natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The claims for compensation by the applicants sought in particular to put in issue the liability of the Community for such conduct.
Cilj od�kodninskih zahtevkov tožečih strank je bil torej uveljavljati odgovornost Skupnosti zaradi takega ravnanja.
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance could only dismiss those claims, whatever the arguments put forward by the applicants to support them (see, by analogy, Salzgitter v Commission, paragraph 59).
V takih okoli�činah je Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko le zavrnilo take zahtevke, ne glede na argumente, ki so jih tožeče stranke navedle za njihovo utemeljitev (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Salzgitter proti Komisiji, točka 59).
The Court of First Instance would thus have been obliged to dismiss the applicants’ claims on that basis if it had not made the error of law that led it to dismiss them on other grounds (see, by analogy, Finsider v Commission, paragraph 38, and ESC v E, paragraph 18).
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi bilo s tem zavezano zavrniti zahtevke tožečih strank, če ne bi napačno uporabilo prava, kar je imelo za posledico, da jih je zavrnilo iz drugih razlogov (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeni sodbi Finsider proti Komisiji, točka 38, in CES proti E, točka 18).
It follows that, although the first plea relied upon in support of the crossappeals is well founded, it is of no consequence and must therefore be dismissed (see, by analogy, Salzgitter v Commission, paragraph 60).
Iz tega sledi, da čeprav je prvi pritožbeni razlog, naveden v utemeljitev nasprotnih pritožb, utemeljen, nima učinka in ga je treba zato zavrniti (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Salzgitter proti Komisiji, točka 60).
The second plea in the main appeals and the second and third pleas in the crossappeals
Drugi pritožbeni razlog glavnih pritožb ter drugi in tretji pritožbeni razlog nasprotnih pritožb
In the light of the finding made in paragraph 176, and the matters set out in paragraph 163, of the present judgment, there is no need to examine the second plea in the main appeals, concerning the unusual nature of the damage allegedly suffered by FIAMM and Fedon, or the second and third pleas in the cross-appeals, respectively concerning the lack of certainty of that damage and the lack of a causal link between that damage and the conduct of the Community institutions.
Glede na ugotovitev v točki 176 te sodbe in glede na navedeno v točki 163 te sodbe, ni treba preizkusiti drugega pritožbenega razloga glavnih pritožb, ki se nana�a na neobičajnost �kode, ki je domnevno nastala tožečima strankama, ter drugega in tretjega pritožbenega razloga nasprotnih pritožb, ki se nana�ata na negotovost navedene �kode oziroma na neobstoj vzročne zveze med to �kodo in ravnanjem institucij Skupnosti.
The claims for compensation on account of the duration of the proceedings at first instance
Odškodninski zahtevki zaradi trajanja postopka na prvi stopnji
In the alternative, FIAMM and Fedon seek fair compensation having regard to the excessive duration of the proceedings at first instance.
Družbi FIAMM in Fedon podredno prosita za dodelitev pravične od�kodnine zaradi trajanja izredno dolgega postopka na prvi stopnji.
Relying on Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417, paragraphs 26 to 49, FIAMM submits in this regard (i) that the case is of considerable financial importance to it, (ii) that the questions of fact here are very clear, (iii) that the conduct of none of the parties contributed to prolonging the procedure and (iv) that the Court of First Instance did not have to deal with exceptional circumstances.
Družba FIAMM s sklicevanjem na sodbo z dne 17. decembra 1998 v zadevi Baustahlgewebe proti Komisiji (C-185/95 P, Recueil, str. I-8417, točke od 26 do 49) v zvezi s tem navaja, prvič, da je zadeva zanjo finančno zelo pomembna, drugič, da so dejanska vpra�anja v tem primeru zelo jasna, tretjič, da ravnanje nobene od strank ne prispeva k podalj�anju postopka in, četrtič, da se Sodi�ču prve stopnje ni bilo treba soočiti z izrednimi okoli�činami.
The Commission contends that the forms of order sought by FIAMM and Fedon are inadmissible in this respect.
Komisija predlaga ugotovitev nedopustnosti predlogov družb FIAMM in Fedon v zvezi s tem.
In the case of Fedon’s appeal, the inadmissibility is dictated firstly by Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, since Fedon has not stated any reasons at all to substantiate the claim.
Glede pritožbe družbe Fedon naj bi bila ta nedopustnost najprej določena s členom 112(1)(c) Poslovnika Sodi�ča, ker družba Fedon nikakor ni utemeljila svojega predloga.
Also, in the case of both appeals, the forms of order sought are necessarily inadmissible ratione materiae.
Glede obeh pritožb naj bi bila ta nedopustnost nujna zaradi ratione materiae.
First, as is apparent from Articles 57 and 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal cannot concern new facts that have not already been set out at first instance.
Po eni strani se pritožba, kot to izhaja iz členov 57 in 58 Statuta Sodi�ča, ne sme nana�ati na nova dejstva, če ta niso bila navedena na prvi stopnji.
Second, the length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance cannot be characterised as a breach of procedure, in the absence of any effect on the outcome of the cases.
Po drugi strani pa dolžina postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje ne sme biti opredeljena kot nepravilnost postopka, če ta ni vplivala na re�itev sporov.
Finally, the forms of order sought are also inadmissible ratione personae, since the Community is represented in the present proceedings by the Council and the Commission and not by the Court of Justice, of which the Court of First Instance — to which the conduct giving rise to the liability alleged is attributed here — forms an integral part.
Nazadnje naj bi bila navedena nedopustnost utemeljena tudi ratione personae, ker Skupnost v tem postopku zastopata Svet in Komisija, in ne Sodi�če, katerega sestavni del je Sodi�če prve stopnje, kateremu naj bi se v tem primeru očitalo dejstvo, ki je vzpostavilo očitano odgovornost.
Furthermore, compensation on grounds of fairness like the compensation granted in Baustahlgewebe v Commission cannot be envisaged here as FIAMM and Fedon are not obliged to pay into the Community budget a sum that is capable of being reduced.
Poleg tega od�kodnina, utemeljena s pravičnostjo, kot je bila dodeljena v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena sodba Baustahlgewebe proti Komisiji, naj ne bi bila možna v obravnavani zadevi, ker družbi FIAMM in Fedon nista bili zavezani v proračun Skupnosti plačati znesek, ki bi ga bilo mogoče zmanj�ati.
Finally, the length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance is in any event explained by the complexity of the cases, by the procedural hazards linked to the joinder of a multiplicity of cases brought in five different languages and involving three institutions and an intervener, by the reassignment of those cases to a larger
Nazadnje, dolžina postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje naj bi bila v vsakem primeru pojasnjena z zapletenostjo zadev, s postopkovnimi dogodki, povezanimi z združitvijo več zadev, ki so bile predložene v petih različnih jezikih postopka in ki vključujejo tri institucije ter intervenientko, z dodelitvijo teh zadev v odločanje raz�irjenemu
2008 — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P chamber and by the fact that Van Parys, a case raising similar questions of principle, was pending before the Court of Justice.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P senatu, ter z okoli�čino, da je Sodi�če �e odločalo o zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Van Parys, ki obravnava vpra�anja o podobnih načelih.
According to the Kingdom of Spain, the claims of FIAMM and Fedon are inadmissible as they were not relied upon at first instance and therefore could not be dealt with in the judgments under appeal.
Kraljevina Španija meni, da so zahtevki družb FIAMM in Fedon nedopustni, ker jih nista uveljavljali na prvi stopnji, da bi se tako o njih lahko odločalo že v izpodbijanih sodbah.
The appellants’ claims seeking reasonable satisfaction on account of the fact that the proceedings before the Court of First Instance exceeded a reasonable duration cannot be upheld here.
Zahtevkom tožečih strank za dodelitev pravičnega zado�čenja zaradi dejstva, da naj bi postopek pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje prekoračil razumni rok, v tem primeru ni mogoče ugoditi.
As regards Fedon’s claim, suffice it to state that, while the claim is set out in the form of order sought, it is not mentioned at all in the main body of the appeal.
Glede zahtevka družbe Fedon zado�ča ugotoviti, da ta je zahtevek naveden v pojasnjevalnem delu vloge, vendar ni nikoli omenjen v njenem glavnem delu.
As provided in Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, an appeal is to contain the pleas in law and legal arguments relied on.
V skladu s členom 112(1)(c) Poslovnika mora pritožba obsegati pritožbene razloge in pravne trditve.
Since such pleas and arguments, which are to be distinguished from the form of order sought by the action, referred to in Article 112(1)(d), were here entirely absent from Fedon’s appeal, it follows that the claim for reasonable compensation made by it, for which no reasoning at all is given, must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Ker takih pritožbenih razlogov in pravnih trditev, ki se razlikujejo od predlogov pritožnika, ki so določeni v istem členu 112(1)(d), nikakor ni v vlogi družbe Fedon, iz tega sledi, da je treba zahtevek za pravično od�kodnino, ki ga je ta vložila in ki je povsem brez obrazložitve, zavreči kot očitno nedopustnega.
As regards FIAMM’s claim, it must be pointed out that, where there is no indication that the length of the proceedings affected their outcome in any way, a plea that the proceedings before the Court of First Instance did not satisfy the requirements concerning completion within a reasonable time cannot as a general rule lead to the setting aside of the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (see, to this effect, Baustahlgewebe v Commission, paragraph 49).
Glede zahtevka družbe FIAMM je treba opozoriti, da če ni nobenega indica, v skladu s katerim naj bi dolžina postopka vplivala na re�itev spora, potem pritožbeni razlog, da naj bi postopek pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje prekoračil zahtevani razumni rok, na splo�no ne more povzročiti razveljavitve sodbe, ki jo je to sodi�če izreklo (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Baustahlgewebe proti Komisiji, točka 49).
In the present case, FIAMM has indeed not asserted that the allegedly excessive duration of the proceedings affected their outcome, or requested that the FIAMM judgment be set aside on this basis.
Družba FIAMM v tej zadevi poleg tega ni navedla, da naj bi domnevno izredno dolgo trajanje postopka vplivalo na re�itev spora, niti ni zahtevala, naj se sodba FIAMM razveljavi.
As is apparent from Article 113(1) of the Rules of Procedure, any appeal is to seek to set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment of the Court of First Instance and, as the case may be, to seek the same form of order, in whole or in part, as that sought at first instance.
Kot izhaja iz člena 113(1) Poslovnika, morajo predlogi vseh pritožb stremeti k temu, da se sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje v celoti ali deloma razveljavi, in da se predlogom, postavljenim na prvi stopnji, ugodi v celoti ali deloma.
In this regard, it is to be observed that in Baustahlgewebe v Commission, upon which FIAMM relies, the appeal before the Court of Justice was brought against a judgment in which the Court of First Instance had imposed a fine on the appellant for infringement of the competition rules, in exercise of the unlimited jurisdiction which it enjoys for that purpose and which the Court of Justice itself may exercise when it sets aside such a judgment of the Court of First Instance and rules on the action.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da je bila v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Baustahlgewebe proti Komisiji, na katero se sklicuje družba FIAMM, pritožba, ki je bila predložena Sodi�ču, vložena zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki je v okviru neomejene pristojnosti, ki jo ima v ta namen, naložilo tožeči stranki globo za kr�itev pravil konkurence, Sodi�če pa neomejeno pristojnost lahko uporabi, ko razveljavlja tako sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje in odloča o tožbi.
In paragraph 33 of that judgment, the Court of Justice noted the appellant’s right to fair legal process within a reasonable period and in particular to a decision on the merits of the allegations of infringement of competition law made against it by the Commission and of the fines imposed on it in that regard.
V točki 33 navedene sodbe je Sodi�če v zvezi s tem opozorilo glede pravice tožeče stranke do pravičnega postopka v razumnem roku in med drugim na to, da se odloča o utemeljenosti obtožb glede kr�itve konkurenčnega prava, ki jih je storila Komisija, in o globah, ki so ji bile naložene v zvezi s tem.
After holding that such a period had, in the case in point, been exceeded by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Justice decided, for reasons of economy of procedure and in order to ensure an immediate and effective remedy regarding a procedural irregularity of that kind, that in the circumstances the requisite reasonable satisfaction could be granted by setting aside and varying, solely in relation to determination of the amount of the fine, the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Baustahl­gewebe v Commission, paragraphs 47, 48 and 141).
Sodi�če, ki je ugotovilo, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v obravnavani zadevi prekoračilo tak rok, je zaradi ekonomičnosti postopka in za zagotovitev takoj�nje in učinkovite poravnave glede take nepravilnosti v postopku odločilo, da bi razveljavitev in spreminjanje sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki sta omejena zgolj na vpra�anje glede določitve zneska globe, v obravnavani zadevi omogočala dodelitev zahtevanega pravičnega zado�čenja (zgoraj navedena sodba Baustahlgewebe proti Komisiji, točke 47, 48 in 141).
By contrast, the present appeal challenges a judgment of the Court of First Instance dismissing an action for compensation brought on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC.
Vendar pa je ta pritožba vložena zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, s katero je bila zavrnjena od�kodninska tožba, ki temelji na členu 288, drugi odstavek, ES.
It follows that the setting aside of such a judgment cannot lead to the grant of reasonable satisfaction for the excessive duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance by variation of the judgment under appeal, since in such proceedings the Court of First Instance is not in any event, any more than the Court of Justice on appeal, called upon to order the applicants to pay a sum from which that reasonable satisfaction could, where appropriate, be subtracted.
Iz tega sledi, da razveljavitev take sodbe ne more povzročiti dodelitve pravičnega zado�čenja zaradi izredno dolgega postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje na podlagi spreminjanja izpodbijane sodbe, ker v takem postopku Sodi�če prve stopnje v nobenem primeru ne more, nič bolj kot Sodi�če glede pritožbe, naložiti tožečima strankama plačilo zneska, od katerega bi se v danem primeru lahko odtegnilo pravično zado�čenje.
Accordingly, FIAMM’s claim seeking reasonable satisfaction for the allegedly excessive duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance must also be dismissed as inadmissible.
V teh okoli�činah je treba tudi zahtevek družbe FIAMM za dodelitev pravičnega zado�čenja zaradi domnevno izredno dolgega postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje zavreči kot nedopustnega.
It should, moreover, be pointed out that, even though in this instance the proceedings before the Court of First Instance did last a considerable time, the reasonableness of a period must be appraised in the light of the circumstances specific to each case and, in particular, the importance of the case for the person concerned, its complexity and the conduct of the applicant and of the competent authorities (see, inter alia, Baus­tahlgewebe v Commission, paragraph 29, and Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P and C-254/99 P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission [2002] ECR I-8375, paragraph 210).
Poleg tega je treba opredeliti, da čeprav je bilo trajanje postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje v tem primeru dejansko precej dolgo, je treba razumnost roka presojati glede na posebne okoli�čine vsakega primera in zlasti glede na interese oseb v sporu, zapletenost zadeve ter ravnanje tožeče stranke in pristojnih organov (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Baustahlgewebe proti Komisiji, točka 29, in sodbo z dne 15. oktobra 2002 v združenih zadevah Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij in drugi proti Komisiji, C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, od C-250/99 P do C-252/99 P in C-254/99 P, Recueil, str. I-8375, točka 210).
It should be stated with regard to the conduct of the competent authority and the degree of complexity of the case that the considerable length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance is in this instance capable of being largely explained by a combination of objective circumstances relating to the number of parallel cases successively brought before that court and to the importance of the legal questions raised by them.
Glede ravnanja pristojnega organa in zapletenosti zadeve, je treba ugotoviti, da se precej dolg postopek pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje v tem primeru v veliki meri lahko pojasni z združitvijo objektivnih okoli�čin, povezanih s �tevilom vzporednih zadev, ki so bile ena za drugo vložene pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, ter s pomenom pravnih vpra�anj, ki se v njih obravnavajo.
Those circumstances provide the explanation as to why a series of procedural hazards arose which had a decisive contribution in delaying the conclusion of the cases concerned and which cannot here be considered unusual, such as the joinder, in the light of the connection between them, of six cases brought in a number of different languages, or their reassignment, first to a chamber in extended composition, then to a new Judge-Rapporteur following the departure of the Judge-Rapporteur initially designated and, finally, to the Grand Chamber of the Court of First Instance, this final reassignment being itself accompanied by the reopening of the oral procedure.
Te okoli�čine namreč omogočajo pojasnitev nastanka več proceduralnih dogodkov, ki so odločilno prispevali k poznej�i re�itvi zadevnih sporov in ki jih v tem primeru ni mogoče �teti za neobičajne, in sicer združitev – glede na njihovo povezanost – �estih zadev, vloženih v več različnih jezikih postopka, oziroma njihova dodelitev najprej raz�irjeni sodni�ki sestavi, nato novemu sodniku poročevalcu zaradi odhoda sodnika poročevalca, ki je bil prvotno določen, in nazadnje velikemu senatu Sodi�ča prve stopnje, pri čemer se je tej zadnji dodelitvi pridružilo ponovno odprtje ustnega postopka.
The first subparagraph of Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure provides that Member States which intervene in the proceedings are to bear their own costs.
Člen 69(4), prvi pododstavek, določa, da države članice, ki se kot intervenientke udeležijo postopka, nosijo svoje stro�ke.
Since the Council and the Commission have applied for costs and FIAMM and Fedon have been unsuccessful, FIAMM and Fedon must be ordered to pay the costs.
Ker sta Svet in Komisija predlagala, naj se družbama FIAMM in Fedon naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ti s pritožbenimi razlogi nista uspeli, se jima naloži plačilo stro�kov.
Dismisses the main appeals;
Glavni pritožbi se zavržeta.
Dismisses the cross-appeals;
Nasprotni pritožbi se zavržeta.
Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
Kraljevina Španija nosi svoje stroške.
Joined Cases C-75/05 P and C-80/05 P
Združeni zadevi C-75/05 P in C-80/05 P
Federal Republic of Germany and Others v Kronofrance SA
Zvezna republika Nemčija in drugi proti Kronofrance SA
(Appeals — State aid — Commission decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Interested parties — Regional aid for large investment projects — Multisectoral framework 1998)
„Pritožba – Državne pomoči – Odločba Komisije o nenasprotovanju – Ničnostna tožba – Dopustnost – Zainteresirane stranke – Regionalne pomoči, namenjene večjim naložbenim projektom – Večsektorski okvir 1998“
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 11 September 2008 . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (prvi senat) z dne 11. septembra 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Arts 88(2) and (3), EC and 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 1(h))
(člena 88(2) in (3) ES ter 230, četrti odstavek, ES; Uredba Sveta št. 659/1999, člen 1(h))
Appeals — Pleas in law — Misassessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted
Pritožba – Razlogi – Napačna presoja dejstev in dokazov – Nedopustnost – Nadzor Sodišča nad presojo dejstev in dokazov – Izključitev, razen v primeru izkrivljanja
(Art. 225(1), second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
(člen 225(1), drugi odstavek, ES; Statut Sodišča, člen 58, prvi odstavek)
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-75/05 P AND C-80/05 P
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-75/05 P IN C-80/05 P
State aid — Examination by the Commission — Discretion of the Commission — Possibility of adopting guidelines
Pomoči, ki jih dodelijo države – Preizkus, ki ga opravi Komisija – Diskrecijska pravica Komisije – Možnost sprejetja smernic
(Art. 87(3), EC; Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects)
(člen 87(3) ES; Večsektorski okvir za regionalno pomoč, namenjeno večjim naložbenim projektom)
Procedure — Measures of inquiry — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment by the Court of First Instance of the need to supplement the information before it — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted
Postopek – Pripravljalni ukrepi – Nadzor Sodišča nad presojo Sodišča prve stopnje o potrebi po dopolnitvi podatkov – Izključitev, razen v primeru izkrivljanja
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 64)
(Poslovnik Sodišča prve stopnje, člen 64)
When examining the admissibility of an action before the Court of First Instance, that court, after establishing that the applicant can be considered an ‘interested party’ in terms of Article 88(2) EC and Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999, is not required to demand in addition proof that that party’s position on the market is substantially affected by the adoption of the contested decision.
Prvostopenjsko sodi�če med preizkusom dopustnosti tožbe pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, potem ko je ugotovilo, da je mogoče tožečo stranko �teti za „zainteresirano stranko“ v smislu členov 88(2) ES in 1(h) Uredbe �t. 659/1999, ni zavezano zahtevati, naj se prav tako dokaže, da je s sprejetjem sporne odločbe položaj te stranke na trgu občutno prizadet.
(see paras 37-40, 43, 44)
(Glej točke od 37 do 40, 43 in 44.)
In the context of supervision of State aid under Article 88 EC, where, without initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) EC, the Commission finds on the basis of Article 88(3) EC that an aid is compatible with the common market, the persons intended to benefit from the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 88(2) EC may secure compliance therewith only if they are able to challenge that decision before the Community judicature.
Kadar Komisija v okviru postopka nadzora nad državnimi pomočmi iz člena 88 ES, ne da bi sprožila postopek iz člena 88(2) ES, na podlagi odstavka 3 tega člena ugotovi, da je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom, lahko osebe, ki so upravičene do postopkovnih jamstev iz odstavka 2, spo�tovanje teh jamstev uveljavljajo le, kadar imajo možnost, da to odločbo izpodbijajo pred sodi�čem Skupnosti.