natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Where a beneficiary does not comply with the recovery order, EFTA States should seek the immediate enforcement of its recovery claims under national law.
Kadar upravičenec ne izpolni naloga za vračilo, si morajo države Efte prizadevati za takojšnjo izterjavo v skladu z nacionalnim pravom.
Litigation before national courts
Spor pred nacionalnimi sodišči
The implementation of recovery decisions can give rise to litigation in national courts.
Izvedba odločb o vračilu lahko povzroči nastanek sporov pred nacionalnimi sodišči.
Two main categories of recovery-related litigation can be distinguished: actions brought by the recovering authority seeking a court order to force an unwilling recipient to refund the unlawful and incompatible aid and actions brought by beneficiaries contesting the recovery order.
Razlikovati je mogoče dve glavni kategoriji sporov, ki so povezani z vračilom: tožbe organa izterjevalca za izdajo sodnega naloga, ki bi prisilil neželečega upravičenca, da povrne nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč, ter tožbe upravičencev zoper nalog za vračilo.
The execution of a recovery decision can be delayed for many years when the national measures taken for the implementation of a recovery decision are challenged in court.
Spodbijanje nacionalnih ukrepov, sprejetih za izvedbo odločbe o vračilu, pred sodiščem lahko povzroči večletno zamudo pri izvedbi odločbe o vračilu.
This is even more the case when the recovery decision is itself challenged before the EFTA Court, especially if national judges are asked to suspend the implementation of national measures until the EFTA Court has ruled on the validity of the recovery decision.
To je še bolj izrazito, kadar se odločba o vračilu spodbija pred Sodiščem Efte, zlasti če se od nacionalnih sodnikov zahteva odlog izvajanja nacionalnih ukrepov, dokler se Sodišče Efte ne izreče o veljavnosti odločbe o vračilu.
In line with the case law of the ECJ, the beneficiary of an aid who could without any doubt have challenged a recovery decision under Article 36 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement before the EFTA Court can no longer challenge the validity of the decision in proceedings before the national court on the ground that the decision was unlawful [60].
V skladu s sodno prakso SES upravičenec pomoči, ki bi lahko pred Sodiščem Efte nedvomno spodbijal odločbo o vračilu na podlagi člena 36 Sporazuma o nadzornem organu in sodišču, veljavnosti odločbe ne more več spodbijati v postopkih pred nacionalnim sodiščem z utemeljitvijo, da je bila odločba nezakonita [60].
It derives from this that the beneficiary of an aid who could have asked for interim relief before the EFTA Court in accordance with Articles 40 and 41 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement and has failed to do so, cannot ask for a suspension of the measures taken by the national authorities for implementing that decision on grounds linked to the validity of the decision.
Iz tega izhaja, da upravičenec pomoči, ki bi lahko pred Sodiščem Efte zaprosil za začasno oprostitev v skladu s členoma 40 in 41 Sporazuma o nadzornem organu in sodišču ter tega ni storil, ne more zaprositi za odlog ukrepov, ki so jih sprejeli nacionalni organi za izvedbo navedene odločbe z utemeljitvijo, ki je povezana z veljavnostjo odločbe.
On the other hand, in cases where it is not self-evident that an action for annulment brought against the contested decision by the beneficiary of the aid would have been admissible, an adequate legal protection must be offered to the aid beneficiary.
Po drugi strani, če ni samoumevno, da bi tožba za razveljavitev zoper izpodbijano odločbo, ki jo vloži upravičenec pomoči, bila sprejemljiva, je treba upravičencu pomoči zagotoviti primerno pravno zaščito.
In the event that the aid beneficiary challenges the implementation of the decision in proceedings before the national court on the ground that such recovery decision was unlawful, the national judge should rely on the procedure laid down in Article 34 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement [61].
Če upravičenec pomoči spodbija izvedbo odločbe v postopkih pred nacionalnim sodiščem z utemeljitvijo, da je bila odločba o vračilu nezakonita, mora nacionalni sodnik uveljaviti postopek iz člena 34 Sporazuma o nadzornemu organu in sodišču [61].
In case the beneficiary also asks for interim relief of the national measures adopted to implement the recovery decision because of an alleged illegality of the Authority’s recovery decision, the national judge has to assess whether the case at hand fulfils the conditions established by the ECJ in the Zuckerfabrik [62] and Atlanta [63] cases.
Če upravičenec zaradi domnevne nezakonitosti odločbe Nadzornega organa o vračilu zaprosi tudi za začasno oprostitev od nacionalnih ukrepov, sprejetih za izvedbo odločbe o vračilu, mora nacionalni sodnik presoditi, ali obravnavana zadeva izpolnjuje pogoje SES iz zadev Zuckerfabrik [62] in Atlanta [63].
This means that a national court should only order interim relief if:
To pomeni, da nacionalno sodišče lahko odredi samo začasno oprostitev, če:
that court entertains serious doubts as to the validity of the act and, if the validity of the contested act is not already in issue before the EFTA Court, itself acts in accordance with the second sentence in paragraph 56 above;
zadevno sodišče resno dvomi o veljavnosti akta ter, kadar o veljavnosti izpodbijanega akta ne teče že postopek pred Sodiščem Efte, samo ukrepa v skladu z drugim stavkom odstavka 56;
there is urgency, in that the interim relief is necessary to avoid serious and irreparable damage being caused to the party seeking the relief;
obstajajo nujni razlogi, da je začasna oprostitev potrebna, da se prepreči resna in nepopravljiva škoda stranki, ki prosi za tako oprostitev;
the court takes due account of the EEA interest; and
sodišče primerno upošteva interes EGP ter
in its assessment of all those conditions, it respects any decisions of the EFTA Court ruling on the lawfulness of the act or on an application for interim measures seeking similar interim relief at EEA level [64].
pri svoji presoji vseh zadevnih pogojev spoštuje sodbe Sodišča Efte o zakonitosti akta ali o prošnji za začasne ukrepe, namenjene podobni začasni oprostitvi na ravni EGP [64].
The specific case of insolvent beneficiaries
Poseben primer plačilno nesposobnih upravičencev
As a preliminary observation, it is important to recall that the ECJ has consistently held that the fact that a beneficiary is insolvent or subject to bankruptcy proceedings has no effect on its obligation to repay unlawful and incompatible aid [65].
Kot predhodna ugotovitev je pomembno opozoriti, da je SES dosledno določilo, da plačilna nesposobnost upravičenca ali zadevni stečajni postopki ne vplivajo na obveznost upravičenca, da povrne nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč [65].
In the majority of cases involving an insolvent aid beneficiary, it will not be possible to recover the full amount of unlawful and incompatible aid (including interest), as the beneficiary’s assets will be insufficient to satisfy all creditors’ claims.
V večini primerov, ki zadevajo plačilno nesposobnega upravičenca pomoči, ne bo mogoče doseči vračila celotnega zneska nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči (vključno z obrestmi), saj sredstva upravičenca ne bodo zadostovala za zadostitev vseh zahtev upnikov.
Consequently, it is not possible to fully re-establish the ex ante situation in the traditional manner.
Zato ni mogoče ponovno vzpostaviti predhodnega stanja na običajen način.
Since the ultimate objective of recovery is to end the distortion of competition, the ECJ has stated that the liquidation of the beneficiary can be regarded as an acceptable option to recovery in such cases [66].
Ker je zadnji cilj vračila ukinitev izkrivljanja konkurence, je SES razsodilo, da je v tovrstnih primerih [66] kot sprejemljivo rešitev mogoče obravnavati likvidacijo upravičenca.
The Authority is therefore of the view that a decision ordering the EFTA State to recover unlawful and incompatible aid from an insolvent beneficiary may be considered to be properly executed either when full recovery is completed or, in case of partial recovery, when the company is liquidated and its assets are sold at market conditions.
Zato se po mnenju Nadzornega organa lahko odločba, ki od države Efte zahteva dosego vračila nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči od plačilno nesposobnega upravičenca obravnava kot pravilno izpolnjena, če je izvedeno popolno vračilo ali, v primeru delnega vračila, kadar je podjetje likvidirano in so njegova sredstva prodana po tržnih pogojih.
When implementing recovery decisions concerning insolvent beneficiaries, EFTA State authorities should ensure that due account is taken, throughout the insolvency proceedings, of the EEA interest and more in particular of the need to end immediately the distortion of competition caused by the granting of unlawful and incompatible aid.
Pri izvajanju odločb o vračilu, ki zadevajo plačilno nesposobne upravičence, bi morala država Efte zagotoviti, da se med celotnim stečajnim postopkom primerno upošteva interes EGP, še zlasti pa je treba nemudoma odpraviti izkrivljanje konkurence, ki ga je povzročila dodelitev nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči.
However, the sole registration of claims in bankruptcy proceedings may not always be sufficient to ensure the immediate and effective implementation of the Authority’s recovery decisions.
Zgolj evidentiranje zahtev pri stečajnem postopku pa vedno ne zadostuje za zagotovitev takojšnje in učinkovite izvedbe odločb Nadzornega organa o vračilu.
The application of certain provisions of national bankruptcy laws may frustrate the effect of recovery decisions by allowing the company to operate despite the absence of full recovery, thus allowing the distortion of competition to continue.
Uporaba nekaterih določb nacionalnih zakonov o stečaju lahko izniči učinek odločb o vračilu, s tem ko družbi dovoli poslovanje kljub temu, da vračilo ni bilo polno izvedeno, in tako omogoča, da se izkrivljanje konkurence nadaljuje.
The Authority therefore considers that there is a need to define the obligations of the EFTA States at the different steps of the bankruptcy proceedings.
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da je treba opredeliti obveznosti držav Efte na različnih stopnjah stečajnega postopka.
The EFTA State should immediately register its claims in the bankruptcy proceedings [67].
Država Efte mora takoj evidentirati svoje zahteve pri stečajnem postopku [67].
According to the ECJ case law, recovery will be done according to national bankruptcy rules [68].
Glede na sodno prakso SES vračilo poteka v skladu z nacionalnimi predpisi o stečaju [68].
The recovery debt will thus be refunded by virtue of the status given to it by national law.
Obveznost vračila se tako povrne na podlagi stanja, določenega v skladu z nacionalnim zakonom.
In the past, there have been cases, dealt with by the Commission, in which the insolvency administrator refused to register a recovery claim in the bankruptcy proceedings, and this because of the form of the illegal and incompatible aid granted (for example when the aid had been granted in the form of a capital injection).
Iz preteklosti so znani primeri, ki jih je obravnavala Komisija, v katerih je stečajni upravitelj zavrnil evidentiranje zahteve po vračilu pri stečajnem postopku, in sicer zaradi oblike nezakonite in nezdružljive dodeljene pomoči (na primer kadar je bila pomoč dodeljena v obliki dokapitalizacije).
This situation is problematic, especially if such a refusal would deprive the authorities responsible for the execution of the recovery decision of any means to ensure that due account is taken of the Community and EEA interest in the course of the insolvency proceedings.
Take okoliščine povzročajo težave, zlasti če tovrstna zavrnitev organom, pristojnim za izvedbo odločbe o vračilu, odvzame vsa sredstva, s katerimi bi zagotovili, da se med stečajnim postopkom primerno upošteva interes EGP.
Therefore the Authority considers that the EFTA State should dispute any refusal by the insolvency administrator to register its claims [69].
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da bi morala država Efte spodbijati zavrnitev stečajnega upravitelja v zvezi z evidentiranjem njenih zahtev [69].
To ensure the immediate and effective implementation of a recovery decision, the Authority is of the view that the authorities responsible for the execution of the recovery decision should also appeal any decision by the insolvency administrator or the insolvency court to allow a continuation of the insolvent beneficiary’s activity beyond the time limits set in the recovery decision.
Da bi se zagotovila takojšnja in učinkovita izvedba odločbe o vračilu, se morajo po mnenju Nadzornega organa organi, pristojni za izvedbo odločbe o vračilu, pritožiti tudi na odločitev stečajnega upravitelja ali sodišča o dovoljenju za nadaljevanje dejavnosti plačilno nesposobnega upravičenca onkraj rokov, določenih v odločbi o vračilu.
Likewise, national courts, when faced with such a request, should take the EEA interest fully into account, and more in particular the need to ensure that the execution of the Authority’s decision is immediate and that the distortion of competition caused by the unlawful and incompatible aid is ended as soon as possible.
Prav tako bi morala nacionalna sodišča, v primeru tovrstnih zahtev, v celoti upoštevati interes EGP, še zlasti pa zagotoviti takojšnjo izvedbo odločbe Nadzornega organa in kar najhitreje odpraviti izkrivljanje konkurence, ki ga je povzročila nezakonita in nezdružljiva pomoč.
The Authority considers that they should therefore not allow for a continuation of an insolvent beneficiary’s activity in the absence of full recovery.
Nadzorni organ meni, da se zato ne sme dovoliti nadaljevanja dejavnosti plačilno nesposobnega upravičenca, če ni bilo izvedeno polno vračilo.
In the case where a continuation plan is proposed to the creditors’ committee implying a continuation of the activity of the beneficiary, the national authorities responsible for the execution of the recovery decision can only support this plan if it ensures that the aid is repaid in full within the time limits foreseen in the Authority’s recovery decision.
Če je odboru upnikov predlagan načrt za nadaljevanje, ki vključuje nadaljevanje dejavnosti upravičenca, lahko nacionalni organi, pristojni za izvedbo odločbe o vračilu, podprejo ta načrt, samo če zagotovi, da je pomoč povrnjena v celoti v rokih iz odločbe Nadzornega organa o vračilu.
In particular, the EFTA State cannot waive part of its recovery claim, nor can it accept any other solution that would not result in the immediate ending of the activity of the beneficiary.
Država Efte se zlasti ne more odpovedati delu svoje zahteve po vračilu niti ne more sprejeti druge rešitve, ki ne bi pomenila takojšnje ukinitve dejavnosti upravičenca.
In the absence of a full and immediate repayment of the unlawful and incompatible aid, the authorities responsible for the execution of the recovery decision should take all measures available to oppose the adoption of a continuation plan and should insist on the ending of the activity of the beneficiary within the time limit set in the recovery decision.
Če nezakonita in nezdružljiva pomoč ni bila povrnjena v celoti in takoj, morajo organi, pristojni za izvedbo odločbe o vračilu, sprejeti vse razpoložljive ukrepe, da prekinejo sprejetje načrta za nadaljevanje, in morajo vztrajati pri ukinitvi dejavnosti upravičenca do roka iz odločbe o vračilu.
In the case of liquidation, and as long as the aid has not been fully recovered, the EFTA State should oppose any transfer of assets that is not carried out on market terms and/or that is organised so as to circumvent the recovery decision.
V primeru likvidacije in dokler ni bila pomoč vrnjena v celoti, mora država Efte nasprotovati vsakemu prenosu sredstev, ki se ne izvede pod tržnimi pogoji in ali je prirejen zaradi izogibanja odločbi o vračilu.
To achieve a ‘correct transfer of assets’, the EFTA State has to ensure that the undue advantage created by the aid is not transferred to the acquirer of the assets.
Za dosego „pravilnega prenosa sredstev“ mora država Efte zagotoviti, da se neupravičena prednost, nastala zaradi pomoči, ne prenese na kupca sredstev.
This may be the case if the assets of the original aid beneficiary are transferred to a third party at a price that is lower than their market value or to a successor company set up in order to circumvent the recovery order.
To se lahko zgodi, če so sredstva izvornega upravičenca pomoči prenesena na tretjo osebo po ceni, ki je nižja od tržne vrednosti, ali na družbo naslednico, ustanovljeno zaradi izogibanja zahtevi po vračilu.
In such a case, the recovery order needs to be extended to that third party [70].
V takem primeru je treba zahtevo po vračilu razširiti na tretjo osebo [70].
CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT THE AUTHORITY’S RECOVERY DECISIONS
POSLEDICE NEIZVEDBE ODLOČB NADZORNEGA ORGANA O VRAČILU
An EFTA State is deemed to comply with the recovery decision when the aid has been fully reimbursed within the prescribed time limit or, in the case of an insolvent beneficiary, when the company is liquidated under market conditions.
Šteje se, da je država Efte izpolnila odločbo o vračilu, ko je bila pomoč v celoti povrnjena v predpisanem roku ali, v primeru plačilno nesposobnega upravičenca, kadar je podjetje likvidirano pod tržnimi pogoji.
The Authority may also accept, in duly justified cases, a provisional implementation of the decision when it is subject to litigation before a national court or the EFTA Court (e.g. the payment of the full amount of unlawful and incompatible aid into a blocked account [71]).
V utemeljenih primerih lahko Nadzorni organ tudi sprejme prehodno izvedbo odločbe, kadar je predmet spora pred nacionalnimi sodišči ali sodiščem Efte (na primer plačilo celotnega zneska nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči na zamrznjen račun [71].
The EFTA State must ensure that the advantage linked to the unlawful and incompatible aid leaves the company [72].
Država Efte mora zagotoviti, da podjetje nima več prednosti, ki je povezana z nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomočjo [72].
The EFTA State should submit, for approval by the Authority, a justification for the adoption of such provisional measures and a full description of the provisional measure envisaged.
Država Efte predloži Nadzornemu organu v odobritev utemeljitev za uporabo takšnih začasnih ukrepov in izčrpen opis načrtovanega začasnega ukrepa.
Where the EFTA State concerned has not complied with the recovery decision, and where it has not been able to demonstrate the existence of absolute impossibility, the Authority may initiate infringement proceedings.
Ko država Efte ne izpolni odločbe o vračilu in ni bila sposobna dokazati obstoja absolutne nemožnosti, lahko Nadzorni organ sproži postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev.
In addition, if certain conditions are satisfied, it may require the EFTA State concerned to suspend the payment of a new compatible aid to the beneficiary or beneficiaries concerned in application of the Deggendorf principle.
Poleg tega, če so izpolnjeni nekateri pogoji, lahko od zadevne države Efte zahteva prekinitev izplačila nove združljive pomoči zadevnemu upravičencu ali upravičencem, v skladu z izvajanjem načela Deggendorf.
Infringement proceedings
Zadeve v zvezi s kršitvami
Actions on the basis of Article 1(2) in Part I in conjunction with Article 23(1) in Part II of Protocol 3
Tožbe na podlagi člena 1(2) dela I skupaj s členom 23(1) dela II Protokola 3
If the EFTA State concerned does not comply with the recovery decision within the prescribed time limit and if it has not been able to demonstrate absolute impossibility, the Authority, or any other interested EFTA State, may refer the matter directly to the EFTA Court pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I read in conjunction with Article 23(1) in Part II of Protocol 3.
Če zadevna država Efte ne izpolni odločbe o vračilu v predpisanem roku in ni bila sposobna dokazati absolutne nemožnosti, lahko Nadzorni organ ali katera koli zainteresirana država Efte, zadevo neposredno predloži Sodišču Efte na podlagi člena 1(2) dela I skupaj s členom 23(1) dela II Protokola 3.
The Authority may then invoke arguments concerning the behaviour of the executive, legislative or judicial organs of the EFTA State concerned, as the EFTA State should be considered in its entirety [73].
Nadzorni organ se lahko pri tem sklicuje na ravnanje izvršilnih, zakonodajnih ali sodnih organov države Efte, saj se država Efte obravnava kot celota [73].
In accordance with Article 33 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the EFTA States concerned should take the necessary measures to comply with the judgments of the EFTA Court.
V skladu s členom 33 Sporazuma o nadzornem organu in sodišču morajo zadevne države Efte sprejeti potrebne ukrepe za izpolnjevanje sodb Sodišča Efte.
Actions on the basis of Article 23(2) in Part II of Protocol 3
Tožbe na podlagi člena 23(2) dela II Protokola 3
If the Authority considers that the EFTA State concerned has not complied with the judgment of the EFTA Court, the Authority may refer the matter to the EFTA Court directly in accordance with Article 1(2) in Part II read in conjunction with Article 23(2) in Part II of Protocol 3.
Če Nadzorni organ meni, da zadevna država Efte ni izpolnila sodbe Sodišča Efte, lahko Nadzorni organ zadevo neposredno predloži Sodišču Efte na podlagi člena 1(2) dela II skupaj s členom 23(1) dela II Protokola 3.
Applying the Deggendorf case-law
Izvajanje sodne prakse iz zadeve Deggendorf
In its judgment on the Deggendorf case, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities held that, ‘when the Commission considers the compatibility of a State aid with the common market, it must take all the relevant factors into account, including, where relevant, the circumstances already considered in a prior decision and the obligations which that previous decision may have imposed on a Member State.
V sodbi o zadevi Deggendorf je Sodišče prve stopnje določilo, da „mora Komisija pri presojanju združljivosti državne pomoči s skupnim trgom upoštevati vse zadevne dejavnike, po potrebi vključno z okoliščinami, ki so bile že upoštevane v predhodni odločitvi, in obveznosti, ki jih je lahko ta prejšnja odločitev naložila na državo članico.
It follows that the Commission has the power to take into consideration, first, any accumulated effect of the old […] aid and the new […] aid and, secondly, the fact that the [old] aid declared unlawful […] had not been repaid’ [74].
Iz tega sledi, da lahko Komisija upošteva, prvič, kateri koli kumulativni učinek stare […] in nove […] pomoči ter, drugič, dejstvo, da [stara] pomoč, ki je bila razglašena za nezakonito […], ni bila izplačana“ [74].
In application of this judgment, and to avoid a distortion of competition contrary to the common interest, the Authority may order an EFTA State to suspend the payment of a new compatible aid to an undertaking that has at its disposal an unlawful and incompatible aid subject to an earlier recovery decision, and this until the EFTA State has reassured itself that the undertaking concerned has reimbursed the old unlawful and incompatible aid.
Pri izvajanju te sodbe in zaradi preprečevanja izkrivljanja konkurence v nasprotju s skupnim interesom lahko Nadzorni organ od države Efte zahteva prekinitev izplačevanja nove združljive pomoči podjetju, ki razpolaga z nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomočjo, ki je predmet predhodne odločbe o vračilu, dokler se država Efte ne prepriča, da je zadevno podjetje vrnilo staro nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč.
In practice, in the course of the preliminary investigation of a new aid measure, the Authority will request a commitment from the EFTA State to suspend the payment of new aid to any beneficiary that still needs to reimburse an unlawful and incompatible aid subject to an earlier recovery decision.
Med predhodno preiskavo o novem ukrepu pomoči bo Nadzorni organ v praksi zahteval od države Efte zavezo, da prekine plačilo nove pomoči kateremu koli upravičencu, ki mora povrniti nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč, ki je predmet predhodne odločbe o vračilu.