natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Only a specific examination, based on the competitive relationship existing between the recipient of the aid and the applicant at first instance, would meet the requirements laid down in settled caselaw and, in particular, by Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95.
Le z dejansko preiskavo, ki bi temeljila na obstoječem konkurenčnem razmerju med upravičencem pomoči in tožečo stranko na prvi stopnji, bi se spo�tovalo zahteve iz ustaljene sodne prakse in zlasti iz sodbe z dne 15. julija 1963 v zadevi Plaumann proti Komisiji (25/62, Recueil, str. 197).
Contrary to the findings of that court, Glunz and Kronofrance are not actually in competition on the market in question and therefore Kronofrance’s position on that market cannot have been substantially affected.
Družbi Kronofrance in Glunz pa naj si na zadevnem trgu, v nasprotju z ugotovitvami Sodi�ča prve stopnje, dejansko ne bi konkurirali in zato položaj družbe Kronofrance na trgu ni mogel biti občutno prizadet.
In that regard, Glunz and OSB allege that the finding of the Court of First Instance that the marketing areas of Kronofrance and Glunz overlap is inaccurate.
V zvezi s tem družbi Glunz in OSB trdita, da ugotovitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da naj bi se prodajna območja družb Kronofrance in Glunz prekrivala, ni pravilna.
The Court incorrectly assessed the data relating to the markets of the two undertakings.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi namreč napačno ocenilo dejstva glede trgov teh dveh podjetij.
Moreover, according to the Federal Republic of Germany, the Court of First Instance merely stated that Glunz belonged to a group which included other companies active in the field of wood panels and boards in France.
Zvezna republika Nemčija poleg tega poudarja, da se je Sodi�če prve stopnje zadovoljilo z ugotovitvijo, da je družba Glunz v Franciji del združenja, v katero so povezane tudi druge družbe, ki se ukvarjajo z lesom.
That criterion is, however, irrelevant because it is based on considerations relating to such a group rather than on specific competition between the two undertakings in question.
Vendar pa naj to merilo ne bi bilo upo�tevno, ker temelji na ugotovitvah v zvezi s tem združenjem in ne na dejanski konkurenci med zadevnima podjetjema.
In the light of those considerations, the Federal Republic of Germany, Glunz and OSB, as well as the Commission, are of the opinion that the action for annulment brought by Kronofrance should have been declared inadmissible.
Glede na te ugotovitve Zvezna republika Nemčija, družbi Glunz in OSB ter Komisija menijo, da bi bilo treba tožbo družbe Kronofrance razglasiti za nedopustno.
Kronofrance, on the other hand, maintains that, if the formal investigation procedure is not opened, a competitor of the recipient of aid need prove only its status as an ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, where its action seeks to protect its procedural rights.
Nasprotno pa družba Kronofrance trdi, da kadar se ne uvede formalni postopek preiskave, mora konkurent upravičenca pomoči, če želi s svojim tožbenim zahtevkom ohraniti procesne pravice, dokazati le, da je „zadevna stranka“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES.
In that situation, it is not necessary to show that the applicant’s competitive position is substantially affected.
V takem primeru ne bi bilo treba dokazovati, da je bil konkurenčni položaj tožeče stranke občutno prizadet.
In the present case, the direct competitive relationship between Glunz and Kronofrance is enough to reach such a conclusion.
V obravnavani zadevi naj bi neposredno konkurenčno razmerje med družbama Kronofrance in Glunz zadostovalo za odločitev v tem smislu.
It should first of all be stated that under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC a natural or legal person may institute proceedings against a decision addressed to another person only if that decision is of direct and individual concern to the former.
Uvodoma je treba opozoriti, da v skladu s členom 230, četrti odstavek, ES fizične ali pravne osebe lahko sprožijo postopke zoper odločbo, ki je naslovljena na drugo osebo le, če jih ta odločba neposredno in posamično zadeva.
According to settled caselaw, persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned only if that decision affects them by
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso lahko osebe, ki niso naslovniki odločbe, trdijo, da jih odločba zadeva posamično samo, če nanje učinkuje zaradi nekaterih lastnosti, ki
Since the present action concerns a Commission decision on State aid, it must be borne in mind that, in the context of the procedure for reviewing State aid provided for in Article 88 EC, the preliminary stage of the procedure for reviewing aid under Article 88(3) EC, which is intended merely to allow the Commission to form a prima facie opinion on the partial or complete conformity of the aid in question, must be distinguished from the examination under Article 88(2) EC.
Ker se ta tožba nana�a na odločbo Komisije o državnih pomočeh, je treba opozoriti, da je treba v okviru postopka nadzora nad državnimi pomočmi iz člena 88 ES po eni strani razlikovati med fazo predhodnega preizkusa pomoči iz odstavka 3 tega člena, katerega edini cilj je omogočiti Komisiji, da oblikuje prvo mnenje o delni ali popolni združljivosti zadevne pomoči, in po drugi strani fazo preizkusa iz odstavka 2 istega člena.
It is only in connection with the latter examination, which is designed to enable the Commission to be fully informed of all the facts of the case, that the Treaty imposes an obligation on the Commission to give the parties concerned notice to submit their comments (Cook v Commission, paragraph 22; Matra v Commission, paragraph 16; Case C-367/95 P Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France [1998] ECR I-1719, paragraph 38; and Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 34.
Pogodba le v okviru tega preizkusa, ki Komisiji omogoči, da se v celoti seznani z vsemi podatki zadeve, določa obveznost Komisije, da pozove zadevne stranke k predložitvi pripomb (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Cook proti Komisiji, točka 22, in Matra proti Komisiji, točka 16, sodba z dne 2. aprila 1998 v zadevi Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France, C-367/95 P, Recueil, str. I-1719, točka 38, in zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, točka 34).
It follows that, where, without initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC, the Commission finds, on the basis of Article 88(3) EC, that aid is compatible with the common market, the persons intended to benefit from those procedural guarantees may secure compliance therewith only if they are able to challenge that decision before the Community judicature.
Iz tega izhaja, da kadar Komisija, ne da bi sprožila formalni postopek preiskave iz člena 88(2) ES, z odločbo, sprejeto na podlagi odstavka 3 tega člena, ugotovi, da je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom, lahko osebe, ki so upravičene do teh postopkovnih jamstev, spo�tovanje teh jamstev uveljavljajo le, kadar imajo možnost, da to odločbo izpodbijajo pred sodi�čem Skupnosti.
For those reasons, an action for the annulment of such a decision brought by a person who is concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC is declared to be admissible where that person seeks, by instituting proceedings, to safeguard the procedural rights available to him under the latter provision (Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 35 and the caselaw cited there).
Iz teh razlogov slednje razglasi za dopustno tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti take odločbe, ki jo vloži zadevna stranka v smislu člena 88(2) ES, kadar želi z vložitvijo te tožbe za�čititi postopkovne pravice, ki izhajajo iz te določbe (zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, točka 35, in navedena sodna praksa).
The Court has had occasion to observe that such parties concerned are any persons, undertakings or associations whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, that is, in particular competing undertakings and trade associations (Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 41, and Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 36).
Sodi�če je že imelo priložnost pojasniti, da so tak�ne zadevne stranke osebe, podjetja ali združenja, na katerih interese bi lahko vplivala dodelitev pomoči, torej zlasti konkurenčna podjetja upravičencev do te pomoči in poklicna združenja (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France, točka 41, in Komisija proti Aktions -gemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, točka 36).
On the other hand, if the applicant calls in question the merits of the decision appraising the aid as such, the mere fact that it may be regarded as ‘concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC cannot suffice for the action to be considered admissible.
Po drugi strani, če tožeča stranka dvomi o utemeljenosti odločbe o presoji pomoči kot taki, preprosto dejstvo, da jo je mogoče �teti za „zadevno stranko“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES, ne more zado�čati za to, da se tožba razglasi za dopustno.
It must then demonstrate that it enjoys a particular status within the meaning of Plaumann v Commission.
To velja zlasti takrat, kadar bi pomoč, ki jo obravnava zadevna odločba, občutno prizadela tržni položaj tožeče stranke (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 28. januarja 1986 v zadevi Cofaz in drugi proti Komisiji, 169/84, Recueil, str.
That would in particular apply where the applicant’s market position would be substantially affected by the aid to which the decision at issue relates (see, to that effect, Case 169/84 Cofaz and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 391, paragraphs 22 to 25, and Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 37).
391, točke od 22 do 25, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, točka 37).
It is in the light of those principles, which have been identified by the caselaw referred to in the preceding paragraphs, that the arguments advanced by the appellants to challenge the Court of First Instance’s appraisal of the admissibility of the action for annulment fall to be examined.
Glede na ta načela, izpostavljena v predhodno navedeni sodni praksi, je treba preučiti trditve pritožnic, s katerimi se izpodbija presoja Sodi�ča prve stopnje o dopustnosti tožbe na prvi stopnji.
It should first be observed that, at paragraph 35 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance found, without being contradicted on this point by the appellants, that Kronofrance had sought annulment of the contested decision on the ground that the Commission had wrongly refused to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 35 izpodbijane sodbe, ne da bi omenjene tožeče stranke temu nasprotovale, ugotovilo, da je družba Kronofrance zahtevala razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe z obrazložitvijo, da je Komisija neupravičeno zavrnila uvedbo formalnega postopka preiskave iz člena 88(2) ES.
As the Advocate General observed in points 116 to 118 of his Opinion, the Court of First Instance was therefore right, in checking compliance with the condition that the undertaking in question must be individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, to ascertain whether Kronofrance could be considered an ‘interested party’ in terms of Article 88(2) EC and Article 1(h) of
Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točkah od 116 do 118 sklepnih predlogov, je Sodi�če prve stopnje, da bi preverilo spo�tovanje pogoja, po katerem mora odločba zadevno podjetje posamično zadevati v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES, upravičeno odločalo o tem, ali je mogoče družbo Kronofrance �teti za „zainteresirano stranko“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES in člena 1(h) Uredbe �t. 659/1999, in v ta namen
Regulation No 659/1999 and to examine, to that end, Kronofrance’s position on the relevant market, concluding that a competitive relationship with Glunz existed.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-75/05 P IN C-80/05 P preučilo položaj družbe Kronofrance na zadevnem trgu ter ugotovilo obstoj konkurenčnega razmerja med njo in družbo Glunz.
In those circumstances, contrary to what the appellants claim, there was no necessity for the Court of First Instance, particularly in view of the judgments in Cook v Commission and Matra v Commission, to require in addition proof that the position of Kronofrance on the market concerned was substantially affected by the adoption of the contested decision.
V teh okoli�činah Sodi�če prve stopnje, v nasprotju s trditvami pritožnic, nikakor ni bilo zavezano, zlasti glede na zgoraj navedeni sodbi Cook proti Komisiji in Matra proti Komisiji, zahtevati, naj se prav tako dokaže, da je bil položaj družbe Kronofrance na zadevnem trgu s sprejetjem sporne odločbe občutno prizadet.
As regards, next, the analysis forming the basis of the Court of First Instance’s finding that there was a competitive relationship between Glunz and Kronofrance, the appellants dispute the existence of such a relationship and rely on two arguments.
Pritožnice nato z dvema trditvama izpodbijajo analizo, na podlagi katere je Sodi�če prve stopnje odločilo, da obstaja konkurenčno razmerje med družbama Glunz in Kronofrance.
First, they maintain that the Court of First Instance reached such a conclusion after making an incorrect assessment of certain data relating to the geographical extent of the respective marketing areas of the two undertakings in question, whose degree of overlap is altogether marginal, so that no competitive relationship exists between Glunz and Kronofrance.
Prvič navajajo, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje tako odločilo po tem, ko je glede dveh zadevnih podjetij napačno presodilo določene podatke o geografski velikosti njunih prodajnih območij, ki se prekrivata le v popolnoma zanemarljivem delu, tako da ne more obstajati nikakr�no konkurenčno razmerje med družbama Glunz in Kronofrance.
It is however clear that, even if that argument is developed in the context of a plea alleging an error in law, the appellants are in reality seeking to challenge the assessment of the facts by the Court of First Instance.
Vendar pa je treba ugotoviti, da pritožniki v resnici želijo izpodbijati presojo Sodi�ča prve stopnje o dejstvih, čeprav oblikujejo to trditev v okviru pritožbenega razloga napačne uporabe prava.
It follows that, since no distortion has been substantiated or even alleged by the appellants in the present case, that argument must be considered manifestly inadmissible.
Ker pritožnice v obravnavani zadevi niso dokazale nikakr�nega izkrivljanja dejstev niti niso tega zatrjevale, se ta trditev �teje za očitno nedopustno.
Second, the appellants contend that the Court of First Instance relied not on analysis of the competition specifically existing between Kronofrance and Glunz but on general considerations connected with the presence on the French wood panel and board market of companies belonging to the group of which Glunz is a member.
Drugič, navedene pritožnice zatrjujejo, da se Sodi�če prve stopnje ni oprlo na analizo konkurence, ki dejansko obstaja med družbama Kronofrance in Glunz, ampak na splo�ne ugotovitve, s katerimi se na francoskem trgu lesenih plo�č prikazuje prisotnost družb, ki pripadajo združenju, kateremu pripada tudi družba Glunz.
In that regard it is sufficient to point out that, after having stated that both the undertakings in question manufactured wood panels and boards and that their marketing areas overlapped, the Court of First Instance added, at paragraph 43 of the judgment under appeal:
V zvezi s tem zadostuje ugotovitev, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje po poudarku, da zadevni podjetji izdelujeta lesene plo�če in da obstaja prekrivanje njunih prodajnih območij, v točki 43 izpodbijane sodbe dodalo naslednje:
‘It is also apparent from the [contested decision] that Glunz is a subsidiary of Tableros de Fibras SA, which has factories in France active in the wood industry which were transferred to it by Glunz in 1999.’
„Iz [sporne odločbe] izhaja tudi, da je družba Glunz hčerinska družba družbe Tableros de Fibras SA, ki ima v Franciji tovarne, ki so dejavne v lesni industriji in ji jih je leta 1999 prodala družba Glunz.“
It is clear from reading that paragraph of the judgment under appeal that the Court referred to considerations relating to the group to which Glunz belongs only for the sake of completeness, after already having concluded that a competitive relationship existed between the two undertakings in question.
Iz te točke izpodbijane sodbe jasno izhaja, da se je Sodi�če prve stopnje na okoli�čine glede združenja, kateremu pripada družba Glunz, sklicevalo samo z namenom celostne obravnave zadeve, in to po tem, ko je ugotovilo obstoj konkurenčnega razmerja med zadevnima podjetjema.
Thus the Court did not in any way base the conclusion it reached in paragraph 44 on that ground alone.
Sodi�če prve stopnje zato nikakor ni utemeljilo sklepa, do katerega je pri�lo v točki 44 izpodbijane sodbe samo na tem edinem temelju.
It follows that that argument must be rejected as inoperative.
Iz tega izhaja, da je treba to trditev zavrniti kot brezpredmetno.
In view of the above, the first ground of appeal of the Federal Republic of Germany and the second ground of appeal of Glunz and OSB must be dismissed.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba zavrniti prvi pritožbeni razlog Zvezne republike Nemčije in drugi pritožbeni razlog družb Glunz in OSB.
Infringement of Article 87(3) EC and of the multisectoral framework of 1998
Kršitev člena 87(3) ES in večsektorski okvir 1998
The Federal Republic of Germany, by its second ground of appeal, and Glunz and OSB, by their first ground of appeal, supported by the Commission, maintain that the Court of First Instance misapplied Article 87(3) EC and the multisectoral framework of 1998.
Zvezna republika Nemčija v okviru drugega pritožbenega razloga, družbi Glunz in OSB pa v okviru prvega pritožbenega razloga, ob podpori Komisije navajajo, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo člen 87(3) ES in večsektorski okvir 1998.
According to those parties, the Court of First Instance failed to have regard to the wide discretion enjoyed by the Commission when applying Article 87(3) EC, pursuant to which it adopted and applied the multisectoral framework of 1998.
Sodi�če prve stopnje ni priznalo �iroke diskrecijske pravice Komisije, ki jo ima v skladu s členom 87(3) ES, in na podlagi katere je sprejela in uporabila večsektorski okvir 1998.
It thus interpreted the relevant points of the multisectoral framework of 1998 in a manner contrary to their wording, meaning and object, by holding that the repercussions of the regional aid at issue on competition had to be assessed in the light of both the capacity utilisation of the sector concerned and the existence of a declining market.
Tako naj bi upo�tevne točke tega večsektorskega okvira razlagalo v nasprotju z njihovim besedilom, smislom in namenom, ko je menilo, da je treba vpliv zadevne regionalne pomoči na konkurenco oceniti hkrati z upo�tevanjem izkori�čenosti zmogljivosti v zadevnem sektorju in obstoja trga v zatonu.
More precisely, it ignored the order in which those assessment criteria have to be taken into account, as laid down in points 3.2 to 3.4 of that framework.
Natančneje, spregledalo naj bi vrstni red, v katerem je treba upo�tevati merila preizkusa in kot je določen v točkah od 3.2 do 3.4 tega večsektorskega okvira.
It is apparent from those provisions that the question whether the relevant market is declining is merely an alternative review criterion which must be taken into account only where the data relating to the capacity utilisation are insufficient.
Iz teh določb naj bi namreč izhajalo, da je vpra�anje, ali je zadevni trg v zatonu, le podredno merilo nadzora, ki se ga upo�teva samo, kadar so podatki o stopnji izkori�čenosti zmogljivosti nezadostni.
That is, however, not the position in the present cases, since all the capacity utilisation data were available.
To pa ne velja za obravnavani zadevi, saj so bili na razpolago vsi podatki o izkori�čenosti zmogljivosti.
Kronofrance contends that the wording of point 3.10 of the multisectoral framework of 1998 makes it expressly clear that, in its appraisal of the competitive situation of a market affected by an aid project, the Commission should always ascertain whether the project involves a capacity expansion in a sector with structural overcapacity, and whether it is intended for a declining market.
Družba Kronofrance trdi, da je v točki 3.10 večsektorskega okvira 1998 izrecno zapisano, da mora Komisija pri presoji konkurenčnega položaja na trgu, ki ga je prizadel načrt pomoči, vedno ugotoviti, ali projekt povzroča večanje zmogljivosti v sektorju s presežkom strukturnih zmogljivosti in ali je namenjen trgu v zatonu.
As the Court of First Instance pointed out in the judgment under appeal, the latter aspect should always be examined because aid granted in a declining market carries serious risks of distorting competition.
Kot poudarja Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi, je treba slednji element vedno obravnavati, ker pomoč, dodeljena na trgu v zatonu, povzroča resno nevarnost za izkrivljanje konkurence.
It is true, as the appellants submit, that, in the application of Article 87(3) EC, the Commission enjoys wide discretion, the exercise of which involves complex economic and social assessments which must be made in a Community context (see for example, to that effect, Case 310/85 Deufil v Commission [1987] ECR 901, paragraph 18).
Res je, kot navajajo pritožniki, da Komisija pri uporabi člena 87(3) ES uživa �iroko diskrecijsko pravico, katere izvr�evanje zajema kompleksno oceno gospodarskih in socialnih razmer, ki jo je treba opraviti v okviru Skupnosti (glej v tem smislu zlasti sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 24. februarja 1987 v zadevi Deufil proti Komisiji, 310/85, Recueil, str.
However, it should be pointed out that, in adopting rules of conduct and announcing by publishing them that they will henceforth apply to the cases to which they relate, the Commission imposes a limit on the exercise of its aforementioned discretion and cannot depart from those rules under pain of being found, where appropriate, to be in breach of general principles of law, such as equal treatment or the protection of legitimate expectations (Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission [2005] ECR I-5425, paragraph 211).
Vendar je treba poudariti, da se Komisija, s tem da sprejme pravila ravnanja in da z njihovo objavo razglasi, da jih bo v bodoče uporabljala v primerih, na katere se nana�ajo, sama omejuje pri izvr�evanju te diskrecijske pravice in od teh pravil ne more odstopiti, ne da bi bila, glede na okoli�čine primera, sankcionirana na podlagi kr�itve splo�nih pravnih načel, kot so načelo enakega obravnavanja ali varstva zaupanja v pravo (sodba z dne 28. junija 2005 v zadevi Dansk Rørindustri in drugi proti Komisiji, C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, od C-205/02 P do C-208/02 P in C-213/02 P, ZOdl., str. I-5425, točka 211).
Thus, in the specific area of State aid, the Court has already had occasion to stress that the Commission is bound by the guidelines and notices that it issues, inasmuch as they do not depart from the rules in the Treaty and are accepted by the Member States (see, for example, Case C-409/00 Spain v Commission, paragraphs 69 and 95, and Italy v Commission, paragraph 45, both cited above).
Na posebnem področju državnih pomoči je Sodi�če že imelo priložnost poudariti, da je Komisija vezana na okvire in obvestila, ki jih sprejme, če ne odstopajo od pravil Pogodbe in če jih države članice sprejmejo (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi z dne 13. februarja 2003 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji, točki 69 in 95, in Italija proti Komisiji, točka 45).
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance reviewed precisely whether the Commission, in adopting the contested decision, complied with its multisectoral framework of 1998.
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa je v izpodbijani sodbi natančno preverilo, ali je Komisija, ko je sprejela sporno odločbo, delovala skladno z večsektorskim okvirom 1998.