natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The referring court states that by adopting such a restrictive scope for this exception the contested decision infringed the legitimate expectations of the companies of the first category.
Predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da so bila v izpodbijani odločbi z določitvijo takega ozkega področja uporabe te izjeme kr�ena legitimna pričakovanja prve vrste podjetij.
The referring court considers that in order to assess the liability of the Italian authorities it must establish whether there is a causal link between the alleged misconduct of the Italian State and the damage allegedly suffered by Nuova Agricast.
Predložitveno sodi�če zatrjuje, da je treba za to, da bi ocenili odgovornost italijanskih organov, ugotoviti, ali obstaja vzročna zveza med zatrjevano kr�itvijo italijanske države in �kodo, ki naj bi jo utrpela družba Nuova Agricast.
According to the order for reference, there were three categories of companies after the authorisation for the old aid scheme had expired: (i) companies, such as Nuova Agricast, whose application had been entered on one of the regional lists under the third invitation and which had waived their right to automatic resubmission of their application under the fourth invitation in order to submit a reformulated application under the next appropriate invitation (‘companies of the first category’); (ii) companies whose first application had been submitted under the fourth invitation and whose applications had been included on the regional lists relating to that invitation but which had not received the aid requested because of insufficiency of funds; these companies are covered by the transitional provision set out in the contested decision (‘companies of the second category’); and (iii) companies which had not yet submitted an application, although the implementation of their investment project had already started (‘companies of the third category’).
V skladu s predložitveno odločbo so potem, ko je prenehala veljati odobritev starega programa pomoči, obstajale tri vrste podjetij: (i) podjetja, kot je družba Nuova Agricast, katerih zahtevki so bili vključeni na regionalni seznam na podlagi tretjega razpisa in ki so se odpovedala pravici do avtomatične ponovne vložitve njihovih zahtevkov na podlagi četrtega razpisa, da bi spremenjeni zahtevek vložila na podlagi naslednjega ustreznega razpisa („prva vrsta podjetij“); (ii) podjetja, ki so prve zahtevke vložila na podlagi četrtega razpisa in katerih zahtevki so bili vključeni na regionalni seznam v zvezi s tem razpisom, vendar zaradi nezadostnih sredstev niso prejela zahtevane državne pomoči; na ta podjetja se nana�a prehodna določba iz izpodbijane odločbe („druga vrsta podjetij“); in (iii) podjetja, ki �e niso vložila zahtevka, čeprav se je njihov investicijski projekt že začel izvajati („tretja vrsta podjetij“).
According to the national court, it would appear that the Italian State failed to draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that companies of the first category had acquired rights under the old aid scheme.
Nacionalno sodi�če meni, da italijanska država Komisije ni opozorila na to, da je prva vrsta podjetij pridobila pravice na podlagi starega programa pomoči. V skladu z novim
According to the referring court, the contested decision affects this causal link because it is interposed between the conduct for which Nuova Agricast blames the Italian authorities and the damage suffered by Nuova Agricast.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da izpodbijana odločba vpliva na to vzročno zvezo, ker posega med ravnanje, ki ga družba Nuova Agricast pripisuje italijanskim organom, in �kodo, ki jo je utrpela družba Nuova Agricast.
The referring court thus considers that it must determine the impact which the conduct of the Italian authorities had on the Commission’s decision.
Predložitveno sodi�če zato meni, da mora opredeliti vpliv, ki ga je imelo ravnanje italijanskih organov na odločbo Komisije.
For that purpose the referring court deems it necessary to determine whether the transitional provision contained in the contested decision may be invalid, because it infringes the rules and principles of the Community legal order.
Po mnenju predložitvenega sodi�ča je treba zato ugotoviti, ali je prehodna določba iz izpodbijane odločbe nična, ker kr�i pravila in načela pravnega reda Skupnosti.
Given that the companies of the first and the second categories are in similar legal situations but are treated differently with regard to their possible eligibility for in the new aid scheme by reason of the transitional provision, the referring court asks first of all whether the transitional provision breaches the principle of equal treatment.
Ker sta prva in druga vrsta podjetij v podobnem pravnem položaju, vendar sta zaradi prehodne določbe obravnavani različno glede možnost upravičenosti do dodelitve pomoči na podlagi novega programa pomoči, predložitveno sodi�če najprej spra�uje, ali prehodna določba kr�i načelo enakega obravnavanja.
consequent unjustified passing-over — in breach of the principle of equal treatment and of the obligation to state the reasons on which the decision was based pursuant to Article 253 EC — of applications made in connection with earlier invitations, which had not been supported because of a lack of funds and which were waiting to be included automatically in the next invitation or to be revised and resubmitted in the first “appropriate” invitation established under the new scheme?’
zaradi omejenosti finančnih sredstev v okviru tega razpisa ni bila dodeljena, njena posledica pa je’ – ob kr�itvi načela enakega obravnavanja in obveznosti obrazložitve, na katerih na podlagi člena 253 ES odločba temelji –, da so bili zahtevki, vloženi na podlagi prej�njih razpisov, neupravičeno zavrnjeni zaradi nezadostnih sredstev in bi bili avtomatično vključeni v naslednji razpis oziroma spremenjeni in ponovno vloženi na podlagi prvega, ustreznega’ razpisa v skladu z novim programom?“
Second, the referring court also expresses doubts as to the validity of the transitional provision in so far as it fails to comply with the obligation to state adequate reasons in relation to the exclusion of the companies of the first category.
Drugič, predložitveno sodi�če dvomi tudi o veljavnosti prehodne določbe, če ne izpolnjuje obveznosti zadostne obrazložitve v zvezi z izključitvijo prve vrste podjetij.
IV — Related procedures Community Courts
IV – Postopki pred sodišči Skupnosti
Thus, on 14 June 2006, the Tribunale ordinario di Roma decided to stay the proceedings and to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on the following question:
Tribunale ordinario di Roma je tako 14. junija 2006 prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču Evropskih skupnosti v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
In addition to the action in the main proceedings before the Tribunale ordinario di Roma, Nuova Agricast has brought two actions before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
Družba Nuova Agricast je poleg tožbe v postopku v glavni stvari pri Tribunale ordinario di Roma vložila dve tožbi pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
An action for annulment was brought on 15 March 2004 by Nuova Agricast Srl and Others before the Court of First Instance.
Družba Nuova Agricast Srl in drugi so 15. marca 2004 pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje vložili ničnostno tožbo.
By order of 15 June 2005, not published in the ECR, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) dismissed the action as inadmissible on the basis that it was brought out of time. 11
Sodi�če prve stopnje je s sklepom z dne 15. junija 2005, ki ni bil objavljen v Zbirki odločb, tožbo zavrnilo kot nedopustno, ker je bila vložena prepozno. 11
11 — Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2005 in Case T-98/04 Nuova Agricast and Others, not published in the ECR; notice published in OJ 2005 C 229, p. 22.
11 – Sklep Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 15. junija 2005 v zadevi Nuova Agricast in drugi, T-98/04, neobjavljen v ZOdl.; obvestilo objavljeno v UL 2005, C 229, str. 22.
‘Is the Commission’s decision of 12 July 2000, notified to the Italian Government by letter referenced SG(2000)D/105754 of 2 August 2000, valid as regards only the transitional provision which provides for exceptional derogation from the principle of “necessary aid” — on the occasion of the first implementation of the scheme in question — solely for applications “made on the occasion of the last invitation to apply for support measures, organised on the basis of the preceding scheme and approved by the Commission until 31 December 1999, which were considered eligible for aid but were not cleared because insufficient financial resources were allocated to that invitation”, with the
„Ali je odločba Komisije z dne 12. julija 2000, ki je bila italijanski vladi vročena z dopisom SG(2000)D/105754 z dne 2. avgusta 2000, le v delu, ki se nana�a na prehodno določbo, v skladu s katero se lahko izjemoma odstopi od načela, nujne pomoči’, – v primeru prve uporabe zadevnega programa – veljavna zgolj za zahtevke ,,vložene na podlagi zadnjega razpisa za dodelitev pomoči, ki je bil izveden po predhodnem programu in ga je Komisije potrdila do 31. decembra 1999, za katere se je pomoč lahko pridobila, vendar
In addition Nuova Agricast has lodged an action for damages before the Court of First Instance.
Poleg tega je družba Nuova Agricast pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje vložila od�kodninsko tožbo.
12It seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of the contested decision.
12 Zahteva povračilo �kode, ki naj bi jo utrpela zaradi sprejetja izpodbijane odločbe.
The action, which is still pending, concerns, to a degree, the same damage which is the subject of the main proceedings before the referring court.
Tožba, o kateri �e ni bilo odločeno, se nana�a na isto �kodo, ki je predmet postopka v glavni stvari pri predložitvenem sodi�ču.
V — Procedure before the Court
V – Postopek pred Sodiščem
The Court has received observations from Nuova Agricast, the Commission, and the Italian Government.
Sodi�če je prejelo stali�ča družbe Nuova Agricast, Komisije in italijanske vlade.
A hearing was held on 11 September 2007.
Obravnava je bila opravljena 11. septembra 2007.
VI — Arguments of the parties
VI – Trditve strank
It therefore considers it necessary, in order to establish the validity of this premiss, that the Court determine, as a preliminary matter, whether the old aid scheme, approved by the 1997 decision, created in favour of the companies of the first category a right, protected by the Community legal order, to receive aid even after the expiry of the period during which the old aid scheme was approved.
Družba Nuova Agricast zato meni, da mora Sodi�če, da bi to predpostavko utemeljili, predhodno ugotoviti, ali je bila na podlagi starega programa pomoči, ki je bil odobren z odločbo iz leta 1997, v korist prve vrste podjetij uvedena pravica, ki jo varuje pravni red Skupnosti, da prejmejo pomoč tudi po preteku obdobja, za katero je bil stari program odobren.
In this respect, Nuova Agricast considers that, by approving the old aid scheme, the Commission recognised that companies of the first category had a legally protected right to reformulate their application for the next appropriate invitation, while retaining, for expenditure that had already been incurred, the requirements of eligibility applicable to the invitation under which they had submitted their initial application.
Družba Nuova Agricast v zvezi s tem trdi, da je Komisija s tem, da je odobrila stari program, priznala, da je imela prva vrsta podjetij zakonsko varovano pravico spremeniti svoj zahtevek za naslednji ustrezni razpis, pri čemer so za izdatke, ki so že nastali, pogoji za dodelitev pomoči, ki so veljali za razpis, na podlagi katerega je vložila svoje prve zahtevke, ostali v veljavi.
This right did not simply disappear when the authorisation of the old aid scheme expired.
Ta pravica ni kar izginila, ko je odobritev starega programa pomoči pretekla.
Nuova Agricast points out that the questions of the referring court on the validity of the contested decision with regard to the
Družba Nuova Agricast poudarja, da vpra�anja predložitvenega sodi�ča glede veljavnosti izpodbijane odločbe v zvezi z načelom enakosti temeljijo na predpostavki,
As regards a possible breach of the principle of equality of treatment, Nuova Agricast is of the view that the companies of the first and the second categories were in a similar situation because they had all acquired the right to participate in the first appropriate invitation under the new aid scheme.
Družba Nuova Agricast v zvezi z mogočo kr�itvijo načela enakega obravnavanja meni, da sta bili prva in druga vrsta podjetij v podobnem položaju, ker so vsa podjetja prejela pravico do sodelovanja na prvem ustreznem razpisu na podlagi novega
12 — Case T-362/05, pending before the Court of First Instance.
12 – Zadeva T-362/05, ki pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje �e ni končana.
Therefore, they should have been included on an equal basis as beneficiaries of the transitional provision contained in the contested decision.
Zato bi morala biti vključena na enaki podlagi kot upravičenci iz prehodne določbe, vsebovane v izpodbijani odločbi.
Second, the contested decision is adequately reasoned, having regard to the exchange of letters between Italy and the Commission in the course of the preliminary phase of the examination of the notified aid scheme, which specify the reasons for the transitional provision.
Drugič, izpodbijana odločba je ustrezno obrazložena, saj sta Italija in Komisija med predhodno preučitvijo prigla�enega programa pomoči izmenjali dopise, v katerih so podrobno navedeni razlogi za prehodno določbo.
Moreover, according to the caselaw of the Court, for a measure of general application which applies to a large number of situations, the reasoning can be limited to laying out the general situation which has led to its adoption and the general objectives which it seeks to achieve.
Poleg tega je lahko v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča obrazložitev splo�nega ukrepa, ki se uporablja za več položajev, omejena na določitev splo�nega položaja, zaradi katere je bil sprejet, in splo�nih ciljev, ki jih želi doseči.
With regard to the Commission’s obligation to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC, Nuova Agricast submits that the contested decision fails to indicate why the legal protection acquired by the companies of the first category under the old aid scheme was removed.
Družba Nuova Agricast v zvezi z obveznostjo obrazložitve, ki jo ima Komisija v skladu s členom 253 ES, navaja, da v izpodbijani odločbi ni navedeno, zakaj je bilo pravno varstvo, ki ga je prva vrsta podjetij pridobila na podlagi starega programa pomoči, ukinjeno.
A provision which causes such a degree of damage to a significant number of companies requires a specific statement of reasons.
V zvezi z določbo, ki povzroča tako �kodo več podjetjem, se zahteva posebna obrazložitev.
The Commission first of all questions the admissibility of the question referred.
Komisija najprej dvomi o dopustnosti vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
It considers that the reference on the validity of the contested decision manifestly has no link with an action for liability against the Italian State and is certainly not necessary to resolve the dispute before the referring court.
Meni, da je jasno, da sklicevanje na veljavnost izpodbijane odločbe očitno ni povezano z od�kodninsko tožbo proti italijanski državi, in spora zagotovo ni treba re�evati pred predložitvenim sodi�čem.
First, the Italian Government takes the view that the contested decision does not infringe the principle of equality of treatment, because the companies of the first and the second categories are not in the same situation.
Prvič, italijanska vlada meni, da izpodbijana odločba ne kr�i načela enakega obravnavanja, ker prva in druga vrsta podjetij nista v enakem položaju.
The Italian administrative courts have confirmed that the companies of the first category could not rely on legitimate expectations with regard to the possibility of applying for aid under the new aid scheme under the conditions applicable to invitations to apply, published under the old aid scheme.
Italijanska upravna sodi�ča so potrdila, da se prva vrsta podjetij ni mogla sklicevati na legitimna pričakovanja v zvezi z možnostjo prejemanja pomoči na podlagi novega programa pomoči pod pogoji, ki so veljali za razpis za dodelitev pomoči, objavljen na podlagi stare ureditve.
authorised aid scheme, the Commission is not obliged to provide, in its authorisation of the new scheme, for a transitional regime in order for certain companies which allegedly acquired rights under the previous scheme to be able to continue to receive aid on the basis of the old scheme following the entry into force of the new scheme.
programa pomoči, v svoji odobritvi novega programa ni zavezana zagotoviti prehodne ureditve, da bi določena podjetja, ki naj bi pridobila pravice na podlagi prej�njega programa, lahko po tem, ko je začela veljati nova ureditev, �e naprej prejemala pomoč na podlagi starega programa.
Second, the Commission recalls that, according to established caselaw, the legality of a decision in the area of State aid must be evaluated on the basis of the information which was available to the Commission when it adopted it.
Drugič, Komisija opozarja, da je treba v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso zakonitost odločbe na področju državne pomoči presoditi na podlagi informacij, ki jih je imela Komisija na voljo, ko jo je sprejela.
In the present case, the Italian authorities did not mention the specific case of the companies of the first category, and therefore the fact that the transitional provision does not provide specifically for the inclusion of these companies cannot lead to invalidity of the contested decision.
V obravnavani zadevi italijanski organi niso navedli posebnega primera prve vrste podjetij, zato to, da prehodna določba ne določa posebej vključitve teh podjetij, ne more povzročiti ničnosti izpodbijane odločbe.
Third, the Commission takes the view that, in any event, there is no breach of the principle of equal treatment because the companies of the first and the second categories are not in the same situation.
Če bi Komisija ugotovila, da so pogoji za dodelitev pomoči v nasprotju z ostalimi določbami Pogodbe, zaradi česar program pomoči ne bi bil združljiv s skupnim trgom, bi lahko odločila le, da pomoč ni združljiva, vendar te nezdružljivosti ne bi mogla odpraviti, na primer s tem, da bi spremenila skupino upravičencev na podlagi programa.
The Commission points out that it is the Member State which notifies an aid scheme and that the Commission cannot change the scheme.
Tretjič, Komisija meni, da v nobenem primeru ne gre za kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja, ker prva in druga vrsta podjetij nista v enakem položaju.
Concerning the alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment, the Commission submits, first, that the Italian authorities freely chose to adopt the transitional provision at issue.
Komisija v zvezi z domnevno kr�itvijo načela enakega obravnavanja najprej trdi, da italijanski organi prosto odločajo o sprejetju zadevne prehodne določbe.
Therefore, the contested decision does not breach the principle of equal treatment with regard to different categories of companies, because the Commission
Izpodbijana odločba zato ni v nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja različnih vrst podjetij,
As to the alleged breach of the obligation to state adequate reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC, the Commission submits that no such statement was required with regard to the situation of the companies of the first category because that situation had not been raised before it by the national authorities.
Komisija v zvezi z zatrjevano kr�itvijo obveznosti obrazložitve na podlagi člena 253 ES trdi, da taka obrazložitev v zvezi s prvo vrsto podjetij ni bila potrebna, ker se nacionalni organi na ta položaj niso sklicevali.
Moreover, the transitional provision is the result of the free choice of the Italian State, which is the addressee of the contested decision.
Še več, prehodna določba je rezultat proste izbire italijanske države, na katero je izpodbijana odločba naslovljena.
VII — Appraisal preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it. 14
VII – Presoja stvari, kadar gre za hipotetičen problem oziroma kadar Sodi�če nima na voljo potrebnih dejanskih in pravnih elementov, da bi lahko dalo koristen odgovor na postavljena vpra�anja. 14
In the main proceedings, the referring court seeks to determine whether there is a causal link between potentially wrongful conduct on the part of the Italian authorities in the course of the preliminary examination of the new aid scheme by the Commission and the damage, namely the non-payment of aid, allegedly suffered by Nuova Agricast as a consequence of the scope of the transitional provision of the contested decision.
Predložitveno sodi�če želi v postopku v glavni stvari ugotoviti, ali obstaja vzročna zveza med domnevno nedopustnim ravnanjem italijanskih organov v okviru predhodne preučitve novega programa pomoči s strani Komisije in �kodo, in sicer neplačilo pomoči, ki naj bi jo utrpela družba Nuova Agricast zaradi področja uporabe prehodne določbe iz izpodbijane odločbe.
It is settled caselaw that, in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts established by Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso v okviru sodelovanja med Sodi�čem in nacionalnimi sodi�či, kot ga določa člen 234 ES, lahko le nacionalno sodi�če, pred katerim poteka spor in ki je pristojno za izdajo sodne odločbe, ob upo�tevanju posebnosti spora, ki poteka pred njim, presodi o nujnosti sprejetja predhodne odločbe, da bo lahko sprejelo sodbo, ter o pomembnosti vpra�anj, ki jih zastavi Sodi�ču.
Consequently, where the questions submitted by the national court concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling. 13
Iz tega sledi, da mora Sodi�če odločiti o vpra�anjih, ki jih zastavijo nacionalna sodi�ča, če se nana�ajo na razlago določbe prava Skupnosti. 13
However, the Court has also stated that, in exceptional circumstances, it can examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction.
Vendar je Sodi�če odločilo tudi, da mora v izrednih okoli�činah pri preverjanju svoje pristojnosti preskusiti okoli�čine, v katerih mu je nacionalno sodi�če zadevo predložilo.
The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a
Sprejetje predhodne odločbe o vpra�anju, ki ga postavi nacionalno sodi�če, je mogoče zavrniti le, kadar je očitno, da zahtevana razlaga prava Skupnosti ni povezana z dejanskim stanjem ali predmetom spora v glavni
By its reference, the referring court seems to query, in essence, whether the contested decision, by failing to take into account the situation of companies of the first category, even if such a failure was due to a lack of accurate information from the Italian authorities, could be so tainted as to render the decision invalid.
Zdi se, da predložitveno sodi�če s predlogom za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v bistvu spra�uje, ali bi lahko bila izpodbijana odločba, ker ne upo�teva položaja prve vrste podjetij, čeprav tega ne stori, ker ji italijanski organi niso posredovali zadostnih informacij, tako pomanjkljiva, da bi to povzročilo ničnost odločbe.