natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Assuming that that approach by the Commission was itself incorrect, that fact could be relevant to the substance of the contested decision but not to its validity in procedural terms.
Če bi domnevali, da je ta način Komisije napačen, bi ta okoli�čina lahko vplivala na utemeljenost sporne odločbe, ne pa na njeno zakonitost s postopkovnega vidika.
Moreover, while it is true that the contested decision was adopted after the Commission’s withdrawal of an earlier decision of 10 March 1992 to take no action on the complaint of UFEX and Others, a decision which was the subject of an action for annulment, that withdrawal did not imply any change in the scope of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons.
Na drugi strani, čeprav je Komisija sporno odločbo res sprejela po tem, ko je umaknila predhodno odločbo z dne 10. marca 1992, s katero je bil v zvezi s pritožbo združenja UFEX in drugih uveden postopek in ki je bila predmet tožbe za razglasitev ničnosti, navedena umaknitev ni zajemala nobene spremembe v zvezi z obsegom obveznosti obrazložitve, ki jo ima Komisija.
The concept of State aid must be applied to an objective situation, which must be appraised on the date on which the Commission takes its decision (Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479, paragraph 137).
Pojem državne pomoči namreč odgovarja objektivnemu stanju, ki se presoja na dan, ko Komisija sprejme odločbo (sodba z dne 22. junija 2006 v zadevi Belgija in Forum 187 proti Komisiji, C-182/03 in C-217/03, ZOdl., str. I-5479, točka 137).
The reasons why the Commission made a different assessment of the situation in question in a previous decision cannot therefore have any effect on the assessment of the legality of the contested decision.
Razlogi, zaradi katerih je Komisija v predhodnih odločbah zadevno situacijo presodila drugače, torej ne smejo vplivati na presojo zakonitosti sporne odločbe.
Finally, the necessary correlation between the grounds relied on by the complainant and the statement of reasons for the Commission’s decision cannot mean that the Commission is obliged to reject each of the arguments put forward in support of those grounds.
Nazadnje zaradi potrebne soodvisnosti med razlogi, ki jih je navedla pritožnica, in obrazložitvijo odločbe Komisije ni mogoče zahtevati, da je Komisija zavezana zavrniti vsako trditev, navedeno v podporo tem razlogom.
It is sufficient if it sets out the facts and the legal considerations of fundamental importance in the context of the decision (judgment of 11 January 2007 in Case C-404/04 P Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission, paragraph 30).
Zadostuje navedba dejstev in pravnih ugotovitev, ki so bistveni v strukturi odločbe (sodba z dne 11. januarja 2007 v zadevi Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau proti Komisiji, C-404/04 P, ZOdl., str. I-1, točka 30).
In the present case, and provided that the explanations given support the reasons for finding those grounds irrelevant, neither the number nor the significance of the economic studies produced by the complainant in support of those grounds can, by themselves, alter the scope of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons.
V obravnavani zadevi, in če so dana pojasnila utemeljevala razloge, v zvezi s katerimi razlogi, ki jih je navedla pritožnica, niso �teli za upo�tevne, niti �tevilo niti pomen ekonomskih �tudij, ki jih je predložila pritožnica v utemeljitev teh razlogov, ne morejo sami spremeniti obsega obveznosti obrazložitve, ki jo ima Komisija.
It must also be observed that the analysis as to whether the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost constitutes State aid, as UFEX and Others claim, was made in a context characterised, as at the date of the contested decision, by two sets of factors.
Dalje je treba opozoriti tudi na to, da je analiza vpra�anja, ali je logistična in komercialna podpora družbe La Poste družbi SFMI-Chronopost državna pomoč, kot zatrjujejo združenje UFEX in drugi, del okvira, za katerega sta na datum izdaje sporne odločbe značilni dve vrsti dejavnikov.
First, in paragraph 62 of its judgment in SFEI and Others, the Court of Justice, as observed in paragraph 3 of the present judgment, considered that the provision of logistical and commercial assistance by a public undertaking to subsidiaries governed by private law and carrying on an activity open to free competition is capable of constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty if the remuneration received in return is less than that which would have been demanded under normal market conditions.
Prvič, Sodi�če je v točki 62 zgoraj navedene sodbe SFEI in drugi, kot je navedlo v točki 3 obravnavane sodbe, ugotovilo, da logistična in komercialna podpora, ki jo javno podjetje ponuja svojim zasebnopravnim hčerinskim družbam, ki izvajajo dejavnosti proste konkurence, lahko pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 92 Pogodbe, če je plačilo, prejeto kot protidajatev, nižje od tistega, ki bi se zahtevalo v običajnih tržnih razmerah.
Second, it is common ground that the complaint which UFEX and Others made to the Commission sought, in essence, to argue that the remuneration for the logistical and commercial assistance was insufficient on the basis of those considerations (Title I, E, of the contested decision).
Na drugi strani ni sporno, da je bil namen pritožbe, ki so jo vložili združenje UFEX in drugi pri Komisiji, v bistvu utemeljiti nezadostno plačilo logistične in komercialne podpore na podlagi teh ugotovitev (naslov I, E, sporne odločbe).
In particular, UFEX and Others maintained that the remuneration for the logistical assistance should have been calculated on the basis of the price which an undertaking acting under normal market conditions should have charged for the services in question without taking into account the economies of scale enjoyed by La Poste by virtue of its monopoly, which were, according to the complainants, precisely the root cause of the distortion in competition.
Združenje UFEX in drugi so zatrjevali zlasti, da bi moralo biti plačilo logistične podpore izračunano na podlagi cene, ki bi jo podjetje, ki deluje v običajnih tržnih razmerah, zahtevalo za zadevne storitve, ne da bi se upo�tevali „lestvični donosi“, do katerih je bila upravičena družba La Poste zaradi svojega monopola in ki so bili po mnenju pritožnice ravno razlog za izkrivljanje konkurence.
In considering that the response given to the complaints raised by UFEX and Others was inadequate, the Court of First Instance took the view, in paragraphs 75 to 95 of the judgment under appeal, that the data provided by the Commission were too general and imprecise.
Sodi�če prve stopnje pri ugotavljanju, ali je bil odgovor na očitke združenja UFEX in drugih nezadosten, v točkah od 75 do 95 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da so podatki, ki jih je podala Komisija, preveč splo�ni in nenatančni.
As the Advocate General noted at point 97 of her Opinion, the Court of First Instance was particularly critical of the lack of precision with regard to the economic and accounting concepts used, the nature of the costs examined and the components
Kot je poudarila generalna pravobranilka v točki 97 sklepnih predlogov, je bilo Sodi�če prve stopnje kritično zlasti v zvezi s pomanjkanjem natančnosti glede uporabljenih gospodarskih in računovodskih pojmov, naravo stro�kov, ki jih je Komisija
CHRONOPOST AND LA POSTE v UFEX AND OTHERS of the financial calculations undertaken.
CHRONOPOST IN LA POSTE PROTI UFEX IN DRUGIM preverila, in elementi finančnih izračunov, ki jih je uporabila.
The Court found that it was unable to check for factual errors or errors of assessment and, in respect of variable costs, considered that the contested decision should at least have contained a general summary of the analytical accounting calculations in relation to the services provided.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da ne more preveriti napak pri ugotovljenem dejanskem stanju in napak pri presoji, sporna odločba pa bi glede variabilnih stro�kov morala vsebovati vsaj splo�en povzetek analitičnih računovodskih izračunov v zvezi z opravljenimi storitvami.
However, it must be noted, first, as the Court of First Instance also observed in paragraph 73 of the judgment under appeal, that ‘the reasons for which the Commission rejected the method for calculating the costs [of those services proposed by UFEX and Others] are clear from the grounds set out in recitals 49 to 56 to the contested decision’.
Vendar je treba najprej ugotoviti, kot je poudarilo tudi Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 73 izpodbijane sodbe, da razlogi, iz katerih je Komisija zavrnila metodo za izračun stro�kov teh storitev, ki so jo predlagali združenje UFEX in drugi, jasno izhajajo iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah od 49 do 56 sporne odločbe.
In particular, the Commission explains why, in its view, the detailed economic studies provided by UFEX and Others were based on a concept of normal market price which was fundamentally flawed.
Podrobneje, Komisija pojasnjuje, zakaj so po njenem mnenju natančne ekonomske �tudije, ki so jih predložili združenje UFEX in drugi, temeljile na napačnem konceptu običajnih tržnih razmer, ki je bil bistveno napačen.
In fact, the studies defined that price as being the price at which a comparable private company would provide the same services to an unrelated company, whereas it is necessary to take into account the fact that the transaction takes place between two companies within the same group and that, in those circumstances, the strategic considerations and synergies arising from the fact that Chronopost and La Poste belonged to the same group cannot be disregarded.
Te so namreč opredeljevale to ceno kot ceno, ki bi jo moralo za te storitve primerljivo zasebno podjetje plačati nepovezani družbi, medtem ko je treba upo�tevati dejstvo, da je transakcija potekala med dvema podjetjema v isti skupini in da v teh okoli�činah ni mogoče prezreti strate�ke nagibe in sinergije, ki izhajajo iz dejstva, da sta družbi La Poste in SFMI-Chronopost pripadali isti skupini.
Accordingly, as the Advocate General noted at point 106 of her Opinion, a detailed response to the assumptions and calculations behind the overall amounts of State aid alleged in those studies would be irrelevant.
V teh okoli�činah, kot je generalna pravobranilka poudarila v točki 106 sklepnih predlogov, bi bil natančen odgovor na vse domneve in izračune, na katerih temeljijo te �tudije v zvezi s celotnimi zneski domnevne državne pomoči, povsem nepomemben.
The Commission cannot therefore be criticised for having failed to produce a response of that kind.
Komisiji torej ni mogoče očitati, da ni podala takega odgovora.
Second, it must be noted that the Court of First Instance does not specify which elements of the complaint made by UFEX and Others it considered had been inadequately dealt with in the contested decision.
Drugič, ugotoviti je treba, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni podrobneje navedlo, kateri vidiki pritožbe, ki so jo vložili združenje UFEX in drugi, naj bi bili po njegovem mnenju v sporni odločbi obravnavani neustrezno.
Third, it must also be noted that the Court of First Instance does not establish in what respect the contested decision fails to explain why the facts and points of law put forward by UFEX and Others did not enable the Commission to find the existence of State aid.
Tretjič, ugotoviti je tudi treba, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ne utemeljuje, v čem v sporni odločbi ni bilo navedenih razlogov, zaradi katerih dejstva in pravna podlaga, ki jih je navedlo združenje UFEX in drugi, Komisiji niso omogočala, da bi ugotovila obstoj državne pomoči.
The reasoning given, as set out in paragraph 4 of the present judgment, does in fact disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Commission, and enables it to be judicially reviewed.
Obrazložitev, ki je bila podana in ki je navedena v točki 4 obravnavane sodbe, v bistvu jasno in nedvoumno izraža utemeljevanje Komisije in omogoča njegov sodni nadzor.
As regards the economic and accounting concepts used by the Commission, the nature of costs examined and the components of the financial calculations undertaken, these undeniably concern complex technical appraisals.
V zvezi z gospodarskimi in računovodskimi pojmi, ki jih je uporabila Komisija, z naravo preverjenih stro�kov in z elementi finančnih izračunov ni mogoče zanikati, da izhajajo iz zapletenih tehničnih presoj.
Since the contested decision clearly disclosed the Commission’s reasoning, enabling the substance of that decision to be challenged subsequently before the competent court, it would be excessive to require a specific statement of reasons for each of the technical choices or each of the figures on which that reasoning is based (see, by analogy, in respect of measures of general application, in particular, Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04 Alliance for Natural Health and Others [2005] ECR I-6451, paragraph 134).
Ker iz sporne odločbe jasno izhaja utemeljevanje Komisije, ki bi omogočilo poznej�e izpodbijanje utemeljenosti pri pristojnem sodi�ču, bi bilo čezmerno zahtevati podrobno obrazložitev za vsako tehnično izbiro ali vsakega od dejavnikov, ki je podlaga za utemeljevanje (glej po analogiji v zvezi s splo�nimi akti zlasti sodbo z dne 12. julija 2005 v združenih zadevah Alliance for Natural Health in drugi, C-154/04 in C-155/04, ZOdl., str. I-6451, točka 134).
It must also be observed that, to ensure the respect for business secrets which the Commission must observe under Article 214 of the EC Treaty (now Article 287 EC), certain information relating, in particular, to the cost price of services could not be communicated in a measure such as that at issue in the present case.
Poleg tega je treba ugotoviti, da za zagotovitev spo�tovanja poslovne skrivnosti, ki zavezuje Komisijo na podlagi člena 214 Pogodbe ES (postal člen 287 ES), določenih podatkov, ki se nana�ajo zlasti na cene storitev, ne bi bilo mogoče posredovati v aktu, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari.
The nonexhaustive nature of the figures included in such a measure cannot for that reason justify describing its reasoning as inadequate, or prevent a subsequent judicial review.
Neizčrpnost podatkov v takem aktu vendarle ne bi omogočila, da bi se njena obrazložitev opredelila za nezadostno, niti ne bi onemogočala izvedbe poznej�ega sodnega nadzora.
Finally, while various arguments calling in question the information on which the Commission relied were raised by UFEX and Others before the Court of First Instance in order to challenge the justification for the choices thus made and, in particular, their appropriateness to the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice in Chronopost and Others v Ufex and Others for determining normal market conditions in the present case, it was for the Commission to establish its case before the Court of First Instance in the course of the Court’s investigation.
Nazadnje, medtem ko so združenje UFEX in drugi pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje tako podali različne trditve, zaradi katerih je so postali vpra�ljivi podatki, na katere se je nana�ala Komisija, da bi izpodbijali utemeljenost takih izbir in zlasti njihovo ujemanje z merili, ki jih je Sodi�če uporabilo v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Chronopost in drugi proti UFEX in drugim, ki omogočajo opredelitev običajnih tržnih razmer v obravnavani zadevi, mora Komisija pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje utemeljiti sporno preiskavo.
However, the fact that all that information did not appear in the body of the contested decision itself does not support the conclusion that that decision was insufficiently reasoned, a fortiori if those arguments were raised or developed in the judicial proceedings following the judgment in Chronopost and Others v Ufex and Others.
Nasprotno, okoli�čina, da se vsi podatki ne nahajajo v glavnem delu odločbe, ne omogoča, da bi vnaprej ugotovili, ali je bila odločba nezadostno obrazložena, zlasti če so bile te trditve navedene ali podane v sodnem postopku po sprejetju zgoraj navedene sodbe Chronopost in drugi proti Ufex in drugim.
That is why the Court of First Instance could not, without erring in law, conclude — as it did in paragraph 95 of the judgment under appeal — that it was unable to review whether the method used and the stages of the analysis followed by the Commission were free from error and compatible with the principles laid down by the Court of Justice for determining the existence or absence of State aid.
Sodi�če prve stopnje zato ni moglo, ne da bi napačno uporabilo pravo, ugotoviti, kot je to storilo v točki 95 izpodbijane sodbe, da ne more preizkusiti, ali so metode in posamezni koraki analize, ki jih je opravila Komisija, brez napak in v skladu s pravili, določenimi v navedeni sodbi, glede ugotavljanja (ne)obstoja državne pomoči.
In view of the foregoing considerations, it follows that none of the Court of First Instance’s reasons can justify the annulment of the contested decision for defective reasoning.
Ob upo�tevanju vseh navedenih ugotovitev na podlagi nobenega razloga, ki jih je podalo Sodi�če prve stopnje, ni mogoče utemeljiti, da je bilo treba sporno odločbo razglasiti za nično zaradi neobrazloženosti.
Consequently, the plea put forward by Chronopost and La Poste, alleging an error of law by the Court of First Instance in the assessment of the Commission’s duty to state reasons, is well founded.
Pritožbeni razlog družb Chronopost in La Poste v zvezi s tem, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo pri presoji obveznosti obrazložitve, ki jo je imela Komisija, je treba zato sprejeti.
Therefore, the judgment under appeal must be set aside in so far as it held that the contested decision should be annulled for breach of that duty inasmuch as that decision concludes that the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost does not constitute State aid.
Izpodbijano sodbo je treba torej razveljaviti, ker zaradi kr�itve te obveznosti določa razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe v delu, v katerem je ugotovljeno, da logistična in komercialna podpora družbe La Poste družbi SFMI-Chronopost ni državna pomoč.
Fourth ground of appeal: error of law by the Court of First Instance in the assessment of the concept of State aid with regard to the transfer of the Postadex client base
Četrti pritožbeni razlog: napačna uporaba prava s strani Sodišča prve stopnje pri presoji pojma državna pomoč v zvezi s prenosom strank službe Postadex
Chronopost and La Poste submit that the Court of First Instance incorrectly took the view that the transfer by a Member State of an activity in the competitive sector to a subsidiary constitutes State aid on the ground that the client base, which represents an intangible asset financed from State resources, has thus been transferred for no consideration.
Družbi Chronopost in La Poste zatrjujeta, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno ugotovilo, da je to, da je država članica prenesla dejavnost v konkurenčni sektor, državna pomoč, ker naj bi bile stranke, ki naj bi pomenile neopredmeteno sredstvo, ki ga financira država, torej prenesene brez protidajatve.
In so doing, the Court of First Instance erred in law by failing, contrary to what was laid down by the Court of Justice in Chronopost and Others v Ufex and Others, to take account of the particular situation of La Poste, which is not comparable to that of private undertakings, on account of the fact that it operates in the reserved sector.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi tako napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem da nasprotno, kot določa Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Chronopost in drugi proti Ufex in drugim, ni upo�tevalo posebnega položaja družbe La Poste, ki posluje na pridržanem trgu in ni primerljiva z zasebnimi podjetji.
The Postadex transfer cannot be artificially distinguished from the establishment by a State body of a subsidiary to perform an activity, a transaction which cannot be assessed in the same way as the contribution of a private company to its existing subsidiary.
Prenosa služb Postadex ni mogoče umetno ločiti od prenosa dejavnosti na hčerinske družbe, ki ga je izvedla uprava, ki ga ni mogoče oceniti enako kot naložbo zasebne družbe v svojo hčerinsko družbo.
In addition, as the Commission found, the State’s capital contribution to Chronopost was paid for; therefore the State did not in any way assist the subsidiary created.
Poleg tega je bil kapitalski vložek države v družbo Chronopost odplačen, kot je navedla Komisija, in država torej ni nikakor podpirala ustanovljene hčerinske družbe.
Furthermore, the establishment of the subsidiary in question — which was sought by the Commission in the context of the liberalisation of sectors in which there was previously a monopoly — cannot be compared with relations between companies and existing subsidiaries.
Nadalje, zadevnega prenosa dejavnosti na hčerinsko družbo – ki ga je Komisija želela v okviru liberalizacije sektorjev, ki so bili prej pod monopolom – ni mogoče primerjati z odnosi med družbami in obstoječimi hčerinskimi družbami.
At the time of the establishment of and transfer to the subsidiary — which is akin to a hiving-off — there cannot have been any State aid as there was not yet a beneficiary and, in any event, there was not necessarily an advantage.
Med prenosom dejavnosti na hčerinsko družbo, ki je podoben delitvi, ni bilo mogoče govoriti o državni pomoči, ker �e ni bilo upravičenca, in v nobenem primeru ni �lo nujno za prednost.
In fact, the Commission took the assumed value of the intangible assets transferred into account.
Komisija je namreč upo�tevala domnevno vrednost prenesenega neopredmetenega sredstva.
Finally, the Court has already held that a capital transaction in favour of a public sector subsidiary generally does not involve any State aid where a private investor
Nazadnje naj bi Sodi�če že odločilo, da kapitalska transakcija v korist hčerinske družbe v javnem sektorju na splo�no ne zajema nobene državne pomoči, ker ima
CHRONOPOST AND LA POSTE v UFEX AND OTHERS also participates in the transaction, which is the case here, since TAT, which had a 34% shareholding in SFMI, contributed its own assets to it.
CHRONOPOST IN LA POSTE PROTI UFEX IN DRUGIM zasebni investitor enak delež pri transakciji, kar naj bi bil primer v obravnavani zadevi, ker je družba TAT, ki je imela 34 % kapitala družbe SFMI, v zadenjenavedeno vložila lastna sredstva.
As far as UFEX and Others are concerned, there was a free transfer of Postadex to SFMI-Chronopost — there having been no consideration, since the return on the equity capital invested cannot be regarded as consideration, the Commission’s figures being irrelevant in that regard.
Združenje UFEX in drugi menijo, da je �lo za brezplačen prenos služb Postadex družbi SFMI-Chronopost brez protidajatve, ki ni povezan z donosom na vložen lastni�ki kapital, v zvezi s katerim podatki, ki jih je navedla Komisija, niso upo�tevni.
The capital contributions which, under company law, must always give rise to a valuation did indeed benefit Chronopost by procuring for it, as a new entrant, a competitive advantage obtained outside normal market conditions.
Ugodnosti vložkov, ki jih je treba v skladu s pravom gospodarskih družb vedno ovrednotiti, bi resnično imela družba Chronopost s tem, da bi ji bila, kot novi družbi na trgu, ponujana konkurenčna ugodnost, ki bi jo pridobila zunaj običajnih tržnih razmer.
It was a free transfer of a — moreover captive — client base from a monopoly undertaking to its subsidiary.
Šlo naj bi za brezplačen prenos strank – ki uporabljajo te storitve – od družbe, ki ima monopol, na njeno hčerinsko družbo.
It is of little significance for the application of Article 92(1) of the Treaty whether or not there was a hiving-off, since the concept of State aid is defined not by the reasons for or methods used in the transaction but by its effects on the market and on trade within the Community.
Za uporabo člena 92(1) Pogodbe ni pomembno, ali gre delitev, ker pojem državna pomoč ni opredeljen na podlagi razlogov ali metod, uporabljenih pri transakciji, ampak na podlagi njenih učinkov na trg in trgovino znotraj Skupnosti.
First, there must be intervention by the State or through State resources.
Prvič, iti mora za intervencijo države ali za ukrep iz državnih sredstev.