natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That caselaw has since been confirmed by the Court of Justice in Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 34, and by the Court of First Instance in Case T-359/04 Air One v Commission [2006] ECR II-1343, paragraph 33.
To sodno prakso je odtlej Sodi�če potrdilo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum (točka 34) in v sodbi Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 10. maja 2006 v zadevi Air One proti Komisiji (T-395/04, ZOdl., str. II-1343, točka 33).
37 — The detailed rules for applying that procedure are contained in Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999.
37 – Načini uporabe tega postopka so določeni v členu 4 Uredbe �t. 659/1999.
34 — See inter alia Cofaz and Others v Commission, paragraph 22; Cook v Commission, paragraph 20; Joined Cases C-15/98 and C-105/99 Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission [2000] ECR I-8855, paragraph 33 and the caselaw cited therein; and Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 33.
34 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 19. oktobra 2000 v zadevi Italija in Sardegna Lines proti Komisiji (C-15/98 in C-105/99, Recueil, str. I-8855, točka 33 in navedena sodna praksa) ter zgoraj navedene sodbe Cofaz proti Komisiji (točka 22); Cook proti Komisiji (točka 20) in Komisija proti Aktions -gemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum (točka 33).
38 — Case 120/73 Lorenz [1973] ECR 1471, paragraph 3.
38 – Sodba z dne 11. decembra 1973 v zadevi Lorenz (120/73, Recueil, str.
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE market, it must decide to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE trgom, mora začeti postopek formalnega preizkusa.
potential one, may be accorded the status of ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC and, in that capacity, may enjoy procedural guarantees which allow it to lodge its observations.
razmerje, četudi je to potencialno „zadevna stranka“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES in na podlagi tega uživa procesna jamstva, ki mu omogočajo vlaganje pripomb.
This is the second stage of the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC.
Gre za drugo fazo postopka v skladu s členom 88(2) ES.
It must allow the Commission to gather all the opinions necessary in order to assess, on the basis of full information as to the details of the case, the compatibility of the measure notified with the common market. 39 It is for that
Komisiji omogoča, da zbere vsa potrebna mnenja in nato na podlagi popolnih informacij v zadevi odloči o združljivosti prigla�enega ukrepa s skupnim trgom 39.
41 purpose that the Commission is required to obtain the observations of the interested parties on the aid project notified. 40
Zato mora Komisija zbrati mnenja zainteresiranih strank o prigla�enem načrtu pomoči 40.
That rule was formulated for the first time in the judgments in Cook v Commis­sion and Matra v Commission.
Omenjena sodna praksa je bila prvič določena v prej omenjenih sodbah Cook proti Komisiji in Matra proti Komisiji.
The Court of Justice held that, where, without initiating the formal investigation procedure, the Commission adopts a decision declaring that an aid is compatible with the common market, the persons intended to benefit from those procedural guarantees may secure compliance therewith only if they are able to challenge that decision before the Community judicature. 42
Sodi�če je poudarilo, da glede na to, da je Komisija sprejela odločbo o združljivosti pomoči, ne da bi začela postopek formalnega preizkusa, osebe, ki so upravičene do teh postopkovnih jamstev, to je zainteresirane stranke, ta lahko uveljavljajo le, kadar imajo možnost, da to odločbo izpodbijajo pred sodi�čem Skupnosti 42.
As I have already pointed out, the concept of ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC has been defined broadly by the Court as referring to any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, that is to say, inter alia, competing undertakings and trade associations.
Kot sem že navedel, je pojem „zadevna stranka“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES Sodi�če opredelilo �iroko kot katero koli osebo, podjetje ali združenje podjetij, na katerih interese bi lahko dodelitev pomoči vplivala, kar pomeni zlasti konkurenčna podjetja in poklicna združenja.
That definition, we should remember, was later enshrined in Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999.
Poudarjam, da je bila ta opredelitev potrjena v členu 1(h) Uredbe �t. 659/1999.
It follows that any undertaking which invokes a competitive relationship, even a
Iz tega sledi, da je lahko katero koli podjetje, ki se sklicuje na konkurenčno
Accordingly, in the former case, the Court held that the undertaking William Cook plc was a ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, since it produced equipment identical to that produced by the recipient of the aid.
Sodi�če je v prvi zadevi odločilo, da je podjetje William Cook „zainteresirana stranka“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES, ker proizvaja podobno opremo kot podjetje, ki je prejemnik pomoči.
In that capacity, it must be considered to be directly and individually concerned by the decision in
Zato ga je treba obravnavati kot neposredno in posamično prizadeto s sporno odločbo ter upravičeno zahtevati
39 — The detailed rules for applying that procedure are contained in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 659/1999.
41 – Opozarjam, da ta pravica v okviru predhodnega preizkusa iz člena 88(3) ES ne obstaja.
41 — I should point out that those rights do not exist in the preliminary examination stage provided for in Article 88(3) EC.
659/1999; sodbi z dne 12. julija 1973 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (70/72, Recueil, str.
42 — See Cook v Commission, paragraph 23, and Matra v Commission, paragraph 17.
42 – Glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Cook proti Komisiji (točka 23) in Matra proti Komisiji (točka 17).
43 objections, it must show that it has the status of a party concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC and must base its action on the Commission’s refusal to initiate the formal investigation procedure in which it would have enjoyed procedural rights.
eni strani dokazati, da ima status „zadevne stranke“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES, in po drugi strani utemeljiti svoj tožbeni zahtevek s tem, da je Komisija zavrnila začetek postopka formalnega preizkusa, v okviru katerega bi bila upravičena do procesnih pravic.
Similarly, the Court held, in the latter case, that the status of ‘party concerned’ could be accorded to the undertaking Matra SA since its interests were affected by the grant of the aid at issue ‘as it was the leading Community producer of multi-purpose vehicles and a future competitor of [the recipient of the aid]’.
V drugi zadevi je Sodi�če podobno odločilo, da se lahko status „zainteresirane stranke“ prizna podjetju Matra SA, ker so bili zaradi prejema pomoči prizadeti njegovi interesi, „saj je glavni proizvajalec enoprostornih vozil v Skupnosti in bodoči konkurent podjetja [prejemnika pomoči]“.
The Court held that the action for annulment brought against the Commission’s decision was therefore admissible. 44
Sodi�če je odločilo, da je tožba za razglasitev ničnosti, ki je bila vložena proti Komisiji, dopustna 44.
On the other hand, if the applicant directly calls in question the validity of the Commission’s assessment, adopted at the end of the preliminary examination, it is in the same position as any person seeking to challenge a decision of which it is not the addressee, such as a person who brings an action against a decision adopted at the end of the formal investigation procedure.
Če pa tožeča stranka neposredno izpodbija utemeljenost presoje Komisije, ki je bila opravljena v predhodnem preizkusu, je v enakem položaju kot vsakdo, ki namerava prerekati odločbo, a ni njen naslovnik, in sicer kot oseba, ki vloži tožbo zoper odločbo, ki je bila sprejeta po opravljenem postopku formalnega preizkusa.
However, the sole purpose of such action must be to safeguard the procedural rights available to ‘parties concerned’ under Article 88(2) EC.
Kljub temu je predmet tožbe lahko varstvo procesnih pravic zainteresiranih strank v skladu s členom 88(2) ES.
They must therefore put in issue the failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure. 45
Zato je treba izpodbijati neuvedbo postopka formalnega preizkusa 45.
Thus, in the judgment in Skibsværftsfore­ningen and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance clearly stated that, where the applicant does not seek annulment of the decision on the ground that the Commission infringed the obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure or that, as a result, it failed to comply with the procedural safeguards afforded to the applicant under that procedure, the strict criteria laid down by the Court of Justice in the judgment in Plau­mann v Commission apply. 46
Tako je v prej navedeni sodbi Skibsvaerftsforeningen in drugi proti Komisiji Sodi�če prve stopnje jasno navedlo, da se v primeru, ko tožeča stranka ne zahteva razglasitve ničnosti odločbe Komisije, ker bi ta kr�ila obveznosti začetka postopka formalnega preizkusa oziroma ker s tem ne bi spo�tovala procesnih jamstev, ki jih ta omogoča, uporabijo stroga merila, ki jih je Sodi�če razvilo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Plaumann proti Komisiji 46.
To sum up, it is apparent from the caselaw as it now stands that, where a natural or legal person brings an action for annulment against a Commission decision not to raise
Če povzamem, je sedanja sodna praksa taka, da mora fizična ali pravna oseba, kadar vloži tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti zoper odločbo Komisije, ker ni ugovarjala, po
43 — Cook v Commission, paragraphs 25 and 26.44 — Matra v Commission, paragraphs 19 and 20.
43 – Točki 25 in 26 zgoraj navedene sodbe Cook proti Komisiji.44 – Točki 19 in 20 zgoraj navedene sodbe Matra proti Komisiji.
Therefore, the mere fact that the applicant may be regarded as a party concerned
Zgolj dejstvo, da je tožečo stranko mogoče obravnavati kot zadevno stranko
45 — See inter alia Cook v Commission, paragraph 23; Matra v Commission, paragraph 17; Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 47; Commission v Aktionsge­meinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 35; and Case T-266/94 Skibsværftsforeningen and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-1399, paragraph 45.
45 – Glej zlasti zgoraj navedene sodbe Cook proti Komisiji (točka 23); Matra proti Komisiji (točka 17); Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France (točka 47) in Komisija proti Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum (točka 35) in sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 22. oktobra 1996 v zadevi Skibsvaerftsforeningen in drugi proti Komisiji (T-266/94, Recueil, str. II-1399, točka 45).
In recent years, that caselaw has been severely criticised.
Ta sodna praksa je bila v zadnjih letih deležna veliko ostrih kritik.
within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC cannot suffice to render the action admissible.
v smislu člena 88(2) ES, zato ne zadostuje za dopustnost tožbe.
The admissibility of the action will depend on the applicant showing that the decision at issue affects it by reason of attributes peculiar to it or by reason of factual circumstances differentiating it from all other persons.
Ta bo dopustna, če tožeča stranka dokaže, da upo�tevna odločba nanjo vpliva zaradi njenih značilnosti ali zaradi dejanskega stanja, ki jo razlikuje od drugih 47.
47 The Court has accepted that that applies where the applicant shows that its competitive market position is substantially affected by the aid to which the decision at issue relates. 48
Sodi�če se je odločilo, da bi to lahko bilo v primeru, ko bi tožeča stranka dokazala, da je pomoč, ki jo obravnava zadevna odločba, bistveno prizadela njen konkurenčni položaj na trgu 48.
Advocate General Jacobs, in his Opinion in Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, considered the aforementioned caselaw to be complex, illogical and inconsistent, since, in his view, it introduced artificial distinctions in terms of access to the Community judicature.
Generalni pravobranilec Jacobs je v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, menil, da je omenjena sodna praksa zapletena, nelogična in nekoherentna, ker vpeljuje umetno razlikovanje v zvezi z dostopom do sodi�ča Skupnosti 49.
49Expressing many reservations regarding the aforementioned judgments in Cook v Commission and Matra v Commission, Advocate General Jacobs finally requested the Court to re-examine and clarify its caselaw, suggesting that it apply, in every case in which the applicant challenges a decision taken pursuant to Article 88(3) EC, the criterion of direct and individual interest, irrespective of the pleas on which the action
Generalni pravobranilec Jacobs je po mnogih izraženih pomislekih glede zgoraj navedenih sodb Cook proti Komisiji in Matra proti Komisiji na koncu pozval Sodi�če, naj ponovno obravnava in razjasni svojo sodno prakso, ter mu predlagal, naj v vseh primerih, ko tožeča stranka prereka odločbo, sprejeto na podlagi člena 88(3) ES, uporabi merilo neposrednega in posamičnega interesa, neodvisno od
It is therefore apparent from the caselaw that if an applicant challenges the Commission’s refusal to initiate the formal investigation procedure, on the ground that that decision infringes its procedural rights, it must show that it is a party concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC inasmuch as its interests might be affected by the grant of the aid in question.
Prav tako je iz sodne prakse vidno, da mora tožeča stranka, če prereka odločitev Komisije o zavrnitvi začetka postopka formalnega preizkusa, ker naj bi ji s tem kr�ila procesne pravice, dokazati, da je zadevna stranka v smislu člena 88(2) ES, ker bi bili lahko njeni interesi prizadeti zaradi dodelitve zadevne pomoči.
On the other hand, if the applicant calls in question the merits of the decision appraising the aid as such, it must then demonstrate that its competitive market posi­tion is substantially affected.
Če pa tožeča stranka prereka utemeljenost odločbe o presoji pomoči kot take, mora v okviru tega dokazati, da je pomoč, ki jo obravnava zadevna odločba, bistveno prizadela njen konkurenčni položaj na trgu.
Its access to the Community judicature is therefore less straightforward than in the first situation.
Njen dostop do sodi�ča Skupnosti je tako bolj otežen kot v prvem primeru.
47 — See also Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 37 and the caselaw cited therein.
47 – Glej tudi zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Aktions -gemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum (točka 37 in navedena sodna praksa).
49 — See, in particular, points 101, 102, and 138 to 141 of that Opinion.
49 – Glej zlasti točke 101, 102, in od 138 do 141 teh sklepnih predlogov. Generalni pravobranilec Jacobs poudarja, da so njegovi pomisleki utemeljeni v doktrini, predvsem v Winter, J., „The rights of complainants in State aid cases: judicial review of Commission decisions adopted under article 88 (ex 93) EC“, Common Market Law Review, 1999, �t. 36, str. 521; Soltész, U., in Bielesz, H., „Judicial review of State aid decisions“, European Competition Law Review, 2004, str. 133; Flynn, L., „Remedies in the European Courts“ v A. Biondi in drugi (uredniki), The Law of State Aid in the EU, Oxford, 2004, str. 283.Glej tudi Azizi, J., „Droits de la défense dans la procédure en matière d’aides d’État: le point de vue judiciaire“, v „Un rôle pour la défense dans les procédures communautaires de concurrence“, Bruylant, Bruselj, 1997, str. 87, zlasti str. od 112 do 120; Vandersanden, G., „Pour un élargissement du droit des particuliers d’agir en annulation contre des actes autres que les décisions qui leur sont adressées“, Cahiers de droit européen, 1995, �t. 5 in 6; Lenaerts, K., „The legal protection of private parties under the EC Treaty: a coherent and complete system of judicial review?“, Scritti in onore di Giuseppe Federico Mancini, Volume II, Diritto dell’Unione Europea, Milano, 1998; Jankovec, B., in Kronenberger, V., „Third parties in state aid litigation: Locus standi and procedural guarantees“ v Sánchez Rydelski, M., The EC State aid regime: distortive effects of State aid on competition and trade, May, London, 2006, str. 848; Sinnaeve, A., „State aid procedures: developments since the entry into force of the procedural regulation“, Common Market Law Review 2007, �t. 44, str. 965, ter Coulon, E., in Cras, S., „Contentieux de la légalité dans le domaine des aides d’État: les récentes évolutions dans l’application des articles 173 et 175 du traité CE“, Cahiers de droit européen, 1999, vol. 35, �t. 1 in 2, str. 61 in str. od 91 do 110.
To draw distinctions between the conditions for the admissibility of one and the same action brought against one and the same decision in an application seeking the same relief is indeed artificial.
Razlikovanje pogojev za dopustnost enega in istega tožbenega zahtevka, ki je vložen zoper eno in isto odločbo v okviru tožbe, ki ima isti predmet, je vsekakor umetno.
The aim pursued by the applicant is, in my view, the same whether it invokes the protection of its procedural rights or challenges the merits of the decision appraising the aid.
Po mojem mnenju je cilj tožeče stranke v bistvu enak, tako takrat, ko uveljavlja svoje procesne pravice, kot takrat, ko izpodbija utemeljenost odločbe o presoji pomoči.
In both situations, the applicant seeks, by its action, the initiation of the formal procedure to investigate the aid.
V obeh primerih tožeča stranka sku�a s tožbenim zahtevkom sprožiti začetek postopka formalnega preizkusa pomoči.
Furthermore, such a distinction complicates the task of the Community judicature, since it is not necessarily easy, when reading an application for annulment, to distinguish between the two situations.
Med drugim je tako razlikovanje težaven izziv za sodi�če Skupnosti, saj ni nujno, da bo mogoče pri branju tožbenega zahtevka za razglasitev ničnosti ločevati ta dva primera.
It is true that the distinction made by the Community judicature with regard to the conditions for the admissibility of actions brought against a decision adopted on the basis of Article 88(3) EC is open to criticism.
Razlikovanje, ki ga je opredelilo sodi�če Skupnosti v zvezi s pogoji dopustnosti tožb, vloženih zoper odločbe, sprejete na podlagi člena 88(3) ES, je res vredno graje.
The ultimate consequence of that caselaw is to limit the right of interested parties in the procedure for reviewing State aid.
Ta sodna praksa je namreč na koncu privedla do omejevanja pravic, ki so pripadale zainteresiranim strankam v okviru postopka nadzora državnih pomoči.
Although the Court affords rights to those parties where, in support of their action, they allege infringement of their procedural guarantees, at the same time it denies them those rights where they seek to call in question the merits of the decision appraising the aid.
Tako je Sodi�če tem strankam priznavalo pravice, ker so v podporo svojih tožbenih zahtevkov zatrjevale kr�itev svojih procesnih jamstev, obenem pa jim jih je odrekalo, ko so hotele ugovarjati tudi na utemeljenost odločbe o presoji pomoči.
Such caselaw gives rise to questions and makes Article 88(3) EC not readily comprehensible.
S tako sodno prakso se vzbujajo dvomi in prihaja do nejasnega branja člena 88(3) ES.
I consider, therefore, that the Court should, in due course, make that caselaw more straightforward and consistent, by defining the conditions for the admissibility of actions brought against State aid decisions only in relation to the purpose of the action, not to the pleas in law invoked in support of it.
Sodi�če bo zato verjetno moralo čez čas poenostaviti in uskladiti to sodno prakso tako, da bo opredelilo pogoje dopustnosti za tožbe zoper odločbe na področju državnih pomoči glede na predmet tožbenega zahtevka in ne glede na tožbene razloge, navedene v utemeljitvi tega.
Yet access to the Community judicature is, I believe, an area in which, more than in any other, the law must be clear and consistent.
Dostop do sodi�ča Skupnosti je po mojem mnenju področje, ki �e bolj kot katero koli drugo zahteva jasnost in koherentnost prava.
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE it necessarily calls in question the failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure and therefore seeks to obtain protection of its procedural rights.
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE ni bilo postopka formalnega preizkusa, in zato zahteva varstvo svojih procesnih pravic.
The purpose of that action is the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, in which the applicant may submit its observations, and that is its sole purpose, whatever plea in law it invokes.
Predmet tožbe je uvedba postopka formalnega preizkusa, v okviru katerega lahko tožeča stranka poda svoje pripombe, pri čemer gre za edini predmet ne glede na navedeni tožbeni razlog.
51 On the other hand, the decision closing the preliminary examination stage is published in the Official Journal of the European Union, but just a summary version.
Nasprotno pa je odločba, s katero se konča postopek predhodnega preizkusa, objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropskih Skupnosti, čeprav gre le za povzetek.
As for the text of the decision addressed to the Member State concerned, it is only available in the authentic language.
Besedilo odločbe, ki je naslovljena na zadevno državo članico, pa je na razpolago le v verodostojnem jeziku.
So far as concerns the information contained in that decision, a person wishing to bring an action for annulment of the decision may not have sufficient information to establish, in its application, that it is individually concerned in accordance with the criteria laid down in Plaumann v Commission. 52
Če bi nekdo želel vložiti tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe, mogoče ne bi mogel razpolagati s podatki v zvezi z omenjeno odločbo, na podlagi katerih bi v svoji vlogi, s katero se postopek začne, dokazal, da je posamično prizadet v smislu meril, ki jih je določilo Sodi�če v zgoraj omenjeni sodbi Plaumann proti Komisiji 52.
In those circumstances, I propose that the Court apply the caselaw laid down in the aforementioned judgments in Cook v Commission and Matra v Commission to all actions brought against decisions adopted on the basis of Article 88(3) EC.
V skladu s tem predlagam Sodi�ču, da uporabi sodno prakso iz zgoraj navedenih sodb Cook proti Komisiji in Matra proti Komisiji za vse tožbene zahtevke zoper odločbe, sprejete na podlagi člena 88(3) ES.
This solution would also strengthen judicial review of the decisions adopted by the Commission.
Taka re�itev po drugi strani omogoča okrepitev sodnega nadzora odločb, ki jih sprejme Komisija.
It should not be forgotten that the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to review State aid.
Ne smemo namreč pozabiti, da ima Komisija izključno pristojnost v zvezi z nadzorom državnih pomoči.
Affording competitors, as any other person whose interests may be affected by the measure in question, the right to contest a decision by which the Commission, without initiating the formal investigation procedure, decides that a notified measure does not constitute aid or constitutes aid compatible with the common market strengthens judicial review of the decisions adopted by the Commission and a fortiori the application of the State aid rules contained in the Treaty.
Pravica izpodbijanja odločbe, ki je bila dodeljena konkurentom ter vsem drugim osebam, katerih interes bi lahko bil prizadet z upo�tevnim ukrepom, v kateri je Komisija brez začetka postopka formalnega preizkusa odločila, da prijavljeni ukrep ni pomoč ali pomeni pomoč, ki je združljiva s skupnim trgom, krepi sodni nadzor nad sprejetimi odločbami in a fortiori uporabo pravil Pogodbe v zvezi z državnimi pomočmi.
51 — Paragraph 15.
51 – Točka 15.
This solution would give individuals greater access to the Community judicature.
Taka re�itev bi omogočila dostop do sodi�ča Skupnosti �ir�emu krogu posameznikov.