natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— uphold the pleas in law submitted before the Court of First Instance; and
– ugodi predlogom, podanim na prvi stopnji, in
— dismiss the appeal as unfounded; and
– pritožbo zavrne kot neutemeljeno in
— order Athinaïki Techniki to pay the costs.
– Athinaïki Techniki naloži plačilo stro�kov.
— dismiss the appeal; and
– zavrne pritožbo in
Athinaïki Techniki claims that the order under appeal is vitiated by an error in law in that the Court of First Instance did not classify the act, referred to in paragraph 1 of this judgment, as a ‘decision’.
Athinaïki Techniki zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijanem sklepu napačno uporabilo pravo, ker je akt, naveden v točki 1 te sodbe, označilo kot „odločbo“.
Athinaïki Techniki maintains that a definite and reasoned position on the classification of an alleged State aid, as in the present case, constitutes a ‘decision’ within the meaning of Article 230 EC.
Athinaïki Techniki trdi, da dokončno in obrazloženo stali�če o opredelitvi domnevne državne pomoči, kot je to v obravnavanem primeru, pomeni „odločbo“ v smislu člena 230 ES.
As regards, first, the definitive nature of the position defined in the letter in dispute, Athinaïki Techniki claims that that is not called into question by reason of the fact that it could have presented new evidence after the act had been adopted.
Athinaïki Techniki trdi, da na dokončnost stali�ča iz spornega dopisa ne vpliva dejstvo, da bi lahko predložil nove dokaze po sprejetju navedenega akta.
As regards, second, the reasoned nature of the letter in dispute, Athinaïki Techniki takes the view that the Commission implicitly took a reasoned decision on the classification of the alleged State aid.
Glede obrazloženosti spornega dopisa Athinaïki Techniki meni, da je Komisija z molkom sprejela obrazloženo odločbo o opredelitvi domnevnih državnih pomoči.
That reasoning arises from the context in which the letter in dispute was adopted.
Ta obrazložitev naj bi izhajala iz konteksta, v katerem je bil sestavljen sporni dopis.
The Court of First Instance therefore erred in law in
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi tako napačno uporabilo pravo, ko se je opiralo na besedilo
2008 — CASE C-521/06 P concerning itself with the wording of that letter rather than putting it in its context.
2008 – ZADEVA C-521/06 P tega dopisa, namesto da bi ga postavilo v njegov kontekst.
Athinaïki Techniki asserts that the Commission deliberately drafted the letter in dispute in a laconic way in order to avoid casting light on a possible failure to comply with public procurement law.
Athinaïki Techniki trdi, da je Komisija sporni dopis namerno napisala zgo�čeno, da bi se izognila morebitnemu pojasnjevanju nespo�tovanja ureditve javnih naročil.
The Commission takes the view that the letter in dispute is classified on the basis of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999, which allows the Commission to avoid using the decisionmaking mechanism in the absence of any significant and detailed evidence.
Komisija meni, da opredelitev spornega dopisa temelji na členu 20(2) Uredbe �t. 659/1999, ki omogoča, da se ne bi sprožil mehanizem odločanja brez vsakega resnega in podrobnega dokaza.
According to the Commission, it is apparent from Article 25 of that regulation that its decisions in matters of State aid are addressed to the Member States.
Po mnenju Komisije iz člena 25 te uredbe izhaja, da so odločbe, ki jih sprejme na področju državnih pomoči, naslovljene na države članice.
It argues that the distinction between decisions and letters of notification is to be found in settled caselaw of the Court of First Instance.
Zatrjuje, da razlikovanje med akti, ki imajo naravo odločbe, in informativnimi dopisi izhaja tudi iz ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
A letter of notification, such as the letter in dispute, does not have legal effects and cannot, therefore, be the subject of an action for annulment.
Informativni dopis, kot je sporni dopis, naj ne bi imel zavezujočih pravnih učinkov in naj zato zoper njega ne bi bilo mogoče vložiti ničnostne tožbe.
In addition, the Commission takes the view that, in the absence of any reasoning, the letter in dispute should be held to be a non-existent decision which has no legal effect per se and, therefore, cannot adversely affect Athinaïki Techniki.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da je treba ob neobstoju obrazložitve sporni dopis obravnavati kot neobstoječo odločbo, ki nima nobenega pravnega učinka kot takega in je zato Athinaïki Techniki ne more izpodbijati.
The Commission contends also that Athinaïki Techniki’s line of argument, that the letter in dispute is reasoned, is ineffective as it does not challenge the distinction between decisions and letters of notification.
Komisija tudi zatrjuje, da je trditev te družbe, da bi moral biti sporni dopis obrazložen, brezpredmetna, ker ne vpliva na razlikovanje med akti, ki imajo naravo odločbe, in informativnimi dopisi.
The Commission contends that Athinaïki Techniki is seeking to circumvent the fact that an individual cannot challenge the Commission’s refusal to initiate an action for failure to fulfil obligations against a Member State by using an action for annulment against a mere letter of notification.
Zatrjuje, da se namerava Athinaïki Techniki izogniti temu, da z vložitvijo ničnostne tožbe zoper preprost informativni dopis ne bi bilo mogoče izpodbijati zavrnitve Komisije za začetek postopka zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti proti državi članici.
According to Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon, the letter in dispute does not constitute a decision within the meaning of Article 25 of Regulation No 659/1999 and it does not have legal effect.
Po mnenju Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon sporni dopis ni odločba v smislu člena 25 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 in ne povzroča pravnih učinkov.
It is clear from Articles 20 and 25 of that regulation that letters of an informal nature are addressed to the interested parties and do not constitute acts open to challenge for the purposes of Article 230 EC.
Iz členov 20 in 25 te uredbe naj bi izhajalo, da so neformalni dopisi poslani zainteresiranim strankam in niso izpodbojni akti v smislu člena 230 ES.
The letter in dispute is, therefore, according to the intervener, not actionable under that article.
Zoper sporni dopis torej ni mogoče vložiti tožbe na podlagi tega člena.
Preliminary observations on the subjectmatter of actions for annulment brought before the Court of First Instance
Uvodne ugotovitve glede predmeta ničnostne tožbe, vložene pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje
As a preliminary point, it should be noted that Athinaïki Techniki’s action for annulment is not directed at the letter in dispute as such.
Uvodoma je treba spomniti, da ničnostna tožba Athinaïki Techniki ni bila vložena zoper sporni dopis kot tak.
It is apparent from the application at first instance that Athinaïki Techniki sought ‘annulment of the decision of the Directorate General for Competition to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint concerning State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the “Mont Parnès Casino” public contract’ (‘the contested act’).
Iz vloge na prvi stopnji namreč izhaja, da je Athinaïki Techniki predlagal „razglasitev ničnosti odločbe generalnega direktorata Konkurenca, s katero je bil ustavljen postopek s pritožbo tožeče stranke glede državne pomoči, ki jo je Helenska republika dodelila konzorciju Hyatt Regency v okviru javnega naročila ‚igralnice Mont Parnès‘“ (v nadaljevanju: izpodbijani akt).
That contested act was made known to Athinaïki Techniki by the letter in dispute.
Athinaïki Techniki je bil o tem izpodbijanem aktu obve�čen s spornim dopisom.
Therefore, the latter constitutes only the means by which Athinaïki Techniki became aware of the contested act, and from which point the timelimit for bringing an action against that contested act started to run, in accordance with the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Zato je zadnjenavedeni le akt, s katerim se je Athinaïki Techniki seznanil z izpodbijanim aktom in od katerega je začel teči rok za vložitev tožbe zoper ta akt v skladu s členom 230, peti odstavek, ES.
It is important to make clear that Athinaïki Techniki sought the annulment of the contested act on the ground that it was taken on the basis of Article 88(3) EC, without the Commission having previously initiated the formal investigation pro -cedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC, which would have allowed Athinaïki Techniki to submit its comments.
Nato je treba poudariti, da je Athinaïki Techniki predlagal razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijanega akta, ker je bil ta sprejet na podlagi člena 88(3) ES, ne da bi Komisija predhodno začela formalni postopek preiskave, predviden v členu 88(2) ES, ki bi Athinaïki Techniki omogočil predložitev pripomb.
In those circumstances, it is first necessary to specify the nature of the acts taken before that formal investigation procedure and, second, to examine whether the Court of First Instance could conclude that the contested act is not intended to produce legal effects capable of affecting the interests of Athinaïki Techniki by bringing about a distinct change in its legal position.
V teh okoli�činah je treba pojasniti, najprej, naravo aktov, sprejetih pred formalnim postopkom preiskave, in nato preučiti, ali je Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko ugotovilo, da izpodbijani akt povzroča zavezujoče pravne učinke, ki lahko vplivajo na interese Athinaïki Techniki tako, da značilno spremenijo njen pravni položaj.
The nature of acts taken at the end of the preliminary stage of examining State aid
Narava aktov, sprejetih ob začetku predhodne faze preučitve državnih pomoči
The procedure under Article 88(2) EC is essential whenever the Commission has serious difficulties in determining whether an aid is compatible with the common market.
Postopek, predviden v členu 88(2) ES, je nujno potreben, če ima Komisija resne težave pri presoji združljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom.
It follows that the Commission, when taking a decision in favour of an aid, may restrict itself to the preliminary examination under Article 88(3) EC only if it is able to satisfy itself after an initial examination that the aid is compatible with the common market.
Komisija se torej pri sprejetju ugodne odločitve za pomoč lahko omeji na fazo predhodne preučitve iz člena 88(3) ES le, če je prepričana, da je ta pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom.
If, on the other hand, the initial examination leads the Commission to the opposite conclusion or if it does not enable it to overcome all the difficulties involved in determining whether the aid is compatible with the common market, the Commission is under a duty to carry out all the requisite consultations and for that purpose to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC (see, inter alia, Cook v Commission, paragraph 29; Matra v Commission, paragraph 33; and Case C-367/95 P Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France [1998] ECR I-1719, paragraph 39).
Če pa se Komisija na podlagi tega prvega preizkusa prepriča o nasprotnem ali če s tem preizkusom ne more premagati težav, ki so se pokazale pri presoji združljivosti te pomoči s skupnim trgom, je dolžna zbrati vsa potrebna mnenja in s tem namenom začeti postopek iz člena 88(2) ES (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi Cook proti Komisiji, točka 29, in Matra proti Komisiji, točka 33, ter sodbo z dne 2. aprila 1998 v zadevi Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France, C-367/95 P, Recueil, str. I-1719, točka 39).
It is only in connection with the latter investigation, 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; and Case C-78/03 P Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum [2005] ECR I-10737, paragraph 34).
Le v okviru zadnjenavedenega postopka, katerega namen je Komisiji omogočiti, da je v celoti obve�čena o vseh podatkih zadeve, Pogodba ES določa obveznost Komisije, da pozove zadevne stranke k predložitvi pripomb (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Cook proti Komisiji, točka 22, in Matra proti Komisiji, točka 16, ter sodba z dne 13. decembra 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, C-78/03 P, ZOdl., str. I-10737, točka 34).
Where, without initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC, the Commission finds, on the basis of Article 88(3) EC and Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, that a State measure does not constitute aid incompatible 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.
Kadar Komisija, ne da bi začela formalni postopek preiskave iz člena 88(2) ES, z odločbo, sprejeto na podlagi odstavka 3 tega člena in člena 4 Uredbe �t. 659/1999, ugotovi, da je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom, lahko osebe, ki so upravičene do teh postopkovnih jamstev, te uveljavljajo le, kadar imajo možnost, da to odločbo izpodbijajo pred sodi�čem Skupnosti.
For those reasons, the Court declares to be admissible an action for the annulment of such a decision brought by a person who is concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC where he seeks, by instituting proceedings, to safeguard the procedural rights available to him under the latter provision (see, to that effect, Cook v Commission, paragraphs 23 to 26; Matra v Commission, paragraphs 17 to 20; Commission v Styral and Brink’s France, paragraph 40; and Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 35).
Iz teh razlogov Sodi�če 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 jih črpa iz te določbe (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedene sodbe Cook proti Komisiji, točke od 23 do 26; Matra proti Komisiji, točke od 17 do 20; Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France, točka 40, in Komisija proti Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, točka 35).
Furthermore, Article 10(1) and the first sentence of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 grant to a person concerned the right to set in motion the preliminary examination stage provided for in Article 88(3) EC, by sending information regarding any allegedly unlawful aid to the Commission, which it is then obliged to examine, without delay, the possible existence of aid and its compatibility with the common market.
Poleg tega člena 10(1) in 20(2), prvi stavek, Uredbe �t. 659/1999 taki zadevni osebi podeljujeta pravico, da sproži predhodno fazo preučitve, ki jo predvideva člen 88(3) ES, s tem da Komisiji sporoči podatke v zvezi z domnevno nezakonito pomočjo, Komisija pa mora brez odla�anja preveriti obstoj morebitne pomoči in njeno združljivost s skupnim trgom.
Although the parties concerned cannot rely on rights of the defence for that pro -cedure, they do, however, have the right to be associated with it in an adequate manner taking into account the circumstances of the case at issue (see, to that effect, judgement of 8 May 2008 in Case C-49/05 P Ferriere Nord v Commission, paragraph 69).
Če zadevne stranke ne morejo uveljavljati pravic obrambe v tem postopku, imajo na voljo pravico, da so z njim ustrezno povezane ob upo�tevanju okoli�čin v obravnavanem primeru (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 8. maja 2008 v zadevi Ferriere Nord proti Komisiji, C-49/05 P, točka 69).
Such an association with that procedure must mean that, where the Commission informs the interested parties, in accordance with Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999, that there are insufficient grounds for taking a view on the case, it is required, as the Advocate General points out at point 101 of his Opinion, to allow the interested parties to submit additional comments within a reasonable period.
Taka povezanost z navedenim postopkom mora pomeniti, da če jih Komisija v skladu s členom 20(2), drugi stavek, Uredbe �t. 659/1999 obvesti, da ni zadostnih razlogov za odločitev v primeru, je Komisija tudi zavezana, da jim – kot je navedel generalni pravobranilec v točki 101 sklepnih predlogov – omogoči, da ji v razumnem roku predložijo dodatne pripombe.
Once those comments have been lodged, or the reasonable period has expired, Article 13(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 obliges the Commission to close the preliminary examination stage by adopting a decision pursuant to Article 4(2), (3) or (4) of that regulation, that is to say, a decision stating that aid does not exist; raising no objections, or initiating the formal investigation procedure.
Ko so te pripombe predložene ali se razumni rok izteče, mora Komisija v skladu s členom 13(1) Uredbe �t. 659/1999 končati predhodno fazo preučitve, tako da sprejme odločbo na podlagi člena 4(2), (3) ali (4) te uredbe, in sicer odločbo o ugotovitvi neobstoja pomoči, odločbo o nenasprotovanju ali odločbo o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave.
Thus, the Commission is not authorised to persist in its failure to act during the preliminary examination stage.
Tej instituciji tako ni dovoljeno, da po koncu predhodne faze preučitve ne bi izdala odločbe.
Once that stage of the procedure has been completed the Commission is bound either to initiate a procedure against the subject of the complaint, or to adopt a definitive decision rejecting the complaint (see, in the context of the procedure in matters of competition, Case 282/95 P Guérin automobiles v Commission [1997] ECR I-1503, paragraph 36).
Ko se to zgodi, mora Komisija ali začeti naslednjo fazo preiskave ali ustaviti postopek v tej zadevi s sprejetjem ustrezne odločbe (glej, v okviru postopka na področju konkurence, sodbo z dne 18. marca 1997 v zadevi Guérin automobiles proti Komisiji, C-282/95 P, Recueil, str. I-1503, točka 36).
Under the third sentence of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999, where the Commission takes such a decision on the basis of information supplied by an interested party, it must send a copy of that decision to the interested party.
V skladu s členom 20(2), tretji stavek, Uredbe �t. 659/1999, če Komisija sprejme tako odločbo na podlagi podatkov, ki jih predloži zainteresirana stranka, tej po�lje izvod te odločbe.
In that context, it should be noted that the Commission can take one of the aforementioned decisions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999 without, however, describing it as a decision pursuant to that provision.
V teh okoli�činah je treba spomniti, da lahko Komisija sprejme eno od zgoraj navedenih odločb, predvidenih v členu 4 Uredbe �t. 659/1999, ne da bi jo označila kot odločbo na podlagi te določbe.
It is apparent from settled caselaw concerning the admissibility of actions for annulment that it is necessary to look to the substance of the contested acts, as well as the intention of those who drafted them, to classify those acts.
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse namreč v zvezi z dopustnostjo ničnostnih tožb izhaja, da se je treba za opredelitev izpodbijanih aktov opreti tako na vsebino teh aktov kot na namen njihovih avtorjev.
In that regard, it is in principle those measures which definitively determine the position of the Commission upon the conclusion of an administrative procedure, and which are intended to have legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the complainant, which are open to challenge and not intermediate measures whose purpose is to prepare for the final decision, which do not have those effects (see, to that effect, IBM v Commission, paragraphs 9 and 10, and Case C-147/96 Netherlands v Commission [2000] ECR I-4723, paragraphs 26 and 27).
V zvezi s tem so izpodbojni akti načeloma ukrepi, ki dokončno določajo stali�če Komisije ob koncu upravnega postopka in ki povzročijo zavezujoče pravne učinke, ki lahko vplivajo na interese tožeče stranke, razen vmesnih ukrepov, katerih cilj je priprava končne odločbe in ki nimajo takih učinkov (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo IBM proti Komisiji, točki 9 in 10, in sodbo z dne 22. junija 2000 v zadevi Nizozemska proti Komisiji, C-147/96, Recueil, str. I-4723, točki 26 in 27).
It is therefore, in principle, irrelevant for the classification of the act in question whether or not it satisfies certain formal requirements, namely, that it is duly named by its author; that it is sufficiently reasoned, and that it mentions the provisions providing the legal basis for it (see, as regards the requirement of being sufficiently reasoned, Case C-39/93 P SFEI and Others v Commission [1994] ECR I-2681, paragraph 31).
Na opredelitev zadevnega akta torej načeloma ne vpliva dejstvo, ali ta izpolnjuje določene formalne zahteve, in sicer ali ga je avtor pravilno poimenoval, ali je zadostno obrazložen oziroma ali so v njem navedene določbe, ki so njegova pravna podlaga (glede zahteve po obrazložitvi glej sodbo z dne 16. junija 1994 v zadevi SFEI in drugi proti Komisiji, C-39/93 P, Recueil, str. I-2681, točka 31).
It is therefore irrelevant that the act may not be described as a ‘decision’ or that it does not refer to Article 4(2), (3) or (4) of Regulation No 659/1999.
Tako ni upo�tevno, da ta akt ni označen kot „odločba“ ali da ne vsebuje sklicevanja na člen 4(2), (3) ali (4) Uredbe �t. 659/1999.
It is also of no importance that the Member State concerned was not notified of it by the Commission, infringing Article 25 of that regulation, as such an error is not capable of altering the substance of that act (see, in that regard, Case C-57/95 France v Commission [1997] ECR I-1627, paragraph 22).
Prav tako ni pomembno, da ga Komisija ob kr�itvi člena 25 te uredbe ni sporočila zadevni državi članici, ker taka kr�itev ne more spremeniti vsebine navedenega akta (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 20. marca 1997 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji, C-57/95, Recueil, str. I-1627, točka 22).
If it were otherwise, the Commission could avoid review by the Community judicature simply by failing to adhere to such formal requirements.
V nasprotnem primeru bi se Komisija lahko samo s kr�itvijo takih formalnih zahtev izognila nadzoru sodi�ča Skupnosti.
It follows that, to determine whether an act in matters of State aid constitutes a decision within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, it is necessary to ascertain whether, taking account of the substance of that act and the Commission’s intention, that institution has, at the end of the preliminary examination stage, definitively established its position — by way of the act under consideration — on
Iz tega sledi, da je za ugotovitev, ali je neki akt na področju državnih pomoči odločba v smislu člena 4 Uredbe �t. 659/1999, treba preveriti, ali je, ob upo�tevanju njegove vsebine in namena Komisije, ta institucija na koncu predhodne faze preučitve z obravnavnim aktom dokončno izoblikovala svoje stali�če o spornem ukrepu, torej ali
2008 — CASE C-521/06 P the measure under review and, therefore, whether it has decided that that measure constituted aid or not, that it had no doubts as regards its compatibility with the common market, or that it did have such doubts.
2008 – ZADEVA C-521/06 P je ugotovila, ali je ta ukrep pomoč ali ne, in ali ima dvome glede njegove združljivosti s skupnim trgom ali ne.
The contested act
Izpodbijani akt
As has been noted at paragraph 30 of this judgment, in its action Athinaïki Techniki did not challenge the letter in dispute, which was a mere letter of notification informing it of the adoption of the contested act.
Kot je navedeno v točki 30 te sodbe, Athinaïki Techniki s tožbo ni izpodbijal spornega dopisa, ker je ta le informativni dopis, s katerim je bil obve�čen o sprejetju izpodbijanega akta.
Athinaïki Techniki specifically challenged that latter act.
Izrecno je izpodbijal zadnjenavedeni akt.
By the letter in dispute the Commission, first of all, indicated to Athinaïki Techniki that, by an earlier letter of 16 September 2003, the Commission had informed it that ‘on the basis of the information in its possession, there [we]re insufficient grounds for continuing to examine that case’.
Komisija je z navedenim dopisom najprej Athinaïki Techniki navedla, da ga je s prej�njim dopisom z dne 16. septembra 2003 obvestila, da „na podlagi podatkov, ki jih [je imela], ni [bilo] zadostnih razlogov za nadaljevanje preiskave v tej zadevi“.