natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For the purpose of fixing the amount recoverable, the Court held, in particular, that where a client decides to be represented by both a solicitor and counsel, it is possible for the fees due to each of them to be regarded as costs necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings.
Sodišče prve stopnje glede določitve povrnljivega zneska meni, da kadar se stranka odloči, da jo bosta zastopala hkrati solicitor in barrister, ni nujno, da honorarji za enega in drugega ne bodo ocenjeni kot nujno potrebni stroški za namen postopka.
The Court stated that in those circumstances, however, it must examine the extent to which the services supplied by all the advisers concerned were necessary for the conduct of the legal proceedings and satisfy itself that the fact that both categories of lawyers were instructed did not entail any unnecessary duplication of costs.
Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da je njegova naloga v teh okoliščinah ta, da preuči, v kolikšni meri so bile storitve, opravljene v obliki vseh zadevnih svetovanj, potrebne za potek sodnega postopka, in da se prepriča, da najetje dveh različnih vrst svetovalcev ni povzročilo nekoristne podvojitve stroškov.
That was partially the case in this instance.
Delno je bil tak primer v tej zadevi.
It also held that the essentially economic nature of the findings made by the Commission in the context of merger control may justify the involvement of economic advisers or experts specialising in that field to supplement the legal advisers’ work, thus resulting in costs that are recoverable.
Ravno tako meni, da predvsem gospodarska narava presojanj Komisije v okviru nadzora operacij združevanja lahko upraviči posredovanje svetovalcev ali gospodarskih strokovnjakov, specializiranih za to področje, da bi se dopolnilo delo pravnih svetovalcev, in povzroči stroške, ki se lahko povrnejo.
The costs of that nature were, however, considered excessive by the Court.
Sodišče prve stopnje je take stroške kljub temu ocenilo za čezmerne.
Finally, where an applicant is subject to value added tax, as Airtours was, it is entitled to recover from the tax authorities value added tax paid on goods and services purchased by it.
Kadar je tožena stranka oproščena plačila davka na dodano vrednost, kot je bilo to v primeru Airtours, ima pravico, da ji davčni organi povrnejo davek na dodano vrednost, ki ga je plačala za pridobljene dobrine in storitve.
Since this tax does not represent an expense for it, it cannot claim reimbursement of the tax on costs which are recoverable.
Ta davek zanjo ni strošek, torej ne more zahtevati povračila plačanega davka na stroške, ki jih Komisija lahko povrne.
In the light of those considerations, and of the importance of the case from the point of view of Community competition law, the numerous and complex economic and legal questions which were examined by the advisers, the financial interest that Airtours had in the case and the amount of work generated by the court proceedings for the legal and economic advisers, the Court set the total amount of costs that Airtours could recover at slightly less than GBP 490 000.
Glede na te navedbe in na pomen zadeve za konkurenčno pravo Skupnosti, glede na številna in zapletena gospodarska in pravna vprašanja, ki so jih preučili svetovalci, glede na gospodarske interese spora za Airtours in glede na obseg dela, ki ga je sodni postopek naložil pravnim in gospodarskim svetovalcem, je Sodišče prve stopnje določilo skupni znesek stroškov, ki se povrnejo Airtoursu, na nekaj manj kot 490.000 GBP.
By order of 29 October 2004 in Case T-310/01 DEP Schneider Electric v Commission, not published in the ECR, the Court set the amount to be recovered by Schneider Electric, the Commission having refused to pay the sum of roughly EUR 830 000.
Ker je Komisija zavrnila povračilo 830.000 evrov, ki jih je Schneider Electric zahteval zlasti iz naslova honorarjev in stroškov svetovalcev za namen sodnega postopka,
In the light of all those factors, the total amount of costs was reduced to almost EUR 420 000.
Glede na vse elemente je celotni znesek stroškov znižan na malo manj kot 420.000 evrov.
For reasons of the same nature, the amount of the costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief and to the proceedings that resulted in annulment of the decision ordering Schneider to sell as a whole the assets held in Legrand, which had been assessed at EUR 830 000, was set at almost EUR 427 000 (order of 29 October 2004 in Case T-77/02 DEP Schneider Electric v Commission, not published in the ECR).
Glede navedb iste narave je znesek stroškov postopka za izdajo začasne odredbe in postopka, ki je pripeljal do razglasitve ničnosti odločbe, ki je odredila, naj Schneider proda celoto delnic Legranda, ki je bil ocenjen na več kot 830.000 evrov, določen na približno 427.000 evrov (sklep z dne 29. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Schneider Electric proti Komisiji, T-77/02 DEP, še neobjavljen v Recueil).
Under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, ‘any natural or legal person may ... institute proceedings against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former’.
V skladu s členom 230, četrti odstavek, ES „fizične ali pravne osebe lahko pod enakimi pogoji sprožijo postopke zoper nanje naslovljene odločbe ali zoper odločbe, ki jih neposredno in posamično zadevajo, čeprav so v obliki uredbe ali odločbe naslovljene na drugo osebo“.
The fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC provides that an action for annulment is to be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be.
Isti člen 230 ES v petem odstavku določa, da je treba ničnostno tožbo glede na posamezni primer vložiti v dveh mesecih od objave akta ali njegovega uradnega obvestila tožniku, če tega ni bilo, pa od dneva, ko je zanj izvedel.
Measures against which an action may be brought
Akti, zoper katere se lahko vloži tožba
It is settled case-law that only a measure which produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 230 EC.
Iz stalne sodne prakse izhaja, da so akti ali odločitve, ki so lahko predmet ničnostne tožbe v smislu člena 230 ES, samo ukrepi z obveznimi pravnimi učinki, ki lahko prizadenejo pravne interese tožeče stranke s tem, da bistveno spremenijo njen pravni položaj.
By contrast, as recalled in the order in SGL Carbon v Commission, cited above, a measure which merely confirms a previous decision not contested within the timelimit for initiating proceedings is not a reviewable act.
Nasprotno, kot je na to spomnil sklep z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi SGL Carbon proti Komisiji (T-308/02, še neobjavljen v Recueil), akt, ki potrjuje predhodno odločbo, ki je postala dokončna, ni izpodbojen.
That is so in the case of a measure which contains no new factor as compared with the previous decision and was not preceded by a re-examination of the circumstances of the person to whom that decision was addressed.
Enako je torej z aktom, ki glede na predhodno odločbo ne vsebuje nobenega novega elementa in ni bil izdan pred ponovno preučitvijo položaja osebe, na katero je ta odločba naslovljena.
The Court points out, however, that the question whether a measure is confirmatory cannot be determined solely with reference to its content as compared with that of the previous decision which it confirms.
Vendar Sodišče prve stopnje navaja, da naj bi se potrdilna ali nepotrdilna lastnost akta ne presojala samo glede na njegovo vsebino v primerjavi z vsebino predhodne odločbe, ki naj bi jo akt potrdil.
The nature of the contested measure must also be appraised in the light of the nature of the request to which it constitutes a reply.
Dejansko je treba upoštevati značilnost izpodbijanega akta glede na naravo predloga, ki mu ta akt ustreza.
In particular, if the measure constitutes the reply to a request in which substantial new facts are relied on, and whereby the administration is requested to reconsider its previous decision, that measure cannot be regarded as merely confirmatory in nature, since it constitutes a decision taken on the basis of those facts and thus contains a new factor as compared with the previous decision.
Posebej če je akt odgovor na predlog, ki se sklicuje na nova pomembna dejstva in ki naproša upravo, naj ponovno preuči predhodni položaj, naj bi se ta akt, kolikor odloča o teh dejstvih in vsebuje nov element glede na predhodno odločbo, ne štel za akt s čisto potrjevalnim učinkom.
Proceedings
Sodišče prve stopnje
Court of First Instance situation as at the date of the previous decision, which was not contested within the timelimit for initiating proceedings.
Dejavnost pismo, ki ga je poslala tožeči stranki, ni imelo lastnosti odločbe, saj finančne informacije iz pisma, tudi če so predstavljale novo lastnost, niso mogle bistveno spremeniti njenega pravnega položaja, takega, kakršen je bil označen na dan predhodne odločbe, ki je postala dokončna.
Also, the Court has held that where, in the context of an action for annulment, the contested measure is negative, it must be appraised in the light of the nature of the request to which it constitutes a reply.
Kadar ima izpodbijani akt negativen učinek, Sodišče prve stopnje v okviru ničnostne tožbe sodi, da je treba ta akt, ki je odgovor na predhodni predlog, presojati glede na naravo tega predloga.
In particular, the refusal by a Community institution to withdraw or amend a measure may constitute a measure whose legality may be reviewed under Article 230 EC only if the measure which the Community institution refuses to withdraw or amend could itself have been contested under that provision (order of 15 March 2004 in Case T-139/02 Institouto N. Avgerinopoulou and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía v Commission, cited above).
Zavrnitev institucije Skupnosti, da bi umaknila ali spremenila svoj akt, je lahko predmet nadzora zakonitosti v skladu s členom 230 ES le v primeru, ko bi bilo mogoče na podlagi omenjene določbe izpodbijati sam akt, katerega umik ali spremembo institucija Skupnosti zavrača (sklepa z dne 15. marca 2004 v zadevi Institouto N. Avgerinopoulou in drugi proti Komisiji, T-139/02, in z dne 13. julija 2004 v zadevi Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía proti Komisiji, T-29/03, še neobjavljena v Recueil).
In this regard, the Court held in Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía v Commission that a letter from the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) informing the applicant that it was not possible to investigate its complaint directed against the final report which was drawn up by OLAF following an external investigation and forwarded to the competent Spanish authorities in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation No 1073/1999 4 could not be regarded as a decision against which proceedings could be brought, since that report did not constitute a measure producing binding legal effects such as to affect the applicant’s interests, but a recommendation or an opinion lacking binding legal effects.
Glede tega Sodišče prve stopnje v zgoraj navedenem sklepu Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía proti Komisiji meni, da dopis Generalnega direktorja Evropskega urada za boj proti goljufijam(OLAF),skaterimjetaobvestiltožečo stranko, da ne more vložiti pritožbe zoper končno poročilo OLAF o zunanji preiskavi, in ki ga je v skladu s členom 9 Uredbe št. 1073/19994 poslala španskim pristojnim organom, ne more veljati za odločbo, zoper katero se lahko vloži tožba, ker poročilo ni ukrep z zavezujočimi pravnimi učinki, ki posegajo v pravne interese tožeče stranke, ampak priporočilo ali mnenje brez zavezujočih pravnih učinkov.
Timelimit for bringing an action
Rok za vložitev tožbe
While the Court was called on in a number of decisions to verify whether the timelimit for bringing an action was complied with (judgment of 28 January 2004 in Joined Cases T-142/01 and T-238/01 OPTUC v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and order of 25 May 2004 in Case T-264/03 Schmoldt and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR (under appeal, Case C-342/04 P), it is the order of 9 November 2004 in Case T-252/03 FNICG v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, that is to be focused upon.
Sodišče prve stopnje je preverilo spoštovanje rokov za tožbe zoper več odločb (sodba z dne 28. januarja 2004 v zadevi OPTUC proti Komisiji, T-142/01 in T-283/01, in sklep z dne 25. maja 2004 v zadevi Schmoldt in drugi proti Komisiji, T-264/03; pritožba (zadeva C-342/04 P), še neobjavljena v Recueil), pozornost v zvezi s tem pa bo posvečena sklepu z dne 9. novembra 2004 v zadevi FNICGV proti Komisiji (T-252/03, še neobjavljen v Recueil).
In an action brought by the Fédération nationale de l’industrie et des commerces en gros des viandes (French National Federation for the Meat Industry and Meat Wholesalers (FNICGV)) for annulment, on the basis of Article 229 EC, of the fine which the Commission had imposed on it for breach of the competition rules, 5the Court observed that this article of the Treaty does not enshrine the ‘action under the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction’ as an autonomous remedy.
Sodišče prve stopnje, na katero je Fédération nationale de l’industrie et des commerces en gros des viandes (Nacionalna federacija za mesno industrijo in za veleprodajo mesa) (FNICGV) vložila tožbo, s katero na podlagi člena 229 ES predlaga, naj se odpravi globa, na katero jo je obsodila Komisija zaradi kršitve pravil konkurence5, navaja, da ta člen pogodbe „spora polne jurisdikcije“ ne potrjuje kot samostojnega pravnega sredstva.
Indeed, this provision, which states that ‘regulations adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, and by the Council, pursuant to the provisions of [the EC] Treaty, may give the Court of Justice unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the penalties provided for in such regulations’, is not mentioned in Article 225(1) EC, as amended by the Treaty of Nice, among the types of action falling within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
Ta določba, ki določa, da „[se] z uredbami, ki jih v skladu z določbami […] pogodbe [ES] sprejemata Evropski parlament in Svet skupaj in ki jih sprejema Svet sam, […] Sodišču [lahko] dodeli neomejena pristojnost glede kazni, predvidenih v teh uredbah“, ni omenjena med pravnimi sredstvi v pristojnosti Sodišča prve stopnje iz člena 225 (1) ES, kot izhaja iz Pogodbe iz Nice.
Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1).
Uredba (ES) št. 1073/1999 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. maja 1999 o preiskavah, ki jih izvaja Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam(OLAF),(ULL136,str.1).
Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 – French beef) (OJ 2003 L 209, p. 12).
Odločba Komisije 2003/600/ES z dne 2. aprila 2003 o postopku uporabe člena 81 Pogodbe ES (zadeva COMP/C.38.279/F3 – Francoska govedina) (UL L 209, str. 12).
Since that unlimited jurisdiction can be exercised by the Community judicature only in the context of the review of acts of the Community institutions, more particularly in actions for annulment, an action in which the Community judicature is asked to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction must be brought within the timelimit laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, which was not the case in this instance. 6
Ker so sodišča Skupnosti lahko izvrševala to neomejeno pristojnost samo v okviru nadzora aktov institucij Skupnosti in posebej v okviru ničnostne tožbe, mora biti tožba, ki meri na to, da bi sodnik izvrševal svojo neomejeno pristojnost, vložena v roku iz člena 230, petega pododstavka, ES, kar pa se v navedenem primeru ni zgodilo6.
In the case between MCI, formerly called WorldCom, and the Commission, the Court found that MCI had an interest in obtaining the annulment of the Commission decision prohibiting it from merging with Sprint even though that decision was adopted after withdrawal of the notification.
V zadevi MCI, nekoč imenovan WorldCom, proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da je MCI imel pravni interes za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije o prepovedi združitve s Sprintom, pa čeprav je bila ta odločba sprejeta po umiku notifikacije.
The Court held in its judgment in MCI v Commission, cited above, that the applicant had an interest in obtaining the annulment of a decision by which the Commission refused to regard the parties’ statement as amounting to a formal withdrawal of the notified agreement, when the applicant had vainly sought to prevent adoption of the decision by formally stating that it was abandoning the notified merger transaction with which the decision deals.
V tem primeru je Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi z dne 28. septembra 2004 v zadevi MCI proti Komisiji (T-310/00, še neobjavljena v Recueil), menilo, da ima tožeča stranka pravni interes za razglasitev ničnosti akta, s katerim je Komisija zavrnila pritožbo strank, da bi prijava pomenila uradni umik priglašenega omejevalnega ravnanja, medtem ko je neuspešno poskušala preprečiti njegovo sprejetje s tem, da je uradno razglasila odstop od postopka priglašene združitve, ki je predmet tega akta.
The Court added that, as long as the Commission decision continues to stand, the undertaking is prevented by law from merging with the other party to the notified transaction, at least in the configuration and under the conditions put forward in the notification, should it again have the intention to do so.
Sodišče prve stopnje dodaja, da dokler obstaja odločba Komisije, je podjetju zakonito onemogočeno, da bi se pod obliko in v pogojih iz pritožbe združilo z drugo stranko priglašenega omejevalnega ravnanja v primeru ponovnega namena združitve v prihodnosti.
The fact that the undertaking does not necessarily have that intention, or that it will perhaps not carry it out, is, in this respect, a purely subjective circumstance that cannot be taken into account when assessing its interest in bringing proceedings for the annulment of a measure which, unquestionably, produces binding legal effects such as to affect its interests by bringing about a distinct change in its legal position.
Dejstvo, da podjetje nima nujno tega namena ali da ga morda ne bo uresničilo, predstavlja v tem oziru čisto subjektivno okoliščino, ki naj se ne bi upoštevala pri presoji njegovega pravnega interesa za razglasitev ničnosti akta z nesporno zavezujočimi pravnimi učinki, ki lahko prizadenejo njegove pravne interese s tem, da bistveno spremenijo njegov pravni položaj.
So far as concerns the circumstances in which an applicant is regarded as directly concerned by the measure whose annulment he seeks, the Court recalled that a Community measure is of direct concern to an individual if it directly produces effects on his legal position and its implementation leaves no discretion to the addressees of the measure, implementation being a purely automatic matter flowing solely from the Community legislation without the application of other intermediate rules.
Kar zadeva pogoje, v katerih se šteje, da akt, katerega ničnost se predlaga, neposredno zadeva tožečo stranko, je bilo poudarjeno, da akt Skupnosti neposredno zadeva posameznika, če ima neposredno učinke na posameznikov pravni položaj in če njegovo izvajanje osebam, ki jim je ta akt namenjen, ne dopušča nikakršne presoje, s tem da ima ta izvedba čisto avtomatičen značaj in da izhaja iz same ureditve Skupnosti, brez uporabe drugih posrednih pravil.
The order in Institouto N. Avgerinopoulou and Others v Commission, cited above, and the order of 8 July 2004 in Case T-341/02 Regione Siciliana v Commission, not yet published in the ECR (under appeal, Case C-417/04 P), dismiss for lack of direct interest (i) an action, brought by private parties not appearing among the final beneficiaries of the measures envisaged, for annulment of a Commission decision addressed to the Hellenic Republic approving a draft operational programme for the purposes of the regulation on structural funds 7 and (ii) an action for annulment of a Commission decision addressed to the Italian Republic terminating financial assistance from the European
Sklepa z dne 15. marca 2004 v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Institouto N. Avgerinopoulou in drugi proti Komisiji in z dne 8. julija 2004 v zadevi Regione Siciliana proti Komisiji (T-341/02, še neobjavljen v Recueil; pritožba (zadeva C-417/04 P)), zavračata zaradi pomanjkanja neposrednega interesa, na eni strani, ničnostno tožbo zoper odločbo Komisije, naslovljeno na Helensko republiko, o odobritvi programskega projekta v smislu uredbe o Strukturnih skladih7, ki so jo vložili posamezniki, ki niso končni upravičenci predvidenih ukrepov, in na drugi strani, ničnostno tožbo zoper odločbo Komisije, naslovljeno na Italijansko republiko, o zaključku finančne pomoči Evropskega
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1260/1999 z dne 21. junija 1999 o splošnih določbah o Strukturnih skladih (UL L 161, str. 1).
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in relation to a motorway project between Messina and Palermo, which had been brought by the authority responsible for carrying out the project, namely the Region of Sicily.
Dejavnost sklada za regionalni razvoj (ESSR), ki zadeva projekt avtoceste med Messino in Palermom, ki jo je vložil organ, odgovoren za realizacijo projekta, in sicer regija Sicilija.
In both orders the Court found that the national authorities had a discretion in implementing the contested measures.
V obeh sklepih Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da imajo nacionalni organi pri izvršitvi izpodbijanih aktov na voljo določeno stopnjo presoje.
So far as concerns the circumstances in which an applicant is regarded as individually concerned by a measure which is not addressed to him, it should be noted that the new interpretation of the criterion for determining whether applicants are individually concerned, which was adopted in Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré v Commission [2002] ECR II-2365, now clearly belongs to the past.
Kar zadeva pogoje, v katerih se šteje, da akt posamično zadeva tožečo stranko, na katero ni naslovljen, je treba ugotoviti, da je nova razlaga merila, kdaj določen akt posamično zadeva tožeče stranke, ki je bil sprejet v sodbi z dne 3. maja 2002 v zadevi Jégo-Quéré proti Komisiji (T-177/01, Recueil, str.
Where a legal person bringing an action for annulment is an association of undertakings, it may, when it has taken part in the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested measure, be granted standing in at least three kinds of circumstances: where a legal provision expressly grants it a series of procedural powers; where the association itself is distinguished individually because its own interests as an association are affected, in particular because its negotiating position has been affected by the measure whose annulment is being sought; and where it represents the interests of undertakings which would themselves be entitled to bring proceedings.
Kadar je pravna oseba, ki vloži ničnostno tožbo, združenje podjetij, ji je procesna sposobnost, če je sodelovala v postopku, ki je privedel do sprejema izpodbijanega akta, priznana v treh različnih situacijah: če ji zakonska določba izrecno priznava serijo procesnih upravičenj; če je združenje individualizirano zaradi svojih lastnih interesov, zlasti ker je akt, katerega ničnost se predlaga, prizadel njegov položaj pogajalca; ali če predstavlja interese podjetij, ki bi bila sama procesno upravičena.