natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
20 — Articles 2 to 5 of that code set out the conditions governing the grant of aid for research and development, aid for environmental protection, aid for closures of steel plants and aid provided for under general regional aid schemes to undertakings located in Greece, respectively.
20 – Členi od 2 do 5 teh pravil natančno določajo pogoje za dodelitev pomoči za raziskave in razvoj, za za�čito okolja, za zaprtje jeklarskih naprav ter regionalnih pomoči, predvidenih s splo�nimi ureditvami za družbe v Grčiji
Since the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on 23 July 2002, the assessment of aid granted to both coal undertakings and steel undertakings has fallen within the scope of the EC Treaty.
Od prenehanja veljavnosti Pogodbe ESPJ, 23. julija 2002, za presojo pomoči, ki so bile odobrene jeklarskim oziroma premogovni�kim družbam, veljajo predpisi Pogodbe ES.
II — Facts giving rise to the dispute and steel sector.
II – Dejansko stanje
Salzgitter is a steel undertaking which falls within the scope of the ECSC Treaty. 21
Družba Salzgitter je jeklarsko podjetje, ki sodi na področje uporabe Pogodbe ESPJ 21.
A — The tax measures established by the ZRFG
A – Davčni ukrepi, določeni z ZRFG neobdavčenih rezervacij in rezerv za vlaganja v vse obrate podjetja na območju Zonenrandgebiet.
In Germany, the ZRFG was adopted on 5 August 1971.
ZRFG je bil sprejet 5. avgusta 1971 v Nemčiji.
That law was approved, along with subsequent amendments to it, by the Commission, following assessment of the measures provided for it in the light of Art -icles 87 EC and 88 EC.
Komisija je ta zakon in njegove naknadne spremembe potrdila po presoji ukrepov, določenih v smislu členov 87 ES in 88 ES 22.
22 That law applied to all sectors of the economy.
Navedeni zakon se je uporabljal v vseh sektorjih gospodarstva.
It was therefore a general scheme of aid not specific to the coal
Šlo je torej za splo�en sistem pomoči, ki niso posebne za sektor premoga in jekla.
21 — In accordance with Article 80 CS, undertakings which fall within the competence of the Community are those which are engaged in production in the coal or the steel industry.
21 – V smislu člena 80 PJ so družbe, ki sodijo v pristojnost Skupnosti, tiste, ki izvajajo proizvodno dejavnost na področju premoga in jekla.
In this case, Salzgitter manufactures products listed in Annex I to the ECSC Treaty.
V tej zadevi družba Salzgitter proizvaja proizvode, navedene v prilogi k pogodbi ESPJ.
Paragraph 3 of the ZRFG applied without distinction to all sectors of activity, all types of investments in real or moveable property, and to all undertakings regardless of size, sector of activity or seat.
Člen 3 ZRFG se je uporabil za vse sektorje dejavnosti, vse vrste vlaganj, bodisi v premičnine ali v nepremičnine, in za vsa podjetja brez razlikovanja glede na velikost, dejavnost ali sedež.
None the less, a necessary condition for benefiting from the measures provided for in Paragraph 3 of the ZRFG was that the establishments in which the investments were made must be situated in the Zonenrandgebiet.
Vendar je bil nujni pogoj za uporabo ukrepov iz tega člena, da so obrati, v katere se vlaga, na območju Zonenrandgebiet.
B — Initiation of the examination procedure provided for in Article 6(5) of the Sixth Code and adoption of the contested decision
B – Začetek postopka preverjanja, ki je dolo­čeno s členom 6(5) šestih pravil, in sprejetje sporne odločbe
In accordance with Articles 2 and 3 of the contested decision, the Commission ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recover that aid from Salzgitter.
V skladu s členoma 2 in 3 navedene odločbe je Komisija Zvezni republiki Nemčiji odredila, naj navedene pomoči izterja od družbe Salzgitter.
III — Procedure before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal
III – Postopek pred Sodiščem stopnje in izpodbijana sodba
After having observed from a reading of the annual accounts of Preussag Stahl AG, one of the companies of the current Salzgitter group, that the company had been subsidised repeatedly between 1986 and 1995 on the basis of Paragraph 3 of the ZRFG, by letter dated 3 March 1999, the Commission informed the Federal Republic of Germany of its decision to initiate the procedure under Article 6(5) of the Sixth Code in respect of the subsidies authorised and granted by Germany to Salzgitter. 23
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 3. marca 1999, potem ko je v letnih poslovnih izkazih družbe Preussag Stahl AG, ene od družb sedanje skupine Salzgitter, ugotovila, da so ji bile v letih od 1986 do 1995 na podlagi člena 3 ZRFG dodeljene �tevilne pomoči, obvestila Zvezno republiko Nemčijo o odločitvi, da začne postopek, določen v členu 6(5) �estih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu, v zvezi s pomočmi, ki jih je ta država članica dodelila družbi Salzgitter 23.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 21 September 2000, Salzgitter brought an action for the annulment of the contested decision.
Družba Salzgitter je 21. septembra 2000 v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje vložila tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane odločbe.
By order of 29 March 2001 of the President of the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance, 24the Federal Republic of Germany was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by Salzgitter.
Predsednik četrtega raz�irjenega senata Sodi�ča prve stopnje je 29. marca 2001 s sklepom Zvezni republiki Nemčiji dovolil intervencijo v podporo predlogom družbe Salzgitter 24.
On 28 June 2000, the Commission adopted the contested decision on the basis of Article 4(c) CS and the Sixth Code.
Komisija je 28. junija 2000 na podlagi člena 4(c) PJ in �estih pravil sprejela sporno odločbo.
In support of its application, the recipient undertaking relied on eight pleas in law.
Družba prejemnica je v utemeljitev ničnostne tožbe navedla osem tožbenih razlogov.
The Court of First Instance examined the first, second, third and seventh pleas before partially annulling the contested decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je presodilo prvi, drugi, tretji in sedmi tožbeni razlog, preden je razglasilo delno ničnost izpodbijane odločbe.
In Article 1 of the contested decision, the Commission found that the aid granted to Salzgitter, pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the ZRFG, in the form of special depreciation allowances and taxfree reserves in respect of eligible bases of DEM 484 million and DEM 367 million respectively, constituted State aid which was incompatible with the common market.
Komisija je v členu 1 te odločbe ugotovila, da so bile pomoči, dodeljene družbi Salzgitter v obliki posebne amortizacije in neobdavčene rezervacije in rezerve, določene s členom 3 ZRFG, v znesku 484 milijonov oziroma 367 milijonov nem�kih mark, državne pomoči, ki so nezdružljive s skupnim trgom.
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER special depreciation allowances and taxfree reserves provided for in Paragraph 3 of the ZRFG to be State aid.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER amortizacije in neobdavčene rezervacije in rezerve, določene s členom 3 ZRFG, nepravilno opredelila kot državne pomoči.
The Court of First Instance rejected that plea on the ground that the aid at issue was indeed State aid within the meaning of Article 4(c) CS.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zavrnilo ta tožbeni razlog z ugotovitvijo, da so bile zadevne pomoči državne pomoči v smislu člena 4(c) PJ.
In paragraph 117 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that the Commission was entitled to find that Article 4(c) CS applied and that Article 67 CS did not, and, in paragraph 118 of the judgment under appeal, it rejected the second plea.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 117 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da je Komisija v izpodbijani odločbi pravilno �tela, da je bil v zadevnem primeru uporabljen člen 4(c) PJ in ne člen 67 PJ, v točki 118 izpodbijane sodbe pa je zavrnilo drugi tožbeni razlog.
By its third plea, Salzgitter accused the Commission of not considering on its own initiative, under Article 95 CS, whether the aid at issue could be declared compatible with the common market.
S tretjim tožbenim razlogom je družba Salzgitter očitala Komisiji, da v smislu člena 95 PJ ni po uradni dolžnosti preizkusila, ali bi zadevna pomoč lahko bila opredeljena za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
The Court of First Instance rejected that plea, on the ground, set out in paragraphs 136 to 147 of the judgment under appeal that the Commission had not committed a manifest error of assessment when examining whether Article 95 CS was applicable.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zavrnilo ta tožbeni razlog z ugotovitvami v točkah od 136 do 147 izpodbijane sodbe, da Komisija ni očitno napačnopresodila v okviru uporabe člena 95 PJ.
The Court of First Instance rejected that plea for the reasons set out in paragraphs 103 to 118 of the judgment under appeal.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zavrnilo ta tožbeni razlog, s tem da je sprejelo obrazložitev, navedeno v točkah od 103 do 118 izpodbijane sodbe.
After having defined the scope of each of those provisions, on the basis of the caselaw of the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance pointed out that Article 4(c) CS and Article 67 CS cover two distinct areas, with the latter not covering State aid.
Potem ko je Sodi�če prve stopnje na podlagi sodne prakse Sodi�ča poudarilo pomen obeh določb, je opozorilo, da se člena 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ nana�ata na dve različni področji, pri čemer zadnji člen ne sodi na področje državnih pomoči.
In the sixth plea, Salzgitter submitted that the Commission had also committed an error of assessment in the definition of the decisive discount rate.
V okviru šestega tožbenega razloga je zatrjevala, da je Komisija storila napako pri presoji tudi pri določitvi odločilne stopnje sedanje vrednosti.
The Court of First Instance did not examine those pleas.
Sodi�če prve stopnje ni preučilo teh tožbenih razlogov.
By its seventh plea, Salzgitter considered that the Commission had breached the principle of legal certainty by ordering the Federal Republic of Germany to recover the
S sedmim tožbenim razlogom je družba Salzgitter menila, da je Komisija kr�ila načelo pravne varnosti, ko je od Zvezne republike Nemčije zahtevala, naj izterja pomoči, opredeljene kot nezdružljive s skupnim trgom.
In paragraphs 112 to 115 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance then stated that the uncertainties surrounding the developments in the Commission’s decisionmaking practice did not change that fact.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato v točkah od 112 do 115 izpodbijane sodbe poudarilo, da negotovosti, povezane s spremembami prakse odločanja Komisije, ne spremenijo tega dejanskega stanja.
It points out, in particular, in paragraph 115 of the judgment under appeal, that, although, from the Second Code onwards, the codes refer to ‘all aids to the steel industry, whether specific or non-specific’, that clarification merely serves to restore to Article 4(c) CS its original scope, since that article does not draw any distinction between the types of aid covered by the prohibition in it.
V točki 115 izpodbijane sodbe namreč natančno opredeli, da, čeprav se od drugih pravil pravila nana�ajo na vse pomoči jeklarstvu, naj bodo posebne ali ne za sektor premoga in jekla, je cilj te določbe samo členu 4(c) PJ povrniti izvirno področje uporabe, saj ta ne razlikuje med prepovedanimi vrstami pomoči.
— the implicit nature of the partial — and, therefore, insufficiently clear — withdrawal of the nonobjection in the Commission’s decision of 4 August 1971 “Commission’s 1971 decision”;
– konkludentnost delnega odstopa – in zato nezadostna jasnost – od nenaspro -tovanja iz odločbe Komisije [z dne 4. avgusta 1971, v nadaljevanju: ‚odločba Komisije iz leta 1971‘];
aid declared incompatible with the common market. First of all, in paragraph 161 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that the lack of a limitation period or the failure by the Federal Republic of Germany to give prior notification of the aid measures in question did not exclude a breach, by the Commission, of the principle of legal certainty.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je najprej v točki 161 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da neobstoj zastaralnega roka in predhodne obvestitve o zadevnih pomočeh ne izključuje Komisijine kr�itve načela pravne varnosti.
It also stated in paragraph 163 of that judgment that Salzgitter could not be held responsible for the failure to give prior notification of the aid in so far as the recipient undertaking was not an official party with which the Commission had a duty to communicate for the purposes of State aid.
Prav tako je v točki 163 te sodbe poudarilo, da družba Salzgitter ne more biti odgovorna za nepriglasitev teh pomoči, ker družba prejemnica ni institucionalni sogovornik Komisije na področju državnih pomoči.
Next, in paragraphs 165 and 166 of that judgment, the Court of First Instance noted that, while it was true that the Court had held that the recipient of aid cannot rely on a legitimate expectation that aid was properly granted unless it has been granted in compliance with the rules of procedure, in the case at issue, Salzgitter is not pleading a legitimate expectation that aid was properly granted but rather a breach of the principle of legal certainty, a matter which does not depend solely on the conditions required for the creation of a legitimate expectation on the part of the recipient of the aid.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato v točkah 165 in 166 navedene sodbe opozorilo, da čeprav je Sodi�če dejansko priznalo, da se prejemnik pomoči ne more sklicevati na legitimno pričakovanje v zvezi z zakonitostjo te pomoči, ker je bila ta odobrena s kr�itvijo procesnih pravil, se naj družba Salzgitter v obravnavanem primeru ne bi sklicevala na legitimno pričakovanje v zvezi z zakonitostjo pomoči, ampak na kr�itev načela pravne varnosti, ki ne more biti omejena na pogoje, določene za nastanek legitimnega pričakovanja pri prejemniku pomoči.
After having set out, in paragraphs 168 to 173 of the judgment under appeal, the development of the Commission’s approach over the course of the first three steel aid codes, the Court of First Instance held in paragraph 174 of that judgment that:
Potem ko je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 168 do 173 izpodbijane sodbe opozorilo na razvoj načina delovanja Komisije v okviru prvih treh pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu, je v točki 174 te sodbe presodilo, da:
‘… the situation resulting from the adoption of the Second and Third … Codes was
„[…] je bil položaj, ki je nastal po sprejetju drugih in tretjih pravil […] negotov in
The Court of First Instance then noted, in paragraphs 176 to 179 of the judgment under appeal, the particular obligations that the Commission imposed on the steel undertakings to deal with the crisis in the sector.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato v točkah od 176 do 179 izpodbijane sodbe poudarilo posebne obveznosti, naložene Komisiji glede jeklarskih družb pri re�evanju krize v sektorju.
Steel undertakings had to communicate to the Commission information concerning their steel production and their investments within the framework of the monitoring systems established by the Commission.
Te so morale službam Komisije poslati podatke v zvezi s proizvodnjo jekla in vlaganji v okviru sistemov spremljanja, ki jih je vzpostavila Komisija.
In this regard, the Court of First Instance noted that there was a legal connection between the various systems and stated that the Commission was necessarily prompted to check, when examining the documents sent by the
Sodi�če prve stopnje je glede tega navedlo, da je obstajala pravna zveza med temi različnimi sistemi, in je opozorilo, da je morala Komisija nujno preveriti podatke o proizvodnji jeklarskih podjetij, ki jih je prejela od njih, zlasti da bi lahko ugotovila, ali je ohranjanje ali povečevanje proizvodnih zmogljivosti posledica
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER to Salzgitter between 1986 and 1995, without breaching the principle of legal certainty.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER razjasnila, in v točki 182 sodbe sklenilo, da ta ni mogla zahtevati vračila pomoči, nakazanih tožeči stranki med letoma 1986 in 1995, ne da bi kr�ila načelo pravne varnosti.
Consequently, in paragraph 183 of that judgment, the Court of First Instance upheld the seventh plea and annulled Articles 2 and 3 of the contested decision, in so far as they concerned the obligation for the Federal Republic of Germany to recover the aid which was granted unlawfully to Salzgitter.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 183 navedene sodbe ugodilo sedmemu tožbenemu razlogu in je zato razglasilo ničnost členov 2 in 3 izpodbijane odločbe v delu, v katerem se nana�ata na obveznost Zvezne republike Nemčije, da od družbe Salzgitter zahteva vračilo pomoči, ki so ji bile nezakonito dodeljene.
In paragraph 180 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance therefore inferred that:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 180 izpodbijane sodbe na podlagi navedenega sklenilo, da:
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance found, in paragraph 184 of the judgment under appeal, that it was not necessary to rule on the pleas in law which essentially concerned the reduction and calculation of the amount of aid to be recovered.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v teh okoli�činah v točki 184 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da se ni treba izreči o tožbenih razlogih, ki se v bistvu nana�ajo na zmanj�anje in izračun zneska pomoči, ki jih je treba vrniti.
Moreover, the Court rejected the eighth plea alleging a failure to state the reasons on which the contested decision was based.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrnilo osmi tožbeni razlog, ki se nana�a na odsotnost obrazložitve izpodbijane odločbe.
It took the view that the review it had undertaken in its examination of the first three pleas relied on by Salzgitter showed sufficiently that that obligation had been complied with by the Commission.
Dejansko je menilo, da naj bi sodni nadzor, ki ga je opravilo v okviru preučitve prvih treh tožbenih razlogov, ki jih je navedla družba Salzgitter, zadostno izkazal, da je Komisija spo�tovala to obveznost.
‘The situation of uncertainty and lack of clarity described … in paragraph 174, combined with the prolonged lack of reaction on the part of the Commission, in spite of its awareness of the aid received by [Salzgitter], led to the creation by the Commission, in disregard of its duty of care, of an equivocal situation which the Commission was under a duty to clarify before it could take any action to order the recovery of the aid already paid (see, to that effect, Case 26/69 Commission v France [1970] ECR 565, paragraphs 28 to 32).’
„Negotov in nejasen položaj, opisan v točki 174 […], skupaj z dejstvom, da se Komisija, čeprav je vedela za pomoči, ki jih je uporabljala [družba Salzgitter], dolgo ni odzvala, je tako ob kr�enju zahteve po skrbnem ravnanju, ki zavezuje to institucijo, ustvaril dvoumen položaj, ki bi ga Komisija morala razjasniti, preden je izvedla kakr�en koli ukrep za zahtevanje vračila že prejetih pomoči (v tem smislu glej sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 9. julija 1970 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, 26/69, Recueil, str. 565, točke od 28 do 32).“
IV — Procedure before the Court of Justice and forms of order sought
IV – Postopek pred Sodiščem in predlogi strank
In paragraph 181 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that the Commission had not offered any such clarification and, in paragraph 182 of that judgment, it concluded that the Commission could not order the recovery of the aid paid
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 181 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da Komisija tega ni
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 23 September 2004, the Commis-
Komisija je 23. septembra 2004 v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča vložila to pritožbo. Predlaga
Salzgitter contends that the appeal should be dismissed.
Družba Salzgitter predlaga, naj se pritožba zavrne.
Moreover, by its crossappeal, it claims, on the one hand, that the judgment under appeal should be set aside in so far as the Court of First Instance partially dismissed its action at first instance and, on the other hand, that Article 1 of the contested decision should be annulled.
Poleg tega z nasprotno pritožbo predlaga razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe v delu, s katerim je Sodi�če prve stopnje delno zavrnilo njeno tožbo na prvi stopnji, in razglasitev ničnosti člena 1 sporne odločbe.
Salzgitter also asks the Court to order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.
Družba Salzgitter prav tako poziva Sodi�če, naj Komisiji naloži stro�ke z obeh stopenj.
In the crossappeal, Salzgitter submits that the Court of First Instance incorrectly interpreted the scope and applicability of Articles 4(c) CS, 67 CS and 95 CS for the purposes of the judicial review of the contested decision.
Družba Salzgitter v okviru nasprotne pritožbe zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno razlagalo obseg in uporabo členov 4(c) PJ, 67 PJ in 95 PJ za namene sodnega nadzora sporne odločbe.
In particular, Salzgitter accuses the Court of First Instance of having committed an error of law in holding that the examination of the aid at issue fell within the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
Sodi�ču prve stopnje namreč očita, da je napačno uporabilo pravo, ko je menilo, da je preizkus spornih pomoči sodil na področje uporabe člena 4(c) PJ.
In so far as the question raised in the crossappeal concerns the legal basis of the contested decision, I think it should be examined before the main appeal.
Glede na to, da se vpra�anje, zastavljeno z nasprotno pritožbo, nana�a na pravno podlago sporne odločbe, menim, da ga je treba preizkusiti pred glavno pritožbo.
The Federal Republic of Germany, intervening in support of the reply and the crossappeal brought by Salzgitter, contends that the main appeal should be dismissed, that the judgment under appeal should be set aside in so far as it dismissed the action brought by Salzgitter at first instance and, finally, that Article 1 of the contested decision should be annulled.
Zvezna republika Nemčija, ki je intervenirala v podporo odgovoru na tožbo in nasprotni pritožbi, ki jo je vložila družba Salzgitter, predlaga zavrnitev glavne pritožbe, razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe v delu, s katerim je zavrnila tožbo družbe Salzgitter na prvi stopnji, in nazadnje razglasitev ničnosti člena 1 sporne odločbe.
In support of its crossappeal, Salzgitter raises two pleas.
Družba Salzgitter v utemeljitev nasprotne pritožbe navaja dva pritožbena razloga.
By its first plea, Salzgitter contests the analysis of the Court of First Instance with regard to the lawfulness of the substance of the contested decision.
Družba Salzgitter s prvim pritožbenim razlogom izpodbija preučitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede materialne zakonitosti izpodbijane odločbe.
It submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance incorrectly interpreted Articles 4(c) CS, 67 CS and 95 CS.
Zatrjuje, da je v izpodbijani sodbi napačno razlagalo člene 4(c) PJ, 67 PJ in 95 PJ.
First limb of the first plea, alleging an error of law with respect to the scope and applicability of Articles 4(c) CS and 67 CS
Družba Salzgitter v prvem delu prvega pritožbenega razloga meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo pri presoji, da se je Komisija lahko za presojo zadevnih pomoči veljavno oprla na člen 4(c) PJ 26.
By its second plea, Salzgitter submits that the Court of First Instance incorrectly assessed the reasons given for the contested decision under the fourth indent of the second paragraph of Article 5 CS and the first paragraph of Article 15 CS. 25
Družba Salzgitter z drugim pritožbenim razlogom zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno presodilo obrazložitev sporne odločbe, ki se zahteva s členom 5, drugi odstavek, četrta alinea, PJ in členom 15, prvi odstavek, PJ 25.
A — First plea, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of Articles 4(c) CS, 67 CS and 95 CS
A – Prvi pritožbeni razlog: napačna uporaba prava pri razlagi členov 4(c) PJ, 67 PJ in 95 PJ