constitute State aid to MOL Nyrt. within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Kombinacija fiksne rudarske pristojbine iz pogodbe o podaljšanju, sklenjene 22. decembra 2005 med Republiko Madžarsko in družbo MOL Nyrt., ter poznejših sprememb Zakona št.
Article 2
XLVIII o rudarstvu iz leta 1993 ne pomeni državne pomoči družbi MOL Nyrt. v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
This Decision is addressed to Hungary.
Člen 2
Done at Brussels, 26 October 2015.
Ta sklep je naslovljen na Madžarsko.
For the Commission
V Bruslju, 26. oktobra 2015
OJ C 74, 28.3.2009, p. 63.
Članica Komisije
Törvény a bányászatról (Act No XLVIII of 1993 on Mining).
UL C 74, 28.3.2009, str. 63.
Concessions concern so called ‘closed areas’ considered to be rich in minerals and highly valuable.
Törvény a bányászatról (Zakon o rudarstvu št.
Concessions are granted by the competent national authority to successful bidders following an open tender procedure.
XLVIII iz leta 1993).
Authorisations concern so called ‘open areas’ considered to be less rich in minerals and less valuable.
Koncesije se uporabljajo za tako imenovana zaprta območja, za katera velja, da so bogata z rudninami in zelo dragocena.
Authorisations cannot be refused by the competent national authority if the applicant fulfils the conditions laid down by law.
Pristojni nacionalni organ jih odobri uspešnim ponudnikom na podlagi odprtega razpisnega postopka.
This increase concerned the fields put into production between 1 January 1998 and 1 January 2008.
Dovoljenja se uporabljajo za tako imenovana odprta območja, za katera velja, da so manj bogata z rudninami in manj dragocena.
OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, p. 92.
Pristojni nacionalni organ ne more zavrniti izdaje dovoljenja, če prosilec izpolnjuje pogoje, določene z zakonom.
See footnote 1.
To zvišanje se je nanašalo na polja, ki so se začela izkoriščati med 1. januarjem 1998 in 1. januarjem 2008.
As regards 2010, in respect of mining fee payments already made, the amount to be recovered was supposed to be calculated by Hungary, in the same way as for 2008 and 2009, until the measure was abolished.
Zadeva Komisija proti MOL, C-15/14 P, EU:C:2015:362.
Case T-499/10 MOL v Commission, EU:T:2013:592.
Sodba C-15/14 P; glej opombo 11; točke 64, 65 in 69.
Case C-15/14 P Commission v MOL, EU:C:2015:362.
Sodba C-15/14 P; glej opombo 11; točki 66 in 69.
Judgment in Case C-15/14 P; see footnote 11 above; paragraphs 64, 65 and 69.
Sodba C-15/14 P; glej opombo 11; točka 92.
Judgment in Case C-15/14 P; see footnote 11 above; paragraphs 66 and 69.
Sodba C-15/14 P; glej opombo 11; točki 96 in 98.
Judgment in Case C-15/14 P; see footnote 11 above; paragraph 92.
Združeni zadevi Bouygues in Bouygues Télécom proti Komisiji in drugim, C-399/10 P in C-401/10 P, EU:C:2013:175, točki 103 in 104.
Judgment in Case C-15/14 P; see footnote 11 above; paragraphs 96 and 98.
Znesek, ki bi ga bilo treba vrniti, je za leto 2008 znašal 28444,7 milijona HUF, za leto 2009 pa 1942,1 milijona HUF.
Joined Cases C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission and others, EU:C:2013:175, paragraphs 103 and 104.
Za leto 2010 bi morala Madžarska znesek, ki ga je bilo treba vrniti v zvezi z že plačanimi rudarskimi pristojbinami, izračunati na enak način kot za leti 2008 in 2009, in sicer za obdobje do odprave ukrepa.
The amount to be recovered was HUF 28444,7 million for 2008 and HUF 1942,1 million for 2009.
Sklep Komisije 2011/88/EU z dne 9. junija 2010 o državni pomoči C 1/09 (ex NN 69/08), ki jo je Madžarska odobrila družbi MOL (UL L 34, 9.2.2011, str. 55).
Council Decision (EU) 2016/1000
Sklep Sveta (EU) 2016/1000
abrogating Decision 2009/416/EC on the existence of an excessive deficit in Ireland
o razveljavitvi Odločbe 2009/416/ES o obstoju čezmernega primanjkljaja na Irskem
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(12) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije in zlasti člena 126(12) Pogodbe,
Having regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,
ob upoštevanju priporočila Evropske komisije,
On 27 April 2009, by Council Decision 2009/416/EC [1] on the basis of a recommendation from the Commission, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), that an excessive deficit existed in Ireland.
V skladu s členom 104(6) Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti (PES) je Svet 27. aprila 2009 na podlagi priporočila Komisije z Odločbo Sveta 2009/416/ES [1] sklenil, da na Irskem obstaja čezmerni primanjkljaj.
On 27 April 2009, in accordance with Article 104(7) TEC and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 [2], the Council, on the basis of a recommendation from the Commission, addressed a recommendation to Ireland to correct the excessive deficit by 2013.
Svet je 7. decembra 2010 sklenil, da je na Irskem prišlo do nepričakovanih neugodnih gospodarskih dogodkov z večjimi negativnimi posledicami za javne finance, zlasti v zvezi z znatnimi ukrepi podpore za bančni sektor, ki jih je bilo treba izvesti.
That Council recommendation was made public.
Zato je Svet po priporočilu Komisije na podlagi člena 126(7) PDEU sprejel novo priporočilo, naslovljeno na Irsko, v katerem je kot rok za ustrezno zmanjšanje čezmernega primanjkljaja določil leto 2015 [4].
On 2 December 2009, the Council concluded that the Irish authorities had taken effective action in compliance with the Council Recommendation of 27 April 2009 but that unexpected adverse economic events with major unfavourable consequences for public finances could be considered to have occurred in Ireland after the adoption of that Recommendation.
Hkrati je Svet po prošnji irskih organov za finančno pomoč Unije, držav članic, katerih valuta je euro, in Mednarodnega denarnega sklada (MDS) sprejel Izvedbeni sklep 2011/77/EU [5] o finančni pomoči Irski in posebnih ukrepih za ponovno vzpostavitev finančne stabilnosti in trajnostne rasti.
Therefore, the Council, on the basis of a recommendation from the Commission, considered that the conditions provided for in Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 had been fulfilled and adopted a new recommendation addressed to Ireland under Article 126(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) with a view to bringing the excessive deficit situation to an end by 2014 [3].
Komisija in irski organi so 16. decembra 2010 podpisali Memorandum o soglasju o posebnem gospodarskopolitičnem pogojevanju.
On 7 December 2010, the Council concluded that unexpected adverse economic events with major unfavourable consequences for public finances, in particular with reference to the substantial banking sector support measures that had to be implemented, had occurred in Ireland.
Komisija je 24. avgusta 2011 sklenila, da je Irska sprejela učinkovite ukrepe za ustrezno zmanjšanje čezmernega primanjkljaja do leta 2015, kot je priporočil Svet 7. decembra 2010.
Therefore, the Council, following a recommendation from the Commission, adopted a new recommendation addressed to Ireland under Article 126(7) TFEU, setting a 2015 deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit [4].
V skladu s členom 10(2)(a) Uredbe (EU) št. 472/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [6] je bila Irska opravičena zahteve ločene predložitve poročil v okviru postopka v zvezi s čezmernim primanjkljajem in je poročala v okviru svojega programa finančne pomoči.
At the same time, following the request by the Irish authorities for financial assistance from the Union, the Member States whose currency is the euro and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Council adopted Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU [5] on granting financial assistance to Ireland and on specific measures to restore financial stability and sustainable growth.
Irska je decembra 2013 uspešno zaključila program finančne pomoči EU in MDS, pri čemer je izpolnila večino političnih pogojev programa in ponovno vzpostavila zaupanje vlagateljev v državo in bančni sektor.
The Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality between the Commission and the Irish authorities was signed on 16 December 2010.
V skladu s členom 4 Protokola (št. 12) o postopku v zvezi s čezmernim primanjkljajem, ki je priloga k Pogodbi o Evropski uniji in PDEU, Komisija zagotovi podatke za izvajanje postopka.
On 24 August 2011, the Commission concluded that Ireland had taken effective action towards correcting the excessive deficit by 2015 as recommended by the Council on 7 December 2010.
Države članice morajo v okviru uporabe tega protokola v skladu s členom 3 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 479/2009 [7] dvakrat na leto sporočiti podatke o javnofinančnih primanjkljajih in dolgu ter drugih povezanih spremenljivkah, in sicer pred 1. aprilom in 1. oktobrom.
In accordance with Article 10(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 472/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council [6], Ireland was exempted from a separate reporting requirement under the excessive deficit procedure and reported in the framework of its financial assistance programme.
Svet na podlagi sporočenih podatkov sprejme sklep o razveljavitvi odločitve o obstoju čezmernega primanjkljaja.