natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Contrary to that analysis, the Court of First Instance, in the contested order, took the view that the nonactionable nature of that closure of the file cannot deprive citizens of access to Community justice, since the complainant may provide additional information to support his complaint.
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa je v izpodbijanem sklepu v nasprotju s to analizo presodilo, da neizpodbojnost te ustavitve postopka ne more upravičencem onemogočiti dostopa do sodi�č Skupnosti, če lahko pritožnik predloži dodatne podatke za utemeljitev pritožbe.
It explained that, in the event that that information was sufficient, the Commission would then be required to define its position on the State measure in question by adopting a decision within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, thus affording the complainant the possibility of bringing an action for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je navedlo, da bi morala Komisija, če bi bili ti podatki zadovoljivi, sprejeti stali�če o zadevnem državnem ukrepu s sprejetjem ene od odločb iz člena 4 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 in tako pritožniku omogočiti, da vloži ničnostno tožbo na podlagi člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES.
In addition, the Court of First Instance stated that the complainant is also able to bring an action for failure to act under the third paragraph of Article 232 EC. 43
Sodi�če prve stopnje je poleg tega navedlo, da ima pritožnik tudi možnost vložiti tožbo zaradi nedelovanja na podlagi člena 232, tretji odstavek, ES 43.
The closure of the file on a complaint therefore constitutes the definition of a position which brings the procedure for examining that complaint to a final conclusion.
Ustavitev postopka s pritožbo je torej sprejetje stali�ča, s katerim je dokončno končan postopek preiskave te pritožbe.
43 — Paragraph 31 of the contested order.
43 – Točka 31 izpodbijanega sklepa.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI v COMMISSION the Commission of the file on the complaint made by the appellant constitutes an actionable decision.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI PROTI KOMISIJI pritožnica, s strani Komisije, izpodbojni akt.
The appeal brought by the appellant is therefore well founded and the contested order must, in consequence, be set aside.
Pritožba je torej utemeljena in je treba zato izpodbijani sklep razveljaviti.
V — The consequences of setting aside the order
V – Posledice razveljavitve
In those circumstances, an action for failure to act is not the appropriate remedy in respect of that closure of the file.
V teh okoli�činah tožba zaradi nedelovanja ni ustrezno pravno sredstvo zoper tako ustavitev postopka.
In the system of remedies provided for by Community law, the purpose of an action for failure to act is to obtain a judicial declaration that a Community institution has failed to act where that failure to act is contrary to the Treaty.
V sistemu pravnih sredstev, predvidenih v pravu Skupnosti, je namen tožbe zaradi nedelovanja, da se po sodni poti ugotovi opustitev delovanja institucije Skupnosti, kadar je ta opustitev v nasprotju s Pogodbo.
44Since I acknowledge that the closure of the file on a complaint constitutes an acceptable position in the context of the procedure for monitoring State aid, an action for failure to act against that closure of the file is inadmissible.
44Če priznamo, da je ustavitev postopka s pritožbo sprejetje stali�ča, ki je dopustno v okviru postopka nadzora državnih pomoči, potem tožba zaradi nedelovanja proti taki ustavitvi postopka ni dopustna.
45In other words, the Court of First Instance cannot at the same time decide that the closure of the file on a complaint is the definition of a position under Regulation No 659/1999 and argue that such a closure of the file constitutes a failure to act covered by an action for failure to act.
45Povedano drugače, Sodi�če prve stopnje ne more odločiti, da je ustavitev postopka s pritožbo sprejetje stali�ča, ki je v skladu z Uredbo �t. 659/1999, in obenem meniti, da je ta ustavitev postopka opustitev delovanja, zoper katero je mogoče vložiti tožbo zaradi nedelovanja.
In accordance with the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the latter may, in the event that the decision of the Court of First Instance is quashed, itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits.
V skladu s členom 61, prvi odstavek, drugi stavek, Statuta Sodi�ča, lahko to v primeru razveljavitve odločitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje samo dokončno odloči o zadevi, če stanje postopka to dovoljuje.
I would point out, in that regard, that in the case giving rise to the judgment in Air One v Commission, the file on the complaint was not closed and the complaint was being examined.
V zvezi s tem poudarjam, da v zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana zgoraj navedena sodba Air One proti Komisiji, postopek s pritožbo ni bil ustavljen in se je pritožba preiskovala.
The Commission had forwarded the complaint to the Italian authorities and had given them a period in which to reply to it.
Komisija je pritožbo posredovala italijanskim organom in jim določila rok za odgovor nanjo.
That period had not expired when Air One formally invited that institution to define its position on the basis of Article 232 EC.
Ko je družba Air One to institucijo na podlagi člena 232 ES uradno pozvala, naj sprejme stali�če, ta rok �e ni potekel.
The Commission relied on a second plea in support of its objection of inadmissibility of the action for annulment brought by Athinaïki Techniki, alleging the late submission of the application.
Komisija se za utemeljitev ugovora nedopustnosti ničnostne tožbe Athinaïki Techniki, ki se nana�a na nepravočasnost tožbe, sklicuje na drugi razlog.
In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I take the view that the closure by
Glede na vse te ugotovitve menim, da je ustavitev postopka s pritožbo, ki jo je vložila
44 — Joined Cases C-15/91 and C-108/91 Buckl and Others v Commission [1992] ECR I-6061, paragraph 14.
44 – Sodba z dne 24. novembra 1992 v združenih zadevah Buckl in drugi proti Komisiji (C-15/91 in C-108/91, Recueil, str. I-6061, točka 14).
45 — See, in that regard, Case 125/78 GEMA v Commission [1979] ECR 3173, paragraph 21.
45 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 18. oktobra 1979 v zadevi GEMA proti Komisiji (125/78, Recueil, str. 3173, točka 21).
I take the view that the Court has at its disposal all the information necessary to give a ruling on that plea.
Menim, da ima Sodi�če vse potrebne dokaze, da lahko odloči o tem razlogu.
Commission, in this case, has not established the date on which the contested measure came to the knowledge of the complainant.
A – Trditve strank v tej zadevi ne bi izkazala, kdaj je nastopila seznanitev z izpodbijanim aktom.
The Commission notes that the Registry of the Court of First Instance, in its letter of 1 March 2005, informed the appellant that the date of lodgement of the application to be taken into consideration was the date on which the original was lodged, that is 18 February 2005, on the ground that the copy received by fax on 11 February 2005 did not constitute an identical copy of that ori -ginal, as was demonstrated by the comparison of the signatures appended to each of those documents.
Komisija opozarja, da je sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prve stopnje pritožnico v dopisu z dne 1. marca 2005 obvestilo, da se je kot datum vložitve tožbe upo�teval datum vložitve izvirnika, to je 18. februar 2005, ker prepis, ki je prispel prek telefaksa 11. februarja 2005, ni bil enak prepisu tega izvirnika, kot se je izkazalo iz primerjave podpisov na obeh dokumentih.
Unlike the Commission, I do not believe that the appellant’s action must be declared inadmissible on the ground that it was brought after the expiry of the prescribed period.
V nasprotju s trditvami Komisije menim, da tožbe pritožnice ni mogoče razglasiti za nedopustno, ker naj bi bila vložena po preteku roka, določenega za to.
I base that analysis on the following considerations.
To analizo bom utemeljil z naslednjimi preudarki.
The Commission, supported by Athens Resort Casino, infers from this that the action was brought outside the period of 2 months and 10 days, since that period started to run when the letter of 2 December 2004 was received, or on 6 December 2004 at the latest.
Komisija je ob intervenciji Athens Resort Casino iz tega sklepala, da je bila tožba vložena zunaj roka dveh mesecev in desetih dni, ker je ta rok začel teči od prejema dopisa z dne 2. decembra 2004, to je najpozneje od 6. decembra 2004.
It is not disputed that, under the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, a private individual’s action for annulment of a decision which is not addressed to him must be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be.
Ni sporno, da mora posameznik v skladu s členom 230, peti odstavek, ES ničnostno tožbo zoper odločbo, ki ni naslovljena nanj, glede na posamezni primer vložiti v dveh mesecih od objave akta ali njegovega uradnega obvestila tožniku, če tega ni bilo, pa od dneva, ko je zanj zvedel.
Moreover, under Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the prescribed timelimits are to be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days.
Poleg tega se v skladu s členom 102(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje procesni roki zaradi oddaljenosti podalj�ajo za enkratno obdobje desetih dni.
The Commission and Athens Resort Casino also argue that the appellant implicitly acknowledged that it had brought its action out of time by asking the Registry, by letter of 16 March 2005, to take into account the version of the application received at the Registry by fax on 11 February 2005.
Komisija in Athens Resort Casino prav tako navajata, da je pritožnica posredno priznala, da je tožbo vložila zunaj roka, s tem ko je sodno tajni�tvo z dopisom z dne 16. marca 2005 zaprosila, naj upo�teva prepis tožbe, ki je prispel v sodno tajni�tvo po telefaksu 11. februarja 2005.
The appellant denies that its action was out of time on the ground that, in accordance with the caselaw, it is for the party which relies on the late submission of the application to provide evidence of the date on which the contested measure was notified.
Pritožnica prereka trditve o nepravočasnosti svoje tožbe, ker mora v skladu s sodno prakso tista stranka, ki se sklicuje na nepravočasnost tožbe, predložiti dokaz o datumu, ko je bil vročen izpodbijani akt.
In so far as the Commission’s decision closing the file on Athinaïki Techniki’s complaint was not published or notified to the latter, but was simply brought to its knowledge by the letter of 2 December 2004, the matter which must be resolved is whether
Ker odločba o ustavitvi postopka s pritožbo s strani Komisije ni bila objavljena, Athinaïki Techniki pa o tem tudi ni bila uradno obve�čena, ampak je bila o tem preprosto seznanjena z dopisom z dne 2. decembra 2004, je treba odgovoriti na vpra�anje, ali je bila ničnostna tožba vložena
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI v COMMISSION the action for annulment was brought within the period of 2 months and 10 days from receipt of that letter.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI PROTI KOMISIJI v dveh mesecih in desetih dneh od prejema tega dopisa.
Under Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the original of every pleading must be signed by the party’s agent or lawyer.
V skladu s členom 43(1) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje mora izvirnik vsakega procesnega akta podpisati zastopnik ali odvetnik stranke.
Article 43(3) provides that, in the reckoning of timelimits for taking steps in proceedings only the date of lodgment at the Registry of the Court of First Instance is to be taken into account.
V odstavku 3 istega člena je določeno, da se pri računanju procesnih rokov upo�teva le datum vložitve v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
Article 43(6) of those Rules of Proced- ure provides, for its part, for the possibility of sending the application to that Registry by other technical means of communication.
V členu 43(6) navedenega poslovnika je določena možnost posredovanja vloge navedenemu sodnemu tajni�tvu z drugimi tehničnimi sredstvi sporočanja.
It provides:
V njem je določeno:
I consider that neither of those two points can be upheld.
Menim, da nobene od teh dveh trditev ni mogoče sprejeti.
First, the version of the application received at the Registry of the Court of First Instance by fax on 11 February 2005 must, in my view, be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the date of the action.
Prvič, menim, da je treba za določitev datuma vložitve tožbe upo�tevati prepis tožbe, ki je v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prve stopnje prispel po telefaksu 11. februarja 2005.
Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance thus provides that receipt by the Registry of the Court of First Instance of the copy of the application by fax is to be treated in the same way as the lodgment of the original of the application provided that that original is actually lodged there within 10 days.
V členu 43(6) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje je torej določeno, da je prejem prepisa vloge po telefaksu s strani sodnega tajni�tva Sodi�ča prve stopnje enak vložitvi izvirnika vloge, pod pogojem da je ta izvirnik dejansko vložen v desetih dneh.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-521/06 P
BOTA – ZADEVA C-521/06 P člen 43(6) Poslovnika.
Moreover, compliance with that condition logically means that the version sent to the Registry of the Court of First Instance by fax should be the certified copy of the original lodged subsequently.
Poleg tega, spo�tovanje tega pogoja logično pomeni, da mora biti prepis, naslovljen na sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prve stopnje po telefaksu, skladen prepis izvirnika, ki je vložen pozneje.
the expiry of the period of 10 days following such lodgment, as specified in Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure.
Zato mora biti prepis, poslan po telefaksu, preslikan izvirnik in ne dokument z isto vsebino, vendar z drugačno obliko.
Those requirements are set out very clearly in the Practice Directions to Parties. 46
Te zahteve so zelo jasno navedene v Praktičnih navodilih za stranke. 46 V točki I
Under Article 7(1) of the Instructions to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, 47 it is for the Registrar of the Court of First Instance to ensure compliance with those requirements.
V skladu s členom 7(1) Navodil sodnemu tajniku Sodi�ča prve stopnje 47
‘In the case of transmission by email, only a scanned copy of the signed original will be accepted.
A, odstavka 2 in 3, teh navodil je določeno: mora za spo�tovanje teh zahtev skrbeti sodni tajnik Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
A document despatched in the form of an ordinary electronic file which is unsigned or bears an electronic signature or a facsimile signature generated by computer will not be treated as complying with Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure. …
„V primeru po�iljanja po elektronski po�ti se sprejme samo ena optično preslikana kopija podpisanega izvirnika. Datoteka, ki je samo v elektronski obliki ali ki vsebuje elektronski podpis ali faksimile računalni�kega podpisa, ne izpolnjuje pogojev iz člena 43(6) Poslovnika. […]
The Registrar of the Court of First Instance took the view, in this case, that the version of the application received at the Registry of the Court of First Instance by fax on 11 February 2005 was not an identical copy of the original lodged on 18 February 2005, because the signature on the last page of that version was not in exactly the same place as the signature on the original.
Sodni tajnik Sodi�ča prve stopnje je v tej zadevi menil, da izvod vloge, ki je v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prve stopnje prispela po telefaksu 11. februarja 2005, ni bil popolnoma enak prepis izvirnika, ki je bil vložen 18. februarja 2005, ker podpis na zadnji strani tega izvoda ni bil na povsem enakem mestu kot podpis na izvirniku.
The lodgment of a document by fax or email will be treated as complying with the relevant timelimit only if the signed original of that document reaches the Registry prior to
Vloga, vložena po telefaksu ali elektronski po�ti, �teje za pravočasno, če sodno tajni�tvo prejme podpisan izvirnik tako vložene vloge najpozneje v roku desetih dni, kot to določa
It is common ground that the version of the
Ni sporno, da se različica tožbe, prejeta
Those instructions may also be consulted on the internet site: http://curia.europa.eu/en/instit/txtdocfr/index_tpi.htm.
Ta navodila je mogoče poiskati tudi na spletni strani: http://curia.europa.eu/fr/instit/txtdocfr/index_tpi.htm.
Those directions may also be consulted on the internet site: http://curia.europa.eu/en/instit/txtdocfr/index_tpi.htm.
Ta navodila je mogoče poiskati tudi na spletni strani: http://curia.europa.eu/fr/instit/txtdocfr/index_tpi.htm.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI v COMMISSION application received on 11 February 2005 differs from the original only in the pos -itioning of the lawyer’s signature on the last page.
11. februarja 2005, od izvirnika razlikuje le po tem, da se odvetnikov podpis na zadnji strani nahaja na različnem mestu.
Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance therefore seeks to enable an applicant to send his application to the Registry of the Court of First Instance by fax within the period of 2 months and 10 days, without that possibility in fact resulting in his being granted an additional period to improve his application or amend it in any way whatsoever.
Člen 43(6) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje torej tožeči stranki omogoča, da po�lje tožbo sodnemu tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje po telefaksu v roku dveh mesecev in desetih dni, ne da bi zaradi te možnosti dejansko imela dodaten rok za izbolj�anje tožbe ali njeno kakr�nokoli spremembo.
Unlike the Commission and Athens Resort Casino, I take the view that the requirement laid down in Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that the version sent by fax should be identical to the original of the application lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance must be regarded as satisfied.
V nasprotju s trditvami Komisije in Athens Resort Casino menim, da je treba pogoj istovetnosti prepisa, poslanega po telefaksu, z izvirnikom tožbe, vloženim v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki izhaja iz člena 43(6) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje, �teti za izpolnjenega.
From a formal standpoint, the requirement that the version sent by fax should be identical to the original of the application lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance seeks to allow the latter, when the original of the application is forwarded to it, to verify that that original is exactly the same as the version sent by fax simply by means of a rapid and superficial examination, without an in-depth examination of their content.
Pogoj istovetnosti prepisa, poslanega po telefaksu, z izvirnikom tožbe, vloženim v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje, se s formalnega vidika nana�a na omogočanje sodnemu tajni�tvu, da ob prejemu izvirnika tožbe s hitrim in povr�nim pregledom preveri njegovo popolno skladnost s prepisom, poslanim po telefaksu, ne da bi pri tem preverjalo njuno vsebino.
The scope of that requirement must, in my view, be assessed in the light of its two objectives, which are substantive and formal in nature.
Obseg tega pogoja je treba po mojem mnenju presojati na podlagi njegovih dveh ciljev, vsebinskega in formalnega.
However, in this case, I do not believe that the mere difference in the signatures on the version sent by fax and the original lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance undermines the two objectives of that requirement.
Vendar menim, da v tej zadevi preprost premik mesta podpisov na prepisu, poslanem po telefaksu, v primerjavi z izvirnikom, vloženim v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ne ogroža nobenega od obeh ciljev tega pogoja.
The purpose of that requirement, from a substantive standpoint, is to ensure that the possibility of bringing an action before the Community Courts by one of the new means of communication, provided for in Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, does not call into question the obligatory nature of the pro -cedural timelimits or the requirements of legal certainty and equality among litigants, which those timelimits are intended to safeguard.
Z vsebinskega vidika je namen navedenega pogoja zagotoviti, da možnost predložitve zadeve sodi�ču Skupnosti z enim izmed novih sredstev sporočanja, ki so določena v členu 43(6) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ne ogrozi zavezujočih procesnih rokov niti zahtev po pravni varnosti in enakosti med posamezniki, ki naj bi jih navedeni roki zagotavljali.
It is not in dispute that those timelimits and their strict application have the purpose of safeguarding legal certainty and avoiding any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice. 48
Ni namreč sporno, da je namen navedenih rokov in njihove stroge uporabe zagotavljanje pravne varnosti in preprečevanje kakr�nekoli diskriminacije ali samovoljnega obravnavanja pri delovanju sodnega organa. 48.
48 — See, in particular, the order in Case C-242/07 P Belgium v Commission [2007] ECR I-9757, paragraph 16 and caselaw cited.
48 – Glej zlasti sklep z dne 8. novembra 2007 v zadevi Belgija proti Komisiji (C-242/07 P, ZOdl., str. I-9757, točka 16, in navedena sodna praksa).
First, that difference does not relate to the substance of the application sent within the timelimit for the action.
Na eni strani, to razhajanje ne vpliva na vsebino tožbe, ki je bila posredovana v roku za vložitev tožbe.
Secondly, neither is there any question of any amendment having been made to the typewritten content of the document, which might have raised doubts as to whether the two versions in question were identical and obliged the Registry of the Court of First Instance to verify in detail whether this was so, page by page.
Na drugi strani, ne gre za spremembo, ki bi vplivala na natipkano vsebino dokumenta in ki bi povzročila dvome glede istovetnosti obeh dokumentov ter od sodnega tajni�tva Sodi�ča prve stopnje zahtevala, naj podrobno preveri vsako stran dokumenta. Preprost premik mesta podpisa na
prescribed for initiating proceedings began to run, at the latest, from the date on which it can be established that the applicant had such knowledge. 50
ugotovljeno, da je tožeča stranka že izvedela zanj. 50
We have seen that, in the present case, the letter of 2 December 2004 informing the appellant of the closure of the file on its complaint was not sent to it by registered letter with a form for acknowledgment of receipt.
Videli smo, da v obravnavani zadevi dopis z dne 2. decembra 2004, s katerim je bila pritožnica obve�čena o ustavitvi postopka z njeno pritožbo, tej ni bil poslan s priporočeno po�iljko s povratnico. Datum, ko je dejansko prejela ta dopis, ni znan in ga je iz dopisa pritožnice sodnemu tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 16. marca 2005 težko natančno ugotoviti.
In those circumstances, I take the view that the appellant has not infringed the requirements of Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and that the sending of the version of the application by fax on 11 February 2005 must be taken into consideration in determining the date of the action.
V teh okoli�činah menim, da pritožnica ni kr�ila določb člena 43(6) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje in da je za določitev dneva vložitve tožbe treba upo�tevati 11. februar 2005, ko je bil po telefaksu poslan prepis tožbe.
It therefore seems that the latter was brought within the period of 2 months and 10 days following 2 December 2004, with the result that it is admissible, whatever the date on which the appellant received the letter from the Commission dated on the same day.
Ker je bila tožba vložena v dveh mesecih in desetih dneh od 2. decembra 2004, je dopustna, ne glede na datum, ko je pritožnica prejela dopis Komisije z dne 2. decembra 2004.