natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A finding on that question would, it would appear, contribute to the demarcation of the responsibility of the Italian authorities as regards the adoption of the contested decision.
Odgovor na to vpra�anje bi lahko prispeval k razmejitvi odgovornosti italijanskih organov v zvezi s sprejetjem izpodbijane odločbe.
14 — See, inter alia, Bosman, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 61, and PreussenElektra, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 39.
13 – Glej med drugim sodbo z dne 15. decembra 1995 v zadevi Bosman, (C-415/93, Recueil, str. I-4921, točka 59); sodbo z dne 13. marca 2001 v zadevi PreussenElektra (C-379/98, Recueil, str.
13 — See, inter alia, Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 59; Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099, paragraph 38; and Case C-340/99 TNT Traco and Others [2001] ECR I-4109, paragraph 30.
14 – Glej med drugim sodbo Bosman, navedeno v opombi 13, točka 61, in sodbo PreussenElektra, navedeno v opombi 13, točka 39.
Therefore the question of the national court concerning the validity of the contested Commission decision is not manifestly unrelated to the purpose of the dispute before the referring court, and the plea of inadmissibility must be rejected in this regard.
Vpra�anje nacionalnega sodi�ča v zvezi z veljavnostjo izpodbijane odločbe Komisije ni zato očitno nepovezano z vsebino spora pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, ugovor nedopustnosti pa je treba v zvezi s tem zato zavrniti.
17In the present case, by contrast, the contested decision, addressed to the Italian Republic, concerns an aid scheme intended for categories of persons defined in a general manner and not for explicitly identified recipients.
17 Nasprotno pa se v obravnavani zadevi izpodbijana odločba, naslovljena na Italijansko republiko, nana�a na državne pomoči, namenjene vrsti subjektov, ki je opredeljena na splo�no, in ne na izrecno opredeljene prejemnike.
Moreover, the Court of First Instance has held that applicants which were merely third parties during the preliminary investigation could not be individually concerned by a decision authorising an aid scheme.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje odločilo, da odločba o odobritvi programa pomoči ni mogla posamično zadevati vlagateljev, ki so bili le tretje stranke med predhodno preučitvijo.
18 Therefore, it seems doubtful that Nuova Agricast would have had standing to bring an action under Article 230 EC against the contested decision.
18Zato se zdi dvomljivo, da bi družba Nuova Agricast imela pravni interes za vložitev tožbe na podlagi člena 230 ES zoper izpodbijano odločbo.
A second issue of admissibility arises in relation to the fact that Nuova Agricast has already brought an action for annulment of the contested decision before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
Drugo vpra�anje glede dopustnosti se zastavlja v zvezi z dejstvom, da je družba Nuova Agricast že vložila tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane odločbe pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti.
As mentioned earlier, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) dismissed the action for annulment in Nuova Agricast and Others as inadmissible because it had been brought out of time.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je Sodi�če prve stopnje ničnostno tožbo družbe Nuova Agricast in drugi zavrnilo kot nedopustno, ker je bila vložena prepozno.
15In the light of
15Ob upo�tevanju sodne prakse
Thus, unlike the circumstances giving rise to the judgment in TWD Textilwerke the Court’s caselaw in TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, 16 it must be determined whether
Nasprotno kot v zadevi, ki je podlaga za sodbo TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, tako
17 — The Commission’s decision addressed to the Member State concerned made explicit reference to the recipient of the individual aid in question and that State had communicated the decision to the recipient, stating that it could bring an action for annulment against it.
17 – V odločbi Komisije, naslovljeni na zadevne države članice, so izrecno navedeni prejemniki zadevne individualne pomoči, in da je država posredovala odločbo prejemnikom, pri čemer je bilo navedeno, da lahko zoper njo vložijo ničnostno tožbo.
15 — Cited in footnote 11.
15 – Navedeno v opombi 11.
18 — See, to that effect, Case T-398/94 Kahn Scheppvaart [1996] ECR II-477, paragraph 39.
18 – Glej v zvezi s tem sodbo z dne 5. junija 1996 v zadevi Kahn Scheppvaart proti Komisiji, (T-398/94, Recueil, str. II-477, točka 39).
In that case, which concerned a decision not to raise objections to an aid scheme consisting in sectoral fiscal measures, the Court of First Instance held that the contested decision appeared with regard to the potential beneficiaries of those measures to be a measure of general application covering situations which were determined objectively and entailed legal effects for a class of persons envisaged in a general and abstract manner.
V tej zadevi, ki se je nana�ala na odločbo o nevložitvi ugovora zoper program pomoči, in sicer proračunske ukrepe v določenem sektorju, je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da je izpodbijana odločba, sprejeta v zvezi z domnevnimi upravičenci do teh ukrepov, splo�en ukrep, ki se nana�a na položaje, ki so bili objektivno določeni in so povzročili pravne učinke za vrsto subjektov, ki so bili določeni splo�no in abstraktno.
Such potential beneficiaries therefore lacked standing to bring an action under Article 230 EC.
Taki morebitni upravičenci zato niso imeli pravnega interesa za vložitev tožbe na podlagi člena 230 ES.
16 — Case C-188/92 [1994] ECR I-833, paragraphs 17 and 18.
16 – Sodba z dne 9. marca 1994 (C-188/92, Recueil, str. I-833, točki 17 in 18).
Deggendorf, it was not clear that Nuova Agricast’s action for annulment would have been admissible if it had been lodged within the period laid down under Article 230 EC.
Določitev vrste obravnavane pomoči in odločbe ni bilo jasno, ali bi bila tožba družbe Nuova Agricast dopustna, če bi bila vložena v roku, določenem v členu 230 ES.
Accordingly, I consider that the reference for a preliminary ruling is admissible.
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega menim, da je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe dopusten.
According to Article 87(1) EC, State aid is, as a general rule, prohibited in the Community.
V skladu s členom 87(1) ES so državne pomoči v Skupnosti na splo�no prepovedane.
Exceptions to this principle are provided for under Article 87(2) EC, according to which certain kinds of aid are deemed compatible with the common market, and under Article 87(3) EC, according to which another limited number of categories of aid is permitted to be compatible.
Izjeme od tega pravila so določene v členu 87(2) ES, v skladu s katerim so nekatere pomoči združljive s skupnim trgom, in v členu 87(3) ES, ki določa, da so lahko določene druge vrste pomoči združljive s skupnim trgom.
According to the settled caselaw of the Court, assessment of the compatibility of aid measures or of an aid scheme with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Court. 19
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča namreč izhaja, da je presoja združljivosti ukrepov pomoči ali programa pomoči s skupnim trgom v izključni pristojnosti Komisije in pod nadzorom Sodi�ča. 19
In the light of the information provided by the referring court, the referring court appears to ask, in essence, whether the Commission’s decision, by failing to take into account the situation of companies of the first category, may be invalid because it infringes the principle of equal treatment and the Commission’s obligation to state adequate reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC.
Ob upo�tevanju informacij, ki jih je zagotovilo predložitveno sodi�če, se zdi, da predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je lahko odločba Komisije, ker ne upo�teva položaja prve vrste podjetij, nična, ker je v nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja in obveznostjo obrazložitve Komisije v skladu s členom 253 ES.
For the purpose of the control of the compatibility of State aid with the common market, the Commission must receive, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 88(3) EC, notification of ‘new aid’ prior to such plans being put into effect.
Komisija mora biti, da bi lahko nadzorovala združljivost državne pomoči s skupnim trgom, v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe obve�čena o priglasitvi „nove pomoči“, preden se začnejo taki načrti izvajati.
‘New aid’ is any measure to grant or alter aid,
„Nova pomoč“ je vsak ukrep za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči, s tem da se morajo spremembe nana�ati na obstoječo pomoč ali
For the purpose of determining this question, it is important to consider briefly the type of aid and decision at issue in the present case and the scope of the judicial review which the Court may exercise in that context.
Da bi odločili o tem vpra�anju, je pomembno na kratko preučiti vrsto pomoči in odločbo, ki se obravnavata v tej zadevi, ter obseg sodnega nadzora, ki bi ga lahko v zvezi s tem izvajalo Sodi�če.
OPINION OF MR MAZÁK — CASE C-390/06
MAZÁKA – ZADEVA C-390/06 prvotne načrte, ki so bili prigla�eni Komisiji.
20The present case concerns new aid, since the aid constitutes an alteration to a previous scheme, the authorisation for which expired on 31 December 1999.
Sodni nadzor odločbe o državni pomoči, ki ga izvaja Sodi�če pomoč, ker pomoč pomeni spremembo prej�nje ureditve, katere odobritev je prenehala veljati 31. decembra 1999.
According to the Court’s caselaw, as regards the application of Article 88(3) EC, the Commission enjoys a wide discretion, the exercise of which involves assessments of an economic and social nature which must be made within a Community context. 24
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča ima Komisija pri uporabi člena 88(3) ES �iroko diskrecijsko pravico, katere izvajanje vključuje gospodarsko in družbeno presojo, ki jo je treba izvesti glede na položaj v Skupnosti. 24
It must also be pointed out that the measure at issue in the contested decision is an aid scheme, as opposed to individual aid.
Prav tako je treba poudariti, da je v nasprotju z individualno pomočjo ukrep, ki se obravnava v izpodbijani odločbi, program pomoči.
The use of aid schemes allows Member States to obtain a single authorisation from the Commission, on the basis of the general features of the scheme. 21
Uporaba programov pomoči državam članicam omogoča, da na podlagi splo�nih značilnosti programa pridobijo enotno odobritev Komisije. 21
Therefore, in its review of the legality of a Commission decision on State aid, the Court must restrict itself to determining whether the Commission has exceeded the scope of its discretion by a distortion or manifest error of assessment of the facts or by misuse of powers or abuse of process.
Nadzor zakonitosti odločbe, ki jo je v zvezi z državnimi pomočmi sprejela Komisija, mora zato Sodi�če omejiti na presojo, ali je Komisija prekoračila omejitev diskrecijske pravice z izkrivljanjem dejstev oziroma z očitno napako pri presoji dejstev ali z zlorabo pooblastil oziroma postopka.
25This also means that the Court cannot substitute its evaluation of the compatibility of aid for that of the Commission. 26
25To tudi pomeni, da presoja združljivosti pomoči od Sodi�ča ne more nadomestiti presoje Komisije.
The contested decision is a ‘decision not to raise objections’, 22 which was thus taken by the Commission without initiating the formal investigation procedure. 23
Izpodbijana odločba je „odločba o nevložitvi ugovora“, 22 ki jo je Komisija sprejela, ne da bi uvedla formalni postopek preiskave. 23
20 — See, for example, Piaggio, cited in footnote 19, paragraph 48.
20 – Glej na primer v opombi 19 navedeno sodbo Piaggio, točka 48.
Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p.
Člen 1(c) Uredbe Sveta (ES) 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES (UL L 83, str.
1) (‘the Procedure Regulation’) states that ‘“new aid” shall mean all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid’.
1) („Postopkovna uredba“) pomeni vsako pomoč, to je program pomoči ali individualno pomoč, ki ni veljavna pomoč, vključno s spremembami veljavne pomoči.
21 — The individual grants of aid are merely measures implementing the general aid scheme.
21 – Individualne dodelitve pomoči so zgolj ukrepi za uvajanje splo�nega programa pomoči.
Since the factors to be taken into consideration by the Commission in assessing that aid are the same as those which it applied on examining the general scheme, it is unnecessary for the individual grants of aid to be subject to examination by the Commission.
Ker so dejavniki, ki jih mora Komisija upo�tevati pri presoji te pomoči, enaki kot dejavniki, ki jih je upo�tevala pri preverjanju splo�nega programa, mora individualne dodelitve pomoči preveriti Komisija.
22 — See Article 4(3) of the Procedure Regulation.
24 – Glej med drugim sodbo z dne 21. marca 1991 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji (C-303/88, Recueil, str. I-1433, točka 34).
24 — See, inter alia, Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1433, paragraph 34.
22 – Glej člen 4(3) Postopkovne uredbe.
25 — See Matra v Commission, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 25.
25 – Glej v opombi 18 navedeno sodbo Matra proti Komisiji, točka 25.
23 — The formal investigation procedure must be initiated when the Commission has doubts as to the compatibility of the notified aid with the common market (see Article 4(4) of the Procedure Regulation).
23 – Če Komisija dvomi o združljivosti prigla�ene pomoči s skupnim trgom, mora začeti formalni postopek preiskave (glej člen 4(4) Postopkovne uredbe).
NUOVA AGRICAST the Commission’s decision may be invalid because it infringes the principle of equal treatment as between the companies of the first and the second categories with regard to the scope of its transitional provision.
NUOVA AGRICAST odločba Komisije nična, ker je v nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja prve in druge vrste podjetij glede področja uporabe prehodne določbe.
empowered only to order a Member State not to pay an aid it considers incompatible with the common market.
Pristojna je le za to, da državam članicam prepove plačilo pomoči, za katero meni, da ni združljiva s skupnim trgom, ne plačajo. Država članica zagotovi sredstva za pomoč, oblikuje program in ga priglasi Komisiji.
The Member State retains the right to withdraw the notification of the aid scheme and not to implement the aid scheme.
Država članica ohrani pravico, da umakne priglasitev programa pomoči in da ne izvede programa pomoči.
The Commission’s competence with regard to State aid is limited to the examination of whether State aid is compatible with the common market.
Pristojnost Komisije v zvezi z državnimi pomočmi je omejena na presojo, ali je državna pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom.
As to the scope of this examination, the Court has consistently held that Article 87 EC may not be used to frustrate other Treaty rules.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča v zvezi s področjem uporabe te presoje člena 87 ES ni mogoče uporabljati, da bi se kr�ila druga pravila Pogodbe.
27 The Commis- sion is therefore entitled to take account of possible infringements of other Treaty rules and fundamental principles when considering the compatibility of a State aid scheme with the common market.
27Komisija je zato upravičena, da pri presoji združljivosti državnih pomoči s skupnim trgom upo�teva morebitne kr�itve drugih pravil Pogodbe in temeljnih načel.
28 Such principles include the principle of equal treatment. 29
28 Ta načela zajemajo načelo enakega obravnavanja. 29
It follows that a possible transitional provision in a notified State aid scheme is proposed by the Member State as part of the aid scheme it notifies to the Commission for authorisation.
Iz tega sledi, da država članica v prigla�enem programu državne pomoči predlaga morebitno prehodno določbo kot del programa pomoči, ki ga priglasi Komisiji v odobritev.
It will therefore be assessed by the Commission as part of the aid scheme with a view to evaluating the compatibility of the scheme as a whole with the common market.
Komisija jo bo torej presodila kot del programa pomoči ob upo�tevanju ocene združljivosti programa kot celote s skupnim trgom.
While it is empowered to verify the compatibility of State aid with the common market, the Commission does not conceive or design aid schemes or attribute the aid.
Čeprav je Komisija pristojna za preverjanje združljivosti državne pomoči s skupnim trgom, ne zasnuje ali oblikuje programa pomoči in ne dodeljuje pomoči.
It is
Poleg tega
28 — See Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly in Joined Cases C-15/98 and C-105/99 Italyand Sardegna Lines v Commission [2000] ECR I-8855, point 78.
28 – Glej sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Fennellyja z dne 13. aprila 2000 v združenih zadevah Italija in Sardegna Lines proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 19. oktobra 2000, C-15/98 in C-105/99, Recueil, str. I-8855, točka 78).
It follows from the findings of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), in a case related to the present one, that the wording of the transitional provision in the contested decision is the result of a free choice made by the Italian authorities.
Iz presoje Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zadevi, ki je povezana z obravnavano zadevo, izhaja, da je besedilo prehodne določbe iz izpodbijane odločbe posledica proste izbire italijanskih organov.
30 Until the formal investigation procedure has been initiated, the Commission does not have the power to oblige a Member State to modify an aid scheme.
30 Dokler se ne začne formalni postopek preiskave, Komisija od držav članic ni pristojna zahtevati, naj spremenijo program pomoči. Med neformalnim
29 — It may be recalled in this connection that the Court has, in the past, held a decision taken by the Commission under Article 88 EC to be invalid because its transitional provision infringed the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of equal treatment (see Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479, paragraphs 168 to 174).
29 – V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je Sodi�če v preteklosti odločilo, da je odločba Komisije na podlagi člena 88 ES nična, ker je njena prehodna določba v nasprotju z načelom legitimnih pričakovanj in načelom enakega obravnavanja (glej sodbo z dne 22. junija 2006 v združenih zadevah Belgija in Forum 187 ASBL proti Komisiji (C-182/03 in C-217/03, ZOdl., str. I-5479, točke od 168 do 174).
32 For the present case, this would mean that the Commission could not have been required to take into account the situation of Nuova Agricast and other companies belonging to the first category.
32 V obravnavani zadevi bi to pomenilo, da od Komisije ni bilo mogoče zahtevati, naj upo�teva položaj družbe Nuova Agricast in drugih podjetij te vrste.
It falls therefore to be determined whether, in the present case, the Commission exceeded its discretion because it considered the new aid scheme as compatible with the common market after the preliminary investigation despite the exclusion of the companies of the first category from the scope of the transitional provision of the contested decision and, as a result, did not initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Zato je treba v obravnavani zadevi opredeliti, ali je Komisija prekoračila svojo diskrecijsko pravico, ker je po predhodni preučitvi kljub izključitvi prve vrste podjetij s področja uporabe prehodne določbe iz izpodbijane odločbe menila, da je novi program pomoči združljiv s skupnim trgom, in zato ni začela formalnega postopka preiskave.
Before drawing this conclusion, it must however be pointed out that this caselaw has been developed and applied in cases where the challenged decision had been adopted by the Commission after a formal investigation procedure.
Pred tem je treba poudariti, da se je ta sodna praksa razvila in uporabljala v zadevah, v katerih je Komisija izpodbijano odločbo sprejela po formalnem postopku preiskave.
For such decisions, this approach seems justified because the ‘interested parties’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC have the opportunity to provide all relevant information to the Commission, even if some have not made use of that opportunity.
V zvezi s temi odločbami se zdi ta pristop utemeljen, ker imajo „zainteresirane stranke“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES možnost, da Komisiji zagotovijo potrebne informacije, čeprav je nekatere niso izkoristile.
33Such parties are therefore to a large extent responsible for the information that was available to the Commission when it reached its decision.
33Te stranke so zato v veliki meri odgovorne za informacije, ki jih je imela Komisija na voljo, ko je sprejela svojo odločbo.
If such ‘interested parties’ claim at a later stage that the Commission decision is invalid, it is logical that they can then question the validity of the Commission decision only on the basis of the information which was available to the Commission for the adoption of its decision.
Če te „zainteresirane stranke“ kasneje trdijo, da je odločba Komisije nična, je logično, da lahko dvomijo o veljavnosti odločbe Komisije le na podlagi informacij, ki jih je imela Komisija na voljo, ko je sprejemala odločbo.
First, there is in my view a formal reason which appears to indicate that this was not the case.
Prvič, menim, da zaradi formalnih razlogov ni tako.
There is in fact no evidence that the Commission was aware in any way of the existence or, at least, of the specific situation of the companies of the first category, to which Nuova Agricast belongs.
V bistvu ni dokazano, da je bila Komisija na kakr�en koli način seznanjena z obstojem oziroma vsaj s posebnim položajem prve vrste podjetij, med katere spada družba Nuova Agricast.
This reasoning cannot be transposed to a decision not to raise any objections to an aid
Ta utemeljitev ne more veljati za odločbo o nevložitvi ugovora zoper program pomoči
According to established caselaw, the validity of a State aid decision by the Commission must, however, be evaluated on the basis of the information that was available to the Commission when it adopted the deci-
Vendar je treba v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso veljavnost odločbe Komisije v zvezi z državno pomočjo presoditi na podlagi informacij, ki jih je imela Komisija na voljo,
33 — See, to that effect, for example, Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano, cited in footnote 32, paragraph 169.
33 – Glej v zvezi s tem na primer v opombi 32 navedeno sodbo Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano, točka 169.
31 — Besides, of course, having the possibility of deciding that the notified measure does not constitute aid.
31 – Poleg tega seveda možnosti, da odloči, da prigla�ena pomoč ni pomoč.
NUOVA AGRICAST information available at the time of the adoption of the decision even when a party which was not involved in the preliminary investigation, such as Nuova Agricast in the present case, challenges a decision not to raise objections.
NUOVA AGRICAST macije, ki jih ima na voljo, ko sprejema odločbo, čeprav stranka, ki ni bila vključena v predhodno preučitev, kot je v obravnavani zadevi družba Nuova Agricast, izpodbija odločbo o nevložitvi ugovora.
scheme and closing the preliminary phase of the examination of an aid, where no formal investigation procedure has ever been initiated.
in končanje predhodne preučitve pomoči, če formalni postopek preiskave ni bil izveden.
Such a decision is in principle 34taken on the basis of the information provided by the notifying Member State.
Taka odločitev je načeloma 34sprejeta na podlagi informacij, ki jih zagotovi država članica, ki prigla�a pomoč.
The proced- ure does not provide a formal opportunity for third parties to intervene and submit information to the Commission that it may consider in order to evaluate the compatibility of the notified aid with the common market.
Postopek tretjim strankam ne zagotavlja formalne možnosti intervencije in predložitve informacij Komisiji, ki bi jih lahko upo�tevala pri presoji združljivosti prigla�ene pomoči s skupnim trgom.