natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2008 — CASE C-390/06 eligible (the principle that aid must be necessary), while allowing, on a transitional and exceptional basis, a derogation from that principle in respect solely of applications that had not been satisfied under the last invitation to apply published under the 1997-1999 aid scheme.
2008 – ZADEVA C-390/06 projektov, ki so nastali po vložitvi pro�nje za pomoč (načelo nujnosti pomoči), pri tem pa je sprejela prehodno in izjemno odstopanje od tega načela le za pro�nje, ki jim ni bilo ugodeno na zadnjem objavljenem razpisu v okviru sheme pomoči 1997–1999.
The national court states that in order to give a ruling on Nuova Agricast’s application for damages, it must determine whether a causal link exists between the conduct of the Italian State which is complained of and the damage which is alleged.
Predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da mora, zato da bi lahko odločilo o od�kodninski tožbi družbe Nuova Agricast, preveriti, ali obstaja vzročna zveza med �kodnim ravnanjem, ki se očita italijanski državi, in navedeno �kodo.
In so far as the contested decision — which the national court regards as the event giving rise to loss (eventum damni) — is interposed between the conduct of the Italian Government which is complained of, that is to say, the failure to inform, or the failure fully to inform, the Commission, and the occurrence of the damage alleged by Nuova Agricast, the national court considers that in order to establish the causal link between that conduct and that damage it must determine whether that damage could have been avoided if the Italian State had conducted itself differently and, for that purpose, determine whether the Commission would have adopted a different transitional provision were it to have been ‘provided with full and accurate information on the legal situations of the undertakings having an interest in obtaining grants under Law No 488/1992’.
Glede na to, da se sporna odločba – iz katere po mnenju predložitvenega sodi�ča izvira �koda (eventum damni) – ume�ča med materialno ravnanje, ki se očita italijanski državi, in sicer da ni obvestila Komisije ali da je ni obvestila pravilno, in glede na nastanek �kode, ki jo zatrjuje družba Nuova Agricast, predložitveno sodi�če meni, da mora zaradi vzpostavitve vzročne zveze med tem ravnanjem in to �kodo ugotoviti, ali bi se navedeni �kodi izognili, če bi italijanska država ravnala drugače, in ali bi Komisija sprejela drugačno prehodno določbo, če bi bila „natančno obve�čena o pravnih položajih podjetij, ki so bila zainteresirana za prejem pomoči na podlagi zakona �t. 488/1992“.
According to the national court, proof of the certainty of a different result which would have been favourable to Nuova Agricast requires the invalidity of the transitional provision contained in the contested decision to be established on the ground that that provision is contrary to the rules and principles of the Community legal order.
Po mnenju predložitvenega sodi�ča bi bil zanesljiv dokaz drugačnega izida, ki bi bil za družbo Nuova Agricast ugoden, če bi se ugotovila neveljavnost prehodne določbe iz sporne odločbe, ker odstopa od pravil in načel pravnega reda Skupnosti.
The national court asks, first, whether, since the transitional provision does not benefit undertakings in the situation of Nuova Agricast, it should not be held to be invalid on the basis that it infringes the principle of equal treatment.
Predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje, prvič, ali ne bi bilo treba prehodno določbo glede na to, da ni ugodna za podjetja, ki so v enakem položaju kot družba Nuova Agricast, razglasiti za neveljavno, ker se z njo kr�i načelo enakega obravnavanja.
That court takes the view that on the expiry of the authorisation for the 1997-1999 aid scheme, there were three categories of undertakings:
Predložitveno sodi�če namreč meni, da so ob poteku odobritve sheme pomoči 1997–1999 obstajale tri skupine podjetij:
— undertakings such as Nuova Agricast, whose application for aid had been entered on the list under the third invitation to apply, which did not obtain the aid applied for under that invitation by reason of there being insufficient funds available and which had then waived their right to automatic inclusion of their application in the list relating to the fourth invitation to apply in order to submit a reformulated application under the next appropriate invitation to apply following that invitation (‘undertakings in the first category’);
– podjetja, kot je družba Nuova Agricast, katerih pro�nje so bile uvr�čene v tabelo, sestavljeno na podlagi tretjega razpisa, ki niso prejela pomoči, za katero so zaprosila na tem razpisu, ker ni bilo dovolj razpoložljivih sredstev, in ki so se potem odrekla samodejni uvrstitvi v tabelo, sestavljeno na podlagi četrtega razpisa, da bi lahko vložila spremenjeno pro�njo na prvi ustrezni razpis po tem razpisu (v nadaljevanju: podjetja iz prve skupine);
— undertakings whose application had been entered on the list relating to the fourth invitation to apply, which did not obtain the aid applied for by reason of there being insufficient funds available (‘undertakings in the second category’);
– podjetja, katerih pro�nje so bile uvr�čene v tabelo, sestavljeno na podlagi četrtega razpisa, in ki niso prejela zapro�ene državne pomoči, ker ni bilo dovolj razpoložljivih sredstev (v nadaljevanju: podjetja iz druge skupine);
— undertakings which had not yet submitted an application for aid, although work on their investment project had already started (‘undertakings in the third category’).
– podjetja, ki �e niso vložila pro�nje za pomoč, čeprav se je njihov naložbeni projekt že začel izvajati (v nadaljevanju: podjetja iz tretje skupine).
It takes the view that the undertakings in the first category and those in the third category, which were also precluded from taking advantage of the transitional provision, were not in the same situation and thus did not have to be treated in the same way.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da podjetja iz prve skupine in podjetja iz tretje skupine, ki so bila enako izvzeta od ugodnosti iz prehodne določbe, niso bila v enakem položaju in jih torej ne bi bilo treba obravnavati enako.
It also considers that the undertakings in the first category and those in the second category were in similar legal situations and accordingly that the former should have been in a position to take advantage of the transitional position, in the same way as those in the second category.
Meni pa tudi, da so bila podjetja iz prve skupine in podjetja iz druge skupine v podobnih pravnih položajih, tako da bi prva podjetja, tako kot druga, morala biti deležna ugodnosti iz prehodne določbe.
The national court asks, secondly, whether the transitional provision should not be held to be invalid as infringing the obligation to state reasons for Community acts laid down in Article 253 EC.
Predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje, drugič, ali ne bi bilo treba prehodno določbo razglasiti za neveljavno, ker kr�i načelo obveznosti obrazložitve aktov institucij Skupnosti iz člena 253 ES.
The Tribunale ordinario di Roma therefore decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Tribunale ordinario di Roma prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Is [the contested decision valid] as regards only the transitional provision, which lays down an exceptional derogation from the principle “that aid must be necessary” — on the occasion of the first implementation of the scheme in question — solely for applications “made under the last invitation to apply organised on the basis of the preceding scheme approved by the Commission until 31 December 1999, which were considered eligible for aid but in respect of which no aid was granted because insufficient funds were allocated to that invitation” …, with the consequent unjustified passing-over — in breach of the principle of equal treatment and of the obligation to state the reasons on which the decision was based pursuant to Article 253 EC — of applications which had not been satisfied because of a lack of available funds and which were waiting to be included automatically in the next invitation to apply or to be reformulated and resubmitted in the first “appropriate” invitation to apply under the new scheme[?]’
„Ali je [sporna odločba veljavna] v delu, ki se nana�a le na prehodno določbo, v skladu s katero se lahko izjemoma odstopi od načela ‚nujnosti pomoči‘ – v primeru prve uporabe zadevne sheme – zgolj za pro�nje, ‚ki so bile vložene na zadnji razpis, izveden na podlagi prej�nje sheme, ki jo je Komisija odobrila do 31. decembra 1999, in za katere bi se lahko dodelila pomoč, vendar zanje pomoč ni bila dodeljena zaradi omejenosti proračunskih virov tega razpisa‘ […], kar ima – ob kr�itvi načela enakega obravnavanja in obveznosti obrazložitve iz člena 253 ES – za posledico, da so bile neupravičeno zavrnjene pro�nje, ki so bile vložene na podlagi prej�njih razpisov, a jim zaradi nezadostnih sredstev ni bilo ugodeno, in ki bi bile samodejno vključene v naslednji razpis oziroma spremenjene in ponovno vložene na podlagi prvega ‚ustreznega‘ razpisa, objavljenega v skladu z novo shemo?“
It must be noted at the outset that, by its question, the national court has considered it necessary to ask the Court to review the validity of the contested decision only in the light of the principle of equal treatment and of the obligation to state reasons.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da je predložitveno sodi�če s tem vpra�anjem �telo za potrebno zgolj to, da Sodi�če izvede nadzor veljavnosti sporne odločbe z vidika načela enakega obravnavanja in obveznosti obrazložitve.
That being so, even though Nuova Agricast put forward other grounds of invalidity as regards the contested decision in the main proceedings, it is inappropriate to extend the inquiry into the validity of that decision to those other grounds of invalidity, which the national court has not referred to (see, by way of analogy, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others, paragraphs 17 to 19).
Čeprav je družba Nuova Agricast v postopku v glavni stvari navedla druge tožbene razloge za neveljavnost sporne odločbe, v teh okoli�činah ni treba raz�iriti presoje veljavnosti te odločbe na ostale tožbene razloge neveljavnosti, ki niso navedeni v predložitveni odločbi (glej po anologiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone in drugi, točke od 17 do 19).
The Commission contends that the link referred to by the national court between any liability there may be on the Italian State’s part and the validity of the contested decision has not been established, with the result that the question referred for a preliminary ruling has no connection with the main proceedings.
Komisija navaja, da zveza med morebitno odgovornostjo italijanske države in veljavnostjo sporne določbe, na katero se sklicuje predložitveno sodi�če, ne obstaja, tako da se vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje ne nana�a na spor o glavni stvari.
First, it is possible for the Italian State to have infringed the principle of equal treatment when it notified the 20002006 aid scheme without there being any defect whatsoever in the contested decision, by which the Commission adjudicated on the
Možno naj bi bilo namreč, da je italijanska država ob priglasitvi sheme pomoči 2000–2006 kr�ila načelo enakega obravnavanja, ne da bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti kakr�no koli napako v sporni odločbi, s katero je Komisija odločila o shemi, ki jo je predlagala
JUDGMENT OF 15. 4.
SODBA Z DNE 15. 4. 2008 – ZADEVA C-390/06 država članica priglasiteljica.
Secondly, there is no link between liability on the part of the Italian State and the possibility that the decision may be invalid by reason of a purely formal defect, such as a failure to state reasons.
Poleg tega naj tudi ne bi bilo nobene zveze med odgovornostjo italijanske države in morebitno neveljavnostjo odločbe zaradi povsem formalne napake, kot je pomanjkanje obrazložitve.
In that regard, as was mentioned in paragraph 35 of this judgment, the national court takes the view that the contested decision is the event occasioning loss and is interposed between the conduct of the Italian Government which is complained of by Nuova Agricast and the occurrence of the damage alleged by the latter.
Glede tega predložitveno sodi�če meni, kot je bilo navedeno v točki 35 te sodbe, da �koda izvira iz sporne odločbe in da se ume�ča med materialno ravnanje, ki ga družba Nuova Agricast očita italijanski državi, in nastanek �kode, ki jo zatrjuje ta družba.
Consequently, if the contested decision were to be declared invalid by reason of its having infringed the principle of equal treatment or by reason of a failure to state reasons, such a finding would be liable to have an impact on the reasoning of the national court at the time at which it came to rule on the damages applied for by Nuova Agricast.
Če bi bila sporna odločba razgla�ena za neveljavno zaradi kr�itve načela enakega obravnavanja ali zaradi pomanjkanja obrazložitve, bi ta ugotovitev zato lahko vplivala na presojo predložitvenega sodi�ča, ko bo odločalo o od�kodninski tožbi, ki jo je vložila družba Nuova Agricast.
The question referred for a preliminary ruling is therefore admissible in its entirety.
Vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje je zato v celoti dopustno.
The validity of the contested decision in the light of the principle of equal treatment
Veljavnost sporne odločbe z vidika načela enakega obravnavanja
First, the Commission argues that the contested decision is not capable of having infringed the principle of equal treatment, since the transitional provision which it contains is the result of a choice freely made by the Italian authorities.
Prvič, Komisija navaja, da sporna odločba ne more kr�iti načela enakega obravnavanja, saj naj bi bila njena prehodna določba posledica svobodne izbire italijanskih organov.
In that regard, it is clear from the general scheme of the Treaty that the procedure under Article 88 EC must never produce a result which is contrary to the specific provisions of the Treaty (see, inter alia, Case C-204/97 Portugal v Commission [2001] ECR I-3175, paragraph 41, and Case C-456/00 France v Commission [2002] ECR
V zvezi s tem izhaja iz splo�nega namena Pogodbe, da postopek iz člena 88 ES ne sme nikoli privesti do izida, ki bi bil v nasprotju s posameznimi določbami Pogodbe (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 3. maja 2001 v zadevi Portugalska proti Komisiji, C -204/97, Recueil,
I-11949, paragraph 30).
I-11949, točka 30).
Accordingly, State aid, certain conditions of which contravene other provisions of the Treaty, cannot be declared by the Commission to be compatible with the common market (see Case C-113/00 Spain v Commission [2002] ECR I-7601, paragraph 78 and the caselaw cited there).
Zato Komisija državne pomoči, ki z nekaterimi podrobnimi pravili kr�i druge določbe Pogodbe, ne more razglasiti za združljivo s skupnim trgom (glej sodbo z dne 19. septembra 2002 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji, C-113/00, Recueil, str. I-7601, točka 78, in navedena sodna praksa).
Similarly, State aid, certain of the conditions of which contravene the general principles of Community law, such as the principle of equal treatment, cannot be declared by the Commission to be compatible with the common market.
Komisija prav tako ne more razglasiti za združljivo s skupnim trgom državne pomoči, ki z nekaterimi podrobnimi pravili kr�i splo�na načela prava Skupnosti, na primer načelo enakega obravnavanja.
The Commission’s argument summarised in paragraph 49 of this judgment must therefore be rejected.
Navedbo Komisije, povzeto v točki 49 te sodbe, je treba zato zavrniti.
Secondly, the Commission contends that the Italian authorities did not draw its attention to the particular case of the undertakings in the first category, and that it cannot therefore be criticised for not having taken into account the specific situation of those undertakings nor, as a result, can any defect in the contested decision be founded on that ground.
Drugič, Komisija navaja, da je italijanski organi niso opozorili na poseben primer podjetij iz prve skupine, tako da se ji ne more očitati, da ni upo�tevala posebnega položaja teh podjetij, in se zato ni mogoče sklicevati na kakr�no koli napako sporne odločbe na podlagi tega vzroka.
Even though that caselaw has, until now, been applied only in the case of an action directed against a decision taken by the Commission at the end of the procedure laid down under Article 88(2) EC, it is all the more relevant where what is at issue is the validity of a decision not to raise objections against an aid measure or an aid scheme, such as the contested decision.
Čeprav je bila ta sodna praksa do sedaj uporabljena le, kadar je bila tožba vložena zoper odločbo, ki jo je Komisija sprejela na podlagi postopka iz člena 88(2) ES, je toliko bolj upo�tevna, kadar je sporna veljavnost take odločbe o nenasprotovanju pomoči ali shemi pomoči, kot je sporna odločba.
With respect more particularly to the latter category of decisions, that caselaw appears justified in the light of the general scheme of the review procedure for State aids laid down by the Treaty.
Zdi se namreč, da je glede na namen postopka nadzora državnih pomoči, ki ga določa Pogodba, prav v zvezi s to zadnjo vrsto odločb navedena sodna praksa utemeljena.
The Commission may restrict itself to the preliminary stage under Article 88(3) EC in order to take a decision favourable to an aid measure if can satisfy itself, after having undertaken a preliminary investigation, that the project concerned is compatible with the Treaty.
Komisija lahko sprejme ugodno odločitev za pomoč v uvodni fazi postopka, ki jo določa člen 88(3) ES, če se pri prvem preizkusu prepriča, da je zadevni načrt združljiv s Pogodbo.
It is only where that preliminary investigation has led the Commission to the oppos- ite conclusion or if such an investigation does not permit all the difficulties involved in determining whether the aid is compatible with the common market to be overcome, that the Commission is under a duty to carry out all the requisite consultations and for that purpose to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC (see to that effect, inter alia, Case 84/82 Germany v Commission [1984] ECR 1451, paragraph 13; Cook v Commission, paragraph 29; Matra v Commission, paragraph 33; Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 39; and Portugal v Commission, paragraph 33).
Le če se Komisija na podlagi tega prvega preizkusa prepriča o nasprotnem ali če s tem preizkusom ne more premagati težav, ki so se pokazale pri presoji združljivosti te pomoči s skupnim trgom, je Komisija dolžna zbrati vsa potrebna mnenja in s tem namenom začeti postopek iz člena 88(2) ES (glej v tem smislu zlasti sodbo z dne 20. marca 1984 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji, 84/82, Recueil, str. 1451, točka 13, ter zgoraj navedene sodbe Cook proti Komisiji, točka 29; Matra proti Komisiji, točka 33; Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France, točka 39, in Portugalska proti Komisiji, točka 33).
If the validity of a decision not to raise objections against an aid measure or an aid scheme were to fall to be determined by reference to information which could not have been available to the Commission after the preliminary investigation has been concluded, the Commission would be encouraged systematically to initiate the investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC and to give the parties concerned notice to submit their comments, in order to prevent the information which could not be available to it leading to the annulment of its decision to authorise the aid measure or the aid scheme in question.
Če pa bi bilo treba veljavnost odločbe o nenasprotovanju pomoči ali shemi pomoči presoditi glede na podatke, ki Komisiji niso mogli biti na voljo ob koncu predhodne preučitve, bi morala Komisija sistematično začeti postopek na podlagi člena 88(2) ES in zadevne stranke pozvati, naj predložijo pripombe, da ne bi bila njena odločba o odobritvi zadevne pomoči ali zadevne sheme pomoči razgla�ena za nično zaradi podatkov, ki jih ni mogla imeti na voljo.
As the Advocate General noted in point 71 of his Opinion, this would undermine the division of the review of State aid into two distinct stages, the second of which is not always required.
Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točki 71 sklepnih predlogov, bi se s tem poseglo na področje delitve nadzora državnih pomoči na dve ločeni fazi, od katerih druga faza ni vedno potrebna; namreč delitve, ki so jo hoteli avtorji Pogodbe in jo je potrdil zakonodajalec Skupnosti v Uredbi �t. 659/1999.
In the main proceedings, the contested decision refers, in the section entitled ‘legal basis’, to the implementing provisions relating to Law No 488/1992 which laid down the detailed rules governing the 1997-1999 aid scheme, summarised in paragraphs 10 and 11 of this judgment, and include the choice between automatic inclusion of the original application and the lodging of a reformulated application, given to undertakings which did not receive aid by reason of there being insufficient funds allocated to a particular invitation to apply.
V sporu o glavni stvari sporna odločba v zvezi s tem v delu z naslovom „Pravna podlaga“ navaja določbe o uporabi zakona �t. 448/1992, ki so določile podrobna pravila sheme pomoči 1997–1999, ki so bila povzeta v točkah 10 in 11 te sodbe, vključno z izbiro med samodejno uvrstitvijo prvotne pro�nje ali vložitvijo spremenjene pro�nje, ki je na voljo podjetjem, ki jim ni bila izplačana pomoč, ker ni bilo dovolj sredstev, namenjenih za določen razpis.
Consequently, even though the Italian authorities did not inform the Commission’s services specifically and in detail of the legal situations of the undertakings having an interest in obtaining grants under Law No 488/1992, the order for reference shows that the Commission must have been aware of the existence of both the undertakings in the first category and those in the second category.
Torej, čeprav italijanski organi niso izrecno in popolno obvestili služb Komisije o pravnih položajih podjetij, ki so bila zainteresirana za prejem pomoči na podlagi zakona �t. 488/1992, kot izhaja iz predložitvene odločbe, bi se morala Komisija zavedati, da obstajajo podjetja iz prve skupine in podjetja iz druge skupine.
In the light of the above, the request by Nuova Agricast to invite the Commission to produce certain correspondence exchanged as part of its discussions with the Italian authorities prior to the adoption of the contested decision, in order to establish whether those authorities had, or had not, given notice to the Commission’s services of the existence of the undertakings in the first category, is devoid of any purpose.
Glede na to ugotovitev je predlog družbe Nuova Agricast, naj se Komisiji naloži predložitev določenih dopisov, ki jih je pred sprejetjem sporne odločbe izmenjala med pogovori z italijanskimi organi, da bi se ugotovilo, ali so navedeni organi opozorili službe Komisije na obstoj podjetij iz prve skupine, brezpredmeten.
In those circumstances, it is necessary, thirdly, to consider whether, by not raising any objections against an aid scheme in which only undertakings in the second cat -egory could benefit from the transitional provision, the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment.
V teh okoli�činah je treba, tretjič, ugotoviti, ali je Komisija, s tem da ni vložila ugovora zoper shemo pomoči, v kateri so bila ugodnosti iz prehodne določbe deležna le podjetja iz druge skupine, kr�ila načelo enakega obravnavanja.
It must be pointed out in that regard that the only undertakings that were able to benefit from the transitional provision were those in the second category which had not begun to implement their investment proposals prior to lodging their application for aid under the fourth invitation to apply.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da so bila ugodnosti iz prehodne določbe deležna le podjetja iz druge skupine, ki svojega naložbenega načrta niso začela izvajati, preden so vložila pro�njo za pomoč na četrti razpis.