natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission refers, in particular, to the third and fourth paragraph of point I in the grounds of the third code.
Sklicuje se zlasti na točko I, tretji in četrti odstavek, uvodnih izjav teh tretjih pravil.
The Commission denies that there is a particular obligation to state reasons, contending that its obligation to provide relevant information is dictated solely by the first paragraph of Article 95 CS and the third paragraph of Article 15 CS.
Izpodbija obstoj posebne obveznosti obrazložitve, ker meni, da je njena obveznost obvestitve v zvezi s tem podrejena le členoma 95, prvi odstavek, PJ in 15, tretji odstavek, PJ.
Salzgitter submits that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in finding that the plea alleging a failure to state reasons in the contested decision was unfounded and had to be dismissed.
Družba Salzgitter zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo pri ugotovitvi, da pritožbeni razlog neobrazložitve sporne odločbe ni bil utemeljen in da ga je bilo treba zavrniti.
That is a question of law subject to review by the Court of Justice on an appeal (C-166/95 P Commission v Daffix [1997] ECR I-983).
Gre za pravno vpra�anje, ki je v okviru pritožbe podvrženo nadzoru Sodi�ča (sodba z dne 20. februarja 1997 v zadevi Komisija proti Daffix, C-166/95 P, Recueil, str. I-983).
According to settled caselaw relating to Article 253 EC, which can be applied to Article 15 CS, the statement of reasons required for an act with adverse effects 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 Court to carry out its review.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso glede člena 253 ES, ki jo je mogoče prenesti na uporabo člena 15 PJ, je treba obrazložitev akta, ki ima negativne posledice, prilagoditi vrsti zadevnega akta in mora jasno in nedvoumno izražati razlogovanje institucije, ki je akt izdala, tako da se lahko stranke seznanijo z utemeljitvijo sprejetega ukrepa in da pristojno sodi�če izvr�i nadzor.
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
Ne zahteva pa se, da bi bili v obrazložitvi navedeni vsi upo�tevni dejanski in pravni elementi, ker je treba vpra�anje, ali je obrazložitev
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER meets the requirements of Article 253 EC 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 C-501/00 Spain v Commission [2004] ECR I-6717, paragraph 73, and the caselaw cited).
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER posamezne odločbe v skladu z zahtevami iz člena 253 ES, presojati ne le glede na njeno besedilo, ampak tudi glede na njen kontekst in glede na celoto pravnih pravil, ki urejajo zadevno področje (glej sodbo z dne 15. julija 2004 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji, C-501/00, ZOdl., str. I-6717, točka 73, in navedena sodna praksa).
In paragraph 184 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that its review of Salzgitter’s first three pleas showed sufficiently that the obligation to state reasons was complied with in the contested decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 184 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da sodni nadzor, ki ga je izvedlo v okviru prvih treh tožbenih razlogov, ki jih je navajala družba Salzgitter, zadostno izkazuje, da je bila v sporni odločbi obveznost obrazložitve spo�tovana.
The Commission’s analysis justifying the application of Article 4(c) CS to the aid at issue is set out clearly and unambiguously in paragraph 66 of the contested decision.
V točki 66 sporne odločbe je namreč jasno in nedvoumno opredeljena analiza, s katero je Komisija utemeljila uporabo člena 4(c) PJ za zadevne pomoči.
In paragraphs 67 to 76 and 126 to 133 of that decision, the Commission provides, inter alia, a detailed account of the specific rules laid down by the Steel Aid Codes in force since 1986.
Komisija v točkah od 67 do 76 in od 126 do 133 te odločbe poleg tega podrobno navaja posebna pravila, določena s pravili o pomoči jeklarstvu, ki veljajo od leta 1986.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance did not commit an error of law in finding that the contested decision complied with the obligation to state reasons.
Sodi�če prve stopnje torej ni napačno uporabilo prava, ko je ugotovilo, da je bila v sporni odločbi spo�tovana obveznost obrazložitve.
Therefore, the second plea of the crossappeal, alleging a failure to state the reasons on which the contested decision was based, is unfounded and must be rejected.
Drugi pritožbeni razlog nasprotne pritožbe, namreč neobrazložitev sporne odločbe, je zato neutemeljen in ga je treba zavrniti.
Accordingly, the crossappeal must be dismissed.
Nasprotno pritožbo je treba zato zavrniti.
By its first plea, divided into six limbs, the Commission submits that there has been an infringement of Article 4(c) CS and the Third, Fourth and Sixth Steel Aid Codes. By its second plea, the Commission submits that there has been an infringement of its right to be heard.
Komisija kot prvi pritožbeni razlog, razdeljen na �est delov, navaja kr�itev člena 4(c) PJ ter tretjih, četrtih in �estih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu; kot drugi pritožbeni razlog pa navaja kr�itev svojih pravic do obrambe.
By its second plea, which should be examined first since it challenges the formal validity of the judgment under appeal, the Commission submits that the Court of First Instance infringed the rights of the defence in finding that the successive adoption of the first three Steel Aid Codes had created a legal situation that was am -biguous, without giving the Commission the opportunity to present its arguments on this point.
Komisija kot drugi pritožbeni razlog, ki ga je treba najprej preizkusiti, ker izpodbija pravilnost izpodbijane sodbe, navaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje kr�ilo pravice do obrambe, s tem da je presodilo, da je zaporedno sprejetje prvih treh pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu ustvarilo dvoumen pravni položaj, ne da bi imela možnost izraziti svoja stali�ča glede tega.
The Commission submits that the questions which the Court of First Instance submitted to it by letter of 28 July 2003 did not provide any indication that it could be accused of having failed to provide legal clarity.
Poudarja, da iz vpra�anj, ki ji jih je postavilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v dopisu z dne 28. julija 2003, ni izhajalo, da bi se ji lahko očitala taka pravna nejasnost.
Salzgitter contends that the lack of legal clarity resulting from the successive adoption of the first three Steel Aid Codes was mentioned in paragraph 114 of its application, therefore giving the Commission the opportunity to submit its arguments on that point.
Družba Salzgitter navaja, da je bila pravna nejasnost zaradi zaporednega sprejetja prvih treh pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu omenjena v točki 114 tožbe in da je zato Komisija imela možnost izraziti svoja stali�ča glede tega.
Salzgitter also contends that the Court of First Instance did not breach the audi alteram partem principle, since it relied on the facts as presented by Salzgitter in its written pleadings, by which Salzgitter intended to show that the principle of legal certainty had been infringed (C-110/03 Belgium v Commission [2005] ECR I-2801, paragraph 27).
Poleg tega navaja, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni kr�ilo kontradiktornosti postopka, ker se je oprlo na dejstva, ki jih je predložila družba Salzgitter v svojih vlogah, s katerimi je sku�ala dokazati obstoj kr�itve načela pravne varnosti (sodba z dne 14. aprila 2005 v zadevi Belgija proti Komisiji, C-110/03, ZOdl., str. I-2801, točka 27).
In the present case, it is apparent from the documents before the Court, and, more specifically, the answers submitted in response to the written questions formulated by the Court of First Instance in its letter of 28 July 2003, that the Commission had the opportunity to describe the development of the rules applying to aid paid to steel undertakings under a general aid scheme in the light of the successive adoption of the first three Steel Aid Codes and to express a view on the legal effect under the ECSC Treaty of an authorising decision adopted pursuant to Article 88 EC.
V obravnavani zadevi iz spisa in, natančneje, iz odgovorov na pisna vpra�anja Sodi�ča prve stopnje v njegovem dopisu z dne 28. julija 2003 izhaja, da je Komisija imela možnost obrazložiti razvoj ureditve, ki se uporablja za pomoči, dodeljene jeklarskim družbam v okviru splo�nega sistema ob zaporednem sprejetju prvih treh pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu in se izreči o pravnem pomenu – v okviru Pogodbe ESPJ – odločbe o odobritvi dovoljenja, sprejete na podlagi člena 88 Pogodbe ES.
In this context, the Commission also stated that Article 6 of the Third Steel Aid Code laid down an obligation to notify aid paid to Salzgitter under the ZRFG.
Komisija je v okviru tega tudi pojasnila, da je bila s členom 6 tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu določena obveznost priglasitve pomoči, ki so bile družbi Salzgitter dodeljene na podlagi ZRFG.
In those circumstances, the Commission’s claim that the Court of First Instance did not give it an opportunity to discuss this question must be dismissed.
V teh okoli�činah je treba zavrniti navedbe Komisije, da naj ji Sodi�če prve stopnje ne bi dalo možnosti razpravljati o tem vpra�anju.
Therefore, the Commission’s second plea must be rejected as unfounded.
Zato je treba drugi pritožbeni razlog Komisije zavrniti kot neutemeljenega.
By its first plea, the Commission calls into question the analysis carried out by the Court of First Instance with regard to a breach of the principle of legal certainty, in two respects.
Komisija s prvim pritožbenim razlogom izpodbija presojo Sodi�ča prve stopnje o kr�itvi načela pravne varnosti z dveh vidikov.
The Commission submits, first, that the rules applying to the aid in question were perfectly clear and, second, that it did not react late in respect of that aid.
Zatrjuje, prvič, da so bila pravila, ki se uporabljajo za zadevne pomoči, popolnoma jasna in, drugič, da se ni prepozno odzvala glede teh pomoči.
According to the Commission, if follows from this that the Court of First Instance’s analysis of the overall situation, which it relied on to annul the part of the contested decision ordering recovery of that aid, contains an error of law.
Meni, da iz tega izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo pri presoji dejstev za razglasitev ničnosti dela sporne odločbe o vračilu navedenih pomoči.
The Commission also submits that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in accepting that the recipient of aid can rely on a breach of the principle of legal certainty.
Komisija prav tako zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, ker je priznalo, da se prejemnik pomoči lahko sklicuje na kr�itev načela pravne varnosti.
Clarity of the legal regime applying to the aid in issue
Jasnost pravne ureditve, ki se uporablja za zadevne pomoči
The Commission submits that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in finding that the legal situation resulting from the simultaneous application of the ECSC Treaty, the EC Treaty and the various Steel Aid Codes was uncertain and lacked clarity.
Komisija zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem da je presodilo, da je bil pravni položaj, ki izhaja iz istočasne uporabe ESPJ, Pogodbe ES in različnih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu, negotov in dvoumen.
First of all, the Commission takes issue with the conclusion reached by the Court of First Instance that adoption of the Second and the Third Steel Aid Code led to withdrawal of the authorisation of the ZRFG which the Commission granted by the 1971 Decision.
Komisija najprej izpodbija presojo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da naj bi sprejetje drugih in tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu povzročilo umik odobritve Komisije, ki jo je za ZRFG dala v svoji odločbi iz leta 1971.
The Commission submits that the authorisation granted by that decision, which was adopted on the basis of the EEC Treaty, could have no effect under the ECSC Treaty, and that aid to steel undertakings provided for under the ZRFG was prohibited before publication of the First Steel Aid Code (Commission v France, paragraphs 41 to 44).
Komisija zatrjuje, da odobritev iz te odločbe, sprejeta na podlagi Pogodbe EGS, ni mogla učinkovati v okviru Pogodbe ESPJ in da so bile pomoči jeklarskim družbam, določene z ZRFG, prepovedane pred objavo prvih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu (zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Franciji, točke od 41 do 44).
The Commission submits that the authorisation contained in the 1971 Decision and the authorisations which followed only became applicable to steel undertakings by reason of that code and that that general authorisation, which was temporary, expired on 31 December 1981, the date that code expired (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission [2002] ECR I-7869, paragraphs 115 and 116).
Meni, da so se odobritev, potrjena z odločbo iz leta 1971, in odobritve, ki so sledile, začele za jeklarske družbe uporabljati �ele na podlagi teh pravil, in da se je ta splo�na in začasna odobritev iztekla 31. decembra 1981, ko so prenehala veljati navedena pravila (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 24. septembra 2002 v združenih zadevah Falck in Acciaierie di Bolzano proti Komisiji, C-74/00 P in C-75/00 P, Recueil, str. I-7869, točki 115 in 116).
The Commission also submits that Article 67 CS does not apply to State aid and that Article 4(c) CS prohibits aid ’in any form whatsoever’.
Komisija tudi navaja, da člen 67 PJ ni uporabljiv za državne pomoči in da so s členom 4(c) PJ prepovedane pomoči „v kakr�ni koli obliki“.
The Commission also submits that the Federal Republic of Germany did not inform it of the aid paid to Salzgitter and that that Member State cannot therefore claim that the Commission authorised that aid on the basis of Article 67 CS.
Poleg tega meni, da je Zvezna republika Nemčija ni obvestila o pomočeh, dodeljenih družbi Salzgitter, in da ta država članica zato ne more zatrjevati, da jih je ona odobrila na podlagi člena 67 PJ.
The Commission also contests the conclusion reached by the Court of First Instance that adoption of the Second and the Third Steel Aid Code created greater ambiguity, resulting from uncertainty over the application of Article 6 of that third code — which lays down an obligation to notify State aid — to aid paid to undertakings in the steel sector under the ZRFG, because that aid scheme had already been authorised under the EC Treaty.
Komisija nato izpodbija presojo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, v skladu s katero naj bi sprejetje drugih in tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu povzročilo dodatno dvoumnost zaradi negotovosti glede tega, ali se člen 6 tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu, ki določa obveznost priglasitve državnih pomoči, uporabi za pomoči, ki so bile družbam v jeklarskem sektorju dodeljene na podlagi ZRFG, ker je bil ta sistem pomoči že odobren v okviru Pogodbe ES.
The Commission submits that Article 6 of the Third Steel Aid Code provides — unambiguously — that there is an obligation to notify aid schemes already authorised by the Commission under the EC Treaty if they are to be applied to steel undertakings, and that the distinction between new aid and existing aid is irrelevant for the purposes of the ECSC Treaty, which provides for the immediate abolition of all State aid without exception.
Meni, da člen 6 navedenih tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu nedvoumno določa obveznost priglasitve sistemov pomoči, ki jih je Komisija že odobrila v okviru Pogodbe ES, če se ti uporabijo za jeklarske družbe, in da ločevanje med novimi in obstoječimi pomočmi ni upo�tevno v okviru Pogodbe ESPJ, ki določa takoj�njo ukinitev vseh državnih pomoči brez izjeme.
Salzgitter contends that the Court of First Instance has not committed an error of law and that the Commission should have announced in the Second and the Third Steel Aid Code, or in some other communication, that it had changed its interpretation of Article 4(c) CS (Case C-181/02 P Commission v Kvaerner Warnow Werft [2004] ECR I-5703, paragraph 41).
Družba Salzgitter meni, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni napačno uporabilo prava in da bi Komisija morala v drugih in tretjih pravilih o pomoči jeklarstvu, oziroma v vsakem drugem obvestilu, navesti, da je spremenila razlago člena 4(c) PJ (sodba z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Kvaerner Warnow Werft, C-181/02 P, Recueil, str.
Salzgitter contends, in particular, that the fact that the Commission repeatedly authorised the ZRFG on the basis of the EC Treaty gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the legislation was legal.
I-5703, točka 41). Zlasti navaja, da so �tevilne odobritve ZRFG s strani Komisije na podlagi Pogodbe ES ustvarile legitimno pričakovanje glede zakonitosti te zakonodaje.
Salzgitter contends that Article 4(c) CS does not apply to general measures adopted by Member States in relation to all sectors of the economy, such as the ZRFG, a fact confirmed by the Commission in the first recital to the First and Second Steel Aid Code.
Družba Salzgitter meni, da člen 4(c) PJ ni uporabljiv za splo�ne ukrepe držav članic glede vseh takih gospodarskih sektorjev, kot je ZRFG, kar je Komisija potrdila v prvi uvodni izjavi prvih in drugih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu.
Salzgitter contends that the Commission applied Article 4(c) CS retroactively, which is contrary to Community law, and conflicts with its longterm investment decisions (see, to that effect, Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission, paragraph 119), and that the fact that it is the Commission’s decisionmaking practice in the coal sector to apply Article 67 CS to non-specific aid in that sector confirms that analysis.
Meni, da je Komisija v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti retroaktivno uporabila člen 4(c) PJ, tako da nasprotuje svojim odločitvam o dolgoročnem investiranju (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Falck in Acciaierie di Bolzano proti Komisiji, točka 119) in tako da praksa odločanja Komisije v sektorju premoga z uporabo člena 67 PJ za pomoči, ki niso omejene na omenjeni sektor, potrjuje to analizo.
Salzgitter argues that, contrary to the Commission’s claims, it was not clear from Article 6 of the Third Steel Aid Code whether the application of the tax rules in the ZRFG to steel undertakings was from then on to be the subject of a notification under the ECSC Treaty, despite the authorisation previously granted by the Commission under the EC Treaty for the ZRFG as an aid scheme.
Družba Salzgitter navaja, v nasprotju s tem kar zatrjuje Komisija, da na podlagi člena 6 tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, ali bi bilo treba uporabo davčnih pravil, kot jih določa ZRFG za jeklarske družbe, odslej priglasiti skladno z ESPJ, kljub že predhodno danemu dovoljenju Komisije za sistem pomoči v okviru Pogodbe ES.
Salzgitter contends that application of the ZRFG to steel undertakings did not, in any event, constitute a ’plan’ to ’grant or alter aid’ within the meaning of that article, since aid was granted to border regions under the ZRFG long before the Third Steel Aid Code came into force.
Družba Salzgitter poudarja, da uporaba ZRFG za jeklarske družbe v nobenem primeru ni pomenila „načrta“ za „dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči“ v smislu tega člena, ker je bila pomoč obmejnim regijam, določena z ZRFG, dodeljena dosti prej kot so začela veljati tretja pravila o pomoči jeklarstvu.
Salzgitter also contends that Article 6 of the Third Steel Aid Code did not apply to aid granted while the ZRFG remained in force because that aid, granted under an authorised aid scheme, constituted existing aid (C-47/91 Italy v Commission [1994] ECR I-4635).
Družba Salzgitter poleg tega poudarja, da se člen 6 tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu ni uporabljal za pomoči, ki so bile dodeljene ob izvajanju ZRFG, ker so te, na podlagi odobrenega sistema pomoči, pomenile obstoječe pomoči (sodba z dne 5. oktobra 1994 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji, C-47/91, Recueil, str. I-4635).
Salzgitter contends that, by notifying the ZRFG to the Commission in 1971 under the EEC Treaty, the Federal Republic of Germany had, in any event, also brought it to the knowledge of the Commission in accordance with Article 67 CS and that, by authorising the tax measures notified under the EC Treaty, the Commission implicitly declared that the measure at issue did not have any ’appreciable repercussions on conditions of competition’ in the coal or the steel industry within the meaning of Article 67(1) CS.
Družba Salzgitter meni, da je Zvezna republika Nemčija s priglasitvijo ZRFG Komisiji leta 1971 v okviru Pogodbe EGS Komisijo v vsakem primeru seznanila v skladu s členom 67 PJ in da je Komisija z odobritvijo davčnih ukrepov, prigla�enih na podlagi Pogodbe ES, implicitno izjavila, da zadevni ukrepi ne „vplivajo na pogoje konkurence“ v industriji premoga in jekla v smislu člena 67(1) PJ.
In essence, the German Government puts forward the same arguments as Salzgitter.
Nem�ka vlada v bistvu zatrjuje isto kot družba Salzgitter.
As a preliminary point, it must be recalled — as held earlier in paragraph 39 of the present judgment — that the Court of First Instance did not commit an error of law in finding that the aid covered by the contested decision fell within the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 4(c) CS.
Uvodoma je treba opozoriti, da, kot je razsojeno v točki 39 te sodbe, Sodi�če prve stopnje ni napačno uporabilo prava, ko je presodilo, da za pomoči iz sporne odločbe velja prepoved, določena v členu 4(c) PJ.
Consequently, the Federal Republic of Germany cannot rely on an implicit authorisation of the aid allegedly granted by the Commission on the basis of Article 67 CS.
Zato se Zvezna republika Nemčija ne more sklicevati na domnevno implicitno dovoljenje Komisije glede teh pomoči na podlagi člena 67 PJ.
As regards the reasoning of the Court of First Instance that the adoption of the Second and the Third Steel Aid Code constituted a partial withdrawal by the Commission of the 1971 decision not to object to the application of the ZRFG which led to uncertainty as to the legal regime concerning the ZRFG, it must be held that Article 305(1) EC states that ’the provisions of the … [EC] Treaty shall not affect the provisions of the [ECSC] Treaty, in particular as regards the rights and obligations of Member States, the powers of the institutions of that Community and the rules laid down by that Treaty for the functioning of the common market in coal and steel.’
Glede obrazložitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da naj bi Komisija s sprejetjem drugih in tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu delno umaknila odločbo iz leta 1971, da ta ne bi nasprotovala uporabi ZRFG, kar naj bi povzročilo negotovost glede njegove pravne ureditve, je treba opozoriti, da člen 305(1) ES določa, da „[d]oločbe […] Pogodbe [ES] ne vplivajo na določbe Pogodbe [ESPJ], zlasti glede pravic in obveznosti držav članic, pristojnosti institucij te skupnosti in predpisov, ki jih omenjena pogodba določa za delovanje skupnega trga premoga in jekla.“
It follows from this that the EC Treaty and the ECSC Treaty are independent treaties and that, consequently, the EC Treaty and the secondary legislation enacted on the basis of it cannot produce effects in areas that fall within the scope of the ECSC Treaty (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 188/80 to 190/80 France and Others v Commission [1982] ECR 2545, paragraph 31).
Iz tega izhaja, da sta pogodbi ES in ESPJ samostojni in da Pogodba ES ter sekundarno pravo, določeno na njeni podlagi, posledično ne more učinkovati na področju uporabe Pogodbe ESPJ (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 6. julija 1982 v zadevi Francija in drugi proti Komisiji, od 188/80 do 190/80, Recueil, str.
Consequently, given that Article 1 of the Third Steel Aid Code prohibited both aid that was and aid that was not specific to the steel sector, the Commission could not implicitly withdraw the 1971 Decision.
Posledično, ker so s členom 1 tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu prepovedane tako specifične kot nespecifične pomoči v sektorju jekla, Komisija ni mogla implicitno umakniti odločbe iz leta 1971.