natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Companies such as potential beneficiaries of aid or their competitors are not even necessarily aware of the notification of an aid scheme which may be of interest to them, because the Commission is obliged to publish a notice on the notification of an aid only when the formal investigation proced- ure is initiated.
Podjetja, kot so potencialni upravičenci do pomoči ali njihovi konkurenti, niso nujno seznanjena s prigla�enim programom pomoči, ki bi jih lahko zanimal, ker je Komisija zavezana objaviti obvestilo o priglasitvi pomoči le, če je bil uveden formalni postopek preiskave.
35 Thus, when the Commission adopts a decision not to raise objections, a notice on this decision will be the first act to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
35Ko Komisija sprejme odločbo o nevložitvi ugovora, je tako obvestilo o tej odločbi prvi akt, ki se objavi v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti.
Nevertheless, I believe that the Commission should be entitled to rely on the
Vendar menim, da bi Komisija morala biti upravičena do tega, da se opre na infor-
It follows clearly from the primary and secondary legislation, especially Regulation No 659/1999, that the preliminary investigation takes place primarily between the Commission and the Member State concerned.
Iz primarne in sekundarne zakonodaje, zlasti iz Uredbe �t. 659/1999 jasno izhaja, da sta pri predhodni preučitvi udeleženi predvsem Komisija in zadevna država članica.
36As a result, the Commission is not granted fact-finding powers to search for information beyond that provided to it, mainly by the Member State concerned, during the preliminary investigation.
36Komisiji zato niso dodeljena pooblastila za raziskavo dejanskega stanja, da bi poleg informacij, ki ji jih zagotovi zlasti zadevna država članica med predhodno preučitvijo, iskala �e druge informacije.
Such limits on the powers of the Commission necessarily imply that the legality of its decisions cannot be challenged on the basis of information other than that available at the time of the adoption of the decision.
Te omejitve pooblastil Komisije nujno pomenijo, da zakonitosti njenih odločb ni mogoče izpodbijati na podlagi informacij, ki jih ni imela na voljo v času odločanja.
Moreover, if third parties were to be able to challenge the validity of Commission decisions on the basis of information other than that available to it at the time of the adoption of the decision, the Commission would in all likelihood avoid such a risk by systematically
Poleg tega bi se Komisija, če bi tretje stranke lahko izpodbijale veljavnost njenih odločb na podlagi informacij, ki jih ni imela na voljo pri sprejemanju odločbe, temu tveganju najverjetneje izognila s sistematičnim uvajanjem
34 — Nothing in fact prevents potentially affected parties from submitting information to the Commission during the preliminary investigation, in which case the Commission must take such elements into account (see, to this effect, Case C-204/97 Portugal v Commission [2001] ECR I-3175, paragraph 35).
34 – V bistvu morebitnim prizadetim strankam nič ne preprečuje, da Komisiji podajo informacije med predhodno preiskavo, v tem primeru pa mora Komisija te dejavnike upo�tevati (glej v zvezi s tem sodbo z dne 3. maja 2001 v zadevi Portugalska proti Komisiji (C-204/97, Recueil, str. I-3175, točka 35).
36 — See, to this effect, Case C-276/03 P Scott v Commission [2005] ECR I-8437, paragraph 33.
36 – Glej v zvezi s tem sodbo z dne 6. oktobra 2005 v zadevi Scott proti Komisiji (C-276/03 P, ZOdl., str. I-8437, točka 33.
37 initiating the formal investigation procedure, thereby allowing all ‘interested parties’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC to submit relevant information.
37 formalnega postopka preiskave, ki bi vsem „zainteresiranim strankam“ v smislu čle na 88(2) ES omogočal predložitev potrebnih informacij.
Such an outcome is however difficult to reconcile with the current two-stage State aid control proced- ure as provided for under the EC Treaty and Regulation No 659/1999.
Tak rezultat je težko uskladiti z obstoječim dvostopenjskim postopkom nadzora državnih pomoči, kot ga določata Pogodba ES in Uredba �t. 659/1999.
Therefore, the validity of a decision not to raise any objections adopted by the Commission should be assessed on the basis of the information available to the Commission when adopting such a decision.
Veljavnost odločbe o nevložitvi ugovora, ki jo je sprejela Komisija, bi bilo treba zato presoditi na podlagi informacij, ki jih je Komisija imela na voljo v času odločanja.
Moreover, it must be pointed out that the present case is not one of the exceptional cases where the Commission may be obliged to ensure that its decision concerning State aid contains a transitional provision and where it may be bound to ensure that such a provision complies with the principle of equal treatment.
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da obravnavana zadeva ni eden od izrednih primerov, ko mora Komisija zagotoviti, da njena odločba v zvezi z državno pomočjo vsebuje prehodno določbo in da je taka določba v skladu z načelom enakega obravnavanja.
Such an obligation can only arise in very specific circumstances where, among other things, the past behaviour of the Community institution triggers legitimate expectations which must be protected. 38
Ta obveznost lahko nastane le v izrednih okoli�činah, ko med drugim prej�nje ravnanje Komisije sproži legitimna pričakovanja, ki jih je treba zavarovati. 38
Since there is no evidence in the present case that the Commission was informed of the specific situation of the companies of the first category, the contested decision cannot be considered as invalid on the ground that it would allegedly infringe the principle of equal treatment with regard to rights allegedly acquired by these companies.
Ker v obravnavani zadevi ni dokazov o tem, da je bila Komisija obve�čena o posebnem položaju prve vrste podjetij, izpodbijane odločbe ni mogoče �teti za nično, ker naj bi kr�ila načelo enakega obravnavanja v zvezi z domnevnimi pravicami teh podjetij.
In the present case the Commission has, however, never conducted itself in such a way as to create a legitimate expectation
Vendar v obravnavani zadevi Komisija ni nikoli ravnala tako, da bi povzročila legitimna
38 — This was the case in Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission, cited in footnote 29, paragraphs 168 to 174.
38 – To je bil primer v opombi 29 navedene sodbe Belgium and Forum 187 ASBL proti Komisiji, točke od 168 do 174.
In that case the Commission took a negative decision concerning a scheme of existing aid concerning coordination centres created under Belgian legislation.
V tej zadevi je Komisija sprejela negativno odločbo v zvezi s programom obstoječih pomoči glede centrov za usklajevanje, ki je bil vzpostavljen z belgijsko zakonodajo.
For a more recent application of the same reasoning, see judgment of 12 September 2007 in Case T-348/03 Koninklijke Friesland Foods v Commission.
V zvezi z novej�o uporabo iste utemeljitve glej sodbo z dne 12. septembra 2007 v zadevi Koninklijke Frieslands Food proti Komisiji (T-348/03)
In any event, it may be recalled that, according to settled caselaw, when
V vsakem primeru je mogoče opozoriti na to, da se lahko v skladu z ustaljeno sodno
NUOVA AGRICAST that the old aid scheme, which expired on 31 December 1999, would continue to have effects beyond this date.
40V nasprotju s tem, kar se zdi, da predlaga pričakovanja, da bi stari program pomoči, ki je prenehal veljati 31. decembra 1999, veljal tudi po preteku tega datuma.
40Contrary to what the referring court appears to suggest in its reference, this principle has not been applied only since its inclusion in the Commission’s guidelines on regional aid in 1998.
predložitveno sodi�če, se to načelo ni uporabljalo zgolj od njegove vključitve v Smernice Komisije o regionalni pomoči iz leta 1998. 41
41 This suffices to preclude any claim that an allegedly ‘sudden’ application of this principle may have breached legitimate expectations created by the Community with regard to the possibility of applying for aid under the new aid scheme under the conditions applicable to invitations to apply published under the old aid scheme.
To zadostuje za izključitev trditve, da naj bi bila zaradi „nenadne“ uporabe tega načela kr�ena legitimna pričakovanja, ki naj bi jih ustvarila Skupnost v zvezi z možnostjo zahtevanja pomoči na podlagi novega programa pomoči pod pogoji, ki so veljali za razpis za dodelitev pomoči, objavljen na podlagi stare ureditve.
The authorisation of the old aid scheme, which was limited in time and expired on 31 December 1999, is, by its very nature, not an act which could trigger such legitimate expectations.
Odobritev starega programa pomoči, ki je bil časovno omejen in je prenehal veljati 31. decembra 1999, zaradi po svoji naravi ni akt, ki bi sprožil taka legitimna pričakovanja.
The rule that exceptions to the general principle prohibiting State aid must be strictly interpreted precludes such an extension of the temporal scope of an approved aid scheme.
Pravilo, da je treba izjeme od splo�nega pravila o prepovedi državnih pomoči razlagati ozko, onemogoča tako raz�iritev časovne veljavnosti odobrenega programa pomoči.
39 Moreover, if it were possible to invoke rights allegedly acquired under a previous aid scheme after the authorisation has expired, this would question the very purpose of the temporal limitations of such authorisations, which allow the evaluation of State aid to be adapted in the light of changing economic circumstances.
39Če bi se bilo mogoče sklicevati na pravice, domnevno pridobljene na podlagi prej�nje ureditve pomoči, potem ko je odobritev prenehala veljati, bi se poleg tega postavilo vpra�anje o namenu časovne omejitve take odobritve, ki omogoča ocenjevanje državne pomoči ob upo�tevanju spreminjajočih se ekonomskih razmer.
Nor can possible legitimate expectations, which have been triggered by the national authorities as to the possibility of an extension of certain effects of an expired State aid scheme, constitute a basis for an obligation of the Commission to lay down a transitional provision.
Prav tako mogoča legitimna pričakovanja, ki so jih povzročili nacionalni organi v zvezi z možnostjo podalj�anja določenih učinkov programa državne pomoči, ki je prenehal veljati, ne morejo biti podlaga za obveznost Komisije, da sprejme prehodno določbo.
Articles 87 EC and 88 EC would lose much of their effectiveness if a party could rely on legitimate expectations
Členoma 87 ES in 88 ES bi bila odvzeta učinkovitost, če bi se lahko stranka pri uveljavljanju ničnosti akta Skupnosti skli-
Legitimate expectations cannot be invoked against the Commission by reason of its application of the principle of ‘necessity of aid’, which implies inter alia that the application to receive aid must normally be made
Legitimnih pričakovanj ni mogoče uveljavljati proti Komisiji, ker je uporabila načelo „nujnosti pomoči“, ki med drugim vključuje, da je treba zahtevek za dodelitev pomoči običajno predložiti, preden se začne dejavnost, ki je predmet pomoči. To načelo je bilo splo�no pravilo, ki ga je Komisija upora-
40 — Indeed the Court has consistently held that, in order for aid to benefit from one of the derogations contained in Article 87(3) EC, it must not only comply with one of the objectives set out in Article 87(3)(a), (b), (c) or (d) EC, but must also be necessary for the attainment of those objectives (see Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671, paragraph 17).
40 – V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prasko Sodi�ča mora biti pomoč, da zanjo velja eno od odstopanj iz člena 87(3) ES, ne le v skladu z enim od ciljem v členu 87(3)(a), (b), (c) ali (d) ES, ampak mora biti tudi za dosego teh ciljev nujna (glej sodbo z dne 17. septembra 1980 v zadevi Philip Morris proti Komisiji (730/79, Recueil, str.
39 — See, to this effect, Case T-109/01 Fleuren Compost v Commission [2004] ECR II-127, paragraph 75.
2671, točka 17)).
The third subparagraph of paragraph 4.2 of the Guidelines states that ‘aid schemes must lay down that an application for aid must be submitted before work is started on the projects’.
Tretji pododstavek odstavka 4.2 Smernic določa, da morajo „[p]oleg tega […] sheme pomoči vključevati določilo, da je treba zahtevke za pomoč vložiti pred začetkom izvajanja projektov“.
42 in the contested decision with regard to the exclusion of the companies of the first category from the scope of its transitional provision.
cevala na legitimna pričakovanja, ki bi jih ustvarile države članice. 42
It follows that, in the circumstances of the present case, the Commission was under no obligation to ensure that the contested decision contained a transitional measure which would have included the companies of the first category.
Iz tega sledi, da v okoli�činah obravnavane zadeve Komisija ni bila zavezana zagotoviti, da bi izpodbijana odločba vsebovala prehodno določbo, ki bi vključevala prvo vrsto podjetij.
It has therefore not exceeded its discretion by not raising any objections to the notified measure because the scope of the transitional measure it contained allegedly infringed the principle of equal treatment.
Zato s tem, da zoper prigla�eni ukrep ni vložila ugovora, ker naj bi bilo področje prehodne določbe, ki jo je vsebovala, v nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja, ni prekoračila svoje diskrecijske pravice.
Thus, the contested decision cannot be regarded as invalid on that ground.
Izpodbijane odločbe v zvezi s tem ni mogoče �teti za nično.
The Court has consistently held that the requirement to state reasons depends on the nature of the measure in question and, in the case of a measure intended to have general application, which is the case with an aid scheme, the preamble may be limited to indicating the general situation which led to its adoption, on the one hand, and the general objectives which it is intended to achieve, on the other.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča je zahteva po obrazložitvi odvisna od narave zadevnega ukrepa in je lahko v primeru splo�nega ukrepa, kar je primer programa pomoči, v preambuli na eni strani naveden le splo�ni položaj, ki je privedel do njenega sprejetja, in na drugi strani splo�ni cilji, ki jim sledi.
43 Therefore it would be unreasonable to require the Commission to state specific reasons for the precise scope of a transitional measure contained in a decision not to raise any objections to an aid scheme.
43 Zato bi bilo neupravičeno zahtevati, da mora Komisija posebej obrazložiti določeno področje uporabe prehodne določbe iz izpodbijane odločbe o nevložitvi ugovora zoper program pomoči.
This is especially so when, as in the present case, the Commission, by its decision, limits itself to acknowledging a decision made by the Italian authorities as to the appropriate scope of the transitional provision.
Tako je zlasti, ko se Komisija, kot v obravnavani zadevi, omeji na potrditev odločbe italijanskih organov v zvezi s področjem uporabe prehodne določbe.
The alleged failure to state adequate reasons
Domnevno nezadostna obrazložitev
The referring court also queries whether the Commission has provided sufficient reasons, in accordance with Article 253 EC,
Predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje tudi, ali je Komisija v skladu s členom 253 ES izpodbijano odločbo glede izključitve prve
It follows that the Commission has in my view not infringed its obligation to state adequate reasons by not giving reasons for the exclusion of the companies of the first category from the scope of the transitional provision of the contested decision.
Menim, da iz tega sledi, da Komisija s tem, da ni navedla razlogov za izključitev prve vrste podjetij s področja uporabe prehodne določbe iz izpodbijane odločbe, ni kr�ila svoje obveznosti obrazložitve.
42 — See, by analogy, the caselaw according to which Articles 87 EC and 88 EC would lose much of their effectiveness if Member States could rely on their own wrongful conduct which may have created legitimate expectations on the part of potential beneficiaries of aid in order to deprive decisions taken by the Commission under provisions of the Treaty of their effectiveness (see, for example, Case C-5/89 Commission v Germany [1990] ECR I-3437, paragraph 17).
42 – Glej po analogiji sodno prakso, v skladu s katero bi bila členoma 87 ES in 88 ES odvzeta učinkovitost, če bi se lahko države članice sklicevale na svoje nedopustno ravnanje, ki bi lahko ustvarilo legitimna pričakovanja potencialnih upravičencev do pomoči pri odvzemanju učinkovitosti odločbam, ki jih je Komisija sprejela na podlagi Pogodbe (glej na primer sodbo z dne 20. septembra 1990 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-5/89, Recueil, str. I-3437, točka 17).
In the light of the foregoing, I am of the view that the answer to the question referred should be that:
Ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenega menim, da bi bilo treba na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovoriti:
Examination of the question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Commission Decision SG(2000)D/105754 of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the Treaty an aid scheme provided for under Italian legislation in the form of aid for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy.
Pri preskusu vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje ni bil ugotovljen noben dejavnik, ki bi lahko vplival na veljavnost odločbe Komisije SG(2000)D/105754 z dne 12. julija 2000, s katero je bil program pomoči, določen na podlagi italijanske zakonodaje, v obliki pomoči za vlaganja na gospodarsko �ibkih območjih Italije razgla�en za združljivega s Pogodbo.
2008 — CASE C-390/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-390/06
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy), made by decision of 14 June 2006, received at the Court on 19 September 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-390/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italija) z odločbo z dne 14. junija 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 19. septembra 2006, v postopku
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 11 September 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Mazák, sodni tajnik: H. von Holstein, namestnik sodnega tajnika, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 11. septembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
The question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns the validity of the decision of the Commission of 12 July 2000 not to raise objections against an aid scheme for
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na veljavnost odločbe Komisije z dne 12. julija 2000, da do 31. decembra 2006 zoper shemo pomoči za naložbe v manj
2008 — CASE C-390/06 investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy until 31 December 2006 (State Aid No N 715/99 — Italy) (‘the contested decision’), a summary notice relating to which was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJ 2000 C 278, p. 26).
2008 – ZADEVA C-390/06 razvitih regijah Italije (državna pomoč �t. N 715/99 – Italija) ne bo vložila ugovora (v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba), o kateri je bilo objavljeno kratko obvestilo v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti (UL C 278, str. 26).
That question was raised in proceedings brought by Nuova Agricast Srl (‘Nuova Agricast’), an undertaking established in the region of Apulia in Italy, against the Ministero delle Attività Produttive (Italian Ministry of Productive Activities), seeking damages alleged to arise from its failure to receive State aid as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Italian authorities in discussions with the Commission of the European Communities which preceded the adoption of the contested decision.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v sporu med družbo Nuova Agricast Srl (v nadaljevanju: Nuova Agricast) s sedežem v deželi Apulija v Italiji in Ministero delle Attività Produttive (ministrstvo za proizvodne dejavnosti) glede povrnitve �kode zaradi neplačila državne pomoči, ki naj bi jo to podjetje utrpelo zaradi nedopustnega ravnanja italijanskih organov med pogovori s Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti pred sprejetjem sporne odločbe.
Regulation (EC) No 659/1999
Uredba (ES) št. 659/1999
As the second recital in its preamble makes clear, Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p.
Kot izhaja iz njene druge uvodne izjave, Uredba Sveta (ES) �t. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena [88] ES (UL L 83, str.
1) codifies and reinforces the practice developed by the Commission of the European Communities, in accordance with the Court’s caselaw, with regard to the review of State aid.
1) določa in uveljavlja prakso na področju preučevanja državnih pomoči, ki jo je v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča razvila Komisija.
Article 1(c) of that regulation provides that ‘new aid’ is to mean ‘all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid’.
Člen 1(c) te uredbe določa, da „nova pomoč“ pomeni „vsako pomoč, to je sheme pomoči ali individualno pomoč, ki ni veljavna pomoč, vključno s spremembami veljavne pomoči“.
Article 2 of Regulation No 659/1999 states:
Člen 2 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 določa:
Save as otherwise provided in regulations made pursuant to Article [89] of the Treaty or to other relevant provisions thereof, any plans to grant new aid shall be notified to the Commission in sufficient time by the Member State concerned.
Razen če v uredbah, sprejetih na podlagi člena [89] Pogodbe ali z drugimi ustreznimi določbami Pogodbe, ni drugače določeno, mora zadevna država članica vsak načrt za dodeljevanje nove pomoči pravočasno prijaviti Komisiji.
In a notification, the Member State concerned shall provide all necessary information in order to enable the Commission to take a decision pursuant to Articles 4 and 7 (hereinafter referred to as “complete notification”).’
V uradni prijavi država članica predloži vse potrebne podatke, z namenom da Komisija lahko odloči na podlagi členov 4 in 7 (v nadaljnjem besedilu ‚popolna uradna priglasitev‘).“
Article 4(2) to (4) of Regulation No 659/1999 provides:
Člen 4 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 v odstavkih od 2 do 4 določa:
Where the Commission, after a preliminary examination, finds that the notified measure does not constitute aid, it shall record that finding by way of a decision.
Če Komisija po predhodni preučitvi ugotovi, da prijavljeni ukrep ni pomoč, to ugotovitev navede v odločbi.
Where the Commission, after a preliminary examination, finds that no doubts are raised as to the compatibility with the common market of a notified measure, in so far as it falls within the scope of Article [87](1) of the Treaty, it shall decide that the measure is compatible with the common market (hereinafter referred to as a “decision not to raise objections”).
Če Komisija po predhodni preučitvi ugotovi, da ni dvomov o združljivosti prijavljenega ukrepa s skupnim trgom, kolikor sodi na področje uporabe člena [87](1) Pogodbe, potem odloči, da je ukrep združljiv s skupnim trgom (v nadaljnjem besedilu ‚odločba o nenasprotovanju‘).
The decision shall specify which exception under the Treaty has been applied.
V odločbi se navede, katera izjema na podlagi Pogodbe je bila uporabljena.
Where the Commission, after a preliminary examination, finds that doubts are raised as to the compatibility with the common market of a notified measure, it shall decide to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article [88](2) of the Treaty (hereinafter referred to as a “decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure”).’
Če Komisija po predhodni preučitvi ugotovi, da obstajajo dvomi o združljivosti prijavljenega ukrepa s skupnim trgom, potem se odloči za začetek postopka na podlagi člena [88](2) Pogodbe (v nadaljnjem besedilu ‚odločba o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave‘).“