natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The letter in dispute then stated that ‘in the absence of additional information to justify continuing the investigation, the Commission ha[d], for the purposes of administrative action, closed the file on the case on 2 June 2004’.
V spornem dopisu je bilo nato pojasnjeno, da „[je] Komisija zato, ker ni imela dodatnih podatkov, ki bi upravičili izvedbo preiskave, 2. junija 2004 ustavila upravni postopek“.
On the assumption that that letter of 16 September 2003 had been drafted in the terms of the letter in dispute, it would constitute the preliminary act for the purposes of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999, by which the Commission satisfied its obligation, arising from that provision, to inform the interested party that it did not intend to take a view on the case.
Če bi bili v navedenem dopisu z dne 16. septembra 2003 uporabljeni izrazi iz spornega dopisa, bi navedeni dopis pomenil predhodni akt v smislu člena 20(2), drugi stavek, Uredbe �t. 659/1999, s katerim Komisija izpolni obveznost iz te določbe, da zainteresirano stranko obvesti, da v zadevi ne namerava sprejeti odločbe.
As a consequence, Athinaïki Techniki had the option of providing additional information to the Commission.
Posledično je imel Athinaïki Techniki možnost predložiti Komisiji dodatne podatke.
Further, the words ‘in the absence of additional information to justify continuing the investigation, the Commission ha[d], for the purposes of administrative action,
Dalje, izrazi „Komisija je zato, ker ni imela dodatnih podatkov, ki bi upravičili izvedbo preiskave, 2. junija 2004 ustavila upravni postopek“ iz spornega dopisa kažejo na to,
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI v COMMISSION closed the file on the case on 2 June 2004’ in the letter in dispute indicate that the Commission, on that date, actually closed the file for the purposes of administrative action, that is to say, it adopted the contested act.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI PROTI KOMISIJI da je Komisija takrat dejansko sprejela akt o ustavitvi upravnega postopka v zadevi, torej izpodbijani akt.
It is apparent from the substance of that act and from the intention of the Commission that it thus decided to bring to an end the preliminary examination procedure initiated by Athinaïki Techniki.
Iz vsebine tega akta in iz namena Komisije izhaja, da se je Komisija odločila končati predhodni postopek preučitve, ki ga je sprožil Athinaïki Techniki.
By that act, the Commission stated that the review initiated had not enabled it to establish the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC and it implicitly refused to initiate the formal investigation pro -cedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC (see, to that effect, Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 47).
Komisija je z navedenim aktom ugotovila, da začeta preiskava ni omogočila ugotovitve o obstoju pomoči v smislu člena 87 ES, in je implicitno zavrnila začetek formalnega postopka preiskave, ki ga predvideva člen 88(2) ES (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France, točka 47).
It is apparent from the caselaw referred to in paragraph 36 of this judgment that, in such a situation, the persons to whom the procedural guarantees under that provision apply may ensure that they are observed only if they are able to challenge that decision before the Community judicature in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Iz sodne prakse, navedene v točki 36 te sodbe, poleg tega izhaja, da v takem položaju osebe, ki so upravičene do postopkovnih jamstev, predvidenih v tej določbi, te uveljavljajo le, kadar imajo možnost, da to odločbo izpodbijajo pred sodi�čem Skupnosti v skladu s členom 230, četrti odstavek, ES.
That principle applies both when a decision is taken on the ground that the Commission considers that the aid is compatible with the common market, and when it takes the view that the existence of aid should be ruled out.
To načelo velja tako takrat, kadar je odločba sprejeta zato, ker Komisija meni, da je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom, kot če meni, da pomoč ne obstaja.
The contested act cannot be classified as preliminary or preparatory since it cannot be followed, in the context of the administrative procedure which has been initiated, by any other decision amenable to annulment proceedings (see, to that effect, inter alia, SFEI and Others v Commission, paragraph 28).
Izpodbijanega akta ni mogoče opredeliti kot predhodnega ali pripravljalnega, ker mu v okviru začetega upravnega postopka ne sledi noben drug akt, zoper katerega bi bilo mogoče vložiti ničnostno tožbo (v tem smislu glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo SFEI in drugi proti Komisiji, točka 28).
Contrary to what the Court of First Instance held, it is not relevant, in that regard, that the interested party may still provide the Commission with additional information which might oblige the Commission to review its position on the State measure at issue.
V nasprotju s tem, kar je odločilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, v zvezi s tem ni upo�tevno, da bi zainteresirana stranka lahko Komisiji predložila �e dodatne podatke, na podlagi katerih bi zadnjenavedena morala ponovno preučiti svoje stali�če o zadevnem državnem ukrepu.
The lawfulness of a decision taken at the end of the preliminary examination stage is examined only on the basis of the information which the Commission had at its
Zakonitost odločbe, sprejete na koncu predhodne faze preučitve, se presoja le glede na podatke, ki jih je Komisija lahko imela takrat, ko jo je sprejemala (glej zgoraj
2008 — CASE C-521/06 P disposal at the time when it made the decision (see Nuova Agricast, paragraphs 54 to 60), that is to say, in the present case, at the time the contested act was adopted.
2008 – ZADEVA C-521/06 P navedeno sodbo Nuova Agricast, točke od 54 do 60), torej v obravnavanem primeru ob sprejetju izpodbijanega akta.
If an interested party provides additional information after the closing of the file, the Commission can be obliged to open, if appropriate, a new administrative pro -cedure.
Če zainteresirana stranka predloži dodatne podatke po ustavitvi postopka v zadevi, mora Komisija začeti, če je potrebno, nov upravni postopek.
By contrast, that information has no effect on the fact that the first preliminary examination procedure is already closed.
Vendar ti podatki ne vplivajo na dejstvo, da je prvi predhodni postopek preučitve že končan.
It follows that, contrary to what the Court of First Instance held at paragraph 29 of the order under appeal, the Commission did adopt a definite position on Athinaïki Techniki’s request seeking a finding of infringement of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.
Iz tega sledi, da je Komisija v nasprotju s tem, kar je Sodi�če prve stopnje presodilo v točki 29 izpodbijanega sklepa, sprejela dokončno stali�če o predlogu Athinaïki Techniki, naj ugotovi kr�itev členov 87 ES in 88 ES.
Finally, as has been noted at paragraph 44 of this judgment, the fact that the Commission did not notify the Member State concerned, that it did not describe the contested act as a ‘decision’, and that it did not refer to Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, has no bearing on the classification of the contested act.
Nazadnje, kot je bilo navedeno v točki 44 te sodbe, na opredelitev izpodbijanega akta ne vpliva, da ga Komisija ni sporočila zadevni državi članici, da ga ni označila kot „odločbo“ in da ne vsebuje sklicevanja na člen 4 Uredbe �t. 659/1999.
In that regard, it is apparent from the progress of the administrative procedure, as noted inter alia in paragraph 6 of the order under appeal, that the Commission adopted its position on the ground that the State measure at issue did not constitute State aid.
V zvezi s tem iz poteka upravnega postopka, kot je opozorjeno zlasti v točki 6 izpodbijanega sklepa, izhaja, da je Komisija sprejela stali�če z obrazložitvijo, da zadevni državni ukrep ni državna pomoč.
The contested act must therefore be classified as a decision within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 659/1999, read in conjunction with Art -icles 13(1) and the third sentence of Article 20(2) of that regulation.
Izpodbijani akt je torej treba opredeliti kot odločbo v smislu člena 4(2) Uredbe �t. 659/1999, kot se ga bere skupaj s členoma 13(1) in 20(2), tretji stavek, te uredbe.
As that act prevented Athinaïki Techniki from submitting its comments, in the context of a formal investigation procedure referred to in Article 88(2) EC, it produced legal effects which were capable of affecting that company’s interests.
Ker je ta akt Athinaïki Techniki onemogočil, da bi predložil pripombe v okviru formalnega postopka preiskave, ki ga določa člen 88(2) ES, je povzročil zavezujoče pravne učinke, ki lahko vplivajo na interese te družbe.
The contested act does, therefore, constitute an act open to challenge for the purposes of Article 230 EC.
Izpodbijani akt je zato izpodbojni akt v smislu člena 230 ES.
Setting aside of the order under appeal
Razveljavitev izpodbijanega sklepa
It follows from all of the foregoing that the Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that Athinaïki Techniki had brought an action for annulment against an act which has no legal effect and cannot therefore be the subject of an action under Article 230 EC.
Iz vsega zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem da je presodilo, da je Athinaïki Techniki vložil ničnostno tožbo zoper akt, ki ne povzroča pravnih učinkov in zoper katerega torej ni mogoče vložiti tožbe na podlagi člena 230 ES.
Consequently, the order under appeal must be set aside.
Posledično je treba izpodbijani sklep razveljaviti.
The action at first instance
Tožba na prvi stopnji
In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, that court may, where the decision of the Court of First Instance has been quashed, give final judgment in the matter, where the state of proceedings so permits.
V skladu s členom 61, prvi odstavek, Statuta Sodi�ča lahko to v primeru razveljavitve odločitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje samo dokončno odloči o zadevi, če stanje postopka to dovoljuje.
In the current state of the proceedings the Court is not in a position to give judgment on the substance of the application before the Court of First Instance.
V tej fazi postopka Sodi�če ne more odločiti o utemeljenosti tožbe, vložene pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
That aspect of the dispute involves the consideration of questions of fact based on evidence which was not assessed before the Court of First Instance, nor argued before the Court, as a result of which it is apparent that the state of proceedings do not permit judgment to be given.
Ta vidik spora namreč vključuje dejanska vpra�anja o podlagi dokazov, ki jih Sodi�če prve stopnje ni presojalo niti Sodi�če o njih ni razpravljalo, iz česar izhaja, da stanje zadeve ne dopu�ča dokončne odločitve.
However, the Court does possess all the information necessary for it to give final judgment on the preliminary plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in the proceedings at first instance (see Case C-193/01 P Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB [2003] ECR I-4837, paragraph 32).
Vendar ima Sodi�če dokaze, potrebne za dokončno odločitev o ugovoru nedopustnosti, ki ga je vložila Komisija v postopku na prvi stopnji (glej sodbo z dne 15. maja 2003 v zadevi Pitsiorlas proti Svetu in ECB, C-193/01 P, Recueil, str. I-4837, točka 32).
In addition to the preliminary plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission and based on the argument that the contested act cannot be the subject of an action for annulment, which must be rejected for the reasons set out in paragraphs 33 to 61 of this judgment, the Commission contends that Athinaïki Techniki filed its application outside of the prescribed time-limits.
Poleg ugovora nedopustnosti, ki ga je vložila Komisija in se nana�a na to, da zoper izpodbijani akt ni mogoče vložiti ničnostne tožbe, ter ga je treba zavrniti iz razlogov, navedenih v točkah od 33 do 61 te sodbe, Komisija zatrjuje, da je Athinaïki Techniki vložil tožbo zunaj predpisanih rokov.
It should, at the outset, be borne in mind that, in the words of the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, the proceedings provided for in that article must be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da je v skladu s členom 230, peti odstavek, ES tožbe, ki jih predvideva ta člen, treba glede na posamezen primer vložiti v dveh mesecih od objave akta, od uradnega obvestila tožeči stranki, če tega ni bilo, pa od dneva, ko je zanj izvedela.
In accordance with Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, that timelimit is to be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days.
V skladu s členom 102(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje se v obravnavani zadevi ta rok zaradi oddaljenosti podalj�a za enkratno obdobje desetih dni.
It is common ground that the contested act was not published in the Official Journal of the European Union, nor was it notified to Athinaïki Techniki as the party to whom the act was addressed, so that the two months and ten days timelimit could begin to run for Athinaïki Techniki only from the day on which the act came to its knowledge, that is to say from the receipt of the letter in dispute.
Ni dvoma, da izpodbijani akt ni bil niti objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti niti Athinaïki Techniki ni bil uradno obve�čen o njem kot naslovnik, tako da je rok dveh mesecev in desetih dni za to družbo lahko začel teči �ele z dnem, ko je bila ta popolnoma seznanjena z navedenim aktom, torej ob prejemu spornega dopisa.
In the present case, Athinaïki Techniki sent to the Registry of the Court of First Instance a copy of the application by fax on 11 February 2005 and the original on 18 February 2005.
V obravnavanem primeru je Athinaïki Techniki v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prve stopnje poslal prepis tožbe s telefaksom 11. februarja 2005 in njen izvirnik 18. februarja 2005.
The final page of the copy was not absolutely identical to the original, so that the Registrar of the Court of First Instance decided it was not consistent with the original.
Ker zadnja stran tega prepisa ni bila popolnoma enaka izvirniku, je sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prve stopnje odločilo, da ni skladna z izvirnikom.
It is not necessary to examine the issue of whether Athinaïki Techniki validly filed its application on 11 February 2005.
Vpra�anje glede tega, ali je Athinaïki Techniki 11. februarja 2005 veljavno predložil tožbo, ni potrebno.
Even if the date when the original of the application was submitted to the Court of First Instance is taken into consideration, Athinaïki
Čeprav je upo�tevan datum, ko je izvirnik tožbe prispel na Sodi�če
Techniki’s action against the contested act is in any event admissible provided that Athinaïki Techniki received the letter in dispute on 8 December 2004 or later.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI PROTI KOMISIJI prve stopnje, je tožba Athinaïki Techniki zoper izpodbijani akt vsekakor dopustna pod pogojem, da je ta sporni dopis prejela 8. decembra 2004 ali pozneje.
On that point, the Commission claims that the letter in dispute was received by Athinaïki Techniki, at the latest, on 6 December 2004 and that the timelimit was therefore not adhered to.
Komisija glede tega trdi, da je bil sporni dopis posredovan Athinaïki Techniki najpozneje 6. decembra 2004 in da torej predpisani rok ni bil spo�tovan.
In that regard, the Commission points out that it sent the letter out either the day it was drafted, or the next day, and that the postal service must have delivered it to Athinaïki Techniki, at the latest, on the third day after it was sent.
V zvezi s tem zatrjuje, da je ta dopis poslala ali na dan, ko je bil napisan, ali naslednji dan in da ga je morala po�ta izročiti Athinaïki Techniki najpozneje tretji dan po tem, ko je bil poslan.
As a consequence, it has placed no evidence before the Court capable of proving on what day it actually sent the letter in dispute by post.
Posledično Komisija Sodi�ču ni predložila ničesar, kar bi dokazovalo, kdaj je sporni dopis dejansko dostavila na po�to.
Similarly, the Commission has failed to substantiate its argument that the postal service delivered that letter to Athinaïki Techniki, at the latest, the third day after it was sent.
Komisija prav tako z ničemer ni podprla trditve, da je po�ta ta dopis izročila Athinaïki Techniki najpozneje tretji dan po tem, ko je bil poslan.
The Commission has thus provided no proof that Athinaïki Techniki received the letter in dispute on 6 December 2004 at the latest.
Komisija tako ni dokazala, da je Athinaïki Techniki sporni dopis prejela najpozneje 6. decembra 2004.
It merely puts forward arguments which are mere presumptions and which cannot take the place of proof (see Joined Cases 193/87 and 194/87 Maurissen and Union syndicale v Court of Auditors [1989] ECR 1045, paragraph 47).
Navaja le trditve, ki so samo domneve in ki ne morejo nadomestiti dokaza (glej sodbo z dne 11. maja 1989 v združenih zadevah Maurissen in Union syndicale proti Računskemu sodi�ču, 193/87 in 194/87, Recueil, str. 1045, točka 47).
Since the matter is referred back to the Court of First Instance, the costs relating to the present appeal proceedings must be reserved.
Ker se zadeva vrne Sodi�ču prve stopnje, se odločitev o stro�kih pritožbenega postopka pridrži.
Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki v Commission.
Sklep Sodišča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 26. septembra 2006 v zadevi Athinaïki Techniki proti Komisiji (T-94/05) se razveljavi.
Rejects the preliminary plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission of the European Communities before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
Ugovor nedopustnosti, ki ga je Komisija vložila pri Sodišču prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti, se zavrne.
Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for it to rule on the pleas in law of Athinaïki Techniki AE, seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 June 2004 to take no further action concerning State aid allegedly granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in the disposal of 49% of the capital of the Casino Mont Parnès.
Zadeva se vrne Sodišču prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti, da bo odločilo o predlogih Athinaïki Techniki AE za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije Evropskih skupnosti z dne 2. junija 2004, s katero je bil ustavljen postopek s pritožbo v zvezi z domnevno državno pomočjo, ki jo je Helenska republika dodelila konzorciju Hyatt Regency v okviru javnega naročila za prenos 49 % kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès.
Orders that the costs be reserved.
Odločitev o stroških se pridrži.
Case C-71/07 P
Zadeva C-71/07 P
(Appeal — Officials — Remuneration — Pension — Application of the correction coefficient calculated on the basis of the average cost of living in the country of residence — Transitional arrangements established by the regulation amending the Staff Regulations — Objection of illegality)
„Pritožba – Uradniki – Osebni prejemki – Pokojnina – Uporaba korekcijskega koeficienta, izračunanega glede na povprečne življenjske stro�ke v državi prebivanja – Prehodna ureditev, določena z uredbo, s katero so bili spremenjeni Kadrovski predpisi za uradnike – Ugovor nezakonitosti“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 17 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 17. julija 2008
Appeals — Cross-appeal — Subjectmatter — Declaration that the principal appeal is inadmissible — Inadmissibility
Pritožba – Nasprotna pritožba – Predmet – Razglasitev nedopustnosti pritožbe pritožnika – Nedopustnost
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 56, second para., and 61)
(Statut Sodišča, člena 56, drugi odstavek, in 61)
SUMMARY — CASE C-71/07 P
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-71/07 P
It is clear from Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that all appeals must seek the setting-aside in whole or in part of a judgment of the Court of First Instance, since the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits, or refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment.
med državo članico stalnega prebivali�ča in Belgijo („metoda države“) upo�teva življenjske stro�ke znotraj države članice na vsaj tako reprezentativen način kot izračun korekcijskih koeficientov iz razmerja med življenjskimi stro�ki v glavnem mestu države stalnega prebivali�ča in Brusljem („metoda glavnega mesta“).
coefficients on the basis of the relationship between the cost of living in the Member State of residence and that in Belgium (‘the country method’) reflects the cost of living in a State in a manner that is at least as representative as the calculation of the calculation of coefficients on the basis of the relationship between the cost of living in the capital of the country of residence and that in Brussels (‘the ‘the capital method’’).
Iz člena 61 Statuta Sodi�ča izhaja, da mora biti namen vsake pritožbe razveljavitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje deloma ali v celoti, pri čemer lahko Sodi�če v primeru razveljavitve tako samo dokončno odloči o zadevi, če stanje postopka to dovoljuje, ali pa jo vrne v razsojanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje, da o njej odloči.
Accordingly, a cross-appeal is inadmissible where it does not seek to have the judgment under appeal set aside, but rather a declaration that the principal appeal lodged by the appellant is inadmissible.
Nasprotna pritožba, katere namen ni razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe, temveč ugotovitev nedopustnosti pritožbe pritožnika, torej ni dopustna.
Since the ‘country method’ is therefore an appropriate method of calculation for the purpose of ensuring, as far as possible, equality of purchasing power for all pensioners, the Community legislature did not infringe the principle of equal treatment when, in drawing up Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials and the Conditions of Employment of other ser -vants, it substituted the ‘country method’ for the ‘capital method’ for the purpose of determining correction coefficients in the transitional pension arrangements.
Ker zato „metoda države“ predstavlja ustrezen način izračuna za zagotovitev, kolikor je mogoče, enakovrednosti kupne moči upokojencev, zakonodajalec Skupnosti s tem, da je s sprejetjem Uredbe �t. 723/2004 o spremembi Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti in pogojev za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Evropskih skupnosti za določitev korekcijskih koeficientov v okviru prehodne pokojninske ureditve „metodo države“ zamenjal z „metodo glavnega mesta“, ni kr�il načela enakega obravnavanja.
A single correction coefficient per country applied to the pensions of officials can constitute an appropriate indicator to reflect, in a necessarily approximate way, the cost of living in a Member State.
Enotni korekcijski koeficient za pokojnine uradnikov za državo lahko pomeni ustrezen kazalec, ki lahko le približno izraža življenjske stro�ke v državi članici.
(see paras 52, 54, 55)
(Glej točke 52, 54 in 55.)
The decision of the Community legislature to reform the pension scheme by abolishing the correction coefficients applicable to pension rights acquired after 1 May 2004, implemented by Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials and the Conditions of Employment of other servants, is not incompatible with the principle of equal treatment.
Glede na to, da je enotni korekcijski koeficient za državo lahko le približen, je treba �teti, da je cilj zagotovitve določene enakovrednosti kupne moči med nekdanjimi uradniki, ki prebivajo v različnih državah članicah, upo�tevan, če je ta enotni korekcijski koeficient določen v skladu z merili, ki zagotavljajo njegovo reprezentativnost.
Although the former pension scheme, based on a system
Vendar ni dvoma, da način izračuna korekcijskih koeficientov glede na razmerje življenjskih stro�kov