natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the request for information in itself, the Court stated, ¤rst, that the need for the information requested must be assessed by reference to the view that the Commission can reasonably have at the time the request is made and not by reference to the actual need for the information in the subsequent procedure.
Poleg tega je Splošno sodišče v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Francija proti Komisiji in France Télécom proti Komisiji navedlo, da bi lahko dejstvo, da je Komisija v izpodbijani odločbi spremenila analizo glede odločbe o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave, pomenilo kršitev pravice države do obrambe samo, če država na podlagi navedb iz te odločbe ali navedb, predloženih pozneje v okviru kontradiktorne razprave med upravnim postopkom, ne bi mogla učinkovito razpravljati o vseh dejanskih in pravnih okoliščinah, upoštevanih v izpodbijani odločbi.
Second, it stated that, since the period of suspension of the time limits set in Article 10 of Regulation No 139/2004 (14) resulting from the adoption of a decision under Article 11 thereof depends on the date on which the necessary information is communicated, the Commission does not infringe the principle of proportionality by suspending the procedure until such information has been communicated to it.
Po drugi strani pa razlike med izpodbijano odločbo in odločbo o začetku postopka, do katerih je prišlo, ker je Komisija v celoti ali deloma povzela trditve, ki jih je država navedla, same po sebi ne morejo pomeniti, da je bila kršena pravica do obrambe te države članice.
As regards the correction of information communicated by a party which proves to be incorrect, the Court pointed out, ¤rst, that the Commission is entitled to request correction if there is a risk that the errors identi¤ed could have a signi¤cant impact on its assessment of whether the concentration at issue is compatible with the common market.
Tudi v sodbi z dne 4.¥septembra¥2009 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji (T-211/05, še neobjavljena) je Splošno sodišče poudarilo, da formalni postopek preiskave omogoča, da se vprašanja iz odločbe o začetku postopka poglobijo in razjasnijo, tako da morebitnega neskladja med to in končno odločbo ni mogoče šteti za kršitev, ki vpliva na zakonitost zadnje.
Second, the Court stated that legitimate expectation cannot be pleaded in order to avoid the consequences of infringing the obligation to provide complete and correct information on the sole ground that the infringement was not iden-ti¤ed by the Commission in the course of its veri¤cations.
Iz nobene določbe o nadzoru državnih pomoči ni razvidno, da bi bila Komisija dolžna zadevno državo članico obvestiti o svojem stališču, preden sprejme odločitev, če je bila ta ustrezno pozvana k predložitvi pripomb.
In Case T-48/04 Qualcomm v Commission (judgment of 19 June 2009), the Commission maintained that Qualcomm’s action against a decision declaring compatible with the common market the acquisition by two undertakings of joint control of Toll Collect, an automatic toll collection system, was inadmissible since, although Qualcomm had not been the addressee of that decision, the transmission of the decision to it constituted noti¤cation for the purposes of the ¤fth paragraph of Article 230 EC and, accordingly, the period allowed for commencing proceedings began to run from that time.
V združenih zadevah Diputación Foral de Álava in drugi proti Komisiji, v katerih je bila izdana sodba z dne 9.¥septembra¥2009 (od T-30/01 do T-32/01 in od T-86/02 do T-88/02, še neobjavljena, v¥pritožbenem postopku), so tožeče stranke zlasti trdile, da je ravnanje Komisije pomenilo izjemno okoliščino, ki bi lahko utemeljevala njihova legitimna pričakovanja glede pravilnosti obravnavanih shem pomoči zaradi neobjave opozorila morebitnim upravičencem do pomoči, ki je bilo predvideno z obvestilom o nezakonitih pomočeh iz leta 1983.
The Court rejected the Commission’s arguments. It recalled, ¤rst, that Article 20(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (15) requires there to be publication in the Ocial Journal of the European Union of decisions taken pursuant to that regulation and, accordingly, as regards persons who are not addressees identi¤ed in the contested decision, the period for instituting proceedings must be calculated by reference to the ¤rst of the cases set out in the ¤fth paragraph of Article 230 EC, namely from the time of publication.
Čeprav Splošno sodišče obžaluje to neobjavo v Uradnem listu, poudarja, da informacija, ki jo vsebuje navedeno obvestilo, ne vsebuje nobene nejasnosti.
The conferral of such a discretion could, however, entail a breach of the principle of equal treatment inasmuch as, among the persons who are not speci¤cally named as addressees in a decision, those to whom that decision has been ‘noti¤ed’ will be able to challenge it from ‘noti¤cation’, whilst other
Poleg tega bi razlaga, ki jo zagovarjajo tožeče stranke, temu obvestilu o nezakonitih pomočeh iz leta 1983 dala pomen, ki bi bil v nasprotju s členom¥88(3)¥ES.
) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertak- ings (OJ 2004 L°24, p.°1).
Negotovost nezakonito dodeljenih pomoči namreč izhaja iz učinkovanja obveznosti priglasitve iz člena¥88(3)¥ES in ni odvisna od tega, ali je bilo opozorilo iz obvestila o¥nezakonitih pomočeh iz leta 1983 objavljeno v Uradnem listu.
) The case in point concerned Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of con- centrations between undertakings (corrected version in OJ 1990 L 257, p.
Zlasti ne more vračila nezakonito dodeljenih pomoči preprečiti zgolj dejstvo, da Komisija ni objavila takega opozorila, saj bi bil sicer ogrožen sistem nadzora državnih pomoči, ustanovljen s Pogodbo.
13), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 180, p. 1).
Iz tega je razvidno, da neobjava opozorila, določenega z obvestilom o nezakonitih
Proceedings persons to whom the decision has not been ‘noti¤ed’ will be able to challenge it from publication.
Dejavnost pomočeh iz leta 1983, v Uradnem listu ne pomeni izjemne okoliščine, ki bi lahko utemeljila kakršno koli pričakovanje glede pravilnosti nezakonito dodeljenih pomoči.
Furthermore, it is not always possible for the Commission to identify at the outset the persons who may bring an action as from noti¤cation of a decision.
Poleg tega je Splošno sodišče v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Francija proti Komisiji in France Télécom proti Komisiji trdilo, da je obveznost priglasitve ukrepov, s katerimi se lahko podjetjem dodelijo državne pomoči, namenjena prav odpravi vsakega dvoma glede vprašanja, ali ti ukrepi dejansko pomenijo državne pomoči.
Such discrimination cannot therefore be justi¤ed by the objective of ensuring legal certainty as swiftly as possible.
Na dan sprejetja zakona, s katerim je bila določena posebna ureditev obdavčenja za družbo France Télécom, ni bilo gotovo, ali bo s to ureditvijo temu podjetju priznana ugodnost.
Cases concerning State aid accounted for a large part of the Court’s activity in 2009: 70 cases were disposed of and 46 cases were brought.
Splošno sodišče torej meni, da bi morala Francija ta ukrep priglasiti Komisiji.
It is possible only to give an overview of the Court’s decisions concerning (i) questions of admissibility, (ii) questions of substance and (iii) procedural questions.
Brez te priglasitve pred uvedbo zadevne ureditve obdavčenja se ne more sklicevati na načelo varstva legitimnih pričakovanj, razen če dokaže obstoj izjemnih okoliščin.
The case-law this year has further clari¤ed, amongst other matters, the concept of an act producing binding legal e¥ects and that of a legal interest in bringing proceedings.
Splošno sodišče je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Francija proti Komisiji in France Télécom proti Komisiji podalo pomembno pojasnilo v zvezi s postopkom sprejemanja odločb Komisije na področju državnih pomoči.
As regards an act producing binding legal e¥ects, the Court rejected in Case T-354/05 TF1 v Commission (judgment of 11 March 2009) the Commission’s argument that it takes no decision in the case of a procedure for review of existing aid leading to acceptance by the Member State of the appropriate measures proposed or seeking to limit that procedure to a quasi-contractual process.
Splošno sodišče namreč meni, da ni mogoče izključiti, da – kot določa člen¥13, drugi odstavek, Poslovnika Komisije20 – kolegij članov Komisije enemu ali več svojim članom naroči, naj sprejmejo končno besedilo odločbe, katere vsebino je določil med razpravo.
It is true that the Commission and the Member States may discuss the proposed appropriate measures but it is only where the Commission decides to accept the State’s commitments as answering its concerns that the procedure for investigation of existing aid is brought to an end by a decision which is open to appeal.
Če kolegij uporabi to možnost, mora sodišče, ki mu je bilo predloženo vprašanje o pravilnosti take pooblastitve, preveriti, ali se lahko šteje, da je kolegij sprejel zadevno odločbo v vseh njenih dejanskih in pravnih elementih.
In Case T-152/06 NDSHT v Commission (judgment of 9 June 2009, under appeal) the Court held that the obligation on the Commission to adopt a decision in response to a complaint arises only in the situation envisaged in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (16).
Ker je Splošno sodišče v obravnavanem primeru ugotovilo, da formalne razlike med različico izpodbijane odločbe, sprejeto 2.¥avgusta¥2004, in besedilom, ki ga je kolegij članov Komisije odobril 19. in 20.¥julija¥2004, niso vplivale na obseg izpodbijane odločbe, tožbenemu razlogu ni ugodilo.
Under the second sentence of Article 20(2) of that regulation, the Commission need only inform the complainant in writing that there are insucient grounds for taking a view on the case. The latter situation arises, in particular, where Article 13 of that regulation does not apply because, in reality, the aid referred to in the complaint is not unlawful aid, but existing aid.
Odločbe o uporabi Uredbe (ES) št.¥40/94, nadomeščene z Uredbo (ES) št.¥207/200921, s katero pa se v bistvu zgolj kodicirajo predpisi o znamki Skupnosti, ki so bili po letu 1994 večkrat znatno spremenjeni, leta 2009 še vedno pomenijo velik del zadev, končanih pred Splošnim sodiščem (168¥zadev, kar pomeni 30¥% skupnega števila zadev, končanih leta 2009).
If, following an initial assessment, the Commission ¤nds that the complaint relates not to unlawful aid but to existing aid, it is under no obligation to address a decision under Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999 to the Member State concerned and cannot be compelled to apply the procedure provided for in Article 88(1) EC.
Člen¥7(1)(c) Uredbe št.¥40/94 prepoveduje, da bi se kot znamka Skupnosti registrirali znaki, ki zaradi svoje opisnosti ne morejo izpolnjevati funkcije označevanja gospodarskega porekla označenega blaga ali storitev.
Thus, a letter which categorises the aid complained of as existing aid does not have the characteristics of a decision which produces binding legal e¥ects such as to a¥ect the interests of the applicant.
Poleg tega je treba v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso opisnost znaka presojati na eni strani glede na označene proizvode ali storitve in na drugi strani glede na to, kako ga dojema upoštevna javnost.22
As regards a legal interest in bringing proceedings, the Court held in TF1 v Commission that the applicant could not be regarded as having no such interest on the ground that the contested decision, in imposing conditions concerning aid to a competitor, was favourable to the applicant. Such an argument was based on the premiss that the applicant’s objections regarding the substance
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 19.¥novembra¥2009 v zadevi Torresan proti UUNT – Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe (CANNABIS) (T-234/06, še neobjavljena) zavrnilo tožbo, vloženo zoper odločbo
) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Art- icle [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št.¥40/94 z dne 20.¥decembra¥1993 o znamki Skupnosti (UL 1994, L¥11, str.¥1), nadomeščena z¥Uredbo Sveta (ES) št.°207/2009 z dne 26.°februarja°2009 o blagovni znamki Skupnosti (UL¥L¥78, str.¥1).
General Court of the decision, in particular concerning the manifestly unsuitable nature of the commitments to render the aid scheme compatible with the common market, were incorrect. However, annulment of the contested decision, either because of a manifest error by the Commission in determining appropriate measures to be implemented or because of an inadequate statement of reasons concerning the appropriateness of those measures to the problems identi¤ed, would not place the applicant in a less favourable situation than that resulting from the contested decision.
Splošno sodišče odbora za pritožbe Urada za usklajevanje na notranjem trgu (znamke in modeli) (UUNT), v skladu s¥katero je za povprečnega potrošnika besedni znak CANNABIS opis lastnosti piva, vina in drugih alkoholnih pijač, ki lahko poleg drugih sestavin vsebujejo cannabis kot aromo pri njihovi izdelavi.
Such annulment would thus mean that the contested decision was either characterised, or liable to be characterised, by inadequate commitments and was therefore unfavourable to the applicant.
Te ugotovitve ne omaja dejstvo, da ima izraz„cannabis“ sugestiven in namigujoč učinek, ki daje vtis ugodja, razvedrila ali sprostitve.
In Case T-388/03 Deutsche Post and DHL International v Commission (judgment of 10 February 2009, under appeal), the Court made clear that concerned parties within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC had a legal interest in securing the annulment of a Commission decision, taken at the end of the preliminary examination procedure, since such an annulment would require the formal investigation procedure to be opened, permitting them to present their observations and thus exert an inªuence on the new decision.
Poleg tega je Splošno sodišče v sodbah z dne 19.¥novembra¥2009 v združenih zadevah Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol proti UUNT (222, 333 in 555) (od T-200/07 do T-202/07), v združenih zadevah Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol proti UUNT (350, 250 in 150) (od T-64/07 do T-66/07) in v zadevi Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol proti UUNT (1000) (T-298/06) (neobjavljene) pojasnilo, da so besedni znaki, sestavljeni zgolj iz številk, opisni za proizvode, kot so brošure, revije, dnevni časopisi in igre, če napotujejo na lastnosti navedenih proizvodov, zlasti na količino zbranih strani, del, informacij in iger.
In that situation it was not for the Court to compare the pleas raised with the arguments in defence presented by the applicants in a separate case.
V zvezi s gurativnimi znaki, ki jih sestavljajo številke v pravokotniku z barvnim okrasjem, je Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 19.¥novembra¥2009 v združenih zadevah Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol proti UUNT (100 in 300) (T-425/07 in T-426/07, še neobjavljena) odločalo o posledicah zavrnitve podjetja, ki je vložilo prijavo za registracijo teh znakov kot znamk Skupnosti, da bi na podlagi člena 38(2) Uredbe št. 40/94 navedlo, da odklanja izključno pravico na navedenih številkah.
In Case T-25/07 Iride and Irede Energia v Commission (judgment of 11 February 2009, under appeal), the Court ruled on whether the liberalisation of a market was among the developments which are only to be expected by operators or whether, on the contrary, normal market conditions implied the stability of the legislative framework.
Poleg tega se je Splošno sodišče ponovno izreklo o razlikovalnem učinku zelo preprostih gurativnih znakov, in sicer klicaja, samega ali v pravokotniku, v sodbah z dne 30.¥septembra¥2009 v zadevi Joop! proti UUNT (!)
Economic operators are in that respect entitled to protection of their legitimate expectations.
Opozarja, da registracija znamke, ki je sestavljena iz znakov, ki se uporabljajo v oglasnem sloganu, prikazujejo kakovost ali vabijo k nakupu proizvodov ali storitev, kot taka ni izključena zaradi take uporabe.
Nevertheless, where they have in fact received that protection, they cannot be allowed to claim that it should be implemented by one means rather than another, that is to say, by means of the exclusion from the concept of aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC of aid compensating for loss sustained by reason of the legislative changes, rather than by a declaration of the compatibility of that measure with the common market, in accordance with Article 87(3) EC.
Vendar ima znak, ki opravlja drugačne naloge kot znamka v tradicionalnem smislu, razlikovalni učinek samo takrat, ko ga je neposredno mogoče zaznati kot pokazatelja izvora zadevnih proizvodov in storitev.
The Court also applied the principle stated in the judgment of the Court of Justice in TWD v Commission (17), according to which the Commission does not exceed the limits of its discretion when, in the case of aid which a Member State proposes to grant to an undertaking, it takes a decision declaring that aid to be compatible with the common market, but subject to the condition of prior repayment by the undertaking of unlawful aid received earlier, by reason of the cumulative e¥ect of the aid in question.
Dalje opozarja, da v obravnavanem primeru potrošniki, vključno z bolj pozornimi, ne morejo ugotoviti izvora označenih proizvodov na podlagi klicaja, ki naj bi se prej dojemal kot pohvala, tudi če je bil v¥pravokotnem okvirju, drugotnem elementu, ki zadevnemu znaku daje videz nalepke.
The fact that the earlier unlawful aid was not granted as individual aid but as part of an aid scheme and that the exact bene¤t for the recipient undertakings could not, because of the lack of cooperation from the Member State concerned, be determined by the Commission was not justi¤cation for not applying the principle in question, since any other approach would be tantamount to rewarding a failure to comply with the duty to cooperate in good faith and would deprive the system for the review of State aid of e¥ectiveness.
Poleg tega je Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 20.¥januarja¥2009 v zadevi Pioneer Hi-Bred International proti UUNT (OPTIMUM) (T-424/07, neobjavljena) pojasnilo, da se znak OPTIMUM zaradi njegove običajne rabe kot generičnega pohvalnega izraza v vsakdanjem jeziku in pri trgovanju ne more šteti za primeren za identiciranje trgovskega izvora proizvodov, ki jih označuje, in da dejstvo, da so označeni proizvodi namenjeni specializirani javnosti, nikakor ne vpliva na to presojo, saj je pozornost take javnosti, ki je na splošno visoka, razmeroma nizka pri oglaševalskih označbah.
) Case C-355/95°P [1997] ECR°I-2549, paragraphs 25 to 27.
V zvezi s tem je Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 28.¥oktobra¥2009 v zadevi BCS proti UUNT – Deere (Kombinacija zelene in rumene barve) (T-137/08, še neobjavljena, v pritožbenem postopku) najprej opozorilo, da vsaka uporaba znamke,
In that connection, the obligation on the Member State and on the undertaking that is the potential recipient of new aid to provide the Commission with information to show that the aid is compatible with the common market also entails the need to show that there is no cumulative e¥ect of the new aid and earlier unlawful aid.
Vendar pa je v tem primeru odločba UUNT, da se znamka, ki jo sestavlja navedeni znak, ne razglasi za nično, temeljila zlasti na pojasnilih poklicnih združenj, v skladu s katerimi se je kombinacija zelene in rumene barve pripisovala intervenientkinim poljedelskim strojem, in na dejstvu, da je uporabljala isto kombinacijo barv na vseh svojih strojih v daljšem obdobju.
If the Commission has not been able — because of the failure of the Member State and the potential recipient of the aid to comply with that obligation — to assess the e¥ects on competition which that cumulative e¥ect might have, it cannot be criticised for a lack of de¤nition or analysis of the market at issue.
Poleg tega je Splošno sodišče pojasnilo, da čeprav je treba dokazati, da je izpodbijana znamka pridobila razlikovalni učinek v celotni Uniji, se ne zahteva predložitev istih dokazov za vsako državo članico.
Services of general economic interest
Relativni razlogi za zavrnitev in relativni razlogi za ničnost
In Deutsche Post and DHL International v Commission, the Court stated that the dicta of the Court of Justice in Altmark (18) were fully applicable to earlier Commission decisions.
Pomembni prispevki sodne prakse tega leta se nanašajo na presojo podobnosti znakov in oceno verjetnosti zmede.
Thus, the fact that the Commission had not been in a position, during the preliminary examination procedure under Article 88(2) EC, to carry out a complete examination of whether the level of compensation awarded to a service of general economic interest was appropriate constituted evidence of the existence of serious diculties in establishing whether aid was compatible with the common market.
Najprej je Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 28.¥oktobra¥2009 v zadevi CureVac proti UUNT – Qiagen (RNAiFect) (T-80/08, še neobjavljena) menilo, da je bila podobnost znakov RNAifect in RNActive zaradi enakih prvih treh črk zelo zmanjšana zaradi različnih zadnjih petih črk.
In TF1 v Commission, the Court con¤rmed that the conditions laid down in Altmark, seeking to determine the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, are not to be confused with the Article 86(2) EC test, which is used to determine whether a measure constituting State aid may be regarded as compatible with the common market.
Pojasnjuje, da čeprav potrošnik ponavadi daje večji pomen začetkom besed, ker so prej izgovorjeni, javnost ne meni, da je opisni ali šibko razlikovalni element, ki je del sestavljene znamke, razlikovalen in prevladujoč element v celotnem vtisu, ki ga ta ustvari.
The Court also pointed out that — as the assessment of existing aid can lead only to measures which produce e¥ects for the future — although any over-compensation in the past may possibly be relevant to an assessment of the compatibility of existing aid with the common market, the fact nevertheless remains that an examination as to whether there has been such over-compensation is not, in itself, absolutely necessary for a proper assessment of the need to propose appropriate measures for the future and determination of what those measures should be.
Vendar je imel v obravnavanem primeru element „rna“ manjši razlikovalni učinek, saj naj bi potrošnik predpostavljal obstoj navezave na neko kemično spojino. Zato javnost tega elementa ne more šteti za razlikovalen in prevladujoč element v celotnem vtisu, ki ga ustvarjata zadevni sestavljeni znamki.
The risk or otherwise of over-compensation for the future ultimately depends essentially on the speci¤c detailed arrangements of the ¤nancing scheme itself, and not on the fact that the scheme has, in practice, led to over-compensation in the past.
Po drugi strani je Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 2.¥decembra¥2009 v zadevi Volvo Trademark proti UUNT – Grebenshikova (SOLVO) (T-434/07, še neobjavljena) menilo, da znaka SOLVO in VOLVO odražata določeno stopnjo slušne podobnosti in je zato UUNT napačno menil, da mu ni treba opraviti celovite presoje verjetnosti zmede.
In Case T-156/04 EDF v Commission (judgment of 15 December 2009), the Court recalled that investment by public authorities in the capital of an undertaking, in whatever form, can constitute State aid.
Nato je Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 8.¥julija¥2009 v zadevi Laboratorios Del Dr.
However, by virtue of the principle that the public and private sectors are to be treated equally, that cannot be the case where capital is placed directly or indirectly at the disposal of an undertaking by the State in circumstances which correspond to normal market conditions.
Esteve proti UUNT – Ester C (ESTER-E) (T-230/07, neobjavljena) natančno določilo nekatere okoliščine, v katerih lahko konceptualna primerjava med znakoma nevtralizira vidne in slušne podobnosti med istima znakoma.