natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, the first and second paragraphs of Article 95 CS, on which the various steel aid codes are based, do not provide an appropriate legal basis for such an amendment.
Vendar člen 95, prvi in drugi odstavek, PJ, na katerem temeljijo različna pravila o pomoči jeklarstvu, ne bi bil primerna pravna podlaga za tako spremembo.
According to Salzgitter, the Commission should for this purpose have complied with the procedure provided for either in the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 95 CS or in Article 96 CS.
Po mnenju družbe Salzgitter bi Komisija za kaj takega morala upo�tevati postopek, predviden bodisi v členu 95, tretji in četrti odstavek, PJ bodisi v členu 96 PJ.
The second limb of the first plea, alleging an error of law committed in the assessment of the Commission’s powers
Drugi del prvega pritožbenega razloga: napačna uporaba prava pri presoji pristojnosti Komisije
The Commission submits that it did not amend the scope of Article 4(c) CS, whose wording has remained unchanged since 23 July 1952.
Komisija trdi, da ni spremenila področja uporabe člena 4(c) PJ, saj besedilo te določbe ostaja nespremenjeno že od 23. julija 1952.
It did not therefore revise the ECSC Treaty. 66
Zato naj tudi ne bi nikakor spremenila Pogodbe ESPJ 66.
By this limb of the first plea, Salzgitter submits that the Commission was not competent, in the context of aid to the steel sector, to extend the scope of Article 4(c) CS to aid granted to steel undertakings on the basis of a general scheme of aid authorised under the EC Treaty.
V drugem delu prvega pritožbenega razloga družba Salzgitter meni, da Komisija ni imela pristojnosti, da bi v okviru pomoči jeklarski industriji področje uporabe člena 4(c) PJ raz�irila na pomoči, ki se jeklarskim podjetjem dodeljujejo na podlagi splo�nega sistema pomoči, ki se dovoli na podlagi Pogodbe ES.
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance, in holding that the Commission was entitled to rely on Article 4(c) CS for the purposes of assessing the aid at issue, incorrectly assessed the extent of the Commission’s powers.
S tem naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje, ker je presodilo, da se je Komisija smela za presojo zadevnih pomoči veljavno opreti na člen 4(c) PJ, napačno presodilo obseg njenih pristojnosti.
(a) Arguments of the parties
b) Presoja a) Trditve strank
Under this limb, Salzgitter calls into question the procedure adopted by the Commission for the purpose, in its sub -mission, of extending the scope of Article 4(c) CS in the context of the steel aid codes.
Družba Salzgitter v okviru te točke pritožbenega razloga izpodbija postopek, ki ga je sprejela Komisija, da bi, po njenem mnenju, v okviru pravil o državni pomoči jeklarstvu raz�irila področje uporabe člena 4(c) PJ.
Before examining whether that complaint is well founded, it is worth reminding ourselves of the various mechanisms for making legislative amendments which are provided for in the ECSC Treaty, and on which Salzgitter relies.
Pred preučitvijo utemeljenosti tega očitka se mi zdi vredno spomniti na različne mehanizme pravnih prilagoditev, ki jih predvideva Pogodba ESPJ in na katere se sklicuje družba Salzgitter.
Salzgitter, which, it will be recalled, supports a restrictive interpretation of Article 4(c) CS, considers that the Commission was not competent, under a steel aid code, to extend the scope of that provision
Družba Salzgitter, ki, naj spomnim, uveljavlja ozko razlago člena 4(c) PJ, meni, da Komisija ni imela pristojnosti za raz�iritev, v okviru enih od pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu, področja uporabe te določbe na sistem neposebnih pomoči sektorju premoga in jekla. To
The third paragraph of Article 95 CS provides as follows:
Člen 95, tretji odstavek, PJ določa:
The normal procedure for revising that treaty is provided for in Article 96 CS.
Običajni postopek revizije te pogodbe je predviden v členu 96 PJ.
In its original version, which was still in force when the Second and Third Codes were adopted, that provision allowed the Member States and the Commission to propose amendments to the Treaty.
V izvirni različici, ki je veljala �e ob sprejetju drugih in tretjih pravil, je ta določba vladam vseh držav članic in Komisiji dopu�čala, da predlagajo spremembe omenjene pogodbe.
Those amendments were adopted by mutual agreement by the conference of permanent representatives of the Member States.
Spremembe so se določale z medsebojnim dogovorom na konferenci stalnih predstavnikov vlad držav članic.
— the purpose of these amendments must be to ‘adapt the rules for the [Commission’s] exercise of its powers’;
cilj teh sprememb mora biti „prilagoditev pravil o izvajanju pooblastil [Komisije], ki so ji dodeljena“;
In an Opinion given on 17 December 1959, 67the Court, in proceedings brought
Sodi�če je v mnenju z dne 17. decembra 1959 67 v zvezi z utemeljitvijo člena 95, tretji take spremembe se lahko predlagajo le „če nepredvidene težave, ki se pokažejo iz izku�nje […] ali temeljita sprememba ekonomskih ali tehničnih pogojev, ki neposredno prizadenejo skupni trg za premog in jeklo, nujno zahtevajo [tako] prilagoditev“;
— such amendments may be proposed ‘only if unforeseen difficulties emerging in the light of experience …, or fundamental economic or technical changes directly affecting the common market in coal and steel, make [such adaptation] necessary’; under the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 95 CS, held that derogation from that procedure is permissible ‘only where it does not interfere with the general structure of the Treaty or the relationship between the Community and the Member States, particularly the relationship between the powers transferred to the Community and the powers reserved to the Member States, and that the procedure for ‘minor amendment’ … can be adopted only in these cases’.
– in četrti odstavek, PJ poudarilo, da od tega postopka niso bila mogoča odstopanja „razen v primerih, ko se ne prizadene �koda tako splo�ni strukturi Pogodbe kot odnosom med Skupnostjo in državami članicami, �e zlasti ne v razmerju med pooblastili, prenesenimi na Skupnost, in pooblastili, pridržanimi državam članicam, in da je samo v teh primerih [bilo] možno sprejeti postopek ‚male revizije‘“.
— this adaptation must involve the making of appropriate amendments; and finally,
poleg tega mora taka prilagoditev biti usmerjena k temu, da prinese primerne spremembe, in končno,
— these amendments must not conflict with the provisions of Articles 2 CS to 4 CS or with the relationship between the powers of the Commission and those of other institutions of the Community.
– te spremembe ne smejo �kodovati ne določbam členov od 2 PJ do 4 PJ niti razmerju med pooblastili, ki so dodeljena Komisiji in drugim institucijam Skupnosti.
The procedure for ‘minor amendment’ is provided for in the third paragraph of Article 95 CS.
Postopek „male revizije“ je določen v členu 95, tretji odstavek, PJ.
The amendments proposed by the Commission and the Council are to be submitted to the Court for its opinion, and the Court is to determine, in law and in fact, whether the proposals are compatible with the provisions of the said paragraph.
Spremembe, ki jih predlagata Komisija in Svet, se predložijo v mnenje Sodi�ču, ki je pozvano, da se pravno in dejansko opredeli o skladnosti predlogov za določbe navedenega odstavka.
The first paragraph of Article 95 CS allows the Commission to adopt a decision
Člen 95, prvi odstavek, PJ omogoča Komisiji, da v vseh primerih, ki niso
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER for either in Article 96 CS or in the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 95 CS.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER uporabe člena 4(c) PJ v okviru različnih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu, medtem ko bi morala upo�tevati postopek, ki ga določa bodisi člen 96 PJ bodisi člen 95, tretji in četrti odstavek, PJ.
or recommendation in all cases not provided for in the ECSC Treaty where it becomes apparent that that decision or recommendation is necessary to attain, within the common market in coal and steel and in accordance with Article 5 CS, one of the objectives of the Community set out in Articles 2 CS to 4 CS.
predvideni s Pogodbo ESPJ, sprejme odločbo ali priporočilo, če sta taka odločba ali to priporočilo potrebna za uresničitev, v okviru delovanja skupnega trga za premog in jeklo in v skladu z določbami člena 5 PJ, enega od ciljev Skupnosti, kot so opredeljeni v členih od 2 PJ do 4 PJ.
The Commission is to adopt a decision or recommendation with the unanimous assent of the Council and after the Consultative Committee has been consulted.
Komisija odločbo ali priporočilo sprejme po privolitvi Sveta, ki o tem odloči soglasno, in po posvetovanju s Svetovalnim odborom.
In the light of the conclusions drawn under the first limb of the first plea, I consider this complaint to be unfounded.
V smislu sklepnih predlogov, ki sem jih navedel v okviru prvega dela pritožbenega razloga, menim, da ta očitek ni utemeljen.
It is not too difficult to see the formal differences between the two situations contemplated in Article 95 CS.
Brez prevelikih težav opazimo formalne razlike med obema hipotezama iz člena 95 PJ.
The first paragraph of Article 95 CS is concerned with enabling the Commission to fill a gap in the ECSC Treaty which paralyses its action by allowing it to adopt a decision or a recommendation in a situation not provided for in that treaty, but without amending it.
V okviru člena 95, prvi odstavek, PJ gre za to, da se Komisiji omogoči zapolniti vrzel iz Pogodbe ESPJ, ki onemogoča njeno ukrepanje, tako da se ji dopusti izdati odločbo ali priporočilo v primeru, ki ga ta pogodba ne predvideva, vendar brez spremembe te.
Moreover, the unanimous assent of the Council is required beforehand.
Poleg tega je potrebna tudi predhodna privolitev Sveta, ki o tem odloči soglasno.
The third paragraph of Article 95 CS has to do with amending a provision of that treaty relating to ‘the Commission’s exercise of its powers’.
V okviru člena 95, tretji odstavek, PJ gre za to, da se spremeni določba navedebe pogodbe „o Komisijinem izvajanju pooblastil, ki so ji dodeljena“.
The unanimous assent of the Council is not required but a favourable opinion from the Court and a vote by the European Parliament are.
Ob upo�tevanju, da se je zna�la v položaju, ki ga Pogodba ESPJ, na podlagi katere je bila dolžna ukrepati, ne predvideva, imam torej vtis, da bi se Komisija lahko legitimno oprla na člen 95, prvi in drugi odstavek, PJ, da bi s pomočjo omenjenih predpisov odgovorila na potrebe po prestrukturiranju jeklarskega trga.
In this case, Salzgitter accuses the Commission of having relied on the first and second paragraphs of Article 95 CS to extend the scope of Article 4(c) CS in the context of the various steel aid codes, whereas it should have complied with the procedure provided
Družba Salzgitter v tej zadevi Komisiji očita, da se je oprla na člen 95, prvi in drugi odstavek, PJ, da bi raz�irila področje
I am therefore of the opinion that the Court of First Instance did not commit an error of law in this regard and I propose that the Court dismiss the second limb of the first plea.
Tako menim, da Sodi�če prve stopnje v zvezi s tem nikakor ni napačno razlagalo prava, in Sodi�ču predlagam, naj izloči drugi del prvega pritožbenega razloga.
The third limb of the first plea, alleging an error of law in the presentation of the Commission’s decisionmaking practice restore to Article 4(c) CS its original scope, even though it was in reality an unauthorised amendment to the ECSC Treaty.
Tretji del prvega pritožbenega razloga: napačna razlaga prava pri predstavi prakse odločanja Komisije da je bil cilj drugih pravil o pomoč povrniti členu 4(c) PJ njegov prvotni obseg, čeprav naj bi v resnici �lo za nedovoljeno spremembo Pogodbe ESPJ.
By the third limb of the first plea, Salzgitter submits that, in paragraphs 112 et seq. of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance presented the Commission’s decisionmaking practice in an incorrect manner. 68
Družba Salzgitter s tretjim delom prvega pritožbenega razloga zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 112 in v naslednjih izpodbijane sodbe napačno predstavilo prakso odločanja Komisije 68.
The Commission considers that the fact that it held a different view on the scope of Article 4(c) CS prior to the Third Code has no bearing on the aid granted to Salzgitter, in so far as that view was not recorded in any individual act capable of becoming final in relation to the recipient undertaking before 1 January 1986. 69
Komisija meni, da je dejstvo, da je pred tretjimi pravili zagovarjala drugačno stali�če v zvezi z obsegom člena 4(c) PJ, brez pomena za pomoči, odobrene družbi Salzgitter, s tem ko omenjeno stali�če ni bilo vpisano v noben posamični akt, ki bi lahko postal dokončen v povezavi z družbo prejemnico pred 1. januarjem 1986 69.
(a) Arguments of the parties
a) Trditve strank b) Presoja
Salzgitter submits that the Commission formed the view that Article 4(c) CS applied only to specific aid to steel undertakings from the very entry into force of the ECSC Treaty in 1952, not in the early 1970s.
Družba Salzgitter zatrjuje, da je Komisija od začetka veljavnosti Pogodbe ESPJ, leta 1952, in ne od začetka sedemdesetih let �tela, da se je člen 4(c) PJ uporabljal le za posebne pomoči v korist jeklarskih družb.
Salzgitter relies in this regard on the report published by the High Authority of the ECSC in 1963, entitled ‘Le Traité CECA de 1952 à 1962’, on the wording of the fourth recital in the preamble to, and Article 1 of, the First Code, the position taken by the Commission in its 9th Report on Competition Policy and the Commission’s decisionmaking practice in the coal sector.
V zvezi s tem se družba Salzgitter sklicuje na poročilo, ki ga je Visoka oblast ESPJ leta 1963 objavila pod naslovom „Pogodba ESPJ od 1952 do 1962“ o besedilu četrte uvodne izjave in člena 1 prvih pravil o pomoči, o položaju, ki ga zagovarja Komisija v okviru svojega IX. Poročila o politiki konkurence ter o praksi odločanja Komisije v sektorju premoga.
Salzgitter criticises the Court of First Instance, in particular, for having held, in paragraph 115 of the judgment under appeal, that the Second Code aimed to
Družba Salzgitter Sodi�ču prve stopnje namreč očita, da je v točki 115 izpodbijane sodbe �telo,
In paragraphs 112 to 117 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance set out the rules which the Commission adopted under the First and Second Codes.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 112 do 117 izpodbijane sodbe predstavilo predpise, ki jih je Komisija sprejela v okviru prvih in drugih pravil.
That outline, although it does not relate to the rules applicable to this case, nevertheless enables us to assess the legal context of the dispute and highlights the changes in the Commission’s interpretation.
Ta predstavitev, čeprav se ne nana�a na predpise, ki bi se uporabili v tej zadevi, vendarle omogoča presojo pravnega konteksta spora in pojasnjuje spremembe v razlagi Komisije.
68 — Paragraphs 122 to 138 of the response and cross-appeal.
68 – Točke od 122 do 138 odgovora na tožbo in nasprotne pritožbe.
Contrary to what the Commission submits, this is not immaterial to this case.
V nasprotju s tem, kar ta zatrjuje, to v okviru te zadeve ni brez pomena.
I therefore propose that the Court should dismiss the third limb of the first plea as unfounded and, therefore, dismiss the first plea in its entirety.
Sodi�ču torej predlagam, naj izloči tretji del prvega pritožbenega razloga kot neutemeljenega in, v skladu s tem, prvi pritožbeni razlog v celoti zavrne.
In paragraph 112 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance observed that, ‘in the early 1970s and until the adoption of … the Second … Code, the Commission considered that Article 4(c) CS applied only to specific aid in favour of steel undertakings’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 112 izpodbijane sodbe poudarilo, da je Komisija „od začetka sedemdesetih let in do sprejetja [drugih pravil] �tela, da se člen 4(c) PJ uporablja samo za posebne pomoči v korist jeklarskih družb“.
It then noted, in paragraph 115 of the judgment under appeal that, ‘from [that] code onwards, the codes refer to “all aids to the steel industry, whether specific or nonspecific”, that clarification merely [serving] to restore to Article 4(c) CS its original scope’. 70
Nato je v točki 115 omenjene sodbe navedlo, da se „od [omenjenih pravil] pravila o pomoči nana�ajo na ‚vse pomoči jeklarstvu […], bodisi posebne ali ne‘, [je] cilj te navedbe samo členu 4(c) PJ povrniti njegov prvotni obseg 70“.
By its second plea, Salzgitter submits that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in holding, in paragraph 184 of the judgment under appeal, that the reasons given in the contested decision met the requirements laid down in the ECSC Treaty. 71
Družba Salzgitter z drugim pritožbenim razlogom navaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, ker je v točki 184 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da je obrazložitev sporne odločbe spo�tovala zahteve, določene s Pogodbo ESPJ 71.
Under this limb, Salzgitter again criticises the Court of First Instance for its conclusion as to the ‘original scope’ of Article 4(c) CS.
V okviru tega dela pritožbenega razloga družba Salzgitter Sodi�ču prve stopnje ponovno očita njegovo preučitev v zvezi s „prvotnim obsegom“ člena 4(c) PJ.
It argues that the scope of that provision was limited to specific aid in favour of steel undertakings as from the very entry into force of the ECSC Treaty, not only between the 1970s and the adoption of the Second Code.
Uveljavlja namreč stali�če, da je bilo področje uporabe te določbe omejeno na posebne pomoči v korist jeklarskih družb od začetka veljavnosti Pogodbe ESPJ in ne samo od sedemdesetih let do sprejetja drugih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu.
Salzgitter submits that the Commission does not state the reasons why it is departing
Družba Salzgitter zatrjuje, da Komisija ne obrazloži razlogov, zaradi katerih se
In the light of the conclusions drawn under the first limb of the first plea, it is my view that the Court of First Instance correctly set out the Commission’s decisionmaking practice and I therefore consider that Salzgitter’s arguments are untenable.
Glede na ugotovitve, ki sem jih navedel v okviru prvega dela prvega pritožbenega
70 — Emphasis added.
70 – Moj poudarek.
The Commission argues that its practice changed with the issue of the Third Code, which adequately states the reasons for that change.
Komisija sama trdi, da se je njena praksa spremenila takoj po določitvi tretjih pravil in da so ta glede tega dovolj dobro obrazložena 74.
74 It refutes the existence of a particular obligation to state reasons, on the ground that its duties are exhaustively set out in the third paragraph of Article 15 CS and in the first paragraph of Article 95 CS (consultation of the Consultative Committee and assent of the Council).
Zavrača obstoj obveznosti neke posebne obrazložitve, saj meni, da so njene naloge natančno urejene v členu 15, tretji odstavek, PJ in v členu 95, prvi odstavek, PJ (posvetovanje s Svetovalnim odborom in privolitev Sveta).
Salzgitter also argues that the Commission failed to explain why its assessment was at odds with its decisionmaking practice concerning the coal sector.
Družba Salzgitter tudi zatrjuje, da Komisija ni razložila, zakaj se njena presoja razlikuje od njene prakse odločanja v zvezi s sektorjem premoga.
Finally, Salzgitter accuses the Commission of not having set out the reasons why the contested decision departed from its decisionmaking practice in similar cases, such as in Commission Decision 2002/347/ECSC. 72
Končno, družba Salzgitter Komisiji očita, da ni predstavila razlogov, zaradi katerih se je sporna odločba odmaknila od njene prakse odločanja v podobnih zadevah, kot je zadeva, v kateri je bila izdana Odločba Komisije �t. 2002/347/ESPJ. 72
First of all, it should be borne in mind that the extent of the obligation to state reasons is a question of law reviewable by the Court on appeal.
Najprej opozarjam, da je vpra�anje obsega obveznosti obrazložitve pravno vpra�anje, ki je lahko predmet nadzora Sodi�ča v okviru pritožbe.
A plea alleging the failure to have regard to the scope of that obligation is therefore admissible even if it necessarily requires the Court of Justice to take into consideration the facts on which the Court of First Instance relied in reaching its conclusion. 75
Pritožbeni razlog, izpeljan iz nepoznavanja obsega te obveznosti, je torej dopusten, čeprav nujno vključuje upo�tevanje dejstev, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje uporabilo kot temelj, da je sprejelo svojo ugotovitev 75.
The Federal Republic of Germany argues that the development of the Commission’s understanding of the law in terms of the scope of Article 4(c) CS and Article 67 CS respectively required a more detailed statement of the reasons and justification for the contested decision. 73
Zvezna republika Nemčija poudarja, da je razvoj pravnega koncepta Komisije v zvezi s področjem uporabe tako člena 4(c) PJ kot člena 67 PJ vključeval raz�irjeno obrazložitev in utemeljitev v sporni odločbi. 73
It is clear from the fourth indent of the second paragraph of Article 5 CS and the first paragraph of Article 15 CS that the Community is to ‘publish the reasons for its actions’
Iz določil členov 5, drugi odstavek, četrta alinea, PJ in 15, prvi odstavek, PJ izhaja, da Skupnost „javno objavi razloge za svoje ukrepanje“ in da „[se] odločbe, priporočila in mnenja [Komisije] obrazložijo in se nana�ajo na mnenja, ki se obvezno zberejo“.
72 — Decision of 21 November 2001 on the taxfree provisions introduced by France for setting up establishments abroad (OJ 2002 L 126, p. 27).
72 – Odločba z dne 21. novembra 2001 o davčnih oprostitvah za Francijo pri ustanovitvi podjetij v tujini (UL 2002, L 126, str. 27).
74 — Third and fourth recitals in the preamble to the Third Code.
73 – Točka 53 odgovora na tožbo in intervencije v podporo nasprotne pritožbe.
73 — Paragraph 53 of the response and intervention in support of the cross-appeal.
I-6561, točka 24 in navedena sodna praksa).
It follows from those provisions and from the general principles contained in the ECSC Treaty that the Commission is required to give reasons for the general or individual decisions which it adopts, regardless of the legal basis chosen for that purpose.
Iz teh določb ter iz splo�nih načel Pogodbe ESPJ izhaja, da je Komisija dolžna obrazložiti splo�ne ali posamične odločbe, ki jih sprejme, in to ne glede na pravno podlago, ki se izbere v ta namen.
Moreover, the insufficiency or lack of reasoning constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements within the meaning of Article 33 CS and is a matter of public policy which the Community judicature must raise of its own motion. 76 or other persons concerned by the measure in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 33 CS — to ascertain the reasons for it.
Poleg tega pomeni neobrazložitev ali pomanjkljiva obrazložitev bistveno kr�itev postopka na podlagi člena 33 PJ in je razlog javnega reda, ki ga sodnik Skupnosti upo�teva po uradni dolžnosti 76.
It is not, however, necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 5 CS and 15 CS must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.
z utemeljitvijo sprejetega ukrepa. Vsekakor se ne zahteva, da naj obrazložitev opredeli vse upo�tevne dejanske in pravne elemente, ko je vpra�anje, ali ta obrazložitev izpolnjuje zahteve iz členov 5 PJ in 15 PJ, treba presoditi ne le glede na besedilo akta, ampak tudi v njegovem okviru, pa tudi v okviru celote pravnih pravil, ki urejajo zadevno področje 78.
78In the context of State aid control, the examination of the reasons given for a Commission decision must also take account of the complex assessments which the institution must carry out and the discretionary choices that it may make.
V okviru nadzora nad državnimi pomočmi mora preučitev obrazložitve neke odločbe Komisije upo�tevati tudi kompleksne presoje, ki jih mora opraviti institucija, in diskrecijsko izbiro, za katero se ta lahko odloči.