natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Regarding the substance of that part, UFEX states that the Court of First Instance is not obliged to rule on an inadmissibility plea raised by an intervener if that plea has not been raised by the defendant.
31 tega dela združenje UFEX navaja, da Sodi�ču prve stopnje ni treba odločati o ugovoru nedopustnosti, ki ga uveljavlja le intervenient, ne pa tudi tožena stranka.
As to the second part of La Poste’s plea, UFEX’s plea was not new but was raised in its application in the first set of proceedings.
Glede drugega dela pritožbenega razloga družbe La Poste pa združenje UFEX odgovarja, da njegov tožbeni razlog ni bil nov, saj ga je podal že v vlogah v prvem delu postopka.
As to the second part of the plea, La Poste seeks essentially to re-argue the substance of the inadmissibility plea that it submitted to the Court of First Instance.
Družba La Poste želi z drugim delom pritožbenega razloga pravzaprav ponovno dokazati utemeljenost ugovora nedopustnosti, ki ga je podala pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
It would be inconsistent with the Court’s caselaw referred to above to examine on appeal a plea that is inadmissible at first instance.
Z zgoraj navedeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča bi bilo nezdružljivo v okviru pritožbe odločati o pritožbenem razlogu, ki je bil nedopusten na prvi stopnji.
Regarding the first part of the plea, it is quite clear from the Court’s caselaw that an intervener does not have standing to raise a plea of inadmissibility that is not set out in the forms of order sought by the defendant.
Glede prvega dela pritožbenega razloga iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča zelo jasno izhaja, da intervenient ne more podati ugovora nedopustnosti, ki ga v predlogih ne bi uveljavljala tožena stranka.
30The Commission, as defendant, did not raise the plea in question.
30 Komisija kot tožena stranka takega tožbenega razloga ni podala.
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance was not obliged to rule on it.
V skladu s tem Sodi�ču prve stopnje o njem ni bilo treba odločati.
I therefore suggest that the Court should reject the first part of the second ground of appeal and declare the second part inadmissible.
Sodi�ču tako predlagam, naj prvi del drugega pritožbenega razloga zavrne kot neutemeljenega, drugi del pa zavrže kot nedopustnega.
The judgments of the Court which La Poste cites in support of its contention that the question is approached on a case-by-case basis in fact show, as UFEX rightly points out,
Sodbe Sodi�ča, na katere se sklicuje družba La Poste v utemeljitev trditve, da se odloča o vpra�anju glede na okoli�čine vsake zadeve posebej, pravzaprav dokazujejo, kot
31 — Joined Cases C-305/86 and C-160/87 Neotype Techmash-export v Commission and Council [1990] ECR I-2945, paragraph 18, and Case C-313/90 CIRFS v Commission [1993] ECR I-1125, paragraph 23.
31 – Sodba z dne 11. julija 1990 v združenih zadevah Neotype Techmashexport proti Komisiji in Svetu (C-305/86 in C-160/87, Recueil, str.
In those cases, the plea of inadmissibility alleged lack of standing of the applicants.
I-2945, točka 18) in sodba Sodi�ča z dne 24. marca 1993 v zadevi CIRFS proti Komisiji (C-313/90, Recueil, str. I-1125, točka 23).
In the much older Joined Cases 42 and 49/59 SNUPAT v High Authority [1961] ECR 53, p.
V precej starej�i sodbi (sodba Sodi�ča z dne 22. marca 1961 v zadevi SNUPAT proti Visoki oblasti (42/59 in 49/59, Recueil, str.
75, the Court did not expressly state that an issue of public policy was raised, but acknowledged the right of the interveners to raise a plea of inadmissibility challenging the application to annul an act which was merely confirmatory of another that was timebarred.
103 in 145) Sodi�če ni izrecno navedlo, da gre za vpra�anje javnega reda, vendar je intervenientom dopustilo podati ugovor nedopustnosti, s katerim so izpodbijali tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti akta, s katerim je bil le potrjen akt z omejeno časovno veljavo.
Third ground of appeal: Error of law in respect of the assessment of the statement of reasons in the contested decision
Tretji pritožbeni razlog: napačna uporaba prava pri presoji obrazložitve izpodbijane odločbe.
It is first necessary to set out in some detail the relevant parts of the contested decision and the judgment under appeal.
Najprej je treba natančneje navesti upo�tevne dele izpodbijane odločbe in izpodbijane sodbe.
To calculate the total cost of the assistance to SFMI-Chronopost, [La Poste] calculates first the direct operating costs before central and local offices’ overheads on the basis of the production range (chain of elementary operations) of the ser -vices provided and the actual traffic volumes.
Za izračun celotnega zneska stro�kov podpore družbi SFMI-Chronopost [družba La Poste] najprej izračuna svoje neposredne stro�ke poslovanja, brez stro�kov sedeža in lokalnih direkcij, pri čemer izhaja iz ponudbe proizvodov (veriga osnovnih storitev), ki ustreza dejanski storitvi in obsegu dejanskega prometa.
The central and local offices’ overheads are then allocated in proportion to the operating costs of each service. 34
Nato se stro�ki sedeža in lokalnih direkcij proporcionalno porazdelijo k osnovnim stro�kom posamezne storitve. 34
The contested decision
Izpodbijana odločba
[iv] sion describes, inter alia, the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost and explains how their cost is calculated and accounted for:
V uvodni izjavi 33 32 izpodbijane odločbe je, med drugim, opisana logistična in komercialna podpora, ki jo družba La Poste nudi družbi SFMI-Chronopost, in pojasnjeno, kako so izračunani in prikazani njeni stro�ki:
Logistical assistance, which consists in making available to SFMI-Chronopost the usage of the postal infrastructure for the collection, sorting, transport and delivery of its dispatches.
Logistična podpora pomeni, da družba SFMI-Chronopost lahko uporablja po�tno infrastrukturo za zbiranje, urejanje, prevoz in dostavo svojih po�iljk.
As regards the production range, [La Poste] did not have an analytical accounting system which enabled it to calculate the real costs incurred in providing the logistical assistance to SFMI-Chronopost.
Glede raznovrstnosti storitev [družba La Poste] ni imela analitičnega računovodskega sistema, ki bi ji omogočal izračun dejanskih stro�kov logistične podpore družbi SFMI-Chronopost.
Until 1992 those costs were calculated on the basis of approximations.
Do leta 1992 so te stro�ke izračunavali na podlagi približnih ocen.
The services provided to SFMI-Chronopost were divided into elementary operations, which before 1992 had not bee[n] timed.
Storitve za družbo SFMI-Chronopost so bile razdeljene med osnovne storitve, ki pred letom 1992 časovno niso bile določene.
To establish those costs [La Poste] compared the corresponding services to similar existing postal services, whose operations had
Za izračun teh stro�kov je [družba La Poste] te storitve primerjala s podobnimi obstoječimi po�tnimi storitvami, katerih posamezne faze so že bile časovno določene in ovrednotene (na primer dostava priporočenega pisma).
32 — Part D of the contested decision.
32 – Del D izpodbijane odločbe.
34 — In the 42nd recital the Commission further states that fixed costs have been allocated in proportion to the business
34 – Komisija v uvodni izjavi 42 pojasnjuje �e, da je bil pri porazdelitvi fiksnih stro�kov upo�tevan tudi delež iz poslovanja, ki ga je v imenu hčerinske družbe opravila družba.
33 — I have given Roman numerals to the paragraphs of this recital for ease of reference.
33 – Točke so zaradi poenostavitve sklicevanj označene z rimskimi �tevilkami.
Poste, including those related to commercial assistance.
SHARPSTON – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-341/06 P IN C-342/06 P ki jih ima družba La Poste, vključno s tistimi, ki so povezani s komercialno podporo.
In 1992 those operations were timed and valued, account being taken of the actual traffic volumes of the express courier activity.
čunani z upo�tevanjem dejanskega obsega prometa pri storitvah hitre dostave.
This has enabled [La Poste] to assess the actual cost of the logistical assistance.’
Ti izračuni so [družbi La Poste] omogočili presojo dejanskih stro�kov logistične podpore“.
Paragraph [vi] states that the remuneration paid by SFMI-Chronopost covered total costs by 116.1% over the period 1986 to 1991 and 119% over the period 1986 to 1995 in cumulative terms.
Komisija je v točki [vi] ugotovila, da je plačilo, ki ga je plačevala družba SFMI-Chronopost, v celoti pokrilo 116,1 % skupnih stro�kov med letoma 1986 in 1991 in 119 % med letoma 1986 in 1995.
In 1986 and 1987 the cover rates were 70.3% and 84.3% respectively.
Stopnja kritja je v letu 1986 zna�ala 70,3 odstotka, v letu 1987 pa 84,3 odstotka.
In those two years, revenues covered direct costs before central and local offices’ overheads.
V teh dveh letih so dohodki pokrili neposredne stro�ke poslovanja brez stro�kov sedeža in lokalnih direkcij.
In the 34threcital 35the Commission summarised SFEI’s allegations of State aid based on conclusions contained in the economic reports it had commissioned.
V točki 34 35je Komisija povzela trditve glede državne pomoči, ki jih je podala družba SFEI na podlagi ugotovitev iz gospodarskih poročil, ki jih je naročila.
The total State aid alleged was FRF 1.516 billion over the period 1986 to 1991, comprising FRF 1.048 billion of logistical aid and FRF 468 million for commercial assistance.
Celotna domnevna državna pomoč naj bi za obdobje med letoma 1986 in 1991 zna�ala 1,516 milijarde FRF, od tega naj bi logistična podpora zna�ala 1,048 milijarde, komercialna podpora pa 468milijonov.
36 For the overall amount of aid alleged, the Commission explained the ‘normal market price’ approach taken by SFEI.
36 Pri celotnem znesku domnevne pomoči je Komisija obrazložila pristop „običajnih tržnih razmer“, ki ga je uporabilo združenje SFEI.
For logistical assistance, SFEI calculated the cost by reference to an undertaking which set up and operated a network similar to La Poste’s.
V zvezi z logistično podporo se je združenje SFEI sklicevalo na podjetje, ki je vzpostavilo in upravljalo podobno omrežje kot družba La Poste.
For commercial assistance, the Commission summarised SFEI’s methodology to the extent that it believed it was explained in the complaint.
V zvezi s komercialno podporo je Komisija povzela metodologijo združenja SFEI v tak�nem obsegu, kot je bila obrazložena v pritožbi.
In this connection, the complainant maintains that in 1986 [La Poste] transferred the customers of the Postadex product to SFMI-Chrono-post for no consideration (Postadex was replaced by EMS-Chronopost in 1986).
Pritožnik v zvezi s tem opozarja, da je [družba La Poste] leta 1986 brez protidajatve prenesla na družbo SFMI-Chronopost tudi stranke proizvodov Postadex (proizvod Postadex je leta 1986 zamenjal proizvod EMS-Chronopost).
In addition, SFMI benefits from promotional and advertising campaigns undertaken by [La Poste].’
Poleg tega ima družba SFMI korist od promocijskih in ogla�evalskih akcij, ki jih izvaja [družba La Poste].“
In its assessment, the Commission first rejected SFEI’s ex novo approach to valuing logistical assistance and its evaluation of individual components of commercial assistance.
Komisija je v presoji najprej zavrnila pristop ex novo, ki ga je pri ovrednotenju logistične pomoči uporabilo združenje SFEI, in njegovo ovrednotenje posameznih komponent komercialne podpore.
37 In respect of the latter, the Commission stated why it did not consider that the transfer of Postadex, which SFEI had valued
37Komisija je glede te pojasnila, zakaj meni, da prenos storitev Postadex, ki ga je združenje SFEI
35 — Part E of the contested decision.
35 – Del E izpodbijane odločbe.
36 — Those amounts approximate to, respectively, EUR 231 million, EUR 160 million and EUR 71 million.
36 – Navedene zneski zna�ajo približno 231 milijonov EUR, 160 milijonov EUR in 71 milijonov EUR.
Paragraph [xi] explains that the prices paid by SFMI-Chronopost for logistical existence also cover the total costs incurred by La
V točki [xi] je pojasnjeno, da cene, ki jih družba SFMI-Chronopost plačuje za logistično podporo, krijejo tudi skupne stro�ke,
CHRONOPOST AND LA POSTE v UFEX AND OTHERS case at hand, which concerned the behaviour of a parent company and its subsidiary.
CHRONOPOST IN LA POSTE PROTI UFEXU IN DRUGIM se nana�a na razmerje med matično družbo in njeno hčerinsko družbo.
The Court had never suggested that a different approach should be taken when one of the parties had a monopoly.
Sodi�če ni nikoli navedlo, da je treba, kadar ima ena izmed strank monopol, uporabiti drugačen pristop.
The Commission continued: at FRF 38 million, 38 constituted State aid.
Komisija je nadaljevala: ocenilo na 38 milijonov FRF, 38ne pomeni državne pomoči.
It did not entail any cash advantage for SFMI-Chronopost.
Ta prenos za družbo SFMI-Chronopost ni pomenil nikakr�ne denarne prednosti.
Access by a subsidiary to a parent company’s customer base, which was an intangible asset, was a common feature of relationships between companies in a group.
Dostop hčerinske družbe do baze strank matične družbe je za družbo sicer nematerialno premoženje, vendar je to pogost pojav v razmerjih znotraj skupine družb.
The transfer was the logical corollary of the creation of SFMI-Chronopost to run La Poste’s express delivery services.
Prenos je bil logični zaključni del ustanovitve družbe SFMI-Chronopost, ki naj bi opravljala storitve hitre dostave družbe La Poste.
‘[56] Accordingly, the relevant question is whether the terms of the transaction between [La Poste] and SFMI-Chronopost are comparable to those of an equivalent transaction between a private parent company, which may very well be a monopoly (for instance, because of the ownership of exclusive rights), and its subsidiary. …
„[(56] Tako je bistveno vpra�anje, ali so razmere za poslovanje med družbama [La Poste] in SFMI-Chronopost primerljive z razmerami za enako poslovanje med zasebno matično družbo, ki ima lahko monopolni položaj (na primer, če bi imela izključne pravice), in njeno hčerinsko družbo. […].
Next, the Commission rejected SFEI’s overall approach to evaluating State aid. 39
Komisija je v nadaljevanju zavrnila celosten pristop združenja SFEI pri ovrednotenju državne pomoči 39.
It considered that SFEI’s reasoning reflected a fundamental flaw 40in the interpretation of the SFEI judgment. 41According to the
Po njenem mnenju je to storilo bistveno napako 40pri razlagi sodbe SFEI 41.
Commission, SFEI had interpreted ‘normal market price’ to mean the price at which a comparable private company would provide those services to an unrelated company, including a fee for access to the postal network.
Komisija meni, da je združenje SFEI napačno razlagalo pojem „običajne tržne razmere“ kot ceno, ki bi jo moralo za te storitve primerljivo zasebno podjetje plačati nepovezani družbi, vključno s pristojbino za dostop do po�tnega omrežja.
However, nothing in the Court’s caselaw suggested that it should disregard the strategic considerations and synergies arising from the fact that La Poste and SFMI-Chronopost belonged to the same group.
Vendar iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča ne izhaja, da je treba pri taki presoji izključiti strate�ke nagibe in sinergije, ki izhajajo iz dejstva, da sta družbi La Poste in SFMI-Chronopost pripadali isti skupini.
Such considerations played an important role in investment decisions of a holding company and were thus applicable to the
Taki nagibi so bili izredno pomembni pri investicijskih odločitvah holdinga in jih je bilo treba upo�tevati v obravnavani zadevi, ki
38 — Approximately EUR 5.8 million.
38 – Približno 5,8 milijona EUR.39 – Uvodne izjave od 49 do 57.40 – Uvodna izjava 53.41 – Navedena v opombi 8.
39 — 49th to 57th recitals.40 — 53rd recital.
Glej tudi točko 4 zgoraj.
[57] The Commission considers that internal prices at which products and services are transacted between companies belonging to the same group do not involve any financial advantage whatsoever if they are full-cost prices (total costs plus a mark-up to remunerate equity capital investment).
[57] Komisija meni, da notranje cene menjave blaga in storitev med podjetjema znotraj iste skupine ne pomenijo nikakr�ne finančne koristi, če so izračunane na podlagi skupnih stro�kov (torej skupnih stro�kov in donosa na lastni�ki kapital).
In this case payments made by SFMI-Chronopost did not cover total costs over the first two years of operation, but covered total costs before central and local offices’ overheads.
Plačila, ki jih je v prvih dveh poslovnih letih izvr�ila družba SFMI-Chronopost, niso pokrila skupnih stro�kov, ampak skupne stro�ke sedeža in lokalnih direkcij.
The Commission considers that this situation is not abnormal since revenues from the operations of a new firm belonging to a group of companies may cover only variable costs in the start-up period.
Komisija meni, da tak�na situacija ni neobičajna, saj lahko v začetni fazi prihodek iz dejavnosti novega podjetja, ki sodi v skupino družb, pokrije le variabilne stro�ke.
Once the undertaking has stabilised its position on the market, the
Ko pa podjetje utrdi svoj položaj na trgu, mora poslovati s prihodkom, ki je vi�ji od variabilnih stro�kov, da lahko prispeva k pokritju fiksnih stro�kov skupine.
Over the first two years (1986 to 1987) of operation payment made by SFMI-Chronopost covered not only variable costs, but also some fixed costs (such as buildings and vehicles).
tudi določene fiksne (na primer za stavbe in vozila).
France has shown that as from 1988 the remuner -ation paid by SFMI-Chronopost for the assistance covers all the costs incurred by [La Poste], plus a contribution by way of interest on its equity capital.
Francija je dokazala, da plačilo, ki ga je družba SFMI-Chronopost plačala družbi La Poste za zagotovljeno podporo, od leta 1988 krije stro�ke, ki so nastali družbi La Poste, poleg tega je bil plačan tudi prispevek za donos lastnega kapitala.
Therefore, the logistical and commercial assistance was provided by [La Poste] to its subsidiary under normal business conditions and did not constitute State aid.’
Posledično je bila logistična in komercialna podpora družbe La Poste svoji hčerinski družbi dana pod običajnimi pogoji in ni državna pomoč.“
After summarising the relevant caselaw of the Community courts, 43the Court of
Sodi�če prve stopnje je potem, ko je povzelo upo�tevno sodno prakso sodi�č Skupnosti, 43 določilo obseg svojega nadzora nad obrazložitvijo izpodbijane odločbe. 44
First Instance set out the scope of its review of the statement of reasons in the contested decision. 44In the light of Chronopost I, it had to examine in particular the adequacy of that statement as regards whether the price charged to SFMI-Chronopost for assistance covered La Poste’s additional, variable costs incurred, an appropriate contribution to fixed costs arising from the use of the postal network and an adequate return on the capital investment relating to SFMI-Chrono-post’s competitive activity.
Sodi�če je moralo ob upo�tevanju sodbe Chronopost I preizkusiti zlasti to, ali je Komisija izpodbijano odločbo dovolj obrazložila glede vpra�anja, ali protidajatev, ki jo plačuje družba SFMI-Chronopost za prejeto podporo, krije dodatne variabilne stro�ke družbe La Poste, ali v primernem obsegu krije fiksne stro�ke, ki nastajajo zaradi uporabe po�tnega omrežja, in ali je rast lastni�kega kapitala glede na konkurenčno dejavnost družbe SFMI-Chronopost dovolj visoka.
The Court of First Instance considered that ‘the reasons for which the Commission rejected the method for calculating the costs proposed by the applicants are clear from the grounds set out in [the 49thto 56threcitals] of the contested decision’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je menilo, da „razlogi, zaradi katerih je Komisija zavrnila predlagani način izračunavanja stro�kov tožečih strank, […] jasno izhajajo iz uvodnih izjav od 49 do 56 izpodbijane odločbe“.
45 However, it also had to examine the Commission’s reasoning in respect of (i) how it calculated and assessed
45Presoditi je moralo tudi obrazložitev Komisije glede (i) izračuna in ocene stro�kov
The Commission also considered that the provision of logistical and commercial assistance did not constitute State aid under the market economy investor principle.
Komisija je poleg tega presodila, da logistična in komercialna podpora ne pomenita državne pomoči niti ob upo�tevanju načela tržno usmerjenega investitorja.
42The internal rate of return (‘IRR’) — based on dividends distributed by SFMI-Chrono-post plus the growth in value of La Poste’s original capital injection — exceeded SFMI-Chronopost’s cost of equity in 1986.
42Interna stopnja donosnosti matične družbe („IRR“) v obliki dividend, ki jih izplačuje družba SFMI-Chronopost, in rasti kapitala, ki ga je prispevala družba La Poste, je leta 1986 presegla stro�ke lastnega kapitala družbe SFMI-Chronopost.
That still held true if the FRF 38 million alleged by SFEI to be the value of Postadex was included as an equity injection in the IRR calculation, together with SFEI’s valuation th rd
To bi držalo, tudi če bi kot finančno injekcijo pri ovrednotenju interne stopnje donosnosti upo�tevali 38 milijonov FRF, kolikor naj bi bila po trditvah združenja SFEI vrednost storitev Postadex, ter vrednost, na katero je združenje SFEI ocenilo ugodne pogoje, ki
43 — Paragraphs 63 to 71.44 — Paragraphs 72 to 73.45 — Paragraph 73.
43 – Točke od 63 do 71 sodbe.44 – Točki 72 in 73.45 – Točka 73.
CHRONOPOST AND LA POSTE v UFEX AND OTHERS
CHRONOPOST IN LA POSTE PROTI UFEXU IN DRUGIM družbe La Poste po metodi „skupnih stro�kov“ in (ii) s tem povezano protidajatev.
Since the costs incurred before 1992 were based on approximations, the manner in which the services were compared needed to be explained in order for any factual errors or errors of assessment to be ascertained.
Glede na to, da so stro�ke, nastale do leta 1992, ugotavljali na podlagi približnih presoj, bi moral biti v izpodbijani odločbi pojasnjen način primerjave, da bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti napačno ugotovljeno dejansko stanje ali napako pri presoji.
Finally, it was not at all clear how commercial assistance was taken into account when calculating the full costs.
Nazadnje, ni bilo povsem jasno, kako je bila pri izračunu skupnih stro�kov upo�tevana komercialna podpora.
Turning first to the additional, variable costs, 46the Court of First Instance considered that the 33rdand 57threcitals of the contested decision did not sufficiently indicate the precise scope that the Commission intended to confer on the economic and accounting concepts used for that purpose, or the precise nature of the costs examined by the Commission to show that there had been no State aid, in order to permit a review of whether those costs actually corresponded to the additional, variable costs incurred in providing the logistical and commercial assistance within the meaning of Chronopost I. Explanations subsequently provided by the Commission merely reinforced the conclusion that the reasoning in the contested decision itself was far too general.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je glede dodatnih variabilnih stro�kov 46 presodilo, da razlogi iz uvodnih izjav 33 in 57 izpodbijane odločbe ne prikazujejo niti natančnega pomena, ki ga je Komisija nameravala pripisati uporabljenim gospodarskim in računovodskim konceptom, uporabljenim v zvezi s tem, niti vrste stro�kov, ki jih je proučila, da bi ugotovila neobstoj državne pomoči, da bi Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko preverilo, ali ti stro�ki ustrezajo dodatnim variabilnim stro�kom, ki so nastali z zagotavljanjem logistične in komercialne podpore v smislu sodbe Chronopost I. Pojasnila, ki jih je Komisija naknadno predložila, le potrjujejo ugotovitev, da je bila obrazložitev izpodbijane odločbe v tem delu bistveno preveč splo�na.
The Court of First Instance concluded that the contested decision should have included an appropriate statement of reasons in that connection and, at the very least, a general summary of the analytical accounting calculations in relation to the services provided to SFMI-Chronopost, the confidential data having possibly been deleted.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da bi morala biti izpodbijana odločba v zvezi s tem ustrezno obrazložena in zajemati vsaj splo�en povzetek izračunov poslovnega računovodstva za storitve družbi SFMI-Chronopost, pri čemer so bili zaupni podatki po potrebi izpu�čeni.