natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If the EFTA State does not give this commitment and/or in the absence of clear data on the aid measures involved [75] preventing the Authority from assessing the global impact of the old and the new aid on competition, the Authority will take a final conditional decision on the basis of Article 7 (4) in Part II of Protocol 3, requiring the EFTA State concerned to suspend payment of the new aid until it is satisfied that the beneficiary concerned has reimbursed the old unlawful and incompatible aid, including any recovery interests due.
Če država Efte ne zagotovi te zaveze in/ali če ni na voljo jasnih podatkov o zadevnih ukrepih pomoči [75], kar Nadzornemu organu onemogoča presojo globalnega učinka stare in nove pomoči na konkurenco, bo Nadzorni organ sprejel končno pogojno odločbo na podlagi člena 7(4) dela II Protokola 3, ki od zadevne države Efte zahteva, da prekine plačilo nove pomoči, dokler ni izpolnjen pogoj, da je zadevni upravičenec povrnil staro nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč s pripadajočimi obrestmi zaradi vračila.
The Deggendorf principle has been integrated into the Chapter on aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines [76] and into Decision No 195/04/COL as well as into Block Exemption Regulations which have been incorporated into the EEA Agreement [77].
Načelo Deggendorf je bilo vključeno v poglavje smernice Nadzornega organa o državni pomoči o pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij [76] in v Odločbo št. 195/04/COL ter uredbe o skupinski izjemi, ki so bile vključene v Sporazum EGP [77].
The Authority intends to integrate this principle into all forthcoming state aid rules and decisions.
Nadzorni organ namerava vključiti to načelo v vse nadaljnja pravila in odločbe o državni pomoči.
The maintenance of a system of free and undistorted competition is one of the cornerstones of the European Economic Area.
Ohranjanje sistema svobodne in neizkrivljene konkurence je eden od temeljev Evropskega gospodarskega prostora.
As part of the EEA competition policy, state aid discipline is essential to ensure that the internal market remains a level playing field in all economic sectors in Europe.
Kot del konkurenčne politike EGP je ureditev državnih pomoči bistvena zaradi zagotavljanja, da notranji trg ostaja trg enakih pogojev v vseh ekonomskih sektorjih v Evropi.
In this key task, the Authority and the EFTA States have the joint responsibility to ensure a proper enforcement of state aid discipline and in particular of recovery decisions.
Pri tej ključni nalogi imajo Nadzorni organ in države Efte deljeno odgovornost, da zagotovijo primerno izvajanje discipline glede državnih pomoči in zlasti odločb o vračilu.
By issuing this Chapter, the Authority is willing to increase the awareness of the principles of recovery policy as defined by the Courts of the European Communities and the EFTA Court and to clarify the Authority’s practice as regards its recovery policy.
Z objavo tega poglavja namerava Nadzorni organ povečati ozaveščenost o načelih politike vračil, kakor jih določata sodišči Evropskih skupnosti in Sodišče Efte, in pojasniti prakso Nadzornega organa v zvezi z njeno politiko vračil.
The Authority commits itself to abide by these recalled principles and invites EFTA States to ask for advice when facing difficulties in implementing recovery decisions.
Nadzorni organ se zavezuje k spoštovanju navedenih načel in vabi države Efte, naj jo prosijo za nasvet, ko imajo težave pri izvajanju odločb o vračilu.
The services of the Authority remain at the disposal of the EFTA States to provide further guidance and assistance if required.
Službe Nadzornega organa so po potrebi na voljo državam Efte za dodatne smernice in pomoč.
In return, the Authority expects EFTA States to abide to the principles of recovery policy.
V zameno Nadzorni organ pričakuje, da bodo države Efte spoštovale načela politike vračil.
It is only through a joint effort of both the Authority and the EFTA States that state aid discipline will be ensured and will produce its desired objective, i.e. the maintenance of undistorted competition within the internal market.
Samo skupno prizadevanje Nadzornega organa in držav Efte bo utrdilo disciplino glede državnih pomoči in ta bo lahko dosegla želeni cilj, namreč ohranjanje neizkrivljene konkurence na notranjem trgu.
This Chapter corresponds to the Commission's notice entitled Towards an effective implementation of Commission decisions ordering Member States to recover unlawful and incompatible State aid, OJ 2007 C 272, 15.11.2007, p. 4.
To poglavje je skladno z Obvestilom Komisije – Za učinkovito izvajanje odločb Komisije, ki od držav članic zahtevajo dosego vračila nezakonite in nezdružljive državne pomoči, UL C 272, 15.11.2007, str. 4.
Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement was amended to reflect the provisions of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (now Article 88) of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
Protokol 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču je bil spremenjen, tako da je skladen z določbami Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 (zdaj člen 88) Pogodbe ES (UL L 83, 27.3.1999, str. 1).
See the Authority’s Annual Report 2006, p. 56.
Glej letno poročilo Nadzornega organa za leto 2006, str. 56.
Study on the enforcement of state aid law at national level, Competition studies 6, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities - http://www.concurrences.com/IMG/pdf/Study_2006.pdf.
Študija o izvajanju zakonodaje o državni pomoči na nacionalni ravni (Study on the enforcement od state aid law at national level), Competition Studies 6, Luxembourg, Urad za uradne publikacije Evropskih skupnosti, http://www.concurrences.com/IMG/pdf/Study_2006.pdf.
Case C-70/72, Commission v Germany, [1973] ECR 813, paragraph 13.
Zadeva C-70/72, Komisija proti Nemčiji, Recueil 1973, str. 813, točka 13.
Article 6 of the EEA Agreement provides that, without prejudice to future developments of case law, the provisions of this Agreement, in so far as they are identical in substance to corresponding rules of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and to acts adopted in application of these two treaties, shall in their implementation and application, be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Communities given prior to the date of signature of the EEA Agreement.
Člen 6 Sporazuma EGP določa, da se brez vpliva na prihodnji razvoj sodne prakse določbe tega Sporazuma, kolikor so po vsebini enake ustreznim pravilom Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti in Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti za premog in jeklo ter aktom, sprejetim za uporabo teh dveh pogodb, pri njihovem izvajanju in uporabi razlagajo v skladu z ustreznimi odločitvami Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti, sprejetimi pred datumom podpisa Sporazuma EGP.
As regards relevant rulings by the Court of Justice given after the date of signature of the EEA Agreement, it follows from Article 3(2) of the Surveillance and Court Agreement that the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court shall pay due account to the principles laid down by these rulings.
Kar zadeva ustrezne odločitve Sodišča, sprejete po datumu podpisa Sporazuma EGP, iz člena 3(2) Sporazuma o nadzornem organu in sodišču izhaja, da Nadzorni organ Efte in Sodišče Efte ustrezno upoštevata načela, določena s temi odločitvami.
See footnote 2 above.
Glej opombo 2.
Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 on the implementing provisions referred to under Article 27 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA State on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37, as amended.
Odločba št. 195/04/COL z dne 14. julija 2004 o izvedbenih določbah iz člena 27 dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu med državami Efta o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in Sodišča, UL L 139, 25.5.2006, str. 37. kakor je bila spremenjena.
Decision No 195/04/COL corresponds to Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, pp. 1-134), as amended.
Odločba št. 195/04/COL je skladna z Uredbo 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. 1–134), kakor je bila spremenjena.
Case C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-307.
Zadeva C-301/87, Francija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1990, str. I-307.
Case C-415/03 Commission v Greece (‘Olympic Airways’) [2005] ECR I-3875 and Case C-232/05 Commission v France (‘Scott’) [2006] ECR I-10071.
Zadeva C-415/03, Komisija proti Grčiji („Olympic Airways“), Recueil 2005, str. I-03875, in zadeva C-232/05, Komisija proti Franciji („Scott“), ZOdl. 2006, str. I-10071.
Case C-188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH v Germany (‘Deggendorf’) ECR [1994] I-833.
Zadeva C-188/92, TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH proti Nemčiji („Deggendorf“), Recueil 1994, str. I-833.
Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR I-3671, paragraph 65.
Zadeva C-75/97, Belgija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1999, str. I-3671, točka 65.
Case C-183/91 Commission v Greece [1993] ECR I-3131, paragraph 16.
Zadeva C-183/91, Komisija proti Grčiji, Recueil 1993, str. I-3131, točka 16.
Joined cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Spain v Commission [1994] ECR I-4103, paragraph 75.
Združene zadeve C-278/92, C-279/92 in C-280/92, Španija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1994, str. I-4103, točka 75.
Case C-348/93 Commission v Italy [1995] ECR I-673, paragraph 27.
Zadeva C-348/93, Komisija proti Italiji, Recueil 1995, str. I-673, točka 27.
Case T-459/93, Siemens v Commission [1995] ECR II-1675, paragraphs 97 to 101.
Zadeva T-459/93, Siemens proti Komisiji, Recueil 1995, str. II-1675, točke 97–101.
Case C-415/03, Commission v Greece, cited above footnote 11.
Zadeva C-415/03, Komisija proti Grčiji, glej opombo 11.
Case C-232/05, Commission v France, cited above footnote 11.
Zadeva C-232/05, Komisija proti Franciji, glej opombo 11.
On the principle of the protection of the legitimate expectations, see Case C-24/95 Alcan [1997] ECR I-1591, paragraph 25, and Case C-5/89 BUG-Alutechnik [1990] ECR I-3437, paragraphs 13 and 14, and Joined cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04, Fesil and Finnfjord a.o. v EFTA Surveillance Authority, [2005] EFTA Court Report, p. 121, paragraph 171.
Za načelo zaščite upravičenih pričakovanj glej zadevo C-24/95, Alcan, Recueil 1997, str. I1-591, točka 25, in zadevo C-5/89, BUG-Alutechnik, Recueil 1990, str. I-3437, točki 13 in 14, ter združeni zadevi E-5/04, E-6/04 in E-7/04, Fesil and Finnfjord a.o. proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, Efta Court Report 2005, str. 121, točka 171.
For an example where the ECJ recognised the existence of legitimate expectations on the part of the beneficiary, see Case C-223/85 RSV [1987] ECR p. 4617.
Za primer, v katerem je SES priznalo obstoj upravičenih pričakovanj na strani upravičenca, glej zadevo C-223/85, RSV, Recueil 1987, str. 4617.
On the principle of legal certainty, see T-115/94 Opel Austria GmbH v Council [1997] ECR II-39 and Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraphs 116 to 118, and Joined cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission [2002] ECR I-7869, paragraph 140, and Joined cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04, Fesil and Finnfjord a.o. v EFTA Surveillance Authority, cited above in footnote 20, paragraph 172.
Za načelo pravne varnosti glej zadevo T-115/94, Opel Austria GmbH proti Svetu, Recueil 1997, str. II-00039, ter zadevo C-372/97, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2004, str. I-3679, točke 116–118, in združeni zadevi C-74/00 P in C-75/00 P, Falck in Acciaierie di Bolzano proti Komisiji, Recueil 2002, str. I-7869, točka 140, in združene zadeve E-5/04, E-6/04 in E-7/04, Fesil and Finnfjord a.o. proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, glej opombo 20, točka 172.
See also Case T-308/00 Saltzgitter v Commission [2004] ECR II-1933 paragraph 166.
Glej zadevo T-308/00, Saltzgitter proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2004, II-1933, točka 166.
For an interpretation of ‘any Commission action’, see Case T-369/00 Département du Loiret v Commission [2003] ECR II-1789.
Za razlago „kakršnega koli ukrepa Komisije“ glej zadevo T-369/00, Département du Loiret proti Komisiji, Recueil 2003, str. II-1789.
Case 94/87 Commission v Germany [1989] ECR 175.
Zadeva 94/87, Komisija proti Nemčiji, Recueil 1989, str. 175.
Case C-404/00 Commission v Spain [2003] ECR I-6695.
Zadeva C-404/00, Komisija proti Španiji, Recueil 2003, str. I-6695.
Case C-280/95 Commission v Italy [1998] ECR I-259.
Zadeva C-280/95, Komisija proti Italiji, Recueil 1998, str. I-259.
Case C-24/95 Alcan, cited above footnote 20, paragraphs 34 to 37.
Zadeva C-24/95, Alcan, glej opombo 20, točke 34–37.
Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1433.
Zadeva C-303/88, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1991, str. I-1433.
Case C-52/84 Commission v Belgium [1986] ECR p. 89, paragraph 9.
Zadeva C-52/84, Komisija proti Belgiji, Recueil 1986, str. 89, točka 9.
Case C-52/84 Commission v Belgium cited above footnote 28, paragraph 14.
Zadeva C-52/84, Komisija proti Belgiji, glej opombo 28, točka 14.
Case C-499/99 Commission v Spain [2002] ECR I-6031.
Zadeva C-499/99, Komisija proti Španiji, Recueil 2002, str. I-6031.
Case C-280/95 Commission v Italy, cited above footnote 25.
Zadeva C-280/95, Komisija proti Italiji, glej opombo 25.
Case C-6/97 Italy v Commission [1999] ECR I-2981, paragraph 34.
Zadeva C-6/97, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1999, str. I-2981, točka 34.
Case C-415/03 Commission v Greece cited above footnote 11.
Zadeva C-415/03, Komisija proti Grčiji, glej opombo 11.
Case C-232/05 Commission v France cited above footnote 11.
Zadeva C-232/05, Komisija proti Franciji, glej opombo 11.
Article 80(2) of the EFTA Court's Rules of Procedure.
Člen 80(2) poslovnika Sodišča Efte.
Case C-404/00 Commission v Spain, cited above footnote 24.
Zadeva C-404/00, Komisija proti Španiji, glej opombo 24.
Case C-94/87 Commission v Germany, cited above footnote 23, paragraph 9, and Case C-348/93 Commission v Italy, cited above footnote 16, paragraph 17.
Zadeva C-94/87, Komisija proti Nemčiji, glej opombo 23, točka 9, in zadeva C-348/93, Komisija proti Italiji, glej opombo 16, točka 17.
For an illustration of proposals for implementation see Case C-209/00 Commission v Germany [2002] ECR I-11695.
Za opis predlogov izvajanja glej zadevo C-209/00, Komisija proti Nemčiji, Recueil 2002, str. I-11695.
Case 94/87 Commission v Germany, cited above footnote 23, paragraph 10.
Zadeva C-94/87, Komisija proti Nemčiji, glej opombo 23, točka 10.
Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission, cited above footnote 27, paragraph 57, and Case C-277/00 Germany v Commission (‘SMI’) [2004] ECR I-3925, paragraph 75.
Zadeva C-303/88, Italija proti Komisiji, glej opombo 27, točka 57, in zadeva C-277/00, Nemčija proti Komisiji (MSP), Recueil 2004, str. I-3925, točka 75.
Case C-277/00 Germany v Commission, cited above footnote 40.
Zadeva C-277/00, Nemčija proti Komisiji, glej opombo 40.
Case C-328/99 and C-399/00, Italy and SIM 2 Multimedia Spa v Commission [2003] ECR I-4035.
Zadevi C-328/99 in C-399/00, Italija in SIM 2 Multimedia proti Komisiji, Recueil 2003, str. I-4035.
For another example of circumvention, see case C-415/03, Commission v Greece, cited above footnote 11.
Za dodaten primer izogibanja glej zadevo C-415/03, Komisija proti Grčiji, glej opombo 11.
Case C-328/99 and C-399/00 Italy and SIM 2 Multimedia v Commission, cited above footnote 42, paragraph 83.
Zadevi C-328/99 in C-399/00, Italija in SIM 2 Multimedia proti Komisiji, glej opombo 42, točka 83.
In the event of a privatisation of a company that received state aid declared compatible by the Authority, the EFTA State can introduce a liability clause in the privatisation agreement to protect the buyer of the company against the risk that the initial Authority's decision approving the aid would be overturned by the EFTA Court and replaced by an Authority's decision ordering the recovery of that aid from the beneficiary.
V primeru privatizacije podjetja, ki je prejelo državno pomoč, ki jo je Nadzorni organ razglasil za združljivo, lahko država Efte v privatizacijski sporazum vnese klavzulo o odgovornosti, da s tem zaščiti kupca podjetja pred tveganjem, da bi Sodišče Efte zaobrnilo začetno odločbo Nadzornega organa o odobritvi pomoči in nadomestilo z odločbo Nadzornega organa o vračilu take pomoči s strani upravičenca.
Such a clause could provide for an adjustment of the price paid by the buyer for the privatised company to take due account of the new recovery liability.
Taka klavzula lahko določa prilagoditev cene, ki jo je kupec plačal za privatizirano podjetje, da se primerno upošteva nova odgovornost glede vračila.
Case C-277/00 Germany v Commission, cited above footnote 40, paragraph 80.
Zadeva C-277/00, Nemčija proti Komisiji, glej opombo 40, točka 80.
Case C-310/99 Italy v Commission [2002] ECR I-2289, paragraph 91.
Zadeva C-310/99, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2002, str. I-2289, točka 91.
Case C-277/00 Germany v Commission, cited above footnote 40, paragraphs 74-76.
Zadeva C-277/00, Nemčija proti Komisiji, glej opombo 40, točke 74–76.
Case C-480/98 Spain v Commission [2000] ECR I-8717, paragraph 25, and Joined cases C-67/85, C-68/85, and C-70/85 Kwekerij van der Kooy BV and others v Commission [1988] ECR p. 219.
Zadeva C-480/98, Španija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2000, str. I-8717, točka 25, ter združene zadeve C-67/85, C-68/85 in C-70/85, Kwekerij van der Kooy BV in drugi proti Komisiji, Recueil 1988, str. 219.
See, in that context, the exception of Case C-480/98 Spain v Commission, cited above footnote 48, paragraphs 36 and following.
V zvezi s tem glej izjemo iz zadeve C-480/98, Španija proti Komisiji, glej opombo 48, točka 36 in sled.
Further guidance as to calculation of interests is contained in Decision No 195/04/COL.
Odločba št. 195/04/COL vsebuje dodatne smernice o izračunu obresti.
See Case C-207/05 Commission v Italy [2006] ECR I-70, paragraphs 31 to 36, Case C-378/98 Commission v Belgium [2001] ECR I-5107, paragraph 28, and Case C-232/05 Commission v France, cited above footnote 11.
Glej zadevo C-207/05, Komisija proti Italiji, Zodl. 2006, str. I-70, točke 31–36, zadevo C-378/98, Komisija proti Belgiji, Recueil 2001, str. I-5107, točka 28, in zadevo C-232/05, Komisija proti Franciji, glej opombo 11.
Case C-5/86 Commission / Belgium [1987] ECR p. 1773.
Zadeva C-5/86, Komisija proti Belgiji, Recueil 1987, str. 1773.
Case C-207/05 Commission v Italy, cited above footnote 51.
Zadeva C-207/05, Komisija proti Italiji, glej opombo 51.
Case 249/85 Albako Margarinefabrik Maria von der Linde GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung [1987] ECR p. 2345.
Zadeva 249/85, Albako Margarinefabrik Maria von der Linde GmbH & Co. KG proti Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung, Recueil 1987, str. 2345.
Case T-459/93 Siemens v Commission, cited above footnote 17, paragraph 83.
Zadeva T-459/93, Siemens proti Komisiji, glej opombo 17, točka 83.
See also Case C-148/04 Unicredito Spa v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio Genova I [2005] ECR I-11137, paragraphs 117 to 120.
Glej tudi zadevo C-148/04, Unicredito Spa proti Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio Genova I, ZOdl. 2005, I-11137, točke 117–120.
Case C-13/01 Safalero [2003] ECR I-8679, paragraphs 49-50.
Zadeva C-13/01, Safalero, Recueil 2003, str. I-8679, točki 49–50.
Case C-48/71 Commission v Italy [1972] ECR p. 529.
Zadeva C-48/71, Komisija proti Italiji, Recueil 1972, str. 529.
Case C-232/05 Commission v France, cited above footnote 11.
Zadeva C-232/05, Komisija proti Franciji, glej opombo 11.
Case C-188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH v Germany, cited above footnote 12.
Zadeva C-188/92, TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH proti Nemčiji, glej opombo 12.
Case C-346/03 Atzeni a.o.
Zadeva C-346/03, Atzeni in drugi, Zodl.
ECR I-1875, paragraph 30-34.
2006, str. I-01875, točke 30–34.
Case C-465/93 Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH a.o., cited above footnote 63, paragraph 51.
Zadeva C-465/93, Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft GmbH in drugi, glej opombo 63, točka 51.
Case C-42/93 Spain v Commission (‘Merco’) [1994] ECR I-4175.
Zadeva C-42/93, Španija proti Komisiji („Merco“), Recueil 1994, str. I-4175.
Case C-52/84 Commission v Belgium, cited above footnote 28.
Zadeva C-52/84, Komisija proti Belgiji, glej opombo 28.
Case C-142/87 Commission v Belgium [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 62.
Zadeva C-142/87, Komisija proti Belgiji, Recueil 1990, str. I-959, točka 62.
Case C-142/87 Commission v Belgium, cited above footnote 67, and Case C-499/99 Commission v Spain, cited above footnote 30, paragraphs 28-44.
Zadeva C-142/87, Komisija proti Belgiji, glej opombo 67, in zadeva C-499/99, Komisija proti Španiji, glej opombo 30, točke 28–44.
See, in that context, the judgment of the Commercial Chamber of the Amberg Court of 23 July 2001 in relation to the aid granted by Germany to ‘Neue Maxhütte- Stahlwerke GmbH’ (Commission Decision of 18 October 1995, OJ L 53, 2.3.1996, p. 41).
V zvezi s tem glej Sodbo senata za gospodarske zadeve deželnega sodišča Amberg z dne 23. julija 2001 v zvezi s pomočjo, ki jo je Nemčija dodelila podjetju „Neue Maxhütte- Stahlwerke GmbH“ (Odločba Komisije z dne 18. oktobra 1995, UL L 53, 2.3.1996, str. 41.)
In that case, the German court over-ruled the refusal of the insolvency administrator to register a recovery claim resulting from an illegal and incompatible aid granted in the form of a capital injection, as this would render the execution of the recovery decision impossible.
Nemško sodišče je v tem primeru ovrglo zavrnitev stečajnega upravitelja v zvezi z evidentiranjem zahteve po vračilu na podlagi nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči, dodeljene v obliki dokapitalizacije, saj bi to onemogočilo izvajanje odločbe o vračilu.
In practical terms, the payment of the total amount of aid and the interests on a blocked account may be ruled by a specific contract, signed by the bank and the beneficiary, and by which the parties agree that the sum will be released in favour of one or the other party once the litigation has come to an end.
V praksi lahko plačilo celotnega zneska pomoči in zadevnih obresti na zamrznjeni račun ureja posebna pogodba s podpisom bančnega zavoda in upravičenca, na podlagi katere se stranki sporazumeta, da bo znesek sproščen eni ali drugi stranki po koncu sodnega spora.
Contrary to the constitution of a blocked account, the use of bank guarantees may not be considered as an adequate provisional measure since the total amount of the aid is still at the recipient's disposal.
V nasprotju z odprtjem zamrznjenega računa se uporaba bančnih garancij lahko ne šteje za primeren začasni ukrep, saj upravičenec še vedno razpolaga s celotnim zneskom pomoči.
Case C-224/01, Köbler, [2003], ECR I-10239, paragraphs 31-33; Case C-173/03, Traghetti del Mediterraneo, [2003], page I-05177, paragraphs 30-33.
Zadeva C-224/01, Köbler, Recueil 2003, str. I-10239, točke 31–33. Zadeva C-173/03, Traghetti del Mediterraneo, Recueil 2003, str. I-05177, točke 30–33.
Case T-244/93 and T-486/93 TWD Deggendorf v Commission [1995] ECR II-2265, paragraph 56.
Zadevi T-244/93 in T-486/93, TWD Deggendorf proti Komisiji, Recueil 1995, str. II-2265, točka 56.
For instance in the case of illegal and incompatible schemes where the amount and the beneficiaries are not known to the Authority.
Na primer, pri nezakonitih in nezdružljivih shemah pomoči, v katerih Nadzornemu organu niso znani zneski in upravičenci pomoči.
Chapter on aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty was adopted on 1 December 2004.
Poglavje o pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah je bilo sprejeto 1. decembra 2004.