natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As it stood, the contested decision did not contain an adequate statement of reasons for the Commission’s assessment as regards whether or not additional, variable costs were incurred in providing the logistical and commercial assistance.
V izpodbijana odločba niti ni bila zadostno obrazložena presoja Komisije o tem, ali so nastali dodatni variabilni stro�ki zaradi zagotavljanja logistične in komercialne podpore.
The Court of First Instance next addressed fixed costs.
Sodi�če je v nadaljevanju presojalo fiksne stro�ke.
First, it was impossible to verify whether the central and local offices’ overheads included fixed costs arising from use of the postal network.
47 Menilo je, da v izpodbijani odločbi
It was not possible to ascertain what the ‘direct operating costs’ were or which costs in La Poste’s accounts were directly attributable to the various activities.
Iz izpodbijane odločbe ni bilo mogoče razbrati, kateri neposredni stro�ki poslovanja oziroma kateri stro�ki v izkazih družbe La Poste so bili neposredno pripisani posameznim dejavnostim.
The reference in the 57threcital to ‘some fixed costs’ was too imprecise to determine what exactly SFMI-Chronopost covered in the first two years of operation. Furthermore,
Ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da plačilo družbe SFMI-Chronopost v prvih dveh poslovnih letih ni pokrilo 100 % skupnih stro�kov, je bilo to zelo pomembno.
Second, it could not be determined whether there were other fixed costs of La Poste associated with using the postal network that the price charged should have covered.
z uporabo omrežja družbe La Poste povezani tudi drugi fiksni stro�ki, ki bi jih plačilo moralo pokriti.
Consequently, it could not be ascertained whether the contribution to fixed costs was assessed correctly in the light of the Chronopost I requirements.
Zato ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, ali je prispevek k fiksnim stro�kom ob upo�tevanju zahtev, določenih v sodbi Chronopost I, ocenjen pravilno.
Finally, the Court of First Instance found that the contested decision did not state what return SFMI-Chronopost contributed to La Poste’s capital investment.
Nazadnje, Sodi�če prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da v izpodbijani odločbi ni bilo navedeno, kak�en prispevek je k donosu na lastni�ki kapital družbe La Poste dala družba SFMI-Chronopost.
48 It was not clear whether the Commission had calculated the IRR in order to show that the private investor test was satisfied and/or in order to calculate the return on the capital investment.
48Ni razvidno, ali je Komisija izračunala interno stopnjo donosnosti zato, da bi pokazala, da je bilo izpolnjeno merilo zasebnega investitorja in/ali zato, da bi izračunala donos na lastni�ki kapital.
There was no detailed examination either of the distinct steps taken to calculate the remuneration of the assistance in question or the infrastructure costs attributable to that assistance, or of the data relating to the analysis of the relevant costs.
Izpodbijana odločba namreč ne vsebuje niti natančne presoje posameznih korakov pri izračunu plačila za zadevno podporo ali tej podpori pripisljivih infrastrukturnih stro�kov niti �tevilčne analize ustreznih stro�kov.
The Commission had merely asserted that La Poste’s full costs were covered by the remuneration from SFMI-Chronopost, without specifying the figures and calculations on which it based its analysis and findings.
Komisija se v zvezi s tem omeji na trditev, da je plačilo družbe SFMI-Chronopost pokrilo celotne stro�ke družbe La Poste, ne da bi natančno navedla �tevilke in izračune, na katerih temeljijo njene analize in ugotovitve.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance was unable to review whether the method used and the stages of the analysis followed by the Commission were free from error and compatible with the principles laid down in Chronopost I for determining the existence or absence of State aid.
V tak�nih okoli�činah Sodi�če prve stopnje ni moglo preizkusiti, ali so metode in posamezne faze analize, ki jih je opravila Komisija, brez napak in v skladu s pravili, ki jih določa sodba Chronopost I glede ugotavljanja obstoja oziroma neobstoja državne pomoči.
The Court of First Instance concluded its assessment of the second plea by indicating that, in the present case, three arguments militated in favour of requiring a more detailed statement of reasons:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je presojo drugega pritožbenega razloga sklenilo z ugotovitvijo, da v obravnavani zadevi trije izvedeni dokazi govorijo v prid zahtevi za natančnej�o obrazložitev odločbe:
In the IRR calculation, the Commission had failed to identify the capital which it considered to have been used in the activity.
Komisija pri izračunu interne stopnje donosnosti ni določila kapitala, za katerega je �tela, da je bil uporabljen pri dejavnosti.
It merely stated, on the one hand, that it had taken into account the equity injection by La Poste in 1986 and, on the other hand, the financial transactions between La Poste and its subsidiary over the years 1986 to 1991, without identifying sufficiently precisely which financial transactions were involved.
Navedla je le, da je za izračun interne donosnosti uporabila injekcijo kapitala družbe La Poste v letu 1986 in finančne transakcije med družbo La Poste ter njeno hčerinsko družbo med letoma 1986 in 1991, ni pa dovolj natančno opredelila, katere finančne transakcije so bile vključene.
Even assuming that the IRR reflected sufficiently precisely the return on the capital investment used for SFMI-Chronopost’s competitive activity, it could not be ascertained whether that possible return on the equity capital investment was appropriate for the purposes of paragraph 40 of Chronopost I, given that the detailed calculation of
Tudi če predpostavimo, da izračun interne stopnje donosnosti dovolj natančno kaže donos lastnega kapitala, ki je bil uporabljen za konkurenčno dejavnost družbe SFMI-Chronopost, ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali ta verjetni donos lastni�kega kapitala zado�ča glede na cilje točke 40 sodbe Chronopost I, saj natančen izračun interne
‘(97) In the present case, the circumstances justifying a more detailed statement of
„(97) V obravnavani zadevi okoli�čine, ki upravičujejo natančnej�o obrazložitev,
(100) Consequently, it must be held that the contested decision does not enable the Court of First Instance to verify the existence and amount of the various costs which fall within the concept of full costs as defined by the Commission in the contested decision.
(100) Posledično je treba ugotoviti, da izpodbijana odločba Sodi�ču prve stopnje ne omogoča presoje glede obstoja in vi�ine različnih stro�kov, ki sodijo pod pojem skupni stro�ki, kot je opredeljen v izpodbijani odločbi.
Accordingly, the statement of reasons for the contested decision does not enable the Court of First Instance to review the legality of the Commission’s assessment in this regard and its compatibility with the requirements laid down by the Court of Justice in its judgment on appeal in order to find that there had been no State aid.
Obrazložitev izpodbijane odločbe tako Sodi�ču prve stopnje ne omogoča preizkusa zakonitosti s tem povezane presoje Komisije ter njene združljivosti z zahtevami Sodi�ča, ki jih je pri ugotavljanju neobstoja državnih pomoči opredelilo v sodbi v pritožbenem postopku.
reasons lie in the fact that, first, this was one of the first decisions dealing with the complex question, in the context of the application of the provisions on State aid, of the calculation of the costs of a parent company operating in a reserved market and providing logistical and commercial assistance to a subsidiary which does not operate in a reserved market.
temeljijo, prvič, na tem, da gre za eno prvih odločitev, ki v okviru uporabe predpisov o državnih pomočeh obravnava celovito vpra�anje izračunavanja stro�kov matične družbe, dejavne na pridržanem trgu, ki hčerinski družbi, nedejavni na pridržanem trgu, zagotavlja logistično in komercialno podporo.
Second, the withdrawal of the Commission’s first rejection decision of 10 March 1992 following the lodging of an action for annulment and the SFEI judgment of the Court of Justice should have led the Commission to reason its approach even more diligently and precisely in relation to the disputed points.
Drugič, umik prve odločbe z dne 10. marca 1992, s katerim je bila pritožba zavrnjena, bi moral po vložitvi ničnostne tožbe in potem, ko je Sodi�če izdalo sodbo SFEI, Komisijo opozoriti, naj svoje ravnanje v spornih točkah posebej skrbno in natančno obrazloži.
Lastly, the fact that the applicants submitted several economic studies during the administrative procedure should have also led the Commission to prepare a thorough statement of reasons while responding to the essential arguments of the applicants, as substantiated by those economic studies.’
Nazadnje bi moralo dejstvo, da so tožeče stranke v upravnem postopku predložile več gospodarskih �tudij, Komisijo napeljati na to, da oblikuje skrbno obrazložitev in se pri tem posveti tudi trditvam tožečih strank, ki so podprte s temi gospodarskimi �tudijami.“
Against that background, the Court of First Instance concluded that:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je glede na navedeni okvir zadeve odločilo, da:
(101) It follows that the contested decision must be annulled for defective reasoning in so far as it concludes that the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost does not constitute State aid.’
(101) Iz tega sledi, da je treba izpodbijano odločbo zaradi pomanjkljive obrazložitve razglasiti za nično v delu, v katerem je ugotovljeno, da logistična in komercialna podpora družbe La Poste družbi SFMI-Chronopost ni državna pomoč.“
The appellants claim that, in holding the statement of reasons in the contested decision to be insufficient, the Court of First Instance went beyond the requirements set out in Article 253 EC and the Court’s caselaw.
Pritožnici navajata, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje s tem, da je obrazložitev izpodbijane odločbe označilo kot nezadostno, prekoračilo zahteve, določene v členu 253 ES in sodni praksi Sodi�ča.
Chronopost considers that, under the guise of a review of the statement of reasons,
Družba Chronopost meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje pod pretvezo, da
‘(98) … the statement of reasons for the contested decision, which is limited to a very general explanation of the method followed by the Commission for assessing the costs and of the final result obtained, without however allocating with the necessary precision the various costs of La Poste incurred in providing the logistical and commercial assistance to SFMI-Chronopost and the fixed costs arising from use of the postal network, and without specifying the return on the capital investment, fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty.
„(98) […] obrazložitev izpodbijane odločbe, ki je omejena na zelo splo�no razlago metode, ki jo je Komisija uporabila za presojo stro�kov in dobljenega končnega rezultat, ne da bi z zahtevano natančnostjo opredelila stro�ke, ki so družbi La Poste nastali zaradi zagotavljanja logistične in komercialne podpore družbi SFMI-Chronopost, in fiksne stro�ke uporabe po�tnega omrežja, ter natančneje določila plačilo za lastni�ki kapital, ni zadostila zahtevam iz člena 190 Pogodbe ES.
According to UFEX, the Court of First Instance did not call into question the assessment in the contested decision, but limited itself to verifying whether the reasoning behind it was sufficiently precise, complete and comprehensible.
Združenje UFEX meni, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni presojalo presoje Komisije v izpodbijani odločbi, ampak se je omejilo na preverjanje, ali je obrazložitev Komisije dovolj natančna, popolna in razumljiva.
It was right to conclude that the statement of reasons was insufficient.
Pravilno je ugotovilo, da je obrazložitev nepopolna.
More detailed reasoning was required in order to check whether the decision had correctly applied the test for ‘normal market conditions’ laid down by the Court in paragraph 40 of Chronopost I.
Obrazložitev mora biti natančnej�a zato, da je mogoče preveriti, ali je Komisija pravilno opravila preizkus „običajnih tržnih razmer“, ki ga je Sodi�če določilo v točki 40 sodbe Chronopost I.
In a decision finding that no State aid as alleged by a complainant exists, ‘the Commission must at least … provide the complainant with an adequate explanation of the reasons for which the facts and points of law put forward in the complaint have failed to demonstrate the existence of State aid.
Kadar gre za odločbo, ki zanika, da je ukrep, ki ga pritožnik očita, državna pomoč, mora „Komisija […] pritožniku v vsakem primeru zadostno pojasniti razloge za to, da v pritožbi navedeni pravni in dejanski vidiki niso zadostovali za dokaz obstoja državne pomoči.
The Commission is not required, however, to define its position on matters which are manifestly irrelevant or insignificant or plainly of secondary importance.’ 51
Vendar se Komisiji ni treba opredeliti do stali�č, ki so očitno postranska, brez pomena ali nedvomno podrejenega pomena.“ 51
Article 253 EC requires decisions of the Commission to state the reasons on which they are based.
V skladu s členom 253 ES morajo biti odločbe Komisije obrazložene.
I note in passing that the caselaw cited by UFEX to indicate that the Commission must have carried out a close examination based on solid evidence 52and a cogent and consistent body of evidence 53concerns not
Omenim naj tudi, da se sodna praksa, ki jo navedlo združenje UFEX v utemeljitev trditev, da bi morala Komisija opraviti skrbno in natančno presojo, ki bi temeljila na trdnih
State aid but the prospective analysis which
, ne nana�a na državne pomoči, ampak na analizo učinka združitev in domnevnih kartelov na delovanje trga.
The judgment is, moreover, currently under appeal.
II-2289, točka 248). Sodba je zdaj v pritožbenem postopku.
53 — Joined Cases C-68/94 and C-30/95 France and Others v Commission [1998] ECR I-1375, paragraph 228.
53 – Sodba z dne 31. marca 1998 v združenih zadevah Francoska republika in drugi proti Komisiji (C 68/94 in C-30/95, str. I-1375, točka 228).
According to the Court’s settled caselaw, that statement of reasons ‘must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča mora biti obrazložitev „prilagojena naravi zadevnega pravnega akta in presoja institucije Skupnosti, ki je akt izdala, izražena tako jasno in nedvoumno, da se lahko zadevne osebe seznanijo z razlogi za sprejeti ukrep, Sodi�če pa opravlja funkcijo nadzora.
In the present appeals it is common ground, and indeed was acknowledged by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal, 54that the relevant context is whether the contested decision satisfies the legal test for ‘normal market conditions’ set by the Court in paragraph 40 of Chrono -post I. 55 more general statement of reasons.
V obravnavani zadevi je ugotovljeno, kot je to potrdilo že Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi, 54 da se upo�tevni okvir opredeli na podlagi vpra�anja, ali je bilo v izpodbijani odločbi merilo „neobičajnih tržnih razmer“, ki ga je Sodi�če opredelilo v točki 40 sodbe Chronopost I, pravilno uporabljeno. 55
That view is confirmed by the history of the present action before the Community courts.
Tako stali�če potrjuje tudi zgodovina obravnavanega postopka pred sodi�či Skupnosti.
Both the decision in UFEX I and the judgment setting aside that decision in Chronopost I turned on the correct interpretation of ‘normal market conditions’ when applied to the relationship between La Poste and SFMI-Chronopost.
Tako v odločbi v sodbi UFEX I kot v sodbi Chronopost I, s katero je bila ta odločba razveljavljena, je bil pojem „običajnih tržnih razmer“ pravilno razložen, ko je bil uporabljen za presojo razmerja med družbama La Poste in SFMI-Chronopost.
It lays down the approach to be taken in order to assess whether the provision of commercial and logistical assistance involves State aid.
Sodi�če navaja pristop, ki ga je treba uporabiti za ugotovitev, ali so v dani logistični in komercialni podpori zajeti elementi državne pomoči.
It does not specify the economic, accounting or financial standards to be applied.
Gospodarskih, računovodskih ali finančnih standardov, ki naj se pri tem uporabijo, ne določi natančno.
In requiring ‘all’ additional, variable costs to be included, it does not indicate which costs should be considered variable.
Sodi�če zahteva, naj se upo�tevajo „vsi“ dodatni, variabilni stro�ki, vendar ne navaja, katere stro�ke je treba �teti kot variabilne.
Nor does it state what would constitute an ‘appropriate’ contribution to fixed costs or an ‘adequate’ return on the capital investment.
Ne določa niti, kaj bi pomenilo „primeren“ prispevek k fiksnim stro�kom ali „zadostna“ stopnja donosnosti lastni�kega kapitala.
In my view, the first reason given in the judgment under appeal to justify a detailed statement of reasons (namely the fact that the contested decision was one of the first
Vendar menim, da prvi razlog, s katerim je v izpodbijani sodbi utemeljena zahteva po natančni obrazložitvi razlogov (zlasti dejstvo, da je izpodbijana odločba ena prvih, ki obravnava to zapleteno vpra�anje) 56, upravičuje prav nasprotno, to je �ir�o in splo�nej�o obrazložitev.
54 — At paragraph 72.55 — See point 14 above.
54 – V točki 72.55 – Glej točko 14 zgoraj.56 – Točka 97.
57It complained in particular about the lack of precision with regard to the economic and accounting concepts used, the nature of costs examined and the components of the financial calculations undertaken.
57Glavna kritika je bila usmerjena v pomanj- kanje natančnosti v zvezi z uporabljenimi gospodarskimi in računovodskimi pojmi, naravo stro�kov, ki jih je Komisija preverila, in v elemente finančnih izračunov, ki jih je uporabila.
It found that it was unable to check for factual errors and errors of assessment, and, in respect of variable costs, considered that the contested decision should at least have contained a general summary of the analytical accounting calculations in relation to the services provided.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da ne more preveriti napak pri ugotovljenem dejanskem stanju ter napak pri presoji, odločba pa bi glede variabilnih stro�kov morala vsebovati vsaj splo�en povzetek analitičnih računovodskih izračunov v zvezi z opravljenimi storitvami.
Admittedly, it is not unreasonable to interpret the conditions as requiring compliance with generally accepted accounting, commercial and investment criteria.
Seveda ni nerazumno, da te pogoje razlagamo kot zahtevo po skladnosti s splo�no sprejetimi računovodskimi, komercialnimi in investicijskimi merili.
Indeed, the private investor principle in Community law operates on such a basis.
Pojem zasebnega investitorja je v pravu Skupnosti uporabljen namreč tako.
To that extent, the details that the Court of First Instance required could, in theory, reveal deviations from generally accepted principles which could constitute manifest errors.
Zato bi podrobnosti, ki jih zahteva Sodi�če prve stopnje, teoretično lahko razkrile odstopanja od splo�no sprejetih meril, ki bi lahko pomenila očitne napake.
But those principles themselves are broad and diverse enough to allow considerable scope for debate, and the Court of Justice has provided only a general test of what constitutes ‘normal market conditions’.
Vendar so ta merila sama po sebi dovolj �iroka in različna, da dopu�čajo precej�en okvir za razpravo, Sodi�če pa je „običajne tržne razmere“ opredelilo le splo�no.
It follows that that debate would take place within what the Court of First Instance acknowledges to be an area where the Commission enjoys wide discretion. 58
Iz tega izhaja, da bi debata potekala v okviru, 58 v katerem je Sodi�če prve stopnje priznalo �iroko diskrecijsko pravico Komisije.
There is no question that transparency in itself is important.
Ni dvoma o tem, da je preglednost sama po sebi pomembna.
It is also true that the greater the detail available, the more likely it is that any manifest error of appreciation by the Commission, either in its methodology or in the accuracy of the data it uses, will be identified.
Prav tako je res, da natančnej�a ko je obrazložitev, tem hitreje je mogoče najti očitno napako pri presoji Komisije bodisi v izbrani metodologiji bodisi v točnosti uporabljenih podatkov.
Thus, for example, the provision of a general summary of the accounting calculations would not necessarily guarantee that manifest errors would be identified.
Zato s splo�nim povzetkom računovodskih izračunov ne bi bilo mogoče popolnoma zagotoviti, da bo očitne napake mogoče odkriti.
In the context of the present litigation, it therefore seems to me that the elements which the Court of First Instance found to be lacking in the Commission’s statement of reasons are of secondary importance.
Zato menim, da so v okviru obravnavanega postopka elementi, za katere Sodi�če prve stopnje �teje, da jih je Komisija pomanjkljivo obrazložila, drugotnega pomena.
The contested decision provides sufficient reasoning and detail to enable its legality to be reviewed in the light of Chronopost I.
Izpodbijana odločba vsebuje dovolj natančno obrazložitev, da je njeno zakonitost mogoče preizkusiti z vidika sodbe Chronopost I.
In the present context, however, it is not clear that the details which the Court of First Instance found to be lacking are strictly necessary in order to assess whether the Commission misapplied the concept of ‘normal market conditions’ as defined in Chronopost I.
Vendar v okoli�činah obravnavane zadeve ni jasno razvidno, da bi bile podrobnosti, za katere je Sodi�če prve stopnje �telo, da manjkajo, nujno potrebne za presojo, ali je Komisija napačno uporabila pojem „običajnih tržnih razmer“, kot je opredeljen v sodbi Chronopost I.
58 — In paragraph 128 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance stated that the assessment of how La Poste’s costs incurred in providing logistical and commercial assistance were calculated in the absence of analytical accounts involved a complex economic appraisal.
58 – Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 128 izpodbijane sodbe navedlo, da so bili stro�ki, ki jih je imela družbe La Poste z zagotavljanjem logistične in komercialne podpore, izračunani brez upo�tevanja analitičnih izračunov in je bila zato pri oceni teh stro�kov vključena kompleksna gospodarska ocena.
In such circumstances the Commission enjoyed a wide discretion.
V tak�nih okoli�činah je imela Komisija �iroko diskrecijsko pravico.
CHRONOPOST AND LA POSTE v UFEX AND OTHERS
CHRONOPOST IN LA POSTE PROTI UFEXU IN DRUGIM upo�tevanju opredelitve „cen, ki pokrijejo vse stro�ke“ iz uvodne izjave 57 je mogoče analizo, ki jo je opravila Komisija v zvezi s prispevkom, ki ga družba SFMI-Chronopost plačuje družbi La Poste za lastni�ki kapital, primerjati s pristopom Sodi�ča.
show that the ‘total costs’ taken into account include all variable costs and a proportional contribution to fixed costs in respect of both logistical and commercial assistance.
Glede stro�kov za dano pomoč je v odstavkih (iii) in (xi) uvodne izjave 33 ter v uvodnih izjavah 42 in 57 59 odločbe Komisije ugotovljeno, da „skupni stro�ki“, ki jih je upo�tevala, vključujejo tudi vse variabilne stro�ke in sorazmeren prispevek k fiksnim stro�kom za logistično in komercialno podporo.
The contested decision also provides SFEI, the complainant, with an adequate explanation of the reasons for which the facts and points of law put forward in the complaint failed to demonstrate the existence of State aid.
V izpodbijani odločbi so združenju SFEI, pritožniku, ustrezno pojasnjeni razlogi, zaradi katerih dejstva in pravna podlaga iz pritožbe niso zado�čali za dokaz obstoja državne pomoči.
Paragraph [iii] of the 33rdrecital indicates that La Poste breaks down ‘total costs’ into ‘direct operating costs’ and a proportion of ‘central and local offices’ overheads’.
Iz odstavka (iii) uvodne izjave 33 izhaja, da družba La Poste „skupne stro�ke“ razdeli na „neposredne stro�ke poslovanja“ in na sorazmerni del „stro�kov sedeža in lokalnih direkcij“.