natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Norwegian authorities argue that a wider spread of the alternative heating technologies covered by the scheme will reduce electricity consumption in Norwegian households.
Norveški organi trdijo, da bo večja razširjenost alternativnih tehnologij ogrevanja iz programa zmanjšala porabo električne energije v norveških gospodinjstvih.
Reducing the amount of electricity used for heating private households and stimulating the use of alternative heating systems based on renewable energies, can be considered as an environmentally sensible objective.
Zmanjševanje porabe električne energije za ogrevanje v zasebnih gospodinjstvih in spodbujanje uporabe alternativnih sistemov ogrevanja na osnovi obnovljivih virov energije se lahko obravnava kot okoljsko občutljiv cilj.
Recital nine of the preamble to the EEA Agreement sets out the common goal of preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment and to ensure a prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources on the basis of the principle of sustainable development.
Deveta uvodna izjava preambule Sporazuma EGP določa splošni cilj ohranjanja, varovanja in izboljševanja kakovosti okolja ter zagotavljanja preudarne in učinkovite uporabe naravnih virov na podlagi načela trajnostnega razvoja.
In the Authority’s view, an aid scheme with the aim of shifting energy consumption towards renewable sources is in line with objectives of common interest.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa je program pomoči s ciljem preusmeriti porabo električne energije na obnovljive vire v skladu s cilji skupnega interesa.
Well-designed scheme
Dobro zasnovan program
The criteria for the inclusion of a technology under the scheme are formulated on the basis of the technology’s suitability to replace electric heating.
Merila za vključitev tehnologije v program so oblikovana na podlagi ustreznosti tehnologije za nadomestitev ogrevanja na elektriko.
The Norwegian authorities have explained that only technologies that can be categorised as so-called ‘base load heating systems’ are covered by the scheme.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da so v program zajete samo tehnologije, ki jih je mogoče opredeliti kot tako imenovane „sisteme ogrevanja pri osnovni obremenitvi“.
According to the Norwegian authorities ‘base load heating systems’ are ‘those technologies which can replace electric heating and provide the same level of heating comfort as electric heating during day and night’ [43].The Norwegian authorities have explained that the alternative renewable heating technologies covered by the scheme share three features: they must have had a limited spread on the Norwegian market, be capable of replacing electric heating and require a certain minimum of user intervention.
Po besedah norveških organov so „sistemi ogrevanja pri osnovni obremenitvi“„tiste tehnologije, ki lahko nadomestijo ogrevanje na elektriko in nudijo enako raven udobja ogrevanja kot električno ogrevanje čez dan in ponoči“ [43].Norveški organi so pojasnili, da imajo alternativne tehnologije ogrevanja z obnovljivimi viri energije, zajete v programu, tri skupne lastnosti: njihova razširjenost na norveškem trgu je morala biti omejena, biti morajo sposobne nadomestiti ogrevanje na elektriko in zahtevati morajo določeno minimalno udeležbo uporabnika.
The Authority notes that not all technologies covered by the alternative heating scheme are well-suited to fully replace electric heating [44].
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da vse tehnologije iz programa za alternativno ogrevanje niso primerne za popolno nadomestitev ogrevanja na elektriko [44].
However, the Norwegian authorities have reasoned that technologies covered by the scheme are better designed to systematically reduce the amount of electricity utilised for the purpose of heating a normal household.
Vendar pa so norveški organi utemeljili, da so tehnologije iz programa bolje zasnovane za sistematično zmanjševanje porabe električne energije za ogrevanje običajnega gospodinjstva.
To give grants to consumers in order to promote a shift of demand away from electric heating towards alternative, renewable heating systems in households, seems to be an appropriate instrument to influence the consumers’ behaviour directly.
Dodelitev subvencij potrošnikom z namenom spodbujanja preusmeritve povpraševanja z ogrevanja na elektriko na alternativne sisteme ogrevanja z obnovljivimi viri energije v gospodinjstvih se zdi ustrezno orodje neposrednega vplivanja na vedenje potrošnikov.
Without the support granted by the State under the alternative heating scheme, consumers’ demand would not as likely have been changed towards renewable heating technologies within the same time frame.
Brez podpore, ki jo dodeli država v okviru programa za alternativno ogrevanje, bi bilo manj verjetno, da se bo povpraševanje potrošnikov v istem časovnem obdobju preusmerilo na tehnologije ogrevanja z obnovljivimi viri energije.
Where certain environmentally friendly measures are not set in effect, state aid can in principle be considered compatible [45].
Kadar določeni okolju prijazni ukrepi ne veljajo, se lahko državna pomoč načeloma obravnava kot združljiva [45].
The alternative heating scheme aims at providing a consumer incentive for investments in environmentally friendly technologies suitable for reducing electricity consumption that have a limited spread on the Norwegian market for heating in households.
Cilj programa za alternativno ogrevanje je spodbujati potrošnike k naložbam v okolju prijazne tehnologije, primerne za zmanjševanje porabe električne energije, ki imajo omejeno razširjenost na norveškem trgu za ogrevanje gospodinjstev.
Moreover, the Authority considers that the aid amount is limited to the minimum of what is necessary to give consumers an incentive to shift from electric heating systems to the alternative renewable heating sources covered by the scheme.
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ meni, da je znesek pomoči omejen na najmanjšo vrednost, ki je potrebna, da spodbudi potrošnika k preusmeritvi s sistemov ogrevanja na elektriko na alternativne obnovljive vire ogrevanja iz programa.
The alternative heating scheme involves a refund of up to 20 % of documented eligible costs with a maximum of either NOK 4000 or NOK 10000 depending on the type of technology.
Program za alternativno ogrevanje vključuje povračilo v vrednosti do 20 % dokazanih upravičenih stroškov v višini največ 4000 NOK oziroma 10000 NOK, odvisno od vrste tehnologije.
The maximum sum granted for the acquisition of an alternative heating technology is proportionate to the cost of the relevant technology.
Največja vsota, odobrena za nakup alternativne tehnologije ogrevanja, je sorazmerna s stroškom ustrezne tehnologije.
For these reasons, the Authority finds that the scheme is well-designed to deliver the environmental objective of common interest.
Na podlagi teh razlogov Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je program dobro zasnovan za dosego okoljskega cilja skupnega interesa.
No distortion of competition and trade in the EEA to an extent contrary to common interest
Program ne izkrivlja konkurence in trgovine v EGP v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
Finally, it must be assessed whether the potential to distort competition and trade in the European Economic Area is of a nature contrary to the common interest.
Na koncu je treba oceniti, ali je možnost izkrivljanja konkurence in trgovine v Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
The grants are paid directly to the consumers, who can choose freely among the products that meet the objective criteria of the scheme independently of the undertaking offering the alternative heating technology.
Pomoč se izplača neposredno potrošnikom, ki lahko svobodno izbirajo med proizvodi, ki ustrezajo objektivnim merilom programa, neodvisno od podjetij oz. ponudnikov alternativnih tehnologij ogrevanja.
Thus, the scheme avoids unnecessary distortions of competition and trade in the EEA in the sector of the technologies covered by the scheme.
Tako program preprečuje nepotrebno izkrivljanje konkurence in trgovine v EGP v sektorju tehnologij, zajetih v programu.
The Complainant argues that the scheme distorts competition since it covers pellet stoves but not wood burning stoves.
Pritožnik trdi, da program izkrivlja konkurenco, saj vključuje peči na pelete, ne pa peči na trdo gorivo.
According to the complainant, wood burning stoves represent a technology that closely resembles pellet stoves and should be covered by the scheme.
Po besedah pritožnika peči na trdo gorivo predstavljajo tehnologijo, ki je zelo podobna pečem na pelete, in bi zato morale biti zajete v programu.
Conversely, the Norwegian authorities argue that wood burning stoves do not fulfil the objective criteria established under the alternative heating scheme.
Nasprotno pa norveški organi trdijo, da peči na trdo gorivo ne ustrezajo objektivnim merilom iz programa za alternativno ogrevanje.
The Authority takes the opinion that, although the complainant may be right in claiming a competitive relationship between wood burning stoves and all or at least some of those technologies covered by the aid scheme, it appears that wood burning stoves do not fulfil the requirements to qualify for grants under the scheme.
Nadzorni organ meni, da se kljub temu, da ima pritožnik morda prav glede konkurenčnega razmerja med pečmi na trdo gorivo in vsemi ali vsaj nekaterimi tehnologijami iz programa pomoči, zdi, da peči na trdo gorivo ne izpolnjujejo zahtev glede kakovosti za upravičenost do dodelitve pomoči iz programa.
In that regard, the Authority does not object to the objective criteria under the scheme and the Norwegian authorities assessment of which heating technologies are better suited to fulfil the environmental aims pursued under the scheme.
S tega vidika Nadzorni organ ne nasprotuje objektivnim merilom iz programa in oceni norveških organov glede tega, katere tehnologije ogrevanja bolj ustrezajo okoljskim ciljem iz programa.
The alternative heating scheme is based on three objective criteria for eligibility (i.e. limited spread in the market, capability to replace electricity as a primary source of heating and minimum user intervention) all or some of which wood burning stoves appear not to fulfil.
Program za alternativno ogrevanje temelji na treh objektivnih merilih upravičenosti (tj. omejena razširjenost na trgu, sposobnost nadomeščanja elektrike kot primarnega vira ogrevanja in minimalna udeležba uporabnika), od katerih vsem ali nekaterim peči na trdo gorivo ne ustrezajo.
Moreover, the Authority acknowledges that wood burning stoves already represent a well-spread technology in Norway.
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ potrjuje, da peči na trdo gorivo predstavljajo na Norveškem že precej razširjeno tehnologijo.
The Authority thus considers that the criteria for eligibility under the aid scheme are objectively justified and that the scheme does not violate other provisions of the EEA Agreement, including the rules on non-discrimination on grounds of nationality or of equal treatment.
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da so merila upravičenosti iz programa pomoči objektivno utemeljena in da program ne krši drugih določb Sporazuma EGP, vključno s pravili o prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva ali o enaki obravnavi.
Moreover, the Authority considers that the Norwegian authorities have further limited the negative effects on competition by establishing a relatively low aid intensity.
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ meni, da so norveški organi dodatno omejili negativne učinke na konkurenco z uvedbo dokaj nizke intenzivnosti pomoči.
Therefore, the Authority holds that the possible distortion of competition created towards wood burning stoves and other potentially competing technologies is not contrary to the common interest and seems justifiable on the basis of the balancing test carried out above.
Nadzorni organ torej meni, da morebitno izkrivljanje konkurence na področju peči na trdo gorivo in drugih potencialno konkurenčnih tehnologij ni v nasprotju s skupnim interesom in se zdi upravičeno na podlagi preskusa uravnoteženosti, izpeljanega zgoraj.
For these reasons, the Authority considers that the scheme is aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest; is well-designed to deliver the objective of common interest, and in that regard, an appropriate instrument, which has an incentive effect and is proportionate; and, finally, that it does not distort competition and trade in the EEA to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Na podlagi teh razlogov Nadzorni organ meni, da je cilj skupnega interesa programa dobro opredeljen; da je program dobro zasnovan za dosego cilja skupnega interesa in v zvezi s tem predstavlja ustrezno orodje, ima spodbujevalni učinek in je sorazmeren; ter ne izkrivlja konkurence in trgovine v EGP v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
Accordingly, the Authority finds that the scheme is justified under Article 61(3)(c) EEA.
V skladu s tem Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je program upravičen po členu 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP.
In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority concludes that the Norwegian scheme on support for alternative, renewable heating and electricity savings in private households constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA compatible with Article 61(3)(c) EEA.
Glede na zgornje navedbe Nadzorni organ zaključuje, da norveški program podpore za alternativno ogrevanje iz obnovljivih virov energije ter varčevanje z električno energijo v zasebnih gospodinjstvih predstavlja državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, ki je združljiva s členom 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP.
The Norwegian authorities are reminded of the obligation resulting from Article 21 of Part II of Protocol 3, read in conjunction with Article 6 of Decision No 195/04/COL, to provide annual reports on the implementation of the scheme.
Norveške organe se opozori na njihovo obveznost iz člena 21 dela II Protokola 3, ki se razlaga skupaj s členom 6 Odločbe št. 195/04/COL, da predložijo letno poročilo o izvajanju programa.
The Norwegian authorities are also reminded that all plans to modify this scheme shall be notified to the Authority.
Norveške organe se tudi opozori, da o vseh namerah za spremembo tega programa obvestijo Nadzorni organ –
The Norwegian scheme on support for alternative, renewable heating and electricity savings in private households constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.
Norveški program podpore za alternativno ogrevanje iz obnovljivih virov energije ter varčevanje z električno energijo v zasebnih gospodinjstvih predstavlja pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The aid scheme is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of Article 61(3)(c) EEA.
Program pomoči je združljiv z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP na podlagi člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP.
Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the Authority on 19 January 1994, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as OJ) L 231 of 3.9.1994 p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 32 of 3.9.1994 p. 1.
Smernice o izvajanju in razlagi členov 61 in 62 Sporazuma EGP in člena 1 Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, ki jih je Nadzorni organ sprejel in izdal dne 19. januarja 1994, objavljene v Uradnem listu Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: UL) L 231, 3.9.1994, str. 1. in v Dodatku EGP št. 32, 3.9.1994, str. 1.
The updated version of the State Aid Guidelines is published on the Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/guidelines/
Posodobljena različica Smernic o državni pomoči je objavljena na spletni strani Nadzornega organa: http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/guidelines/.
Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 published in OJ L 139 of 25.5.2006 p. 37 and EEA Supplement No 26 of 25.5.2006 p. 1 as amended.
Odločba Nadzornega organa Efte št. 195/04/COL z dne 14. julija 2004, objavljena v UL L 139, 25.5.2006, str. 37. in v Dodatku EGP št. 26, 25.5.2006, str. 1. kakor je bila spremenjena.
The consolidated version of the Decision is published on the Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/legaltext/.
Prečiščeno besedilo Odločbe je objavljeno na spletni strani Nadzornega organa: http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/legaltext/.
Published in OJ C 96 of 17.4.2008 p. 14 and EEA Supplement No 20 of 17.4.2008 p. 58.
Objavljeno v UL C 96, 17.4.2008, str. 14. in v Dodatku EGP št. 20, 17.4.2008, str. 58.
Hereinafter referred to as the Complainant.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: pritožnik.
Hereinafter referred to as the alternative heating scheme.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: program za alternativno ogrevanje.
For more detailed information on the various correspondence between the Authority and the Norwegian authorities, reference is made to the Authority’s Decision to open the formal investigation procedure, Decision No 716/07/COL.
Za podrobnejše informacije o različnih dopisih med Nadzornim organom in norveškimi organi se uporablja sklic na odločbo Nadzornega organa o začetku uradnega postopka preiskave, Odločba št. 716/07/COL.
Hereinafter referred to as NOBIO.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: NOBIO.
Further information about the scheme can be found on Enova SF's website: http://www.minenergi.no/ and http://www.minenergi.no/sitepageview.aspx?sitePageID=1062
Podrobnejše informacije o programu so na voljo na spletni strani podjetja Enova SF: http://www.minenergi.no/ in http://www.minenergi.no/sitepageview.aspx?sitePageID=1062
Parliamentary proposition no 82 (2005-2006), press release from the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy of 25 August 2006 nr. 98/06 and of 14 September 2006 nr. 107/06.
Parlamentarni predlog št. 82 (2005–2006), sporočilo za javnost Ministrstva za nafto in energijo z dne 25. avgusta 2006, št. 98/06, in z dne 14. septembra 2006, št. 107/06.
See Parliamentary proposition no 1 (2008-2009) p. 56.
Glej parlamentarni predlog št. 1 (2008–2009), str. 56.
Parliamentary proposition no 59 (2007-2008) p. 123.
Parlamentarni predlog št. 59 (2007–2008), str. 123.
Parliamentary proposition no 1 (2008-2009) p. 56.
Parlamentarni predlog št. 1 (2008–2009), str. 56.
In Parliamentary proposition no 59 (2007-2008), the Norwegian authorities note that the scheme will be reviewed in light of the Authority’s final decision.
V parlamentarnem predlogu št. 59 (2007–2008) norveški organi navajajo, da bo program ponovno preučen v skladu z končno odločbo Nadzornega organa.
Letter from the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy dated 15 January 2007 (Event no: 406849), p. 5.
Dopis norveškega ministrstva za nafto in energijo z dne 15. januarja 2007 (ev. št.: 406849), str. 5.
For the purpose of Community competition law, undertakings are defined as entities engaged in economic activity, regardless of their legal status, see for instance the judgment in Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser [1991] ECR I-1979, paragraph 21.
Po konkurenčnem pravu Skupnosti so podjetja opredeljena kot subjekti, ki izvajajo gospodarsko dejavnost neodvisno od pravnega statusa, glej na primer sodbo v zadevi C-41/90 Höfner in Elser, Recueil 1991, str. I-1979, točka 21.
Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857.
Zadeva C-156/98, Nemčija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2000, str. I-6857.
Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857; C-382/99 Netherlands v Commission [2002] ECR I-5163; Case C-457/00 Belgium v Commission [2003] ECR I-6931, paragraph 57; see also the Opinion of AG Jacobs in Case C-457/00, paragraph 59.
Zadeva C-156/98, Nemčija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2000, str. I-6857; C-382/99, Nizozemska proti Komisiji, Recueil 2002, str. I-5163; zadeva C-457/00, Belgija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2003, str. I-6931, točka 57; glej tudi mnenje generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v zadevi C-457/00, točka 59.
Hereinafter referred to as the ECJ.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: Sodišče ES.
Parliamentary proposition no 82 (2005-2006) page 1.
Parlamentarni predlog št. 82 (2005–2006), str. 1.
Case C-382/99 Netherlands v Commission, paragraph 61; C-487/06 P, British Aggregates Association v Commission, judgment of 22 December 2008, paragraph 87.
Zadeva C-382/99, Nizozemska proti Komisiji, točka 61; C-487/06 P, British Aggregates Association proti Komisiji, sodba z dne 22. decembra 2008, točka 87.
For a similar line of reasoning, see Commission decision of 24 January 2007 C (2006) 6630, in case N 270/2006, paragraph 40.
Za podobno vrsto obrazložitev glej Odločbo Komisije z dne 24. januarja 2007, C(2006) 6630, v zadevi N 270/2006, točka 40.
See Commission decision of 26 April 2006 C (2006) 1519, in case N 142/2005, point 3.1.
Glej Odločbo Komisije z dne 26. aprila 2006, C(2006) 1519, v zadevi N 142/2005, točka 3.1.
See Commission decision of 24 January 2007 C (2006) 6630, in case N 270/2006, paragraph 43.
Glej Odločbo Komisije z dne 24. januarja 2007, C(2006) 6630, v zadevi N 270/2006, točka 43.
Ibid. paragraph 46-47.
Prav tam. točki 46 in 47.
Case C-143/99 Adria-Wien pipeline GmbH and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH [2001] ECR I-8365, paragraph 42 and the judgment of the EFTA Court in the joined cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord and others v EFTA Surveillance Authority, [2005] EFTA Court Report, page 117, paragraph 77.
Zadeva C-143/99, Adria-Wien pipeline GmbH in Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH, Recueil 2001, str. I-8365, točka 42, in sodba Sodišča Efte v združenih zadevah E-5/04, E-6/04 in E-7/04, Fesil in Finnfjord in drugi proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, Poročilo Sodišča Efte 2005, str. 117, točka 77.
See the judgment of the EFTA Court in the joined cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord and others v EFTA Surveillance Authority, [2005] EFTA Court Report, page 117, paragraph 93, Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraph 44, and Case C-66/02 Italy v Commission [2005] ECR I-10901, paragraph 112.
Glej sodbo Sodišča Efte v združenih zadevah E-5/04, E-6/04 in E-7/04, Fesil in Finnfjord in drugi proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, Poročilo Sodišča Efte 2005, str. 117, točka 93; zadevo C-372/97, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2004, str. I-3679, točka 44, in zadevo C-66/02, Italija proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2005, str. I-10901, točka 112.
Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-103/00 Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission [2002] ECR II-1385, paragraph 72.
Združeni zadevi T-92/00 in T-103/00, Diputación Foral de Álava in drugi proti Komisiji, Recueil 2002, str. II-1385, točka 72.
Case E-6/98 The Government of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority Rec. 1999 p. 74, paragraph 58, and Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR I-2671 paragraph 11. see also Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR I-3671, paragraph 47 and Case T-217/02 Ter Lembeek v Commission, [2006] ECR II-4483, paragraph 181.
Zadeva E-6/98, Vlada Norveške proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, Recueil 1999, str. 74, točka 58, in zadeva 730/79, Philip Morris proti Komisiji, Recueil 1980, str. I-2671, točka 11. Glej tudi zadevo C-75/97, Belgija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1999, str. I-3671, točka 47, in zadevo T-217/02, Ter Lembeek proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2006, str. II-4483, točka 181.
See for example the Guidelines on Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA Agreement to State aids in the aviation sector OJ C 350 10 December 1994 p. 7, section III.3.
Glej, na primer, Smernice za izvajanje členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe ES in člena 61 Sporazuma EGP k državni pomoči letalskemu sektorju UL C 350, 10.12.1994, str. 7. poglavje III.3.
Hereinafter referred to as the 2001 Guidelines.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: Smernice iz leta 2001.
Hereinafter referred to as the 2008 Guidelines.
V nadaljnjem besedilu: Smernice iz leta 2008.
See Case T-288/97, Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia v Commission [2001] ECR II-1169, paragraph 72.
Glej zadevo T-288/97, Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia proti Komisiji, Recueil 2001, str. II-1169, točka 72.
Case C-301/96 Germany v Commission [2003] ECR I-9919 paragraph 66 and 105.
Zadeva C-301/96, Nemčija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2003, str. I-9919, točki 66 in 105.
Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR I-2671.
Zadeva 730/79, Philip Morris proti Komisiji, Recueil 1980, str. I-2671.