natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I refer to the judgment in Italy v Commission concerning an action for annulment brought by the Italian Republic against a Commission decision declaring aid granted by that State incompatible with the common market.
V zvezi s tem lahko omenim zgoraj navedeno sodbo Italija proti Komisiji, ki se nana�a na tožbeni zahtevek za razglasitev ničnosti, ki ga je vložila Italijanska republika zoper odločbo Komisije, na podlagi katere je pomoč, dodeljena tej državi, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
In that case, the Italian Republic claimed, in particular, that the Commission, by refusing to approve the increase in aid intensity for small and medium-sized enterprises, had infringed Articles 87 EC and 88 EC and the Community guidelines on State aid for small
V tej zadevi je Italijanska republika zlasti trdila, da je Komisija s tem, ko ni dovolila povečanja intenzivnosti predvidene pomoči za mala in srednje velika podjetja, kr�ila člena 87 ES in 88 ES ter obvestilo Komisije o večsektorskem okviru za državne
59 — See Italy v Commission, paragraph 43 and the caselaw cited therein, and Case T-68/03 Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies v Commission [2007] ECR II-2911, paragraph 150.
59 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Italija proti Komisiji (točka 43 in navedena sodna praksa) in sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 12. septembra 2007 v zadevi Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies proti Komisiji (T-68/03, ZOdl., str. II-2911, točka 150).
60 — Case C-83/98 P France v Ladbroke Racing and Commission [2000] ECR I-3271, paragraph 25.
61 – Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Francija proti Ladbroke Racing in Komisiji (točka 25); sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 11. julija 2002 v zadevi HAMSA proti Komisiji (T-152/99, Recueil, str.
See also Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale and Land Nordrhein­Westfalen, paragraph 282, and Case T-65/96 Kish Glass v Commission [2000] ECR II-1885, paragraph 64.
II-3049, točka 159) in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies proti Komisiji (točka 150).
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE and medium-sized enterprises. 62
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE pomoči za mala in srednje velika podjetja 62.
In that judgment, the Court interpreted those guidelines in the light of Article 87 EC and of the objectives it pursues. 63 the view that the Commission infringed Article 87 EC and the multisectoral framework, thus vitiating the procedure to review the aid in question, by failing to ascertain, when calculating the competition factor, whether the aid project which had been notified was going to be carried out in a declining market.
kr�ila člen 87 ES in večsektorski okvir in s tem postopek nadzora upo�tevne pomoči, ker v okviru izračuna korekcijskega količnika o stanju konkurence ni preverila, ali se prijavljeni načrt pomoči ne bo izvajal na trgu v zatonu.
In the light of these considerations, I take the view that the Court of First Instance was allowed to carry out a comprehensive review of the Commission’s appraisal of the method of calculating the adjustment factor relating to market competition.
Na podlagi teh elementov sklepam, da je bilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v celoti upravičeno izvajati nadzor nad presojo, ki jo je opravljala Komisija z uporabo ocene korekcijskega količnika o stanju konkurence na trgu.
I therefore consider that the Court did not commit an error of law as regards the scope of the judicial review of the Commission’s assessments.
Menim torej, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni zmotno uporabilo prava glede obsega sodnega nadzora presoje Komisije.
As the Court states in paragraph 89 of the contested judgment, the multisectoral framework could be understood in the sense claimed by the Commission.
Tudi Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 89 izpodbijane sodbe poudarilo, da bi lahko besedilo večsektorskega okvira razumeli, kot ga je razlagala Komisija.
Indeed, it is clear from the wording of point 3.4 of the framework that the Commission will consider whether the investment takes place in a declining market ‘[i]n the absence of sufficient data on capacity utilisation’.
Besedilo točke 3.4 omenjenega okvira določa, da naj Komisija preuči, ali se zadevne naložbe izvajajo na trgu v zatonu „[če] ni na razpolago dovolj podatkov v zvezi z izkori�čenostjo zmogljivosti“.
In the present cases, it is apparent from the papers before the Court that the Commission considered that the data relating to the structural capacity utilisation rate in the sector concerned were sufficient for calculating the competition factor.
V obravnavanih zadevah je iz dokumentacije razvidno, da je Komisija v zvezi s podatki o stopnji izkori�čenosti strukturnih zmogljivosti v ciljnem sektorju menila, da so zadovoljivi za izračun stanja konkurence. Ne zdi se, da bi to odstopalo od metodologije, ki je opisana v večsektorskem okviru.
(b) The second limb of the plea, alleging that the Court committed an error of law in its interpretation of the multisectoral framework
b) Drugi del pritožbenega razloga: zmotna uporaba prava s strani Sodi�ča prve stopnje v okviru razlage večsektorskega okvira
It is now necessary to examine whether it was reasonable for the Court to take
Zdaj je treba preučiti, ali je Sodi�če prve stopnje upravičeno menilo, da je Komisija
4.63 — See paragraphs 50 to 54.
4.63 – Glej točke od 50 do 54.
However, the Court held that, in spite of the wording of point 3.4 of the framework, that provision was to be interpreted in the light of Article 87 EC.
Vendar je Sodi�če prve stopnje odločilo, da je treba kljub uporabljenim terminom v točki 3.4 navedenega okvira to razlagati glede na člen 87 ES.
In so doing, it held, in paragraphs 96 and 97 of the contested judgment, that the data relating to the structural capacity utilisation rate in the sector and those relating to the existence of a declining market were two specific assessment criteria which the Commission had to examine concurrently.
Pri tem je v točkah 96 in 97 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da podatka o stopnji izkori�čenosti strukturnih zmogljivosti v sektorju in o obstoju trga v zatonu pomenita dve posebni ocenjevalni merili, ki bi ju morala Komisija kumulativno preučiti.
In my view, the Court did not commit an error of law.
Menim, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni zmotno uporabilo prava.
By adopting the multisectoral framework and establishing inter alia a maximum allowable aid intensity, the Commission sought to limit the adverse effects on competition which could result from regional aid for large investment projects, which has a higher ceiling than regional handicaps.
Komisija je s sprejetjem upo�tevnega večsektorskega okvira in z določitvijo najvi�jega dovoljenega zneska pomoči hotela omejiti neželene učinke za konkurenco, ki bi lahko nastali zaradi regionalne pomoči za večje investicijske projekte, ker bi bil prag večji od regionalnih ovir 69.
69The determination of the competition factor should reveal a ‘photograph’ of the situation on the market concerned.
Z določitvijo korekcijskega količnika iz naslova stanja konkurence pa naj bi bila omogočena „predstava“ stanja na zadevnem trgu.
It is apparent from established caselaw that the adoption of frameworks or communications setting out, for information and simplification purposes, the adoption of the criteria the Commission intends to apply when considering whether an aid project is compatible with the common market cannot under any circumstances derogate from Article 87 EC and does not release the Commission from its obligation to assess each case in the light of the criteria laid down in that provision.
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da s sprejetimi okviri ali obvestili, s katerimi se na podlagi podatkov in za poenostavitev ustvarjajo merila, ki jih Komisija namerava uporabiti pri preučevanju vpra�anja, ali je neki projekt pomoči združljiv s skupnim trgom, nikakor ne sme biti kr�en člen 87 ES in Komisija ne sme dobiti podlage za ocenjevanje vsake zadeve po merilih, omenjenih v teh določbah 64.
64It should be pointed out that the guidelines are only for guidance.
Poudarjam, da imajo smer- nice le naravo napotil.
They have no legislative force. 65
Nimajo normativne vrednosti 65.
As the Court states in paragraph 102 of the contested judgment, the determination of the adjustment factor must therefore be derived from an analysis of both the structural and economic situation on the market.
Kot poudarja Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 102 izpodbijane sodbe, se mora ta količnik določiti na podlagi strukturne in konjunkturne presoje trga.
As I have already pointed out, this examination is particularly important because the Commission’s assessment with regard to that coefficient produces binding legal effects since it determines the amount of aid which may be declared compatible with the common market.
Kot sem že navedel, je ta preiskava zelo pomembna, saj ima presoja Komisije v zvezi z omenjenim količnikom zavezujoče pravne učinke, ker določa znesek pomoči, ki se lahko razglasi kot združljiv s skupnim trgom.
Like any other measure of secondary legislation adopted for the purposes of the application of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, they cannot be interpreted in such a way as to restrict the scope of the rules laid down by the Treaty or to contravene the objectives it pursues.
zakonodajni akt, ki je sprejet za izvajanje členov 87 ES in 88 ES, se tudi smernice ne smejo razlagati na način, ki bi zmanj�eval pomen pravil, predvidenih v Pogodbi, ali bi bil v nasprotju z njihovim namenom 66.
66 It is particularly important to note, as the Court held in the judgment in Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission, that Articles 87 EC and 88 EC provide the basis for an appraisal of the scope of the Commission’s powers and duties in relation to State aid.
Še toliko bolj je treba opomniti na odločitev Sodi�ča v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Belgija in Forum 187 proti Komisiji, da je treba domet pooblastil in zavez Komisije v zvezi z državnimi pomočmi 67presojati na podlagi členov 87 ES in 88 ES. Komisija je glede okvirov in obvestil, ki jih sprejme na tem
67Accord-ingly, although the Commission is bound by the guidelines and notices that it adopts in this area, that applies only in so far as those
I-8031, točka 53) ter sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 30. aprila 1998 v zadevi Vlaams Gewest proti Komisiji (T-214/95, Recueil, str.
Accordingly, and in spite of the wording of point 3.4 of the multisectoral framework, I consider that the assessment of the competition factor must be carried out not only
Prav tako in kljub besedilu večsektorskega okvira v točki 3.4 menim, da je pri presoji korekcijskega količnika o stanju konkurence treba upo�tevati ne le strukturne
66 — See Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479, paragraph 72.
66 – Glej sodbo z dne 22. junija 2006 v zadevi Belgija in Forum 187 proti Komisiji (C-182/03 in C-217/03, ZOdl., str. I-5479, točka 72).
68 — See Italy v Commission, paragraph 45.69 — See points 1.1 to 1.4 of the multisectoral framework.
68 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Italija proti Komisiji (točka 45).69 – Glej točke od 1.1 do 1.4 večsektorskega okvira.
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE by examining the structural capacity of the sector concerned, but also by analysing whether there is a chance that the planned investments will take place in a declining market.
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE zmogljivosti v sektorju, ampak tudi analizirati, ali obstaja tveganje, da se bodo investicijski projekti izvajali na trgu v zatonu.
I therefore consider that it was reasonable for the Court to hold that the existence of structural overcapacity in a sector and the existence of a declining market are two distinct assessment criteria which the Commission should have examined concurrently in its determination of the competition factor.
Menim torej, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje upravičeno menilo, da bi morala Komisija v okviru svoje presoje dejavnika o stanju konkurence na trgu kumulativno preučiti obstoj presežka strukturnih zmogljivosti in obstoj trga v zatonu, ki sta dve različni ocenjevalni merili.
In my view, therefore, the Court did not commit an error of law in its review of the Commission’s appraisal.
Zato menim, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni zmotno uporabilo prava v okviru svojega nadzora presoje Komisije.
Having regard to all of these considerations, I consider that the second plea should therefore be rejected as unfounded.
Na podlagi vsega navedenega menim, da je treba drugi pritožbeni razlog zavrniti kot neutemeljen.
C — The third plea, alleging infringement by the Court of First Instance of Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure
C – Tretji pritožbeni razlog: kršitev člena 64 Poslovnika s strani Sodišča prve stopnje
I agree with the Court of First Instance that these data are different and reflect different situations on the market.
Strinjam se s Sodi�čem prve stopnje, da so ti podatki različni in se v njih odraža različno stanje na trgu.
The first criterion is based on the production capacities of an undertaking or sector, whereas the second is more concerned with the demand for an apparent consumption of the products on the market in question.
Prvo merilo temelji na proizvodnih zmogljivostih podjetja ali sektorja, drugo pa se bolj ukvarja s povpra�evanjem in očitno porabo proizvodov na upo�tevnem trgu 70.
70It is not impossible to observe that there is no structural overcapacity in the sector but nevertheless to find a gradual decline in demand.
Ni nemogoče ugotoviti odsotnost presežka strukturnih zmogljivosti v nekem sektorju in obenem ugotoviti progresivno upadanje povpra�evanja.
In due course, that decline may lead to a lower utilisation rate of the capacities of the undertaking or sector and, consequently, to a situation of structural overcapacity.
Dolgoročno lahko to upadanje povzroči manj�o stopnjo izkori�čenosti zmogljivosti podjetja ali sektorja in zato presežek strukturnih zmogljivosti.
Thus, as the Court correctly pointed out in paragraph 99 of the contested judgment, an interpretation which permits the Commission to approve the grant of a State aid to an undertaking marketing products belonging to a declining market, without taking that circumstance into account when it examines the aid, cannot be accepted.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 99 izpodbijane sodbe upravičeno poudarilo, da ne moremo dovoliti razlage, na podlagi katere lahko Komisija odobri nakazilo državne pomoči podjetju, ki trži proizvode na trgu v zatonu, ne da bi ta institucija to okoli�čino upo�tevala pri izvajanju nadzora.
It is clear, as the Court quite rightly pointed out, that investments in such a market entail serious risks of distorting competition, which is plainly contrary to the objective of undistorted competition pursued by Article 87 EC.
Očitno je, kar je poudarilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, da naložbe na takem trgu omogočajo resno nevarnost za izkrivljanje konkurence, kar je povsem v nasprotju s ciljem neizkrivljene konkurence, ki je določen s členom 87 ES.
70 — See points 7.7 and 7.8 of the multisectoral framework (cited in footnotes 17 and 18).
70 – Glej točki 7.7 in 7.8 večsektorskega okvira, navedeni v opombah pod črto, str. 17 in 18.
In support of this third plea, the appellants claim that the Court of First Instance gave judgment in breach of Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure, which provide for measures of organisation of procedure.
Pritožniki so v podporo tretjega pritožbenega razloga navedli, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje kr�ilo člen 64 Poslovnika v zvezi z ukrepi procesnega vodstva.
No information supplied in connection with these appeals leads to that conclusion in the cases with which we are concerned.
Vendar v obravnavanih pritožbah ni znakov, na podlagi katerih bi lahko sklepali, da so te zadeve tak primer.
In those circumstances, I consider that the Court of First Instance cannot be criticised for not obtaining further data or information regarding the competitive position of Glunz and Kronofrance in the wood panels and boards market.
Na podlagi tega menim, da Sodi�ču prve stopnje ni mogoče očitati, da ni zbralo drugih podatkov in informacij v zvezi s tržnim položajem podjetij Glunz in Kronofrance na trgu lesenih plo�č.
The appellants consider that, since the plea alleging that Kronofrance lacked locus standi was raised for the first time during the hearing, the Court should have obtained, on its own initiative, certain information concerning the marketing areas and production sites of the undertakings concerned in order to rule on the admissibility of the action brought by Kronofrance.
Pritožniki namreč menijo, da bi Sodi�če prve stopnje v zvezi s pritožbenim razlogom pomanjkanja procesnega upravičenja Kronofrance, ki je bil prvič navajan na obravnavi, moralo po uradni dolžnosti zbrati nekatere podatke v zvezi s prodajnimi območji in lokacijo proizvodnih obratov zadevnih podjetij, da bi lahko odločilo v zvezi z dopustnostjo tožbenega zahtevka, ki ga je vložilo omenjeno podjetje.
They submit that, if the Court had obtained that information, it would have held that Kronofrance was not ‘individually concerned’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Po njihovem mnenju bi na podlagi teh podatkov Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko odločilo, da Kronofrance ni bilo „posamično prizadeto“ v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES.
In omitting to gather that information, the Court therefore committed a breach of procedure.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je s tem, da ni zbralo teh podatkov, kr�ilo postopkovna pravila.
D — The fourth plea, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 230 EC
D – Četrti pritožbeni razlog: člena 230, drugi odstavek, ES
In support of the fourth plea, Glunz and OSB maintain that the contested judgment infringes the second paragraph of Article 230 EC, since it goes beyond the pleas raised in support of the action for annulment brought by Kronofrance.
V podporo četrtega pritožbenega razloga sta Glunz in OSB trdili, da je izpodbijana sodba v nasprotju s členom 230, drugi odstavek, ES, ker gre preko tožbenih razlogov, navedenih v podporo tožbe za razglasitev ničnosti, ki jo je vložilo podjetje Kronofrance.
Indeed, the Court of Justice has held that it is for the Court of First Instance alone to decide whether it is necessary to supplement the information available to it in the cases brought before it.
Sodi�če je namreč odločilo, da lahko le Sodi�če prve stopnje po potrebi dopolni razpoložljive podatke v zvezi z obravnavanimi zadevami.
It has exclusive jurisdiction to find the facts and to assess the evidential value of that information.
Dokazni značaj teh podatkov ima podlago v njegovi neodvisni presoji dejstev.
It is settled caselaw that that assessment is not subject to review by the Court of Justice in the context of an appeal, unless the parties allege a distortion of the clear sense of the evidence presented to the Court of First Instance or a substantial inaccuracy in the Court’s findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it. 71
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso ta presoja ni podvržena nadzoru Sodi�ča, ko ta odloča v okviru pritožbe, razen če stranke zatrjujejo, da gre za izkrivljanje dokaznega materiala pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, ali neresničnost ugotovitev izhaja iz dokumentov v spisu 71.
71 — See inter alia the order of 12 December 2006 in Case C-129/06 P Autosalone Ispra v Commission, paragraph 22 and the caselaw cited therein.
71 – Glej zlasti sklep z dne 12. decembra 2006 v zadevi Autosalone Ispra proti Komisiji (C-129/06 P, točka 22 in navedena sodna praksa).
The Court annulled the contested decision on the ground that it infringed the Treaty, in so far as the Commission did not
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi namreč razglasilo ničnost sporne odločbe zaradi kr�itve Pogodbe, ker Komisija ni upo�te-
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE to examine the contested decision in the light of Article 87 EC.
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE je torej upravičeno obravnavalo sporno odločbo glede na člen 87 ES.
take into account the existence of a declining market, even though that ground had not been invoked by Kronofrance in connection with its first plea alleging infringement of the Treaty, but only in support of its second plea, alleging misuse of powers.
vala obstoja trga v zatonu, pri čemer pa Kronofrance tega očitka ni navajal v okviru svojega prvega tožbenega razloga glede kr�itve Pogodbe, ampak naj bi ga navajal le v podporo svojega drugega tožbenega razloga v zvezi z zlorabo pooblastil.
I therefore consider that this plea should be rejected as unfounded.
Zato menim, da je treba pritožbeni razlog zavrniti kot neutemeljen.
Therefore, by failing to distinguish between manifestly different grounds and pleas, the Court erred in law, a fortiori because, according to the caselaw, a plea relating to infringement of the Treaty cannot be raised by the Community judicature of its own motion. 72
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi zmotno uporabilo pravo, ker ni razlikovalo med očitno različnimi očitki in tožbenimi razlogi in ker v skladu s sodno prakso sodi�če Skupnosti po uradni dolžnosti ne more preiskovati tožbenega razloga v zvezi s kr�itvijo pogodbe 72.
Having regard to all of these considerations, I consider that the appeals brought by the Federal Republic of Germany and by Glunz and OSB should be dismissed in their entirety.
Na podlagi vsega navedenega menim, da je treba v celoti zavrniti pritožbe, ki so jih vložili Zvezna republika Nemčija ter Glunz in OSB.
As I pointed out in my analysis of the second plea, the Court of First Instance examined the assessment made by the Commission with regard to the calculation of the competition factor in the context of a comprehensive judicial review.
Kot sem že omenil v okviru obravnave drugega pritožbenega razloga, je Sodi�če prve stopnje pregledalo presojo Komisije v zvezi z izračunom količnika o stanju konkurence v okviru celotnega sodnega nadzora.
Since, as I have pointed out, the rules established by the multisectoral framework were adopted to implement Article 87 EC, they must be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty.
Opozarjam, da je treba, ker so bila z večsektorskim okvirom sprejeta pravila v zvezi z uporabo člena 87 ES, ta razlagati skladno z določbami Pogodbe 73.
73 The Court was therefore right
Sodi�če prve stopnje
72 — In their pleadings, Glunz and OSB refer to Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 67.
72 – V svojem pisanju se Glunz in OSB sklicujeta na zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France (točka 67).
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which applies to appeals pursuant to Article 118 thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika, ki velja za pritožbeni postopek na podlagi člena 118 tega poslovnika, se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
In these appeals, Kronofrance has requested that the appellants be ordered to pay the costs.
V obravnavanih zadevah je Kronofrance predlagalo, naj se plačilo stro�kov naloži pritožnikom.
Since the Federal Republic of Germany, Glunz and OSB have been unsuccessful in all their pleas, I consider that they must be ordered to pay the costs of these appeal proceedings.
Ker Zvezna republika Nemčija kot tudi Glunz in OSB s svojimi pritožbenimi razlogi niso uspeli, se jim naloži plačilo stro�kov.
73 — I refer to point 141 of this Opinion.
73 – Napotujem na točko 141 teh sklepnih predlogov.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court give the following ruling:
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Sodi�ču predlagam, naj odloči:
11 September 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (prvi senat) z dne 11. septembra 2008 *
In Joined Cases C-75/05 P and C-80/05 P,
V združenih zadevah C-75/05 P in C-80/05 P, zaradi dveh pritožb na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, ki so ju 11. in 16. februarja 2005 vložile
APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 11 and 16 February 2005 respectively,
Zvezna republika Nemčija, ki jo zastopajo W.-D. Plessing in C. Schulze-Bahr, zastopnika, skupaj z M.
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by W.-D. Plessing and C. Schulze-Bahr, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Núñez-Müller, Rechtsanwalt (C-75/05 P),
Núñez-Müllerjem, odvetnik, (C-75/05 P),