natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The caselaw in the aforementioned judgments in Cook v Commission and Matra v Commission is clearly a reflection of the Court’s intention to extend the scope of judicial protection to persons who are unable to show, at that stage of the procedure, that they fulfil the very strict criteria laid down in the judgment in Plaumann v Commission.
Iz sodne prakse na podlagi prej omenjenih sodb Cook proti Komisiji in Matra proti Komisiji je jasno vidno, da si Sodi�če prizadeva raz�iriti obseg sodnega varstva na osebe, ki ne morejo dokazati, da izpolnjujejo zelo stroga merila, določena v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Plaumann proti Komisiji.
It should be pointed out, in that regard, that there is no form of publication that informs third parties of aid projects which have been notified.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da ne obstaja sredstvo javnega obve�čanja, ki bi tretje osebe obve�čalo o prigla�enih načrtih pomoči.
In the judgment in Heineken Brouwerijen, 50the Court of Justice had stated, accordingly, that Article 88(3) EC ‘does not require that the notification to the Commission by a Member State of plans to grant or alter aid should be immediately made known to all the interested parties; such an
Sodi�če je v sodbi Heineken Brouwerijen 50določilo, da člen 88(3) ES „ne predvideva, da je treba takoj, ko država članica Komisiji priglasi načrte, ki nameravajo vzpostaviti ali spremeniti pomoči, o tem obvestiti vse zainteresirane stranke, to obveznost ima le Komisija, ko začne postopek
52 — In that regard, Advocate General Tesauro stated, in his Opinion delivered in Cook v Commission, that undertakings therefore cannot be required to formulate in the document instituting the proceedings precise submissions regarding the size and the effect of the aid, such as its impact on the recipient’s production costs, shifts in market shares or the effect on trading patterns (point 41).
52 – V zvezi s tem je generalni pravobranilec Tesauro v sklep- nih predlogih k zadevi v zgoraj omenjeni sodbi Cook proti Komisiji zapisal, da s temi pogoji od podjetij ne moremo zahtevati, da v svoji vlogi na vi�jo stopnjo natančno opredelijo pomembne negativne posledice in vpliv pomoči, kot je vpliv pomoči na proizvodne stro�ke prejemnika, razvoj tržnih deležev ali vpliv na gospodarsko menjavo (točka 41).
50 — Joined Cases 91/83 and 127/83 [1984] ECR 3435.
50 – Sodba z dne 9. oktobra 1984 (91/83 in 127/83, Recueil, str. 3435).
Moreover, once the formal investigation procedure has been initiated and the interested parties have been able to lodge their observations in that regard, the action brought against the Commission’s decision undeniably seeks to call in question the validity of its assessment.
Ko se začne postopek formalnega preizkusa in ko so imele zainteresirane stranke v okviru tega možnost podati pripombe, z vloženo tožbo zoper odločbo Komisije nedvomno nameravajo dokazati, da njena presoja ni bila utemeljena.
It is therefore apparent that any person wishing to bring an action against that decision will have to show an individual interest and establish, in accordance with the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice in the judgment in Cofaz and Others v Commission, that its competitive market position is substantially affected.
Zato je očitno, da bi vsakdo, ki bi želel vložiti tožbo zoper to odločitev, moral opravičiti svoj posebni interes in v smislu meril, ki jih je določilo Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Cofaz proti Komisiji, dokazati, da je njegov konkurenčni položaj na trgu bistveno prizadet.
(b) Assessment in the light of the present cases the admissibility of the action for annulment brought by Kronofrance in the light of the caselaw laid down by the Court of Justice in the aforementioned judgments in Cook v Commission and Matra v Commis­sion.
b) Presoja v obravnavanih primerih ničnosti, ki ga je vložilo podjetje Kronofrance, glede na sodno prakso, ki jo je Sodi�če določilo z zgoraj omenjenima sodbama Cook proti Komisiji in Matra proti Komisiji.
I would remind the Court that Kronofrance complained that the Commission had infringed its procedural rights by refusing to initiate the formal investigation stage which would have enabled it, as an interested party, to submit its observations with regard to the grant of the planned aid.
Opozarjam, da je to podjetje Komisiji očitalo, da je kr�ila njegove procesne pravice, ker ni začela postopka formalnega preizkusa, v skladu s katerim bi lahko kot zainteresirana stranka predložilo svoje pripombe v zvezi z dodelitvijo zadevne pomoči.
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance considered that, ‘where, by an action for annulment of a Commission decision taken at the end of the preliminary stage, an applicant seeks to secure compliance with the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 88(2) EC, the mere fact that it has the status of a “party concerned” within the meaning of that provision is sufficient for it to be regarded as directly and individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC”.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je prav tako opozorilo, da „kadar torej tožeča stranka želi s tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije, sprejete na podlagi predhodnega preizkusa, doseči spo�tovanje procesnih jamstev iz člena 88(2), že dejstvo, da je zadevna stranka v smislu navedene določbe, zadostuje, da se jo obravnava, da jo odločba neposredno in posamično zadeva v smislu člena 230, četrti odsta - vek ES“ 54.
54In my view, that conclusion is wholly consistent with the caselaw laid down by the Court of Justice in the aforementioned judgments in Cook v Commission and Matra v Commission, and subsequently confirmed in the judgment in Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum.
Po mojem mnenju je ta sklep povsem skladen s sodno prakso, ki jo je Sodi�če določilo v zgoraj omenjenih sodbah Cook proti Komisiji in Matra proti Komisiji ter nato potrdilo v zgoraj omenjeni sodbi Komisija proti Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum.
In spite of the reservations which had been expressed in respect of the aforementioned decisions in Cook v Commission and Matra v Commission, the Court, sitting in plenary session, nevertheless confirmed that caselaw in the judgment in Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum.
Kljub pridržkom, ki so bili izraženi zoper sodno prakso iz zgoraj navedenih sodb Cook proti Komisiji in Matra proti Komisiji, je Sodi�če v velikem senatu potrdilo to sodno prakso v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum 53.
53That judgment was delivered one year after the contested judgment.
Ta sodba je bila izdana leto po izpodbijani sodbi.
As is apparent inter alia from paragraphs 33 and 34 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance examined
Iz izpodbijane sodbe, zlasti iz točk 33 in 34, izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje preučilo dopustnost tožbenega zahtevka za razglasitev
The Court then examined, in paragraphs 36 to 44 of the contested judgment, whether the applicant could be regarded as an ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je torej v točkah od 36 do 44 izpodbijane sodbe obravnavalo, ali je mogoče tožečo stranko upo�tevati kot „zainteresirano stranko“ v smislu člena 1(h) Uredbe �t. 659/1999.
53 — See inter alia paragraphs 31 to 37.
53 – Glej zlasti točke od 31 do 37.
54 — Emphasis added.
54 – Moj poudarek.
In accordance with the aforementioned caselaw, the Court was not required to examine whether the applicant’s interests were substantially affected.
V skladu z zgoraj omenjeno sodno prakso Sodi�če prve stopnje ni bilo dolžno obravnavati, ali so bili interesi tožeče stranke bistveno prizadeti.
It had only to establish that Kronofrance’s position on the market in question might be affected by the grant of the planned aid.
Dovolj je dokazati, da bi z dodelitvijo načrtovane pomoči lahko bil prizadet položaj podjetja Kronofrance na upo�tevnem trgu.
I consider that this plea must therefore be rejected as unfounded.
Ta pritožbeni razlog je treba po mojem mnenju zavrniti kot neutemeljen.
B — The second plea, alleging misinterpret­ation of the multisectoral framework and infringement of Article 87 EC
B – Drugi pritožbeni razlog: zmotna razlaga večsektorskega okvira in kršitev člena 87 ES
Accordingly, in its unappealable assessment of the facts, the Court, in paragraphs 38 to 44 of the contested judgment, analysed the competitive position of Kronofrance on the market concerned.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v okviru svoje neodvisne presoje dejstev v točkah od 38 do 44 izpodbijane sodbe analiziralo tržni položaj podjetja Kronofrance na zadevnem trgu.
The Court found, first, that the applicant and the recipient undertaking are present on the same product market, namely the manufacture of wood panels and boards.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je najprej ugotovilo, da sta tožeča stranka in podjetje, prejemnik pomoči, prisotna na istem trgu proizvodov, to je proizvodnja lesenih plo�č.
It then pointed out that the relevant geographic market was indeed the EEA, in which the supply areas of each of those two undertakings are situated and overlap.
Nato je poudarilo, da je trg EGP upo�tevni geografski trg, na katerem sta in na katerem se prekrivata njuni dobavni območji.
The Court therefore concluded, in paragraph 44 of the contested judgment, that the applicant is indeed a competitor of the undertaking for which the aid is intended and that it may therefore be classified as an ‘interested party’ for the purposes of Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako v točki 44 izpodbijane sodbe sklenilo, da je tožeča stranka konkurentka podjetja, ki je prejemnik pomoči, in se lahko na podlagi tega opredeli kot „zainteresirana stranka“ v smislu člena 1(h) Uredbe �t. 659/1999.
In my view, this second plea comprises two limbs.
Drugi pritožbeni razlog je sestavljen iz dveh delov.
In support of the first limb, the appellants claim that the Court of First Instance, when assessing the examination conducted by the Commission in respect of the competition factor, failed to observe the limits of its jurisdiction.
V podporo prvega dela so tožeče stranke trdile, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje pri oceni presoje Komisije v zvezi z dejavnikom o stanju konkurence na trgu prekoračilo meje svoje pristojnosti.
In support of the second limb, the appellants consider that, in any event, the Court erred in law in its interpretation of the multisectoral framework, by holding that, in order to assess that factor, it was necessary not only to take account of the structural capacities of the sector under consideration, but also to examine whether
V podporo drugega dela pa so tožeče stranke menile, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v zadevi zmotno uporabilo pravo v okviru razlage večsektorskega okvira, ko je odločilo, da je treba ta dejavnik presojati ne le v zvezi s strukturnimi zmogljivostmi zadevnega sektorja, ampak bi bilo treba preučiti
I consider this finding to be appropriate in the light of the assessment of competition which the Court of Justice had carried out in Cook v Commission and Matra v Commission.
Mislim, da ta prikaz analize konkurence, ki jo je opravilo Sodi�če v okviru zgoraj navedenih sodb Cook proti Komisiji in Matra proti Komisiji, zadostuje.
However, that is not the position in the present cases, for all the data concerning capacity utilisation were available.
podatki o izkori�čenosti zmogljivosti, to ne velja.
The Federal Republic of Germany and also Glunz and OSB, supported by the Commission, claim that the Court of First Instance misapplied Article 87(3) EC and also the multisectoral framework.
Zvezna republika Nemčija ter podjetji Glunz in OSB, s katerimi se je strinjala Komisija, so trdili, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje zmotno uporabilo člen 87(3) ES in večsektorski okvir.
Furthermore, the Court stated, in paragraphs 104 to 107 of the contested judgment, that its interpretation of the multisectoral framework is not inconsistent with the Commission’s variable practice in taking decisions.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 104 do 107 izpodbijane sodbe trdilo, da njegova razlaga večsektorskega okvira ne nasprotuje sedanji praksi odločanja Komisije v zvezi s tem.
However, the appellants and the Commission contend that a more in-depth analysis of that practice would reveal that, on the contrary, the Commission has always applied, with only one exception (namely, the decision of 16 May 2000 not to raise objections to the aid granted to Pirna AG 55), the review criteria in the aforementioned order.
Vendar pritožniki in tudi Komisija na podlagi poglobljene analize te prakse ugovarjajo, da je Komisija, z eno samo izjemo (in sicer odločba z dne 16. maja 2000, da ne bo ugovarjala pomoči za podjetje Pirna AG 55), vedno izrecno uporabljala zgoraj omenjena merila v tem vrstnem redu.
Finally, in paragraph 108 of the contested judgment, the Court also justified the application of the declining market criterion by holding that point 32 of the version of the multisectoral framework adopted in 2002 56 takes an examination of the economic decline in a market as a basis for identifying sectors with problems.
Končno je Sodi�če v točki 108 izpodbijane sodbe upravičilo uporabo merila za trg v zatonu, ko je menilo, da različica večsektorskega okvira 56 iz leta 2002 v točki 32 s preizkusom gospodarskega zatona trga opredeljuje sektorje v težavah.
However, irrespective of the irrelevance of the 2002 multisectoral
Torej bi bila ta trditev nepravilna, tudi če ne upo�tevamo neustreznosti večsektorskega okvira iz leta 2002 za razlago različice, ki je predhodnica
The text of the decision addressed to the German authorities is available in the authentic language, namely German, on the website http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/comp-2000/n035-00pdf.
Besedilo odločbe, naslovljene na nem�ke organe, je na voljo v jeziku izvirnika, to je v nem�čini, na spletni strani http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/ -state_aids/comp-2000/n035-00.pdf.
The Court exceeded the limits of its power of judicial review in interpreting the multisectoral framework and in making its own economic evaluations.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je prekoračilo svoja pooblastila v zvezi s sodnim nadzorom, ko je razlagalo večsektorski okvir in se ravnalo po svojih ekonomskih ocenah.
It thereby failed to have regard for the wide discretion enjoyed by the Commission in the application of Article 87(3) EC, pursuant to which it adopted and applied that framework.
S tem je spregledalo �iroko diskrecijsko pravico, ki jo ima Komisija v skladu s členom 87(3) ES, v sklopu katere je sprejela in uporabila ta večsektorski okvir.
The Court interpreted the framework, and in particular points 3.2, 3.4 and 3.10, in a manner inconsistent with the wording, meaning and purpose thereof, by holding that the repercussions for the market of the regional aid planned should be evaluated not only in the light of the capacity utilisation in the sector concerned, but also taking into account the existence of a declining market.
Torej je Sodi�če prve stopnje omenjeni večsektorski okvir, zlasti v točkah 3.2, 3.4 in 3.10, razlagalo v nasprotju z njegovim besedilom, smislom in predmetom, ko je menilo, da je treba vpliv načrtovane regionalne pomoči na trg oceniti glede na izkori�čenost zmogljivosti v zadevnem sektorju in obenem upo�tevati obstoj trga v zatonu.
It is apparent from those provisions that the examination of whether the market is declining is only an alternative review criterion which must be taken into account
Zato je na podlagi teh določb očitno, da je dejstvo presoje, ali je trg v zatonu, le subsidiarno merilo sodnega nadzora, ki ga je treba upo�tevati, le če so podatki o izkori�čenosti zmogljivosti nezadostni.
(a) The first limb of the plea, alleging that the Court failed to have regard to the limits of its jurisdiction framework to an interpretation of an earlier version of that text, that statement is incorrect.
Presoja a) Prvi del pritožbenega razloga: prekoračitev pristojnosti Sodi�ča prve stopnje tega besedila.
Any reference to the economic decline criterion was, in fact, eliminated from the 2002 multisectoral framework, even before the contested judgment was delivered.
Iz besedila večsektorskega okvira iz leta 2002 bi bilo primerno odstraniti vsakr�no sklicevanje na gospodarski zaton trga, in to �e pred izdajo izpodbijane sodbe.
Indeed, by its communication of 1 November 2003 on the modification of the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (2002) with regard to the establishment of a list of sectors facing structural problems and on a proposal of appropriate measures pursuant to Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty, concerning the motor vehicle sector and the synthetic fibres sector, 57the Commission amended point 32 of the 2002 multisectoral framework, with effect from 1 January 2004.
Zato je Komisija spremenila točko 32 večsektorskega okvira iz leta 2002 z obvestilom z dne 1. novembra 2003 o spremembi večsektorskega okvira o regionalni pomoči za večje investicijske projekte (2002) v zvezi s seznamom sektorjev s strukturnimi težavami in o predlogu uporabnih ukrepov za izvajanje člena 88(1) ES glede avtomobilskega sektorja in sektorja sintetičnih vlaken 57z začetkom veljave 1. januarja 2004.
Contrary to what the appellants maintain, I consider that the Court was right to carry out a comprehensive review of the Commission’s appraisal of the method of evaluating the adjustment factor relating to market competition.
V nasprotju s tem, kar menijo pritožniki, mislim da je bilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v celoti upravičeno nadzorovati presojo, ki jo je izvajala Komisija v zvezi z načinom ocene korekcijskega količnika o stanju konkurence na trgu.
It is true that the Commission, for the purposes of applying Article 87(3) EC, enjoys a wide discretion, particularly where it adopts a measure involving a complex economic or social assessment.
Komisija ima v skladu s členom 87(3) ES �iroko diskrecijsko pravico, zlasti zato, ker je sprejela akt, ki vključuje kompleksno gospodarsko in socialno presojo 58.
58In my view, this is the case where it has to examine whether the market in which the investment is planned suffers structural overcapacity or is declining.
Po mojem mnenju mora v takem primeru, kot je ta, obravnavati, ali trg, na katerem je načrtovana naložba, trpi zaradi presežka strukturnih zmogljivosti ali je v zatonu.
Kronofrance contends that the wording of point 3.10 of the multisectoral framework makes it expressly clear that, in its appraisal of the competitive situation of a market affected by an aid project, the Commission should always ascertain whether the project involves a capacity expansion in a sector with structural overcapacity, and if it is intended for a declining market.
Podjetje Kronofrance ugovarja, da je v točki 3.10 besedila večsektorskega okvira izrecno zapisano, da mora Komisija pri presoji konkurenčnega položaja na trgu, ki ga je prizadel načrt pomoči, vedno ugotoviti, ali projekt povzroča večanje zmogljivosti v sektorju s presežkom strukturnih zmogljivosti in ali je namenjen trgu v zatonu.
As the Court pointed out in the contested judgment, this latter aspect should always be examined because aid in a declining market is bound to create severe distortion of competition.
Kot poudarja Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi, je treba slednji element vedno obravnavati, saj lahko pomoč na trgu v zatonu povzroči močno izkrivljanje konkurence.
58 — See paragraph 79 of the contested judgment.
58 – Glej točko 79 izpodbijane sodbe kot tudi sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji (C-91/01, Recueil, str.
See also Case C-91/01 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-4355, paragraph 43 and the caselaw cited therein, and Joined Cases T-228/99 and T-233/99 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozen­trale and Land Nordrhein­Westfalen v Commission [2003] ECR II-435, paragraph 282 and the caselaw cited therein.
I-4355, točka 43 in navedena sodna praksa) in sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 6. marca 2003 v zadevi Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale in Land Nord -rhein-Westfalen proti Komisiji (T-228/99 in T-233/99, Recueil, str. II-435, točka 282 in navedena sodna praksa).
In that situation, the Court of Justice considers that judicial review of that assessment is limited.
Ob tak�ni predpostavki Sodi�če meni, da je sodni nadzor tak�ne presoje omejen.
The Community judicature therefore cannot substitute its appraisal of the facts for that of the Commission and cannot make its own economic evaluations.
Zato sodi�ču Skupnosti ni dovoljeno, da bi s svojo presojo dejanskega stanja nadomestilo presojo dejanskega stanja, ki jo je opravila Komisija, in ne more izvajati svojih gospodarskih ocen.
Its review, in that case, is confined to establishing that the rules of procedure and the rules relating to the duty to give reasons have been complied with and to verifying the accuracy of the facts relied on and that there has been no error of law, manifest error of assessment in regard to the facts or misuse of powers. 59
Njegov nadzor je v tem primeru omejen na preverjanje upo�tevanja postopkovnih pravil in obrazložitve, resničnost dejstev ter pravilno uporabo prava, očitne napake pri presoji dejstev ali prekoračitev pooblastil 59.
Such is the situation in these appeals.
Tako je tudi v obravnavanih zadeviah.
The multisectoral framework establishes a method for calculating the maximum allowable intensity of regional investment aid.
Opozarjam, da večsektorski okvir v bistvu omogoča metodo, na podlagi katere je mogoče izračunati največjo dovoljeno intenzivnost regionalnih pomoči za naložbe.
As the Court pointed out in paragraph 102 of the contested judgment, the implementation by the Commission of that methodology creates binding legal effects in that it determines the amount of aid which may be declared compatible with the common market.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 102 izpodbijane sodbe poudarilo, da ima izvajanje te metodologije s strani Komisije zavezujoče pravne učinke, ker določa znesek pomoči, ki se lahko razglasi kot združljiv s skupnim trgom.
That method of calculation is therefore certainly legal in nature and must be implemented on the basis of objective criteria.
Ta metoda izračuna je gotovo pravne narave in jo je treba izvajati na podlagi objektivnih dejavnikov.
The question whether the competition factor must be calculated taking account not only of the existence of structural overcapacity in the sector but also of the existence of a declining market does not fall within the scope of a complex economic appraisal carried out by the Commission, but must be interpreted in the light of the rules laid down by the Treaty. 61
Vpra�anje, ali je treba za izračun dejavnika o stanju konkurence na trgu poleg obstoja presežka strukturnih zmogljivosti v sektorju upo�tevati tudi obstoj trga v zatonu, ni v pristojnosti kompleksne gospodarske presoje Komisije, ampak ga je treba razlagati v skladu s pravili Pogodbe 61.
However, I do not consider that such is the situation here.
Menim, da je v tem primeru drugače.
In these appeals, the Court of Justice is not required to consider whether the market in which the recipient of the aid is active suffers structural overcapacity or is declining.
V bistvu Sodi�če v okviru obravnavanih pritožb ni vpra�ano, ali je na trgu, na katerem je podjetje, ki je prejemnik pomoči, presežek strukturnih zmogljivosti oziroma gre za trg v zatonu.
The question is whether the Court of First Instance was allowed to interpret the methodology laid down for itself by the Commission for reviewing the compatibility with Article 87 EC of regional aid projects for investment.
Vpra�anje je, ali je bilo Sodi�če prve stopnje upravičeno razlagati metodologijo, ki si jo je Komisija določila za nadzor združljivosti projektov regionalnih pomoči za investicije s členom 87 ES.
It is apparent from settled caselaw that, in principle, the Community judicature carries out a comprehensive review where the question is whether or not a measure falls within the scope of Article 87(1) EC. 60
Vendar je iz ustaljene sodne prakse razvidno, da mora sodi�če Skupnosti načeloma izvr�iti popoln sodni nadzor nad tem, ali ukrep spada v področje uporabe člena 87(1) ES 60.
The caselaw provides many examples of situations in which the Community judicature has carried out such a review.
Podoben nadzor je Sodi�če Skupnosti izvajalo v �tevilnih zadevah.