natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By judgment of 22 June 2000, the Court of Justice dismissed the action brought by the French Republic. 5
Sodi�če Evropskih skupnosti je s sodbo z dne 22. junija 2000 zavrnilo tožbo, ki jo je vložila Francoska republika. 5
On 10 June 1998, the Commission adopted a second decision concerning the aid in favour of CELF.
Komisija je dne 10. junija 1998 sprejela drugo odločbo o pomoči v korist CELF.
According to Article 1 of the decision, ‘[t]he aid granted to CELF for the handling of small orders of books in the French language constitutes aid within the meaning of Article [87(1) EC].
V skladu s členom 1 odločbe je „pomoč, namenjena Zadrugi CELF za obravnavo naročil na drobno knjig v francoskem jeziku, […] pomoč v smislu člena [87(1)] ES.
As the French Government failed to notify the aid to the Commission prior to its implementation, the aid has been granted unlawfully.
Ker francoska vlada Komisiji ni priglasila te pomoči pred njenim izvajanjem, je bila ta dodeljena nezakonito.
It is, however, compatible aid as it satisfies the conditions for derogation under Article [87(3)(d) EC].’ 4
Pomoč je kljub temu združljiva s Pogodbo, saj izpolnjuje pogoje za izjemo, predvideno v členu [87(3)(d)] ES.“ 4
The Court of First Instance, by judgment dated 28 February 2002, annulled the last sentence of Article 1 of the Commission’s decision of 10 June 1998, which held that the aid to CELF was compatible aid.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je s sodbo z dne 28. februarja 2002 razglasilo ničnost zadnje -ga stavka člena 1 odločbe Komisije z dne 10. junija 1998, ki je določal, da je pomoč CELF pomoč, ki je združljiva.
That court based its decision on the ground that the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment as regards the definition of the market. 6
Sodi�če prve stopnje je svojo odločitev utemeljilo s tem, da je Komisija storila očitno napako pri presoji glede opredelitve trga. 6
Two actions for annulment were lodged before the Community Courts against that decision.
Pred Sodi�či Skupnosti sta bili vloženi dve ničnostni tožbi.
SIDE brought an action before the Court of First Instance.
SIDE je vložila tožbo pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
The French Republic brought an action before the Court of Justice on the ground that the Commission had erred in law by failing to apply Article 86(2) EC.
Francoska republika je vložila tožbo pri Sodi�ču Evropskih skupnosti z obrazložitvijo, da je Komisija nepra -vilno uporabila pravo, ker ni uporabila člena 86(2) ES.
5 — Case C-332/98 France v Commission [2000] ECR I-4833.6 — Case T-155/98 SIDE v Commission [2002] ECR II-1179.
6 – Sodba z dne 28. februarja 2002 v zadevi SIDE proti Komisiji (T-155/98, Recueil, str. II-1179).
7 — 2005/262/EC: Commission Decision of 20 April 2004 on the aid implemented by France in favour of the Coopérative d’exportation du livre français (CELF) (OJ 2005 L 85, p. 27).
7 – Odločba Komisije z dne 20. aprila 2004 glede pomoči, ki jo je Francija izvr�evala v korist Zadruge za izvoz francoskih knjig (CELF), UL L 85, str. 27.
4 — 1999/133/EC: Commission Decision of 10 June 1998 concerning State aid in favour of Coopérative d’exportation du livre français (CELF) (OJ 1999 L 44, p. 37).
4 – Odločba Komisije 1993/133/ES z dne 10. junija 1998 o državni pomoči v korist Zadruge za izvoz francoskih knjig (CELF), UL L 44, str. 37.
By judgment of 26 April 2001, the Administrative Court annulled the Minister for Culture and Communication’s decision.
Upravno sodi�če je s sodbo z dne 26. aprila 2001 ugotovilo ničnost odločbe ministra za kulturo.
Annulment proceedings are currently pending before the Court of First Instance with respect to the Commission’s third decision. 9
Postopek za razglasitev ničnosti tretje odločbe Komisije pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje trenutno �e poteka. 9
B — Procedures at national level
B – Postopki na nacionalni ravni
The Minister for Culture and Communication and CELF lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court before the Cour administrative d’appel (Administrative Court of Appeal) (France).
Minister za kulturo ter CELF sta na Cour administrative d’appel (pritožbeno upravno sodi�če) vložila pritožbo zoper sodbo upravnega sodi�ča.
By judgment of 5 October 2004, the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the lower court and ordered the French State to recover within three months the aid paid to CELF between 1980 and 2002, subject to a penalty of EUR 1 000 per day of default.
Pritožbeno upravno sodi�če je s sodbo z dne 5. oktobra 2004 potrdilo sodbo nižjega sodi�ča in Francoski republiki naložilo, naj se ji v roku treh mesecev vrne pomoč, ki je bila izplačana CELF med leti 1980 in 2002, pri čemer se lahko za vsak dan zamude naloži penal v vi�ini 1000 evrov.
A number of different procedures concerning the aid to CELF were introduced before the French national authorities and courts in parallel to the Community procedures.
Vzporedno s skupnostnimi postopki se je pred francoskimi nacionalnimi organi in sodi�či odvijalo več različnih postopkov glede pomoči CELF.
The Minister of Culture and Communications and CELF lodged, before the Conseil d’État (Council of State) (France), appeals against the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal.
Minister za kulturo ter CELF sta zoper sodbo pritožbenega upravnega sodi�ča vložila pritožbo na Conseil d’État (Državni svet) (Francija).
Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 1995, SIDE requested the French Ministre de la culture et de la communication (Minister for Culture and Communication) to cease payment of the aid to CELF and to recover the aid already paid.
Po sodbi Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 18. septembra 1995 je SIDE od Ministre de la culture et de la communication (ministra za kulturo) zahteval, naj preneha z izplačili pomoči CELF in naj se vrne že izplačana pomoč.
Questions referred
Vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje
By a decision of 9 October 1996, the Minister for Culture and Communication rejected SIDE’s request.
Minister za kulturo je z odločbo z dne 9. oktobra 1996 zavrnil zahtevo SIDE.
SIDE challenged that
SIDE je pred Tribunal administratif (Upravnim
It is against this background that the Conseil d’État, by order dated 29 March 2006, referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Na podlagi tega dejanskega stanja je Conseil d’État s sklepom z dne 29. marca 2006 Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
8 — Article 1 of the decision provides that ‘[t]he aid to the Coopérative d’exportation du livre français (CELF) for processing small orders of Frenchlanguage books, implemented by France between 1980 and 2001, is aid that is caught by Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
8 – Člen 1 odločbe določa, da „pomoč, namenjena Zadrugi za izvoz francoskih knjig (CELF) za obravnavo naročil na drobno knjig v francoskem jeziku, ki jo je Francija izvajala med letoma 1980 in 2001, pomeni pomoč, ki ustreza členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES. Ker Francija ni priglasila te podpore Komisiji, preden jo je začela izvajati, je bila ta podpora dodeljena nezakonito.
It is, however, compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty.’
Pomoč je kljub temu združljiva s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 87(3)(d) Pogodbe.“
9 — Case T-348/04 SIDE v Commission, pending before the Court of First Instance (OJ 2004 C 262, p. 57).
9 – Zadeva SIDE proti Komisiji (T-348/04), v teku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje (UL C 262, str. 57).
‘(1) Is it permissible under Article 88 (EC) for a State which has granted to an
„(1) Ali člen 88 [ES] državi, ki je dodelila podjetju pomoč, ki je nezakonita,
Netherlands and Hungarian Governments, presented oral submissions at the hearing on 27 February 2007.
CELF IN MINISTRE DE LA CULTURE ET DE LA COMMUNICATION madžarske vlade so na obravnavi 27. februarja 2007 podali ustne navedbe.
III — Assessment undertaking aid which is unlawful, and which the courts of that State have found to be unlawful on the ground that it had not previously been notified to the European Commission as required under Article 88(3) EC, not to recover that aid from the economic operator which received it on the ground that, after receiving a complaint from a third party, the Commission declared that aid to be compatible with the rules of the common market, thus effectively exercising its exclusive right to determine such compatibility?
nezakonitost pa so ugotovila sodi�ča te države, ker ta pomoč ni bila predhodno prigla�ena Evropski komisiji pod pogoji, ki jih predpisuje člen 88(3) ES, dopu�ča, da od gospodarskega subjekta, ki je bil njen prejemnik, ne izterja povračila te pomoči, ker je Komisija, ki ji je zadevo predložila tretja stranka, pomoč razglasila za združljivo s predpisi skupnega trga in tako učinkovito zagotovila izključni nadzor, ki ga izvaja glede te združljivosti?
A — First question
A – Prvo vprašanje
(2) If that obligation to repay the aid is confirmed, must the periods during which the aid in question was declared by the European Commission to be compatible with the rules of the common market, before those decisions were annulled by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the sums to be repaid?’
(2) Če je ta obveznost povračila potrjena, ali je treba pri izračunu zneska, ki ga je treba povrniti, upo�tevati obdobja, v katerih je Evropska komisija zadevno pomoč razglasila za združljivo s predpisi skupnega trga, preden je Sodi�če prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti ugotovilo ničnost teh odločitev?“
By its first question, the referring court asks essentially whether, pursuant to Article 88(3) EC, a Member State, which has granted unlawful aid in breach of the notification and standstill requirements established by that provision, must recover that aid from the beneficiary where the Commission subsequently adopts a decision declaring the aid in question compatible with the common market.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali mora na podlagi člena 88(3) ES država članica, ki je dodelila nezakonito pomoč ob kr�itvi zahtev za priglasitev in mirovanja, določenih v tem členu, izterjati to pomoč od upravičenca, ko Komisija naknadno sprejme odločbo o razglasitvi zadevne pomoči za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
Procedure before the Court
Postopek pred Sodi�čem
Written observations were submitted by SIDE, CELF, and the French, Danish, Netherlands, German and Hungarian Governments, as well as by the Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority.
Pisna stali�ča so predložili SIDE, CELF, francoska, danska, nizozemska, nem�ka in madžarska vlada ter Komisija in Nadzorni organ EFTE.
All, except the
Vsi razen nizozemske in
In their pleadings CELF and the representatives of France, Denmark and Germany submit that a Member State should not recover aid granted prior to the adoption by the Commission of a final decision, if that decision declares the aid compatible with the common market.
CELF in predstavniki Francije, Danske in Nemčije v svojih predlogih trdijo, da državi članici ni treba izterjati pomoči, ki je bila dodeljena pred sprejetjem dokončne odločitve Komisije, če se s to odločbo pomoč razglasi za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
The German Government’s position, as represented above, was adopted by it at the oral hearing and differs substantially from its position as laid out in its written pleadings.
Nem�ka vlada je sprejela stali�če, kot je zgoraj predstavljeno, na obravnavi in se bistveno razlikuje od stali�ča v njenih pisnih stali�čih.
SIDE, the Netherlands
SIDE, nizozemska vlada in Nadzorni organ
As regards the Commission’s role, Articles 87 EC to 89 EC establish, inter alia, a procedural framework which enables the Commission to determine whether payments made by a Member State or through State resources constitute aid within the meaning of those provisions.
Kar zadeva vlogo Komisije, členi od 87 ES do 89 ES med drugim določajo, postopkovni okvir, ki Komisiji omogoča, da ugotovi, ali so plačila, ki jih opravi država članica ali kakr�na koli vrsta plačil iz državnih sredstev, pomoč v smislu teh določb.
Article 88 EC establishes a procedure pursuant to which the Commission constantly monitors and reviews existing and new aid schemes.
Člen 88 ES določa postopek, s katerim Komisija stalno spremlja in preverja veljavne in nove sheme pomoči.
That procedure is complemented by Regulation No 659/1999 which lays down detailed rules on the application of Article 88 EC. 11
Ta postopek se dopolnjuje z Uredbo �t. 659/1999, ki določa podrobna pravila za uporabo člena 88 ES. 11
Government and the EFTA Surveillance Authority consider that, under the conditions described above, the aid must be recovered.
EFTE menijo, da je treba vrniti pomoč pod pogoji, ki so določeni zgoraj.
The Commission considers that under those conditions a national judge is not obliged to recover the aid, but is not prevented from doing so if, according to the applicable national law, recovery is the consequence to be drawn from the failure to notify the aid.
Komisija meni, da pod temi pogoji nacionalno sodi�če ni zavezano k izterjavi pomoči, vendar mu to ni preprečeno, če je v skladu z veljavnim nacionalnim pravom vračilo posledica tega, da pomoč ni bila prigla�ena.
The Hungarian Government, which answered both questions together, submits that, to the extent that national law may permit, a national court may only recover aid for the period during which that aid may be qualified as unlawful.
Madžarska vlada, ki je skupaj odgovorila na obe vpra�anji, trdi, da lahko do obsega, ki naj bi ga dopu�čalo nacionalno pravo, nacionalno sodi�če samo izterja pomoč za obdobje, v katerem naj bi bila ta pomoč opredeljena kot nezakonita.
Therefore, in the case pending before the referring court, the aid in question should be considered unlawful from 1980 to 1993.
Zato naj bi bilo treba v zadevi, ki poteka pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, zadevno pomoč obravnavati kot nezakonito od leta 1980 do 1993.
As the Commission was unaware of the aid during that period, Hungary argues that the Commission could not retrospectively validate the aid.
Ker Komisija v tem obdobju ni vedela za pomoč, madžarska vlada trdi, da Komisija ne more za nazaj potrditi pomoči.
The system of review of State aids established under Articles 87 EC and 88 EC involves both the Commission and the national courts.
Sistem preverjanja državnih pomoči, uveden na podlagi členov 87 ES in 88 ES, vključuje tako Komisijo kot nacionalna sodi�ča.
They fulfil separate but complementary roles in ensuring that the Community rules on State aid are respected. 10
Ti imajo ločene, vendar dopolnjujoče vloge pri zagotavljanju spo�tovanja pravil Skupnosti o državnih pomočeh. 10
In order to ensure the effectiveness of the Commission’s role in monitoring and reviewing aid in the Community interest, Article 88(3) EC imposes two unequivocal obligations on Member States when they intend to grant a new aid or alter an existing aid: a notification and a so-called ‘standstill’ obligation.
Da bi se zagotovila učinkovitost vloge Komisije pri spremljanju in preverjanju pomoči, člen 88(3) ES v interesu Skupnosti državam članicam nalaga dve nedvoumni obveznosti, kadar nameravajo dodeliti novo pomoč ali spremeniti veljavno pomoč: priglasitev in tako imenovano „standstill“ obveznost (obveznost mirovanja).
The first sentence of Article 88(3) EC requires the Member States to inform the Commission of a planned aid in due time.
Prvi stavek člena 88(3) ES od držav članic zahteva, naj pravočasno obvestijo Komisijo o načrtovani pomoči.
The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC imposes an additional obligation on the Member States concerned to refrain from implementing the aid until the procedure provided in Article 88 EC has resulted in a final decision by the Commission.
Zadnji stavek člena 88(3) ES zadevnim državam članicam nalaga dodatno obveznost, in sicer, naj se vzdržijo izvajanja pomoči, dokler se postopek, določen v členu 88 ES, ne zaključi z dokončno odločitvijo Komisije.
It may only order repayment of the aid where, after investigation, it finds the aid incompatible with the common market. 16
CELF IN MINISTRE DE LA CULTURE ET DE LA COMMUNICATION pomoči, ko po preiskavi ugotovi, da je pomoč nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom. 16
Zementwerke, 12Article 88 EC ‘imposes on Member States specific obligations to facilitate the Commission’s task and to prevent faits accomplis for that institution’.
& Peggauer Zementwerke 12, člen 88(3) „nalaga državi članici posebne obveznosti, da bi se olaj�ala naloga Komisije in preprečilo, da bi bila ta institucija postavljena pred dejstva.“ 23.
Failure to comply with those obligations renders the State aid unlawful. 13
Nespo�tovanje teh obveznosti povzroči nezakonitost državne pomoči. 13
The assessment of the compatibility of aid with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Community Courts.
Za presojo združljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom je izključno pristojna Komisija, ki deluje pod nadzorom sodi�č Skupnosti.
14The Commission does not however have the power to declare State aid illegal solely on the ground that the notification and standstill obligations pursuant to
14Vendar pa Komisija ni pristojna, da razglasi nezakonitost državne pomoči, samo zaradi tega, ker so bile obveznosti priglasitve in mirovanja, določene v členu 88(3) ES, kr�ene. 15Lahko samo naloži povračilo
The importance of the standstill clause in the Community system of review of aid is underscored by the fact that the involvement of the national courts in that system arises as a result of the direct effect of the clause.
Pomembnost določbe o mirovanju v skupnostnem sistemu preverjanja pomoči je poudarjena z dejstvom, da intervencija nacionalnih sodi�č nastane kot posledica neposrednega učinka te določbe.
The standstill clause thus gives rise to rights in favour of individuals, which the national courts are bound to safeguard.
Tako določba o mirovanju ustvarja pravice v korist posameznikov, ki so jih nacionalna sodi�ča zavezana za�čititi.
17 It is settled caselaw that when Article 88(3) EC is breached the national courts must, in accordance with their national law, draw the necessary consequences, with regard to both the validity of the acts giving effect to the aid and the recovery of financial support granted in disregard of that provision.
17Iz stalne sodne prakse izhaja, da morajo ob kr�itvi člena 88(3) ES nacionalna sodi�ča ukrepati v skladu s svojim nacionalnim pravom, tako v zvezi z veljavnostjo aktov o izvedbi ukrepov pomoči kot v zvezi z vračilom finančne podpore, ki je bila dodeljena v nasprotju s to določbo.
In particular, the finding that aid has been granted in breach of the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC must, in principle, lead to its repayment in accordance with the procedural rules of domestic law. 18
Ugotovitev, da je bila pomoč dodeljena v nasprotju z zadnjim stavkom člena 88(3) ES, mora načeloma povzročiti, da se povrne v skladu z notranjimi postopkovnimi pravili. 18
12 — Case C-143/99 [2001] ECR I-8365, paragraph 23.
13 – Glej sodbo Transalpine Ölleitung, navedeno v opombi 10, točka 40 in navedena sodna praksa.
13 — See Transalpine Ölleitung, cited in footnote 10, paragraph 40 and the caselaw cited therein.
1471, točka 8), ter sodbi FNCE, navedeno v opombi 14, točka 11, in SFEI, navedeno v opombi 10, točka 39.
15 — See, for example, FNCE, cited in footnote 14, paragraphs 13 and 14.
I-5505, točka 14), sodbo SFEI, navedeno v opombi 10, točka 42, in sodbo z dne 17. junija 1999 v zadevi Piaggio (C-295/97, Recueil, str.
17 — See Case 120/73 Lorenz [1973] ECR 1471, paragraph 8; FNCE, cited in footnote 14, paragraph 11; and SFEI, cited in footnote 10, paragraph 39.
18 – Glej na primer sodbo z dne 21. julija 2005 v zadevi Xunta de Galicia (C-71/04, ZOdl., str.
18 — See, for example, Case C-71/04 Xunta de Galicia [2005] ECR I-7419, paragraph 49.
I-7419, točka 49).
This is without prejudice to the Council’s limited powers under Articles 87(3)(e) EC and 88(2) EC.
15 – Glej na primer sodbo FNCE, navedeno v opombi 14, točki 13 in 14.
It is settled caselaw that a Commission decision declaring aid compatible only takes effect prospectively.
Po ustaljeni sodni praksi ima odločba Komisije o razglasitvi pomoči za združljivo učinek samo za naprej. 19
More recently the Court restated this principle in its judgment in Transalpine Ölleitung.
Sodi�če je nedavno potrdilo to načelo v sodbi Transalpine Ölleitung.
Accordingly, ‘[a] Commission decision finding aid that was not notified compatible with the common market does not have the effect of regularising ex post facto implementing measures which were invalid because they were taken in disregard of the prohibition laid down by the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, since otherwise the direct effect of that provision would be impaired and the interests of individuals, which are to be protected by national courts, would be disregarded.
Tako „odločba Komisije o razglasitvi pomoči, ki ni bila prigla�ena, za združljivo s skupnim trgom, ne vodi do naknadne pravne ureditve izvr�ilnih aktov, ki so neveljavni, ker so bili sprejeti v nasprotju s prepovedjo iz te določbe, saj bi v nasprotnem primeru pri�lo do poseganja v neposredni učinek zadnjega stavka člena 88(3) ES in kr�itev interesov posameznikov, ki jih morajo varovati nacionalna sodi�ča.
Any other interpretation would have the effect of according a favourable outcome to the nonobservance of that provision by the Member State concerned and would deprive it of its effectiveness.’ 20
Vsaka druga razlaga bi vodila do tega, da bi zadevna država članica dajala prednost nespo�tovanju navedene določbe in ji odvzela njen uporabni učinek.“ 20
A number of the interveners in this case have asked the Court to reconsider the principle outlined above and the body of caselaw
Več intervenientov v tej zadevi je zaprosilo Sodi�če, naj pretehta zgoraj navedeno načelo in sodno prakso, s katero je uvelja-
19 — See FNCE, cited in footnote 14, paragraphs 16 and 17; Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 Van Calster [2003] ECR I-12249, paragraphs 62 and 63; and Xunta de Galicia, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 31.
19 – Glej sodbo FNCE, navedeno v opombi 14, točki 16 in 17, sodbo z dne 21. oktobra 2003 v združenih zadevah Van Calster in Cleeren (C-261/01 in C-262/01, Recueil, str. I-12249, točki 62 in 63), in sodbo Xunta de Galicia, navedeno v opombi 18, točka 31.
20 — See Transalpine Ölleitung, cited in footnote 10, paragraph 41.
20 – Glej sodbo Transalpine Ölleitung, navedeno v opombi 10, točka 41.
France has argued, inter alia, that the FNCE and Van Calster cases, which concerned the request for repayment of charges levied in order to finance unlawful aid, differs substantially from the case currently pending before the national jurisdiction.
Francija je med drugim trdila, da se zadevi FNCE in van Calster, ki sta se nana�ali na zahtevo za povračilo davka, ki je bil odmerjen za financiranje nezakonite pomoči, bistveno razlikujeta od zadeve, ki trenutno poteka pred nacionalno jurisdikcijo.
In the present case, it is a competitor of the beneficiary of an illegal aid which requests the national court to order recovery of the unlawful aid.
V tej zadevi konkurent upravičenca do nezakonite pomoči zahteva od nacionalnega sodi�ča, naj odredi vračilo nezakonite pomoči.
Denmark argued that the present case must be distinguished from the Transalpine Ölleitung case as the latter concerned the enlargement of the circle of beneficiaries of an unlawful aid and is thus not of relevance to the case pending before the referring court.
Danska je trdila, da se mora ta zadeva ločiti od zadeve Transalpine Ölleitung, ker se je slednja nana�ala na povečanje �tevila upravičencev nezakonite pomoči in tako ni pomembna za zadevo, ki poteka pred predložitvenim sodi�čem.
Germany argued that the FNCE, Van Calster and Transalpine Ölleitung cases must be understood as imposing an obligation on the national court to order recovery of unlawful aid even where it has subsequently been found compatible.
Nemčija je trdila, da je treba zadeve FNCE, Van Calster in Transalpine Ölleitung razumeti, kot da nacionalnemu sodi�ču nalagajo obveznost, naj odredi vračilo nezakonite pomoči tudi v primeru, ko se naknadno ugotovi združljivost.