natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— First part of the second ground of appeal
– Prvi del drugega pritožbenega razloga
It is common ground that, in the proceedings which gave rise to the judgment under appeal, La Poste intervened in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, and that the Commission did not raise the plea of inadmissibility relied upon by La Poste before the Court of First Instance alleging that the plea advanced by UFEX and Others concerning the Postadex transfer was new, in that it had not been submitted in the procedure which gave rise to the judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission.
Ni dvoma, da je bila družba La Poste v postopku, v katerem je bila sprejeta izpodbijana sodba, intervenientka v podporo predlogov Komisije in da zadnjenavedena ni uveljavljala ugovora nedopustnosti, na katerega se je sklicevala družba La Poste pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, glede tega, da je bil tožbeni razlog združenja UFEX in drugih v zvezi s prenosom službe Postadex nov, ker ni bil naveden v postopku, v katerem je bila sprejeta zgoraj navedena sodba Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji.
The plea of inadmissibility thus raised by La Poste, and which, as the Advocate General noted at point 65 of her Opinion, did not concern an issue of public policy, was therefore itself inadmissible.
Ugovor nedopustnosti, ki ga je tako uveljavljala družba La Poste in ki, kot poudarja generalna pravobranilka v točki 65 sklepnih predlogov, naj ne bi bil vpra�anje javnega reda, je bil torej sam po sebi nedopusten.
Accordingly, even if the Court of First Instance had been required to address that plea, it would equally but necessarily have had to conclude that it was inadmissible.
V teh okoli�činah, čeprav bi moralo Sodi�če prve stopnje odgovoriti na ta tožbeni razlog, bi moralo tudi odločiti, da je nedopusten.
Therefore, its failure to give a ruling was of no consequence as regards the rights of La Poste, which is therefore not justified in relying on that omission in order to challenge the lawfulness of the judgment under appeal.
Dejstvo, da je opustilo odločanje o tem, nima posledic za pravice družbe La Poste, ki se ne more upravičeno sklicevati na to opustitev pri izpodbijanju zakonitosti izpodbijane sodbe.
In those circumstances, even if the first part of the second ground of appeal were admissible, it is in any event unfounded.
V teh okoli�činah, čeprav bi bil prvi del drugega pritožbenega razloga dopusten, bi bil v vsakem primeru neutemeljen. Zato ga je treba zavrniti.
— Second part of the second ground of appeal
– Drugi del drugega pritožbenega razloga
It must be borne in mind that, according to Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable by virtue of Article 120 of those Rules where, as in the present case, the Court of First Instance is seised of a case by a judgment of the Court of Justice referring it back, no 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.
Opozoriti je treba, da v skladu s členom 48(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki se uporablja na podlagi člena 120 istega poslovnika, kadar Sodi�če predloži sodbo v novo odločanje navedenemu Sodi�ču prve stopnje, navajanje novih razlogov med postopkom ni dovoljeno, razen če ti izhajajo iz pravnih in dejanskih okoli�čin, ki so se pojavile med postopkom.
It follows that, following the referral judgment of the Court of Justice, the parties are not entitled, in principle, to rely on pleas which were not raised in the procedure which gave rise to the judgment of the Court of First Instance set aside by the Court of Justice.
Iz tega izhaja, da po tem, ko Sodi�če predloži sodbo v novo odločanje, načeloma ni dopustno, da stranke navajajo tožbene razloge, ki niso bili navedeni v postopku, v katerem je bila izdana sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki jo je Sodi�če razveljavilo.
It is apparent from examination of the application brought before the Court of First Instance by UFEX and Others in Ufex and Others v Commission that the application for annulment was based on four pleas in law which the Court analysed as alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence, an inadequate statement of reasons, errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment, and an error in applying the concept of State aid (Ufex and Others v Commission, paragraph 37).
Iz preizkusa tožbe, ki so jo združenje UFEX in drugi predložili Sodi�ču prve stopnje v postopku, v katerem je bila izdana zgoraj navedena sodba Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji, izhaja, da je predlog za razglasitev ničnosti temeljil na �tirih tožbenih razlogih, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje analiziralo kot kr�itev pravic do obrambe, nezadostno obrazložitev, nepravilno ugotovljeno dejansko stanje in očitno napaka v presoji ter napačno razlago pojma državna pomoč (zgoraj navedena sodba Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji, točka 37).
In their observations lodged following the judgment in Chronopost and Others v Ufex and Others, UFEX and Others maintained the last three of their pleas which the Court of First Instance, in paragraph 49 of the judgment under appeal, analysed as alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons, errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment, and an error in applying the concept of State aid.
Združenje UFEX in drugi so v stali�čih, predloženih po zgoraj navedeni sodbi Chronopost in drugi proti UFEX in drugim, zatrjevali tri zadnjenavedene tožbene razloge, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 49 izpodbijane sodbe analiziralo kot kr�itev obveznosti obrazložitve, nepravilno ugotovitev dejanskega stanja in očitno napako v presoji ter napačno razlago pojma državna pomoč.
It is not apparent from examination of these observations that UFEX and Others intended to raise a new plea.
Iz preizkusa teh stali�č ne izhaja, da so združenje UFEX in drugi nameravali navesti nov tožbeni razlog.
It is common ground, moreover, that the arguments which they then expounded in relation to the Postadex transfer in support of the plea alleging errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment had already been submitted in the application which they lodged in the proceedings giving rise to the judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission.
Poleg tega ni sporno, da so bile te trditve, ki jih torej navajajo v zvezi s prenosom službe Postadex v utemeljitev tožbenega razloga, nepravilne ugotovitve dejanskega stanja in očitne napake v presoji, že navedene v okviru njihove tožbe, vložene v postopku, v katerem je bila sprejeta zgoraj navedena sodba Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji.
Such expounding of arguments cannot be described as a new plea.
Take razlage trditev ni mogoče opredeliti kot nov tožbeni razlog.
Furthermore, as the Court of First Instance correctly stated in paragraph 51 of the judgment under appeal, the pleas alleging errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment are indissociable, in the present case, from the plea alleging an error in applying the concept of State aid.
Dalje, kot utemeljeno navaja Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 51 izpodbijane sodbe, se tožbeni razlogi, s katerimi se uveljavlja nepravilna ugotovitev dejanskega stanja in očitna napaka v presoji, v obravnavani zadevi prekrivajo s tožbenim razlogom napačne uporabe pojma državna pomoč.
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance was entitled to express the arguments of UFEX and Others concerning the Postadex transfer in different terms as supporting the plea alleging an error in applying the concept of State aid (see, on the possibility of expressing a plea in different terms, Case C-316/97 P Parliament v Gaspari [1998] ECR I-7597, paragraph 21).
V teh okoli�činah je Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko utemeljeno drugače opredelilo trditev združenja UFEX in drugih v zvezi s prenosom služb Postadex kot trditev v utemeljitev tožbenega razloga napačne uporabe pojma državna pomoč (glej v zvezi z možnostjo drugačne opredelitve tožbenega razloga sodbo z dne 19. novembra 1998 v zadevi Parlament proti Gaspariju, C-316/97 P, Recueil, str. I-7597, točka 21).
Therefore, by addressing those arguments in the analysis of the plea alleging an error in applying the concept of State aid, the Court of First Instance did not rule on a new plea and did not, therefore, infringe Article 48(2) of its Rules of Procedure.
Sodi�če prve stopnje s tem, da je te trditve obravnavalo pri analizi tožbenega razloga napačne uporabe pojma državna pomoč, ni odločalo o novem tožbenem razlogu in zato ni kr�ilo določb člena 48(2) svojega poslovnika.
The second part of the second ground of appeal is unfounded and must therefore also be rejected.
Drugi del pritožbenega razloga ni utemeljen in ga je treba zavrniti.
Consequently, the second ground of appeal must be rejected in its entirety.
Drugi pritožbeni razlog je treba zato zavrniti v celoti.
Third ground of appeal: error of law by the Court of First Instance in the assessment of the duty to state reasons in the contested decision with regard to the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost
Tretji pritožbeni razlog: napačna uporaba prava, ki jo je storilo Sodišče prve stopnje pri presoji obveznosti obrazložitve sporne odločbe v delu, ki se nanaša na logistično in komercialno podporo družbe La Poste družbi SFMI-Chronopost
In order to examine this ground of appeal, it is necessary to recall the Court’s reasons for concluding that the statement of reasons for the contested decision was inadequate, before setting out the arguments of the parties.
Da bi preizkusili ta pritožbeni razlog, je treba pred navedbo trditev strank opozoriti na razloge, zaradi katerih je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da je treba sporno odločbo razglasiti za nično zaradi nezadostne obrazložitve.
The Court’s reasons for annulment
Razlogi Sodi�ča prve stopnje za razglasitev ničnosti
After recalling in paragraphs 63 to 71 of the judgment under appeal the requirements of the EC Treaty, as established in the caselaw, with regard to the statement of reasons for acts of the Community institutions, the Court went on to consider the statement of reasons for the contested decision on the basis, in essence, of two sets of considerations which, according to the Court, were decisive.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je po tem, ko je v točkah od 63 do 71 izpodbijane sodbe opozorilo na zahteve Pogodbe ES, kot so opredeljene v sodni praksi, v zvezi z obrazložitvijo aktov institucij Skupnosti, začelo preizkus obrazložitve sporne odločbe s tem, da je v bistvu temeljilo na dveh vrstah dejavnikov, za katere meni, da so bili odločilni.
First, the Court took the view that it had to consider whether the Commission had complied with its obligation to state reasons, in the light of the principles outlined in paragraph 40 of the judgment in Chronopost and Others v Ufex and Others, as recalled in paragraph 15 of the present judgment.
Prvič, Sodi�če prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da je moralo preizkusiti, ali je Komisija spo�tovala svojo obveznost obrazložitve ob upo�tevanju načel iz točke 40 zgoraj navedene sodbe Chronopost in drugi proti Ufexu in drugim, kot so bila navedena v točki 15 obravnavane sodbe.
The Court of First Instance concluded in paragraph 72 of the judgment under appeal that ‘… that implies in particular an examination of the adequacy of the statement of reasons in the contested decision as regards (i) the issue whether the price charged to SFMI-Chronopost covers, first, all the additional, variable costs incurred in providing
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 72 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da „[…] pomeni, da je treba zlasti preizkusiti, ali je [sporna] odločba zadostno obrazložena, na eni strani glede vpra�anja, ali od družbe SFMI-Chronopost zahtevana protidajatev obsega, prvič, vse variabilne dodatne stro�ke, ki so nastali z zagotavljanjem logistične in
2008 — JOINED CASES C-341/06 P AND C-342/06 P the logistical and commercial assistance, second, an appropriate contribution to the fixed costs arising from use of the postal network and, third, an adequate return on the capital investment in so far as it is used for SFMI-Chronopost’s competitive activity, and (ii) whether or not there is evidence that those elements have been underestimated or fixed arbitrarily’.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-341/06 P IN C-342/06 P komercialne podpore, drugič, primeren prispevek k fiksnim stro�kom zaradi uporabe po�tnega omrežja in, tretjič, primerno nadomestilo za lastni kapital, če je uporabljen za konkurenčno dejavnost družbe SFMI-Chronopost, in na drugi strani glede vpra�anja, ali obstajajo pokazatelji, da so bili zadevni dejavniki podcenjeni ali samovoljno določeni.“
The Court of First Instance took the view in respect of each of those points that the contested decision did not provide sufficient details.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je menilo, da sporna odločba glede nobene od teh točk ni bila dovolj podrobna.
Second, observing that the scope of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons must be assessed by reference to the circumstances of each case, which could, in an appropriate case, justify a more detailed statement of reasons, the Court held that this was so in the instant case.
Drugič, Sodi�če prve stopnje je opozorilo na to, da se obseg obveznosti obrazložitve presoja glede na okoli�čine posameznega primera, ki so v obravnavani zadevi take, da upravičujejo podrobnej�o obrazložitev.
In that regard, the Court held, in paragraph 97 of the judgment under appeal, that ‘… the circumstances justifying a more detailed statement of reasons lie in the fact that, first, this was one of the first decisions dealing with the complex question, in the context of the application of the provisions on State aid, of the calculation of the costs of a parent company operating in a reserved market and providing logistical and commercial assistance to a subsidiary which does not operate in a reserved market.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi s tem v točki 97 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da „[o]koli�čine, ki […] upravičujejo podrobnej�o obrazložitev, temeljijo, prvič, na tem, da gre za eno prvih odločitev, ki v okviru uporabe predpisov o državnih pomočeh obravnava celovito vpra�anje izračunavanja stro�kov matične družbe, dejavne na pridržanem trgu, ki svoji hčerinski družbi, nedejavni na pridržanem trgu, zagotavlja logistično in komercialno podporo.
Second, the withdrawal of the Commission’s first rejection decision of 10 March 1992 following the lodging of an action for annulment and the SFEI judgment … should have led the Commission to reason its approach even more diligently and precisely in relation to the disputed points.
Drugič, umik prve odločbe z dne 10. marca 1992, s katerim je bila pritožba zavrnjena, bi moral po vložitvi ničnostne tožbe in zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi SFEI in drugi Komisijo opozoriti, naj svoje ravnanje v spornih točkah posebej skrbno in natančno obrazloži.
Lastly, the fact that the applicants submitted several economic studies during the administrative procedure should also have led the Commission to prepare a thorough statement of reasons while addressing the essential arguments of the applicants, as substantiated by those economic studies.’
Nazadnje bi moralo tudi dejstvo, da so tožeče stranke v upravnem postopku predložile več ekonomskih �tudij, Komisijo napeljati na to, naj oblikuje skrbno obrazložitev in pri tem tudi odgovori na trditve tožečih strank, ki so podprte s temi ekonomskimi �tudijami.“
Chronopost and La Poste submit that the requirements to be satisfied by detailed reasoning in the contested decision — the basis on which the Court of First Instance found that decision to be deficient — go beyond what is necessary for the restricted review of a decision taken in an area in which the Commission has a broad discretion.
Družbi Chronopost in La Poste zatrjujeta, da zahteve podrobne obrazložitve sporne odločbe, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje navedlo za razglasitev njene ničnosti, presegajo, kar se zahteva za strog nadzor odločbe na področju, na katerem ima Komisija �iroko diskrecijsko pravico.
Chronopost further submits that, in what was a real misuse of powers, the Court of First Instance purported to review the statement of reasons but carried out a review of the manifest error of assessment, or even of the expediency of the contested decision, by substituting its own assessment for that of the Commission.
Družba Chronopost dodaja, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ob zlorabi pooblastil pod pretvezo nadzora obrazložitve opravlja nadzor nad očitnimi napakami v presoji ali celo nad primernostjo sporne odločbe, s tem da nadomesti svojo presojo s presojo Komisije.
UFEX and Others contend that this ground of appeal should be rejected, claiming that the contested decision was not sufficiently reasoned and was confined to general considerations which did not address the detailed arguments of the complaint.
Združenje UFEX in drugi zatrjujejo, da je treba ta pritožbeni razlog zavrniti, in trdijo, da sporna odločba ni bila dovolj obrazložena in da je bila omejena na splo�no presojo, v kateri podrobne trditve tožbe niso bile obravnavane.
They submit that the argument relating to misuse of powers is irrelevant to a decision of the Court of First Instance.
Zatrjujejo, da trditev v zvezi z zlorabo pooblastil ni pomembna za odločbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
It is settled caselaw that the statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253 EC) 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 the measure in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for it and to enable the competent Community court to exercise its power of review.
Opozoriti je treba, da mora biti v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso obrazložitev, predpisana s členom 190 Pogodbe ES (postal člen 253 ES), prilagojena naravi zadevnega pravnega akta in ugotovitve institucije Skupnosti, ki je akt izdala, izražene tako jasno in nedvoumno, da lahko zadevni razbere razloge za sprejeti ukrep in Sodi�če opravlja funkcijo nadzora.
The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular, the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations.
Zahteva po obrazložitvi se presoja glede na okoli�čine posameznega primera, zlasti glede na vsebino pravnega akta, vrsto navedenih razlogov in zanimanje, ki bi ga o ugotovitvah lahko imel naslovnik ali druge osebe, na katere se pravni akt neposredno in posamično nana�a.
It is not 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 190 of the Treaty 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 (see, in particular, Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France,
Ni potrebno, da so v obrazložitvi navedeni vsi dejanski ali pravno pomembni vidiki, saj se vpra�anje, ali obrazložitev zadostuje zahtevam člena 190 Pogodbe, ne presoja zgolj na podlagi besedila, temveč tudi z vsebino ter celotnimi pravnimi predpisi z zadevnega področja (glej zlasti zgoraj nave -deno sodbo v zadevi Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France, točka 63 in navedena
2008 — JOINED CASES C-341/06 P AND C-342/06 P paragraph 63 and the caselaw cited, and Case C-501/00 Spain v Commission [2004] ECR I-6717, paragraph 73).
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-341/06 P IN C-342/06 P sodna praksa, in sodbo z dne 15. julija 2004 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji, C-501/00, ZOdl., str. I-6717, točka 73).
As regards, more particularly, a Commission decision finding that no State aid as alleged by a complainant exists, it must be noted that the Commission must at least provide the complainant with an adequate explanation of the reasons for which the facts and points of law put forward in the complaint have failed to demonstrate the existence of State aid.
Zlasti kadar gre za odločbo Komisije, ki zanika, da je ukrep, ki ga pritožnica očita, državna pomoč, mora Komisija pritožnici v vsakem primeru zadostno pojasniti razloge za to, da v pritožbi navedeni pravni in dejanski vidiki niso zadostovali za dokaz obstoja državne pomoči.
The Commission is not required, however, to define its position on matters which are manifestly irrelevant or insignificant or plainly of secondary importance (Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 64).
Vendar se Komisiji ni treba opredeliti do stali�č, ki so očitno postranska, brez pomena ali nedvomno manj�ega pomena (zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France, točka 64).
It must also be observed that the lawfulness of a decision concerning State aid is to be assessed in the light of the information available to the Commission when the decision was adopted (Case C-197/99 P Belgium v Commission [2003] ECR I-8461, paragraph 86 and the caselaw cited).
Opozoriti je treba tudi, da je zakonitost odločbe na področju državnih pomoči treba presoditi glede na podatke, ki jih je Komisija imela na voljo, ko jo je izdala (sodba z dne 11. septembra 2003 v zadevi Belgija proti Komisiji, C-197/99 P, Recueil, str. I-8461, točka 86 in navedena sodna praksa).
It is in the light of these considerations that it is necessary to assess the validity of the two sets of requirements which the Court of First Instance found in the present case must be satisfied by the statement of reasons, as noted in paragraphs 80 to 85 of this judgment.
Utemeljenost dveh vrst zahtev, za katere Sodi�če prve stopnje trdi, da jih je treba v obravnavani zadevi izpolniti, kot so navedene v točkah od 80 do 85 te sodbe, je treba presoditi ob upo�tevanju teh ugotovitev.
Assuming, first of all, that, in its response to the complaint of UFEX and Others, the Commission had applied assessment criteria of ‘normal market conditions’ which might be incorrect in the light of those which the Court of Justice applied in its subsequent judgment in Chronopost and Others v Ufex and Others, that could be relevant to the substance of the reasoning for the contested decision, but not to its adequacy in procedural terms.
Če domnevamo, najprej, da je Komisija v odgovoru na razloge za pritožbo združenja UFEX in drugih uporabila merila za presojo pojma „običajne tržne razmere“, ki bi jih bilo mogoče napačno razumeti v primerjavi s tistimi, ki jih je Sodi�če pozneje navedlo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Ufex in drugi, bi lahko ta okoli�čina vplivala na utemeljenost obrazložitve sporne odločbe, ne pa na to, ali je zadostna s postopkovnega vidika.
Next, as regards the requirement of a more detailed statement of reasons in the contested decision in view of the context in which it was adopted, the analysis of the Court of First Instance is not well founded.
Dalje, analiza Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zvezi z zahtevo podrobnej�e obrazložitve sporne odločbe ob upo�tevanju okoli�čin, v katerih je bila sprejeta, se ne zdi upo�tevna.
As the Advocate General noted at point 94 of her Opinion, the fact that the contested decision is one of the first dealing with the complex issue, in connection with State aid, of calculating the costs of the assistance provided by a parent company operating in a reserved market to its subsidiary which is not operating in such a market does not by itself justify a statement of reasons necessarily going into the detail of the calculation of those costs if, as in the present case, the Commission took the view that the complainants’ grounds in that regard were misconceived in terms of the principles on which they were based.
Na eni strani, kot je poudarila generalna pravobranilka v točki 94 sklepnih predlogov, dejstvo, da je sporna odločba ena od prvih, ki obravnava zapleteno vpra�anje, na področju državnih pomoči v zvezi z izračunom stro�kov podpore, ki jo daje matična družba, ki posluje na pridržanem trgu, hčerinski družbi, ki ne deluje na takem trgu, samo po sebi ne utemeljuje obrazložitve, v kateri bi morale biti navedene podrobnosti glede izračuna teh stro�kov, če je kot v obravnavani zadevi Komisija ocenila, da so bili razlogi pritožnic v zvezi s tem zmotni glede na načela, na katerih temeljijo.