natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Second, the intervention must be liable to affect trade between Member States.
Drugič, ta intervencija mora biti taka, da lahko prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
Third, it must confer an advantage on the recipient.
Tretjič, njenemu upravičencu mora omogočati prednost.
Fourth, it must distort or threaten to
Četrtič, izkrivljati mora
2008 — JOINED CASES C-341/06 P AND C-342/06 P distort competition (see, in particular, Case C-451/03 Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti [2006] ECR I-2941, paragraph 56).
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-341/06 P IN C-342/06 P konkurenco ali groziti, da jo bo izkrivljala (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 30. marca 2006 v zadevi Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, C-451/03, ZOdl., str. I-2941, točka 56).
Furthermore, the Court has consistently held that the agreed benefits may include not only positive benefits such as subsidies, loans or direct investment in the capital of undertakings, but also interventions which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which therefore, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are of the same character and have the same effect.
Poleg tega iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da lahko dogovorjene prednosti izhajajo ne le iz pozitivnih dajatev, kot so subvencije, posojil ali udeležb v kapitalu podjetij, temveč prav tako iz ukrepov, ki v različnih oblikah zmanj�ujejo stro�ke, ki običajno bremenijo proračun podjetja, in so zato, ne da bi bili subvencije v pravem pomenu besede, iste narave in imajo enake učinke.
The supply of goods or services on preferential terms is one of the indirect advantages which have the same effects as subsidies (see to that effect, in particular, Case C-126/01 GEMO [2003] ECR I-13769, paragraphs 28 and 29).
V okviru posrednih koristi, ki učinkujejo enako kot subvencije, je treba izpostaviti zlasti zagotavljanje blaga in storitev pod ugodnej�imi pogoji (glej v tem smislu zlasti sodbo z dne 20. novembra 2003 v zadevi GEMO, C-126/01, Recueil, str. I-13769, točki 28 in 29).
In finding, in paragraphs 165 and 167 of the judgment under appeal, that the transfer of Postadex by La Poste (then a State service) to SFMI-Chronopost constituted State aid, the Court of First Instance took the view that that transaction had led to the transfer of the client base — that is to say, an intangible asset which had an economic value — and that there had been no consideration in favour of La Poste for the ensuing benefit for SFMI-Chronopost.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je pri tem, ko je v točkah 165 in 167 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da je prenos služb Postadex – torej državnih storitev s strani družba La Poste v korist družbe SFMI-Chroopost – državna pomoč, �telo, da je ta transakcija zajemala prenos strank, torej neopredmeteno sredstvo, ki je imelo gospodarsko vrednost, in da za prednost, ki jo je pridobila na podlagi tega, družba SFMI-Chronopost ni ponujala protidajatve v korist družbe La Poste.
Such a line of reasoning suggests that La Poste split from Postadex for no consider -ation, as though the activity transferred had been privatised without any remuneration.
Tako utemeljevanje dovoljuje, da bi se družba La Poste ločila od službe Postadex, ne da bi za to dobila protidajatev, kot če bi bila prenesena dejavnost privatizirana brez vsakega plačila.
However, that analysis is based on a false premiss.
Vendar taka analiza temelji na napačni premisi.
It is common ground that La Poste proceeded with this transfer by means of establishing a subsidiary and that, by virtue of its 100% holding, it acquired a 66% shareholding in its subsidiary, Chronopost.
Ni namreč sporno, da je družba La Poste tako transakcijo izvedla s prenosom dejavnosti na hčerinske družbe in da je prek holdinga, v katerem ima stoodstotni delež, pridobila 66 % kapitala v svoji hčerinski družbi Chronopost.
It cannot be ruled out that that shareholding at least partly takes into account the value of the tangible and intangible assets transferred, and particularly the value of the Postadex client base.
Torej ni mogoče izključiti, da se v tem deležu vsaj delno upo�tevajo vrednosti prenesenega opredmetenega in neopredmetenega sredstva in zlasti strank službe Postadex
As the Advocate General noted at point 117 of her Opinion, La Poste retained the economic value of the activities transferred to Chronopost corresponding to its 66% shareholding in Chronopost.
Kot je generalna pravobranilka poudarila v točki 117 sklepnih predlogov, je družba La Poste ohranila gospodarsko vrednost dejavnosti, prenesenih na družbo Chronopost, v vi�ini 66 % kapitala zadnjenavedene.
In those circumstances, it must be held that the Court of First Instance could not, without erring in law, justify an analysis in which it disregards entirely the legal and economic conditions of a client base transfer upon the establishment of a subsidiary, where those conditions are, by themselves, capable of giving rise to a consideration in return for the benefit conferred by that transfer.
V teh okoli�činah je treba ugotoviti, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni moglo, ne da bi napačno uporabilo pravo, svoje analize utemeljiti s tem, da bi v celoti prezrlo pravne in ekonomske pogoje prenosa strank v okviru prenosa dejavnosti na hčerinske družbe, čeprav bi taki pogoji sami po sebi lahko povzročili protidajatev za prednost, pridobljeno s takim prenosom.
In addition, such classification as ‘State aid’ could be accepted only if the transfer of the Postadex client base, as such, fulfilled all the conditions referred to in Article 92(1) of the Treaty, as recalled in paragraph 122 of this judgment, those conditions being cumulative conditions (see, to that effect, Case C-237/04 Enirisorse [2006] ECR I-2843, paragraph 50).
Poleg tega bi bilo tako opredelitev državne pomoči mogoče sprejeti le, če bi prenos strank službe Postadex izpolnjeval vse pogoje iz člena 92(1) Pogodbe, ki so navedeni v točki 122 obravnavane sodbe in ki so kumulativni (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 23. marca 2006 v zadevi Enirisorse, C-237/04, ZOdl., str. I-2843, točka 50).
However, it is not claimed that all those conditions are fulfilled.
Vendar ni zatrjevano, da so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji.
In any event, as regards the issue whether — under the fourth of those conditions — such a transfer distorts or threatens to distort competition, that could only be the case if, in particular, the transfer altered the structure of the market concerned and affected the situation of the competing undertakings already present on that market.
V vsakem primeru, v zvezi z vpra�anjem, ali je, kot izhaja iz četrtega pogoja, tak prenos izkrivljal konkurenco ali grozil, da jo bo izkrivljal, bi lahko bilo tako le, če bi zlasti prenos spreminjal strukturo zadevnega trga in vplival na položaj konkurenčnih podjetij, ki so že prisotna na trgu.
In that regard, as the Advocate General noted at point 120 of her Opinion, since the express delivery business was already being operated directly by La Poste under the name ‘Postadex’ until the date on which SFMI-Chronopost was created, the transfer of the Postadex client base to SFMI-Chronopost does not appear to have had the effect, by itself, of changing the conditions of competition on the express delivery market.
V zvezi s tem, kot poudarja generalna pravobranilka v točki 120 sklepnih predlogov, ker je dejavnost hitre dostave že opravljala družba La Poste pod imenom Postadex do dneva ustanovitve družbe SFMI-Chronopost, se ni zdelo, da bi prenos strank službe Postadex na družbo SFMI-Chronopost imel sam po sebi za učinek spremembo pogojev konkurence na trgu hitre po�te.
In those circumstances, the fourth ground of appeal put forward by Chronopost and La Poste must be upheld and the judgment under appeal set aside in so far as it determined that the contested decision should be annulled inasmuch as that decision finds that the transfer of Postadex does not constitute State aid.
V teh okoli�činah je treba četrti pritožbeni razlog družb Chronopost in La Poste sprejeti in izpodbijano sodbo razveljaviti v delu, v katerem je bila sporna odločba razgla�ena za nično, ker je v njej ugotovljeno, da prenos službe Postadex ni državna pomoč.
In view of all the foregoing considerations, the judgment under appeal must be set aside in so far as it (i) annuls the contested decision inasmuch as that decision finds that neither the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary, namely SFMI-Chronopost, nor the transfer of Postadex constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost, and (ii) allocates the burden of costs accordingly.
Ob upo�tevanju vseh navedenih ugotovitev je treba izpodbijano sodbo razveljaviti, na eni strani zato, ker je sporna odločba razgla�ena za nično v delu, v katerem je ugotovljeno, da niti logistična in komercialna podpora družbe La Poste njeni hčerinski družbi SFMI Chronopost niti prenos službe Postadex nista državna pomoč v korist družbe SFMI-Chronopost, in na drugi strani zato, ker so v njej naloženi stro�ki v skladu s tem.
The consequences of setting aside the judgment under appeal
Posledice razveljavitve izpodbijane sodbe
In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, if the Court of Justice quashes the decision of the Court of First Instance, it may itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits.
V skladu s členom 61, prvi odstavek, Statuta Sodi�ča lahko leto ob razveljavitvi odločitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje samo dokončno odloči o zadevi, če stanje postopka to dovoljuje.
Since that is the case here, it is appropriate for the Court of Justice — within the limits of the matter before it — to rule on the merits of the application for annulment of the contested decision, taking into account the fact that the parties have been able to put forward all the factors for assessing the legality of that decision throughout a procedure which has passed through a number of stages.
Ker je v obravnavani zadevi tako, mora Sodi�če, v okviru spora, ki je predložen, vsebinsko odločiti o predlogu za razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe, pri čemer upo�teva dejstvo, da so stranke vsa merila za presojo njene zakonitosti lahko predložile ves čas postopka, ki je zajemal več faz.
Scope of the action
Obseg spora
It must be observed, first of all, that the judgment under appeal annulled the contested decision only in so far as it finds that neither the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost, nor the transfer of Postadex constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost, whereas, as has been noted in paragraph 4 of the present judgment, Article 1 of the contested decision refers to other matters which the Commission regarded as not constituting State aid.
Najprej je treba spomniti, da je bila v izpodbijani sodbi sporna odločba razgla�ena za nično le v delu, v katerem je ugotovljeno, da niti logistična in komercialna podpora družbe La Poste njeni hčerinski družbi SFMI Chronopost niti prenos službe Postadex nista državna pomoč v korist družbe SFMI-Chronopost, medtem ko se je,
CHRONOPOST AND LA POSTE v UFEX AND OTHERS
CHRONOPOST IN LA POSTE PROTI UFEX IN DRUGIM kot je navedeno v točki 4 obravnavane sodbe, člen 1 sporne odločbe nana�al na druge elemente, za katere je Komisija �tela, da niso državna pomoč.
The Court of First Instance rejected the arguments of UFEX and Others in relation to those other matters, either in the judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission, as recalled in paragraph 180 of the judgment under appeal, or in paragraphs 189 to 191 of the latter judgment.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je trditve združenja UFEX in drugih v zvezi z drugimi elementi zavrnilo bodisi v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji, kot je to navedeno v točki 180 izpodbijane sodbe, bodisi v točkah od 189 do 191 te sodbe.
Furthermore, in its consideration of the plea alleging an error in applying the concept of State aid, the Court of First Instance, in the judgment under appeal, rejected the arguments put forward by UFEX and Others in support of that plea relating to the use of the so-called ‘backward projection’ method and to the use of La Poste’s brand image.
Dalje, Sodi�če prve stopnje je pri obravnavanju tožbenega razloga kr�itve pojma državna pomoč v izpodbijani sodbi zavrnilo trditve združenja UFEX in drugih v utemeljitev tega tožbenega razloga, ki se na eni strani nana�a na uporabo t. i. metode „retropolacije“ in na drugi strani na uporabo blagovne znamke družbe La Poste.
In those circumstances, and since UFEX and Others, the respondents in the present appeals, have not made pertinent submissions, the partial setting aside by the Court of Justice of the judgment under appeal does not affect that judgment inasmuch as the Court of First Instance rejected those arguments.
V teh okoli�činah, in ker združenje UFEX in drugi, tožene stranke v obravnavani pritožbi, torej niso predložili nasprotnih ugotovitev, delna razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe, ki jo je razglasilo Sodi�če, ne sproža dvomov o tej sodbi v delu, v katerem je Sodi�če prve stopnje te trditve zavrnilo.
Consequently, the subjectmatter of the dispute remaining before the Court of Justice following the setting aside of the judgment under appeal (paragraph 132 above) is now limited to the challenge to the contested decision in so far as it finds that the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost does not constitute State aid.
Predmet spora, ki je ostal naslovljen na Sodi�če po razveljavitvi, ki izhaja iz člena 132 obravnavane sodbe, je zato zdaj omejen na izpodbijanje sporne odločbe zgolj v delu, v katerem je ugotovljeno, da logistična in komercialna podpora družbe La Poste njeni hčerinski družbi SFMI Chronopost ni državna pomoč
Within the limits of that subject-matter, it therefore remains for the Court to rule on the arguments put forward in support of the plea alleging an error in the application of the concept of State aid, as maintained by UFEX and Others before the Court of First Instance following the judgment in Chronopost and Others v Ufex and Others, namely the lack of coverage of costs borne by La Poste, the underestimation and arbitrary nature of certain elements found by the Commission, errors in the adjustments
V okviru omejitev tega predmeta mora Sodi�če torej odločiti �e o trditvah, navedenih v utemeljitev tožbenega razloga kr�itve pojma državna pomoč, kot so pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje to najedli združenje UFEX in drugi po izdaji zgoraj navedene sodbe Chronopost in drugi proti Ufex in drugim, in sicer o tem, da naj stro�ki, ki jih je imela družba La Poste, ne bi bili pokriti, da naj bi Komisija določene vidike podcenjevala
2008 — JOINED CASES C-341/06 P AND C-342/06 P in Annex 4 to the Deloitte report and the abnormally high level of the internal rate of return of La Poste’s investment.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-341/06 P IN C-342/06 P oziroma upo�tevala samovoljno, da naj bi bile bilance v prilogi 4 k poročilu Deloitte napačne in interna stopnja donosa naložbe družbe La Poste nenavadno visoka.
The merits of the application for annulment of the contested decision
Utemeljenost predloga za razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe
At the outset, it must be borne in mind that State aid, as defined in the Treaty, is a legal concept which must be interpreted on the basis of objective factors.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da ima pojem državna pomoč, kot je opredeljen v Pogodbi ES, pravni značaj in ga je treba razlagati na podlagi objektivnih dejavnikov.
For that reason, the Community judicature must in principle, having regard both to the specific features of the case before it and to the technical or complex nature of the Commission’s assessments, carry out a comprehensive review as to whether a measure falls within the scope of Article 92(1) of the Treaty (Case C-83/98 P France v Ladbroke Racing and Commission [2000] ECR I-3271, paragraph 25).
Zaradi tega mora sodi�če Skupnosti načeloma in upo�tevajoč konkretne dejavnike spora, o katerem odloča, ter tehničnost ali zapletenost presoje, ki jo je opravila Komisija, izvajati celoten nadzor glede vpra�anja, ali ukrep spada na področje uporabe člena 92(1) Pogodbe ES (sodba z dne 16. maja 2000 v zadevi Francija proti Ladbroke Racing in Komisiji, C-83/98 P, Recueil, str. I-3271, točka 25).
It follows that it is for the Court to check whether the facts relied upon by the Commission are substantively accurate and whether they establish that all the conditions referred to in paragraph 122 of this judgment justifying the classification of ‘aid’ within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty are fulfilled.
Iz tega izhaja, da mora Sodi�če preveriti, ali so dejstva, ki jih je navedla Komisija, materialno pravilna in ali so taka, da je mogoče ugotoviti, ali so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz točke 122 obravnavane zadeve, ki utemeljujejo opredelitev „pomoči“ v smislu člena 92(1) Pogodbe.
In addition, since, as has been stated in paragraph 95 of the present judgment, the concept of State aid must be applied to an objective situation appraised on the date on which the Commission takes its decision, it is the appraisals carried out on that date which must be taken into account in the conduct of the review referred to above.
Poleg tega je treba, ker – kot je bilo navedeno v točki 94 te sodbe – pojem državna pomoč namreč odgovarja objektivnemu stanju, ki se presoja na dan, ko Komisija sprejme odločbo, pri zgoraj navedenem sodnem nadzoru upo�tevati presojo, ki se opravi ta dan.
The arguments put forward by UFEX and Others must be examined in the light of those considerations, those arguments being designed to establish errors in the appraisals which led the Commission to find that the remuneration for the logistical and commercial assistance given by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost in respect of the period from 1986 to 1995 was sufficient and did not therefore disclose State aid in favour of SFMI-Chronopost.
Trditve združenja UFEX in drugih je treba preučiti ob upo�tevanju teh ugotovitev, pri čemer je namen teh trditev dokazati napačnost presoj, na podlagi katerih je Komisija ugotovila, da je plačilo logistične in komercialne podpore družbe La Poste zadostovalo in torej ni pomenilo državne pomoči v korist zadnjenavedene.
In particular, UFEX and Others contend that the Commission merely confirms that the total costs borne by La Poste were covered, without specifying the figures involved or the calculations made, and also that the Deloitte report upon which it relies recognises the Commission’s inability to justify its findings on the variable costs in the absence of analytical accounts for La Poste before 1992.
Podrobneje, združenje UFEX in drugi zatrjujejo, da je Komisija navedla zgolj to, da so bili celotni stro�ki, ki jih je imela družba La Poste, pokriti, ne da bi natančno navedla zajete �tevilke ali opravljene izračune, in tudi to, da poročilo Deloitte, na katerega se opira, dokazuje njeno nesposobnost, da utemelji svoje ugotovitve v zvezi z variabilnimi stro�ki, ker družba La Poste pred letom 1992 ni imela analitičnega računovodstva.
In that regard, and as the Court of First Instance has already noted in paragraphs 134 to 136 of the judgment under appeal, as to the use of the backward projection method, it is common ground that it is only from 1992 that La Poste, until then an integral part of the French State administration, kept analytical accounts, and that without them it was impossible to calculate precisely the costs of the services provided by La Poste before then in respect of SFMI-Chronopost.
V zvezi s tem, in kot je že Sodi�če prve stopnje navedlo v točkah od 134 do 136 izpodbijane sodbe, glede uporabe t. i. metode retropolacije ni sporno, da je imela družba La Poste – do takrat sestavni del francoske državne uprave – analitično računovodstvo �ele od leta 1992, zaradi česar je bilo zaradi njegovega neobstoja za prej�nja obdobja nemogoče natančno izračunati stro�ke storitev, ki jih je družba La Poste opravila za družbo SFMI-Chronopost.
Furthermore, as the Court has already observed in paragraph 38 of the judgment in Chronopost and Others v Ufex and Others, in the absence of any possibility of comparing the situation of La Poste with that of a private group of undertakings not operating in a reserved sector, ‘normal market conditions’, which are necessarily hypothetical, must be assessed by reference to the objective and verifiable elements available.
Poleg tega, ker – kot je Sodi�če navedlo v točki 38 sodbe Chronopost in drugi – položaja družbe La Poste ni mogoče primerjati s položajem zasebne skupine podjetij brez monopolnega položaja, je treba nujne hipotetične običajne tržne razmere ugotoviti z razpoložljivimi objektivnimi in dokazljivimi dejavniki.
In those circumstances, the Commission should not, at first sight, be criticised for having based the contested decision on the only data available at the time, deriving in particular from the Deloitte report and supplied by the French Government, from which it was possible to reconstruct the costs incurred by La Poste.
V teh okoli�činah se Komisiji ne bi smelo na prvi pogled očitati, da je sporno odločbo utemeljila le na podatkih, ki so bili torej na voljo, ki so izhajali predvsem iz poročila Deloitte, ki jih je predložila francoska vlada in na podlagi katerih je bilo mogoče rekonstruirati stro�ke, ki jih je imela družba La Poste.
However, examination of the documents in the files submitted to the Court does not allow such a finding.
Vendar na podlagi preučitve Sodi�ču predloženih dokumentov iz spisa ni mogoče priti do te ugotovitve.
First, there was no reason for the Commission to query the veracity of the data supplied from the analytical accounts drawn up by La Poste from 1992 and which — as is common ground — were certified by the auditors and by a State auditor.
Prvič, ni bilo razloga, da bi Komisija sprožila dvom o verodostojnosti teh podatkov, ki jih je dobila na podlagi analitičnih izračunov družbe La Poste od leta 1992 in ki so jih, kar ni sporno, potrdili revizorji in državni revizor.
The fact that the French Court of Auditors pointed out the weaknesses of certain aspects of those accounts in a 2003 report does not prove that the Commission’s findings at the date of the contested decision were manifestly incorrect.
Okoli�čina, da naj bi francosko računsko sodi�če v poročilu iz leta 2003 opozorilo na „slabost“ določenih elementov teh izračunov, ne more utemeljiti tega, da je bila presoja Komisije na dan sprejetja sporne odločbe očitno napačna.
It must moreover also be noted in that regard that UFEX and Others appended to the complaint which they submitted to the Commission an economic study by Braxton and another study by that same firm in support of the action which they brought before the Tribunal de commerce de Paris in 1993.
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da so združenje UFEX in drugi pritožbi, ki so jo vložili pri Komisiji, priložili ekonomsko �tudijo svetovalne družbe Braxton in �e drugo �tudijo te svetovalne družbe v utemeljitev tožbe, ki jo je leta 1993 vložilo pri Tribunal de commerce Paris (gospodarsko sodi�če v Parizu).
It is apparent from undisputed statements in the contested decision that UFEX and Others attached to the observations they submitted to the Commission in August 1996 another economic study by the consultancy Bain & Co. (‘the Bain study’) with figures which, according to UFEX and Others, were more accurate than those of the two previous studies by Braxton. 153
Iz navedb v sporni odločbi, ki niso bile izpodbijane, izhaja, da so združenje UFEX in drugi stali�čem, ki so jih predložili Komisiji avgusta 1996, priložili novo ekonomsko �tudijo svetovalne družbe Bain & Company (v nadaljevanju: �tudija Bain), v kateri so bili po mnenju združenja UFEX in drugih navedeni natančnej�i zneski, kot so zneski iz prej�njih dveh �tudij svetovalne družbe Braxton. 153