natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance partly annulled Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chronopost (OJ 1998 L 164, p.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je z izpodbijano sodbo razglasilo delno ničnost Odločbe Komisije 98/365/ES z dne 1. oktobra 1997 v zvezi z domnevno državno pomočjo Francoske republike družbi SFMI-Chronopost (UL 1998, L 164, str.
37; ‘the contested decision’).
37, v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba).
The facts of the dispute are set out as follows in paragraphs 2 to 18 of the judgment under appeal:
Dejansko stanje iz postopka o glavni stvari je v točkah od 2 do 18 izpodbijane sodbe predstavljeno tako:
‘2 [La Poste], which operates as a legal monopoly in the ordinary mail sector, was an integral part of the French State administration until the end of 1990.
„2 Francoska družba La Poste (v nadaljevanju: družba La Poste), ki v okviru zakonskega monopola izvaja storitve s področja splo�ne dostave, je bila do konca leta 1990 del francoske uprave.
Since 1 January 1991, it has been a legal entity governed by public law by virtue of Law 90-568 of 2 July 1990 on the organisation of the public post and telecommunications service (JORF of 8 July 1990, p.
Od 1. januarja 1991 deluje v skladu z določbami zakona 90-568 z dne 2. julija 1990 o organizaciji javnih po�tnih in telekomunikacijskih storitev (JORF z dne 8. julija 1990, str.
8069; “Law 90-568”).
8069, v nadaljevanju: zakon 90-568) kot pravna oseba javnega prava.
The Société française de messagerie internationale (“SFMI”) is a company incorporated under private law which has been entrusted with the management of La Poste’s express delivery service since the end of 1985.
Société française de messagerie internationale (v nadaljevanju: družba SFMI) je družba zasebnega prava, ki je od konca leta 1985 poobla�čena za opravljanje storitev hitre dostave francoske družbe La Poste.
SFMI was formed with a share capital of FRF 10 million (approximately EUR 1 524 490) held as to 66% by Sofipost, a holding company wholly owned by La Poste, and as to 34% by TAT Express, a subsidiary of the airline Transport aérien transrégional (“TAT”).
Ob ustanovitvi je kapital družbe zna�al 10 milijonov francoskih frankov (FRF) (približno 1.524.490 EUR), od katerih je imela 66 % družba Sofipost, finančna družba v stoodstotni lasti družbe La Poste, 34 % pa družba TAT Express, hčerinska družba letalske družbe Transport aérien transrégional (v nadaljevanju: družba TAT).
The detailed conditions for the operation and marketing of the express delivery service provided by SFMI under the name of EMS/Chronopost were set out in an order from the French Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications of 19 August
Podrobnosti uporabe in izvajanja storitve hitre dostave, ki jih je družba SFMI opremila z oznako EMS/Chronopost, so bile določene v [n]avodilu [m]
According to that order, La Poste was to provide SFMI with logistical and commercial assistance.
V skladu z njim naj bi družba La Poste družbi SFMI nudila logistično in komercialno podporo.
In 1992 the structure of the express delivery business carried out by SFMI changed.
Leta 1992 se je struktura dejavnosti na področju storitev hitre dostave družbe SFMI spremenila.
Sofipost and TAT set up a new company, [Chronopost], in which their respective holdings were still 66% and 34%.
Družbi Sofipost in TAT sta ustanovili novo družbo Chronopost, v kateri sta imeli �e naprej 66 % in 34 % delnic.
SFMI was acquired by GD Express Worldwide France, the subsidiary of an international common operator whose participants are the Australian company TNT and the post offices of five countries, a concentration which was authorised by a Commission decision of 2 December 1991 (Case IV/M.102 — TNT/Canada Post, DBP Postdienst, La Poste, PTT Poste and Sweden Post) (OJ 1991 C 322, p. 19).
Družbo SFMI je kupila družba GD Express Worldwide France, hčerinska družba skupnega mednarodnega podjetja, ki ga sestavljajo avstralska družba TNT in po�te petih držav, koncentracija pa je bila odobrena z Odločbo Komisije z dne 2. decembra 1991 (zadeva IV/M.102 – TNT proti Canada Post, DBP Postdienst, La Poste, PTT Poste in Sweden Post) (UL C 322, str. 19).
SFMI retained the international express delivery business, using Chronopost as an agent and service provider in the handling of its international dispatches in France (“SFMI-Chronopost”).
Družba SFMI je obdržala mednarodne dejavnosti hitre dostave, pri čemer je družbo Chronopost vključila kot poobla�čenko in izvajalko storitve prevoza mednarodnih po�iljk v Franciji (v nadaljevanju: družba SFMI-Chronopost).
Syndicat français de l’express international (SFEI)… is a trade association established under French law, grouping together almost all the companies offering express delivery services competing with SFMI-Chronopost.
Syndicat français de l’express international (v nadaljevanju: združenje SFEI) […] je v skladu s francoskim pravom strokovno združenje, v katerem so skoraj vse družbe, ki ponujajo storitve hitre dostave, konkurenčne družbi SFMI-Chronopost.
On 21 December 1990 SFEI lodged a complaint with the Commission [of the European Communities] alleging principally that the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to [SFMI-Chronopost] constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC).
Združenje SFEI je 21. decembra 1990 pri Komisiji [Evropskih skupnosti] vložilo pritožbo, v kateri je med drugim uveljavljalo, da naj bi bila logistična in komercialna podpora, ki jo je družba La Poste nudila družbi SFMI, državna pomoč v smislu člena 92 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 87 ES).
It alleged that the difference between the market price for the purchase of such services and the price actually paid by [SFMI-Chronopost] constituted State aid.
Razlika med tržno ceno za opravljanje tovrstnih storitev in ceno, ki jo je plačala družba SFMI, je državna pomoč.
An economic study carried out by Braxton, a consultancy firm [‘Braxton’], at SFEI’s request, was appended to the complaint in order to demonstrate the value of the amount of aid during the period from 1986 to 1989.
Za presojo pomoči v obdobju med letoma 1986 in 1989 je k pritožbi priložilo ekonomsko �tudijo, ki jo je po naročilu združenja SFEI izdelala svetovalna družba Braxton [v nadaljevanju: svetovalna družba Braxton].
By letter of 10 March 1992, the Commission notified SFEI of its decision to take no action on the complaint.
Komisija je v dopisu z dne 10. marca 1992 združenju SFEI sporočila, da je bil v zvezi z njegovo pritožbo uveden postopek.
The Court ruled that it was not necessary to proceed to judgment (order of 18 November 1992 in Case C-222/92 SFEI and Others v Commission, not published in the ECR) in the light of the Commission decision of 9 July 1992 to withdraw the decision of 10 March 1992.
Potem ko je Komisija z odločbo z dne 9. julija 1992 sklenila umakniti svojo odločbo z dne 10. marca 1992, je Sodi�če postopek ustavilo (sklep Sodi�ča z dne 18. novembra 1992, SFEI in drugi proti Komisiji, C-222/92, neobjavljen v ZOdl.).
At the Commission’s request, the French Republic provided information by letter of 21 January, by fax of 3 May and by letter of 18 June 1993.
Francoska republika je z dopisom z dne 21. januarja 1993, telefaksom z dne 3. maja 1993 in dopisom z dne 18. junija 1993 Komisiji na njeno pro�njo posredovala informacije.
10 On 16 June 1993 SFEI and other undertakings brought an action before the Tribunal de commerce de Paris (Paris Commercial Court) against SFMI, Chronopost, La Poste and others.
10 Združenje SFEI in druga podjetja so 16. junija 1993 proti družbam SFMI, Chronopost, La Poste in drugim vložila tožbo pri Tribunal de commerce Paris ([g]ospodarsko sodi�če v Parizu).
A second study by Braxton was attached to the application, updating the information contained in the first study and evaluating the amount of the aid up to the end of 1991.
Tej tožbi je bila priložena druga �tudija [svetovalne družbe Braxton], v kateri so bili podatki iz prve �tudije posodobljeni in obdobje ocene pomoči podalj�ano do konca leta 1991.
In a judgment of 5 January 1994, the Tribunal de commerce de Paris referred several questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 92 of the Treaty and Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC), one of which sought clarification of the concept of State aid in the circumstances of the present case.
Tribunal de commerce Paris je s sodbo z dne 5. januarja 1994 Sodi�ču predložilo več vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje glede razlage členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe ES (postal člen 88 ES), od katerih se je eno nana�alo na pojem državne pomoči v okoli�činah obravnavane zadeve.
The French Government lodged, as an annex to its observations of 10 May 1994, an economic study by Ernst & Young. In Case C-39/94 SFEI and Others [1996] ECR I-3547 …, the Court ruled that “the provision of logistical and commercial assistance by a public undertaking to its subsidiaries, which are governed by private law and carry on an activity open to free competition, is capable of constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty if the remuneration received in return is less than that which would have been demanded under normal market conditions” (paragraph 62). 11 In the meantime, by a letter from the Commission dated 20 March 1996, the French Republic was notified of the initiation of the procedure under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty.
Francoska vlada je kot prilogo k svojim izjavam z dne 10. maja 1994 Sodi�ču predložila ekonomsko �tudijo družbe Ernst & Young. Sodi�če je s sodbo z dne 11. julija 1996 v zadevi SFEI in drugi (C-39/94, Recueil str. I-3547, v nadaljevanju: sodba SFEI) odločilo: ‚[l]ogistična in komercialna podpora, ki jo javno podjetje nudi svojim zasebnopravnim hčerinskim družbam, ki izvajajo dejavnosti proste konkurence, lahko pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 92, če je plačilo, prejeto kot protidajatev, nižje od tistega, ki bi se zahtevalo v običajnih tržnih razmerah‘ (točka 62). 11 Francoska vlada je bila medtem z dopisom Komisije z dne 20. marca 1996 obve�čena o uvedbi postopka na podlagi člena 93(2) Pogodbe ES.
On 30 May 1996 the French Republic sent the Commission its comments in this regard.
Komisiji je o tem 30. maja 1996 posredovala svoja stali�ča.
It attached to its observations another economic study by Bain & Co. In addition, SFEI extended its complaint of 21 December 1990 to cover a number of additional points, including the use of La Poste’s brand image, privileged access to the air waves of Radio France, customs and tax privileges and La Poste’s investment in dispatching platforms. 14 The Commission passed SFEI’s comments to the French Republic in September 1996.
13 Združenje SFEI je v odgovor na to obvestilo Komisiji 17. avgusta 1996 posredovalo stali�ča, ki jim je priložilo novo ekonomsko �tudijo svetovalne družbe Bain & Co. Poleg tega je združenje SFEI svojo pritožbo raz�irilo na nova dejstva, zlasti na uporabo blagovne znamke družbe La Poste, na privilegiran dostop do oddajanja Radia France, na carinske in davčne olaj�ave in na naložbe družbe La Poste v plo�čadi za pakete. 14 Komisija je Francoski republiki posredovala stali�ča združenja SFEI septembra 1996.
In reply, the French Republic addressed a letter to the Commission, attaching to it an economic study by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a consultancy company (the “Deloitte report”).
Francoska republika je Komisiji poslala odgovor na dopis, ki mu je bila priložena ekonomska �tudija svetovalne družbe Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (v nadaljevanju: poročilo Deloitte).
18 On 1 October 1997 the Commission adopted [the contested decision] …’.
18 Komisija je 1. oktobra 1997 izdala [sporno] odločbo […]“.
The contested decision
Sporna odločba
According to paragraphs 19 to 23 of the judgment under appeal:
Iz točk od 19 do 23 izpodbijane sodbe izhaja, da:
‘19 In the contested decision, the Commission stated that it was necessary to distinguish between two sets of measures.
„19 V [sporni] odločbi je Komisija navedla, da je treba razlikovati med dvema vrstama ukrepov.
The first set is the provision by La Poste of (i) logistical assistance, which consists in making available to SFMI-Chrono-post the use of the postal infrastructure for the collection, sorting, transport and delivery of its dispatches, and (ii) commercial assistance, which consists in SFMI-Chronopost’s access to La Poste’s customers and enjoyment of its goodwill. The
Prva vrsta ukrepov na eni strani vsebuje logistično podporo: družbi SFMI-Chronopost so bile na razpolago dane infrastrukture družbe La Poste za sprejem, sortiranje, prevoz in razna�anje njenih po�iljk, in na drugi strani komercialno podporo: dostop družbe SFMI-Chronopost do stalnih strank družbe La Poste in prispevek poslovne vrednosti družbe La poste družbi SFMI-
2008 — JOINED CASES C-341/06 P AND C-342/06 P second set is made up of individual measures, such as privileged access to Radio France and tax and customs privileges.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-341/06 P IN C-342/06 P
20 The Commission considered that the relevant question was “whether the terms of the transaction between [La Poste] and SFMI-Chronopost [were] 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”.
20 Komisija je menila, da gre za vpra�anje, ‚ali so [bili] pogoji poslovanja med družbo La Poste in družbo SFMI-Chronopost primerljivi s pogoji enakovrednega posla med zasebnopravno matično družbo, ki bi bila brez težav v monopolnem položaju (v primeru, če bi imela izključne pravice) in njeno hčerinsko družbo‘.
According to the Commission, there was no financial advantage if the internal prices at which products and services were provided between companies belonging to the same group were “full-cost prices (total costs plus a mark-up to remunerate equity capital investment)”.
Po mnenju Komisije ne gre za finančno korist, če se notranje cene menjave blaga in storitev med dvema podjetjema iz iste skupine ‚izračunavajo na podlagi celotnih stro�kov (to je skupnih stro�kov in donosa na kapital)‘.
21 In this regard, the Commission noted that the payments made by SFMI-Chrono-post did not cover total costs over the first two years of operation, but covered all costs other than central and local offices’ overheads.
21 Komisija navaja, da plačila, ki jih je v prvih dveh poslovnih letih izvr�ila družba SFMI-Chronopost, ne krijejo skupnih stro�kov, pač pa stro�ke glavnega sedeža in regionalnih direkcij.
It considered, first, that it was not abnormal that payments made by a new undertaking, that is to say, SFMI-Chronopost, covered only variable costs in the start-up period.
Prvič, zato ni neobičajno, da plačila, izvr�ena s strani novega podjetja, namreč družbe SFMI-Chronopost, v začetni fazi krijejo le variabilne stro�ke.
Secondly, in the Commission’s opinion, the French Republic had been able to show that as from 1988 the remuneration paid by SFMI-Chronopost covered all the costs incurred by La Poste, plus a return on the equity capital invested by the latter.
Drugič, Francoska republika je po mnenju Komisije lahko dokazala, da je plačilo družbe SFMI-Chronopost od leta 1988 krilo vse stro�ke družbe La Poste in poleg tega prispevalo k donosu na kapital.
Furthermore, the Commission calculated that the internal rate of return (“the IRR”) of La Poste’s investment as a shareholder was well in excess of the cost of the company’s equity in 1986, that is to say, the normal rate of return that a private investor would require under similar circumstances.
Komisija je nato izračunala, da je interna stopnja donosnosti investicij družbe La Poste kot delničarja računsko mnogo vi�ja od donosa na kapitala podjetja v letu 1986, to je običajna stopnja donosnosti, ki bi jo pod enakimi pogoji zahteval zasebni investitor.
Consequently, La Poste provided logistical and commercial assistance to its subsidiary under normal business conditions and that assistance therefore did not constitute State aid.
Iz tega po mnenju Komisije izhaja, da je družba La Poste svoji hčerinski družbi logistično in komercialno podporo nudila v običajnih tržnih razmerah, kar torej ni državna pomoč.
22 With regard to the second category, that is to say, the various individual measures, the Commission considered that SFMI-Chronopost derived no advantage from the customs clearance procedure, stamp duty, payroll tax or the periods allowed for payment.
22 Komisija v zvezi z drugo vrsto ukrepov, med katere spadajo različni posebni ukrepi, ocenjuje, da družba SFMI-Chronopost ni imela ugodnosti pri carinjenju, kolkovini, dohodninah in plačilnih rokih.
The use of La Poste’s vehicles as advertising media should,
Komisija meni, da je uporaba vozil družbe La Poste kot reklamnih medijev sestavni del običajne komercialne
CHRONOPOST AND LA POSTE v UFEX AND OTHERS in the opinion of the Commission, be regarded as normal commercial assistance between a parent company and its subsidiary, and SFMI-Chronopost enjoyed no preferential treatment for advertising on Radio France.
CHRONOPOST IN LA POSTE PROTI UFEX IN DRUGIM podpore, ki jo matična družba nudi hčerinski, in da tudi pri ogla�evalskih ukrepih pri Radiu France družba SFMI-Chronopost ni uživala prednostne obravnave.
The Commission also maintained that it had been able to establish that the commitments made by La Poste when the common operator was authorised by the Commission decision of 2 December 1991 did not constitute State aid.
Komisija zatrjuje tudi, da ji je uspelo dokazati, da obveznosti, ki jih je družba La Poste prevzela v skladu z odločbo Komisije z dne 2. decembra 1991 o odobritvi skupnega podjetja, niso državne pomoči.
23 In Article 1 of the contested decision, the Commission states as follows:
23 Komisija v členu 1 [sporne] odločbe ugotavlja naslednje:
“The logistical and commercial assistance provided by [La Poste] to its subsidiary SFMI-Chronopost, the other financial transactions between those two com -panies, the relationship between SFMI-Chronopost and Radio France, the customs arrangements applicable to [La Poste] and SFMI-Chronopost, the system of payroll tax and stamp duty applicable to [La Poste] and its … investment in the dispatching platforms do not constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost”.’
‚[L]ogistična in komercialna podpora, ki jo je francoska družba La Poste dajala svoji hčerinski družbi, preostali finančni posli med obema podjetjema, odnos med družbo SFMI-Chronopost in Radiem France, carinski režim za družbo La Poste in družbo SFMI-Chronopost, ureditev, ki velja za družbo La Poste glede davka na plače in kolkovine, ter njene naložbe v plo�čadi za pakete niso državna pomoč v korist družbe SFMI-Chronopost.‘“
The first proceedings before the Court of First Instance
Prvi postopek pred Sodiščem prve stopnje
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 30 December 1997, SFEI, now known as Union française de l’express (UFEX), and its three member companies, DHL International SA, Federal Express International (France) SNC and CRIE SA (‘UFEX and Others’), brought an action for annulment of the contested decision.
Združenje SFEI, ki je postalo Union française de l’express (združenje UFEX), in tri družbe, ki so članice tega združenja, DHL international SA, Federal express international (France) SNC in CRIE SA (v nadaljevanju: združenje UFEX in drugi) so s tožbo, ki so jo 30. decembra 1997 vložili v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje, predlagali razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe.
Chronopost, La Poste and the French Republic intervened in support of the Commission.
Družba Chronopost, družba La Poste in Francoska republika so intervenirale v podporo Komisije.
UFEX and Others relied on four pleas for annulment in support of their action, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in particular the right of access to the file; an inadequate statement of reasons; errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment; and error in applying the concept of State aid.
V podporo tožbi se združenje UFEX in drugi sklicujejo na �tiri tožbene razloge, in sicer na kr�itev pravice do obrambe, zlasti pravice do vpogleda v spis, na nezadostno obrazložitev, na nepravilno ugotovljeno dejansko stanje in očitno napako v presoji ter na napačno razlago pojma državna pomoč.
The fourth plea was in two parts, alleging that the Commission misapplied the concept of State aid: first, in failing to take account of normal market conditions when analysing the remuneration for the assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost, and second, in holding that this concept did not cover various measures from which SFMI-Chronopost was alleged to have benefited.
Četrti tožbeni razlog je sestavljen iz dveh delov, v skladu s katerima naj bi Komisija pojem državna pomoč razlagala napačno, ker, prvič, pri oceni plačila za podporo družbe La Poste družbi SFMI-Chronopost ni upo�tevala običajnih tržnih razmer in ker je, drugič, iz pojma izvzela različne ukrepe v korist družbe SFMI-Chronopost.
The Court of First Instance ruled on that action in a judgment of 14 December 2000 in Case T-613/97 Ufex and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-4055.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je o tej tožbi odločilo s sodbo z dne 14. decembra 2000 v zadevi UFEX in drugi proti Komisiji (T-613/97, Recueil, str. II-4055).
The judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission
Sodba UFEX in drugi proti Komisiji
In Ufex and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance considered that the first part of the fourth plea was well founded.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji odločilo, da je bil prvi del četrtega tožbenega razloga utemeljen.
In paragraph 79 of that judgment, the Court concluded:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 79 navedene sodbe odločilo:
‘79 The first article of the contested decision must therefore be annulled in so far as it finds that the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary SFMI-Chronopost does not constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost, and it is not necessary to examine the second part of this plea or the other pleas in so far as they relate to the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost.
„79 Člen 1 [sporne] odločbe je treba zato v delu, v katerem je ugotovljeno, da logistična in komercialna podpora družbe La Poste njeni hčerinski družbi SFMI-Chronopost nista državna pomoč v korist družbe SFMI-Chronopost, razglasiti za ničnega, ne da bi bilo treba preučiti drugi del tega tožbenega razloga ali druge tožbene razloge v delu, v katerem se nana�ajo na logistično in komercialno podporo družbe La Poste njeni hčerinski družbi SFMI-Chronopost.
In particular, it is not necessary to examine the second plea, in which the applicants allege that the statement of reasons for the contested decision regarding logistical and commercial assistance is inadequate.’
Zlasti ni treba preučiti drugega tožbenega razloga, s katerim tožeče stranke v bistvu zatrjujejo, da obrazložitev [sporne] odločbe v zvezi z logistično in komercialno podporo ni zadostna.“
In the subsequent paragraphs of the judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance therefore considered only the first plea, alleging infringement of the rights of defence of Ufex and Others, and the arguments expounded in connection with the third plea, relating to errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment, which were not indissociable from those already examined in connection with the fourth plea.
Sodi�če je torej v nadaljnjih točkah zgoraj navedene sodbe Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji preučilo le prvi tožbeni razlog v zvezi z zatrjevano kr�itvijo pravic do obrambe združenja UFEX in drugih in trditve v okviru tretjega tožbenega razloga v zvezi z nepravilno ugotovljenim dejanskim stanjem in očitno napako v presoji, ki niso neločljivo povezane s trditvami, preučenimi v okviru četrtega tožbenega razloga.
In both cases, the allegations made by Ufex and Others were rejected.
V obeh primerih so bili očitki združenja UFEX in drugih zavrnjeni.