natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indeed, the approach which the Court of Justice has adopted is particularly prudent and mindful of the various procedures established by the Commission in the context of the anti-crisis measures.
Sodi�če je poleg tega zavzelo zlasti previden in spo�tljiv odnos do različnih postopkov, ki jih je Komisija vzpostavila v okviru protikriznih ukrepov.
I refer in this regard to the judgment in Klöckner-Werke v Commission.
Pri tem mislim na sodbo z dne 7. julija 1982 v zadevi Klöckner-Werke proti Komisiji 111.
111 In that case, the applicant undertaking accused the Commission, inter alia, of having failed to take into account, when calculating production quotas, the State subsidies from which a number of undertakings in several Member States had benefited in breach of the ECSC Treaty.
V tej zadevi je pritožbeno podjetje Komisiji namreč očitalo, da v okviru izračuna proizvodnih kvot ni upo�tevala javnih subvencij, ki so jih bila deležna nekatera podjetja v več državah članicah, kar je bila kr�itev Pogodbe ESPJ.
Klöckner-Werke AG claimed that the Commission should have reacted to
Po mnenju družbe Klöckner-Werke AG
In the light of the foregoing, there is therefore no obligation on the Commission as to the conclusions to be drawn, when
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega za Komisijo ni nikakr�ne obveznosti v zvezi z
112 — The system of monitoring and production quotas is based on this provision.
112 – Sistem spremljanja in kvot proizvodnje jekla temelji na tej določbi.
113 — Judgment in Klöckner-Werke v Commission (paragraph 19; my emphasis).
113 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Klöckner-Werke proti Komisiji (točka 19; moj poudarek).
110 — Judgment in Krupp Thyssen v Commission.
110 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Krupp in Thyssen proti Komisiji.
See also the judgment in Dillinger Hüttenwerke in which the Court of Justice stated that Articles 14 A and 14 B of General Decision No 234/84 on the grant of supplementary production quotas must be applied and interpreted in the light of the rules for aids.
Glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Dillinger Hüttenwerke proti Komisiji, v kateri je Sodi�če opredelilo, da se morata člena 14A in 14B Splo�ne odločbe �t. 234/84 o dodelitvi dodatnih proizvodnih kvot uporabljati in razlagati v smislu drugih pravil.
It follows that an undertaking which is deemed to satisfy the criteria for authorisation for aid to be granted cannot receive an additional quota under Article 14 A of that decision (paragraphs 13 to 15).
Iz tega izhaja, da družba, za katero se domneva, da ustreza merilom za odobritev pomoči, ne more imeti ugodnosti dodatne kvote na podlagi člena 14A navedene odločbe (točke od 13 do 15).
The fact remains, however, that, as the monitoring authority, the Commission was required to act with all due diligence.
Glede na to je bila Komisija kot nadzorni organ dolžna ukrepati z vso dolžno skrbnostjo.
the party concerned. 115Consequently, the guarantees offered to persons in the context of dealings with the Community administration cannot be enforced by a person who has acted negligently or in bad faith.
dično, jamstev, ponujenih upravljani stranki, ne more instrumentalizirati oseba, ki je malomarna ali zlonamerna.
None the less, I do not consider this lack of diligence to be capable, in this case, of relieving the Member State of the requirement to order the recovery of the unlawfully granted aid, or the recipient undertaking from the requirement to repay it.
Vendar ne menim, da bi ta odsotnost skrbnega ravnanja v tem primeru lahko oprostila državo članico, da odredi izterjavo nezakonito dodeljenih pomoči, in družbo prejemnico, da jih vrne.
In this case, it is common ground that the contested aid was not notified in 1988 or in the following years.
V tem sporu je ugotovljeno, da ni bilo nobene priglasitve spornih pomoči v letu 1988 ali v naslednjih letih.
As the Court of Justice has held, such conduct is ‘a particularly serious breach, since [it] contravenes a system which is essential to protect the common market’. 116
Vendar, kot je presodilo Sodi�če, tak odnos pomeni „�e posebej resno kr�itev, s tem ko [ta] deluje proti predpisom […] sistema, ki je bistven za varovanje skupnega trga“ 116.
In my view, neither the Federal Republic of Germany nor Salzgitter is justified in submitting that there has been a breach of the principle of good administration on the part of the Commission, even though the grant of the aid at issue was not notified in any form whatsoever, despite the clear and unconditional nature of the obligation to do so.
Menim namreč, da Zvezna republika Nemčija in družba Salzgitter neutemeljeno vztrajata pri trditvi o kr�itvi načela dobrega upravljanja v delovanju Komisije, potem ko dodelitev zadevnih pomoči ni bila predmet nobene priglasitve v kakr�ni koli obliki, kljub jasnemu in brezpogojnemu značaju te obveznosti.
After all, the obligation to give prior notification is key to the system of preventive control introduced by the Commission under the various steel aid codes.
Obveznost predhodne priglasitve je dejansko ključ preventivnega sistema nadzora, ki ga Komisija vzpostavi v okviru različnih pravil o državnih pomočeh jeklarski industriji.
It enables the Commission to monitor the common market in coal and steel, in accordance with the objectives pursued by the ECSC Treaty, by authorising the grant of certain aid to the steel industry in response to the particular sensitivity of the sector.
Ta obveznost ji omogoča zagotavljanje nadzora nad skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo v skladu s cilji Pogodbe ESPJ, s tem da odobri dodelitev nekaterih pomoči jeklarstvu ob hkratnem upo�tevanju občutljivosti, ki je značilna za sektor.
For a Member State considering introducing a measure, that obligation also removes any doubts it might have as to whether or not that measure constitutes
Omenjena obveznost omogoča tudi odstranitev morebitnih dvomov države članice, ki namerava uvesti določen ukrep, v zvezi z vpra�anjem, ali ta pomeni pomoč, ki je dovoljena po
115 — See, for example, the judgment in Case T-82/01 Josanne and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II-2013, paragraph 81.
115 – Glej zlasti sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 8. maja 2003 v zadevi Josanne in drugi proti Komisiji (T-82/01, Recueil, str. II-2013, točka 81).
116 — Order in Germany v Commission (paragraph 54 and the caselaw cited there).
116 – Zgoraj navedeni sklep Nemčija proti Komisiji (točka 54 in navedena sodna praksa).
It is important to point out that the right to good administration is not an absolute right which can be relied on in all circumstances as against the Community administration.
Spomniti je treba, da pravica do dobrega upravljanja ne pomeni absolutnega prerogativa, ki bi veljal za vse okoli�čine v skupnostnem upravljanju.
It is clear from settled caselaw that, while the principle of good administration imposes a number of obligations on the Community institutions, it also implies a certain amount of diligence on the part of
Dejansko iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da če se po načelu dobrega upravljanja institucijam Skupnosti naloži določeno �tevilo obveznosti, je posle-
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER common market in coal and steel and the rules laid down under the steel aid codes.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER veljavnih pravilih o državni pomoči jeklarstvu.
It is therefore common ground that the obligation to notify has as its purpose to ensure legal certainty and it must therefore, on that basis, be strictly observed. 117
Ugotovljeno je, da je končni cilj obveznosti priglasitve pravna varnost, in mora biti strogo spo�tovana 117.
By introducing into Article 6 of the Third Code a procedure for notifying plans such as that at issue in this case, the Commission performed the role assigned to it under the ECSC Treaty in matters of State aid, since it considered that the schemes which it had previously authorised on the basis of the EC Treaty were capable of affecting the proper functioning of the common market in coal and steel.
Z vključitvijo postopka priglasitve projektov, kot je ta v tem sporu, v člen 6 tretjih pravil, je Komisija odigrala vlogo, ki jo ima na podlagi Pogodbe ESPJ na področju državnih pomoči, takoj ko se je pokazalo, da bi sistemi, ki jih je pred tem dovolila na podlagi Pogodbe ES, lahko �kodovali dobremu delovanju skupnega trga za premog in jeklo.
As is clear from the fifth recital in the preamble to that code, the purpose was to ‘establish comprehensive Community rules to ensure that all aid which [could] still be granted to the steel industry is treated uniformly under a common procedure’.
Kot jasno izhaja iz pete uvodne izjave teh pravil, je bil cilj „vzpostaviti tak enotni skupnostni sistem, ki bi za vse pomoči, ki bi jih jeklarska industrija �e [lahko] bila deležna, zagotavljal enotno obravnavo v okviru enega samega postopka“.
Those rules therefore ensure equal treatment between Member States and economic operators whether they notify aid granted specifically to a steel undertaking, under the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 6(1) of the Third Code, or aid granted under a general scheme of aid, under the second paragraph of Article 6(1) of the Third code.
Omenjeni sistem tako zagotavlja enako obravnavanje med državami članicami in gospodarskimi subjekti glede na to, ali priglasijo pomoč, posebej dodeljeno jeklarskemu podjetju, v skladu s členom 6(1), prvi stavek, tretjih pravil, ali pomoč, dodeljeno na podlagi splo�nega sistema pomoči, v skladu s členom 6(1)(2) teh pravil.
It would be contrary to the principle of equal treatment for aid granted under a general scheme of aid authorised on the basis of the EC Treaty to be authorised, but aid notified under a steel aid code not.
Dejansko bi bilo v nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja, če bi bila odobrena pomoč, dodeljena na podlagi splo�nega sistema pomoči, ki se dovoli na podlagi Pogodbe ES, v nasprotju s tako, ki je bila prigla�ena v skladu s pravili o pomoči jeklarstvu.
Such a situation would run counter to the objectives pursued by the ECSC Treaty and would divest of all effectiveness the system of preventive control established by the Commission in Article 6 of the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth codes.
To je v nasprotju s cilji ESPJ in bi sistemu preventivnega nadzora, ki ga je Komisija vzpostavila v členu 6 tretjih, četrtih, petih in �estih pravil, odvzel ves polni učinek.
Such a situation would also bring with it the risk that the rules laid down under the ECSC Treaty, in particular the prohibition of State aid in Article 4(c) CS, would be circumvented in favour of the more flexible rules of the EC Treaty.
Tak položaj bi obenem povzročil tudi nevarnost, da se predpisi, določeni v okviru Pogodbe ESPJ, in zlasti prepoved državnih pomoči, določena v členu 4(c) PJ, izpeljejo v korist prožnej�ih predpisov Pogodbe ES.
Those rules make it possible to ensure that a general scheme of aid, authorised by the Commission on the basis of the EC Treaty, may not continue to be implemented under the ECSC Treaty when it is apparent that it impedes the proper working of the
Ta sistem omogoča izogniti se temu, da bi splo�ni sistem pomoči, ki ga odobri Komisija na podlagi Pogodbe ES, povzročal
117 — Judgment in Case C-99/98 Austria v Commission [2001] ECR I-1101, paragraphs 73 and 85.
117 – Sodba z dne 15. februarja 2001 v zadevi Avstrija proti Komisiji (C-99/98, Recueil, str. I-1101, točki 73 in 85).
In this case, it is not disputed that, contrary to the obligations imposed on the Member States by Article 6 of the Third
V tem sporu ni izpodbijano, da so bile sporne pomoči, v nasprotju z obveznostmi,
and Fifth Codes by relying on the findings which the Commission would be prompted to make from studying the documents sent by Salzgitter or in its examination of the general scheme of aid which it was able to carry out on the basis of the EC Treaty.
priglasitve, ki je bila njena dolžnost v skladu s členom 6 tretjih, četrtih in petih pravil o državnih pomočeh na podlagi ugotovitev, ki bi jih morala Komisija opraviti s preučitvijo dokumentov, ki jih posreduje družba Salzgitter, ali v okviru preučitve splo�nega sistema pomoči, ki jo je lahko opravila na podlagi Pogodbe ES.
It is clear that the communication by Salzgitter to the Commission of its annual reports or some other similar document, under the system for monitoring steel quotas and investments, cannot replace due notification in accordance with the requirements of that provision.
Očitno obvestilo, v katerem družba Salzgitter Komisijo seznani s poslovnimi poročili ali z vsakim drugim podobnim dokumentom v okviru nadzora nad kvotami jekla in naložb, ne more nadomestiti priglasitve v pravilni in dolžni obliki, ki ustreza predpisom omenjene določbe.
For, if that were the case, a Member State could circumvent its obligation to give prior notification of aid and, as a consequence, divest the preventive control exercised by the Commission of any effectiveness.
Če bi bilo tako, bi namreč država članica lahko zaob�la dolžnost predhodne priglasitve pomoči in bi posledično tako odvzela vsakr�en učinek preventivnemu nadzoru Komisije.
In this case, it is common ground that, by failing to notify to the Commission, for almost 10 years, plans to apply Article 3 of the ZRFG to Salzgitter, the Federal Republic of Germany failed to meet its obligations.
V tem sporu je ugotovljeno, ko Zvezna republika Nemčija s tem, da približno deset let Komisiji ni prigla�ala projektov v korist družbe Salzgitter, ki so temeljili na uporabi člena 3 ZRFG, ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti.
As the Court of Justice has held in connection with the procedure in Article 88(3) EC, the obligation to give prior notification is incumbent on the Member States only.
Kakor je Sodi�če presodilo v zvezi s postopkom, določenim v členu 88(3) ES, predhodna obveznost priglasitve zavezuje le države članice.
That obligation cannot be met if, for example, the undertaking in receipt of the aid makes the prior notification.
Te obveznosti, na primer, ni mogoče izpolniti, če to stori družba prejemnica pomoči 118.
118The Court therefore interprets very strictly the obligation to give prior notification of State aid laid down in the EC Treaty.
Sodi�če torej zelo dosledno razlaga obveznost predhodne priglasitve državnih pomoči, ki jo določa Pogodba ES.
This is particularly necessary in the context of the ECSC Treaty, which, it will be recalled, authorises the grant of State aid only by way of derogation.
Še toliko bolj v okviru Pogodbe ESPJ, ki – na kar opominjam – le izjemoma dovoli dodelitev državnih pomoči.
It follows that the Federal Republic of Germany could not evade its obligation to notify under Article 6 of the Third, Fourth
Iz tega sledi, da se Zvezna republika Nemčija ni mogla izogniti obveznosti
118 — Judgment in Joined Cases C-442/03 P and C-471/03 P P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission [2006] ECR I-4845, paragraph 103.
118 – Sodba z dne 1. junija 2006 v združenih zadevah P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) in Diputación Foral de Vizcaya proti Komisiji (C-442/03 P in C-471/03 P, ZOdl., str. I-4845, točka 103). 288.
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER tisti, ki se nana�ajo na skupne tržne ureditve.
Now, as part of my analysis of the third limb of the first plea, I shall examine whether the Commission was none the less entitled to require repayment of the aid at issue without breaching the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.
V okviru preučitve tretjega dela prvega pritožbenega razloga bom preučil, ali bi Komisija lahko kljub temu zahtevala vračilo zadevnih pomoči, ne da bi s tem kr�ila načeli pravne varnosti in varstva legitimnih pričakovanj.
The third limb of the first plea, alleging an incorrect interpretation of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations
Tretji del prvega pritožbenega razloga: napačna razlaga načel pravne varnosti in varstva legitimnih pričakovanj
Salzgitter submits, in essence, that the Court of First Instance correctly applied the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.
Družba Salzgitter v bistvu zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno uporabilo načeli pravne varnosti in varstva legitimnih pričakovanj.
It is my understanding that, by the third limb of the first plea, the Commission accuses the Court of First Instance of having incorrectly applied the caselaw of the Court of Justice relating to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, in finding that the Commission infringed those principles by requiring repayment of the aid granted to Salzgitter between 1986 and 1995.
Razumem, da Komisija s tretjim delom prvega pritožbenega razloga Sodi�ču prve stopnje očita, da je napačno uporabilo sodno prakso Sodi�ča o načelih pravne varnosti in varstva legitimnih pričakovanj, ko je presodilo, da naj bi Komisija z zahtevo po povrnitvi pomoči, dodeljenih družbi Salzgitter v letih od 1986 do 1995, kr�ila ta načela.
It states that, in accordance with the caselaw of the Court of Justice, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations may be invoked as against Community rules to the extent that the Community itself has previously created a situation which can give rise to a legitimate expectation.
Opozarja, da se je proti zakonski ureditvi Skupnosti, v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča, mogoče sklicevati na načelo varstva legitimnih pričakovanj, v primerih, ko je Skupnost sama predhodno ustvarila tak položaj, ki lahko vzbudi legitimna pričakovanja 120.
120In this case, the Commission authorised the ZRFG on several occasions and without reservation, and moreover, stated, in the First Code, that it was bound to continue to regard aid schemes such as the ZRFG as lawful. 121
Vendar naj bi v tej zadevi Komisija večkrat in brez zadržka odobrila ZRFG in v okviru prvih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu razglasila, da je bila dolžna sisteme pomoči, kot je ZRFG, �e naprej �teti za zakonite 121.
119 — The Commission refers to the judgment in Case C-63/93 Duff and Others [1996] ECR I-569, paragraph 20.
119 – Komisija se sklicuje na sodbo z dne 15. februarja 1996 v zadevi Duff in drugi (C-63/93, Recueil, str. I-569, točka 20).
120 — Judgment in Case C-14/01 Niemann [2003] ECR I-2279, paragraph 56.
120 – Sodba z dne 6. marca 2003 v zadevi Niemann (C-14/01, Recueil, str. I-2279, točka 56).
The Commission considers that the judgment under appeal infringes the principle
Komisija meni, da izpodbijana sodba ogroža načelo pravne varnosti, ker naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje ne poznalo narave predpisov v zvezi s pomočmi jeklarstvu.
121 — First to fourth recitals in the preamble to the First Code.
121 – Prva in četrta uvodna izjava prvih pravil.
In this case, the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the persons concerned were not in a position to know precisely the extent of the obligations imposed on them in so far as the new rules were neither clear nor sufficiently reasoned.
Vendar Zvezna republika Nemčija v tej zadevi meni, da se zainteresirane stranke niso mogle natančno seznaniti z obsegom njim naloženih obveznosti, pri čemer nova ureditev ni bila ne jasna in ne dovolj obrazložena.
The Court of First Instance was therefore entitled to find that there had been an infringement of the principle of legal certainty.
Zato naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje upravičeno priznalo kr�itev načela pravne varnosti.
Furthermore, Salzgitter states that the Commission did not begin to examine Member States’ tax schemes from the point of view of the law on State aid until 1998.
Poleg tega družba Salzgitter natančno opredeli, da je Komisija �ele leta 1998 začela preverjati davčne sisteme držav članic z vidika pravice do državnih pomoči.
In this regard, it refers to certain decisions in which the Commission did not order the recovery of aid granted under a national tax scheme for reasons linked, in particular, to the protection of legitimate expectations.
Glede tega se sklicuje na različne odločbe Komisije, v katerih ta ni odredila izterjave pomoči, dodeljenih na podlagi nacionalnega davčnega sistema, iz razlogov, ki se navezujejo predvsem na varstvo legitimnih pričakovanj 122.
122It therefore submits that, by requiring repayment of the aid granted to Salzgitter, the contested decision infringes the principle of equal treatment.
Zatrjuje torej, da sporna odločba, ko zahteva vračilo pomoči, dodeljenih družbi Salzgitter, kr�i načelo enakega obravnavanja.
The Federal Republic of Germany considers that the Court of First Instance was right to refer to the aforementioned judgments in Duff and Others 123and Oliveira v Commission 124in so far as they give the broadest definition of the protection offered by the principle of legal certainty.
Zvezna republika Nemčija meni, da se je Sodi�če prve stopnje upravičeno sklicevalo na zgoraj navedeni sodbi Duff in drugi 123 ter Oliveira proti Komisiji 124v delu, s katerim
As I have said, the Court of First Instance held, in paragraph 182 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission could not, in the specific circumstances of this case, order the recovery of the aid granted to Salzgitter without breaching the principle of legal certainty.
Kot sem že navedel, je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 182 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da Komisija v posebnih okoli�činah obravnavane zadeve ni mogla zahtevati vračila pomoči, dodeljenih družbi Salzgitter, ne da bi s tem kr�ila načelo pravne varnosti.
The Court had taken the view that the legal framework applicable to the recipient undertaking was not clear and that the Commission, by failing to react to the information sent to it by the recipient undertaking and the Federal Republic of Germany, had disregarded its duty of care and had therefore created an equivocal situation.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je namreč �telo, da veljavni pravni okvir za družbo prejemnico ni bil jasen in da Komisija, ko se ni odzvala na podatke, ki sta ji jih posredovala družba prejemnica in Zvezna republika Nemčija, ni izpolnila dolžnosti skrbnega ravnanja in je tako ustvarila dvoumen položaj.
122 — Decision 2002/347; Commission Decision 2003/755/EC of 17 February 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ 2003 L 282, p.
122 – Odločbi Komisije 2002/347/ESPJ in 2003/755/ES z dne 17. februarja 2003 o belgijskih davčnih olaj�avah, dodeljenih centrom za koordinacijo, ki se nahajajo v Belgiji (UL L 282, str.
25); Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p.
25); 2003/515/ES z dne 17. februarja 2003 o sistemu pomoči, ki ga izvaja Nizozemska v mednarodnih dejavnostih financiranja (UL L 180, str.
52); and Commission Decision 2003/601/EC of 17 February 2003 on aid scheme C54/2001 (ex NN 55/2000) Ireland — Foreign Income (OJ 2003 L 204, p. 51).
52), in 2003/601/ES z dne 17. februarja 2003 o sistemu pomoči C54/2001 (prej NN 55/2000) Irska – prihodki iz tujine (UL L 204, str. 51).
123 — Paragraph 20.124 — Paragraph 29.
123 – Točka 20.124 – Točka 29.
In the light of the conclusions drawn in the examination of the previous two limbs, I consider, contrary to the finding of the
Glede na ugotovitve, ki sem jih navedel v okviru preizkusa dveh predhodnih točk pritožbenega razloga, menim, v nasprotju s
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I do not consider that the Commission, by ordering repayment of the contested aid, could have infringed Salzgitter’s legal certainty.
Glede na elemente, ki sem jih že navedel, ne menim, da bi Komisija, ko je zahtevala povrnitev spornih pomoči, lahko kr�ila pravno varnost družbe Salzgitter.
(i) Alleged infringement of the principle of legal certainty
i) Domnevna kr�itev načela pravne varnosti
As I have pointed out, the steel aid codes have been adopted by the Commission in the form of decisions of general application.
Kot sem navedel, je Komisija sprejela pravila o pomoči jeklarstvu v obliki odločbe splo�nega pomena.
As such, they were published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Na podlagi tega so bile objavljene v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti.