natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I am therefore of the opinion that the acts or conduct adopted by the Commission in this case could not have established on the part of Salzgitter a legitimate expectation such as to prevent the Commission from ordering the Federal Republic of Germany to recover the aid and the recipient undertaking to repay that aid.
Posledično menim, da akti oziroma ravnanja Komisije v okviru te zadeve pri družbi Salzgitter niso mogli ustvariti legitimnih pričakovanj, tako da bi preprečili Komisiji, da zahteva od Zvezne republike Nemčije, da odredi izterjavo pomoči, in od družbe prejemnice, da jih povrne.
The first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice provides that, if the appeal is well founded, the Court of Justice is to quash the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Člen 61, prvi odstavek, statuta Sodi�ča določa, da Sodi�če, če je pritožba utemeljena, razveljavi odločitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
In that case, it 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.
Če stanje postopka to dovoljuje, lahko v tem primeru samo dokončno odloči o zadevi ali pa jo vrne v razsojanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
In view of all of the foregoing considerations and in the light of the conclusions already drawn in the examination of the previous two limbs, I consider that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in finding that the Commission had infringed the principle of legal certainty by ordering repayment of the aid which, without notification, had been unlawfully granted to Salzgitter.
Glede na vse te elemente in glede na sklepne predloge, ki sem jih že navedel v okviru preučitve dveh zgornjih delov pritožbenega razloga, menim, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo pri presoji, da je Komisija kr�ila načelo pravne varnosti, ko je zahtevala povrnitev pomoči, ki so bile brez priglasitve nezakonito dodeljene družbi Salzgitter.
I therefore propose that the Court should declare the first plea to be well founded and set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it annulled Articles 2 and 3 of the contested decision concerning repayment of the aid granted to Salzgitter between 1986 and 1995.
Zato Sodi�ču predlagam, naj prvi pritožbeni razlog razglasi kot utemeljenega in naj razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo v delu, s katerim je razglasila ničnost členov 2 in 3 sporne odločbe o povrnitvi pomoči, dode -ljenih družbi Salzgitter v letih od 1986 do 1995.
In my view, the state of the proceedings in this case does not permit final judgment.
V obravnavani zadevi menim, da o tem sporu ni mogoče presojati.
Examination of the pleas raised by Salzgitter in its application for annulment will inevitably require verifications of fact which the Court of First Instance did not examine in the judgment under appeal.
Preučitev tožbenih razlogov, ki jih je navedla družba Salzgitter v okviru ničnostne tožbe, bo neizogibno zahtevala dejanska preverjanja, ki jih Sodi�če prve stopnje ni preučilo v okviru izpodbijane sodbe.
I am thinking, in particular, of the fourth plea, alleging an error of assessment arising from the classification of certain investments as measures falling within the scope of application of the ECSC Treaty, the fifth plea, alleging an error of assessment by virtue of the Commission’s failure to classify certain investment plans as environmental protection measures, and the sixth plea, alleging an error of assessment in the definition of the decisive discount rate.
Mislim zlasti na četrti pritožbeni razlog: napačna presoja glede opredelitve nekaterih naložb za ukrepe, ki sodijo na področje uporabe Pogodbe ESPJ, na peti pritožbeni razlog: napačna presoja, ker naj Komisija nekaterih projektov vlaganj ne bi opredelila kot ukrepe za varstvo okolja, in na �esti pritožbeni razlog: napačna presoja pri določitvi odločilne stopnje sedanje vrednosti.
In the light of the foregoing, there is in my view no need for a ruling on the other limbs of this plea.
Ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenega menim, da se mi ni treba izreči o drugih točkah tega pritožbenega razloga.
Nor do I consider there to be any need for a ruling on the second plea of this appeal.
Prav tako menim, da se mi ni treba izreči o drugem pritožbenem razlogu te pritožbe.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice should:
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve predlagam, naj Sodi�če presodi:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 22. aprila 2008 *
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 16 September 2004,
V zadevi C-408/04 P, zaradi pritožbe na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, ki je bila vložena 16. septembra 2004,
JUDGMENT OF 22. 4.
SODBA Z DNE 22. 4.
2008 — CASE C-408/04 P
2008 – ZADEVA C-408/04 P
Advocate General: Y. Bot, Registrar: J. Swedenborg, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 6 February 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 September 2007,
Swedenborg, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 6. februarja 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 11. septembra 2007
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER gives the following
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER izreka naslednjo
By its appeal, the Commission of the European Communities asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2004 in Case T-308/00 Salzgitter v Commission [2004] ECR II-1933 (‘the judgment under appeal’) by which that court partly annulled Commission Decision 2000/797/ECSC of 28 June 2000 on State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group’s steel-industry subsidiaries, now known as Salzgitter AG - Stahl und Technologie (SAG) (OJ 2000 L 323, p.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti s pritožbo predlaga razveljavitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 1. julija 2004 v zadevi Salzgitter proti Komisiji (T-308/00, ZOdl., str. II-1933, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba), s katero je slednje razglasilo delno ničnost Odločbe Komisije 2000/797/ESPJ z dne 28. junija 2000 o državni pomoči, ki jo Zvezna republika Nemčija izvaja v korist družb Salzgitter AG in Preussag Stahl AG ter hčerinskih jeklarskih družb skupine, danes združenih pod imenom Salzgitter AG – Stahl und Technologie (SAG) (UL L 323, str.
5, ’the contested decision’).
5, v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba).
By its crossappeal, Salzgitter AG (‘Salzgitter’) seeks to have the judgment under appeal set aside in part.
Družba Salzgitter AG (v nadaljevanju: Salzgitter) z nasprotno pritožbo predlaga delno razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe.
Legal context and facts of the case
Pravni okvir in dejansko stanje
In paragraphs 1 to 5 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance set out the legal context as follows:
V točkah od 1 do 5 izpodbijane sodbe je Sodi�če prve stopnje predstavilo pravni okvir tako:
“The following are recognised as incompatible with the common market for coal and steel and shall accordingly be abolished and prohibited within the Community, as provided in this Treaty:
‚Znotraj Skupnosti se na podlagi te pogodbe kot nezdružljive s skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo odpravijo in prepovedo:
(c) subsidies or aids granted by States, or special charges imposed by States, in any form whatsoever.”
2008 – ZADEVA C-408/04 P c) subvencije ali pomoči ali kakr�na koli vrsta posebnih dajatev, ki jih države dodelijo ali naložijo. ‘
Article 67 CS provides:
Člen 67 PJ določa:
Any action by a Member State which is liable to have appreciable repercussions on conditions of competition in the coal or the steel industry shall be brought to the knowledge of the Commission by the government concerned.
Vlade države članice morajo obvestiti Visoko oblast o vseh dejavnostih svoje države, ki bi lahko pomembno vplivale na pogoje konkurence v sektorjih premoga in jekla.
If the action is liable, by substantially increasing differences in production costs otherwise than through changes in productivity, to provoke a serious disequilibrium, the Commission, after consulting the Consultative Committee and the Council, may take the following steps:
Če taka dejavnost pri enaki donosnosti tako poveča razlike v proizvodni ceni, da povzroči hudo neravnovesje, lahko Visoka oblast po posvetovanju s Svetovalnim odborom sprejme naslednje ukrepe:
— if the action taken by that State is having harmful effects on the coal or steel undertakings within the jurisdiction of that State, the Commission may authorise it to grant aid to these undertakings, the amount, conditions and duration of which shall be determined in agreement with the Commission. …;
– če ima dejavnost države �kodljive posledice za podjetja iz sektorja premoga in jekla v pristojnosti te države, ji lahko Visoka oblast dovoli odobritev pomoči, katere vi�ina, pogoji in trajanje so določeni v dogovoru z Visoko oblastjo. […]
— if the action taken by that State is having harmful effects on the coal or steel undertakings within the jurisdiction of other Member States, the Commission shall make a recommendation to that State with a view to remedying these effects by such measures as that State may consider most compatible with its own economic equilibrium.
– če ima dejavnost države �kodljive posledice za podjetja iz sektorja premoga in jekla v pristojnosti drugih držav, Visoka oblast nanjo naslovi priporočilo za njihovo odpravo z ukrepi, za katere meni, da so najbolj združljivi z njenim gospodarskim ravnovesjem.
The first and second paragraph of Article 95 CS provide as follows:
Člen 95, prvi in drugi odstavek, PJ določa:
“In all cases not provided for in this Treaty where it becomes apparent that a decision or recommendation of the Commission is necessary to attain, within the common market in coal and steel and in accordance with Article 5, one of the objectives of the Community set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4, the decision may be taken or the recommendation made with the unanimous assent of the Council and after the Consultative Committee has been consulted.
‚V primerih, ko bi bila za uresničitev enega od ciljev iz členov 2, 3 in 4 za delovanje skupnega trga premoga in jekla v skladu z določbami člena 5 nujna odločba ali priporočilo Visoke oblasti, pa s to pogodbo nista predvidena, lahko Visoka oblast tako odločitev ali priporočilo sprejme po posvetovanju s Svetovalnim odborom s soglasjem Sveta, ki sklepa soglasno.
Any decision so taken or recommendation so made shall determine what penalties, if any, may be imposed.”
Taka odločitev ali priporočilo, sprejeto pod enakimi pogoji, opredeljuje tudi morebitne sankcije.‘
In order to meet the restructuring needs of the steel industry, the Commission relied on the provisions of Article 95 CS to introduce, in the early 1980s, a Community scheme authorising the grant of State aid to the steel industry in specific and limited cases.
Da bi zadostila potrebam po prestrukturiranju jeklarskega sektorja, se je Komisija od zgodnjih osemdesetih let za uvedbo programa Skupnosti za dodelitev državnih pomoči jeklarski industriji v določenih izčrpno na�tetih primerih oprla na člen 95 PJ.
That scheme underwent a series of amendments in order to deal with the cyclical problems encountered by the steel industry.
Ta ureditev je bila pozneje zaradi premagovanja konjunkturnih težav jeklarske industrije večkrat spremenjena.
The decisions successively adopted for that purpose are commonly known as the “Steel Aid Codes”.
Različne odločbe, ki so bile v zvezi s tem izdane, se ponavadi označujejo kot ‚pravila o pomoči jeklarstvu‘.
2008 — CASE C-408/04 P p. 42), which constitutes the Sixth Steel Aid Code [(the Sixth Steel Aid Code)].
2008 – ZADEVA C-408/04 P pravila o pomoči jeklarstvu [(v nadaljevanju: �esta pravila o pomoči jeklarstvu)].
That decision was applicable from 1 January 1997 to 22 July 2002.’
Ta odločba se je uporabljala od 1. januarja 1997 do 22. julija 2002.“
In paragraphs 6 to 11 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance set out the pre-litigation procedure, in the following terms:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato v točkah od 6 do 11 izpodbijane sodbe navedlo dejansko stanje:
In Germany, the Zonenrandförderungsgesetz (German law on the development of the border zone between the former German Democratic Republic and the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, “the ZRFG”) was adopted on 5 August 1971 and approved, along with subsequent amendments to it, by [decision of] the Commission [(“the 1971 Decision”)], following assessment of the measures planned by the Commission pursuant to Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) and Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC).
V Nemčiji je bil Zonenrandförderungsgesetz (nem�ki zakon, katerega cilj je bil vplivati na razvoj območja vzdolž meje z nekdanjo Nem�ko demokratično republiko in nekdanjo Če�koslova�ko republiko, v nadaljevanju: ZRFG) sprejet 5. avgusta 1971, Komisija pa ga je po presoji ukrepov, ki jih predvideva v smislu člena 92 Pogodbe ES (ki je po spremembi postal člen 87 ES) in člena 93 Pogodbe ES (ki je postal člen 88 ES), skupaj z nadaljnjimi spremembami, potrdila [z odločbo] [(v nadaljevanju: odločba iz leta 1971)].
The most recent amendments to the ZRFG were approved by the Commission as State aid compatible with the EC Treaty (OJ 1993 C 3, p. 3).
Zadnje spremembe ZRFG je Komisija potrdila kot državne pomoči, združljive s Pogodbo ES (UL 1993, C 3, str. 3).
The ZRFG came to an end definitively in 1995.
ZRFG je dokončno prenehal veljati leta 1995.
From the beginning, Paragraph 3 of the ZRFG provided for tax incentives in the form of special depreciation allowances (“Sonderabschreibungen”) and taxfree reserves (“steuerfreie Rücklagen”) for investments made in any establishment of an undertaking situated along the border area between the former German Democratic Republic and the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic … .
Od začetka je člen 3 ZRFG določal davčne spodbude v obliki posebnih amortizacij (Sonderabschreibungen) in neobdavčenih rezervacij in rezerv (steuerfreie Rücklagen) za investicije v vse obrate podjetja vzdolž meje z Nem�ko demokratično republiko ali Če�koslova�ko republiko […].
The special depreciation allowances permitted the entry of a higher rate of depreciation for eligible investment in the company accounts than would be possible, under the ordinary legislation, in the initial year or years of the investment of the
Posebne amortizacije so pomenile možnost, da se v bilanco stanja družbe iz naslova subvencioniranih investicij v prvem letu ali prvih letih, ki so sledila navedenim investicijam zadevnega podjetja, vpi�e večja amortizacija glede na splo�na pravila. To je za
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER company in question.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER podjetje pomenilo znižano davčno osnovo in s tem več likvidnosti za prvo ali prva leta, ki so sledila investicijam, torej več likvidnega kapitala.
Thus the company’s tax base was reduced and liquidity was increased for the first year or years of the investment, thereby procuring a gain for the company.
Podobne prednosti je bilo podjetje deležno zaradi neobdavčenih rezervacij in rezerv.
The special depreciation allowances and taxfree reserves could not be cumulated, however.
Vendarle pa se posebne amortizacije in neobdavčene rezervacije in rezerve niso mogle kumulirati.
By letter dated 3 March 1999 the Commission, after having observed from a reading of the annual accounts of Preussag Stahl AG, one of the companies of … Salzgitter …, that the company had been subsidised repeatedly between 1986 and 1995 on the basis of Paragraph 3 of the ZRFG, informed Germany of its decision to initiate the procedure under Article 6(5) of the Sixth Steel Aid Code in respect of the aid granted by [the Federal Republic of] Germany to Preussag Stahl AG and to the other subsidiaries of … Salzgitter ….
Z dopisom z dne 3. marca 1999 je Komisija po tem, ko je v letnih poslovnih izkazih družbe Preussag Stahl AG, ene od družb […] Salzgitter […], ugotovila, da so ji bile v letih od 1986 do 1995 na podlagi člena 3 ZRFG dodeljene �tevilne pomoči, obvestila Zvezno republiko Nemčijo o svoji odločitvi, da začne postopek, določen v členu 6(5) �estih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu glede pomoči, ki jih je Nemčija dodelila družbi Preussag Stahl AG in drugim hčerinskim jeklarskim družbam skupine Salzgitter […].
By that decision, published on 24 April 1999 in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJ 1999 C 113, p.
Z navedeno odločbo, objavljeno 24. aprila 1999 v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti (UL C 113, str.
9), the Commission invited the parties concerned to submit their observations on the aid in question.
9), je Komisija zainteresirane osebe pozvala, naj predložijo svoje pripombe glede zadevnih pomoči.
By Articles 2 and 3 of the [contested] decision, the Commission ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recover that aid from the recipient and requested it to state the specific conditions for its recovery.’
V skladu s členoma 2 in 3 [sporne] odločbe je Komisija Zvezni republiki Nemčiji odredila, naj navedene pomoči izterja od upravičencev, in jo pozvala, naj navede natančne pogoje njihovega vračila.“
Proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal
Tožba pred Sodiščem prve stopnje in izpodbijana sodba
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 11 September 2000, Salzgitter brought an action seeking the annulment of the contested decision.
Družba Salzgitter je s tožbo, ki jo je 21. septembra 2000 vložila pri sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje, predlagala razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe.
By order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 29 March 2001, the Federal Republic of Germany was given leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by Salzgitter.
Zvezni republiki Nemčiji je bila s sklepom z dne 29. marca 2001 dovoljena intervencija v podporo predlogom družbe Salzgitter.
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that the Commission was entitled to apply Article 4(c) CS, and not Article 67 CS, to the State aid granted to Salzgitter.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v izpodbijani sodbi ugotovilo, da je Komisija pravilno uporabila člen 4(c) PJ za pomoči, dodeljene družbi Salzgitter, razen člena 67 PJ.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court of First Instance stated, particularly in paragraphs 111 to 115 of the judgment under appeal, that Articles 4(c) CS and 67 CS cover two distinct areas, with Article 67 not covering State aid, and that the uncertainty brought about by developments in the legal regime governing aid not specific to the coal and steel sectors during the period that saw the successive adoption of the first three Steel Aid Codes could not change its interpretation.
V zvezi s tem zaključkom je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 111 do 115 izpodbijane sodbe pojasnilo, da se člena 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ nana�ata na dve različni področji, s tem da člen 67 PJ ne spada na področje državnih pomoči in da negotovost, povezana z razvojem pravnega sistema pomoči, ki ni specifičen za sektor premoga in jekla, ob zaporednem sprejetju prvih treh pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu, ni mogla spremeniti njegove razlage.
Moreover, the Court of First Instance rejected as unfounded Salzgitter’s arguments concerning the Commission’s erroneous interpretation of the notion of State aid and of Article 95 CS, as well as its argument concerning the failure to state reasons in the contested decision.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje kot neutemeljene zavrnilo trditve družbe Salzgitter o Komisijini napačni razlagi pojma državnih pomoči in člena 95 PJ ter trditve o neobrazložitvi sporne odločbe.
By contrast, the Court of First Instance held that the Commission could not order the recovery of the aid paid to the applicant between 1986 and 1995 without breaching the principle of legal certainty, and annulled Articles 2 and 3 of the contested decision concerning the Federal Republic of Germany’s obligation to recover the State aid covered by that decision.
Nasprotno, Sodi�če prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da Komisija ni mogla, ne da bi kr�ila načelo pravne varnosti, zahtevati vračila pomoči, ki so bile dodeljene družbi Salzgitter od leta 1986 do 1995, in razglasilo ničnost členov 2 in 3 sporne odločbe, ki se nana�ata na obveznost Zvezne republike Nemčije, da izterja državne pomoči, na katere se nana�a ta odločba.
To reach the finding that there was a breach of the principle of legal certainty, the Court of First Instance held, in paragraph 174 of the judgment under appeal, that the situation resulting from the adoption of the Second and the Third Steel Aid Code had created a legal situation that was ambiguous as to the scope of the 1971 Decision and the scope of the obligation to notify the aid granted to Salzgitter after adoption of that third code, pursuant to Article 6 of that code.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi z ugotovitvijo kr�itve načela pravne varnosti v točki 174 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da je položaj, ki je nastal po sprejetju drugih in tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu, ustvaril dvoumen pravni položaj glede na vsebino odločbe iz leta 1971 in vsebino obveznosti priglasitve pomoči, ki so bile dodeljene družbi Salzgitter po sprejetju navedenih tretjih pravil, na podlagi člena 6 slednjih.
Subsequently, the Court of First Instance held, in paragraph 179 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission had been aware of the aid paid to Salzgitter under the ZRFG because Salzgitter had sent the Commission its annual reports and accounts for the years 1987/1988.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato v točki 179 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da je bila Komisija seznanjena s pomočmi, ki so bile na podlagi ZRFG izplačane družbi Salzgitter, ker je družba Salzgitter posredovala poslovno poročilo in letne računovodske izkaze za leti 1987 in 1988.
The Court of First Instance inferred from this, in paragraph 180 of the judgment under appeal, that the situation of uncertainty and lack of clarity, combined with the prolonged lack of reaction on the part of the Commission, in spite of its awareness of the aid received by Salzgitter, had led to the creation by the Commission, in disregard of its duty of diligence, of an equivocal situation which the Commission was under a duty to clarify before it could take any action to order the recovery of the aid already paid. Therefore, the Court of First Instance held, in paragraph 182 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission could not order the recovery of the aid paid to Salzgitter between 1986 and 1995 without breaching the principle of legal certainty.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je na podlagi tega v točki 180 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da je negotov in nejasen položaj, skupaj z dejstvom, da se Komisija kljub vedenju o pomočeh družbi Salzgitter dolgo ni odzvala, s kr�itvijo dolžnosti skrbnega ravnanja, ki zavezuje to institucijo, ustvaril dvoumen položaj, ki bi ga Komisija morala razjasniti, preden je kakorkoli zahtevala vračilo pomoči, ki jih je družba Salzgitter prejela od leta 1986 do leta 1995.
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance held that it was not necessary to rule on the calculation of the amount of aid covered by the contested decision.
V teh okoli�činah je Sodi�če prve stopnje menilo, da se ni smiselno izreči o izračunu zneska pomoči iz navedene odločbe.
By its appeal, the Commission asks the Court to set aside the judgment under appeal, to refer the dispute back to the Court of First Instance and to order Salzgitter to pay the costs.
Komisija s pritožbo Sodi�ču predlaga, naj izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi, vrne spor v odločanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje in družbi Salzgitter naloži plačilo stro�kov.