natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It declared that it was well founded for the following reasons.
Ugotovilo je, da je ta utemeljen iz naslednjih razlogov.
‘29 In the present case, the contested letter, which was addressed solely to [Athinaïki Techniki], informed it, pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation No 659/1999, that, on the basis of the information in its possession, the Commission considered that there were insufficient grounds for taking a view on the case which was submitted to it in the complaint.
„29 V obravnavani zadevi je bila v dopisu, naslovljenem samo na Athinaïki Techniki, ta na podlagi člena 20 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 obve�čena, da je Komisija na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je imela, menila, da ni bilo zadostnih razlogov za odločanje o primeru, ki ji je bil predložen v pritožbi.
In [that letter], the Commission then stated that, in the absence of additional information to justify continuing the investigation, it had, for the purposes of further administrative action, closed the file on Athinaïki Techniki’s complaint on 2 June 2004.
Komisija je v [tem dopisu] tudi navedla, da je zato, ker ni prejela dodatnih podatkov, ki bi upravičili nadaljevanje preiskave, 2. junija 2004 ustavila upravni postopek v zvezi s pritožbo Athinaïki Techniki.
The Commission therefore did not define its final position on the classification and the compatibility with the common market of the measure forming the subjectmatter of Athinaïki Techniki’s complaint.
Komisija torej ni sprejela končnega stali�ča glede opredelitve ukrepa, ki je bil predmet pritožbe Athinaïki Techniki, in glede njegove združljivosti s skupnim trgom.
The Court of First Instance cited the first and second sentences of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999.
Sodi�če prve stopnje se je sklicevalo na člen 20(2), prvi in drugi stavek, Uredbe �t. 659/1999.
It noted that, according to settled caselaw, the only decisions which may be the subject of an action for annulment within the meaning of Article 230 EC are measures the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position.
Opozorilo je, da so v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso akti ali odločbe, ki bi lahko bili predmet ničnostne tožbe na podlagi člena 230 ES, zgolj ukrepi, ki imajo obvezne pravne učinke, s katerimi so lahko prizadeti interesi tožeče stranke, s tem da bistveno spreminjajo njen pravni položaj.
30 It follows that the contested letter does not constitute a decision within the meaning of Article 25 of Regulation No 659/1999 and that it has no legal effect.
30 Iz tega izhaja, da izpodbijani dopis ni odločba v smislu člena 25 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 in da nima pravnega učinka.
That letter is therefore not actionable under Article 230 EC.’
Zoper ta dopis zato ni mogoče vložiti tožbe na podlagi člena 230 ES.“
The Court of First Instance then dismissed Athinaïki Techniki’s argument that the nonactionable nature of a letter rejecting a complaint has the effect of
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato zavrnilo trditev Athinaïki Techniki, da naj bi neizpodbojnost dopisa, s katerim je bila zavrnjena pritožba, upravičencu preprečila dostop do
It stated that, under Article 25 of that regulation, decisions adopted by the Commission in the field of State aid are addressed to the Member States, including where those decisions are taken following a complaint concerning aid allegedly contrary to the Treaty, and that it is the decision addressed to the Member State and not the letter addressed to the complainant which must, where appropriate, be the subject of an action for annulment.
Navedlo je, da so na podlagi člena 25 te uredbe odločbe, ki jih sprejme Komisija na področju državnih pomoči, naslovljene na države članice, tudi če so sprejete na podlagi pritožbe o pomoči, ki je domnevno v nasprotju s Pogodbo, in da mora biti, odvisno od primera, predmet ničnostne tožbe odločba, naslovljena na državo članico, in ne dopis pritožniku.
IV — The appeal
IV – Pritožba
A — The procedure before the Court and the forms of order sought by the parties depriving citizens of access to Community justice.
A – Postopek pred Sodiščem in predlogi strank pravnega varstva Skupnosti.
It explained, first, that a complainant may provide additional information in order to support his complaint and that, in the event that that information is inadequate, the Commission is then required to define its position on the measure in question by means of an actionable decision.
Navedlo je, da pritožnik lahko predloži dodatne podatke za utemeljitev svoje pritožbe in če bi bili ti podatki zadostni, bi morala tako Komisija sprejeti stali�če o zadevnem ukrepu z aktom, zoper katerega bi bilo mogoče vložiti tožbo.
It argued, secondly, that it is also open to the complainant to bring an action for failure to act under the third subparagraph of Article 232 EC.
Na drugi strani je zatrjevalo, da lahko pritožnik prav tako vloži tožbo zaradi nedelovanja na podlagi člena 232, tretji odstavek, ES.
Athinaïki Techniki brought an appeal against the contested order by application dated 18 December 2006, lodged with the Registry on 21 December 2006.
Athinaïki Techniki je zoper izpodbijani sklep vložila pritožbo z dne 18. decembra 2006, ki je bila v sodnem tajni�tvu vložena 21. decembra 2006.
The Commission and Athens Resort Casino, the intervener, lodged their responses, respectively, on 5 February and 15 March 2007.
Komisija in Athens Resort Casino, intervenient, sta odgovora na pritožbo vložila 5. februarja in 15. marca 2007.
Finally, it responded to the line of argument that a letter closing a file issued in a procedure relating to the application of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC is in the nature of a decision.
Nazadnje je odgovorilo na trditev, da dopis o ustavitvi postopka s pritožbo, izdan v postopku v skladu s členoma 81 ES in 82 ES, nima značilnosti odločbe. Navedlo je, da Uredba �t.
By letters dated 15 October 2007, the Court invited the parties to express their views, in writing, on the relevance for the outcome of the dispute of:
Sodi�če je z dopisi z dne 15. oktobra 2007 pozvalo stranke, naj predložijo pisna stali�ča glede upo�tevnosti za re�itev spora:
The Court of First Instance dismissed the action as inadmissible and ordered Athinaïki Techniki to pay the costs.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tožbo zavrnilo kot nedopustno in Athinaïki Techniki naložilo plačilo stro�kov.
— the principles arising from the judgment in Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France;
načel, ki izhajajo iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France;
It explains that, in the field of State aid, the Commission takes a decision when it defines its final and reasoned position on the classification of the measure complained of.
Navaja, da Komisija na področju državnih pomoči sprejme odločbo, kadar zavzame končno in obrazloženo stali�če glede opredelitve spornega ukrepa.
Athinaïki Techniki submits that the final nature of the closure of the file on a complaint is not called into question by the fact that it is open to the complainant to produce new information.
Athinaïki Techniki glede dokončnosti ustavitve postopka s pritožbo meni, da na to ne vpliva možnost pritožnika, da predloži nove dokaze.
The appellant requests the Court to set aside the contested order, grant the forms of order sought by it at first instance and order the Commission and the intervener to pay the costs.
Pritožnica Sodi�ču predlaga, naj izpodbijani sklep razveljavi, ugodi njenim predlogom, predstavljenim na prvi stopnji, in naloži plačilo stro�kov Komisiji ter intervenientu.
The Commission and Athens Resort Casino submit that the Court should dismiss the appeal as unfounded and order the appellant to pay the costs.
Komisija in Athens Resort Casino predlagata zavrnitev pritožbe kot neutemeljene in naložitev plačila stro�kov pritožnici.
It states, with regard to the statement of reasons, that the disputed closure of the file must be placed in its context.
Glede obrazložitve pritožnica navaja, da je treba sporno ustavitev postopka postaviti v njen okvir.
It takes the view that, in the present case, the Commission closed the file on the complaint on the basis of the reasoning that no State aid was granted at the time of the award of a public contract, since the procedure for the award of the public contract in question is transparent and non-discriminatory.
V obravnavanem primeru naj bi Komisija ustavila postopek s pritožbo na podlagi razlogovanja, da pri oddaji javnega naročila ni bila dodeljena nobena državna pomoč, ker je bil zadevni postopek oddaje zadevnega javnega naročila pregleden in nediskriminatoren.
The laconic nature of the Commission’s letter of 2 December 2004 was thus intentional because, if it had set out that statement of reasons therein, it would have been evident that the closure of the file on the complaint was in the nature of a decision.
Kratkobesednost Komisije v dopisu z dne 2. decembra 2004 naj bi bila zato namerna, ker bi bilo, če bi v njem podala to obrazložitev, očitno, da ima ustavitev postopka s pritožbo naravo odločbe.
The Court of First Instance’s ana -lysis was therefore purely formalistic, in that it concerned itself with the wording of that letter, without taking into account its scope and the context of the case.
Analiza Sodi�ča prve stopnje naj bi bila zato le formalistična, ker se navezuje na besedilo navedenega dopisa, ne da bi upo�tevala njegov obseg in okvir zadeve.
B — Pleas in law and arguments of the parties
Navaja, da je bil ta podatek predviden zato, da se ne bi sprožil
The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance erred in law in ruling, in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the contested order, that the closure by the Commission of the file on the complaint does not constitute a decision.
Pritožnica navaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, ko je v točkah 29 in 30 izpodbijanega sklepa razsodilo, da ustavitev postopka s pritožbo s strani Komisije ne pomeni odločbe.
Athens Resort Casino also submits that the letter of 2 December 2004 does not constitute an actionable decision for reasons identical to those put forward by the Commission.
Athens Resort Casino tudi meni, da dopis z dne 2. decembra 2004 ni izpodbojni akt, in to zaradi istih razlogov, kot jih je navedla Komisija.
It also argues that Athinaïki Techniki’s application before the Court of First Instance is inadmissible, because the original of the application was received by the Registry only on 18 February 2005.
Poleg tega navaja, da je tožba Athinaïki Techniki pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje nedopustna, ker je sodno tajni�tvo njen izvirnik prejelo �ele 18. februarja 2005.
The Commission also argues that under Article 25 of Regulation No 659/1999, decisions in matters of State aid are addressed to the Member States and that it is those decisions which, where appropriate, may be challenged by the ‘parties concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC and not the letter informing them of the content of such decisions.
Komisija poleg tega navaja, da so na podlagi člena 25 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 naslovniki odločb na področju državnih pomoči države članice in da so te odločbe tiste, ki jih, odvisno od primera, lahko izpodbijajo „zadevne stranke“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES, ne pa dopis, s katerim so obve�čene o njihovi vsebini.
The Commission also argues that the distinction between decisions and letters of notification is to be found in the caselaw, both in the field of State aid and in the field of competition.
Komisija prav tako navaja, da razlikovanje med akti, ki imajo naravo odločbe, in informativnimi dopisi izhaja tudi iz sodne prakse na področju državnih pomoči in konkurence.
It also points out that the letter of 2 December 2004 is signed by an official of the institution, not by one of its members, and that that letter does not set out the reasons for closing the file on the complaint.
Poleg tega poudarja, da je dopis z dne 2. decembra 2004 podpisal uradnik institucije in ne eden izmed njenih članov in da v navedenem dopisu niso navedeni razlogi za ustavitev postopka s pritožbo.
The appellant added that, in accordance with those principles, it must be regarded as being a ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC and as being directly and individually concerned, in so far as its market position has been substantially affected by the aid to which its complaint relates.
Pritožnica je dodala, da bi jo bilo treba v skladu s temi načeli �teti kot „zadevno stranko“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES in da je neposredno in posamično prizadeta, ker je njen položaj na trgu bistveno prizadet zaradi pomoči, navedene v njeni pritožbi.
It also stated that a complainant, in the event of the closure of the file on its complaint in the context of the procedure relating to the application of Articles 81 EC
Navedla je tudi, da ima pritožnik v primeru ustavitve postopka s pritožbo v okviru postopka v skladu s členoma 81 ES in 82 ES ter na področju protidampin�kih
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI v COMMISSION and 82 EC and in matters relating to antidumping, is entitled to obtain a reasoned decision.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI PROTI KOMISIJI členov 81 ES in 82 ES kot odločbe sklepala iz uredb, ki kodificirajo postopek na tem področju. 34 Navajala je, da v Uredbi �t.
The appellant argued that such a right should exist a fortiori in matters relating to State aid, in so far as the Commission has exclusive competence in that field and the initiation of a formal investigation procedure does not depend on an assessment of appropriateness.
659/1999 ni primerljivih določb. Opozorila je, da ta uredba ne določa položaja pritožnikov, določa pa, da so vse odločbe naslovljene na državo članico, iz katere izvira zadevni ukrep.
34 It argued that Regulation No 659/1999 contains no comparable provisions.
postopkov pravico pridobiti obrazloženo odločbo.
It pointed out that that regulation does not give complainants standing to bring proceedings and provides that all decisions are to be addressed to the Member State from which the measure at issue originates.
Pritožnica je menila, da bi morala taka pravica obstajati a fortiori na področju državnih pomoči, ker ima Komisija na tem področju izključno pristojnost in ker začetek formalnega postopka preiskave ni odvisen od presoje po načelu oportunitete.
The Commission, for its part, inferred from the principles established by the judgment in Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France that the closure of the file on a complaint is not a decision.
Komisija je na podlagi načel iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France sklepala, da pri ustavitvi postopka s pritožbo ne gre za odločbo.
The Commission stated that its analysis also applies to the rules applicable in matters relating to anti-dumping.
Komisija je navedla, da njena analiza velja tudi za pravila, ki se uporabljajo na področju protidampin�kih postopkov.
It also argued that the rights of complainants in the context of the procedure pursuant to Articles 81 EC and 82 EC and in matters relating to anti-dumping are not applicable in the context of the procedure for monitoring State aid, because each field has its own rules.
Prav tako je menila, da pravic pritožnikov v okviru postopka v skladu s členoma 81 ES in 82 ES ter na področju protidampin�kih postopkov ni mogoče prenesti v okvir postopka nadzora državnih pomoči, ker ima vsako področje svoja pravila.
It referred, in that connection, to the judgment in Commission v max.mobil, 31in which the Court ruled that the rights conferred on the complainant by Council Regulation No 17 32were not applicable to Article 86 EC. 33
V zvezi s tem se je sklicevala na sodbo z dne 22. februarja 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti max.mobil 31, v
The Commission noted that the Community judicature, in its caselaw, had
Komisija je poudarila, da je sodna praksa na opredelitev zavrnitve pritožb v okviru
32 — Council Regulation of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).
32 – Uredba �t. 17 z dne 6. februarja 1962, Prva uredba o izvajanju členov [81] in [82] Pogodbe, (UL 1962, 13, str. 204).
34 — It refers to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 of 22 December 1998 on the hearing of parties in certain proceedings under Articles [81] and [82] of the EC Treaty (OJ 1998 L 354, p. 18).
34 – Navaja člen 6 Uredbe Komisije (ES) �t. 2842/98 z dne 22. decembra 1998 o zasli�anju pogodbenic v nekaterih postopkih na podlagi člena [81] in [82] Pogodbe ES (UL L 354, str. 18).
It points out that those rights are now set out in Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p.
Poudarja, da so sedaj te pravice določene v členu 7 Uredbe Komisije (ES) �t. 773/2004 z dne 7. aprila 2004 v zvezi z vodenjem postopkov Komisije v skladu s členoma 81 in 82 Pogodbe ES (UL L 123, str.
18), which provides:‘1.
18), v katerem je določeno: „1.
Where the Commission considers that on the basis of the information in its possession there are insufficient grounds for acting on a complaint, it shall inform the complainant of its reasons and set a timelimit within which the complainant may make known its views in writing.
Kadar Komisija meni, da na podlagi informacij, s katerimi razpolaga, ni zadostne podlage za ukrepanje na podlagi pritožbe, pritožniku sporoči svoje razloge in določi rok, v katerem pritožnik lahko pisno sporoči svoje mnenje.
The Commission shall not be obliged to take into account any further written submission received after the expiry of that time-limit. 2.
Komisija ni [zavezana] upo�tevati nobenih dodatnih pisnih vlog, prejetih po preteku tega roka. 2.
If the complainant makes known its views within the timelimit set by the Commission and the written submissions made by the complainant do not lead to a different assessment of the complaint, the Commission shall reject the complaint by decision. 3.
Če pritožnik sporoči svoje mnenje v roku, ki ga je določila Komisija, in če pisne vloge pritožnika nimajo za posledico različne presoje pritožbe, Komisija z odločbo zavrne pritožbo. 3.
If the complainant fails to make known its views within the timelimit set by the Commission, the complaint shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.’
Če pritožnik ne sporoči svojega mnenja v roku, ki ga je določila Komisija, se �teje, da je bila pritožba umaknjena.“
33 — Commission v max.mobil, paragraph 71.
33 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti max.mobil, točka 71.
Article 20 of Regulation No 659/1999 and the other relevant provisions thereof
Člen 20 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 in druge njene upo�tevne določbe
Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999, it should be recalled, provides:
Naj opozorim, da je v členu 20(2) Uredbe 659/1999 določeno:
As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, contrary to what is stated in the contested order, the appellant applied to the Court of First Instance not for annulment of the letter of 2 December 2004 but for annulment of the Commission’s decision to close the file on its complaint, which the Commission notified to the appellant in that letter.
Najprej je treba navesti, da je pritožnica, v nasprotju s tem, kar izhaja iz izpodbijanega sklepa, na Sodi�če prve stopnje vložila predlog za razglasitev ničnosti ustavitve postopka s pritožbo s strani Komisije in ne dopisa z dne 2. decembra 2004, s katerim jo je le obvestila o ustavitvi.
Where the Commission takes a decision on a case concerning the subjectmatter of the information supplied, it shall send a copy of that decision to the interested party.’
Če Komisija sprejme odločbo o zadevi v zvezi z vsebino predloženih podatkov, po�lje izvod odločbe zainteresirani stranki.“
The action for annulment brought by the appellant before the Court of First Instance therefore relates not to the letter of 2 December 2004 as such, which indeed is purely informative in nature, as the Commission has emphasised, but rather to the closure of the file on the complaint, which took place on 2 June 2004.
Ničnostna tožba, ki jo je pritožnica vložila na Sodi�če prve stopnje, se torej ne nana�a na dopis z dne 2. decembra 2004 kot tak, ki je dejansko le informativen, kot je poudarila Komisija, temveč na ustavitev postopka s pritožbo, ki se je zgodila 2. junija 2004.
It is true that that provision is not expressed in the same terms as those applicable to the handling of a complaint in the context of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, such as those of Article 7 of Regulation No 773/2004.
Res je, da ta določba ne vsebuje istih izrazov kot določbe, ki veljajo za obravnavanje pritožbe na podlagi členov 81 ES in 82 ES, kot je člen 7 Uredbe �t. 773/2004 35.
35It is also common ground that Regulation No 659/1999 lays down specific rights not for complainants as such, but only for those who are interested parties.
Prav tako ni sporno, da v Uredbi �t. 659/1999 niso določene posebne pravice pritožnikov kot take, ampak samo, če so ti zainteresirane stranke.
It also seems indisputable that the rules relating to the rights of complainants contained in the regulations which provide
Prav tako se zdi, da ni sporno, da pravil v zvezi s pravicami pritožnikov v
35 — That latter provision expressly provides, it should be recalled, that where the Commission considers that there are insufficient grounds for acting on a complaint, it must inform the complainant and set a timelimit within which the complainant may make known its views.
35 – Naj opozorim, da je v tej določbi izrecno določeno, da kadar Komisija meni, da na podlagi informacij, ki jih ima, ni zadostne podlage za ukrepanje na podlagi pritožbe, pritožniku sporoči svoje razloge in določi rok, v katerem pritožnik lahko pisno sporoči svoje mnenje.
Then, if the complainant does so within the timelimit set and the submissions made by the complainant do not lead to a different assessment of the complaint, the Commission must reject the complaint by decision.
Dalje, če pritožnik sporoči svoje mnenje v roku, ki ga je določila Komisija, in če pisne vloge pritožnika nimajo za posledico drugačne presoje pritožbe, Komisija z odločbo zavrne pritožbo.
I, like the appellant, take the view that that closure of the file constitutes an actionable decision.
Tako kot pritožnica menim, da ta ustavitev pomeni izpodbojni akt.
I base that analysis on the following three elements, that is, first, the content of Article 20 of Regulation No 659/1999, read in the light of the other provisions thereof, secondly, the definition of the concept of actionable decision in the caselaw and, finally, the caselaw on the rights of complainants in the context of the procedure for monitoring State aid.
To analizo bom utemeljil z naslednjimi tremi točkami, in sicer, na eni strani, z vsebino člena 20 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 v povezavi z drugimi njenimi določbami, na drugi strani, z opredelitvijo pojma izpodbojnega akta v sodni praksi in, nazadnje, s sodno prakso v zvezi s pravicami pritožnikov v okviru postopka nadzora državnih pomoči.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI v COMMISSION for the implementation of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, such as Regulation No 773/2004, are not applicable as such to the procedure for monitoring State aid, which is the subjectmatter of specific codification.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI PROTI KOMISIJI uredbah za izvedbo členov 81 ES in 82 ES, kot je Uredba �t. 773/2004, ni mogoče prenesti kot takih v postopek nadzora državnih pomoči, ki je predmet posebne kodifikacije.
In the light of those considerations, the second sentence of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 may therefore be construed as meaning that where the Commission considers, on the basis of information in its possession, that there are insufficient grounds for initiating the formal investigation procedure, it must inform the complainant thereof, so that the latter may, where appropriate, provide additional information.
Glede na te ugotovitve je torej mogoče člen 20(2), drugi stavek, Uredbe �t. 659/1999 razumeti tako, da če Komisija meni, da na podlagi podatkov, ki jih ima, ni zadostnih razlogov za začetek formalnega postopka preiskave, mora o tem obvestiti pritožnika, tako da lahko ta, odvisno od primera, predloži dodatne dokaze.