natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Authority can only limit itself to indicating that, in the case of the fulfilment of these conditions, the refund of input VAT granted to a given undertaking or to a specific group of undertakings might be considered to constitute compatible State aid within the meaning of Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ se lahko samo omeji na navedbo, da se ob izpolnitvi teh pogojev za vračilo vstopnega DDV, ki se odobri določenemu podjetju ali določeni skupini podjetij, lahko šteje, da pomeni združljivo državno pomoč v smislu člena 59(2) Sporazuma EGP.
The VAT Compensation Act is not limited in such a way.
Zakon o nadomestilu DDV ni omejen na tak način.
On 28 November 2005, the European Commission adopted a Decision on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest [40].
Evropska komisija je 28. novembra 2005 sprejela Odločbo o uporabi člena 86(2) Pogodbe ES za državne pomoči v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve, dodeljene nekaterim podjetjem, pooblaščenim za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena [40].
This Decision was incorporated into the EEA Agreement in July 2006 [41].According to this Decision [42], hospitals and undertakings in charge of social housing which are entrusted with tasks involving services of general economic interest have specific characteristics that need to be taken into consideration.
Ta odločba je bila vključena v Sporazum EGP julija 2006 [41].V skladu s to odločbo [42] imajo bolnišnice in podjetja, pooblaščena za socialna stanovanja, ki so jim bile zaupane naloge, ki vključujejo storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, posebne značilnosti, ki jih je treba upoštevati.
The intensity of distortion of competition in those sectors at the current stage of development of the internal market is not necessarily proportionate to the level of turnover and compensation.
Intenzivnost izkrivljanja konkurence na navedenih področjih v trenutni fazi razvoja notranjega trga ni nujno sorazmerna z obsegom prometa in nadomestila.
Therefore, hospitals providing medical care, including where applicable, emergency services and ancillary services directly related to the main activities, notably in the field of research, and undertakings in charge of social housing providing housing for disadvantaged citizens or socially less advantaged groups which, due to solvability constraints, are unable to obtain housing at market conditions, are exempted from notification.
Zato so bolnišnice, ki zagotavljajo zdravstveno varstvo, ki vključuje, kjer je to primerno, storitve v nujnih primerih in pomožne storitve, neposredno povezane s poglavitnimi dejavnostmi, zlasti na področju raziskav, in podjetja, odgovorna za socialna stanovanja, ki zagotavljajo stanovanja prikrajšanim državljanom ali skupinam z manj socialnimi ugodnostmi, ki si zaradi omejitev plačilne sposobnosti niso sposobni najti stanovanja po tržnih pogojih, izvzeti iz obveznosti priglasitve.
However, any refund of input tax granted to an undertaking for the part of the economic activities it carries out which are not part of this public service obligation is not covered by this exception.
Vendar pa ta izjema ne pokriva nobenega vračila vstopnega davka, ki se dodeli podjetju za del gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki jih opravlja in niso del njegovih dolžnosti kot javne službe.
As assessed above, this refund scheme constitutes State aid and cannot be considered compatible with the rules of the EEA Agreement.
Kot je bilo ocenjeno zgoraj, ta shema vračil pomeni državno pomoč in je ni mogoče šteti za združljivo s pravili Sporazuma EGP.
In this context, reference can be made to some of the sectors of activity concerned, i.e., to the sectors which are exempted from the application of VAT and regarding which it is clear from the existing case practice either from the European Commission, from the Authority or from existing jurisprudence that the activity constitutes an economic activity which is carried out in competition with others.
V tem smislu se je mogoče sklicevati na nekaj področij zadevne dejavnosti, tj. na sektorje, ki so oproščeni plačila DDV in v zvezi s katerimi je bodisi iz obstoječih primerov pri Evropski komisiji ali Nadzornem organu bodisi iz obstoječe sodne prakse razvidno, da je dejavnost gospodarska dejavnost, ki se opravlja v konkurenci z drugimi.
This is in particular the case of dentists [43] or ambulance services [44].Moreover, some of the recipients of aid under the VAT compensation scheme can benefit from other exemptions such as de minimis aid, the application of the provisions of block exemption regulations such as the block exemption regulation on SMEs, etc.
To zlasti velja za zobozdravnike [43] ali reševalne postaje [44].Poleg tega lahko nekateri prejemniki pomoči po shemi nadomestila DDV izkoristijo tudi druge izjeme, kot je pomoč de minimis, uporaba določb uredb o skupinski izjemi, kot je uredba o skupinski izjemi za mala in srednje velika podjetja, itd.
However, the scheme as it stands now is not construed to address only public service obligations or any of the above-mentioned exemptions.
Vendar pa shema, kakršna je sedaj, ni predstavljena tako, da bi obravnavala samo obveznosti javnih storitev ali katero od zgoraj navedenih izjem.
The VAT Compensation Act is broad in its application and conception.
Zakon o nadomestilu DDV je širok po uporabi in pojmovanju.
It does not contain the required criteria which would ensure fulfilment of these exemptions.
Ne vsebuje zahtevanih meril, ki bi zagotavljala izpolnjevanje pogojev za te izjeme.
Therefore, the scheme as such cannot be considered compatible with the State aid rules of the EEA Agreement.
Zato se shema kot taka ne more šteti za združljivo s pravili o državni pomoči iz Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority finds that the Norwegian authorities have unlawfully implemented the VAT Compensation Act in breach of Article 1(3) of Part I to Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so norveški organi nezakonito izvajali Zakon o nadomestilu DDV v nasprotju s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
The refund of input tax foreseen under this Act as it stands today is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement for the reasons set out above.
Vračilo vstopnega davka, kakor ga predvideva ta zakon v trenutni obliki, iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov ni združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
According to Article 14 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, in cases of unlawful aid, should it be found incompatible, the Authority orders, as a rule, the EFTA State concerned to reclaim aid from the recipient.
Nadzorni organ v skladu s členom 14 dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču v primerih obstoja nezakonite pomoči, če se ugotovi, da je nezdružljiva, zadevni državi Efte odredi, da od prejemnika zahteva vračilo pomoči.
The Authority is of the opinion that no general principles preclude recovery in the present case.
Nadzorni organ meni, da v tem primeru ne obstajajo splošna načela, ki bi izključevala vračilo.
According to settled case-law, abolishing unlawful aid by means of recovery is the logical consequence of a finding that it is unlawful.
V skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso je ukinitev nezakonite pomoči z vračilom logična posledica ugotovitve, da je pomoč nezakonita.
Consequently, the recovery of State aid unlawfully granted, for the purpose of restoring the previously existing situation, cannot in principle be regarded as disproportionate to the objectives of the EEA Agreement in regard to State aid.
Zato vračila državne pomoči, ki je bila dodeljena nezakonito, za namene vnovične vzpostavitve položaja, ki je obstajal prej, načeloma ni mogoče obravnavati kot nesorazmernega s cilji Sporazuma EGP v zvezi z državno pomočjo.
By repaying the aid, the recipient forfeits the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to payment of the aid is restored [45].
Prejemnik se s povračilom pomoči odpove prednosti, ki jo je užival na trgu pred svojimi tekmeci, in ponovno se vzpostavi položaj, ki je obstajal pred izplačilom pomoči [45].
It also follows from that function of repayment of aid that, as a general rule save in exceptional circumstances, the Authority will not exceed the bounds of its discretion, recognised by the case-law of the Court of Justice, if it asks the EFTA State concerned to recover the sums granted by way of unlawful aid since it is only restoring the previous situation [46].Moreover, in view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of State aid by the Authority under Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, undertakings to which aid has been granted cannot, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in the provisions of that Protocol [47].The statements made by Commissioner Bolkestein mentioned by the Norwegian authorities referred to the compliance of the concerned schemes with the VAT rules as such.
Iz te funkcije vračila pomoči je mogoče sklepati, da Nadzorni organ na splošno, razen v izjemnih okoliščinah, ne bo presegel meja svoje diskrecije, ki mu jo priznava sodna praksa Sodišča, če od zadevne države Efte zahteva, da dobi nazaj zneske, ki jih je dodelila prek nezakonite pomoči, saj samo vzpostavlja položaj, ki je obstajal prej [46].In ne samo to, ker Protokol 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organ in sodišču Nadzornemu organu nalaga obveznost nadziranja državne pomoči, podjetja, ki jim je bila pomoč dodeljena, načeloma ne morejo imeti upravičenih pričakovanj, da je pomoč zakonita, če ni bila dodeljena v skladu s postopkom, ki ga določajo določbe navedenega protokola [47].Izjave komisarja Bolkesteina, ki so jih navedli norveški organi, so se nanašale na združljivost zadevnih shem s pravili DDV kot takšnimi.
Moreover, at least in one of the statements, Mr Bolkestein included the disclaimer ‘provided that the State aid rules are observed’.
Poleg tega je Bolkestein v vsaj eno od izjav vključil previdnostno navedbo „pod pogojem, da se upoštevajo pravila o državni pomoči“.
Thus, the Authority considers that no legitimate expectations can be justified in these statements.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da na podlagi teh izjav ni mogoče oblikovati upravičenih pričakovanj.
Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities have not referred to any similar State aid scheme which has been approved by either the European Commission or the Authority on the basis of which the existence of legitimate expectations regarding the VAT Compensation Act could be substantiated.
Poleg tega se norveški organi niso sklicevali na nobeno podobno shemo državne pomoči, ki bi jo odobrila Evropska komisija ali Nadzorni organ in na kateri bi lahko utemeljili obstoj upravičenih pričakovanj v zvezi z Zakonom o nadomestilu DDV.
For these reasons, the Authority considers that there are no exceptional circumstances apparent in this case, which would have led to legitimate expectations on the side of the aid beneficiaries.
Zaradi vseh teh razlogov Nadzorni organ meni, da v tem primeru ni razvidnih nobenih izjemnih okoliščin, ki bi lahko privedle do upravičenih pričakovanj prejemnikov pomoči.
The recovery should include compound interests, in line with Article 14(2) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement and Article 9 and 11 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 [48].The Norwegian authorities are therefore requested to take the necessary measures to recover any incompatible aid granted on the basis of Article 3 of the VAT Compensation Act and inform the Authority thereof within two months.
Vračilo mora v skladu s členom 14(2) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču ter členoma 9 in 11 Odločbe Nadzornega organa št. 195/04/COL z dne 14. julija 2004 [48] vključevati obrestne obresti.Zato se od norveških organov zahteva, da sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe za vračilo vse nezdružljive pomoči, ki je bila dodeljena na podlagi člena 3 Zakona o nadomestilu DDV, in o tem obvestijo Nadzorni organ v dveh mesecih.
The Norwegian authorities shall amend the VAT Compensation Act with immediate effect in order to exclude the granting of State aid.
Norveški organi spremenijo Zakon o nadomestilu DDV s takojšnjim učinkom, tako da izključijo dodeljevanje državne pomoči.
Within two months, they shall inform the Authority of the necessary legislative amendments undertaken,
V dveh mesecih obvestijo Nadzorni organ o potrebnih zakonodajnih spremembah, ki so jih sprejeli –
The State aid granted in connection with the VAT Compensation Act implemented by the Norwegian authorities is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Državna pomoč, dodeljena v zvezi z Zakonom o nadomestilu DDV, ki ga izvajajo norveški organi, ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
Norway shall amend the VAT Compensation Act with immediate effect in order to exclude the granting of State aid.
Norveški organi spremenijo Zakon o nadomestilu DDV s takojšnjim učinkom, tako da izključijo dodeljevanje državne pomoči.
The Norwegian authorities shall take all necessary measures to recover from any beneficiary undertaking the aid referred to in Article 1.
Norveški organi sprejmejo vse potrebne ukrepe, da jim vsa upravičena podjetja vrnejo pomoč iz člena 1.
Recovery shall be affected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision.
Vračilo se izvede nemudoma in v skladu s postopki nacionalne zakonodaje, pod pogojem, da omogočajo takojšnjo in učinkovito uveljavitev odločbe.
The aid to be recovered shall include interest and compound interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date of its recovery.
Pomoč, ki se povrne, vključuje obresti in obrestne obresti od dneva, ko je bila na voljo upravičencu, do dneva, ko je bila povrnjena.
Interest shall be calculated on the basis of Article 9 and 11 in the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 195/04/COL.
Obresti se izračunajo v skladu s členoma 9 in 11 Odločbe Nadzornega organa Efte št. 195/04/COL.
The Norwegian authorities shall inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Norveški organi obvestijo Nadzorni organ Efte v dveh mesecih od priglasitve te odločbe o ukrepih, ki so jih sprejeli za uskladitev z njo.
Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, published in OJ 1994 L 231, EEA Supplements 3.9.1994 No 32.
Smernice o uporabi in razlagi členov 61 in 62 Sporazuma EGP in člena 1 Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, ki jih je Nadzorni organ Efte sprejel in izdal 19. januarja 1994, objavljene v UL 1994 L 231, Dodatki EGP 3.9.1994, št. 32.
The Guidelines were last amended on 7 February 2007.
Smernice so bile nazadnje spremenjene 7. februarja 2007.
Published on the OJ C 305, 14.12.2006 and the EEA Supplement No 62, 14.12.2006, p. 1.
Objavljeno v UL C 305, 14.12.2006, in Dodatku EGP št. 62, 14.12.2006, str. 1.
Act No 108 of 12 December 2003 on VAT compensation to local and regional authorities (Lov om kompensasjon av merverdiavgift for kommuner, fylkeskommuner mv).
Zakon št. 108 z dne 12. decembra 2003 o nadomestilu DDV za lokalne in regionalne organe (Lov om kompensasjon av merverdiavgift for kommuner, fylkeskommuner mv).
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘VAT Compensation Act’.
V nadaljnjem besedilu „Zakon o nadomestilu DDV“.
For further details see the Authority’s Decision No 225/06/COL, published on the OJ C 305, 14.12.2006.
Za dodatne informacije glej Odločbo Nadzornega organa št. 225/06/COL, objavljeno v UL C 305, 14.12.2006.
Article 10(1) in Chapter III of the VAT Act.
Člen 10(1) v poglavju III Zakona o DDV.
See in this respect Chapter IV in connection with Chapter I of the VAT Act.
V zvezi s tem glej poglavje IV v povezavi s poglavjem I Zakona o DDV.
Article 21 in Chapter VI of the VAT Act.
Člen 21v poglavju IV Zakona o DDV.
Reference is made to Article 5 of the VAT Act according to which sales by certain entities like museums, theatres, non profit associations, etc, exempted from the application of VAT.
Sklic se nanaša na člen 5 Zakona o DDV, v skladu s katerim je prodaja s strani določenih subjektov, kot so muzeji, gledališča, neprofitna združenja itd., oproščena plačila DDV.
Article 5(2) of the VAT Act states that the Ministry of Finance may issue regulations delimiting and supplementing the provisions in the first subsection and may stipulate that businesses referred to in the first subsection, 1 f) shall nevertheless calculate and pay output tax if the exemption brings about a significant distortion of competition in relation to other, registered businesses that supply equivalent goods and services.
Člen 5(2) Zakona o DDV navaja, da lahko Ministrstvo za finance izda predpise, ki razmejijo in dopolnijo določbe prvega pododdelka in lahko določijo, da podjetja iz prvega pododdelka 1(f) kljub temu obračunajo in plačajo davek na dodano vrednost, če izjema povzroči pomembno izkrivljanje konkurence v odnosu z drugimi, registriranimi podjetji, ki dobavljajo enakovredno blago in storitve.
See Article 5b of the VAT Act.
Glej člen 5b Zakona o DDV.
‘In-house’ procurement is not considered as a transaction liable for VAT purposes.
Notranje nabavljanje se ne šteje za transakcijo, ki je upravičena za namene DDV.
Act No 107 of 25 September 1992 on Local Government (Lov om kommuner og fylkeskommuner).
Zakon št. 107 z dne 25. septembra 1992 o lokalni samoupravi (Lov om kommuner og fylkeskommuner).
Act No 64 of 17 June 2005 on Day Care Institutions (Lov om barnehager).
Zakon št. 64 z dne 17. junija 2005 o ustanovah za dnevno oskrbo (Lov om barnehager).
For a more detailed explanation on the functioning of the VAT system in Norway, reference is made to Section I.2 ‘Legal framework on VAT and VAT compensation in Norway’ of Decision No 225/06/COL, p. 2.
Podrobnejšo razlago o delovanju sistema DDV na Norveškem je mogoče najti v oddelku I.2, „Pravni okvir o DDV in nadomestilo DDV na Norveškem“, Odločbe št. 225/06/COL, str. 2.
Norges Offentlige Utredinger (NOU) 2003: 3, Merverdiavgiften og kommunene, Konkurransevridninger mellom kommuner og private (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rattsø report’).
Norges Offentlige Utredinger (NOU) 2003: 3, Merverdiavgiften og kommunene, Konkurransevridninger mellom kommuner og private (v nadaljnjem besedilu „poročilo Rattsø“).
Case E-6/98 Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [1999] EFTA Court Report, p. 76, paragraph 34; Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord, PIL and others and Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2005] Report of the EFTA Court, p. 121, paragraph 76; Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709, paragraph 13; and Case C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR I-4551, paragraph 20.
Zadeva E-6/98 Norveška proti Nadzornemu organu Efte [1999] Poročilo Sodišča Efte, str. 76, odstavek 34; združene zadeve E-5/04, E-6/04 in E-7/04 Fesil in Finnfjord, PIL in drugi in Norveška proti Nadzornemu organu Efte [2005] Poročilo Sodišča Efte, str. 121, odstavek 76; zadeva 173/73 Italija proti Komisiji [1974] Recueil 709, odstavek 13; in zadeva C-241/94 Francija proti Komisiji [1996] Recueil I-4551, odstavek 20.
Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavlov and others [2000] ECR I-6451, paragraph 75.
Združene zadeve C-180/98 do C-184/98 Pavlov in drugi [2000] Recueil I-6451, odstavek 75.
Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser [1991] ECR I-1979, paragraph 21.
Zadeva C-41/90 Höfner in Elser [1991] Recueil I-1979, odstavek 21.
Case E-2/05 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland [2005] Report of the EFTA Court, p. 202, paragraph 24.
Zadeva E-2/05 Nadzorni organ Efte proti Islandiji [2005] Poročilo Sodišča Efte, str. 202, odstavek 24.
Case C-387/92 Banco Exterior de España [1994] ECR I-877, paragraph 11.
Zadeva C-387/92 Banco Exterior de España [1994] Recueil I-877, odstavek 11.
Case C-244/94 Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurance et a. [1995] ECR I-4013, paragraph 21; and Case 78/76 Steinike & Weinlig [1977] ECR 595, paragraph 1.
Zadeva C-244/94 Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurance et a. [1995] Recueil I-4013, odstavek 21, in zadeva 78/76 Steinike & Weinlig [1977] Recueil 595, odstavek 1.
Case 78/76 Steinike & Weinlig, cited above paragraph 24, Case T-214/95 Het Vlaamse Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR II-717, paragraph 54.
Zadeva 78/76 Steinike & Weinlig, navedeno zgoraj, odstavek 24, zadeva T-214/95 Het Vlaamse Gewest proti Komisiji [1998] Recueil II-717, odstavek 54.
The Authority assessed in Section II.2.1 of Decision No 225/06/COL that the VAT Compensation Act constitutes an aid scheme.
Nadzorni organ je v oddelku II.2.1 Odločbe št. 225/06/COL ocenil, da je Zakon o nadomestilu DDV shema pomoči.
Reference is made to that assessment.
Sklicevanje se nanaša na navedeno oceno.
Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord, PIL and others and Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority, cited above, paragraphs 76 and 78-79; Case C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-307, paragraph 41.
Združene zadeve E-5/04, E-6/04 in E-7/04 Fesil in Finnfjord, PIL in drugi in Norveška proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, navedeno zgoraj, odstavki 76 in 78–79; zadeva C-301/87 Francija proti Komisiji [1990] Recueil I-307, odstavek 41.
Case E-6/98 Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority, cited above, paragraph 38; Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord, PIL and others and Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority, cited above, paragraphs 84-85; Joined Cases T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99 Territorio Histórico de Alava et a v Commission [2002] ECR II-1275, paragraph 163, Case C-143/99 Adria-Wien Pipeline [2001] ECR I-8365, paragraph 42; Case T-308/00 Salzgitter v Commission [2004] ECR II-1933 paragraph 42, Case C-172/03 Wolfgang Heiser [2005] ECR I-1627, paragraph 43.
Zadeva E-6/98 Norveška proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, navedeno zgoraj, odstavek 38; združene zadeve E-5/04, E-6/04 in E-7/04 Fesil in Finnfjord, PIL in drugi in Norveška proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, navedeno zgoraj, odstavki 84–85; združene zadeve T-127/99, T-129/99 in T-148/99 Territorio Histórico de Alava et a proti Komisiji [2002] Recueil II-1275, odstavek 163, zadeva C-143/99 Adria-Wien Pipeline [2001] Recueil I-8365, odstavek 42; zadeva T-308/00 Salzgitter proti Komisiji [2004] ZOdl. II-1933, odstavek 42, zadeva C-172/03 Wolfgang Heiser [2005] ZOdl. I-1627, odstavek 43.
Case E-6/98 Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [1999] EFTA Court Report, p. 76, paragraph 38; Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord, PIL and others and Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority, cited above, paragraphs 76-89; Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709, paragraph 16.
Zadeva E-6/98 Norveška proti Nadzornemu organu Efte [1999] Poročilo Sodišča Efte, str. 76, odstavek 38; združene zadeve E-5/04, E-6/04 in E-7/04 Fesil in Finnfjord, PIL in drugi in Norveška proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, navedeno zgoraj, odstavki 76–89; zadeva 173/73 Italija proti Komisiji [1974] Recueil 709, odstavek 16.
Case C-172/03 Wolfgang Heiser, cited above.
Zadeva C-172/03 Wolfgang Heiser, navedeno zgoraj.
Case C-159/01 Netherlands v Commission [2004] ECR I-4461, paragraph 51.
Zadeva C-159/01 Nizozemska proti Komisiji [2004] Recueil I-4461, odstavek 51.
Case C-298/00 P Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-4087, paragraph 49, and Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraph 44.
Zadeva C-298/00 P Italija proti Komisiji [2004] ZOdl. I-4087, odstavek 49, in zadeva C-372/97 Italija proti Komisiji [2004] ZOdl. I-3679, odstavek 44.