natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to settled caselaw, the requirement to state reasons imposed on the Commission under Article 15 CS must satisfy the same principles as those established by the Court within the framework of Article 253 EC. 77
Na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse mora obveznost obrazložitve, ki jo je v skladu s členom 15 PJ dolžna podati Komisija, zadovoljiti ista načela, kot so načela, ki jih je Sodi�če navedlo v okviru člena 253 ES 77.
With regard, first, to the complaint based on the failure to give reasons for the development of the Commission’s decisionmaking practice with respect to the scope of Article 4(c) CS and Article 67 CS respectively, I do not consider this complaint to be relevant.
Najprej, glede očitka, ki temelji na odsotnosti obrazložitve o razvoju prakse odločanja Komisije v zvezi s področjem uporabe členov 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ, menim, da ta očitek ni upo�teven.
Those principles are as follows.
Ta načela so naslednja.
The statement of reasons must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted that measure in such a way as to enable the Court to exercise its power of review and to enable the persons concerned — addressees
Obrazložitev mora biti prilagojena naravi zadevnega akta in mora jasno in nedvoumno izražati sklepanje institucije, avtorja akta, tako da sodi�ču Skupnosti omogoči izvajanje nadzora zakonitosti in da se zainteresirane osebe – naslovniki ali druge osebe, ki jih akt zadeva v smislu člena 33, drugi odstavek, PJ – lahko seznanijo
The Commission’s assessment of the compatibility of the aid at issue with the common market in coal and steel is not based on that development.
Presoja Komisije glede združljivosti zadevnih pomoči s skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo namreč ne temelji na takem razvoju.
76 — See, for example, the judgment in Case T-102/03 CIS v Commission [2005] ECR II-2357, paragraph 46 and the caselaw cited there.
76 – Glej zlasti sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 22. junija 2005 v zadevi CIS proti Komisiji (T-102/03, ZOdl., str. II-2357, točka 46, in navedena sodna praksa).
77 — See in particular the judgments in Case C-197/99 P Belgium v Commission [2003] ECR I-8461, paragraph 72; Case T-57/91 NALOO v Commission [1996] ECR II-1019, paragraphs 298 to 300; and Case T-243/94 British Steel v Commission [1997] ECR II-1887, paragraphs 159 and 160.
2831, točka 24) in z dne 14. februarja 1990 v zadevi Delacre in drugi proti Komisiji (C-350/88, Recueil, str. I-395, točki 15 in 16) ter zgoraj navedeni sodbi Belgija proti Komisiji (točka 72) in Španija proti Komisiji (točka 73).
the context of the contested decision and in particular from paragraphs 59 to 66 and 109 to 133 that, in the Commission’s view, Article 4(c) has covered the aid at issue from the start.
četrtič, Komisija predstavi posebna pravila predvsem o rokih priglasitve, ki so bila sprejeta v okviru pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu in ki veljajo od leta 1986 (točke od 67 do 76 in od 126 do 133).
In any event, the contested decision discloses in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Commission with regard to the scope and applicability of each of those two provisions.
V vsakem primeru sporna odločba jasno in nedvoumno omogoča prikaz sklepanja Komisije v zvezi z obsegom in uporabo vsake od obeh določb.
Those reasons enabled Salzgitter, as well as the Federal Republic of Germany, to ascertain the reasons why the Commission took the view that the conditions laid down in Article 4(c) CS were satisfied in this case.
Te obrazložitve so družbi Salzgitter in Zvezni republiki Nemčiji omogočile seznaniti se z razlogi, zaradi katerih je Komisija presodila, da so bili pogoji, določeni v členu 4(c) PJ, v obravnavani zadevi izpolnjeni.
Moreover, Salzgitter and the Federal Republic of Germany were able to challenge the Commission’s findings in detail.
Tako sta lahko poglobljeno izpodbijali presojo Komisije.
Furthermore, as the judicial review which the Court of First Instance was able to carry out in the judgment under appeal demonstrates, those grounds enable the Community judicature to determine whether those findings are well founded.
Poleg tega, kakor to dokazuje sodni nadzor, ki ga je Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko opravilo v okviru izpodbijane sodbe, omenjene obrazložitve sodi�ču Skupnosti omogočajo, da preveri utemeljenost teh presoj.
I do not therefore consider that the Commission was also required, in what is an individual measure, let us remember, to set out the development of its decisionmaking practice since the adoption of the First and Second Codes, which are inapplicable to this case anyway.
Ne menim torej, da bi morala Komisija v aktu, za katerega opozarjam, da je posamičen, �e dodatno pojasnjevati razvoj svoje prakse odločanja od sprejetja prvih pravil in drugih pravil, pri čemer pa se ta v obravnavani zadevi sploh ne uporabijo.
The Commission gives a detailed explanation of why ‘[t]he compatibility of the contested unlawful aid with the common market must be examined in the light of Article 4(c) [CS] and the relevant Steel Aid Codes’.
Komisija dejansko podrobno pojasnjuje, zakaj „[…] je treba preučitev združljivosti zadevnih nezakonitih pomoči s skupnim trgom opraviti ob upo�tevanju člena 4(c) [PJ] in zaporednih [pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu]“ 79.
79First, when examining the nature of the aid at issue, it states the reasons why it takes the view that Article 67 CS is not applicable (paragraph 66).
Najprej v okviru preučitve vrste zadevnih pomoči navaja razloge, zaradi katerih meni, da se člen 67 PJ ne more uporabiti (točka 66).
Secondly, when examining the compatibility of the contested aid with the common market in coal and steel, it explains why the application of Article 87(2)(c) EC to a steel undertaking is automatically ruled out (paragraphs 110 to 120).
Drugič, v okviru preučitve združljivosti spornih pomoči s skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo pojasnjuje, zakaj se uporaba člena 87(2)(c) ES za jeklarska podjetja a priori izključi (točke od 110 do 120).
Thirdly, it gives the reasons why an individual decision under Article 95 CS was not justified in this case (paragraphs 121 to 125).
Tretjič, navaja razloge, zaradi katerih posamična odločba na podlagi člena 95 PJ ni bila utemeljena za ta primer (točke od 121 do 125).
With regard to the second complaint, I likewise consider that it is irrelevant since the rules governing measures by Member States
Tudi v zvezi z drugim očitkom menim, da ni upo�teven, saj se predpisi, ki urejajo
79 — Paragraph 109 of the contested decision.
79 – Točka 109 sporne odločbe.
I therefore propose that the Court dismiss the second plea.
V teh okoli�činah Sodi�ču predlagam, naj zavrne drugi pritožbeni razlog.
It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that the crossappeal brought by Salzgitter must, in my view, be dismissed in its entirety.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je treba nasprotno pritožbo družbe Salzgitter po na�em mnenju v celoti zavrniti.
Finally, with regard to the third complaint, I do not consider that the Commission was required to set out the reasons why its assessment differs from that adopted in previous decisions.
Končno, glede tretjega očitka menim, da Komisiji ni treba predstaviti razlogov, zaradi katerih se njena presoja razlikuje od presoje, ki jo je sprejela v okviru prej�njih odločitev.
After all, ‘State aid’, in both the EC Treaty and the ECSC Treaty, is an objective concept and the reasons why the Commission gave a different assessment in its previous decisions are not relevant when examining the question whether or not the aid at issue in this case falls within the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
Dejansko pojem „državne pomoči“ v Pogodbi ES in v Pogodbi ESPJ ustreza nekemu objektivnemu stanju stvari in razlogi, zaradi katerih je Komisija oblikovala drugačno presojo v predhodnih odločbah, niso pomembni za preučitev vpra�anja, ali zadevne pomoči sodijo na področje uporabe člena 4(c), PJ.
In support of its appeal, the Commission raises two pleas, alleging, first, infringement of Article 4(c) CS and the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Codes, and, secondly, infringement of the rights of the defence.
Komisija v utemeljitev pritožbe navaja dva pritožbena razloga, prvič, kr�itev člena 4(c) PJ in tretjih, četrtih, petih in �estih pravil, in drugič, kr�itev pravice do obrambe.
In the light of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the plea alleging a failure to state reasons, in so far as it is based on the aforementioned complaints, must be dismissed.
Glede na to menim, da je treba pritožbeni razlog odsotnosti obrazložitve, ki temelji na zgoraj omenjenih očitkih, zavrniti.
The reasons given in the contested decision satisfy the requirements of both clarity and reviewability laid down in Articles 5 CS and 15 CS, the factual and legal context having been set out in a sufficiently clear manner.
Menim namreč, da obrazložitev sporne odločbe hkrati izpolnjuje zahteve glede jasnosti in izvedljivosti nadzora, ki izhajajo iz členov 5 PJ in 15 PJ, kjer je dejanski in pravni okvir dovolj jasno opredeljen.
A — The first plea, alleging infringement of Article 4(c) CS and the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Codes
A – Prvi pritožbeni razlog: kršitev člena 4(c) PJ ter tretjih, četrtih, petih in šestih pravi
The first plea comprises six limbs based on: first, an incorrect analysis as to the
Ta pritožbeni razlog sestavlja �est delov, prvič, napačna preučitev v zvezi z negotovim in dvoumnim značajem veljavnega pravnega okvira, drugič, napačna uporaba prava pri upo�tevanju dveh prvih pravil o državni
I am therefore of the opinion that the Court of First Instance was entitled to conclude in paragraph 184 of the judgment under appeal that the reasons given by the Commission for the contested decision were to the requisite legal standard.
Menim torej, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 184 izpodbijane sodbe upravičeno ugotovilo, da je Komisija pravno zadovoljivo obrazložila sporno odločbo.
First, it examined the clarity of the legal framework.
Najprej je preučilo jasnost pravnega okvira.
The Court of First Instance concluded in paragraph 174 of the judgment under appeal that the situation resulting from the adoption of the Second and Third Codes was uncertain and lacked clarity.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 174 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da je bilo stanje, ki je izhajalo iz sprejetja drugih in tretjih pravil, negotovo in dvoumno.
That analysis is called into question by the Commission in the first limb of the first plea.
To preučitev Komisija izpodbija v okviru prvega dela prvega pritožbenega razloga.
uncertainty and lack of clarity in the legal framework applicable; second, an error of law in taking into account the first two steel aid codes; third, an incorrect interpretation of the caselaw of the Court concerning the principle of legal certainty; fourth, a contradiction in the grounds of the judgment under appeal; fifth, an incorrect assessment as to whether the Commission was aware that the ZRFG applied to steel undertakings; and sixth, a challenge to the rule arising from the judgment in Alcan Deutschland. 80
pomoči jeklarstvu, tretjič, napačna razlaga sodne prakse Sodi�ča v zvezi z načelom pravne varnosti, četrtič, protislovnost obrazložitve izpodbijane sodbe, petič, napačna presoja seznanjenosti Komisije z uporabo ZRFG za jeklarske družbe in, �estič, dvom o sodni praksi, ki izhaja iz sodbe z dne 20. marca 1997 v zadevi Alcan Deutschland 80.
Next, the Court of First Instance examined the Commission’s conduct.
Nato je Sodi�če prve stopnje preučilo ravnanje Komisije.
After having found that the Commission had been in receipt of a number of items of information from Salzgitter and that it had also given a decision of nonobjection on the implementation of the ZRFG, the Court of First Instance held, in paragraphs 176 to 180 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission had failed to discharge its duty of diligence by not observing, when examining those documents, the failure to notify the aid at issue and by not commencing appropriate proceedings.
Potem ko je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da je ta prejela določeno �tevilo obvestil od družbe Salzgitter in da je tudi izdala odločbo o nenasprotovanju v zvezi z izvajanjem ZRFG, je v točkah od 176 do 180 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da Komisija ni izpolnila dolžnosti skrbnega ravnanja, ker ob preučitvi teh dokumentov ni navedla odsotnosti priglasitve zadevnih pomoči in ker v zvezi s tem ni ukrepala.
That finding is criticised by the Commission in the fifth limb of the plea.
To ugotovitev Komisija graja v okviru petega dela prvega pritožbenega razloga.
In essence, the Commission calls into question the analysis carried out by the Court of First Instance in paragraphs 158 to 183 of the judgment under appeal with regard to the plea at first instance alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty (seventh plea).
Komisija v bistvu izpodbija preučitev, ki jo je Sodi�če prve stopnje navedlo v točkah od 158 do 183 izpodbijane sodbe o pritožbenem razlogu, navedenem na prvi stopnji, ki izhaja iz domnevne kr�itve načela pravne varnosti (sedmi pritožbeni razlog).
It submits that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in holding that, in the specific circumstances of the case at issue, it had disregarded the principle of legal certainty by ordering the recovery of the aid granted to Salzgitter between 1986 and 1995.
Trdi, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo pri presoji, da Komisija v posebnih okoli�činah tega primera ni prepoznala načela pravne varnosti, ker je zahtevala vračilo pomoči, dodeljenih družbi Salzgitter med letoma 1986 in 1995.
In upholding the plea alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, the Court of First Instance followed three lines of reasoning.
V zvezi z ugoditvijo pritožbenemu razlogu kr�itve načela pravne varnosti je Sodi�če prve stopnje sklepalo v treh korakih.
Finally, it was in the light of those findings that the Court of First Instance held, in paragraphs 181 and 182 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission had infringed the principle of legal certainty by ordering the Federal Republic of Germany to recover the aid granted to Salzgitter.
Končno, Sodi�če prve stopnje je v skladu s temi ugotovitvami v točkah 181 in 182 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da je Komisija kr�ila načelo pravne varnosti, ko je Zvezni republiki Nemčiji odredila izterjavo pomoči, ki je bila dodeljena družbi Salzgitter.
The conclusions which the Court draws from those findings are called into question by the Commission in the third limb of the first plea.
Posledice, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje izpeljalo iz teh ugotovitev, Komisija izpodbija v okviru tretjega dela prvega pritožbenega razloga.
In the light of the foregoing, I think it would be appropriate to analyse the merits of this first plea by examining the first, fifth and third limbs in turn, in so far as they call into question the three findings arrived at by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal.
Glede na to menim, da je treba preučiti utemeljenost prvega pritožbenega razloga ob zaporedni preučitvi njegovega prvega, petega in tretjega dela, ker izpodbijajo presoje, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje navedlo v izpodbijani sodbi.
Article 4(c) CS was applicable and, in accordance with the judgment in Commission v France, aid to steel undertakings was strictly prohibited before the First Code entered into force.
Člen 4(c) PJ je bil veljaven in skladno z zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 10. decembra 1969 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, so bile pomoči jeklarskim družbam strogo prepovedane pred začetkom veljavnosti prvih pravil 81.
81 The Commission considers that it was only under the First Code that that authorisation, and those which followed, were declared applicable to the field covered by the ECSC Treaty and that that temporary general authorisation expired with the First Code on 31 December 1981.
Meni, da so bile navedena odobritev in druge, ki so sledile, razgla�ene za veljavne za področje Pogodbe ESPJ samo na podlagi prvih pravil o pomoči in da je omenjena začasna splo�na odobritev prenehala veljati skupaj s prvimi pravili o pomoči 31. decembra 1981.
The first limb of the first plea, alleging an incorrect analysis as to the clarity of the legal situation at issue
Prvi del prvega pritožbenega razloga: napačna preučitev v zvezi z jasnostjo zadevnega pravnega položaja
By this limb, the Commission contests the analysis of the Court of First Instance to the effect that the legal situation resulting from the adoption of the Second and Third Codes was uncertain and lacked clarity.
V prvem delu prvega pritožbenega razloga Komisija izpodbija analizo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, po kateri naj bi bil pravni položaj, ki izhaja iz sprejetja drugih in tretjih pravil o pomoči, negotov in dvoumen.
The Commission also contests the analysis set out by the Court of First Instance in paragraphs 173 and 174 of the judgment under appeal, to the effect that it is not clear whether the subsequent application of Paragraph 3 of the ZRFG to Salzgitter fell within the ambit of the obligation to notify ‘plans’ in Article 6 of the Third Code.
Komisija poleg tega izpodbija preučitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje, navedeno v točkah 173 in 174 izpodbijane sodbe, po kateri ni bilo jasno razvidno, ali je naknadna uporaba člena 3 ZRFG v zvezi z družbo Salzgitter sodila v obveznost priglasitve „projektov“, predvideno v členu 6 tretjih pravil o pomoči.
The Commission considers that provision to be very clear.
Po mnenju Komisije je ta določba zelo jasna.
In its reply, the Commission also argues that Article 67 CS does not apply to State aid since the Member States cannot adopt aid measures within the context of their economic and social policy.
Komisija v repliki prav tako zatrjuje, da člen 67 PJ ne velja za državne pomoči, saj države članice ne morejo sprejemati ukrepov pomoči v okviru njihovih gospodarskih in socialnih politik 82.
82It points out
Poudarja, da člen 4(c) PJ
81 — The Commission refers to paragraphs 41 to 44 of that judgment.
81 – Komisija se sklicuje na točke od 41 do 44 te sodbe.
82 — The Commission refers to Steenkolenmijnen v High Authority.
82 – Komisija se sklicuje na zgoraj navedeno odločbo De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg proti Visoki oblasti.
The Commission takes the view that the analysis reached by the Court of First Instance in paragraph 174 of the judgment under appeal to the effect that the authorisation of the aid contained in the 1971 decision had been tacitly and partially withdrawn upon adoption of the Second Code, or, at the very least, the Third Code, is incorrect.
Komisija meni, da je preučitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje v točki 174 izpodbijane sodbe, po kateri naj bi bila odobritev pomoči v odločbi iz leta 1971 tiho in delno umaknjena ob sprejetju drugih pravil o pomoči ali vsaj ob sprejetju tretjih, napačna.
84 that Article 4(c) CS prohibits aid ‘in any form whatsoever’ and that the caselaw cited by the Federal Republic of Germany never referred, in the context of Article 67 CS, to generally applicable ‘aid schemes’.
prepoveduje pomoči „v kakr�ni koli obliki“ in da se sodna praksa, ki jo omenja Zvezna republika Nemčija v zvezi s členom 67 PJ, ni nikoli nana�ala na „sisteme pomoči“, ki bi se uporabljali v globalnem smislu.
It also submits that the Federal Republic of Germany did not inform the Commission of the aid granted to Salzgitter and that it cannot therefore claim that the Commission authorised that aid on the basis of Article 67 CS.
Prav tako trdi, da ta država članica Komisije ni obvestila o pomočeh, dodeljenih družbi Salzgitter, in da tako ne more trditi, da jih je odobrila na podlagi člena 67 PJ.
Salzgitter adds that the fact that it is the Commission’s decisionmaking practice in the coal sector to apply Article 67 CS to non-specific aid in that sector confirms that analysis.
Družba Salzgitter dodaja, da praksa odločanja Komisije v sektorju premoga z uporabo člena 67 PJ za neposebne pomoči omenjenemu sektorju potrjuje to preučitev.
Salzgitter considers that the Court of First Instance did not commit any error of law in finding that the legal situation resulting from the adoption of the Second and Third Codes lacked clarity.
Družba Salzgitter meni, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni napačno uporabilo prava, ko je ugotovilo, da pravnemu položaju, ki izhaja iz sprejetja drugih in tretjih pravil o pomoči, primanjkuje jasnosti.
It takes the view that, in the Second and Third Codes, or in some other communication, the Commission should have expressed the change in its understanding of the law in relation to the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
Izraža mnenje, da bi morala Komisija v drugih in tretjih pravilih o pomoči ali v vsakem drugem obvestilu navesti spremembo svojega pravnega koncepta v zvezi s področjem uporabe člena 4(c) PJ 83.
83It argues in particular that, by not raising any objection to the implementation of the ZRFG, the Commission created on the part of undertakings a legitimate expectation as to the lawfulness of that legislation.
Zlasti poudarja, da je Komisija s tem, da ni izrazila nikakr�nega ugovora proti izvajanju ZRFG, pri večini družb vzbudila legitimno pričakovanje glede zakonitosti te zakonodaje.
Salzgitter argues that it was not clear from Article 6 of the Third Code whether the application of the tax rules in the ZRFG to steel undertakings was to be the subject of a new notification, despite the authorisation previously granted by the Commission under the EC Treaty.
Družba Salzgitter zatrjuje, da člen 6 tretjih pravil ni omogočal opredelitve, ali bi bilo treba uporabo davčnih pravil, kot jih predvideva ZRFG za jeklarska podjetja, ponovno priglasiti kljub že predhodno danemu dovoljenju Komisije, skladno s Pogodbo ES.
It goes on to submit that existing aid such as that provided for in the ZRFG could not be subject to the obligation to notify laid down in that provision.
Dodaja, da obstoječe pomoči, kot so pomoči po ZRFG, niso mogle biti podrejene obveznosti priglasitve, ki jo predvideva omenjena določba.
Salzgitter refers in this regard to the judgment in Italy v Commission concerning the notification of individual measures implementing a general scheme of aid.
V tem pogledu se družba Salzgitter sklicuje na zgoraj omenjeno sodbo Italija proti Komisiji o priglasitvi posamičnih ukrepov za izvajanje splo�nega sistema pomoči 85.
85According to Salzgitter, in so far as the Commission authorised the application of the ZRFG without reservation under the EC Treaty and did not raise any objection under Article 67 CS, implementation of the ZRFG
Po njenem mnenju, če bi Komisija brez zadržkov dovolila uporabo ZRFG na podlagi Pogodbe ES in ne bi izrazila nikakr�nega ugovora na podlagi člena 67 PJ,
Salzgitter also argues that Article 4(c) CS does not apply to general measures adopted by the Member States in relation to all sectors of the economy, such as the ZRFG, a fact confirmed by the Commission in the first part of the recitals in the preambles to the First and Second Codes. It also submits that the Commission applied Article 4(c) CS
Dalje, družba Salzgitter trdi, da se člen 4(c) PJ ne uporablja za splo�ne ukrepe držav članic v zvezi z vsemi gospodarskimi sektorji, kot je ZRFG, kar je Komisija potrdila v prvem
84 — Salzgitter refers to the judgment in Falck Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission (paragraph 119 and the caselaw cited there).
84 – Salzgitter se sklicuje na zgoraj navedeno sodbo Falck in Acciaierie di Bolzano proti Komisiji (točka 119 in navedena sodna praksa).
83 — Salzgitter refers to the judgment in Case C-181/02 P Commission v Kvaerner Warnow Werft [2004] ECR I-5703, paragraph 41.
83 – Salzgitter se sklicuje na sodbo z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Kvaerner Warnow Werftu (C-181/02 P, Recueil, str. I-5703, točka 41).
85 — Paragraph 21.
85 – Točka 21.
(b) Assessment for the benefit of an undertaking could not be classified as ‘new aid’ and, therefore, as a ‘plan’ within the meaning of Article 6 of the Third Code.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER b) Presoja izvajanje ZRFG v korist podjetja ne bi moglo biti označeno kot „nova pomoč“ in posledično kot „projekt“ v smislu člena 6 tretjih pravil.
Court of First Instance held:
Kakor sem že navedel 86, je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 174 izpodbijane sodbe preso- dilo, da: