natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The first plea is made up of three limbs alleging different errors of law committed by the Court of First Instance: first, with respect to the scope and applicability of Articles 4(c) CS and 67 CS; secondly, with respect to the extent of the Commission powers under Article 95 CS; and thirdly, with respect
Prvi pritožbeni razlog je sestavljen iz treh delov, ki izhajajo iz dejstva, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v več primerih napačno uporabilo pravo, prvič, glede obsega in uporabe členov 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ, drugič, glede obsega pristojnosti Komisije, določenih s členom 95 PJ, in, tretjič, glede predstavitve njene prakse odločanja.
In support of its line of argument, Salzgitter refers to the caselaw of the Court to the effect that aid not specific to the coal and steel sector does not fall within the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
Družba Salzgitter se v podporo trditvi sklicuje na sodno prakso Sodi�ča, na podlagi katere naj pomoči, ki niso posebne za sektor premoga in jekla, ne bi sodile na področje uporabe člena 4(c) PJ.
It refers in particular to the judgment in Compagnie des hauts fourneaux et fonderies de Givors and Others v High Authority, 27Steenkolenmijnen v High Authority, Case 59/70 Netherlands v Commission, and, finally, the judgment in Banks.
Navaja namreč sodbe z dne 10. maja 1960 v združenih zadevah Compagnie des hauts fourneaux et fonderies de Givors in drugi proti Visoki oblasti 27, zgoraj navedeni sodbi De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg proti Visoki oblasti ter Nizozemska proti Komisiji in nazadnje sodbo z dne 20. septembra 2001 v zadevi Banks 28.
28Salzgitter also contests the Commission’s argument to the effect that the judgment in Joined Cases 6/69 and 11/69 29establishes that aid not specific to steel undertakings was already
Družba Salzgitter prav tako izpodbija trditev Komisije, da naj bi bilo v sodbi z dne 10. decembra 1969 v združenih zadevah Komisija proti Franciji 29ugotovljeno, da so bile
25 — The fourth indent of the second paragraph of Article 5 CS provides that ‘[the Community shall] publish the reasons for its actions and take the necessary measures to ensure the observance of the rules laid down in [the ECSC Treaty]’, and the first paragraph of Article 15 CS provides that ‘[d]ecisions, recommendations and opinions of the Commission shall state the reasons on which they are based’.
25 – Člen 5, drugi odstavek, četrta alinea, PJ določa, da „[Skupnost] objavi razloge za njena ravnanja in sprejme potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev spo�tovanja pravil, določenih s [Pogodbo ESPJ]“, in člen 15, prvi odstavek, PJ natančno določa, da „se odločbe, priporočila in mnenja [Komisije] obrazložijo“.
In the light of those various factors, the Federal Republic of Germany therefore submits that the understanding of the law on which the Commission has proceeded since the Third Code is incorrect and that the provisions of that code are incompatible with Articles 4(c) CS and 67 CS.
Zvezna republika Nemčija glede na te različne elemente torej zatrjuje, da je pravni koncept, ki ga zagovarja Komisija od tretjih pravil, napačen in da so določbe navedenih pravil nezdružljive s členoma 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ.
The Federal Republic of Germany supports Salzgitter’s analysis by reference, first, to the scheme of the ECSC Treaty.
Zvezna republika Nemčija podpira preučitev, ki jo je naredila družba Salzgitter, s sklicevanjem, prvič, na sistematiko Pogodbe ESPJ.
It submits that the charges and subsidies which specifically concern coal and steel were supposed to be strictly prohibited by Article 4(c) CS, whereas Article 67 CS was intended to apply to general State measures.
Meni, da so stro�ki in subvencije, ki se nana�ajo posebno na premog in jeklo, �teli za strogo prepovedane s členom 4(c) PJ, medtem ko je bil člen 67 PJ namenjen splo�nim državnim ukrepom.
Extending the scope of Article 4(c) CS to aid which is not specific to the coal and steel sector would not only breach the principle of partial integration on which the ECSC Treaty is based, but also divest Article 67 CS of any effectiveness.
Raz�iritev področja uporabe člena 4(c) PJ na pomoči, ki se ne nana�ajo posebno na sektor premoga in jekla, naj ne bi kr�ila le načela delne integracije, na katerem temelji Pogodba ESPJ, ampak naj bi tudi odvzelo bistvo polnega učinka členu 67 PJ.
The Commission submits, in essence, that Article 67 CS does not apply to State aid.
Komisija v bistvu navaja, da člen 67 PJ ne velja za državne pomoči.
It argues that that provision covers only general measures which the Member States may adopt as part of their economic and social policy or sectoral measures which do not relate specifically to the coal or steel industry.
Ta določba naj bi veljala samo za splo�ne ukrepe, ki jih države članice lahko sprejmejo v okviru svoje gospodarske in socialne politike, ali sektorske ukrepe, ki ne sodijo posebej v industrijo jekla ali premoga.
Article 4(c) CS applies to aid which is not specific to the common market for coal and steel.
Člen 4(c) PJ naj bi se po njenem mnenju uporabil za pomoči, ki niso posebne za skupni trg za premog in jeklo.
The Federal Republic of Germany relies, secondly, on the scope of the two treaties, EC and ECSC.
Zvezna republika Nemčija se sklicuje, drugič, na področje uporabe pogodb – ESPJ in ES.
Whereas the aid controls laid down in the EC Treaty thus relate to general aid measures, as is apparent from Article 87(3)(a) to (e) EC, the ECSC Treaty provides controls only in respect of aid to the coal and steel sector.
Čeprav naj bi se nadzor pomoči, določenih s Pogodbo ES, nana�al na, kot izhaja iz člena 87(3) od (a) do (e), ES splo�ne ukrepe pomoči, naj bi Pogodba ESPJ uredila samo nadzor pomoči, namenjenih sektorju premoga in jekla.
Consequently, to accept that Article 4(c) CS applies to general schemes of aid would effectively restrict the scope of the EC Treaty and the powers of exemption conferred on the Commission by Article 87 EC.
Tako naj bi dopustitev uporabe člena 4(c) PJ za splo�ne sisteme pomoči povzročila omejitev področja uporabe Pogodbe ES ter izjemnih pristojnosti, ki so Komisiji dodeljene s členom 87 ES.
The Court is asked whether the measures at issue did indeed fall within the scope of that provision.
Sodi�če je vpra�ano, ali zadevne pomoči sodijo na področje uporabe navedene določbe.
CS respectively.
izreče o obsegu in uporabi členov 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ.
As I have already stated, the Court is asked whether Article 4(c) CS is applicable to aid granted to a steel undertaking where that aid forms part of a general scheme of aid which has previously been approved by the Commission on the basis of the EC Treaty, or whether the implementation of that aid falls within the scope of Article 67 CS.
Kot sem že navedel, je Sodi�ču postavljeno vpra�anje, ali se člen 4(c) PJ uporabi za pomoč, ki je dodeljena jeklarski družbi, če ta sodi v okvir splo�nega sistema pomoči, ki ga je predhodno potrdila Komisija na podlagi Pogodbe ES, oziroma ali za izvajanje tega ukrepa velja člen 67 PJ.
In these proceedings, two views have been put forward.
V okviru tega postopka sta bili zagovarjani dve mnenji.
The first, the Commission’s, favours a literal interpretation of Article 4(c) CS.
Prvo, ki je mnenje Komisije, navaja dobesedno razlago člena 4(c) PJ.
That provision, it submits, covers all aid which coal or steel undertakings might receive.
Ta določba naj bi veljala za vse pomoči, ki bi jih lahko prejele jeklarske ali premogovni�ke družbe.
In this case, the general scheme of aid adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany under the ZRFG was authorised by the Commission in 1971 on the basis of Art -icles 87 and 88 EC.
Opozarjam, da je v tej zadevi Komisija leta 1971 na podlagi členov 87 ES in 88 ES potrdila splo�ni sistem pomoči, ki ga je na podlagi ZRFG sprejela Zvezna republika Nemčija.
As the facts set out by the Court of First Instance show, the last amendments to that law were approved by the Commission as State aid compatible with the EC Treaty.
Kot izhaja iz dejstev, ki jih je predstavilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, je Komisija zadnje spremembe tega zakona potrdila kot državne pomoči, ki so združljive s Pogodbo ES.
The Federal Republic of Germany granted aid to Salzgitter pursuant to that general scheme of aid.
Zvezna republika Nemčija je prav na podlagi tega splo�nega sistema dodelila pomoč družbi Salzgitter.
It should be recalled that Salzgitter falls within the scope of the ECSC Treaty.
Opozarjam, da ta družba sodi na področje uporabe Pogodbe ESPJ.
In the contested decision, the Commission took the view that that aid, which was disbursed between 1986 and 1995, 30 was incompatible with the common
Komisija je v sporni odločbi menila, da so bile te pomoči, ki so bile izplačane med letoma 1986 in 1995 30, v smislu člena 4(c)
30 — 1986 is the date from which the Third Steel Aid Code lays down an obligation to notify aid granted to steel undertakings.
30 – Treba je �teti, da tretja pravila od leta 1986 določajo obveznost priglasitve pomoči, ki so bile odobrene jeklarskim družbam.
1995 is when the ZRFG came to an end.
ZRFG je prenehal veljati leta 1995.
The second view, that of Salzgitter and the Federal Republic of Germany, is based on a restrictive interpretation of the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
Drugo mnenje, ki ga zagovarjata družba Salzgitter in Zvezna republika Nemčija, ohrani ozko razlago obsega člena 4(c) PJ.
In their submission, that provision applies only to specific aid to undertakings in the coal and steel sector, that is to say aid which those undertakings receive especially or principally because of their steel or coal business.
Ta naj bi se uporabil samo za posebne pomoči družbam iz sektorja premoga in jekla, namreč za pomoči, ki so jih te družbe prejele posebno oziroma zlasti zaradi njihove jeklarske ali premogovni�ke dejavnosti.
That provision does not, however, apply to aid granted to the coal or steel industry on the basis of general or regional aid schemes.
Nasprotno, ta določba naj se ne bi uporabljala za pomoči, ki so bile odobrene jeklarski oziroma premogovni�ki industriji na podlagi splo�nih ali regionalnih sistemov pomoči.
The compatibility of aid of this kind is none the less examined on the basis of Article 67 CS read in conjunction with Articles 87 and 88 EC.
Združljivost teh naj bi se kljub temu preizkusila na podlagi člena 67 PJ, v povezavi s členoma 87 ES in 88 ES.
Contrary to the submissions of Salzgitter and the Federal Republic of Germany, I consider that the examination of the aid at issue does fall within the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
V nasprotju s tem, kar zatrjujeta družba Salzgitter in Zvezna republika Nemčija, menim, da preizkus zadevnih ukrepov sodi na področje uporabe člena 4(c) PJ.
provisions is to be used to examine the compatibility of aid such as that at issue in this case.
se obravnava v tem sporu, preizkusiti glede na prvo ali drugo od teh določb.
Their interpretation is made all the more difficult by the fact that, for the purposes of the ECSC Treaty, there are no preparatory papers or documents common to all the signatories which can be relied on as a source of interpretation.
Njihova razlaga je �e toliko težavnej�a, ker v okviru Pogodbe ESPJ ni priprav niti skupnih dokumentov vseh podpisnikov, ki bi imeli razlagalno vrednost 31.
31Reference must therefore be had to the scheme and objectives pursued by that treaty.
Sklicevati se je torej treba na besedilo in cilje te pogodbe.
Before setting out the reasons for this view, I shall first of all describe the issues involved in order to ensure a good understanding of the scheme of the ECSC Treaty.
Da bi bolje razumeli sistematiko Pogodbe ESPJ, bom pred predstavitvijo pritožbenih razlogov, ki vodijo k obrambi te teze, opisal bistvo vpra�anja.
In so doing, I shall begin by examining the scope and applicability of Articles 4 CS and 67 CS respectively.
V okviru te �tudije bom najprej preučil obseg in uporabo čle -nov 4 PJ in 67 PJ.
I shall then present the views taken by the Advocates General with regard to the scope of each of those two provisions.
Nato bom predstavili mnenja generalnih pravobranilcev glede področja uporabe vsake od teh dveh določb.
Finally, I shall outline the scheme for controlling State aid established by the Commission under the ECSC Treaty.
Nazadnje bom natančno opredelil obrise sistema nadzora državnih pomoči, ki ga je vzpostavila Komisija v okviru Pogodbe ESPJ.
The most important point to bear in mind is that the ECSC Treaty achieved only partial economic integration, by creating a common market which was confined to the coal and steel sector.
Predvsem je treba opozoriti, da je Pogodba ESPJ z vzpostavitvijo skupnega trga, ki je omejen na sektor premoga in jekla, uresničila le delno gospodarsko integracijo.
Secondly, and in the light of the emerging findings, I shall explain why I consider that the assessment of the aid at issue did indeed fall within the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
Drugič, na podlagi elementov, ki jih bom navedel, bom pojasnil, zakaj menim, da je bilo za presojo zadevnih pomoči treba uporabiti prav člen 4(c) PJ.
Under that treaty, the Member States relinquished their powers in relation to the establishment and operation of the common market for coal and steel.
Države članice so se v okviru te pogodbe odrekle svojim pristojnostim v zvezi z ustanovitvijo in delovanjem skupnega trga za premog in jeklo.
However, they retained responsibility for their general economic policy, as Article 26 CS states. 32
Vendar so ohranile odgovornost za svoje splo�ne gospodarske politike, kot to določa člen 26 PJ 32.
(i) The issues involved
– Pravila, določena s Pogodbo ESPJ
See also the report of the French delegation on the Treaty and Convention signed in Paris on 18 April 1951, ‘Action des États et conditions de le concurrence’, Section III, P. Reuter, op.cit., pp. 111 to 116.
Glej tudi Poročilo francoske delegacije o Pogodbi in Konvenciji, podpisane v Parizu 18. aprila 1951, „Ukrepi držav in pogoji konkurence“, oddelek III, Reuter, P., op. cit., str. od 111 do 116.
32 — The first paragraph of Article 26 CS provides that ‘[t]he Council shall exercise its powers in the cases provided for and in the manner set out in this Treaty, in particular in order to harmonise the action of the Commission and that of the governments, which are responsible for the general economic policies of their countries.’
32 – Člen 26, prvi odstavek, PJ določa, da „[…] Svet izvaja svoje pristojnosti v določenih primerih in na način, določen v […] Pogodbi, z namenom uskladiti ravnanje [Komisije] in ravnanje vlad, ki so odgovorne za splo�no gospodarsko politiko svojih držav“.
See in this regard the judgment in Joined Cases 7/54 and 9/54 Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v High Authority [1954 to 1956] ECR 175, at 198.
V zvezi s tem glej sodbo z dne 23. aprila 1956 v združenih zadevah Groupement des industries sidérurgiques luxembourgeoises proti Visoki oblasti (7/54 in 9/54, Recueil, str. 53, 96).
The wording of Articles 4 CS and 67 CS does not make it clear which of those
Iz členov 4 PJ in 67 PJ ni povsem jasno, ali je treba združljivost pomoči, kot je ta, ki
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER market for coal and steel, and accordingly, are to be abolished and prohibited within the Community, as provided in the ECSC Treaty: ‘subsidies or aids granted by States, or special charges imposed by States, in any form whatsoever’.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER jih države dodelijo ali naložijo v katerikoli obliki“ in so zato prepovedane pod pogoji, določenimi v Pogodbi ESPJ.
Competition in the coal and steel market may therefore be affected in two ways.
Konkurenco na jeklarskem in premogovni�kem trgu je torej mogoče ogroziti na dva načina.
It may suffer from national measures aimed specifically and exclusively at the coal and steel industries, such as subsidies or State aid granted to undertakings.
Otežujejo jo lahko nacionalni ukrepi, ki se nana�ajo posebno in izključno na industrijo premoga in jekla, kot subvencije ali državne pomoči, dodeljene družbam.
It may also suffer from the distortions created by the disparity between general policy measures adopted by the Member States under their residual powers.
Prav tako je lahko otežena z izkrivljanjem, ki izhaja iz neenakosti med ukrepi splo�ne politike, ki jih sprejmejo države članice v okviru sprejetih pristojnosti.
Article 4(c) CS is formulated very strictly.
Člen 4(c) PJ je strogo opredeljen.
The Court long ago pointed out its ‘unusually wide meaning’ 33and recognised its immediate applicability.
Sodi�če je zelo kmalu poudarilo njegov „�irok pomen“ 33in potrdilo njegovo takoj�njo uporabo 34. Ta člen se nana�a na nepo-
The ECSC Treaty therefore laid down two distinct forms of action to counter distortions of competition: Article 4(c) CS and Article 67 CS.
S Pogodbo ESPJ sta bili torej določeni dve različni obliki ukrepov zoper ta izkrivljanja konkurence: člen 4(c) PJ in člen 67 PJ.
direct interference by the Member States with the functioning of the common market for coal and steel and establishes a straightforward prohibition, infringement of which puts the offending Member State automatically in breach of the ECSC Treaty.
sredne intervencije držav članic v delovanje skupnega trga za premog in jeklo in določa jasno in enostavno prepoved, katere kr�itev postavi državo članico, ki jo kr�i, v položaj kr�iteljice Pogodbe ESPJ.
Article 4(c) CS
Člen 4(c) PJ
Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty prohibits, in principle, State aid within the European Coal and Steel Community to the extent to which it is liable to undermine attainment of one of the essential objectives of the Community, namely the establishment of conditions of free competition.
S členom 4(c) PJ so načelno prepovedane državne pomoči znotraj skupnega trga za premog in jeklo, če bi lahko ogrozile uresničitev enega od njegovih glavnih ciljev, namreč vzpostavitev sistema svobodne konkurence.
That provision prohibits all aid without restriction, with the result that aid is deemed to be incompatible with the common market without there being any necessity, as in the case of Article 87(1) EC, to establish whether it has an effect on trade between Member States or whether it distorts or threatens to distort competition. 35
S temi določbami so popolnoma prepovedane vse pomoči, tako da veljajo za nezdružljive s skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo, ne da bi bilo treba dokazati, drugače kot pri členu 87(1) ES, ali prizadenejo trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivljajo ali bi lahko izkrivljale konkurenco 35.
35 — Case C-501/00 Spain v Commission [2004] ECR I-6717, paragraph 129 and the caselaw cited there.
35 – Sodba z dne 15. julija 2004 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji (C-501/00, ZOdl., str. I-6717, točka 129 in navedena sodna praksa).
Under that provision, the following are recognised as incompatible with the common
V smislu te določbe se kot nezdružljive s skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo odpravijo in prepovedo „subvencije ali pomoči ali kakr�na koli vrsta posebnih dajatev, ki
Moreover, as is clear from its wording, Article 4(c) CS does not draw any distinction between individual aid and aid schemes or between specific and non-specific aid schemes in the coal and steel industry.
Poleg tega člen 4(c) PJ ne razlikuje niti med posamičnimi pomočmi in sistemi pomoči niti med sistemi posebnih ali neposebnih pomoči sektorju premoga in jekla.
That provision requires a Member State which adopts a measure which is liable to have appreciable repercussions on conditions of competition in the coal or the steel industry to bring that measure to the knowledge of the Commission.
Navedena določba zavezuje državo članico, ki sprejme ukrep, ki bi lahko pomembno vplival na pogoje konkurence v industriji premoga in jekla, da o njem obvesti Komisijo.
If that action leads to harmful effects on the coal or steel undertakings which are active on the market of that State or another Member State, the Commission may, after the Consultative Committee and the Council have been consulted, either authorise the granting of aid to those undertakings, the amount, conditions and duration of which are to be determined in agreement with the Commission, or make a recommendation to that State with a view to remedying the damaging effects of its action by such measures as that State may consider most compatible with its own economic equilibrium.
Če ima ta ukrep �kodljive posledice za podjetja iz sektorja premoga in jekla v pristojnosti te države ali druge države članice, ji lahko Komisija po posvetovanju s Svetovalnim odborom in Svetom bodisi dovoli odobritev pomoči tem družbam, katere vi�ina, pogoji in trajanje se določijo v dogovoru z njo, bodisi naslovi na navedeno državo priporočilo za njihovo odpravo z ukrepi, za katere meni, da so najbolj združljivi z njenim gospodarskim ravnovesjem.
However, as we shall see, the prohibition it lays down does not mean that any State aid granted within the common market for coal and steel is regarded as being incompatible with the objectives of the ECSC Treaty.
Vendar, kot bomo videli, prepoved, ki jo določa ta določba, ne označuje prav vsake državne pomoči, ki je odobrena znotraj skupnega trga za premog in jeklo, čeprav �teje za nezdružljivo s cilji Pogodbe ESPJ.
In the scheme of the Treaty, Article 4(c) CS does not preclude the Commission, by way of derogation, from authorising on the basis of the first and second paragraphs of Article 95 CS, State aid which would make it possible to deal with unforeseen situations in accordance with the objectives of the ECSC Treaty.
V njenem besedilu dejansko člen 4(c) PJ ne nasprotuje temu, da bi Komisija ob uporabi člena 95, prvi in drugi odstavek, PJ izjemoma odobrila pomoči, ki bi v skladu s cilji Pogodbe ESPJ omogočile re�iti nepredvidene situacije.
The Court was very quick to interpret that provision restrictively.
Sodi�če je zelo zgodaj dalo ozko razlago te določbe.
It held that Article 67 CS is a corrective to the partial nature of the integration effected by the ECSC Treaty.
Menilo je, da je člen 67 PJ delni popravek integracije, uresničene s Pogodbo ESPJ.
Article 67 CS
Člen 67 PJ
Thus, in its judgment in Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises, the Court held that Article 67 CS is a ‘compensatory measure’ which allows [the Commission] to ‘cancel out the effects of interference with competition which the provisions of the treaty have not eliminated and thus to prevent that interference … from jeopardising, because it continues after the establishment of the common market, the task with which the Community was entrusted in
Tako je Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Groupement des industries sidérurgiques luxembourgeoises proti Visoki oblasti presodilo, da je člen 67 PJ „kompenzacijski ukrep“, ki omogoča „razveljavitev �kodljivih učinkov na konkurenco, ki jih določbe Pogodbe [naj ne bi] ukinile, in s tem preprečiti, da ti vplivi […], zaradi dejstva, da [naj bi ] preživeli vzpostavitev skupnega trga, ne bi ogrozili naloge,
The purpose of Article 67 CS is to establish policy coordination between the Member States.
Cilj člena 67 PJ je vzpostaviti usklajeno politično delovanje med državami članicami.
It is aimed at mitigating the distortions of competition which result from the disparity between national policy measures adopted by the Member States under their residual powers and which might adversely affect the Community coal and steel market.
Namen tega je ublažiti izkrivljanja konkurence, ki izhajajo iz neenakosti med ukrepi nacionalne politike, ki so jih sprejele države članice v okviru svojih pridržanih pristojnosti in zaradi katerih bi lahko bil ogrožen jeklarski in premogovni�ki trg Skupnosti.
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER ki jo je člen 2 Pogodbe dodelil Skupnosti‚ v skladu s splo�no ekonomijo držav članic“ 36.
The first relates to the effectiveness of the provisions of the ECSC Treaty.
Prvi je povezan s polnim učinkom določb Pogodbe ESPJ.