natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 1996, Air France v Commission, T-358/94, ECLI:EU:T:1996:194, paragraph 62.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 16. maja 2002 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, točka 54.
The concept of public undertakings can be defined by reference to Commission Directive 2006/111/EC, of 16 November 2006, on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ L 318, 17.11.2006, p. 17), referred to at point 1a of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, see Decision of the EEA Joint Committee Decision No 55/2007 of 8 June 2007 amending Annex XV (State aid) to the EEA Agreement (OJ L 266, 11.10.2007, p. 15, and EEA Supplement No 48, 11.10.2007, p. 12).
Sodba Sodišča z dne 16. maja 2002 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, točka 55.
Article 2(b) of this Directive states that ‘public undertakings' means any undertaking over which the public authorities may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it’.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 16. maja 2002 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, točki 55 in 56.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2002, France v Commission (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, paragraph 52.
Glej tudi sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa, predstavljene 13. decembra 2001 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:685, točke 65 do 68.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2002, France v Commission (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 18. marca 2014 v zadevi Calì & Figli, C-242/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2224, točka 35.
See also Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2008, SIC v Commission, T-442/03, ECLI:EU:T:2008:228, paragraphs 93 to 100.
Na primer, kadar ukrepe sprejmejo javne razvojne banke, ki uresničujejo cilje javne politike (sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 27. februarja 2013 v zadevi Nitrogenmuvek Vegyipari, Zrt. proti Komisiji, T-387/11, ECLI:EU:T:2013:98, točka 63), ali kadar ukrepe sprejmejo agencije za privatizacijo ali javni pokojninski skladi (sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 28. januarja 2016 v zadevi Slovenija proti Komisiji („Elan“), T-507/12, ECLI:EU:T:2016:35, točka 86).
It is, furthermore, not necessary to demonstrate that, in a particular case, the public undertaking's conduct would have been different if it had acted autonomously, see Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015, SACE and Sace BT v Commission, T-305/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:435, paragraph 48.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 16. maja 2002 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, točka 57.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2002, France v Commission (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, paragraph 53.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 23. aprila 2009 v zadevi Puffer, C-460/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:254, točka 70, o pravici do davčnih odbitkov po sistemu DDV Unije, in sodbo Splošnega sodišča z dne 5. aprila 2006 v zadevi Deutsche Bahn AG proti Komisiji, T-351/02, ECLI:EU:T:2006:104, točka 102, o obveznih davčnih oprostitvah po pravu Unije.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2002, France v Commission (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, paragraph 54.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 10. decembra 2013 v zadevi Komisija proti Irski in drugi, C-272/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:812, točke 45 do 53, o odobritvi, s katero se je z odločitvijo Sveta državi članici dovolila uvedba oprostitev nekaterih davkov.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2002, France v Commission (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, paragraph 55.
Sodba tudi pojasnjuje, da je dejstvo, da je bila odločitev Sveta na področju uskladitve zakonodaje sprejeta na predlog Komisije, brezpredmetno, saj je pojem državne pomoči objektivni pojem.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2002, France v Commission (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, paragraphs 55 and 56.
Sklep Komisije 2010/606/EU z dne 26. februarja 2010 o državni pomoči C 9/2009 (ex NN 45/08, NN 49/08 in NN 50/08) Kraljevine Belgije, Francoske republike in Velikega vojvodstva Luksemburg za bančno skupino Dexia SA (UL L 274, 19.10.2010, str. 54).
See also the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs of 13 December 2001, France v Commission (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:685, paragraphs 65 to 68.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 24. januarja 1978 v zadevi Van Tiggele, 82/77, ECLI:EU:C:1978:10, točki 25 in 26; sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 12. decembra 1996 v zadevi Air France proti Komisiji, T-358/94, ECLI:EU:T:1996:194, točka 63.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 October 2014, Commerz Nederland, C-242/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2224, paragraph 35.
Sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 12. decembra 1996 v zadevi Air France proti Komisiji, T-358/94, ECLI:EU:T:1996:194, točka 56.
For instance, when measures are taken by public development banks pursuing public policy objectives (Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2013, Nitrogenmuvek Vegyipari, Zrt. v Commission, T-387/11, ECLI:EU:T:2013:98, paragraph 63) or when measures are taken by privatisation agencies or public pension funds (Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016, Slovenia v Commission (‘ELAN’), T-507/12, ECLI:EU:T:2016:35, paragraph 86).
Sodba Sodišča z dne 14. oktobra 1987 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji, 248/84, ECLI:EU:C:1987:437, točka 17; sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 6. marca 2002 v združenih zadevah Territorio Histórico de Álava in drugi proti Komisiji, T-92/00 in 103/00, ECLI:EU:T:2002:61, točka 57.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2002, France v Commission (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, paragraph 57.
Sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 12. decembra 1996 v zadevi Air France proti Komisiji, T-358/94, ECLI:EU:T:1996:194, točke 58 do 62.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 April 2009, Puffer, C-460/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:254, paragraph 70, on the right to tax deductions under the VAT system set up by the Union, and Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2006, Deutsche Bahn AG v Commission, T-351/02, ECLI:EU:T:2006:104, paragraph 102, on tax exemptions required by Union law.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 16. maja 2002 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, točka 38.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 December 2013, Commission v Ireland and Others, C-272/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:812, paragraphs 45 to 53, on an authorisation granted to a Member State by a Council decision to introduce certain tax exemptions.
Glej tudi sodbo Sodišča z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi Grčija proti Komisiji, C-278/00, ECLI:EU:C:2004:239, točki 53 in 54, in sodbo Sodišča z dne 8. maja 2003 v združenih zadevah Italija in SIM 2 Multimedia SpA proti Komisiji, C-328/99 in C-399/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:252, točki 33 in 34.
The judgment also clarifies that the fact that a Council decision in the area of harmonisation of legislation was adopted on a proposal by the Commission is irrelevant because the notion of State aid is an objective notion.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 11. julija 1996 v zadevi SFEI in drugi, C-39/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:285, točka 62.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 1996, Air France v Commission, T-358/94, ECLI:EU:T:1996:194, paragraph 56.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 22. marca 1977 v zadevi Steinike & Weinlig, 78/76, ECLI:EU:C:1977:52, točka 22.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 October 1987, Germany v Commission, 248/84, ECLI:EU:C:1987:437, paragraph 17; Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2002, Territorio Histórico de Álava and Others v Commission, Joined Cases T-92/00 and 103/00, ECLI:EU:T:2002:61, paragraph 57.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 16. maja 2000 v zadevi Francija proti Ladbroke Racing Ltd in Komisiji, C-83/98 P, ECLI:EU:C:2000:248, točke 48 do 51.
Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 1996, Air France v Commission, T-358/94, ECLI:EU:T:1996:194, paragraphs 58 to 62.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 15. marca 1994 v zadevi Banco Exterior de España, C-387/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:100, točka 14 o oprostitvah davka.
Guidelines on the application, from 1 December 2013, of state aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (‘2013 Banking Guidelines’.), adopted by EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 464/13/COL of 27 November 2013 amending, for the 91st time, the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by introducing a new chapter on the application, from 1 December 2013, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (‘Banking Guidelines 2013’) ( OJ L 264, 4.9.2014, p. 6, and EEA Supplement No 50, 4.9.2014, p. 1), in particular point 62).
Poleg tega odstopanja od običajnih pravil o insolventnosti, ki omogočajo podjetjem, da še naprej trgujejo v okoliščinah, v katerih to ne bi bilo dopustno, če bi se uporabljala običajna pravila o insolventnosti, lahko pomenijo dodatno breme za državo, če so osebe javnega prava med glavnimi upniki teh podjetij ali če tako ravnanje pomeni dejanski odpis javnih dolgov.
However, the Authority clarified that where a central bank reacts to a banking crisis with general measures open to all comparable market players in the market (for example lending to the whole market on equal terms) rather than with selective measures in favour of individual banks, such general measures often fall outside the scope of State aid control.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 17. junija 1999 v zadevi Piaggio, C-295/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:313, točke 40 do 43, in sodbo Sodišča z dne 1. decembra 1998 v zadevi Ecotrade, C-200/97, ECLI:EU:C:1998:579, točka 45.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2002, France v Commission (Stardust), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, paragraph 38.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 1. decembra 1998 v zadevi Ecotrade, C-200/97,ECLI:EU:C:1998:579, točka 41, in sodba Sodišča z dne 19. marca 2013 v združenih zadevah Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom proti Komisiji in drugim, C-399/10 P in C-401/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:175, točke 137, 138 in 139.
See also Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 April 2004, Greece v Commission, C-278/00, ECLI:EU:C:2004:239, paragraphs 53 and 54, and Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 May 2003, Italy and SIM 2 Multimedia SpA v Commission, Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:252, paragraphs 33 and 34.
Kot je opredeljeno v členu 2(f) in (g) Direktive 2006/111/ES, navedeni v točki 1a Priloge XV k Sporazumu EGP, glej Sklep št. 55/2007.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 July 1996, SFEI and Others, C-39/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:285, paragraph 62.
Glej tudi smernice o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za nadomestilo, dodeljeno za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, sprejete z Odločbo Nadzornega organa Efte št. 12/12/COL z dne 25. januarja 2012 o štiriinosemdeseti spremembi procesnih in materialnih pravil na področju državne pomoči z uvedbo novih poglavij o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za nadomestilo, dodeljeno za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, in okviru za državno pomoč v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve (UL L 161, 13.6.2013, str. 12, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 34, 13.6.2013, str. 1), točka 33.
Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011, Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt and Others v Commission, Joined Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08, ECLI:EU:T:2011:117, paragraph 143.
Glej sodbo Splošnega sodišča z dne 4. julija 2007 v zadevi Bouygues SA proti Komisiji, T-475/04, ECLI:EU:T:2007:196, v kateri je Splošno sodišče ugotovilo, da so pri odobritvi dostopa do redkih javnih sredstev, kot je radijski spekter, nacionalni organi hkrati imeli vlogo regulatorja telekomunikacij in upravitelja teh javnih sredstev, točka 104.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 March 1977, Steinike & Weinlig, 78/76, ECLI:EU:C:1977:52, paragraph 21.
V zvezi s tem glej odločitev Komisije z dne 20. julija 2004 o državni pomoči NN 42/2004 – Francija – Retroaktivna sprememba plačil Orange in SFR za licence UMTS (UL C 275, 8.11.2005, str. 3), uvodne izjave 28, 29 in 30, podprto s strani sodišč EGP (sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 4. julija 2007 v zadevi Bouygues SA proti Komisiji, T-475/04, ECLI:EU:T:2007:196, točke 108 do 111 in točka 123, ter sodbo Sodišča z dne 2. aprila 2009 v zadevi Bouygues in Bouygues Télécom proti Komisiji, C-431/07 P, ECLI:EU:C:2009:223, točke 94 do 98 in točka 125).
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 March 1977, Steinike & Weinlig, 78/76, ECLI:EU:C:1977:52, paragraph 22.
V tem primeru je pri podeljevanju licenc radijskega spektra UMTS država istočasno imela vlogo regulatorja telekomunikacij in upravitelja teh javnih sredstev ter je uresničevala regulativne cilje iz Direktive 97/13/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 10. aprila 1997 o skupnem okviru za splošna dovoljenja in posamezne licence za telekomunikacijske storitve, UL L 117, 7.5.1997, str. 15), navedene v točki 5cc Priloge XI k Sporazumu EGP; glej Sklep Skupnega odbora EGP št. 37/1999 z dne 30. marca 1999 o spremembi Priloge XI (Telekomunikacijske storitve) k Sporazumu EGP (UL L 266, 19.10.2000, str. 25, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 46, 19.10.2000, str. 147).
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2000, France v Ladbroke Racing Ltd and Commission, C-83/98 P, ECLI:EU:C:2000:248, paragraphs 48 to 51.
V takih okoliščinah so sodišča EGP potrdila, da podelitev dovoljenj brez povečanja prihodkov na najvišjo raven, ki bi se lahko dosegla, ne pomeni dodelitve državne pomoči, saj so bili zadevni ukrepi upravičeni z regulativnimi cilji iz Direktive 97/13/ES in v skladu z načelom nediskriminacije.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 March 1994, Banco Exterior de España, C-387/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:100, paragraph 14 on tax exemptions.
Nasprotno pa v sodbi Sodišča z dne 8. septembra 2011 v zadevi Komisija proti Nizozemski, C-279/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:551, točke 88 in naslednje, Sodišče ni ugotovilo regulativnih vzrokov, ki bi upravičili podelitev brez upoštevanja prostega trgovanja s pravicami do emisij.
Furthermore, derogations from the normal insolvency rules, which allow undertakings to continue trading in circumstances under which they would not be allowed if the ordinary insolvency rules were applied, may involve an additional burden for the State if public bodies are among the principal creditors of those undertaking or where such action amounts to a de facto waiver of public debts.
Glej tudi sodbo Sodišča z dne 14. januarja 2015 v zadevi Eventech proti The Parking Adjudicator, C-518/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:9, točka 46 in naslednje.
See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 June 1999, Piaggio, C-295/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:313, paragraphs 40 to 43 and Judgment of the Court of Justice of 1 December 1998, Ecotrade, C-200/97, ECLI:EU:C:1998:579, paragraph 45.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 13. marca 2001 v zadevi PreussenElektra, C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160, točka 62.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 1 December 1998, Ecotrade, C-200/97, ECLI:EU:C:1998:579, paragraph 41 and Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 March 2013, Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission and Others, Joined Cases C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:175, paragraphs 137, 138 and 139.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 17. marca 1993 v združenih zadevah Sloman Neptun Schiffahrts, C-72/91 in C-73/91, ECLI:EU:C:1993:97, točki 20 in 21.
As defined in Article 2(f) and (g) of Directive 2006/111/EC referred to at point 1a of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, see Decision No 55/2007.
Glej tudi sodbo Sodišča z dne 7. maja 1998 v združenih zadevah Viscido et al., C-52/97, C-53/97 in C-54/97, ECLI:EU:C:1998:209, točki 13 in 14, in sodbo Sodišča z dne 30. novembra 1993 v zadevi Kirsammer-Hack, C-189/91, ECLI:EU:C:1993:907, točki 17 in 18, o dejstvu, da neuporaba nekaterih določb delovne zakonodaje ne pomeni prenosa državnih sredstev.
See also Guidelines on the application of the state aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest, adopted by EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 12/12/COL of 25 January 2012 amending, for the eighty-fourth time, the procedural and substantive rules in the field of state aid by introducing new chapters on the application of state aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest and on the framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation (OJ L 161, 13.6.2013, p. 12 and EEA Supplement No 34, 13.6.2013, p. 1), paragraph 33.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 24. januarja 1978 v zadevi Van Tiggele, 82/77, ECLI:EU:C:1978:10, točki 25 in 26.
See Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2007, Bouygues SA v Commission, T-475/04, ECLI:EU:T:2007:196, where the General Court noted that, in granting access to a scarce public resource such as the radio spectrum, national authorities simultaneously performed the roles of telecommunications regulator and manager of such public resources, paragraph 104.
Glej na primer sodbo Sodišča z dne 17. julija 2008 v zadevi Essent Netwerk Noord, C-206/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:413, točka 70; sodbo Sodišča z dne 16. maja 2000 v zadevi Francija proti Ladbroke Racing Ltd in Komisiji, C-83/98 P, ECLI:EU:C:2000:248, točka 50.
See to that effect Commission Decision of 20 July 2004 on State aid NN 42/2004 – France – Modification of payments due from Orange and SFR for UMTS licences (OJ C 275, 8.11.2005, p. 3), recitals 28, 29 and 30, upheld by the EEA courts (Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2007, Bouygues SA v Commission, T-475/04, ECLI:EU:T:2007:196, paragraphs 108 to 111 and 123, and Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 April 2009, Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission, C-431/07 P, ECLI:EU:C:2009:223, paragraphs 94 to 98 and 125).
Glej sodbo Splošnega sodišča z dne 12. decembra 1996 v zadevi Air France proti Komisiji, T-358/94, ECLI:EU:T:1996:194, točke 65, 66 in 67, v zvezi s pomočjo, ki jo je dodelila Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations in so jo financirali zasebni državljani s prostovoljnimi vlogami, ki jih je bilo mogoče kadar koli dvigniti.
In this case, as regards the granting of UMTS radio spectrum licences, the State simultaneously performed the roles of telecommunications regulator and manager of these public resources and pursued the regulatory objectives set out in Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunication services (OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 15), referred to at point 5cc of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement, see Decision of the EEA Joint Committee Decision No 37/1999 of 30 March 1999 amending Annex XI (telecommunication services) to the EEA Agreement (OJ L 266, 19.10.2000, p. 25 and EEA Supplement No 46, 19.10.2000, p. 147).
To ni vplivalo na sklepno ugotovitev, da so ta sredstva pomenila državna sredstva, ker jih je Caisse lahko uporabila iz salda vlog in dvigov, kot če bi bili stalno na razpolago.
In such a situation, the EEA courts confirmed that the award of licences without maximising the revenues which could have been achieved did not involve the granting of State aid, given that the measures in question were justified by the regulatory objectives set out in Directive 97/13/EC and complied with the principle of non-discrimination.
Glej tudi sodbo Sodišča z dne 16. maja 2000 v zadevi Francija proti Ladbroke Racing Ltd in Komisiji, C-83/98 P, ECLI:EU:C:2000:248, točka 50.
In contrast, in the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2011, Commission v Netherlands, C-279/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:551, paragraphs 88 et seq. the Court did not identify regulatory reasons that would have justified the award without consideration of freely tradable emission rights.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 2. julija 1974 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji, 173/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:71, točka 16; sodba Sodišča z dne 11. marca 1992 v združenih zadevah Compagnie Commerciale de l'Ouest, C-78/90 do C-83/90, ECLI:EU:C:1992:118, točka 35; Sodba Sodišča z dne 17. julija 2008 v zadevi Essent Netwerk Noord, C-206/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:413, točke 58 do 74.
See also Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 January 2015, Eventech v The Parking Adjudicator, C-518/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:9, paragraphs 46 et seq.
Sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 27. septembra 2012 v združenih zadevah Francija et al. proti Komisiji, T-139/09, T-243/09 in T-328/09, ECLI:EU:T:2012:496, točki 63 in 64.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 March 2001, PreussenElektra, C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160, paragraph 62.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 15. julija 2004 v zadevi Pearle, C-345/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:448, točka 41, in sodbo Sodišča z dne 30. maja 2013 v zadevi Doux élevages SNC et al., C-677/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:348.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 March 1993, Sloman Neptun Schiffahrts, Joined Cases C-72/91 and C-73/91, ECLI:EU:C:1993:97, paragraph 20 and 21.
Sklep 2010/606/EU.
See also Judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 May 1998, Viscido et al., Joined Cases C-52/97, C-53/97 and C-54/97, ECLI:EU:C:1998:209, paragraphs 13 and 14 and Judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 November 1993, Kirsammer-Hack, C-189/91, ECLI:EU:C:1993:907, paragraphs 17 and 18, on the fact that the non-application of certain provisions of employment law does not constitute a transfer of State resources.
Glede strukturnih skladov glej na primer odločitev Komisije z dne 22. novembra 2006 o državni pomoči N 157/06 – Združeno kraljestvo, Projekt na področju širokopasovnih povezav „Digital Region“ v južnem Yorkshiru, uvodni izjavi 21 in 29, o ukrepu, ki ga je delno financiral Evropski sklad za regionalni razvoj (ESRR) ( UL C 80, 13.4.2007, str. 2).
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 January 1978, Van Tiggele, 82/77, ECLI:EU:C:1978:10, paragraphs 25 and 26.
Kar zadeva financiranje za proizvodnjo kmetijskih proizvodov in trgovino z njimi, je področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči omejeno s členom 42 Pogodbe.
See, for instance Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 July 2008, Essent Netwerk Noord, C-206/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:413, paragraph 70; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2000, France v Ladbroke Racing Ltd and Commission, C-83/98 P, ECLI:EU:C:2000:248, paragraph 50.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 13. marca 2001 v zadevi PreussenElektra, C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160, točke 59 do 62.
See Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 1996, Air France v Commission, T-358/94, ECLI:EU:T:1996:194, paragraphs 65, 66 and 67, concerning an aid granted by the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations which was financed with the voluntary deposits of private citizens which could be withdrawn at any time.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da uvedba obveznega odkupa za zasebna podjetja ne pomeni neposrednega ali posrednega prenosa državnih sredstev in da se ta opredelitev ne spremeni zaradi nižjih prihodkov podjetij, za katera velja ta obveznost, ki bi lahko povzročila zmanjšanje davčnih prihodkov, ker je to neločljiva značilnost ukrepa.
That did not affect the conclusion that those funds were State resources because the Caisse was able to use them from the balance produced by deposits and withdrawals as if they were permanently at its disposal.
Glej tudi sodbo Sodišča z dne 5. marca 2009 v zadevi UTECA, C-222/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:124, točke 43 do 47, o obveznih prispevkih za izdajatelje televizijskih programov v korist filmske produkcije, ki ne zajema prenosa državnih sredstev.
See also Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2000, France v Ladbroke Racing Ltd and Commission, C-83/98 P, ECLI:EU:C:2000:248, paragraph 50.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 17. julija 2008 v zadevi Essent Netwerk Noord, C-206/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:413, točke 69 do 75.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 July 1974, Italy v Commission, 173/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:71, paragraph 16; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 March 1992, Compagnie Commerciale de l'Ouest, Joined Cases C-78/90 to C-83/90, ECLI:EU:C:1992:118, paragraph 35; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 July 2008, Essent Netwerk Noord, C-206/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:413, paragraphs 58 to 74.
Sklep Komisije 2011/528/EU z dne 8. marca 2011 o ukrepu državne pomoči C 24/09 (ex N 446/08) – Državna pomoč za energetsko intenzivne dejavnosti v skladu z zakonom o električni energiji iz obnovljivih virov v Avstriji (UL L 235, 10.9.2011, str. 42), uvodna izjava 76.