natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
CELF AND MINISTRE DE LA CULTURE ET DE LA COMMUNICATION and the recovery of financial support granted in disregard of that provision (‘FNCE’, paragraph 12, and SFEI and Others, cited above, paragraph 40, as well as Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 van Calster and Others [2003] ECR I-12249, paragraph 64, and Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich and Others, cited above, paragraph 47).
CELF IN MINISTRE DE LA CULTURE ET DE LA COMMUNICATION dodeljene v nasprotju s to določbo (zgoraj navedeni sodbi FNCE, točka 12, ter SFEI in drugi, točka 40, sodba z dne 21. oktobra 2003 v združenih zadevah Van Calster in drugi, C-261/01 in C-262/01, Recueil, str. I-12249, točka 64, ter zgoraj navedena sodba Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich in drugi, točka 47).
However, there may be exceptional circumstances in which it would be inappropriate to order repayment of the aid (SFEI and Others, paragraph 70).
Vendar pa lahko pride do izjemnih okoli�čin, v katerih ne bi bilo primerno naložiti vračila pomoči (zgoraj navedena sodba SFEI in drugi, točka 70).
In that regard, the Court has already held, in respect of a situation in which the Commission had adopted a negative final decision, that a recipient of illegally granted aid is not precluded from relying on exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it had legitimately assumed the aid to be lawful and thus declining to refund that aid.
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če v primeru, ko je Komisija sprejela negativno dokončno odločitev, že presodilo, da ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da se prejemnik nezakonite pomoči sklicuje na izjemne okoli�čine, na podlagi katerih je lahko legitimno utemeljil svoje zaupanje v zakonitost te pomoči, in tako nasprotuje njenemu vračilu.
If such a case is brought before a national court, it is for that court to assess the circumstances of the case, if necessary after obtaining a preliminary ruling on interpretation from the Court of Justice (Case C-5/89 Commission v Germany [1990] ECR I-3437, paragraph 16).
V takem primeru mora nacionalno sodi�če, če mu je bila zadeva predložena v odločanje, presoditi okoli�čine zadeve, če je treba tudi po tem, ko je pri Sodi�ču vložilo predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe o razlagi prava (sodba z dne 20. septembra 1990 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-5/89, Recueil, I-3437, točka 16).
As regards the Commission, Article 14(1) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p.
V členu 14(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena [88 ES] (UL L 83, str.
1) provides expressly that where negative decisions are taken it is not to require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.
1) je izrecno določeno, da Komisija pri negativni odločitvi ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splo�nimi načeli prava Skupnosti.
In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, where a claim based on the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is examined after the Commission has adopted a positive decision, the national court, notwithstanding the declaration of the compatibility of the aid in question with the common market, must adjudicate on the validity of the implementing measures and on the recovery of the financial support granted.
V primeru, kot je ta iz spora o glavni stvari, ko je zahteva na podlagi člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES obravnavana po tem, ko je Komisija sprejela pozitivno odločitev, mora nacionalno sodi�če kljub ugotovitvi, da je sporna pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom, odločiti o veljavnosti izvr�ilnih aktov in izterjavi dodeljenih finančnih podpor.
The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is based on the preservative purpose of ensuring that an incompatible aid will never be implemented.
Podlaga člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES je namreč varovalni namen, in sicer da se zagotovi, da pomoč, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom, ne bo nikoli izvedena.
That purpose is achieved first, provisionally, by means of the prohibition which it lays down, and, later, definitively, by means of the Commission’s final decision, which, if negative, precludes for the future the implementation of the notified aid plan.
Ta namen je najprej začasno dosežen s prepovedjo, ki jo določa, nato pa trajno z dokončno odločitvijo Komisije, ki če je negativna, preprečuje izvajanje prigla�enega načrta pomoči.
The intention of the prohibition thus effected is therefore that compatible aid may alone be implemented.
S tako organiziranim preprečevanjem se posku�a doseči to, da se bodo izvajale samo pomoči, ki so združljive s skupnim trgom.
In order to achieve that purpose, the implementation of planned aid is to be deferred until the doubt as to its compatibility is resolved by the Commission’s final decision.
Da bi se doseglo ta cilj, se izvedba načrta pomoči odloži, dokler ni s dokončno odločitvijo Komisije odpravljen dvom o združljivosti.
When the Commission adopts a positive decision, it is then apparent that the purpose referred to in paragraphs 47 and 48 of the present judgment has not been frustrated by the premature payment of the aid.
Zdi se, da takrat, ko Komisija sprejme pozitivno odločitev, predčasno izplačilo pomoči ni v nasprotju s ciljem iz točk 47 in 48 te sodbe.
In that case, from the point of view of operators other than the recipient of such aid, its unlawfulness will, first, expose them to the risk, in the result unrealised, of the implementation of incompatible aid, and, second, make them suffer, depending on the circumstances earlier than they would have had to, in competition terms, the effects of compatible aid.
V tem primeru bodo, z vidika subjektov, ki niso prejemniki te pomoči, zaradi njene nezakonitosti ti subjekti izpostavljeni neuresničenemu tveganju izvajanja pomoči, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom, in konkurenčnim učinkom pomoči, ki je združljiva s skupnim trgom, morda prej, kot bi bilo nujno.
In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the national court must therefore, applying Community law, order the aid recipient to pay interest in respect of the period of unlawfulness.
V primeru, kot je ta iz spora o glavni stvari, mora torej nacionalno sodi�če na podlagi prava Skupnosti prejemniku pomoči naložiti plačilo obresti za obdobje nezakonitosti.
Within the framework of its domestic law, it may, if appropriate, also order the recovery of the unlawful aid, without prejudice to the Member State’s right to re-implement it, subsequently.
V okviru svojega nacionalnega prava lahko poleg tega, če je to predvideno, naloži vračilo nezakonite pomoči kljub pravici države članice, da pomoč kasneje ponovno izvaja.
It may also be required to uphold claims for compensation for damage caused by reason of the unlawful nature of the aid (see, to that effect, SFEI and Others, paragraph 75, and Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich and Others, paragraph 56).
Prav tako lahko ugodi od�kodninskim zahtevkom za �kodo, ki je nastala zaradi nezakonitosti pomoči (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi SFEI in drugi, točka 75, ter Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich in drugi, točka 56).
As regards the aid itself, it must be added that a measure which consisted only in an obligation of recovery without interest would not be appropriate, as a rule, to remedy the consequences of the unlawfulness if the Member State were to re-implement that aid after the Commission’s final positive decision.
V zvezi s pomočjo je treba dodati, da ukrep, ki bi nalagal le obveznost vračila brez obresti, ne bi bil primeren za odpravo učinkov nezakonitosti, če bi država članica to pomoč ponovno izvajala po dokončni pozitivni odločitvi Komisije.
Since the period between the recovery and the reimplementation would be shorter than that between the initial implementation and the final decision, the aid recipient, would bear, if it had to borrow the amount repaid, less interest than it would have paid if, from the outset, it had to borrow the equivalent of the unlawfully granted aid.
Ker bi bilo namreč obdobje med vračilom in ponovnim izvajanjem kraj�e od obdobja med prvim izvajanjem in dokončno odločitvijo, bi prejemnik pomoči, če bi si moral izposoditi vrnjeni znesek, moral plačati obresti, ki bi bile nižje od tistih, ki bi jih plačal, če bi si že na začetku moral izposoditi znesek, enak nezakonito dodeljeni pomoči.
The reply to the first question referred must therefore be that the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is to be interpreted as meaning that the national court is not bound
Na prvo postavljeno vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti, da je treba člen 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES razlagati tako, da nacionalno sodi�če ni dolžno naložiti vračila pomoči, ki
2008 — CASE C-199/06 to order the recovery of aid implemented contrary to that provision, where the Commission has adopted a final decision declaring that aid to be compatible with the common market, within the meaning of Article 87 EC.
2008 – ZADEVA C-199/06 je bila izvajana v nasprotju s to določbo, če je Komisija sprejela dokončno odločitev, da je navedena pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom glede na člen 87 ES.
The second question
Drugo vprašanje
By its second question, the referring court is asking, in essence, whether, in a procedural situation such as that in the main proceedings, the obligation, arising from the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, to remedy the consequences of the aid’s unlawfulness extends also, for the purposes of calculating the sums to be paid by the recipient, to the period between a Commission decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the common market and the annulment of that decision by the Community court.
Z drugim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali v postopku, kot je ta iz spora o glavni stvari, obveznost iz člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES, da se odpravi učinke nezakonitosti pomoči, zajema pri izračunu zneskov, ki jih mora plačati prejemnik, tudi obdobje od sprejetja odločbe Komisije, s katero je bila ugotovljena združljivost te pomoči s skupnim trgom, do razglasitve ničnosti navedene odločbe s strani sodi�ča Skupnosti.
That question concerns either any aid implemented between the two dates in question, as well as interest, if the consequence of the aid’s unlawfulness under national law, even in the event of it being declared compatible with the common market, is the recovery of that aid, or the interest alone on the aid received during the same period, if the recovery of compatible unlawful aid is not required by the national law.
To vpra�anje se nana�a ali na pomoči, ki so bile morda izvajane med tema datumoma, ter na obresti, če je posledica nezakonitosti pomoči, ki izhaja iz nacionalnega prava, tudi kadar se ugotovi, da je združljiva s skupnim trgom, vračilo navedene pomoči, ali samo na obresti za pomoči, prejete v istem obdobju, če vračilo nezakonite pomoči, združljive s skupnim trgom, ni predvideno z nacionalnim pravom.
As the main proceedings stand, two periods are involved, running between the decisions adopted by the Commission on 18 May 1993 and 10 June 1998 and, respectively, the judgments of the Court of First Instance which annulled them on 18 September 1995 and 28 February 2002 (see paragraphs 11 to 21 of the present judgment).
V sporu o glavni stvari gre za dve obdobji, in sicer od sprejetja odločb Komisije z dne 18. maja 1993 in 10. junija 1998 do sprejetja sodb Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 18. septembra 1995 in 28. februarja 2002, s katerima sta bili odločbi razgla�eni za nični (glej točki 11 in 21 te sodbe).
The question referred juxtaposes, on the one hand, the principle that acts of the Community institutions are presumed to be lawful and, on the other, the rule laid down by the first paragraph of Article 231 EC.
Postavljeno vpra�anje izpostavlja načelo domneve zakonitosti aktov institucij Skupnosti in pravilo, določeno v členu 231(1) ES.
The principle that acts of the Community institutions are presumed to be lawful means that they produce legal effects until such time as they are withdrawn, annulled in an action for annulment or declared invalid following a reference for a preliminary ruling or a plea of illegality (Case C-475/01 Commission v Greece [2004] ECR I-8923, paragraph 18, and the caselaw cited).
Domneva zakonitosti aktov institucij Skupnosti pomeni, da imajo ti pravne učinke toliko časa, dokler niso umaknjeni, razgla�eni za nične v okviru ničnostne tožbe ali razveljavljeni v okviru postopka za sprejetje prehodne odločbe ali ugovora nezakoni -tosti (sodba z dne 5. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji C-475/01, ZOdl., str. I-8923, točka 18, in navedena sodna praksa).
Under the first paragraph of Article 231 EC when an action for annulment is wellfounded, the Community court must declare the contested act void.
Na podlagi člena 231(1) ES razglasi Sodi�če, če je tožba utemeljena, zadevni akt za ničen.
It follows that the Community court’s decision of annulment leads to the disappearance retroactively of the contested act with regard to all persons (Joined Cases C-442/03 P and C-471/03 P P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission [2006] ECR I-4845, paragraph 43). 62
Iz tega izhaja, da odločba sodi�ča Skupnosti o razglasitvi ničnosti povzroči retroaktivno odpravo sporne odločbe glede vseh zadevnih oseb (sodba z dne 1. junija 2006 v združenih zadevah P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) in Diputación Foral de Vizcaya proti Komisiji, C-442/03 P in C-471/03 P, ZOdl., I-4845, točka 43). 62
In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the presumption of lawfulness and the rule that annulment is retroactive apply in turn.
V okoli�činah, kot so te iz spora o glavni stvari, se domneva zakonitosti in pravilo o retroaktivnosti ničnosti uporabita zaporedno.
Aid implemented after the Commission’s positive decision is presumed lawful until the Community court decides to annul that decision.
Za pomoči, izvajane po pozitivni odločitvi Komisije, se domneva, da so zakonite do odločbe sodi�ča Skupnosti o razglasitvi ničnosti.
Subsequently, on the latter decision, the aid in question is deemed, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 231 EC, not to have been declared compatible by the annulled decision, with the result that its implementation must be regarded as unlawful.
Potem pa z dnem te odločbe za zadevne pomoči v skladu s členom 231(1) ES velja, da z nično odločbo niso bile razgla�ene za združljive s skupnim trgom, tako da je treba njihovo izvajanje obravnavati kot nezakonito.
It is thus apparent that, in that case, the rule arising from the first paragraph of Article 231 EC puts a stop, retroactively, to the application of the presumption of lawfulness.
Tako se v tem primeru zdi, da se s pravilom iz člena 231(1) ES retroaktivno prekine uporaba domneve zakonitosti.
After the annulment of a positive decision of the Commission, a recipient of unlawfully implemented aid is not precluded from relying on exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it had legitimately assumed the aid to be lawful and thus from declining to refund that aid (see, by analogy, Commission v Germany, cited above, paragraph 16, as regards a final negative decision of the Commission).
Po razglasitvi ničnosti pozitivne odločitve Komisije se ne more izključiti možnosti, da se prejemnik nezakonito izvajane pomoči sklicuje na izjemne okoli�čine, na podlagi katerih je lahko legitimno utemeljil svoje zaupanje v zakonitost te pomoči, in tako nasprotuje njenemu vračilu (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Nemčiji, točka 16, glede negativne dokončne odločitve Komisije).
However, the Court has already held, in respect of circumstances where the Commission had initially decided not to raise any objections to the aid in issue, that such fact could not be regarded as capable of having caused the recipient undertaking to entertain any legitimate expectation since that decision had been challenged in due time before the Court, which annulled it (Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-135, paragraph 53).
Vendar je Sodi�če glede primera, v katerem je Komisija najprej odločila, da ne bo nasprotovala spornim pomočem, že presodilo, da taka okoli�čina ni mogla utemeljiti legitimnega zaupanja podjetja, ki je prejemalo pomoč, ker je bila ta odločba izpodbijana v rokih za tožbo in jo je Sodi�če kasneje razglasilo za nično (sodba z dne 14. januarja 1997 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji, C-169/95, Recueil, str. I-135, točka 53).
The Court has also held that, so long as the Commission has not taken a decision approving aid, and so long as the period for bringing an action against such a decision has not expired, the recipient cannot be sure as to the lawfulness of the proposed aid which alone is capable of giving rise to a legitimate expectation on his part (Case C-91/01 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-4355, paragraph 66).
Sodi�če je prav tako presodilo, da dokler Komisija ne sprejme odločbe o odobritvi pomoči in dokler rok za vložitev tožbe zoper odločbo ni potekel, prejemnik ne more biti prepričan o zakonitosti načrtovane pomoči, ki lahko edina utemelji njegovo legitimno zaupanje (glej sodbo z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji, C-91/01, Recueil, str. I-4355, točka 66).
It must be held, likewise, that where an action for annulment has been brought, the recipient is not entitled to harbour such assurance so long as the Community court has not delivered a definitive ruling.
Ugotoviti je treba, da tudi ob vložitvi ničnostne tožbe prejemnik o navedenem ne more biti prepričan, in sicer dokler se sodi�če Skupnosti o tem dokončno ne izreče.
The reply to the second question referred must therefore be that in a procedural situation such as that in the main proceedings, the obligation, arising from the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, to remedy the consequences of the aid’s unlawfulness extends also, for the purposes of calculating the sums to be paid by the recipient, and save for exceptional circumstances, to the period between a Commission decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the common market and the annulment of that decision by the Community court.
Na drugo vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti, da v postopku, kot je ta iz spora o glavni stvari, obveznost iz člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES, da se odpravi učinke nezakonitosti pomoči, zajema pri izračunu zneskov, ki jih mora plačati prejemnik, razen v izjemnih okoli�činah, tudi obdobje od sprejetja odločbe Komisije, s katero je bila ugotovljena združljivost te pomoči s skupnim trgom, do razglasitve ničnosti navedene odločbe s strani sodi�ča Skupnosti.
The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is to be interpreted as meaning that the national court is not bound to order the recovery of aid implemented contrary to that provision, where the Commission has adopted a final decision declaring that aid to be compatible with the common market, within
Člen 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES je treba razlagati tako, da nacionalno sodišče ni dolžno naložiti vračila pomoči, ki je bila izvajana v nasprotju s to določbo, če je Komisija sprejela dokončno odločitev, da je navedena pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom glede na člen 87 ES. V skladu s pravom Skupnosti
Applying Community law, the national court must order the aid recipient to pay interest in respect of the period of unlawfulness.
2008 – ZADEVA C-199/06 mora prejemniku pomoči naložiti plačilo obresti za obdobje nezakonitosti.
In a procedural situation such as that in the main proceedings, the obligation, arising from the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, to remedy the consequences of the aid’s unlawfulness extends also, for the purposes of calculating the sums to be paid by the recipient, and save for exceptional circumstances, to the period between a decision of the Commission of the European Communities declaring the aid to be compatible with the common market and the annulment of that decision by the Community court.
V postopku, kot je ta iz spora v glavni stvari, obveznost iz člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES, da se odpravi učinke nezakonitosti pomoči, zajema pri izračunu zneskov, ki jih mora plačati prejemnik, razen v izjemnih okoliščinah, tudi obdobje od sprejetja odločbe Komisije, s katero je bila ugotovljena združljivost te pomoči s skupnim trgom, do razglasitve ničnosti navedene odločbe s strani sodišča Skupnosti.
Case C-244/06
Zadeva C-244/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Landgericht Koblenz)
(Free movement of goods — Article 28 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Directive 2000/31/EC — National rules prohibiting the sale by mail order of image storage media which have not been examined and classified by the competent authority for the purpose of protecting children and which do not bear a label from that authority indicating the age from which they may be viewed — Image storage media imported from another Member State which have been examined and classified by the competent authority of that State and bear an age-limit label — Justification — Child protection — Principle of proportionality)
„Prosti pretok blaga – Člen 28 ES – Ukrepi z enakim učinkom – Direktiva 2000/31/ES – Nacionalna zakonodaja, ki prepoveduje prodajo po po�ti tistih nosilcev slike, ki jih pristojni organ ni preizkusil in razvrstil za varstvo mladoletnikov in niso opremljeni z oznako tega organa, iz katere bi bila razvidna starost, od katere si je te nosilce slike dovoljeno ogledati – Nosilci slike, uvoženi iz druge države članice, ki so bili predmet preizkusa in razvrstitve pristojnega organa te države ter so opremljeni z oznako starostne omejitve – Utemeljitev – Varstvo otrok – Načelo sorazmernosti“
Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect(Art. 28 EC)
Prosti pretok blaga – Količinske omejitve – Ukrepi z enakim učinkom(člen 28 ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-244/06 the objective of protecting children pursued by the Member State concerned, as will be the case where the rules do not preclude all forms of marketing of unchecked image storage media and where it is permissible to import and sell such image storage media to adults, while ensuring that children do not have access to them.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-244/06 ki si ga je zastavila zadevna država članica. Tako je takrat, ko ta zakonodaja ne nasprotuje vsem oblikam prodaje nosilcev slike, ki niso bili preizku�eni, in ko je dovoljen uvoz in prodaja teh nosilcev slike odraslim ter je poskrbljeno za to, da otroci nimajo dostopa do njih.
It could be otherwise only if it appears that the procedure for examining, classifying and labelling image storage media established by those rules is not easily accessible or cannot be completed within a reasonable period or that the decision of refusal cannot be open to challenge before the courts.
Drugače je lahko samo takrat, ko se izkaže, da postopek za preizkus, razvrstitev in označevanje nosilcev slike, ki ga določa ta zakonodaja, ni lahko dostopen ali da ne omogoča, da se ga izvede v razumnih rokih, ali da zoper zavrnilno odločbo ni mogoče zahtevati sodnega varstva.
National rules which prohibit the sale and transfer by mail order of image storage media which have not been examined and classified by a competent national authority or by a national voluntary self-regulatory body for the purposes of protecting young persons and which do not bear a label from that authority or body indicating the age from which they may be viewed, does not constitute a selling arrangement which is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially intra-Community trade, but a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions within the meaning of Article 28 EC and is, in principle, incompatible with the obligations arising from that provision.
Zakonodaja, ki prepoveduje prodajo in prenos po po�ti tistih nosilcev slike, ki jih pristojni organ ni preizkusil in razvrstil z namenom varstva mladoletnikov in ki niso opremljeni z oznako tega organa, iz katere bi bila razvidna starost, od katere si je te nosilce slike dovoljeno ogledati, ne pomeni načina prodaje, ki bi lahko neposredno ali posredno, dejansko ali potencialno omejevala trgovino med državami članicami, ampak ukrep z enakim učinkom, kot ga imajo količinske omejitve v smislu člena 28 ES, ki je načeloma nezdružljiv z obveznostmi, ki iz njega izhajajo.