natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lastly, the Court recalled that the prerogatives of the national authorities under Community telecommunications law do not affect the Commission’s powers to find infringements of competition law.
(d) Veljavnost ratione temporis izjem od prepovedi državnih pomoči
The case-law this year has further clarified in particular the concepts of, first, a person individually concerned by a Commission decision relating to an aid scheme, second, an act producing binding legal effects and, third, a legal interest in bringing proceedings.
V zadevi SIDE proti Komisiji (sodba Sodiščaprvestopnje z dne 15. aprila 2008, T-348/04, še neobjavljena) je Komisija uporabila izjemo v zvezi z ukrepi za pospeševanje in ohranjanje kulturne dediščine iz člena 87(3)(d) ES – ki je določba, ki je začela veljati 1. novembra 1993 – za pomoč, ki jo je Francija odobrila pred tem datumom.
In Joined Cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00 Hotel Cipriani andOthers v Commission (judgment of 28 November 2008), the Court declared admissible the actions brought by certain beneficiaries of reductions of, and/or exemptions from, social security contributions granted to firms established on the island territory of Venice and Chioggia against a Commission decision which considered those measures to be an aid scheme which was incompatible with the common market and required that the Italian Republic recover from the beneficiaries the aid paid. Although a decision concerning an aid scheme is of general application, the fact of belonging to a closed class of actual beneficiaries of that aid scheme, who are fully identifiable and particularly affected by the obligation to pay back the State aid, is sufficient to differentiate each of them from all other persons.
Po opozorilu, da se materialnopravna pravila Skupnosti načeloma ne nanašajo na položaje, nastale pred začetkom njihove veljavnosti, in pojasnilu, da ta ugotovitev velja ne glede na ugodne ali neugodne učinke, ki bi jih ta pravila lahko imela na zadevne osebe, je Sodišče prve stopnje presodilo, na eni strani, da je vsaka nova državna pomoč nujno nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, če je lahko izkrivljala konkurenco v obdobju, v katerem je bila izplačana, in čeni zajeta z nobeno izjemo, ter, na drugi strani, da je zadevna pomoč, ko je ustvarila učinke, vsekakor postala dokončno združljiva ali nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
If, as the Commission submitted, the locus standi of an actual beneficiary of an aid scheme were conditional upon an examination of its individual situation in the Commission decision declaring the scheme at issue incompatible, locus standi would depend on whether or not that institution chose to carry out such an individual examination in the light of the information communicated to it during the administrative procedure.
Ker torej analiza združljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom ne zahteva samo presoje, ali je ob sprejetju ustrezne odločbe interes Skupnosti zahteval vračilo pomoči, mora Komisija preveriti tudi, ali je zadevna pomoč v obdobju, v katerem je bila izplačana, lahko izkrivljala konkurenco.
That approach would be a source of legal uncertainty inasmuch as the Commission’s knowledge of specific individual situations is frequently a matter of chance.
Na podlagi teh preudarkov je Sodišče prve stopnje presodilo, da je Komisija z uporabo navedene izjeme za obdobje pred 1. novembrom 1993 napačno uporabila pravo.
Concerning the concept of an act producing binding legal effects, the Court, in Case T-233/04 Netherlands v Commission (judgment of 10 April 2008, under appeal), relating to a Commission decision which classified the emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands as State aid compatible with the common market, ruled that that Member State, which had asked the Commission to declare that that scheme did not constitute aid, had standing to challenge the decision in question.
V zadevi BUPA in drugi proti Komisiji (sodba Sodiščaprvestopnje z dne 12. februarja 2008, T-289/03, še neobjavljena) je Sodišče prve stopnje lahko razvilo svojo sodno prakso v zvezi z vprašanjem, ali so nadomestila, ki jih prejme podjetje za zagotavljanje storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena (v nadaljevanju: SSGP), državna pomoč. Spor se je nanašal na ureditev sistema zasebnega zdravstvenega zavarovanja (v nadaljevanju: ZZZ) na Irskem, ki je bil med letoma 1994 in 1996 liberaliziran, pri čemer je bila vzpostavljena konkurenca med Voluntary Health Insurance Board (VHI) in drugimi subjekti, med katerimi je bila tožeča stranka.
As a privileged applicant, it did not have to establish a legal interest in bringing proceedings, but only that the contested decision produced legal effects.
V okviru te liberalizacije je bila predvidena ustanovitev sistema za izravnavo tveganj (v nadaljevanju: RES), ki ga vodi Health Insurance Authority (v nadaljevanju: HIA).
That was the case here, since the classification of that scheme as State aid, first, had the effect of enabling the
V sistemu so natančno določeni različni pragovi za plačila RES. Komisija je po pritožbi družbe BUPA in priglasitvi RES s strani Irske odločila, da so plačila iz RES nadomestilo za obveznosti SSGP, to je obveznosti, s katerimi naj se vsaki osebi, ki živi na Irskem, zagotovi minimalna raven storitev po enaki ceni ne glede na njeno zdravstveno stanje, starost ali spol (v nadaljevanju: obveznosti ZZZ).18
As regards a legal interest in bringing proceedings, the Court stated, in Case T-301/01 Alitalia v Commission (judgment of 9 July 2008), that Alitalia, an undertaking which had received a capital injection classified by the Commission as State aid compatible with the common market subject to compliance with certain conditions, retained a personal interest in the annulment of that decision, even after it had received all of that aid following another Commission decision.
Sodišče prve stopnje je presodilo, da čeprav v obdobju, v katerem je Komisija preučevala zadevo, sodba Sodišča z dne 24. julija 2003 v zadevi Altmark Trans in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg19 (v nadaljevanju: sodba Altmark) še ni bila izdana, je treba zakonitost izpodbijane odločbe preučiti v skladu s štirimi pogoji, ki jih je navedlo Sodišče v tej sodbi (v nadaljevanju: pogoji Altmark).
Since the contested decision formed the legal basis of the decision authorising the payment of the final instalment of the aid, the second decision would have had no legal basis if the Court had annulled the contested decision on the ground that it classified the measure at issue as State aid.
Sodišče namreč ni časovno omejilo obsega navedbi z sodbe Altmark in razlaga, ki jo Sodišče po da o določbi prava Skupnosti, je omejena na pojasnitev ter določitev njenega pomena in obsega, kot bi jo bilo treba razumeti in uporabljati od začetka njene veljavnosti.
Further, in that same judgment, the Court held that, although the contested decision had been taken subject to compliance with certain conditions that the Italian authorities had undertaken to comply with, Alitalia had standing to raise a plea against those conditions since they were attributable to the Commission, which has exclusive power to find that aid is incompatible with the common market.
Sodišče prve stopnje je pojasnilo, da je treba v obravnavanem primeru pogoje Altmark, katerih obseg se poleg tega precej pokriva z obsegom merili z člena 86(2) ES, uporabiti v skladu z duhom in namenom njihovega sprejetja, vendar prilagojeno posebnim dejstvom obravnavanega primera.
Concerning the legal interest in bringing proceedings of a beneficiary of aid declared by the Commission to be partially compatible with the common market, the Court held, in Joined Cases T-309/04, T-317/04, T-329/04 and T-336/04 TV 2/Danmark andOthers v Commission (judgment of 22 October 2008), that the way in which the Commission examined the compatibility of the aid at issue precluded examining the admissibility of the action by dividing the contested decision into two parts, the first classifying the contested measures as State aid which was partly incompatible with the common market and the second classifying those measures as State aid which was partly compatible.
V okviru prvega pogoja, in sicer da mora biti podjetje, upravičeno do nadomestila, dejansko pooblaščeno za izvajanje jasno opredeljenih obveznosti javne službe, je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da v pravu Skupnosti ni niti jasne in natančne opredelitve pojma naloge SSGP niti pravnega pojma, ki bi dokončno določil pogoje, ki morajo biti izpolnjeni, da bi se lahko država članica veljavno sklicevala na obstoj in varstvo naloge SSGP.
The Commission examined whether, taken as a whole, the State funding measures at issue represented a sum exceeding the net cost of a service of general economic interest.
Tako imajo države članice široko diskrecijsko pravico pri opredeljevanju, kaj štejejo za SSGP, in to opredelitev lahko Komisija izpodbijale ob očitni napaki.
The Court further observed that the interest in bringing proceedings can result from a genuine ‘risk’ that the applicants’ legal position will be affected by legal proceedings or where the‘risk’of legal proceedings was vested and present at the date on which the action was brought before the Court.
Ta široka diskrecijska pravica pa ne pomeni, da za državo članico ne velja več obveznost paziti, da naloga SSGP, na katero se sklicuje, izpolnjuje nekatera minimalna merila (zlasti obstoj akta javnega organa, s katerim je zadevnim gospodarskim subjektom dodeljena naloga, ter univerzalnost in obveznost te naloge), ki veljajo za vse naloge SSGP v smislu Pogodbe ES, ter dokazati, da so v obravnavanem primeru ta merila izpolnjena.
TV2 is the subject of legal proceedings at the national level brought by a competitor seeking compensation for the damage that it had suffered because the State aid received by TV2 enabled that company to apply a low-price strategy to sales of its advertising space.
Sodišče prve stopnje je poleg tega pojasnilo, da dodelitev naloge SSGP ne pomeni nujno, da bo gospodarski subjekt, pooblaščen za njeno opravljanje, dobil izključno ali posebno pravico, dajo bo izpolnil, in da lahko ta dodelitev pomeni tudi obveznost, naloženo več ali celo vsem gospodarskim subjektom, dejavnim na istem trgu.
The Court, whilst noting that TV2 brought its action before it before the competitor commenced those proceedings, found that the vested and present nature of the risk of legal proceedings at the date on which TV2 initiated proceedings is demonstrated by the fact that it materialised in the form of the legal proceedings pending before the national court.
Nasprotno, nujno potrebna pogoja za opredelitev obstoja naloge SSGP stanje ni obveznost in univerzalnost: če prva pomeni, da mora ponudnik pod nespremenljivimi pogoji sklepati pogodbe, ne da bi smel zavrniti sopogodbenika, pa druga ne pomeni, da je treba zadevne storitve nujno ponujati celotnemu prebivalstvu države članice, če se vsem strankam ponuja po enotnih in nediskriminatornih cenah ter podobne kakovosti.
Court ofFirstInstance
Sodišče prve stopnje ekonomskih in matematičnih enačb, s katerimi je urejen izračun, ki ga je treba opraviti, ne vpliva na natančnost in jasnost upoštevnih meril.
In Case T-442/03 SIC v Commission (judgment of 26 June 2008), concerning an application for the annulment of a Commission decision declaring inter alia that certain measures adopted by the Portuguese Republic with regard to Radiotelevisão Portuguesa (‘the RTP’), a company entrusted with providing the Portuguese public television service, did not constitute State aid and that the other measures were compatible with the common market, the applicant claimed inter alia that, at the time of a bond issue, the RTP had received an implicit State guarantee, which explained how it was able to place that issue on the market despite its poor financial position.
V okviru preizkusa tretjega pogoja Altmark, v skladu s katerim mora biti nadomestilo nujno in sorazmerno glede na stroške, ki nastanejo pri izvajanju naloge SSGP, je Sodišče prve stopnje navedlo, da namen plačil RES ni nadomestiti morebitnih stroškov ali dodatnih stroškov, povezanih s posameznim opravljanjem nekaterih storitev ZZZ, ampak le izravnati dodatne stroške, ki jih je treba pripisati negativni razliki med pr o ê lo m tveganja zavarovalnice, ki omogoča ZZZ, in pr o ê lo m povprečnega tržnega tveganja.
Having established, first, that the RTP was a limited liability company whose debts the Portuguese Republic, which held a 100% stake, was not subject to an unlimited obligation to repay and, second, that the prospectus for the bond issue in question provided for no guarantee on the part of the State, the Court held that the fact that the market agreed to subscribe to the 1994 bond issue because it considered that the State would guaranteed e facto its repayment did not permit a finding that therewas State aid.
Vendar pa to ne pomeni kršitve zadevnega pogoja. Ker se namreč sistem nadomestil v obravnavanem primeru temeljito razlikuje od sistema, preučenega v sodbi Altmark, ta nemore strogo izpolnjevati tretjega pogoja Altmark, v skladu s katerim se zahteva, da mora biti mogoče določiti stroške, ki nastanejo zaradi izvajanja obveznosti SSGP.
Only objective findings leading to the conclusion that the State legally had to repay that issue in the event of default by the RTP would permit a finding of the existence of a State guarantee.
Vendar je količinska opredelitev dodatnih stroškov s primerjavo dejanskega tveganja zavarovalnice, ki omogoča ZZZ, in pr o ê la povprečnega tržnega tveganja ob upoštevanju zneskov, ki jih vplačajo vse zavarovalnice, ki omogočajo ZZZ in ki so v sistemu RES, v skladu z namenom in duhom navedenega pogoja, ker izračun nadomestila temelji na konkretnih objektivnih elementih, ki jih je mogoče jasno opredeliti in nadzorovati.
In Hotel Cipriani andOthers vCommission, the undertakings which were beneficiaries of social security exemptions submitted that those exemptions did not confer on the many economic advantage because they compensated the additional costs created by the structural disadvantages in the lagoon area in which they were established.
V zvezi s četrtim pogojem Altmark, v skladu s katerim se zahteva, da stroški, nastali zaradi izvajanja naloge SSGP, ustrezajo stroškom učinkovitega podjetja, je Sodišče prve stopnje presodilo, da je Komisija lahko upravičenomenila, da v obravnavanem primeru primerjava med upravičenci do plačil RES in učinkovitim podjetjem ni bila potrebna.
The Court held that the undertakings had failed to demonstrate that therewas a direct connection between the additional costs actually incurred and the amount of the aid received. The mere fact that undertakings located in the lagoon area incur costs higher than on the mainland does not permit the inference to be drawn that the scheme does not confer any advantage on them and does not introduce any discrimination against their competitors in Italy or in other Member States.
Upoštevati je treba dejstvo, da se navedeni pogoj nemore strogo uporabiti za sistem RES zaradi dveh posebnosti: nevtralnosti sistema nadomestil, ki je bil uveden s sistemom RES glede na prihodke in dobičke zavarovalnic, ki omogočajo ZZZ, ter posebnosti dodatnih stroškov, povezanih z negativnim pr o ê lo m tveganja teh zavarovalnic.20
In Netherlands vCommission, the Court established that the emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides (NOx) adopted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not constitute
Sodišče prve stopnje je lahko v drugih sodbah leta 2008 dopolnilo analizo, ki se uporablja za nadomestila v zvezi z opravljanjem SSGP.
State aid. First, all industrial facilities in the Netherlands with an installed total thermal capacity exceeding a given threshold, without any geographic or sectoral connotation, emission ceiling laid down by the measure in question and can are subject to the NOx
V sodbi z dne 1. julija 2008 v zadevi Deutsche Post proti Komisiji (T-266/02, še neobjavljena, v pritožbenem postopku) je Sodišče prve stopnje poudarilo, da kadar so bila državna sredstva podeljena za pokritje dodatnih stroškov, povezanih z opravljanjem SSGP, ob upoštevanju pogojev Altmark, Komisija ne more, ne da bi pri tem člen 86(2) ES izgubil polni učinek, kot državno pomoč opredeliti celote ali dela javnih sredstev, ki so bila podeljena, če njihov skupni znesek ostane nižji od dodatnih stroškov, ki jih povzroči navedena naloga SSGP.
( EC I ); v 2 benefit from the advantage offered by the tradability of emission allowances for which it provides. Aimed at the undertakings which are the biggest polluters, the system at issue uses an objective criterion which is in conformity with the objective of the protection of the environment.
Če torej Komisija ne preveri, ali znesek nadomestil presega dodatne stroške, povezane s SSGP, nemore v pravno zadostni meri dokazati, da je bila s tem nadomestilom da na prednost v smislu člena 87(1) ES in da lahko to nadomestilo pomeni državno pomoč.
Second, only the undertakings covered by that scheme must comply, on pain of fine, with an emission standard or strict‘performance standard rate’. Therefore, the
Poleg tega, kadar Komisija ni opravila nobenega preizkusa niti presoje v zvezi s tem, sodišču Skupnosti ni treba namesto navedene institucije opraviti preizkusa, ki ga ta ni nikoli izvedla, in pri tem domnevati o ugotovitvah, do katerih bi na podlagi tega prišla.
C M YK legal and factual situation of the undertakings subject to that NOx emission ceiling cannot be regarded as comparable to that of undertakings to which that ceiling does not apply.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Hotel Cipriani in drugi proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje potrdilo, da je treba v zvezi z odločbami, ki jih je Komisija sprejela pred sodbo Altmark, preveriti, ali je celostni pristop v skladu z vsebino pogojev Altmark.
In any case, even if the measure in question differentiates between undertakings and is, therefore, in principle selective, that differentiation would arise from the nature or overall structure of the scheme of which it is part and would not therefore fulfil the condition of selectivity.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi SIC proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da Portugalska republika ni bila dolžna organizirati razpisnega postopka pred dodelitvijo SSGP v zvezi s televizijo družbi RTP.
Indeed, ecological considerations justify distinguishing undertakings which from other undertakings.
S posebnostjo storitev javne radiodifuzije, zlasti z njeno povezavo z demokratičnimi, socialnimi in kulturnimi potrebami vsake družbe, se namreč pojasni in utemelji to, da država članica ni dolžna uporabiti razpisnega postopka za dodelitev SSGP v zvezi z radiodifuzijo, vsaj če se odloči, da bo to službo – kot v obravnavanem primeru – zagotavljala sama prek javne družbe.
On the other hand, in SIC vCommission, the Court held that the Commission had not established to the requisite legal standard that certain advantages from which the RTP benefited (exemption from notarial charges, registration charges and the costs of publication relating to that undertaking’s transformation into a public limited company by way of legislation) did not fulfil the condition of selectivity on the ground that they were justified by the nature or the general logic of the system of which they were a part.
Sodišče prve stopnje je poudarilo, da so države članice pristojne za opredelitev SSGP v zvezi z radiodifuzijo, tako da ta vključuje oddajanje široke palete programov, pri čemer pa je gospodarskemu subjektu, pooblaščenemu za opravljanje SSGP, dovoljeno opravljati gospodarske dejavnosti, kot je na primer prodaja oglasnega prostora.
First, the Commission did not examine whether the recourse to a legislative instrument which entailed the exemption from notarial charges had not been chosen with the aim of enabling public undertakings to escape those charges, but was merely part of the logic of the Portuguese legal system.
Če to ne bi veljalo, bi bila opredelitev SSGP v zvezi z radiodifuzijo odvisna od načina njenega ê na n ci ranja, SSGP pa se opredeli glede na splošni interes, ki ga zadovoljuje, in ne glede na sredstva, ki zagotavljajo njeno izvajanje.
Joined Cases T-211/04 and T-215/04 Government of Gibraltar and UnitedKingdom v Commission (judgment of 18 December 2008) enabled the Court to clarify further the condition of selectivity.
V zvezi z nadzorom, ali je družba RTP spoštovala svoje pooblastilo za opravljanje javne službe, je Sodišče prve stopnje pojasnilo, da lahko samo država članica presodi, ali izvajalec storitev javne radiodifuzije upošteva standarde kakovosti, ki so opredeljeni v njegovem pooblastilu.
In August 2002, the UnitedKingdom notified the Commission of the Government of Gibraltar’s envisaged reform of corporate tax, which included the establishment of three taxes: a registration fee, a payroll tax and a business property occupation tax (‘the BPOT’), on the basis that liability to the latter two taxes would be capped at 15 % of profits.
Komisija se mora omejiti na ugotovitev, ali na nacionalni ravni obstaja mehanizem neodvisnega nadzora, kar je bilo potrjeno v obravnavanem primeru.
The Commission considered that that reform was regionally selective since it provided that companies located in Gibraltar would be taxed at a lower rate than those located in the UnitedKingdom .
V zvezi s sorazmernostjo med ê na nc iran jem in stroški javne službe je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da je Komisija kršila svojo dolžnost preiskave, ker od Portugalske republike ni zahtevala, naj ji predloži nekatera revizijska poročila družbe RTP.
It also found that three aspects of the tax reform were materially selective: first, the requirement that a company must make a profit before it becomes liable to payroll tax and BPOT, since that requirement favours companies which make no profit; second, the cap limiting liability to payroll tax and BPOT to 15 % of profits, since that cap favours companies which, for the tax year in question, have profits that are low in relation to their number of employees and occupation of business property; and, third, the payroll tax and BPOT, since those two taxes inherently favour companies which have no real physical presence in Gibraltar.
Komisija namreč ne sme opustiti zahteve za posredovanje podatkov, za katere se zdi, da bodo potrdili ali ovrgli druge podatke, upoštevne v preiskavi zadevnega ukrepa, katerih zanesljivosti pa ni mogoče šteti za zadostno dokazano.
Applying the conditions set out in the case-law relating to aid granted by infra-State bodies (17), the Court held that the reference framework for assessing whether the tax reform
Sodišče prve stopnje je poleg tega v zgoraj navedeni sodbi TV 2/Danmark in drugi proti Komisiji pojasnilo, da SSGP v zvezi z radiodifuzijo ni nujno omejena na oddajanje nedonosnih oddaj.
In k Save at issue was regionally selective corresponded exclusively to the territory of Gibraltar and that, consequently, no comparison could be made with the system applicable to the Unit-edKingdom .
O trditvi, da bo podjetje TV 2, ki je pooblaščeno za opravljanje SSGP (TV 2), svojo komercialno dejavnost neizogibno subvencioniralo z državnim ê na nc iran jem javne službe, je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da to pomeni kvečjemu tveganje, ki ga morajo države članice preprečiti, Komisija pa sankcionirati, če je treba.
In that eventuality, the Commission must determine, in a third stage, that that is indeed the case.
(f) Pomoč za povrnitev škode, ki sojo povzročili izjemni dogodki
In that connection, the Court added that, if the Commission fails to carry out the first two abovementioned stages, it cannot embark upon the third stage, as otherwise it will go beyond the limits of its review.
V skladu s členom 87(2)(b) ES so s skupnim trgom združljive pomoči, dodeljene za povrnitev škode, ki sojo povzročili izjemni dogodki.