natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Authority’s main role is to examine the compatibility of proposed aid measures with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, based on the criteria laid down in Article 61(2) and (3) of the Agreement.
Glavna naloga Nadzornega organa je preverjati združljivost predlaganih ukrepov pomoči z izvajanjem Sporazuma EGP na podlagi meril iz člena 61(2) in (3) Sporazuma EGP.
This compatibility assessment is the exclusive responsibility of the Authority, subject to review by the EFTA Court.
Ta presoja združljivosti je v izključni pristojnosti Nadzornega organa, njegove odločbe pa presoja Sodišče Efte.
National courts do not have the power to declare a state aid measure compatible with Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement [27].
Nacionalna sodišča niso pooblaščena, da razglasijo ukrep državne pomoči za združljiv s členom 61(2) ali (3) Sporazuma EGP. [27]
The role of the national court depends on the aid measure at stake and whether this has been duly notified and approved by the Authority:
Vloga nacionalnih sodišč je odvisna od zadevnega ukrepa pomoči, ali je bil ta ustrezno priglašen in ali ga je Nadzorni organ odobril.
National courts may be asked to intervene in cases where an EFTA State authority [28] has granted aid without respecting the standstill obligation.
Nacionalna sodišča so pogosto zaprošena, naj posredujejo v primerih, ko je organ države Efte [28] dodelil pomoč, ne da bi upošteval obveznost mirovanja.
This situation can arise either because the aid was not notified at all, or because the national authority implemented it before the Authority’s approval.
To se lahko zgodi, če pomoč sploh ni bila priglašena ali če jo je nacionalni organ začel izvajati pred odobritvijo Nadzornega organa. Vloga nacionalnih sodišč v takih primerih je zavarovati pravice posameznikov, ki jih je prizadelo nezakonito izvajanje pomoči.
National courts also play an important role in the enforcement of recovery decisions adopted under Article 14(1) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, where the Authority’s assessment leads it to conclude that aid granted unlawfully is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement and enjoins the EFTA State concerned to recover the incompatible aid from the beneficiary.
Nacionalna sodišča imajo pomembno vlogo tudi pri izvrševanju odločb o izterjavi, sprejetih v skladu s členom 14(1) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, kadar Nadzorni organ na podlagi presoje sklene, da je nezakonito dodeljena pomoč nezdružljiva z izvajanjem Sporazuma EGP, in od zadevne države Efte zahteva, naj od upravičenca do pomoči izterja nezdružljivo pomoč.
The involvement of national courts in such cases will usually arise from actions brought by beneficiaries for review of the legality of the repayment request issued by national authorities.
Vključitev nacionalnih sodišč v takih primerih bo ponavadi izhajala iz tožb, ki jih vložijo upravičenci do pomoči za presojo zakonitosti zahtevka za izterjavo, ki ga izdajo nacionalni organi.
However, depending on national procedural law, also other types of legal action can be possible (e.g. actions by EFTA State authorities against the beneficiary aimed at the full implementation of an Authority recovery decision).
Vendar so glede na nacionalno procesno pravo možne tudi druge vrste tožb (npr. tožbe, ki jih organi države Efte vložijo proti upravičencu, da bi se v celoti izvedla odločba Nadzornega organa o izterjavi).
When preserving the interests of individuals, the national courts must take full account of the effectiveness of Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement and the interests of the EEA market.
Pri varovanju interesov posameznikov morajo nacionalna sodišča v celoti upoštevati učinkovitost člena 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču ter interese trga EGP.
The role of national courts in the above settings is set out in more detail under sections 1.2 and 1.3 of this Chapter.
Vloga nacionalnih sodišč v zgoraj navedenih primerih je podrobneje opredeljena v oddelkih 1.2 in 1.3 tega poglavja.
Role of national courts in giving effect to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement - Unlawful state aid
Vloga nacionalnih sodišč pri uveljavljanju člena 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču – Nezakonita državna pomoč
According to the case law of the European Court of Justice, the standstill obligation laid down in Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, which is mirrored by the last sentence of Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, gives rise to directly effective individual rights of affected parties (such as the competitors of the beneficiary) [30].
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti obveznost mirovanja iz člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES, s katerim je usklajen zadnji stavek člena 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, prizadetim stranem (kot so konkurenti upravičenca) podeljuje posamezne pravice z neposrednim učinkom.
These affected parties can enforce their rights by bringing legal action before competent national courts against the granting EC Member State.
Te prizadete strani lahko svoje pravice uveljavljajo tako, da pri pristojnem nacionalnem sodišču vložijo tožbo proti državi članici ES, ki je dodelila pomoč.
Dealing with such legal actions and thus protecting competitor’s rights under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty is one of the most important roles of national courts in the state aid field.
Obravnava tovrstnih tožb in posledično varovanje pravic konkurenta na podlagi člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES je ena najpomembnejših vlog, ki jih imajo nacionalna sodišča na področju državnih pomoči.
The national courts in the EFTA States fulfill the same function.
Nacionalna sodišča v državah Efte imajo isto vlogo.
However, in the EFTA States the internal effect of EEA law is governed by constitutional law, subject to Protocol 35 to the EEA Agreement.
Vendar pa v državah Efte učinek prava EGP določa ustavno pravo v skladu s Protokolom 35 Sporazuma EGP.
According to Protocol 35 the EFTA States must ensure, if necessary by a separate statutory provision, that in cases of conflict between implemented EEA rules and other statutory provisions, the implemented EEA rules prevail.
Države Efte morajo v skladu s Protokolom 35 zagotoviti, po potrebi s posebno zakonsko določbo, da v primeru navzkrižja med uveljavljenimi pravili EGP in drugimi zakonskimi določbami prevladajo uveljavljena pravila EGP.
According to the EFTA Court, individuals and economic operators must be entitled to invoke and to claim at the national level any rights derived from provisions of the EEA law [31], as being or having been made part of the respective national legal order, if they are unconditional and sufficiently precise. [32].
Po mnenju Sodišča Efte morajo biti posamezniki in gospodarski subjekti na nacionalni ravni upravičeni zahtevati in se sklicevati na katere koli pravice, ki izhajajo iz določb prava EGP [31], ki je ali je postalo del zadevnega nacionalnega pravnega sistema, če so pravice nepogojne in dovolj natančno opredeljene.
In the view of the Authority and in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Justice on the identical provision in Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement fulfils the implicit criteria in Protocol 35 to the EEA Agreement of being unconditional and sufficiently precise.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa in v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti o istovetnih določbah v členu 88(3) Pogodbe ES, člen 1(3) dela 1 Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču izpolnjuje kriterij v Protokolu 35 k Sporazumu EGP, da je nepogojen in dovolj natančno opredeljen.
The fact that the last sentence of Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement has been incorporated in the national legal order of the EFTA States [33], gives affected parties a possibility to bring legal actions against a breach of the standstill provision before national courts.
Dejstvo, da je bil zadnji stavek člena 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču vključen v nacionalne pravne rede držav Efte, [33] daje prizadetim stranem možnost pri nacionalnem sodišču vložiti tožbo zaradi kršitve določbe o mirovanju.
A national court should consequently use all appropriate devices and remedies and apply all relevant provisions of national law to give effect to the national law implementing the last sentence of Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement [34].
Nacionalno sodišče mora posledično uporabiti vse ustrezne mehanizme in pravna sredstva ter vse pomembne določbe nacionalnega prava, da bi v nacionalno pravo preneslo zadnji stavek člena 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču. [34]
The essential role played by national courts in this context also stems from the fact that the Authority’s own powers to protect competitors and other third parties against unlawful aid are limited.
Bistvena naloga nacionalnih sodišč v tem smislu izhaja tudi iz dejstva, da so pooblastila Nadzornega organa za varovanje konkurentov in drugih tretjih oseb pred nezakonito pomočjo omejena.
Most importantly, the Authority cannot adopt a final decision ordering recovery merely because the aid was not notified in accordance with Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement [35].
Najpomembneje pa je, da Nadzorni organ ne more sprejeti končne odločbe, s katero bi zahteval izterjavo le zato, ker pomoč ni bila priglašena v skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču. [35] Zato mora Nadzorni organ izvesti popolno presojo združljivosti, ne glede na to, ali je bila obveznost mirovanja upoštevana ali ne.
The Authority must therefore conduct a full compatibility assessment, regardless of whether the standstill obligation has been respected or not [36].
Ta presoja je lahko dolgotrajna, za pristojnosti Nadzornega organa za izdajo predhodnih odredb o izterjavi pa veljajo zelo stroge predpisane zahteve.
As a result, actions before national courts offer an important means of redress for competitors and other third parties affected by unlawful state aid.
Zato so tožbe pred nacionalnimi sodišči pomembno pravno sredstvo za povračila konkurentom in drugim tretjim osebam, ki jih je prizadela nezakonita državna pomoč.
Remedies available before national courts include:
Pravna sredstva, ki so na voljo pri nacionalnih sodiščih, vključujejo:
preventing the payment of unlawful aid;
preprečitev izplačila nezakonite pomoči;
recovery of unlawful aid (regardless of compatibility);
izterjavo nezakonite pomoči (ne glede na združljivost);
recovery of illegality interest;
izterjavo obresti na nezakonito pomoč;
damages for competitors and other third parties; and
odškodnine za konkurente in druge tretje osebe ter
interim measures against unlawful aid.
začasne ukrepe proti nezakoniti pomoči.
Each of these remedies is set out in more detail in sections 1.2.1 to 1.2.6 of this Chapter.
Vsako od teh pravnih sredstev je podrobneje opredeljeno v oddelkih od 1.2.1 do 1.2.6 tega poglavja.
Preventing the payment of unlawful aid
Preprečitev izplačila nezakonite pomoči
National courts are obliged to protect the rights of individuals affected by violations of the standstill obligation.
Nacionalna sodišča morajo varovati pravice posameznikov, ki so jih prizadele kršitve obveznosti mirovanja.
National courts must therefore draw all appropriate legal consequences, in accordance with national law, where an infringement of Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement has occurred [38].
Zato morajo v primeru kršitve člena 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo ugotoviti vse pravne posledice in ustrezno ukrepati.
However, the national courts’ obligations are not limited to unlawful aid already disbursed.
Vendar pa obveznosti nacionalnih sodišč niso omejene na že izplačano nezakonito pomoč.
They also extend to cases where an unlawful payment is about to be made.
Zajemajo tudi primere, v katerih je nezakonito izplačilo ravno pred izvedbo.
National courts must safeguard the rights of individuals against possible disregard of those rights [39].
Nacionalna sodišča morajo varovati pravice posameznikov pred morebitnimi kršitvami.
Where unlawful aid is about to be disbursed, the national court is therefore obliged to prevent this payment from taking place.
Če je nezakonita pomoč tik pred izplačilom, mora nacionalno sodišče preprečiti izvedbo tega izplačila.
The national courts’ obligation to prevent the payment of unlawful aid can arise in a variety of procedural settings, depending on the different types of actions available under national law.
Obveznost nacionalnih sodišč, da preprečijo izplačilo nezakonite pomoči, izhaja iz različnih procesnih okoliščin, odvisno od različnih vrst ukrepov, ki jih predvideva nacionalna zakonodaja.
Very often, the claimant will seek to challenge the validity of the national act granting the unlawful state aid.
Zelo pogosto poskuša tožnik izpodbijati veljavnost nacionalnega akta, s katerim se je dodelila nezakonita državna pomoč.
In such cases, preventing the unlawful payment will usually be the logical consequence of finding that the granting act is invalid as a result of the EFTA State’s breach of Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement [40]
V takih primerih je preprečitev nezakonitega izplačila ponavadi logična posledica ugotovitve, da je akt, s katerim se je dodelila pomoč, neveljaven, ker je država Efte kršila člen 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču [40].
Recovery of unlawful aid
Izterjava nezakonite pomoči
Where a national court is confronted with unlawfully granted aid, it must draw all legal consequences from this unlawfulness under national law.
Kadar nacionalno sodišče obravnava nezakonito dodeljeno pomoč, mora ugotoviti vse pravne posledice te nezakonitosti in v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo ustrezno ukrepati.
The national court must therefore in principle order the full recovery of unlawful state aid from the beneficiary [41].
Nacionalno sodišče mora zato načeloma odrediti, da se od upravičenca v celoti izterja nezakonita državna pomoč.
Ordering the full recovery of unlawful aid is part of the national court’s obligation to protect the individual rights of the claimant (e.g. competitor) under Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Odredba izterjave nezakonite pomoči v celoti je del obveznosti nacionalnega sodišča pri zagotavljanju varovanja pravic tožnika (npr. konkurenta) v skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
The recovery obligation of the national court is thus not dependent on the compatibility of the aid measure with Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement.
Obveznost nacionalnega sodišča, da odredi izterjavo, ni odvisna od združljivosti ukrepa pomoči s členom 61(2) ali (3) Sporazuma EGP.
Since national courts must order the full recovery of unlawful aid regardless of its compatibility, recovery can be swifter before a national court than through a complaint with the Authority.
Ker morajo nacionalna sodišča odrediti izterjavo nezakonite pomoči v celoti ne glede na njeno združljivost, je lahko izterjava prek nacionalnega sodišča hitrejša od pritožbe pri Nadzornem organu.
Indeed, unlike the Authority [42], the national court can and must limit itself to determining whether the measure constitutes state aid and whether the standstill obligation applies to it.
V nasprotju z Nadzornim organom [42] se nacionalno sodišče dejansko lahko in mora omejiti na ugotavljanje, ali ukrep pomeni državno pomoč in ali se zanj uporablja obveznost mirovanja.
However, the national courts’ recovery obligation is not absolute.
Vendar pa obveznost nacionalnih sodišč glede izterjave pomoči ni brezpogojna.
According to the “SFEI” case [43], there can be exceptional circumstances in which the recovery of unlawful state aid would not be appropriate.
V skladu z zadevo „SFEI“ [43] je lahko v izjemnih okoliščinah izterjava nezakonite državne pomoči neustrezna.
The legal standard to be applied in this context should be similar to the one applicable under Articles 14 and 15 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement [44].
Pravni standard, ki se uporablja v tem smislu, mora biti podoben standardu, ki se uporablja v skladu s členoma 14 in 15 dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
In other words, circumstances which would not stand in the way of a recovery order by the Authority cannot justify a national court refraining from ordering full recovery.
Z drugimi besedami, okoliščine, ki Nadzornemu organu ne bi preprečevale odredbe izterjave, nacionalnega sodišča ne morejo opravičiti, da ne odredi izterjave celotnega zneska.
The standard which the EFTA Court will apply in this respect is very strict [45].
Standard, ki ga uporablja Sodišče Efte v zvezi s tem, je zelo strog [45].
In line with the approach taken by the EFTA Court and the European Court of Justice, a beneficiary of unlawful aid cannot in principle plead legitimate expectations against a recovery order by the Authority [46].
V skladu s pristopom, ki sta ga privzeli Sodišče Efte in Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti, upravičenec nezakonite pomoči načeloma ne more uveljavljati legitimnih pričakovanj zoper odredbo Nadzornega organa o izterjavi [46].
This is because a diligent businessman would have been able to verify whether the aid he received was notified or not [47].
To pa zato, ker bi prizadeven podjetnik lahko preveril, ali je bila pomoč, ki jo je prejel, priglašena ali ne [47].
To justify the national court not ordering recovery with reference to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, a specific and concrete fact must therefore have generated legitimate expectations on the beneficiary’s part [48].
Za utemeljitev odločitve nacionalnega sodišča, da ne bo odredilo izterjave v skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, so morala pred tem nastati posebna in konkretna dejstva, ki so ustvarila legitimna pričakovanja upravičenca. [48] To velja, če je Nadzorni organ posredoval natančna zagotovila, da sporni ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči ali da ni vključen v obveznost mirovanja.
In line with the case law of the European Court of Justice [50], the national court’s obligation to order full recovery of unlawful state aid ceases if, by the time the national court renders its judgment, the Authority has already decided that the aid is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti [50] obveznost nacionalnih sodišč, da odredijo izterjavo nezakonite državne pomoči v celoti, preneha, če je Nadzorni organ že pred izrekom sodbe nacionalnega sodišča odločil, da je pomoč združljiva z izvajanjem Sporazuma EGP.
Since the purpose of the standstill obligation is to ensure that only compatible aid can be implemented, this purpose can no longer be frustrated where the Authority has already confirmed compatibility [51].
Ker je namen obveznosti mirovanja zagotoviti, da se lahko izvaja samo združljiva pomoč, se ta namen ne more več onemogočiti, če je Nadzorni organ že potrdil združljivost.
Therefore, the national court’s obligation to protect individual rights under Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement remains unaffected where the Authority has not yet taken a decision, regardless of whether such procedure is pending or not [52].
Zato ne vpliva na obveznost nacionalnih sodišč, da varujejo pravice posameznikov v skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, če Nadzorni organ še ni sprejel odločitve, ne glede na to, ali je tak postopek že končan ali ne. [52]
While after a positive decision of the Authority, the national court no longer has an obligation under EEA law to order full recovery, such recovery obligation may still exist under national law [53].
Kadar na podlagi pozitivne odločbe Nadzornega organa nacionalno sodišče nima več obveznosti v okviru prava EGP, da odredi izterjavo v celoti, takšna obveznost izterjave lahko še vedno obstaja v okviru nacionalnega prava.
However, where such a recovery obligation exists, this is without prejudice to the EFTA State’s right to re-implement the aid subsequently.
Kadar taka obveznost izterjave obstaja, to ne vpliva na pravico države Efte, da pomoč pozneje znova izvaja.
Once the national court has decided that unlawful aid has been disbursed in violation of Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, it must quantify the aid in order to determine the amount to be recovered.
Ko nacionalno sodišče odloči, da je bila nezakonita pomoč izplačana ob kršitvi člena 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, mora pomoč količinsko opredeliti, da se opredeli znesek, ki ga je treba izterjati.
The case law of the EFTA Court and the courts of the European Community on the application of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and Article 87(1) EC and the Authority’s guidance and decision making practice should assist the court in this respect.
Sodišču bi morali pri tem pomagati sodna praksa sodišča Efte in sodišč Evropskih skupnosti v zvezi z uporabo člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP in člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES ter navodila in praksa Nadzornega organa pri sprejemanju odločitev.
Should the national court encounter difficulties in calculating the aid amount, it may request the Authority’s support, as further set out in section 2 of this Chapter.
Če ima nacionalno sodišče težave z izračunom zneska pomoči, lahko v skladu z oddelkom 2 tega poglavja za pomoč zaprosi Nadzorni organ.
Recovery of interest
Izterjava obresti
The economic advantage of unlawful aid is not limited to its nominal amount.
Gospodarska korist nezakonite pomoči ni omejena na njen nominalni znesek.
In addition, the beneficiary obtains a financial advantage resulting from the premature implementation of the aid.
Upravičenec prejme tudi finančno korist, ki izhaja iz predčasnega izvajanja pomoči.
This is due to the fact that, had the aid been notified to the Authority, payment would (if at all) have taken place later.
To pa zato, ker bi bilo ob priglasitvi pomoči Nadzornemu organu izplačilo izvedeno pozneje (če bi sploh bilo).
This would have obliged the beneficiary to borrow the relevant funds on the capital markets, including interest at market rates.
Upravičenec bi si moral torej do prejetja pomoči ustrezna sredstva izposoditi na kapitalskih trgih, vključno z obrestmi po tržni obrestni meri.
This undue time advantage is the reason why, if recovery is ordered by the Authority, Article 14(2) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement requires not only recovery of the nominal aid amount, but also recovery of interest from the day the unlawful aid was put at the disposal of the beneficiary to the day when it is effectively recovered.
Zaradi te neupravičene časovne prednosti je v primeru, ko izterjavo odredi Nadzorni organ, v členu 14(2) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču določena ne samo izterjava nominalnega zneska pomoči, temveč tudi izterjava vseh obresti od dne, ko je bila nezakonita pomoč dana na razpolago upravičencu, do dne, ko je bila dejansko izterjana.
The interest rate to be applied in this context is defined in the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 [54].
Obrestna mera, ki se uporabi v tem kontekstu, je določena z Odločbo Nadzornega organa št. 195/04/COL z dne 14. julija 2004. [54]