natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court points out that, if aid granted by Member States which is abolished and prohibited on the basis of Article 4(c) CS were permissible on the basis of Article 67 CS (subject to the measures recommended by the Commission), the effect of the prohibition contained in Article 4(c) CS would be substantially modified.
Sodi�če namreč poudarja da če bi se pomoči, ki so jih odobrile države članice in ki so na podlagi člena 4(c) PJ odpravljene in prepovedane, lahko dopustile na podlagi člena 67 PJ (razen ukrepov, ki jih je priporočila Komisija), bi bil obseg prepovedi, ki izhaja iz člena 4 PJ, po njegovem mnenju zelo prizadet.
Then, in the aforementioned judgment in Compagnie des hauts fourneaux et fonderies de Givors and Others v High Authority, the Court held that Article 67 CS merely lays down ‘protective measures’ against State measures which do not directly and immediately concern the coal and steel industries.
Nato je Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Compagnie des haut fourneaux et fonderies de Givors in drugi proti Visoki oblasti menilo, da člen 67 PJ določa samo „previdnostne ukrepe“ zoper državne ukrepe, ki se ne nana�ajo neposredno in takoj na industrijske sektorje.
Such protective measures, it states, are intended only to ‘compensate for the economic disadvantages which result in the common market from an action by a Member State which the [Commission] does not have the power to bring to an end directly’. 37
Ti previdnostni ukrepi naj bi se nana�ali samo na „kompenzacijo ekonomskih neugodnosti, ki na skupnem trgu izhajajo iz državnega ukrepa, ki ga [naj Komisija ne bi] mogla neposredno preprečiti.“ 37.
The second has to do with the difference in the means made available to the Commission for the implementation of Article 67 CS.
Drugi se nana�a na razliko med sredstvi, ki jih daje Komisija za izvajanje člena 67 PJ.
Unlike Article 4 CS, which grants the Commission exclusive competence, Article 67 CS merely affords it a power of ‘recommendation’.
V nasprotju s členom 4 PJ, ki naj bi Skupnosti odobril izključno pristojnost, naj bi ji člen 67 PJ pridržal samo pravico „priporočila“.
In was in the judgment in Steenkolenmijnen v High Authority, cited above, that the Court distinguished between the scope of Article 4(c) CS and Article 67 CS respectively by stating that they covered ‘two different fields’.
Sodi�če je prav v zgoraj navedeni sodbi De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg proti Visoki oblasti razlikovalo področje uporabe členov 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ z ugotovitvijo, da se nana�ata na „dve različni področji“ 38.
38 The Court held that Article 67 CS cannot relate to the same measures as those declared to be abolished and prohibited by Article 4(c) CS, for two reasons.
Sodi�če Skupnosti je menilo, da se člen 67 PJ ne more nana�ati na iste ukrepe kot so ukrepi, ki so s členom 4(c) PJ opredeljeni kot odpravljeni in prepovedani, in sicer iz dveh razlogov.
This case concerned a charge imposed on solid fuels for non-domestic use.
Ta zadeva je povezana z davkom na trda goriva, ki niso za domačo rabo.
The Court held that that charge was equally applicable to all industrial users and could not therefore be regarded as a specific charge applying only to the coal and steel sector.
Sodi�če je ugotovilo, da se je ta davek uporabljal enako za vse industrijske operaterje in torej ni bilo mogoče �teti, da se je uporabljal posebej in izključno v sektorju premoga in jekla.
40 whereas advantages provided for by general legislation must be assessed in the light of Article 67 CS. 41
izhajajo iz splo�ne zakonodaje, presojati na podlagi člena 67 PJ 41.
It is clear from that caselaw that the purpose of Article 67 CS is to allow the Commission to authorise the grant of compensatory measures or ‘protective measures’ to steel undertakings where they are adversely affected by measures of general economic policy.
Iz te sodne prakse izhaja, da je cilj člena 67 PJ omogočiti Komisiji, da dovoli kompenzacijske ukrepe ali „previdnostne ukrepe“ za jeklarske družbe, če so te o�kodovane zaradi ukrepov splo�ne gospodarske politike.
— Views expressed by the Advocates General as to the scope of Article 4(c) CS and Article 67 CS
– Mnenja generalnih pravobranilcev glede področja uporabe členov 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ
An examination of the views given by the Advocates General shows how difficult it has been to demarcate the scope of Article 4(c) CS in relation to that of Article 67 CS.
Preučitev sklepnih predlogov generalnih pravobranilcev nam pokaže težave pri razmejitvi področja uporabe člena 4(c) PJ od področja uporabe člena 67 PJ.
In his Opinion in Steenkolenmijnen v High Authority, Advocate General Lagrange considered that it was not possible to regard ‘as automatically outside the jurisdiction of the Member States everything which, under legislation of this kind, is expressly concerned with all or some of the industries of the [ECSC]’. That would be ‘an unwarranted extension of action by the Community into a field reserved to the jurisdiction of the States’.
Generalni pravobranilec Lagrange je v sklepnih predlogih z dne 5. novembra 1960 v zgoraj navedeni zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana sodba De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg proti Visoki oblasti, menil, da „ni bilo mogoče iz pristojnosti držav članic v celoti izključiti vsega, kar v tovrstni zakonodaji posebno zadeva celo industrijo [ESPJ] ali le del nje“.To bi bila po njegovem mnenju „zlorabna raz�iritev dejavnosti ESPJ na področje, ki je pridržano pristojnosti držav“.
To distinguish measures covered by Article 4(c) CS from those falling within the ambit of Article 67 CS, Advocate General Lagrange proposed that a test based on ‘the real purpose of the measure’ should be adopted.
Generalni pravobranilec Lagrange je predlagal, naj se ohrani merilo za „dejanski cilj ukrepa“.
To illustrate his idea, he took the example of a law amending the method of financing social security which includes special rules for certain trades (mining, for example).
Za oris njegovega namena je vzel primer zakonodajnega ukrepa, ki spremeni podrobna pravila glede financiranja socialne varnosti in ki obsega posebne predpise za nekatere poklice (na primer rudarske industrije).
In his view, such a measure could not, a priori, be regarded as a prohibited aid or subsidy within the meaning of Article 4(c) CS.
Tak ukrep po njegovem mnenju ne bi mogel �teti a priori kot pomoč ali subvencija, ki je prepovedana na podlagi člena 4(c) PJ.
Since the object of the measure was a social one and the adoption of special financing rules for certain trades is justified on legitimate grounds relating to the objectives pursued by the general legislation, it
Ker je cilj tega ukrepa socialen in ker je sprejetje posebnih predpisov financiranja za določene poklice upravičeno iz legitimnih razlogov, povezanih s cilji splo�ne zakono-
Advocates General Lagrange, Roemer and Geelhoed all agreed that Article 4(c) CS relates only to special subsidies concerned solely with the coal and steel industry,
Generalni pravobranilci Lagrange, Roemer in Geelhoed so se strinjali z ugotovitvijo, da se člen 4(c) PJ nana�a le na posebne subvencije, ki zadevajo le industrijo premoga in jekla, medtem ko je treba ugodnosti, ki
41 — This proposition has also been advocated by some legal academics. See, in particular, P. Reuter, La Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier (cited in footnote 29, p.
41 – To tezo prav tako zastopa del teorije.
40 — Ibid. paragraph 85.
40 – Točka 85.
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER remains within the scope of national competence and falls solely under Article 67 CS. 42
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER daje, naj bi ta ostal v nacionalni pristojnosti in naj bi zanj veljal le člen 67 PJ 42.
Advocate General Roemer, in his Opinion in Netherlands v Commission, took the view that the authors of the ECSC Treaty cannot have intended to give absolute effect to the prohibition in Article 4(c) CS.
Generalni pravobranilec Roemer v sklepnih predlogih z dne 10. junija 1971 v zgoraj navedeni zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana sodba Nizozemska proti Komisiji, meni, da namen avtorjev Pogodbe ESPJ ni mogel biti, da se podeli absoluten učinek prepovedi, navedeni v členu 4(c) PJ.
Finally, to accept that Article 4(c) CS covers all aid which steel undertakings may receive would damage the harmonious development of the Communities, since the provisions concerning aid in the EC Treaty also provide for important exceptions to the prohibition on subsidies, and do so taking account, once again, of the powers retained by the Member States.
Nazadnje bi priznanje, da se člen 4(c) PJ nana�a na vse pomoči, ki jih lahko prejme jeklarska družba, �kodilo skladnemu razvoju Skupnosti, ker naj bi tudi določbe v Pogodbi ES, namenjene pomočem, določale pomembne izjeme od prepovedi subvencij, in to ob upo�tevanju, �e enkrat, pristojnosti, ki naj bi si jih države članice pridržale.
Finally, in his Opinion in Moccia Irme and Others v Commission, 43Advocate
Nazadnje, generalni pravobranilec Geelhoed je v sklepnih predlogih predstavljenih 8. februarja 2001 v združenih zadevah, v katerih je bila izdana sodba Moccia Irme in drugi proti Komisiji, 43 menil, da je glede na sodno prakso Sodi�ča 44prepoved pomoči, navedena v členu 4(c) PJ, imela le dve omejitvi.
General Geelhoed took the view that, in the light of the caselaw of the Court, 44the
Prva je izhajala iz tega, da „mora ukrep soditi v kategorijo ‚subvencij ali
On the other hand, the application of Article 37 CS and the first paragraph of prohibition under Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty on the grant of aid is subject to two conditions only.
Na eni strani, ker so subvencije zelo pogost instrument gospodarske, socialne ali industrijske politike, ne bi bilo razumno industriji premoga in jekla v celoti odtegniti pozitivne pobude, ki zanjo izhaja iz ukrepov, ki jih države članice sprejmejo v okviru svoje splo�ne gospodarske zakonodaje, in �teti, da glede te industrije obstaja brezpogojna prepoved subvencij.
The first is that ‘the measure must be classifiable as “subsidies or aids
Tak sistem naj bi uvedel občutno praznino pri izvajanju pristojnosti splo�ne gospodarske politike držav članic.
43 — Cases C-280/99 P to C-282/99 P [2001] ECR I-4717.
43 – Sodba z dne 21. junija 2001 (od C-280/99 P do C-282/99 P, Recueil, str. I-4717).
44 — Advocate General Geelhoed refers to the aforementioned judgments in Industries sidérurgiques luxembourgeoises v High Authority and Steenkolenmijnen v High Authority.
42 – Nasprotno, generalni pravobranilec Lagrange meni, da v primeru, ko predmet zadevnega ukrepa ni socialne, ampak gospodarske narave, ko se podjetju torej naložijo bremena, ki mu jih običajno ni treba nositi, gre za posebno breme oziroma prepovedano subvencijo v smislu člena 4(c) PJ.
42 — However, Advocate General Lagrange considers that, if it were established that the real object of the measure at issue is economic, not social, and consists either in imposing charges on undertakings which would not normally be placed upon them, or exempting them from a charge which they would normally have to bear, this would involve a prohibited special charge or subsidy within the meaning of Article 4(c) CS.
44 – Generalni pravobranilec Geelhoed se sklicuje na zgoraj navedeni sodbi Groupement des industries sidérurgiques luxembourgeoises proti Visoki oblasti in De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg proti Visoki oblasti.
45 was signed. They were primarily directed towards increasing production and securing equal access for consumers to ECSC products without any discrimination.
ESPJ, brez kakr�ne koli diskriminacije 46.
46That focus explains the strictness of the rules concerning the operation of the common market for coal and steel, such as the general prohibition on subsidies and State aid, the obligation to publish price lists and transport tariffs and the prohibition of any discrimination generally.
Ta usmeritev pojasnjuje strogost pravil, povezanih z delovanjem skupnega trga za premog in jeklo, kot je na primer splo�na prepoved subvencij in državnih pomoči, obveznost objave tabele cen in tarif transporta oziroma tudi prepoved vsake diskriminacije.
— The establishment of the ECSC scheme for controlling State aid
– Vzpostavitev sistema ESPJ za nadzor državnih pomoči
That first integrated Community none the less had a fundamentally dynamic character.
Ta prva skupnost, usmerjena v integracijo, je bila kljub temu v bistvu dinamična.
Certain market rules laid down in the ECSC Treaty had to be adapted to the needs of a policy required above all to address the structural problems of the coal and steel economy. 47
Nekatera pravila trga, določena s Pogodbo ESPJ, je bilo treba prilagoditi potrebam politike, ki se je morala predvsem soočiti s strukturnimi problemi gospodarstva jeklarske in premogovni�ke industrije 47.
Despite the fundamental prohibition on State aid, laid down in Article 4(c) CS, the Commission decided to introduce a scheme for authorising the grant of State aid to the steel industry in order to address the crisis which that sector experienced from the end of the 1970s.
Kljub načelni prepovedi državnih pomoči, določeni s členom 4(c) PJ, je Komisija odločila, da vzpostavi sistem, ki dovoli dodelitev državnih pomoči jeklarstvu, da bi se re�ila krizna situacija, v kateri je bil ta sektor od konca sedemdesetih let prej�njega stoletja.
The operation of that scheme had to be coordinated with the system for controlling State aid established under the EC Treaty.
Delovanje tega sistema je moralo biti usklajeno s sistemom nadzora državnih pomoči, ki je bil vzpostavljen s Pogodbo ES.
In order to meet the restructuring needs of the steel sector, the Commission relied on the first and second paragraphs of Article 95 CS in order to establish a Community scheme under which the grant of State aid to the steel industry could be authorised in certain specific cases. 48As has already been stated, the system adopted by the
Za izpolnjevanje zahtev po prestrukturiranju sektorja jeklarstva se je Komisija pri vzpostavitvi sistema Skupnosti, ki dovoli dodelitev državnih pomoči jeklarstvu v taksativno na�tetih primerih, oprla na člen 95, prvi in drugi odstavek, PJ 48.
Steel aid codes
Kot sem navedel, je
46 — See Articles 2 CS to 4 CS.
46 – Glej člene od 2 PJ do 4 PJ.
47 — Many commentators criticised the difference between the ‘static’ nature of the rules contained in the ECSC Treaty and the dynamic nature of a constantly evolving economy. See, for example, W Much ‘Principales tendances de l’évolution du droit de la Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier’, Rivista di diritto europeo, 1966, p.
47 – Številni akademski komentatorji so grajali razliko med „statično“ naravo pravil Pogodbe ESPJ in dinamično naravo gospodarskega sveta, ki se stalno razvija. Glej zlasti Much, W., „Principales tendances de l’évolution du droit de la Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier“, Rivista di diritto europeo, Rim, 1965, str. 3, 13.
The principles and procedures laid down in the ECSC Treaty serve to address the situation which existed when the Treaty
Načela in sredstva, določena v okviru Pogodbe ESPJ, ustrezajo okoli�činam, ki so bile ob njenem podpisu.
48 — Article 95 CS provides various mechanisms for adapting the law contained in the ECSC Treaty to situations which its provisions do not take into account without the need for making amendments to the Treaty itself, which requires ratification by the Member States in accordance with their constitutional procedures.
48 – Opozarjam, da člen 95 PJ določa različne mehanizme za pravno prilagoditev ESPJ položajem, ki jih besedilo ni upo�tevalo, ne da bi bilo pri tem treba spremeniti to pogodbo, ki vključuje ratifikacijo držav članic po njihovih ustavnih postopkih.
On the caselaw relating to the application of Article 95 CS, see in particular Case C-1/98 P British Steel v Commission [2000] ECR I-10349, paragraph 40.
Glede sodne prakse o uporabi člena 95 PJ glej zlasti sodbo z dne 23. novembra 2000 v zadevi British Steel proti Komisiji (C-1/98 P, Recueil, str. I-10349, točka 40).
45 — See in particular points 29 to 41 of that Opinion (emphasis added).
45 – Glej zlasti točke od 29 do 41 omenjenega sklepnega predloga (moj poudarek).
Commission on the basis of that provision took the form of decisions of general application, commonly known as ‘steel aid codes’.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER sistem, ki ga je sprejela Komisija na podlagi navedene določbe, dobil obliko odločb, ki so splo�nega pomena in se imenujejo „pravila o pomoči jeklarstvu“.
different control scheme, since they subject all aid falling within defined exempted categories to uniform treatment under a single procedure provided for in the ECSC Treaty.
vzpostavijo drugačen sistem nadzora, s tem da vse pomoči, ki sodijo v izvzete kategorije, za katere določajo enotno obravnavanje, podredijo okviru enega samega postopka iz Pogodbe ESPJ.
Aid not falling within one of the categories defined by those codes remains exclusively subject to Article 4(c) CS.
Za pomoči, ki ne sodijo v kategorije, navedene v omenjenih pravilih, �e naprej velja člen 4(c) PJ.
Such aid may none the less benefit from an individual derogation from that prohibition if the Commission considers, in the exercise of the discretion which it enjoys under Article 95 CS, that such aid is necessary for the attainment of the objectives of the ECSC Treaty. 52
Te pomoči so lahko posamično izvzete iz prepovedi, določene z navedeno določbo, če Komisija v okviru izvajanja svoje diskrecijske pravice na podlagi člena 95 PJ meni, da so take pomoči nujno potrebne za uresničitev ciljev Pogodbe 52.
Those codes authorise, under certain conditions and after the Commission’s authorisation, derogations from the pro -hibition in principle laid down in Article 4(c) CS for certain categories of aid which it lists exhaustively.
Ta pravila pod nekaterimi pogoji in po odobritvi Komisije dovolijo odstopanja od načelne prepovedi, določene s členom 4(c) PJ, v korist določenih kategorij pomoči, ki so taksativno na�tete.
The Court therefore considers that they must be interpreted strictly.
Sodi�če torej meni, da jih je treba razlagati strogo 49.
49The application of such codes is also limited in time since they lay down rules for the adaptation of the steel industry to the objectives laid down in the ECSC Treaty according to the needs existing at any given period. 50
Uporaba navedenih pravil je časovno omejena, ker vzpostavljajo pravila za prilagoditev jeklarske industrije ciljem iz Pogodbe ESPJ za potrebe, ki obstajajo v točno določenem obdobju 50.
Coordination of the EC and ECSC aid schemes
Uskladitev sistemov pomoči ES in ESPJ
The first code contains a detail which, for the purposes of this case, is worth pointing out.
Prva pravila vsebujejo opredelitev, ki jo je glede tega spora treba poudariti.
Article 1 of that code refers only to aid granted specifically to coal and steel undertakings.
V smislu njihovega člena 1 se nana�ajo le na pomoči, ki so posebno dodeljene družbam iz sektorja premoga in jekla.
Under that code, the application to the steel industry of general and regional schemes is subject to constant review by the Commission pursuant to
Na podlagi navedenih pravil uporaba splo�nih sistemov pomoči za jeklarstvo ostane torej podrejena nadzoru Komisije na podlagi člena 67 PJ in členov 87 ES in 88 ES 51.
The question we have to answer also reflects the difficulties posed by the coexistence of the two legal orders of the EC Treaty and the ECSC Treaty.
Vpra�anje, na katerega moramo odgovoriti, prav tako odraža težave, ki so nastale s soobstojem dveh pravnih redov, to sta Pogodbi ES in ESPJ.
The increasing development of the EC and the creation within it
Rastoči razvoj ES in znotraj tega oblikovanje sistema konkurenčnih pravil na področjih z najbolj raznovrstno gospodarsko dejavnostjo povzroča
51 — Fourth recital in the preamble to the First Code.
II-1433, točka 114).
49 — See to this effect the judgments in Moccia Irme and Others v Commission, paragraph 40, and Case T-150/95 UK Steel Association v Commission [1997] ECR II-1433, paragraph 114.
50 – Zgoraj navedena sodba z dne 24. septembra 2002 v združenih zadevah Falck in Acciaierie di Bolzano proti Komisiji (C-74/00 P in C-75/00 P, Recueil, str.
50 — Judgment in Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P Falck Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission [2002] ECR I-7869, paragraph 120.
I-7869, točka 120).
52 — See in particular the judgment in Spain v Commission, cited above (paragraphs 153 to 155), and the Order in Case C-399/95 R Germany v Commission [1996] ECR I-2441, paragraph 20.
52 – Glej zlasti sklep z dne 3. maja 1996 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji (C-399/95 R, Recueil, str. I-2441, točka 20) ter zgoraj navedeno sodbo Španija proti Komisiji (točke od 153 do 155).
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-408/04 P
BOTA – ZADEVA C-408/04 P prekrivanja v sektorjih skupnega interesa.
53 Thus, it is settled caselaw that the of a system of competition rules in the most diverse areas of economic activity led to overlaps in the sectors of common interest.
sprejete za njeno izvajanje, kljub začetku veljavnosti Pogodbe ES ohranijo lastno področje uporabe 53.
provisions of the EC Treaty apply only in the alternative, in the absence of specific rules in the ECSC Treaty. 54
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse tako izhaja, da se določbe pogodbe ES uporabijo le, če ni posebnih predpisov v Pogodbi ESPJ 54.
With regard more specifically to controls on State aid, the Court has held that the ECSC Treaty lays down specific rules, so that the rules of the EC Treaty do not apply.
Sodi�če je glede nadzora državnih pomoči natančneje menilo, da Pogodba ESPJ določa posebna pravila, tako da se predpisi, ki izhajajo iz Pogodbe ES, ne uporabijo.
The two communities combine with the European Atomic Energy Community to form a collective structure.
Obe skupnosti, skupaj z Evropsko skupnostjo za atomsko energijo, sta elementa enotnega načrta.
The provisions contained in the EC, ECSC and EAEC Treaties must therefore be interpreted and applied in accordance with that common purpose, that is to say as part of a single legal order in pursuit of full economic integration.
Določbe, ki izhajajo iz pogodb ES, ESPJ in ESAE, je treba razlagati in izvajati glede na ta skupni cilj, torej kot da izhaja iz enotnega pravnega reda, ki se nana�a na popolno gospodarsko integracijo.
Account must none the less be taken of the specific characteristics of the rules established by each of those treaties where the latter so provide.
Kljub temu je treba paziti, da se spo�tujejo posebnosti, določene z vsako od teh pogodb, če jih te imajo.
Thus, in its judgment in Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission, the Court took the view that the ‘clear difference between the wording of Article 4(c) [CS] and that of Article [88](1) [EC] suffices to show that, so far as concerns State aid, the Member States did not seek to adopt the same rules or the same scope of action for the Communities’. 55
Sodi�če je tako v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Falck in Acciaierie di Bolzano proti Komisiji menilo, da jasna razlika med določbami člena 4(c) PJ in določbami člena [88](1) [ES] zado�ča za ugotovitev, da države članice niso nameravale sprejeti istih pravil niti istega področja delovanja Skupnosti“ 55.
54 — See by way of example, concerning rules on the repayment of import or export duties, the judgment in Case 328/85 Deutsche Babcock Handel [1987] ECR 5119, paragraphs 6 to 14.
54 – Glede pravil o povračilu uvoznih ali izvoznih dajatev glej zlasti sodbo z dne 15. decembra 1987 v zadevi Deutsche Babcock Handel (328/85, Recueil, str. 5119, točke od 6 do 14).
With regard to the ECSC Treaty, that requirement is laid down in a clear and unambiguous way in Article 305(1) EC.
Sodi�če je torej večkrat presodilo, da določbe Pogodbe ESPJ in vse določbe,
55 — Ibid., paragraph 102.
55 – Točka 102.
The Court confirmed that analysis in its judgment in Case C-501/00, cited above.
Sodi�če je potrdilo to preučitev v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Španija proti Komisiji.
In that case, the Kingdom of Spain accused the Commission of having examined the compatibility of national legislation on corporation tax with Article 4(c) CS.
V tej zadevi je Kraljevina Španija očitala Komisiji, da je preizkusila skladnost določb nacionalnega prava o davku od dobička pravnih oseb glede na člen 4(c) PJ 56.