natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, the Court of First Instance pointed out that the possibility of determining, at the time of the adoption of a contested measure, more or less precisely the number, or even the identity, of the persons to whom that measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them, as long as it is established that that application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question (Case C-451/98 Antillean Rice Mills v Council [2001] ECR I-8949, paragraph 52).
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje spomnilo, da možnost, da se ob sprejetju izpodbijanega ukrepa bolj ali manj natančno opredeli �tevilo ali celo identiteta pravnih subjektov, za katere se ukrep uporablja, nikakor ne pomeni, da ukrep posamično zadeva te subjekte, ker se uredba uporablja na podlagi pravno ali dejansko objektivne situacije, ki je določena v spornem aktu (sodba Sodi�ča z dne 22. novembra 2001 v zadevi Antillean Rice Mills proti Svetu, C-451/98, Recueil, str. I-8949, točka 52).
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance accordingly held that Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland had failed to demonstrate that it was individually concerned by the contested decision because of its supposed membership of a closed class of operators.
Ob upo�tevanju tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland ni dokazal, da ga sporna odločba zaradi domnevne pripadnosti zaprtemu krogu upravljavcev posamično zadeva.
Furthermore, the Court of First Instance also held that it was not possible to derive from the objectives of Directive 2003/87, read in the light of recital 5 in the preamble, from criterion 5 in Annex III, or from any other provision of that directive, a guarantee for the operators of installations that a particular allocation method would be applied to them, let alone that they would obtain a particular quantity of greenhouse gas emission allowances, especially when the supposed guarantee referred
Sodi�če prve stopnje je poleg tega menilo, da niti iz ciljev Direktive 2003/87, razloženih glede na njeno peto uvodno izjavo, niti iz merila �tevilka 5 iz Priloge III, niti iz katere koli druge določbe navedene direktive ne izhaja jamstvo za upravljavce naprav, da se zanje uporabi določena metoda dodelitve ali da celo pridobijo določeno količino pravic do emisije toplogrednih plinov, zlasti ker se to domnevno jamstvo nana�a na več obdobij dodelitve. S členom 11(1) in (2) Direktive 2003/87, branim v
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND v COMMISSION to a number of allocation periods. On the contrary, Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/87, read in conjunction with Articles 9(1) and 13(1) of the directive, clearly distinguished between the first and second allocation periods and restricted the validity of the allocated emission allowances to a single allocation period, which implied that the Member States had to adopt separate allocation decisions for each period.
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND PROTI KOMISIJI povezavi s členom 9(1) in členom 13(1) te direktive, naj bi se nasprotno jasno razlikovalo med prvim in drugim obdobjem dodelitve in omejevalo veljavnost dodeljenih pravic do emisije na eno samo obdobje dodelitve, kar naj bi za države članice impliciralo nujnost sprejetja ločenih odločb dodelitve za posamezno obdobje.
By its appeal, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland claims that the Court of Justice should:
S pritožbo Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— set aside the order under appeal in so far as it concerns the appellant;
– razveljavi izpodbijani sklep, vsaj kolikor zadeva tožečo stranko;
— annul Article 1(2) of the contested decision to the extent that it declares incompatible with Directive 2003/87 the allocation guarantees from the first trading period referred to in chapter 6.2 of the German NAP II;
– razglasi ničnost člena 1(2) sporne odločbe, ker se s to določbo razglasijo jamstva za dodelitev pravic iz prvega obdobja trgovanja, kot so opisana v poglavju 6.2 nem�kega NNR II, za nezdružljiva z Direktivo 2003/87;
— annul Article 2(2) of the contested decision to the extent that it imposes obligations on the Federal Republic of Germany relating to the application of the allocation guarantees from the first trading period referred to in chapter 6.2 of the German NAP II, and to the extent that it requires the application of the same compliance factor as for other comparable existing installations;
– razglasi ničnost člena 2(2) sporne odločbe, ker se, prvič, s to določbo Zvezni republiki Nemčiji določijo omejitve uporabe jamstev za dodelitev pravic iz prvega obdobja trgovanja, opisanih v poglavju 6.2 nem�kega NNR II, in drugič, ker se s to določbo zahteva uporaba istega izpolnitvenega faktorja kot za druge primerljive že obstoječe naprave;
— in the alternative, set aside the order under appeal and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;
– podredno razveljavi izpodbijani sklep in zadevo predloži Sodi�ču prve stopnje,
The Commission contends that the Court should dismiss the appeal as inadmissible and, in the alternative, unfounded.
Komisija predlaga predvsem ugotovitev nedopustnosti pritožbe in podredno zavrnitev pritožbe kot neutemeljene.
It also contends that the appellant should be ordered to pay the costs.
Predlaga tudi, naj se tožeči stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov.
In support of its appeal, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland relies on two pleas supporting the claim to set aside the order under appeal, alleging infringement of procedural law and an infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v utemeljitev pritožbe navaja dva pritožbena razloga za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijanega sklepa, nana�ata pa se na kr�itev postopkovnega prava in kr�itev člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES.
Under Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure, where an appeal is clearly inadmissible or clearly unfounded, the Court may at any time, acting on a report from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, by reasoned order dismiss the appeal.
V skladu s členom 119 Poslovnika lahko Sodi�če pritožbo, če je očitno nedopustna ali očitno neutemeljena, na podlagi poročila sodnika poročevalca in po opredelitvi generalnega pravobranilca kadar koli zavrne z obrazloženim sklepom.
The Court considers that to be the case in the present proceedings and holds that, taking into account the making of the present order, it is not necessary to rule on the application for an expedited procedure.
Sodi�če ocenjuje, da gre v tej zadevi za tovrstni primer in da ob upo�tevanju sprejetja tega sklepa ni treba odločiti o predlogu za hitri postopek.
The Commission considers that the appellant no longer has an interest in bringing proceedings since the annulment of the provisions of the contested decision in the appeal would not produce any legal effects, on account of the adoption of Commission Decision C(2007) 5258 of 26 October 2007 authorising the amendments introduced by the Federal Republic of Germany to its legislation and in particular the replacement of the system based on a single compliance factor by another system.
Komisija meni, da tožeča stranka ne bi imela več pravnega interesa, če razglasitev ničnosti določb sporne odločbe v pritožbi ne bi imela pravnega učinka zaradi sprejetja Odločbe Komisije C(2007) 5258 z dne 26. oktobra 2007, s katero se dovoljujejo spremembe predpisov, ki jih je sprejela Zvezna republika Nemčija, in zlasti nadomestitev sistema, ki temelji na enem samem izpolnitvenem faktorju, z drugim sistemom.
At the request of the Court, made pursuant to Article 54a of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission communicated that decision to it.
Komisija je Sodi�če na njegovo zahtevo na podlagi člena 54a Poslovnika obvestila o tej končni odločbi.
In that regard, it should be pointed out that the Court may declare an appeal inadmissible when an event subsequent to the judgment of the Court of First Instance has removed its prejudicial effect as regards the appellant.
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da Sodi�če lahko razglasi pritožbo za nedopustno takrat, ko pritožba zaradi dejstva, ki je nastalo po sodbi Sodi�ča prve stopnje, postane ne�kodljiva za pritožnika.
In the present case, it should be pointed out that the decision on which the Commission relies in order to show the appellant’s lack of an interest to bring proceedings does not replace the contested decision and refers only to amendments in connection with Article 1(2) of the contested decision.
V tem primeru je treba ugotoviti, da odločba, na katero se sklicuje Komisija, da bi dokazala odsotnost pravnega interesa tožeče stranke, prvič, ne nadome�ča sporne odločbe in, drugič, se z njo sklicuje samo na spremembe v povezavi s členom 1(2) sporne odločbe.
However, the appellant also contests the findings concerning the incompatibility with Directive 2003/87 of the allocation guarantees from the first period of allocation referred to in Article 2(2) of the contested decision to the extent that, first, that provision imposes obligations on the Member State to which the decision is addressed concerning the application of the allocation guarantees from the first trading period referred to in chapter 6.2 of the German NAP II and, second, it requires that State to apply the same compliance factor as for the other comparable existing installations.
Vendar tožeča stranka ugovarja tudi ugotovitvam v zvezi z nezdružljivostjo jamstev za dodelitev pravic iz prvega obdobja trgovanja z Direktivo 2003/87 iz člena 2(2) sporne odločbe, ker se, prvič, s to določbo državi članici naslovnici določijo omejitve za uporabo jamstev za dodelitev pravic iz prvega obdobja trgovanja, opisanih v poglavju 6.2 nem�kega NNR II, in, drugič, ker se s to določbo za to državo zahteva uporaba istega izpolnitvenega faktorja kot za druge primerljive že obstoječe naprave.
In those circumstances, and in the absence of additional information, the Court is not in a position to hold, as requested by the Commission, that Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland has no interest to bring the present appeal proceedings.
Sodi�če v teh okoli�činah in ker niso bili predloženi dodatni podatki, ne more ugotoviti, kot ga k temu poziva Komisija, da Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland nima pravnega interesa v tej pritožbi.
First plea in law alleging infringement of procedural law
Prvi pritožbeni razlog, ki se nanaša na kršitev postopkovnega prava
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland submits that the Court of First Instance has, by the order under appeal, committed an infringement of the right to a fair and judicial hearing of its case.
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland trdi, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje z izpodbijanim sklepom prekr�ilo tako pravico do pravičnega postopka kot pravico do izjave. V
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND v COMMISSION must be given the possibility of expressing themselves on all the questions of fact and law relevant for the resolution of the dispute.
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND PROTI KOMISIJI zvezi s tem je navedel, da mora biti strankam v sporu zaradi re�itve spora odobrena možnost, da se izrečejo o vseh vpra�anjih glede dejstev ali o upo�tevnih pravnih vpra�anjih.
According to the appellant, the Court of First Instance based its order essentially on the fact that it had not produced further clarifications or proof with regard to the composition of the closed class of operators on which it relied in order to be recognised as a person individually concerned by the contested action.
Tožeča stranka trdi, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje v glavnem utemeljilo svoj sklep na dejstvu, da ni navedla dodatnih pojasnil niti ni predložila dokazov o sestavi tega zaprtega kroga upravljavcev, na katerega se je sklicevala, da bi ji bil priznan status osebe, ki jo sporna odločba posamično zadeva.
The appellant claims that in fact the Court of First Instance did not ask it to produce a list of the operators concerned.
Vendar Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland trdi, da Sodi�če prve stopnje od njega sploh ni zahtevalo seznama zadevnih upravljavcev.
It follows that it was not in a position to explain to the Court of First Instance the reasons for the failure to produce such a list.
Iz tega naj bi sledilo, da Sodi�ču prve stopnje ni mogel navesti razlogov, zakaj ni predložil tovrstnega seznama.
In that regard, the appellant considers that it had no reason to produce the list in question without being expressly requested by the Court of First Instance to do so.
V zvezi s tem tožeča stranka meni, da ni imela nobenega razloga za predložitev zadevnega seznama, ne da bi jo Sodi�če prve stopnje k temu posebej pozvalo.
In addition, the fact of belonging to a closed class of operators affected by the adoption of the contested decision derives directly from the structure of the national legislation and therefore does not depend on the production of a list of the operators concerned.
Poleg tega pripadnost zaprtemu krogu upravljavcev, ki jih je prizadelo sprejetje sporne odločbe, izhaja neposredno iz strukture nacionalne ureditve in torej ni odvisna od predložitve seznama zadevnih upravljavcev.
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland also submits that it was impossible for it to produce such a list because the Umweltbundesamt is not allowed to accede to a request of that kind for reasons related to data protection.
Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland tudi trdi, da je bilo neizvedljivo predložiti tovrstni seznam, ker Umweltbundesamt zaradi pomislekov o varstvu podatkov ni mogel ugoditi zahtevi v tem smislu.
By contrast, it would have been open to the Court of First Instance to adopt a measure of organisation of procedure or a measure of inquiry.
Po drugi strani bi Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko sprejelo ukrep procesnega vodstva ali pripravljalni ukrep.
Thus, if the Court of First Instance had made such a request, the Federal Republic of Germany would have produced a list capable of demonstrating that the appellant belonged to a closed class of operators.
Če bi Sodi�če prve stopnje vložilo tovrstni zahtevek, bi Zvezna republika Nemčija predložila tovrstni seznam, s katerim bi lahko dokazala pripadnost tožeče stranke zaprtemu krogu upravljavcev.
The Commission considers that the Court of Instance did not, by the contested order, commit any infringement of procedural law.
Komisija meni, da Sodi�če prve stopnje z izpodbijanim sklepom ni kr�ilo procesnega prava.
It should be noted at the outset that, contrary to what the appellant seems to believe, it was only for sake of completeness that the Court of First Instance pointed out that it had not furnished a list of the operators affected by the contested decision in order to show that it was individually concerned by the decision.
V nasprotju z mnenjem tožeče stranke je takoj treba ugotoviti, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje le podredno poudarilo, da tožeča stranka ni predložila seznama upravljavcev, ki jih je prizadela sporna odločba, da bi dokazala, da jo je sporna odločba posamično zadeva.
The Court of First Instance first of all held, in paragraph 61 of the order under appeal, that the applicants were not individually concerned by the contested decision and that none of the arguments put forward by them was capable of calling into question that assessment.
Sprva je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 61 izpodbijanega sklepa menilo, da sporna odločba ni posamično zadevala tožečih strank in da nobeden od njihovih navedenih argumentov ni prerekal te presoje.
In particular, in response to certain arguments put forward by Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland which were based on the claim that it belonged to a closed class of operators affected by the order under appeal, the Court of First Instance pointed out, in paragraph 65 of the order under appeal, that the possibility of determining more or less precisely the number, or even the identity, of the persons to whom that contested measure contained in the decision applies by no means implies that those persons must be regarded as being individually concerned by that measure, as long as it is established that that application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v odgovoru na nekatere argumente, ki jih je navedel Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland in temeljijo na njegovi domnevni pripadnosti zaprtemu krogu upravljavcev, ki jih zadeva sporna odločba, v točki 65 izpodbijanega sklepa zlasti spomnilo, da možnost, da se bolj ali manj natančno opredeli �tevilo ali celo identiteta pravnih subjektov, za katere se izpodbijani ukrep navedene odločbe uporablja, nikakor ne pomeni, da jih je treba obravnavati, kot da jih ta ukrep zadeva posamično, dokler ni sporno, da se ta uporaba izvaja na podlagi pravno ali dejansko objektivne situacije, ki je določena v spornem aktu.
In that context, the Court of First Instance found that Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland had failed to provide any clarifications or to produce any proof as to the composition of that supposed closed class of operators.
V teh okoli�činah je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland ni navedel dodatnih pojasnil niti ni predložil dokazov o sestavi tega domnevnega zaprtega kroga upravljavcev.
Therefore it was only for sake of completeness that it noted that the appellant had not placed a list of the operators on the case file, unlike the other applicants.
Sodi�če prve stopnje zato samo podredno navaja, da tožeča stranka ni predložila seznama upravljavcev, v nasprotju s tem, kar sta storili drugi tožeči stranki.
In accordance with settled caselaw, complaints directed against the grounds of a decision of the Court of First Instance included purely for the sake of completeness cannot lead to the decision being set aside and are therefore nugatory (Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission [2005] ECR I-5425, paragraph 148, and order of 23 February 2006 in Case C-171/05 P Piau v Commission, paragraph 86).
V skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso očitki, ki se nana�ajo na odvečne razloge odločbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ne morejo povzročiti razveljavitve te odločbe in so torej brezpredmetni (sodba z dne 28. junija 2005 v zdruŽenih zadevah Dansk Rørindustri in drugi proti Komisiji, C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, od C-205/02 P do C-208/02 P in C-213/02 P, ZOdl., str. I-5425, točka 148, in sklep z dne 23. februarja 2006 v zadevi Piau proti Komisiji, C-171/05 P, točka 86).
In those circumstances, the first plea in law must be rejected.
V teh okoli�činah je treba prvi pritožbeni razlog zavrniti kot brezpredmetnega.
Second plea in law alleging infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC
Drugi pritožbeni razlog, ki se nanaša na kršitev člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES
By this plea, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland submits, essentially, that the Court of First Instance misapplied the concept of being individually concerned by a Community act.
S tem Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v bistvu trdi, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje z aktom Skupnosti napačno uporabilo pojem posamičnega zadevanja.
According to the appellant, the class of operators concerned was conclusively defined and/or definable on the basis of German legislation and could not, in any event, be extended.
Tožeča stranka trdi, da je bil krog zadevnih upravljavcev dokončno določen in/ali določljiv na podlagi nem�ke ureditve in ga vsekakor ne bi bilo mogoče raz�iriti.
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance was not in a position to assert that the prohibition on the maintenance in force of the allocation guarantee applied by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the act in question.
V teh okoli�činah Sodi�če prve stopnje ni moglo trditi, da se prepoved ohranitve veljavnosti jamstva za dodelitev uporablja na podlagi pravno ali dejansko objektivne situacije, ki je določena v spornem aktu.
According to the appellant, the operators were ascertained so precisely in the contested decision that the objective reference to the field of application of Article 8 of the ZuG 2007 could without difficulty have been replaced by a list of the names of the operators without changing the scope of that decision.
Tožeča stranka trdi, da naj bi bili upravljavci natančno določeni v sporni odločbi, tako da bi objektivno referenco na področje uporabe člena 8 ZuG 2007 brez nadaljnjega lahko nadomestili s seznamom, na katerem so upravljavci navedeni poimensko, ne da bi spremenili obseg te odločbe.
Relying on Joined Cases 41/70 to 44/70 International Fruit Companyand Others v Commission [1971] ECR 411, paragraph 21, the appellant submits that the contested decision could have been considered by the Court of First Instance as a bundle of individual decisions, since, by that decision, the Commission prohibited, with regard to the operators covered by the allocation guarantee provided for in Article 8 of the ZuG 2007, the maintenance in force of that guarantee.
S sklicevanjem na sodbo z dne 13. maja 1971 v zdruŽenih zadevah International Fruit Company in drugi proti Komisiji (od 41/70 do 44/70, Recueil, str. 411, točka 21) tožeča stranka trdi, da bi lahko Sodi�če prve stopnje sporno odločbo obravnavalo kot sveženj posamičnih odločb, ker naj bi Komisija s to odločbo upravljavcem, na katere se jamstvo za dodelitev iz člena 8 ZuG 2007 nana�a, prepovedala ohranitev veljavnosti navedenega jamstva za dodelitev.
In the end, the Commission decision on the German NAP II constitutes both a decision of general application and a bundle of individual decisions, in so far as it prohibits the application of allocation guarantees in accordance with Article 8 of the ZuG 2007.
In fine, odločba Komisije o nem�kem NNR II naj bi pomenila tako splo�no odločbo kot tudi sveženj posamičnih odločb, saj se z njo prepoveduje uporaba jamstev za dodelitev iz člena 8 ZuG 2007.
The Commission submits that this plea in law should be dismissed as unfounded.
Komisija trdi, da je ta pritožbeni razlog treba zavrniti kot neutemeljenega.
In that regard, it considers that the Court of First Instance correctly applied the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
V zvezi s tem meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno uporabilo člen 230, četrti odstavek, ES.
The contested decision cannot be classified as a bundle of individual decisions, since the Commission did not rule on the individual applications and, in any case, was not
Poleg tega naj sporne odločbe ne bi bilo mogoče opredeliti kot sveženj posamičnih odločb, ker se Komisija ni izrekla o posamičnih zahtevah in ker vsekakor v prigla-
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND v COMMISSION in possession of sufficient information concerning the installations affected by the NAP notified to be in a position to take a decision having the effect which the appellant is attempting to prove.
�enem NNR ni imela zadostnih podatkov o zadevnih napravah, da bi se lahko izrekla v smislu, ki ga posku�a tožeča stranka dokazati.
With regard to the appellant’s argument that the contested decision is of a hybrid character in that it constitutes at the same time a measure of general application and a bundle of individual decisions, it must be held, first, as also held by the Court of First Instance in paragraph 59 of the order under appeal that the contested decision, which is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, is of general application as it applies to objectively determined situations and entails legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract.
Glede trditev tožeče stranke, namenjenih dokazovanju, da ima sporna odločba hibridni značaj, ker naj bi pomenila splo�ni akt in sveženj posamičnih odločb hkrati, je treba, prvič, ugotoviti, kot je to storilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 59 izpodbijanega sklepa, da ima sporna odločba, katere naslovnik je Zvezna republika Nemčija, splo�en obseg, ker se nana�a na objektivno določene položaje in ima pravne učinke za skupine oseb, ki so določene splo�no in abstraktno.