natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
17 July 1996 it published the formal notice on the initiation of the procedure.
Uradno obvestilo o uvedbi postopka je objavila 17. julija 1996.
10 subsequently intervened in support of the Commission.
10 prve stopnje izpodbijano odločbo razglasi za nično.
The case was allocated to the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance, and a Judge-Rappor-teur was designated.
Zadeva je bila dodeljena četrtemu raz�irjenemu senatu Sodi�ča prve stopnje in določen je bil sodnik poročevalec.
On 17 August 1996 SFEI submitted observations to the Commission in response to the notice, attaching an economic study by Bain & Co. 11France replied, attaching an economic study by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. 7.
V odgovor na obvestilo je združenje SFEI Komisiji 17. avgusta 1996 posredovalo stali�ča, h katerim je priložilo novo gospodarsko �tudijo družbe Bain & Co. 11Fran-coska republika je k repliki priložila gospodarsko �tudijo družbe Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. 10.
Article 1 states that ‘[t]he logistical and commercial assistance provided by [La Poste] to its subsidiary SFMI-Chronopost [and the other measures complained of] do not constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost’.
V členu 1 je presodila, da „[l]ogistična in komercialna podpora, ki jo [družba La Poste] nudi hčerinski družbi SFMI-Chronopost [in drugi ukrepi, zaradi katerih je vložena pritožba], ne pomenita državne pomoči družbi SFMI-Chronopost.“
UFEX I and Chronopost I
Sodbi UFEX I in Chronopost I
By application lodged on 30 December 1997, UFEX, DHL International, Federal Express and CRIE asked the Court of First Instance to annul the contested decision. France, La Poste and Chronopost
Združenje UFEX ter družbe DHL Interna -tional, Federal Express in CRIE so s tožbo z dne 30. decembra 1997 zahtevali, naj Sodi�če
11 — It also extended its complaint of December 1990 to include a number of points which do not concern the present appeal.
11 – Pritožbo, vloženo decembra 1990, je raz�irila tudi na �tevilna druga vpra�anja, ki v obravnavani zadevi niso vključena.
The Court of First Instance upheld the first part of the fourth plea and annulled Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it found that the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost did not constitute State aid.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je ugodilo prvemu delu četrtega tožbenega razloga in člen 1 izpodbijane odločbe razglasilo za ničnega, ker ugotavlja, da logistična in komercialna podpora družbe La Poste družbi SFMI-Chro-nopost ni pomenila državne pomoči.
The Court of First Instance considered it unnecessary to examine the second part of the fourth plea or the other pleas in so far as they related to the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je menilo, da drugega dela četrtega tožbenega razloga in drugih tožbenih razlogov, ker se nana�ajo na logistično in komercialno podporo, ki jo je družba La Poste nudila družbi SFMI-Chronopost, ni treba presojati.
In particular, it was not necessary to examine the second plea.
Še zlasti naj ne bi bilo treba presojati drugega tožbenega razloga.
The first plea and the parts of the third plea which did not relate to the complaints examined under the fourth plea were rejected.
Prvi tožbeni razlog in dele tretjega tožbenega razloga, ki niso bili povezani z očitki, preučenimi v okviru četrtega tožbenega razloga, je zavrnilo.
It was thus inseparably linked to it.
Sodi�če je odločilo:
By applications lodged at the Court Registry on 19 and 23 February 2001, Chronopost, La Poste and France appealed against UFEX I.
Družba Chronopost, družba La Poste in Francoska republika so se s tožbami, vlo -ženimi v sodnem tajni�tvu 19. oziroma 23. februarja 2001, pritožile zoper sodbo UFEX I.
‘(38) Accordingly, in the absence of any possibility of comparing the situation of La Poste with that of a private group of undertakings not operating in a reserved sector, normal market conditions, which are necessarily hypothetical, must be assessed by reference to the object ive and verifiable elements which are available.
„(38) Ker položaja družbe La Poste ni mogoče primerjati s položajem skupine zasebnih družb brez monopolnega položaja, je treba nujne hipotetične ‚običajne tržne razmere‘ ugotoviti z razpoložljivimi objektivnimi in dokazljivimi dejavniki.
The appellants relied on several pleas, the first of which alleged that the Court of First Instance had infringed Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 87(1) EC) by giving an incorrect interpretation to the concept of ‘normal market conditions’ used in SFEI.
Pritožnice so navedle več pritožbenih razlogov, pri čemer so v prvem Sodi�ču prve stopnje očitale, da je z nepravilno razlago pojma „običajne tržne razmere“, uporabljenega v sodbi SFEI, kr�ilo člen 92(1) Pogodbe ES (zdaj 87(1) ES).
In paragraph 75 of UFEX I, the Court of First Instance had found that the Commission should at least have checked that the payment received by La Poste was com parable to that demanded by a private holding company or a private group of undertakings not operating in a reserved sector.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 75 sodbe UFEX I odločilo, da bi morala Komisija preučiti najmanj to, ali je storitev, ki jo je družba prejela od družbe La Poste, primerljiva s tisto, ki bi jo zahtevala zasebna finančna družba oziroma skupina družb, ki nima monopolnega položaja.
(39) In the present case, the costs borne by La Poste in respect of the provision to its subsidiary of logistical and commercial assistance can constitute such objective and verifiable elements.
(39) V obravnavani zadevi bi lahko bili taki objektivni in dokazljivi dejavniki izdatki družbe La Poste za logistično in komercialno podporo hčerinski družbi.
This Court held that that assessment was flawed in law in that it failed to take into account that La Poste was in a situation which was very different from that of a private company acting under normal market conditions.
Sodi�če je odločilo, da je bilo v zgornji presoji pravo napačno uporabljeno, saj ni bilo upo�tevano, da je bila družba La Poste v povsem drugačnem položaju kot zasebna družba, ki je dejavnost opravljala v običajnih tržnih razmerah.
As an entity entrusted with a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(2) EC), La Poste had to acquire, or be provided with, substantial infrastructures and resources enabling it to provide basic postal services to all users, including in areas where the tariffs did not cover the costs of the services.
Družba La Poste je bila namreč poobla�čena za opravljanje storitev splo�nega gospodarskega pomena v smislu člena 90(2) ES (zdaj člen 86(2) ES), zato je potrebovala oziroma pridobila pomembno infrastrukturo in sredstva, ki so ji omogočili, da je osnovne po�tne storitve opravljala za vse uporabnike, skupaj s tistimi v redko naseljenih območjih, v katerih cena ne pokrije stro�kov storitve.
The creation and maintenance of La Poste’s network was thus not in line with a purely commercial approach and would never have been undertaken by a private company.
Za postavitev in vzdrževanje omrežja družbe La Poste tako ni mogoče uporabiti povsem komercialnega pristopa, poleg tega ga zasebno podjetje nikoli ne bi zgradilo.
Moreover, the provision of logistical and commercial assistance consisted precisely in making that
Poleg tega je bila logistična in komercialna podpora ravno to, da se je zagotovilo delovanje omrežja. Tako je bila
(40) On that basis, there is no question of State aid to SFMI-Chronopost if, first, it is established that the price charged properly covers all the additional, variable costs incurred in providing the logistical and commercial assistance, an appropriate contribution to the fixed costs arising from use of the postal network and an adequate return on the capital investment in so far as it is used for SFMI-Chronopost’s competitive activity and if, second, there is nothing to suggest that those elements have been underestimated or fixed in an arbitrary fashion.’
(40) Na osnovi tega je lahko državna pomoč družbi SFMI-Chronopostu izključena, če se ugotovi, da zahtevana protidajatev obsega vse dodatne, variabilne stro�ke, ki so nastali z zagotavljanjem logistične in komercialne podpore, primeren prispevek k fiksnim stro�kom, ki so nastali z uporabo javnega po�tnega omrežja, in primerno plačilo za lastni�ki kapital, če je bil uporabljen za konkurenčno dejavnost družbe SFMI-Chronopost, in če ne obstaja povod za domnevo, da so bili zadevni dejavniki podcenjeni oziroma določeni samovoljno.“
The parties presented oral argument and replied to the Court’s questions at the hearing on 15 June 2005.
Stranke so na obravnavi 15. junija 2005 podale ustne navedbe in odgovorile na vpra�anja Sodi�ča.
The Court accordingly declared the first plea well founded.
Sodi�če je tako presodilo, da je prvi pritožbeni razlog utemeljen.
It set aside UFEX I without examining the other pleas and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance.
Zato je sodbo UFEX I razglasilo za nično, ne da bi preizkusilo druge tožbene razloge, in jo vrnilo Sodi�ču prve stopnje v novo odločanje.
The judgment under appeal 14
Izpodbijana sodba 14
The Court of First Instance upheld the second plea (inadequate statement of reasons) and the complaint in the second part of the fourth plea relating to the transfer of Postadex.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je drugi tožbeni razlog (nezadostno obrazložitev) in drugi del četrtega tožbenega razloga, v delu, ki se nana�a na prenos strank, ki uporabljajo storitve Postadex, sprejelo.
It rejected all other complaints except those in the first part of the fourth plea which it considered it was not able to examine.
Druge tožbene razloge je zavrnilo, z izjemo prvega dela četrtega tožbenega razloga, za katerega je presodilo, da ga ni mogoče preizkusiti.
It annulled the contested decision in so far as it found that neither the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary, SFMI-Chronopost, nor the transfer of Postadex constituted State aid to SFMI-Chronopost.
Izpodbijano odločbo je v delu, v katerem je ugotovilo, da niti logistična niti komercialna podpora, ki jo družba La Poste nudi hčerinski družbi, niti prenos storitev Postadex ne pomenijo državne pomoči družbi SMFI-Chronopost, razglasilo za nično.
On its return to the Court of First Instance, the case was initially allocated to the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) and the same Judge-Rapporteur was designated as in UFEX I. Following the decision of 13 September 2004 15to change the composition of the Chambers of the Court of First Instance, the Judge-Rapporteur was transferred to the Third Chamber (Extended Composition), to which the case was then reallocated.
Po vrnitvi zadeve v novo odločanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje je bila ta dodeljena četrtemu raz�irjenemu senatu, kot sodnik poročevalec pa je bil določen isti sodnik kot v sodbi UFEX I. Ker se je sestava senatov na podlagi sklepa Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 13. septembra 2004 15 spremenila, je bil sodnik poročevalec razporejen v tretji raz�irjeni senat, kateremu je bila posledično dodeljena tudi zadeva.
The applicants essentially relied on the second, third and fourth pleas raised in the proceedings giving rise to UFEX I. 16The first part of the fourth plea now alleged error in applying the concept of normal market conditions as construed in the judgment in Chronopost I.
Pritožnice so se v bistvu sklicevale na drugi, tretji in četrti tožbeni razlog, ki so bili navedeni v sodbi UFEX I. 16S prvim delom četrtega pritožbenega razloga so pritožnice tokrat zatrjevale napačno uporabo pojma običajne tržne razmere, kot je razložen v sodbi Chronopost I.
12.16 — See point 10 above.
12.16 – Glej točko 10 zgoraj.
By notices lodged at the Registry of the Court on 4 and 7 August 2006 respectively, Chronopost (Case C-341/06 P) and La Poste (Case C-342/06 P) appealed against the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Družbi Chronopost (zadeva C-341/06 P) in La Poste (zadeva C-342/06 P) sta se z vlogami, vloženimi v sodnem tajni�tvu 4. in 7. avgusta 2006, pritožili zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
The appellants ask the Court to set aside the judgment under appeal and to order the applicants to pay all costs.
Pritožnici sta Sodi�ču predlagali, naj izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi in tožnikom naloži plačilo stro�kov postopka.
Chronopost also asks the Court to give final judgment in the case and to confirm the legality of the contested decision.
Družba Chronopost je Sodi�ču tudi predlagala, naj o zadevi dokončno odloči in potrdi zakonitost izpodbijane odločbe Komisije.
Judge-Rapporteur in the proceedings leading to UFEX I.
SHARPSTON – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-341/06 P IN C-342/06 P tudi kot sodnik poročevalec v postopku, v katerem je bila sprejeta sodba UFEX I.
UFEX, DHL Express (France) (previously DHL International), Federal Express International (France) and CRIE (in liquidation) submitted a joint response to each appeal.
Združenje UFEX, družba DHL Express (Francija) (prej družba DHL International), družba Federal Express International (Francija) in družba CRIE (v likvidaciji) so skupaj podali odgovor na pritožbo.
Neither France nor the Commission responded.
Odgovorila ni niti Francoska republika niti Komisija. 17Predsednik sodi�ča je v skladu s členom 117 Poslovnika družbama Chronopost in La Poste dovolil, da podata repliki glede vpra�anja nedopustnosti.
UFEX then submitted rejoinders.
Združenje UFEX je kasneje posredovalo duplike.
The two appeals were joined by Order of the President of the Court of 18 April 2007.
S sklepom predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 18. aprila 2007 sta bili pritožbi združeni.
No hearing was requested, and none has been held.
Obravnava ni bila ne predlagana ne opravljena.
Article 42(2) states that ‘[n]o new plea in law may be introduced in the course of proceedings unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure.’
Člen 42(2) določa, da „[n]avajanje novih razlogov med postopkom ni dovoljeno, razen če ti izhajajo iz pravnih in dejanskih okoli�čin, ki so se pojavile med postopkom.“
First ground of appeal: Breach of pro -cedure in respect of the composition of the court
Prvi pritožbeni razlog: kršitev postopka glede sestave sodišča
The appellants complain that their right to a fair trial was violated because the Judge-Rapporteur in the procedure leading to the judgment under appeal was also
Pritožnici zatrjujeta, da je bila kr�ena njuna pravica do po�tenega sojenja, ker je bil sodnik poročevalec v postopku, v katerem je bila sprejeta izpodbijana sodba, določen
17 — I refer to the entities which responded collectively as ‘UFEX’.
17 – Vse družbe, ki so skupaj podale odgovor na pritožbo, bom poimenovala „UFEX“.
By virtue of Article 118, Article 42(2) applies to the procedure before the Court on appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance.
V pritožbenem postopku pred Sodi�čem zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje se v postopku v skladu s členom 118 uporablja člen 42(2).
Article 48(2) mirrors, with identical wording, Article 42(2) of the Rules of the Court.
Besedilo člena 48(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje je enako besedilu člen 42(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča.
Article 118 provides:
Člen 118 določa:
Where the Court of Justice sets aside a judgment or an order of a Chamber, the President of the Court of First Instance may assign the case to another Chamber composed of the same number of Judges.
Če Sodi�če razveljavi sodbo ali sklep senata, lahko predsednik Sodi�ča prve stopnje dodeli zadevo drugemu senatu, ki ga sestavlja enako �tevilo sodnikov.
The appellants state that, even though the Community as such is not a party to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’), it is bound to respect the rights guaranteed by the ECHR.
Pritožnici navajata, da mora Skupnost, ne glede na to, da ni podpisnica Konvencije za varstvo človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin (v nadaljevanju: EKČP), spo�tovati pravice, ki jih ta zagotavlja.
The right to an independent and impartial tribunal is a component of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR.
Del pravice do po�tenega sojenja po členu 6 EKČP je tudi pravica do sojenja pred neodvisnim in nepristranskim sodi�čem. Za kr�itev pravice zado�ča, da je podana očitna (objektivna) pristranskost sodi�ča, o kateri je mogoče govoriti, ko je sestava sodi�ča tak�na, da zbuja upravičen dvom o njegovi nepristranskosti.
The caselaw of both the European Court of Human Rights and the French courts shows that the presence of the same judge in successive proceedings raises such doubts.
V skladu s sodno prakso Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice in francoskih sodi�č je tak dvom sodi�ča podan, če pri zaporednih postopkih sodeluje isti sodnik.
La Poste considers that Article 118(1) and (2a) of the Rules of the Court of First Instance indicate a concern about judges re-examining cases in which they sat first time round.
Družba La Poste meni, da iz členov 118(1) in (2a) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje izhaja, da je dvomljivo, ali sme isti sodnik ponovno odločati v zadevi, v kateri je predhodno že sodeloval.
Where the Court of Justice sets aside a judgment delivered or an order made by the Court of First Instance sitting in plenary session or by the Grand Chamber, the case shall be assigned to that Court or that Chamber as the case may be.
Če Sodi�če razveljavi sodbo ali sklep Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki ga je izdalo na občni seji ali v velikem senatu, se zadeva dodeli sestavi Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki je izdala zadevno odločbo.
UFEX in its responses argues that the plea is new and therefore inadmissible under the Rules of the Court.
Združenje UFEX v odgovoru navaja, da je ta pritožbeni razlog nov in kot tak glede na Poslovnik Sodi�ča nedopusten.
Letters from the Registry of the Court of First Instance had informed the appellants of the composition of the court before the hearing and the Judge-Rapporteur’s name was on the Report for the Hearing.
Sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prve stopnje je pred obravnavo pritožnici z dopisom obvestilo o sestavi sodi�ča, ime sodnika poročevalca pa je bilo navedeno v poročilu za obravnavo.
The appellants nevertheless raised no objections before that court.
Pritožnici v zvezi s tem nista podali pritožbenega
Petrides 18 shows that a procedural safeguard thus waived cannot be invoked on appeal.
razloga. Sodi�če je v sodbi Petrides 18odlo-čilo, da procesnega jamstva, ki se mu odpovemo, v pritožbenem postopku ni mogoče uveljavljati.
The plea could not have been raised before the delivery of the judgment under appeal.
Pritožbenega razloga nikakor ne bi bilo mogoče uveljavljati pred izdajo izpodbijane sodbe.
Pleas in an appeal are necessarily new in that they challenge the judgment under appeal.
Pritožbeni razlogi so nujno novi, saj se z njimi graja izpodbijana sodba.
The right to an impartial tribunal is inalienable and cannot be waived like a procedural guarantee.
Pravica do nepristranskega sodi�ča je neodtujljiva pravica, ki se ji drugače kot drugim procesnim jamstvom ni mogoče odpovedati.
Further, the appellants maintain that there is no procedure to challenge the composition of the Court of First Instance or to object to a particular judge sitting.
Pritožnici poleg tega navajata, da pravzaprav ni postopka, v katerem bi bilo mogoče ugovarjati sestavi sodi�ča ali ugovarjati sodelovanju določenega sodnika.
Finally, Chronopost states that the letters from the Registry of the Court of First Instance did not contain the names of the judges sitting in the Chambers and that it did not receive a copy of the Report for the Hearing.
Nazadnje, družba Chronopost navaja, da dopisi sodnega tajni�tva niso vsebovali imen članov senata, prepis poročila za obravnavo pa jim nikoli ni bil vročen.
As to the substance of the plea, UFEX submits, first, that the composition of the Court of First Instance for the judgment under appeal conformed with Article 118 of the Rules of the Court of First Instance regarding the composition of the Court of First Instance for a case referred back by the Court of Justice upon quashing a previous decision.
Glede vsebine pritožbenega razloga združenje UFEX navaja, prvič, da je bila sestava Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki je izdalo izpodbijano sodbo, v skladu s členom 118 Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje, katerega določba ureja sestavo Sodi�ča prve stopnje v novem odločanju v zadevi po razveljavitvi prej�nje sodbe.
Moreover, the principle of collegiality governing the composition of the Community judicature serves to neutralise any risk of bias.
Poleg tega se z načelom senatnega sojenja, ki ureja sestavo sodi�č Skupnosti, nevtralizira možnost pristranskega odločanja.
Second, those Community rules do not infringe Article 6(1) ECHR.
Drugič, pravila Skupnosti ne kr�ijo člena 6(1) EKČP.
The European Court of Human Rights, says UFEX, takes a case-by-case approach to the question and has not stated any general principle that a judge cannot sit in successive procedures in the same case.
Združenje UFEX trdi, da Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice obravnava vsako zadevo posebej in do zdaj �e ni sprejelo splo�nega načela, v składu s katerim sodnik v zaporednih postopkih v okviru iste zadeve ne bi smel sodelovati.
Third, the rules take account of the diverse traditions of the Member States.
Tretjič, pravila upo�tevajo različno tradicijo držav članic.
Moreover, it is in the interests of good administration of Community justice for the Judge-Rapporteur to be maintained in a complex case referred back to the Court of First Instance.
Poleg tega interes dobrega upravljanja sodi�č Skupnosti narekuje, da sodnik poročevalec pri novem odločanju Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ko gre za zahtevno zadevo, sodeluje.
In their replies, the appellants challenge the inadmissibility plea raised by UFEX.
Pritožnici sta v replikah izpodbijali ugovor nedopustnosti, ki ga uveljavlja združenje UFEX.
Chronopost considers the plea inoperative because a violation of the right to an impartial tribunal constitutes an infringement of an essential procedural requirement.
Družba Chronopost zatrjuje, da je ta pritožbeni razlog nesprejemljiv, saj je kr�itev pravice do nepristranskega sodi�ča bistvena kr�itev postopka. Torej gre za
As such, it
I-5187, točka 32).
In its rejoinders, UFEX argues that the assertion that the present plea is a matter of public policy is in itself a new plea.
Združenje UFEX v repliki navaja, da trditev, da gre pri tem pritožbenem razlogu za vpra�anje javnega reda, sama po sebi pomeni nov pritožbeni razlog.
Since there was no infringement of a fundamental right, it is also inoperative.
Hkrati pa je neutemeljen, saj kr�itve temeljnih pravic ni bilo.
The appellants could have raised the plea before the Court of First Instance under Article 48(2) of the Rules of the Court of First Instance.
Pritožnici bi lahko ta pritožbeni razlog v skladu s členom 48(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje uveljavljali že pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
Pleas on appeal are not necessarily new, since they should be raised on points debated before the court below.
Pritožbeni razlogi niso nujno novi, saj bi jih pritožnici morali uveljavljati že v postopku pred nižjim sodi�čem.
Where they are new, Article 42(2) of the Rules of the Court of Justice applies
Če so novi, pa za njih na podlagi člena 118 Poslovnika Sodi�ča velja določba člena 42(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča.
18 — Case C-64/98 P [1999] ECR I-5187, paragraph 32.
Združenje UFEX navaja �e, da bi
CHRONOPOST AND LA POSTE v UFEX AND OTHERS to appeals by virtue of Article 118 thereof. UFEX also notes that Chronopost should have known the composition of the Chambers of the Court of First Instance since they were published in the Official Journal. 19
CHRONOPOST IN LA POSTE PROTI UFEXU IN DRUGIM družba Chronopost morala vedeti za sestavo senata Sodi�ča prve stopnje, saj je bila ta objavljena v Uradnem listu Skupnosti. 19
An allegation of breach of procedure on the ground of the composition of the Court of First Instance has no connection with the pleas raised before that court by the Commission.
Zatrjevanje kr�itev postopka v zvezi s sestavo Sodi�ča prve stopnje ni v ničemer povezano s tožbenimi razlogi, ki jih je pred tem sodi�čem podala Komisija.