natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(Appeal — State aid — Approval by the Commission on the basis of the EC Treaty — Steel undertaking — Articles 4(c) CS, 67 CS and 95 CS — ECSC Treaty — EC Treaty — Steel Aid Codes — Concomitant application — Incompatibility of the aid — Compulsory notification of aid granted — Failure to notify the Commission — Prolonged lack of reaction on the part of the Commission — Recovery decision — Principle of legal certainty — Protection of legitimate expectations — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
„Pritožba – Državne pomoči – Odobritev Komisije na podlagi Pogodbe ES – Jeklarska družba – Členi 4(c) PJ, 67 PJ in 95 PJ – Pogodba ESPJ – Pogodba ES – Pravila o pomoči jeklarstvu – Sočasna uporaba – Nezdružljivost pomoči – Obvezna priglasitev dodeljenih pomoči – Nepriglasitev Komisiji – Dolg neodziv Komisije – Odločba o vračilu – Načelo pravne varnosti – Varstvo legitimnega pričakovanja – Pravica do obrambe – Obveznost obrazložitve“
Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 11 September 2007 . . . . . .
Bota, predstavljeni 11. septembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ECSC — Aid — Articles 4(c) CS and 67 CS — Different scope (Arts 4(c) CS and 67 CS)
ESPJ – Pomoči – Člena 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ – Različni področji uporabe (člena 4(c), PJ in 67 PJ)
SUMMARY — CASE C-408/04 P
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-408/04 P
Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (Arts 4(c) CS and 15 CS)
Akti institucij – Obrazložitev – Obveznost – Obseg (člena 4(c), PJ in 15 PJ)
ECSC — Scope of the Treaty — State aid rules — Provisions of the EC Treaty not applicable (Art. 305(1) EC)
ESPJ – Področje uporabe Pogodbe – Pravila o državnih pomočeh – Neuporaba določb Pogodbe ES
ECSC — Aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Legal certainty (Art. 4(c) CS)
ESPJ – Pomoči – Vračilo nezakonite pomoči – Pravna varnost (člen 4(c) PJ)
Therefore, Article 67 CS covers general measures which Member States may adopt in the context of their economic and social policy and measures taken by Member States which apply to industries other than coal and steel but which are capable of having significant repercussions on the conditions of competition in those industries.
PJ tako pokriva splo�ne ukrepe, ki jih države članice lahko sprejmejo v okviru svoje ekonomske in socialne politike, ter ukrepe, ki so jih sprejele države članice in ki se uporabljajo v drugih sektorjih kot v premogovni oziroma jeklarski industriji, vendar lahko občutno vplivajo na pogoje konkurence v navedenih industrijah.
While Article 4(c) CS prohibits the granting of State aid to steel and coal undertakings, without drawing a distinction between individual aid or aid disbursed under a State aid scheme, Article 67 CS refers expressly to State aid only in respect of protective measures that the Commission may authorise, pursuant to the first indent of paragraph 2 of that article, in favour of coal or steel undertakings where they suffer competitive disadvantages because of general economic policy measures.
Čeprav so s členom 4(c) PJ prepovedane državne pomoči jeklarskim in premogovnim družbam, ne glede na to, ali gre za posamične pomoči ali za pomoči, dodeljene z uporabo sistema državnih pomoči, se člen 67 PJ izrecno nana�a na državne pomoči le glede ohranitvenih ukrepov, ki bi jih Komisija lahko dovolila na podlagi odstavka 2, druga alinea, tega člena v korist jeklarskih in premogovnih družb, če bi slednje utrpele konkurenčne neugodnosti zaradi ukrepov splo�ne ekonomske politike.
In addition, Articles 4 CS and 67 CS concern two distinct areas, the first abolishing and prohibiting certain actions by Member States in the field which the ECSC Treaty places under Community jurisdiction, the second intended to prevent the distortion of competition which exercise of the residual powers of the Member States inevitably entails.
Poleg tega se člena 4 PJ in 67 PJ nana�ata na dve različni področji, prvo odpravlja in prepoveduje določene intervencije držav članic na področju, ki je v skladu s Pogodbo ESPJ v pristojnosti Skupnosti, drugo pa je namenjeno preprečevanju izkrivljanja konkurence, ki ga neizogibno prina�a izvr�evanje pristojnosti, ki jih obdržijo države članice.
Moreover, action taken under Article 67 CS cannot be what, in any other form whatsoever, Article 4 CS declares to be incompatible with the common market for coal and steel and abolished and prohibited.
Člen 67
It is inconceivable that the authors of the ECSC Treaty decided in Article 4(c) CS that subsidies and aids granted by Member States in any form whatsoever should be abolished and prohibited and then declared in Article 67 CS that, without even having been authorised by the Commission, that
Dejansko ni mogoče sprejeti, da bi avtorji Pogodbe ESPJ v členu 4(c) PJ odločili, da so subvencije oziroma pomoči, ki so jih dodelile države članice v kateri koli obliki, odpravljene in prepovedane, da bi nato v členu 67 PJ opredelili, da so, čeprav jih Komisija ni odobrila,
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER aid could be allowed subject to the measures recommended by the Commission to mitigate or remedy its effects.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER lahko dovoljene, razen ukrepov, ki jih je priporočila Komisija, da se ublaži oziroma popravi njihove posledice.
Such an interpretation does not undermine the effectiveness of Article 67 CS, given that general policy measures are liable to have appreciable repercussions on conditions of competition in the coal or steel industry within the meaning of Article 67(1) CS, without constituting State aid.
Ta razlaga ne zmanj�uje polnega učinka člena 67 PJ, ker ukrepi splo�ne politike lahko namreč pomembno vplivajo na pogoje konkurence v industriji premoga ali jekla v smislu člena 67(1) PJ, ne da bi ti pomenili državne pomoči.
(see paras 31-37)
(Glej točke od 31 do 37.)
The first indent of Article 67(2) CS, which, by derogation from Article 4 CS, allows the granting of State aid in respect of protective measures to undertakings referred to in Article 80 CS, does not distinguish between aid specific to the coal and steel industry and aid which applies to it as the result of a general measure.
Člen 67(2), prva alinea, PJ, ki z odstopanjem od člena 4 PJ dovoljuje dodelitev državnih pomoči iz naslova ohranitvenih ukrepov za družbe, navedene v členu 80 PJ, ne razlikuje med posebnimi pomočmi za sektor premoga in jekla in pomočmi, ki zanj veljajo kot splo�ni ukrep.
Finally, State aid granted to an undertaking falling within the scope of the ECSC Treaty has identical anti-compet-itive effects, regardless of whether it constitutes individual aid or aid granted under a State aid scheme that is not specific to the coal and steel sector.
Nazadnje, državna pomoč – dodeljena družbi, ki spada na področje uporabe Pogobe ESPJ – ima enake protikonkurenčne učinke, ne glede na to, ali gre za posamično pomoč ali za pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena v okviru sistema državnih pomoči, ki niso specifične za sektor jekla in premoga.
The statement of reasons required by Article 15 CS 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 enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the Court to carry out its review.
Obrazložitev, ki jo zahteva člen 15 PJ mora ustrezati vrsti zadevnega akta ter jasno in nedvoumno prikazati sklepanje institucije, ki je izdala akt, tako da se lahko zainteresirane stranke seznanijo z razlogi sprejetega ukrepa in da lahko pristojno sodi�če opravi 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 meets the requirements of Article 15 CS 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.
Ne zahteva se, da so v obrazložitvi navedene vse ustrezne dejanske ali pravne okoli�čine, ker se mora vpra�anje, ali obrazložitev akta ustreza zahtevam člena 15 PJ, presojati ne samo glede na besedilo akta, ampak tudi glede na kontekst in celoto pravnih pravil, ki urejajo zadevno področje.
Consequently, Article 4(c) CS applies to State aid paid to coal and steel undertakings under a State aid scheme that is not specific to the coal and steel sector.
Zato se člen 4(c) PJ uporablja za državne pomoči, ki so bile dodeljene jeklarskim in premogovnim družbam v okviru sistema državnih pomoči, ki ni specifičen za sektor premoga in jekla.
Even though, for the purposes of the ECSC Treaty, the rules provided for in Articles 10(1) and 15 of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] do not apply as such, they were based, in the domain of State aid, on the fundamental requirement of legal certainty.
Če se pravila, določena s členoma 10(1) in 15 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena (88 ES) ne uporabljajo na področju uporabe Pogodbe ESPJ, na področju državnih pomoči temeljijo na temeljni zahtevi po pravni varnosti.
It follows from Article 305(1) EC 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.
Iz člena 305(1) ES 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.
The provisions of the EC Treaty only apply in the alternative, in situations in which there is no specific rule under the ECSC Treaty.
Določbe Pogodbe ES se uporabljajo le podredno, če v Pogodbi ESPJ ni posebnih predpisov.
However, the notification of State aid is a central element of Community rules for supervising that aid and undertakings to which such aid has been granted may not entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful if it has not been granted in compliance with that procedure.
Poleg tega, 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, s katero je sistem nespecifičnih pomoči sektorju premoga in jekla razglasila za združljivega s skupnim trgom na podlagi členov 87 ES in 88 ES.
Likewise, 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 a decision declaring an aid scheme that was not specific to the coal and steel sector compatible with the common market on the basis of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.
Vendar je priglasitev državnih pomoči osrednji element mehanizma Skupnosti za njihov nadzor in element, da se družbe, ki so prejele te pomoči, ne morejo sklicevati na legitimno pričakovanje glede njihove zakonitosti, če te niso bile odobrene v skladu s tem postopkom.
(see paras 87-89)
(Glej točke od 87 do 89.)
Moreover, the particularly strict nature of the State aid regime under the ECSC Treaty sets it apart from the State aid regime under the EC Treaty.
Poleg tega se sistem, določen za državne pomoči v okviru ESPJ, po njegovi posebni strogosti razlikuje od sistema, ki se uporablja v okviru Pogodbe ES.
Consequently, where aid was granted under the ECSC Treaty without having
Iz tega izhaja, da če je bila v okviru Pogodbe ESPJ pomoč odobrena, ne da
Even in a situation in which the Community legislature has not laid down any period of limitation, the fundamental requirement of legal certainty has the effect of preventing the Commission from indefinitely delaying the exercise of its powers.
Tudi če zakonodajalec Skupnosti ni določil zastaralnega roka, temeljna zahteva po pravni varnosti nasprotuje temu, da bi Komisija lahko neomejeno odla�ala z izvajanjem svojih pooblastil.
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER to act and clearly breached its duty of diligence.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER nedelovanje Komisije in očitna kr�itev obveznosti skrbnega ravnanja.
been notified, a delay by the Commission in exercising its supervisory powers and ordering recovery of the aid does not render that recovery decision unlawful, except in exceptional cases which show that the Commission manifestly failed
bi bila prigla�ena, zamuda Komisije pri izvajanju njenih pooblastil nadzora in pri odredbi za vračilo te pomoči povzroči nezakonitost te odločbe o vračilu le v izjemnih primerih, kot sta očitno
(see paras 100-107)
(Glej točke od 100 do 107.)
1 delivered on 11 September 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAYVESA BOTA, predstavljeni 11. septembra 2007 1
Article 67 [CS]. You are aware that this problem is one which the interpreters of the [CS] Treaty were quick to seek to resolve.’ 3
“ zadeva, ki je danes pritegnila pozornost, se nana�a na uporabo določb, ki jih Pogodba o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti za premog in jeklo[ 2] določa za pomoči.
As Advocate General Lagrange had done before him in his Opinion in Steenkolenmijnen, 4Advocate General Roemer draws the Court’s attention to the complex problem of the delimitation of the scope of Articles 4 CS and 67 CS respectively.
Kot je pred njim storil generalni pravobranilec Lagrange v sklepnih predlogih z dne 5. novembra 1960 v zadevi De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg proti Visoki oblasti 4, generalni pravobranilec Roemer opozarja Sodi�če glede zahtevnega problema razmejitve področja uporabe členov 4 PJ in 67 PJ.
[What is] important … is the question of the problem raised by the deliberate distinction between, first, the prohibitions in Article 4(c) [CS] and, secondly, the provisions of
[…] treba je […] re�iti problem sistematične razmejitve med prepovedmi iz člena 4(c) [PJ] in določbami člena 67 [PJ]. To je problem, ki
Article 4(c) CS lays down a fundamental prohibition on State aid granted to coal
Člen 4(c) PJ določa načelno prepoved državnih pomoči, dodeljenih jeklarskim in
3 — Opinion of Advocate General Roemer delivered on 10 June 1971 in Case 59/70 Netherlands v Commission [1971] ECR 639.
3 – Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Roemerja, predstavljeni 10. junija 1971 v zadevi Nizozemska proti Komisiji, v kateri je bila sprejeta sodba z dne 6. julija 1971 (59/70, Recueil, str. 639).
2 — The ECSC Treaty was signed on 18 April 1951 in Paris by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
2 – Pogodba ESPJ, ki so jo v Parizu 18. aprila 1951 podpisale Kraljevina Belgija, Zvezna republika Nemčija, Francoska republika, Italijanska republika, Veliko vojvodstvo Luksemburg in Kraljevina Nizozemska.
The treaty entered into force on 23 July 1952 and was concluded for a period of 50 years.
Ta Pogodba je začela veljati 23. julija 1952 in je bila sklenjena za obdobje 50 let. Veljati je prenehala 23. julija 2002.
4 — Case 30/59 Steenkolenmijnen v High Authority [1961] ECR 1.
4 – Sodba z dne 23. februarja 1961 (30/59, Recueil, str. 1).
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER sija Evropskih skupnosti je v ta namen sprejela različna pravila o pomoči jeklarstvu 5.
5 and steel undertakings.
premogovni�kim družbam.
Article 67 CS aims to prevent the distortions of competition which may result from certain policies of the Member States.
Cilj člena 67 PJ pa je preprečiti izkrivljanje konkurence, ki bi ga lahko povzročile nekatere politike držav članic.
In this case, the Court is again requested to give a ruling on the scope and applicability of each of those two provisions.
Sodi�če je v tej zadevi ponovno pozvano, da se izreče o obsegu in uporabi vsake od teh dveh določb.
Although this legal question has long been the subject of debate, I do not think that the Court has ever explicitly resolved it.
Čeprav naj bi se o tem vpra�anju že davno razpravljalo, Sodi�če po mojem mnenju o njem ni nikoli izrecno odločilo.
The second difficulty has to do with the partial integration effected by the ECSC Treaty.
Druga težava je povezana z delno integracijo, izvedeno s Pogodbo ESPJ.
In signing the Treaty, the Member States relinquished their powers in relation to the establishment and operation of the coal and steel market, but retained responsibility for their general economic policy.
Države članice so se z njenim podpisom odrekle pristojnostim v zvezi z vzpostavitvijo in delovanjem jeklarskega in premogovni�kega trga, vendar so ohranile odgovornost svojih splo�nih gospodarskih politik.
Article 67 CS thus allowed for the various policies to be coordinated with a view to safeguarding the common market from distortions of competition.
Člen 67 PJ je omogočal, da se vzpostavi sodelovanje med temi različnimi politikami, da bi se skupni trg za�čitil pred vsakim izkrivljanjem konkurence.
The birth of the European Economic Community (EEC) 6on 25 March 1957 none the less put a different complexion on the matter.
Nastanek Evropske gospodarske skupnosti (EGS) 625. marca 1957 je kljub temu spremenil razdelitev.
The establishment of the new Community raised the question of the coexistence of those two legal orders, the ECSC and the EEC, and that of the coordination of their systems for controlling State aid.
Ustanovitev te nove skupnosti je izpostavila vpra�anje o soobstoju teh dveh pravnih redov, ESPJ in ES, in vpra�anje uskladitve njunega sistema nadzora državnih pomoči.
The issue in these proceedings reflects two difficulties with which the founders of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) were faced when establishing and implementing a dedicated scheme for controlling State aid.
V tem sporu ima vpra�anje dve težavi, s katerima so se soočili ustanovitelji Evropske skupnosti za premog in jeklo (v nadaljevanju: ESPJ) pri določitvi in izvajanju lastnega sistema nadzora državnih pomoči.
These proceedings also raise another question, of broader scope, since it transcends the distinctions between the ECSC and EC schemes for controlling State aid.
Ta spor prav tako izpostavlja neko drugo, splo�nej�e vpra�anje, ker presega razlikovanja med sistemoma ESPJ in ES za nadzor državnih pomoči.
The question concerns observance of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations where the
Problem je povezan s spo�tovanjem načel pravne varnosti in varstva legitimnih pričakovanj, ko Komisija odredi
5 — In the submissions that follow I shall define what constitutes a steel aid code.
5 – V nadaljevanju bom natančno opredelil, kaj so pravila o pomoči jeklarstvu
6 — Now the European Community (EC) by virtue of the Treaty on the European Union.
6 – Na podlagi Pogodbe o Evropski uniji je postala Evropska Skupnost (ES).
The first stems from the essentially dynamic nature of the common market established by the ECSC Treaty.
Prva izhaja iz temeljne dinamične narave skupnega trga, vzpostavljenega s Pogodbo ESPJ.
Thus, the fundamental prohibition on State aid, laid down in Article 4(c) CS, had to be adapted to the needs of a policy which was required, above all, to address the structural problems in the economy of the coal and steel industries.
Tako je morala biti načelna prepoved državnih pomoči, določena s členom 4(c) PJ, prilagojena potrebam politike, ki se je morala soočiti s strukturnimi problemi gospodarstva jeklarske in premogovni�ke industrije. Komi-
Federal Republic of Germany to recover the aid which was unlawfully granted to Salzgitter (Articles 2 and 3).
odredila, naj izterja pomoči, ki so bile nezakonito dodeljene družbi Salzgitter (člen 2 in 3).
That decision formed the subject of an action for annulment brought by Salzgitter before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
Ta odločba je bila predmet ničnostne tožbe, ki jo je družba Salzgitter vložila pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti.
In its judgment in Salzgitter v Commission, 11 the Court of First Instance partially annulled the contested decision on the ground that the Commission could not order the recovery of the aid granted to the recipient undertaking without breaching the principle of legal certainty.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v sodbi Salzgitter proti Komisiji 11 z dne 1. julija 2004 razglasilo delno ničnost sporne odločbe, ob upo�tevanju, da Komisija ni mogla zahtevati izterjave pomoči, dodeljene družbi prejemnici, ne da bi kr�ila načelo pravne varnosti.
In this case, on 5 August 1971, the German authorities adopted a law on the development of the border zone between the former German Democratic Republic and the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (‘the Zonenrandgebiet’).
V tej zadevi so nem�ki organi 5. avgusta 1971 sprejeli zakon, katerega cilj je prispevati k razvoju območja ob meji z nekdanjo Demokratično republiko Nemčijo in nekdanjo Če�koslova�ko republiko (v nadaljevanju: Zonenrandgebiet) 7.
7 That law provided for tax incentives for investments made by undertakings in the regions situated in that zone.
Ta zakon je predvideval davčne spodbude za vlaganja družbe v regijah na tem območju.
That law, along with subsequent amendments to it, were approved by the Commission on the basis of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.
Navedeni zakon in spremembe, ki so sledile, je Komisija odobrila na podlagi členov 87 ES in 88 ES.
That judgment is currently the subject of two appeals.
Ta sodba je zdaj predmet dveh pritožb.
The main appeal was brought by the Commission and seeks the setting aside of the judgment under appeal in so far as it annulled the provisions of the contested decision concerning repayment of the aid at issue.
Glavno pritožbo je vložila Komisija in želi z njo doseči razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe v delu, s katerim je razglasila ničnost določb sporne odločbe v zvezi s povrnitvijo zadevnih pomoči.
In particular, it poses three questions.
Zastavlja zlasti tri vpra�anja.
9By Decision 2000/797/ECSC, 10the Commission declared that the aid at issue constituted State aid which was incompatible with the common market in coal and steel (Article 1) and ordered the
Komisija je z Odločbo 2000/797/ESPJ 10razglasila, da sporni ukrepi pomenijo državno pomoč, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo (člen 1) in Zvezni republiki Nemčiji
The first concerns the clarity of the legal framework applicable and, in particular, of the obligation to notify such aid.
Prvo je povezano z jasnostjo pravnega okvira, ki se uporabi, in zlasti z obveznostjo priglasitve teh pomoči.
7 — Zonenrandförderungsgesetz (‘ZRFG’).8 — ‘Salzgitter’ or ‘the recipient undertaking’.9 — The ‘aid at issue’.
7 – Zonenrandförderungsgesetz, v nadaljevanju: ZRFG8 – V nadaljevanju: Salzgitter ali „družba prejemnica“.9 – V nadaljevanju: „sporne pomoči“ oziroma „zadevne pomoči“.
10 — Decision of 28 June 2000 on State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group’s steel-industry subsidiaries, now known as Salzgitter AG - Stahl und Technologie (SAG) (OJ 2000 L 323, p.
10 – Odločba z dne 28. junija 2000 o državni pomoči, ki jo Nemčija izvaja v korist družbe Salzgitter AG, družbe Preussag Stahl AG in hčerinskih podjetij skupine, danes imenovanih Salzgitter AG – Stahl und Technologie (SAG) (UL L 323, str.
5, ‘the contested decision’).
5, v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba).
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER compatibility with the common market.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER in njihovo združljivostjo s skupnim trgom.
The Federal Republic of Germany is intervening in support of that appeal.
Zvezna republika Nemčija intervenira v podporo tej pritožbi.
The second concerns the conduct of the Commission in its task of controlling State aid.
Drugo je povezano z ravnanjem Komisije v okviru nadzora državnih pomoči.
The question is whether the Commission, in the exercise of its administrative responsibilities, failed to discharge its duty of diligence by not finding, when examining documents sent by the recipient undertaking, that there had been a failure to notify the aid at issue and by not commencing appropriate proceedings.
Vpra�anje je namreč, ali je ta institucija pri izvajanju upravnih odgovornosti kr�ila dolžnost skrbnega ravnanja, ko pri preučitvi dokumentov, ki jih je poslala družba prejemnica, ni ugotovila, da zadevne pomoči niso bile prigla�ene, in ko glede tega ni ukrepala.