natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Then, under the third sentence of Article 20(2) of that regulation, where the Commission takes a decision to close the file on the complaint, it must, in the interests of sound administration, send a copy of that decision to the complainant, since the latter is not its addressee.
Dalje, kadar Komisija sprejme odločbo o ustavitvi postopka s pritožbo, mora v skladu s členom 20(2), tretji stavek, te uredbe s ciljem dobrega upravljanja prepis te odločbe poslati pritožniku, ker ta ni naslovnik te odločbe.
However, I take the view that those factors are not sufficient to show that Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 must necessarily be interpreted as meaning that the closure of the file on a complaint in the field of State aid does not constitute a decision and need simply be notified to the complainant, as the Commission and the intervener argue.
Zato menim, da to niso zadostni dokazi, da je treba člen 20(2) Uredbe �t. 659/1999 nujno razlagati tako, da ustavitev postopka s pritožbo na področju državnih pomoči ni odločba in je treba o tem pritožnika le obvestiti, kot menita Komisija in intervenient.
Moreover, that interpretation of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 seems wholly consistent with the practice adopted by the Commission in this case.
Poleg tega menim, da je taka razlaga člena 20(2) Uredbe �t. 659/1999 skladna s prakso, ki jo je sprejela Komisija v tej zadevi.
Indeed, the wording of Article 20(2) of that regulation and the absence of complainants’ rights in the context of the procedure for monitoring State aid must be understood, in my view, in the light of the fact that that procedure, unlike that applicable to the implementation of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, consists in a dialogue between the Commission and the Member State concerned.
Besedilo člena 20(2) te uredbe in neobstoj pravic pritožnikov v okviru postopka nadzora državnih pomoči je treba po mojem mnenju razumeti glede na dejstvo, da je ta postopek, v nasprotju s tistim za izvedbo členov 81 ES in 82 ES, sestavljen iz dialoga med Komisijo in zadevno državo članico.
Indeed, according to the account of the facts in the contested order, the Commission, by letter of 16 September 2003, informed Athinaïki Techniki that, on the basis of the information in its possession, there were insufficient grounds for continuing the examination of that case and asked Athinaïki Techniki to send it additional information concerning any aid which was not connected with the tendering of the casino.
Na podlagi dejanskega stanja, predstavljenega v izpodbijanem sklepu, je Komisija z dopisom z dne 16. septembra 2003 Athinaïki Techniki obvestila, da na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je imela, namreč ni imela zadostnih razlogov za nadaljevanje preiskave v tej zadevi, in je od nje zahtevala, naj ji posreduje dodatne podatke v zvezi z vsemi pomočmi, ki naj ne bi bile povezane z oddajo naročila igralnici.
Subsequently, in the absence of such information, it notified the complainant, by the letter of 2 December 2004, that, since it lacked additional information to justify continuing the investigation, it had, for the purposes of further administrative action, closed the file on the case on 2 June 2004.
Nato je ob neobstoju teh elementov pritožnico z dopisom z dne 2. decembra 2004 obvestila, da je 2. junija 2004 zaradi neobstoja dodatnih podatkov, ki bi upravičili nadaljevanje preiskave, ustavila upravni postopek v tej zadevi.
At this stage of the analysis, it appears to me that Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 may therefore be interpreted as meaning that the Commission is entitled to close the file on a complaint concerning unlawful aid if it has in its possession insufficient evidence for taking a view.
V tej fazi analize menim, da bi bilo torej člen 20(2) Uredbe �t. 659/1999 mogoče razlagati tako, da Komisija lahko ustavi postopek s pritožbo glede morebitno nezakonite pomoči, če nima zadostnih elementov, da bi lahko odločala.
It is true that those two articles make no provision for cases in which the file on a complaint is closed.
Res je, da ta člena ne določata primera ustavitve postopka s pritožbo.
The absence of such provision in Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999 is perfectly logical in the light of the fact that that latter article lists the decisions which may be taken following notification by a Member State.
Ta neobstoj določbe v členu 4 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 je povsem logičen glede na dejstvo, da so v tem členu na�tete odločbe, ki jih je mogoče sprejeti na podlagi priglasitve države članice.
Indeed, the notification of aid and the procedure for monitoring State aid provided for by Regulation No 659/1999 have the purpose of allowing the Member State concerned and interested undertakings to know whether or not the planned measure is compatible with the common market and may be implemented.
Namen priglasitve pomoči in postopka nadzora državnih pomoči, določenega v Uredbi �t. 659/1999, je namreč omogočiti zadevni državi članici in zadevnim podjetjem, da izvejo, ali je nameravan ukrep združljiv s skupnim trgom ali ne in ali se lahko izvr�i.
As a result, that notification must necessarily be followed by a Commission decision finding that the notified measure (i) is not aid, (ii) constitutes aid compatible with the common market, or (iii) raises doubts as to such compatibility and requires a formal investigation procedure to be initiated.
Zato mora tej priglasitvi nujno slediti odločba Komisije, s katero je ugotovljeno, da prigla�en ukrep bodisi ni pomoč bodisi je pomoč, združljiva s skupnim trgom, bodisi zbuja dvome glede te združljivosti in zahteva začetek formalnega postopka preiskave.
The Commission therefore cannot close without further action the file on a notification from a Member State.
Komisija torej ne more ustaviti postopka, ki se je začel na podlagi priglasitve države članice.
If the notification is incomplete, Article 5 of Regulation No 659/1999 provides that the Commission must request from the Member State concerned the necessary additional information and that, if that information is not provided, that notification is to be deemed to be withdrawn.
Če je ta nepopolna, člen 5 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 določa, da mora Komisija od zadevne države članice zahtevati dodatne podatke, ki jih potrebuje, in če ti podatki niso predloženi, se �teje, da je navedena priglasitev preklicana.
Accordingly, first, Article 10(1) of that regulation requires the Commission to examine without delay a complaint informing it of unlawful aid.
Tako na eni strani člen 10(1) te uredbe nalaga Komisiji, da mora brez odla�anja preveriti pritožbo o nezakoniti pomoči.
That provision thus reproduces the caselaw according to which the Commission is required to conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the complaint.
Ta določba tako povzema sodno prakso, v skladu s katero mora Komisija skrbno in nepristransko preveriti pritožbo.
We have seen that that obligation may extend so far as to require it to examine matters of fact and law which were not expressly relied on by the complainant.
Videli smo, da gre lahko ta obveznost tako daleč, da mora Komisija preučiti dejanske in pravne elemente, na katere se pritožnik ni izrecno skliceval.
However, the file on a complaint alleging unlawful aid must be capable of being closed without further action if the Commission has in its possession insufficient evidence for taking a view by means of one of the decisions set out in Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, since the complainant is not in the same situation as a Member State which notifies the existence of aid.
Po drugi strani je pritožba glede morebitno nezakonite pomoči lahko predmet ustavitve postopka, če Komisija nima dokazov, potrebnih za sprejetje ene izmed odločb, na�tetih v členu 4 Uredbe �t. 659/1999, saj pritožnik ni v istem položaju kot država članica, ki je priglasila pomoč.
It is also settled caselaw that in order to ascertain whether or not a measure produces such effects it is necessary to look to its substance. 37
Prav tako ni sporno, da se je treba za ugotovitev, ali neki akt ustvarja take učinke, navezati na njegovo vsebino 37.
In the judgment in SFEI and Others v Commission, 38the Court held that a deci-
Sodi�če je v sodbi z dne 16. junija 1994 v zadevi SFEI in drugi proti Komisiji 38 preso-
That analysis seems to me to be confirmed by the definition of the concept of actionable decision in the case-law.
Menim, da to analizo potrjuje opredelitev pojma izpodbojnega akta v sodni praksi.
The concept of actionable decision in the caselaw sion to close the file on a complaint based on Article 82 EC constitutes an actionable decision for the following reasons.
Pojem izpodbojnega akta v sodni praksi dilo, da je ustavitev postopka s pritožbo na podlagi člena 82 ES izpodbojni akt zaradi naslednjih razlogov.
First of all, an institution empowered to find that there has been an infringement and to inflict a sanction in respect of it and to which private persons may make complaint, as is the case with the Commission in the field of competition, necessarily adopts a measure producing legal effects when it terminates an investigation initiated upon a complaint by such a person.
Najprej, institucija, ki je pristojna za ugotavljanje kr�itve in njeno sankcioniranje in na katero lahko posamezniki vložijo pritožbo, kot na primer Komisija na področju konkurenčnega prava, nujno sprejme akt, ki povzroči pravne učinke, kadar konča preiskavo, ki jo je uvedla na podlagi te pritožbe.
A decision to close the file on a complaint cannot be described as preliminary or preparatory.
Dalje, ustavitev postopka s pritožbo naj ne bi bil predhoden ali pripravljalen akt.
In fact, unlike a communication which is intended to afford to the undertakings concerned the opportunity of making known their point of view on the Commission’s statement of objections and which does not prevent the Commission from altering its position, the decision to close the file on a complaint is the final step in the procedure; it cannot be followed by any other decision amenable to annulment proceedings. 39
Drugače kot obvestilo, ki je namenjeno temu, da se zadevna podjetja obvesti o možnosti navedbe njihovega stali�ča glede očitkov Komisije in iz katerega ne izhaja njeno končno stali�če, je ustavitev postopka s pritožbo zadnja faza postopka: ne sledi ji noben drug akt, zoper katerega bi bilo mogoče vložiti ničnostno tožbo. 39
The Court has consistently held that only a measure whose legal effects are binding on the applicant and are capable of affecting his interests is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 230 EC. 36
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da so akti ali odločbe, ki bi lahko bile predmet ničnostne tožbe na podlagi člena 230 ES, zgolj ukrepi, ki imajo obvezne pravne učinke, ki lahko vplivajo na interese tožečih strank. 36
It seems to me that those reasons are perfectly capable of being applied to the closure of the file on a complaint in the context of the procedure applicable in matters relating to State aid.
Menim, da lahko ti razlogi prav tako veljajo za ustavitev postopka s pritožbo v okviru postopka, ki velja za področje državnih pomoči.
36 — Case C-147/96 Netherlands v Commission [2000] ECR I-4723, paragraph 25 and caselaw cited.
36 – Sodba z dne 22. junija 2000 v zadevi Nizozemska proti Komisiji (C-147/96, Recueil, str. I-4723, točka 25, in navedena sodna praksa).
See, for a recent application, the order in Case C-163/06 P Finland v Commission [2007] ECR I-5127, paragraph 40.
Za nedavno uporabo glej sklep z dne 21. junija 2007 v zadevi Finska proti Komisiji (C-163/06 P, ZOdl., str. I-5127, točka 40).
37 — Netherlands v Commission, paragraph 27.38 — Case C-39/93 P [1994] ECR I-2681.39 — Paragraphs 27 and 28.
37 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Nizozemska proti Komisiji, točka 27.38 – C-39/93 P, Recueil, str. I-2681.39 – Točki 27 in 28.
In the light of the Court’s reasons for recognising that the closure of the file on a complaint based on Article 82 EC is an actionable decision, the closure of the file on a complaint concerning alleged State aid deserves, in my view, the same classification.
Menim, da je treba glede na razloge, zaradi katerih je Sodi�če ustavitvi postopka s pritožbo na podlagi člena 82 ES priznalo naravo izpodbojnega akta, ustavitev postopka s pritožbo glede domnevne državne pomoči obravnavati enako.
Next, where the Commission closes the file on a complaint concerning alleged State aid, it necessarily adopts a measure producing legal effects, since that closure of the file terminates the preliminary examination procedure which it had to initiate upon that complaint, in accordance with the caselaw and Article 10 of Regulation No 659/1999.
Dalje, kadar Komisija ustavi postopek s pritožbo o domnevni državni pomoči, nujno sprejme akt, ki ima pravne učinke, tako da je na podlagi te ustavitve končan predhodni postopek preučitve, ki ga je morala začeti na podlagi te pritožbe v skladu s sodno prakso in členom 10 Uredbe �t. 659/1999.
That analysis seems to me all the more justified since the Commission has exclusive competence in matters relating to State aid and since the latter is the subject of a pro -hibition in principle.
Menim, da je ta analiza toliko bolj utemeljena, saj ima Komisija izključno pristojnost na področju državnih pomoči, te pa so načeloma prepovedane.
We have seen that the Community judicature, in its caselaw, has inferred that that institution had an obligation to conduct a diligent investigation of any complaint and that it was required to initiate a formal investigation procedure if the measure complained of was found to be aid contrary to the common market or capable of being contrary to it.
Videli smo, da je sodna praksa iz tega sklepala, da mora ta institucija skrbno preučiti vsako pritožbo, če bi se sporni ukrep izkazal za pomoč, ki je ali bi lahko bila v nasprotju s skupnim trgom.
I have noted that those obligations seek to ensure that no aid contrary to the common market may be implemented.
Opozoril sem, da se te obveznosti nana�ajo na zagotovitev, da se ne sme izvesti nobena pomoč, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim trgom.
It follows that the Commission, by choosing to close the file on a complaint, necessarily considered that it was not necessary to initiate a formal investigation pro -cedure or to adopt one of the two other decisions referred to in Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999.
Iz tega izhaja, da je Komisija s tem, da se je odločila ustaviti postopek s pritožbo, nujno ocenila, da ni bilo treba začeti formalnega postopka preiskave niti sprejeti ene od dveh drugih odločb iz člena 4 Uredbe 659/1999.
Finally, it does appear that the closure of the file on a complaint concerning alleged State aid, such as that made by the appellant, is the final step in the preliminary investigation initiated upon that complaint.
Nazadnje, zdi se, da je ustavitev postopka s pritožbo glede domnevne državne pomoči, kot jo je vložila pritožnica, zadnja faza predhodne preiskave, uvedene na podlagi te pritožbe.
That closure of the file, like the closure of the file on a complaint based on Article 82 EC, cannot be followed by any other decision amenable to annulment proceedings.
Tej ustavitvi in ustavitvi postopka s pritožbo na podlagi člena 82 ES ne sledi noben drug akt, ki bi bil lahko predmet ničnostne tožbe.
Moreover, the fact that that closure of the file was not formalised in a decision forwarded to the Member State concerned, contrary to the requirements of Article 27 of that regulation, cannot be relied on to deprive that closure of the file of its nature as a decision.
Poleg tega se zato, da bi navedeni ustavitvi postopka odvzeli značilnost odločbe, ne bi mogli sklicevati na dejstvo, da ustavitev postopka ni bila formalizirana z odločbo, posredovano zadevni državi članici, ob kr�itvi predpisov člena 25 te uredbe.
That classification must be dependent solely on the substance of the
Ta opredelitev mora biti odvisna le od vsebine preučevanega
The fact that that closure of the file may be reconsidered if an applicant produces new information does not call into question that analysis, in so far as, in the absence of such information, the preliminary examination is in fact closed.
Dejstvo, da je mogoče navedeno ustavitev ponovno preučiti, če tožeča stranka predloži nove dokaze, ne nasprotuje tej analizi, ker je ob neobstoju teh dokazov predhodna preiskava dejansko končana.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI v COMMISSION measure examined and not on whether the Commission has complied with the obligations relating to its notification.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI PROTI KOMISIJI akta in ne od spo�tovanja obveznosti v zvezi z njegovim posredovanjem s strani Komisije.
Consequently, by making that legal remedy available, the Court sought to make the procedural rights guaranteed by Article 88(2) EC the subject of specific protection and to make them subject to judicial review.
Zato je Sodi�če z uvedbo tega pravnega sredstva želelo, da so procesne pravice, ki jih zagotavlja člen 88(2) ES, predmet posebnega varstva in so lahko predmet sodnega nadzora.
By thus extending access to the Community Courts, the Court also strengthened the monitoring of the effective application of the law in matters relating to State aid, by allowing a competitor, albeit potential, of the beneficiary of the disputed measure to challenge the Commission’s assessment that the compatibility of that measure with the Treaty raised no serious difficulties.
Sodi�če je z raz�iritvijo dostopa do sodi�č Skupnosti tudi okrepilo nadzor učinkovite uporabe prava na področju državnih pomoči, s tem ko je konkurentu – tudi morebitne - mu – upravičenca spornega ukrepa, omogočilo, da izpodbija presojo Komisije, da združljivost tega ukrepa s Pogodbo ni povzročala resnej�ih težav.
Finally, I take the view that recognising that the closure of the file on a complaint concerning alleged State aid is in the nature of a decision is also consistent with the caselaw relating to the rights of complainants in the context of the procedure for monitoring State aid.
Nazadnje menim, da gre priznanje narave odločbe ustavitvi postopka s pritožbo glede domnevne državne pomoči v smeri sodne prakse v zvezi s pravicami pritožnikov v okviru postopka nadzora državnih pomoči.
The effects of that caselaw would be significantly reduced if a complainant were not also entitled to challenge the closure of the file on his complaint by means of an action for annulment.
Učinki te sodne prakse naj bi bili močno oslabljeni, če pritožnik z ničnostno tožbo ne bi mogel izpodbijati tudi ustavitve postopka na podlagi njegove pritožbe.
The caselaw relating to the rights of complainants in the context of the procedure for monitoring State aid
Sodna praksa v zvezi s pravicami pritožnikov v okviru postopka nadzora državnih pomoči
Indeed, such a closure of the file produces, for the complainant, effects comparable to those of a decision finding that the contested measure is aid compatible with the common market or does not constitute aid.
Za pritožnika ima namreč ustavitev postopka posledice, primerljive s posledicami odločbe, s katero je ugotovljeno, da je sporni ukrep pomoč, ki je združljiva s skupnim trgom, ali da celo ni pomoč.
It allows the implementation of that measure or its effects to continue, without that complainant having been able to submit his comments to the Commission.
Omogoča nadaljevanje izvajanja takega ukrepa ali njegovih posledic, ne da bi pritožnik lahko predložil stali�ča Komisiji.
As we have seen, where the Commission, without initiating the formal investigation procedure, considers that the measure complained of by the complaint does not constitute aid or constitutes aid compatible with the common market, that complainant, if he is a ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, is entitled to challenge that decision before the Community Courts in order to defend his procedural rights.
Kot smo videli, kadar Komisija, ne da bi začela formalni postopek preiskave, meni, da ukrep, ki ga očita pritožnik, ni pomoč ali je pomoč, ki je združljiva s skupnim trgom, je ta pritožnik, če je „zadevna“ stranka v smislu člena 88(2) ES, upravičen izpodbijati to odločbo pred sodi�čem Skupnosti z namenom varstva svojih procesnih pravic.
40That right of action, established in the judgments in Cook v Commission 41and Matra v Commission, 42has since been consistently upheld.
40Ta pravica do tožbe, ki izhaja iz sodb Cook proti Komisiji 41 in Matra proti Komisiji 42, je bila od izdaje teh sodb naprej vedno potrjena.
41 — Case C-198/91 [1993] ECR I-2487.42 — Case C-225/91 [1993] ECR I-3203.
I-2487).42 – Sodba z dne 15. junija 1993 (C-225/91, Recueil, str. I-3203).
The cohesion of the system established by the caselaw relating to the defence of procedural rights therefore requires, in my view, that the complainant may also challenge the Commission’s assessment that the information in its possession is not sufficient
Skladnost sistema, ki ga je vzpostavila sodna praksa v zvezi z varstvom procesnih pravic, zato po mojem mnenju zahteva, da mora biti pritožniku omogočeno, da lahko izpodbija tudi presojo Komisije, da dokazi, ki jih ima, ne zadostujejo za začetek formalnega
Moreover, judicial review of the effective application of Community law is no less important in that situation than it is where the Commission adopts a decision on the classification of the measure or its compatibility with the Treaty.
Poleg tega, pomen sodnega nadzora učinkovite uporabe prava Skupnosti v tem primeru ni nič manj�i, kot če bi Komisija sprejela odločbo o opredelitvi ukrepa oziroma njegovi združljivosti s Pogodbo.
The fact that it is open to the complainant to provide the Commission with additional information and the assertion that the latter is then required to adopt a decision if that information is sufficient do not afford equivalent protection, since the specific issue being examined in this case is the possibility of judicial review of the Commission’s assessment concerning whether or not the information in its possession is sufficient in nature.
Možnost pritožnika, da predloži Komisiji dodatne dokaze, in trditev, da bi morala ta zato sprejeti odločbo, če bi bili ti podatki zadostni, ne zagotavljata enakega varstva, ker gre pri obravnavanem vpra�anju v tej zadevi za sodni nadzor presoje Komisije o tem, ali so podatki, ki jih ima, zadostni ali ne.
I infer from this that the closure of the file on a complaint, like decisions taken under Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation No 659/1999, must be regarded as an actionable decision in order to allow the complainant to safeguard the procedural rights conferred on him by Article 88(2) EC.
Na podlagi tega menim, je treba ustavitev postopka s pritožbo, kot odločbe, sprejete na podlagi člena 4(2) in (3) Uredbe �t. 659/1999, �teti za izpodbojni akt, tako da je omogočeno spo�tovanje procesnih pravic pritožnika, ki mu jih zagotavlja člen 88(2) ES.
Similarly, the defence of a complainant’s procedural rights, where the Commission has decided to close the file on his complaint, is not covered by an action for failure to act.
Poleg tega varstva procesnih pravic pritožnika, če se Komisija odloči, da bo ustavila postopek s pritožbo, ni mogoče uveljavljati s tožbo zaradi nedelovanja.
As we have seen, in the context of the procedure for monitoring State aid, the Commission, where a complaint is made to it, must be entitled to close the file on the complaint if it considers that it does not have in its possession sufficient information to take one of the other decisions set out in Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, although that possibility is not expressly referred to.
Kot smo videli, mora biti Komisiji v okviru postopka nadzora državnih pomoči priznana pravica, da takrat, kadar je nanjo naslovljena pritožba, ustavi postopek s to pritožbo, če meni, da nima zadostnih dokazov za sprejetje druge odločbe iz člena 4 Uredbe �t. 659/1999, čeprav ta možnost ni izrecno določena.