natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘… the situation resulting from the adoption of the Second and Third Steel Aid Codes was characterised by the following elements of uncertainty and lack of clarity, which are attributable to the Commission:
„[…] je bil položaj, ki je nastal po sprejetju drugih in tretjih pravil […] negotov in nejasen zaradi naslednjih dejavnikov, ki jih je treba pripisati Komisiji:
Finally, Salzgitter adds that, by notifying the Commission of the ZRFG in 1971, in accordance with the EC Treaty, the Federal Republic of Germany had also brought it to the knowledge of the Commission under Article 67 CS.
Družba Salzgitter končno dodaja, da takrat ko je Zvezna republika Nemčija leta 1971 Komisijo obvestila o ZRFG v skladu s Pogodbo ES, jo je o tem seznanila tudi v skladu s členom 67 PJ.
It considers that, by authorising the tax measures notified under the EC Treaty, the Commission also implicitly declared that those measures did not have any ‘appreciable repercussions on con ditions of competition’ in the coal or the steel industry within the meaning of Article 67(1) CS.
Meni, ko je Komisija s tem, da dovolila davčne ukrepe, prigla�ene v skladu s Pogodbo ES, obenem implicitno izjavila, da ti ukrepi niso imeli nikakr�nega „občutnega vpliva na pogoje konkurence“ v industriji premoga ali jekla v smislu člena 67(1) PJ.
— the implicit nature of the partial — and, therefore, insufficiently clear — withdrawal of the nonobjection in the Commission’s 1971 decision;
– konkludentnost delnega odstopa – in s tem nezadostna jasnost – od nenasprotovanja iz odločbe Komisije iz 1971;
— ambiguity as to the scope of the partial withdrawal of the aforementioned nonobjection regarding the question whether the subsequent application of Paragraph 3 of the ZRFG had to be notified as ‘plans’ for the purposes of Article 6 of the Third Steel Aid Code’.
– dvoumnost glede obsega delnega konkludentnega odstopa od prej navedenega nenasprotovanja pri vpra�anju, ali je bilo treba poznej�o uporabo člena 3 ZRFG priglasiti kot ‚načrt‘ v smislu člena 6 tretjih pravil […]“.
In essence, the Federal Republic of Germany puts forward the same line of argument as Salzgitter.
Zvezna republika Nemčija v bistvu zagovarja iste utemeljitve kot družba Salzgitter.
It argues that general aid is not subject to an obligation to inform under Article 67(1) CS if it is not capable of having appreciable repercussions on conditions of competition in the coal or the steel industry, which fact the Commission implicitly confirmed by authorising the measures provided for in the ZRFG on a number of occasions.
Trdi, da splo�ne pomoči niso podrejene obveznosti priglasitve v skladu s členom 67(1) PJ, če ne morejo izvajati občutnega vpliva na pogoje konkurence v premogovni in jeklarski industriji, kar je Komisija implicitno potrdila tako, da je večkrat odobrila ukrepe, ki jih predvideva ZRFG.
It considers that, in any event, those measures may be regarded as existing aid not subject to a separate obligation to notify under the Treaty.
Izraža tudi mnenje, da se ti ukrepi v vsakem primeru lahko upo�tevajo kot obstoječe pomoči, ki niso podvržene jasno izraženi obveznosti priglasitve na podlagi Pogodbe ESPJ.
86 — See point 60 et seq. of this Opinion.
86 – Glej točko 60 in naslednje teh sklepnih predlogov.
Second, I am of the opinion that the obligation to notify the aid at issue follows very clearly from the wording of Article 6 of the Third Code.
Drugič, menim, da je obveznost priglasitve zadevnih pomoči zelo jasno izhajala iz določil člena 6 tretjih pravil.
Under that first limb, the Commission submits, first, that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law with regard to the effects of the Second and Third Codes on the decision not to raise any objections which the Commission adopted with respect to Article 3 of the ZRFG on 4 August 1971.
Komisija v okviru omenjene prve točke pritožbenega razloga trdi, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo v zvezi z učinki drugih in tretjih pravil v povezavi z odločitvijo, da se ne bo sklicevalo na ugovore, ki jih je Komisija sprejela z ozirom na člen 3 ZRFG 4. avgusta 1971.
Second, it contests the analysis of the Court of First Instance with regard to the clarity of the obligation to notify the aid plans at issue as laid down in Article 6 of the Third Steel Aid Code.
Po drugi strani izpodbija preučitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zvezi z jasnostjo obveznosti priglasitve zadevnih projektov pomoči, ki je določena v členu 6 tretjih pravil.
I am of the view that this complaint is well founded, for the following reasons.
Menim, da je ta očitek utemeljen iz razlogov, ki jih bom predstavili v nadaljevanju.
Article 6 of that code establishes a procedure for the prior examination by the Commission of all aid plans drawn up by the Member States and is aimed at preventing the introduction of aid which is incompatible with the common market.
Navedeni člen 6 določa predhodni preučitveni postopek Komisije za vse projekte pomoči, ki jih vzpostavijo države članice, z namenom preprečitve uvedbe pomoči, ki niso združljive s trgom Skupnosti.
To that end, the first sentence of Article 6(1) of the Third Code requires that the Member States inform the Commission, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid of the types referred to in that code.
V ta namen člen 6(1), prvi stavek, tretjih pravil od držav članic zahteva, da Komisijo pravočasno obvestijo o projektih, ki so usmerjeni v uvedbo ali v spremembo pomoči po teh pravilih, da bi ta lahko predstavila svoje pripombe 88.
88 Moreover, in accordance with the second sentence of Article 6(1) of the Third Code, the Commission is to be ‘likewise … informed of plans to grant aid to the steel industry under schemes on which it has already taken a decision under the [EC] Treaty’. 89 Notification is to be given within a period described by the Court as a ‘timebar’.
Poleg tega mora Komisija v skladu s členom 6(1), drugi stavek, navednih pravil biti „obve�čena v enakih okoli�činah o projektih, ki so v železarsko­jeklar­skem sektorju usmerjeni k uporabi sistemov pomoči, v zvezi s katerimi se je že izrekla na podlagi določb Pogodbe [ES]“ 89.
90 Pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Third
Priglasitev se predloži v roku, ki ga je Sodi�če označilo kot „rok za zavrnitev“ 90.
Code, the Member State cannot put into effect planned measures, be they specific
V skladu s členom 6(4) tega pravila država članica ne more izvajati načrtovanih ukrepov, naj bodo ti posebni ali sprejeti na podlagi splo�nega sistema
First, I am of the opinion, contrary to the Court of First Instance, that the adoption of the Second and Third Codes did not lead to the partial and implicit withdrawal of the nonobjection decision adopted by the Commission in 1971.
Prvič, v nasprotju s Sodi�čem prve stopnje mislim, da sprejetje drugih in tretjih pravil ni povzročilo delnega in implicitnega umika odločbe Komisije iz leta 1971.
As I said when examining the crossappeal, in my view, that decision, based on Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, concerned only undertakings falling within the scope of the EC Treaty and did not apply to those falling within the scope of the ECSC Treaty.
Dejansko, kot sem navedel v okviru preučitve nasprotne pritožbe, menim, da se je ta odločba, ki temelji na členih 87 ES in 88 ES, nana�ala samo na družbe, za katere velja Pogodba ES, in ne na družbe, za katere velja Pogodba ESPJ 87.
87The adoption of the Second and Third Codes could not therefore result in the withdrawal of the authorisation granted by the Commission in 1971 since it did not, in my opinion, apply to steel undertakings.
Sprejetje drugih in tretjih pravil torej ni moglo povzročiti umika odobritve Komisije iz leta 1971, saj se ta po mojem mnenju ni nana�ala na jeklarske družbe.
88 — The Third Code relates to aid for research and development, aid for environmental protection, aid for closures of steel plants and aid granted to steel undertakings for investment under general regional aid schemes.
88 – Tretja pravila o pomoči se nana�ajo na pomoči za raziskave in razvoj, pomoči v prid varstva okolja, pomoči, namenjene zapiranju jeklarskih objektov, in, končno, na regionalne pomoči za naložbe, ki jih predvidevajo splo�ni sistemi pomoči.
89 — Emphasis added.
89 – Moj poudarek.
90 — See the judgment in Case C-210/98 P Salzgitter v Commission [2000] ECR I-5843, paragraphs 49 to 55 and the caselaw cited there.
90 – Glej sodbo z dne 13. julija 2000 v zadevi Salzgitter proti Komisiji (C-210/98 P, Recueil, str. I-5843, točke od 49 do 55 in navedena sodna praksa).
87 — See points 149 to 152 of this Opinion.
87 – Glej točke od 148 do 151 teh sklepnih predlogov.
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER or in accordance with a general aid scheme authorised on the basis of the EC Treaty, until the Commission has approved them.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER predhodnemu stali�ču Komisije, neodvisno od tega, ali so jo morebiti opredelili kot pomoč“ 92.
As the Court stated with regard to Article 88(3) EC, that control is essential to ensure the functioning of the common market. 91
Kakor je Sodi�če navedlo v okviru člena 88(3) ES, je ta nadzor bistvenega pomena za zagotavljanje delovanja skupnega trga 91.
It is clear from the wording of the second sentence of Article 6(1) of the Third Code that, after the entry into force of that code on 1 January 1986, the obligation to notify financial measures such as those at issue in this case was clear and unconditional.
Iz besedila člena 6(1)(2) tretjega pravila jasno izhaja, da je bila po začetku njegove veljavnosti 1. januarja 1986 obveznost priglasitve finančnih ukrepov, kot so zadevni v tem sporu, jasna in brezpogojna.
Consequently, contrary to the findings of the Court of First Instance in paragraph 174 of the judgment under appeal, I consider that the obligation to notify introduced by the Commission into the second sentence of Article 6(1) of the Third Code clearly applied to aid such as that at issue in this case.
Posledično, v nasprotju s tem, kar trdi Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 174 izpodbijane sodbe, mislim, da se je obveznost priglasitve, ki jo Komisija uvaja v členu 6(1), drugi stavek, tretjih pravil, jasno nana�ala na pomoči, kot jih obravnavam v tem sporu.
The Federal Republic of Germany, as a member of the ECSC Consultative Committee, and Salzgitter, as a major economic operator, were both well placed to be aware of the introduction of that obligation into the Third Code and of its retention in subsequent steel aid codes.
Zvezna republika Nemčija, glede na njeno sodelovanje v Svetovalnem odboru ESPJ, in družba Salzgitter, glede na njen pomemben gospodarski položaj, sta bili v položaju, da bi lahko opazili uvedbo te obveznosti v okviru tretjih pravil in njene ohranitve v okviru zaporednih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu.
Consequently, contrary to the finding of the Court of First Instance in paragraph 181 of the judgment under appeal, I do not consider that the Commission was required to provide any clarification of the rules under the Third Code or the subsequent codes.
Zato v nasprotju s tem, kar je presodilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 181 izpodbijane sodbe, ne mislim, da je bila Komisija dolžna kakor koli pojasniti predpise v okviru tretjih ali naknadnih pravil.
That obligation appears, in identical terms, in Article 6(1) of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Codes.
Ta obveznost se namreč z enakimi določili pojavlja v členu 6(1) četrtih, petih in �estih pravil.
Asked to rule on a question relating to the scope of such a provision under the Fifth Code, the Court held that, as it was worded, that provision ‘[left] the public authorities in no doubt regarding their obligation to notify the loans at issue and to make their grant subject to a prior decision of the Commission, irrespective of whether or not they may be classified as aid’. 92
V zvezi z vpra�anjem o obsegu take določbe v okviru petih pravil je sodi�če Skupnosti menilo, da omenjena določba, kot je bila zapisana, „javnim organom ni [dopu�čala] nobenega dvoma glede obveznosti, ki so jo ti imeli v zvezi s priglasitvijo zadevnih pomoči in s podreditvijo njihove dodelitve
Accordingly, I take the view that Salzgitter and the Federal Republic of Germany were well placed to know the precise scope of their obligations and had been so since the adoption of the Third Code in 1986.
V teh okoli�činah menim, da sta se družba Salzgitter in Zvezna republika Nemčija lahko natančno seznanili z obsegom svojih obveznosti, in sicer od sprejetja tretjih pravil leta 1986.
There was therefore, contrary to the finding of the Court of First Instance, a clear and unequivocal obligation to notify the aid at issue under Article 6 of the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Codes.
V nasprotju s tem, kar trdi Sodi�če prve stopnje, je jasna in nedvoumna
92 — Order in Case C-399/95 R (paragraph 55).
I-307, točka 17) in z dne 11. julija 1996 v zadevi SFEI in drugi (C-39/94, Recueil, str. I-3547, točka 70).
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-408/04 P had therefore failed to discharge its duty of diligence.
zvezi z družbo Salzgitter, preden je ukrepala, in tako ni izpolnila dolžnosti skrbnega ravnanja.
In the light of all of the foregoing, I therefore consider that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in the analysis relating to the clarity of the legal framework applicable.
Glede na vse zgoraj navedeno menim, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo pri preučitvi jasnosti veljavnega pravnega okvira.
That finding would, in principle, form a sufficient basis for upholding the appeal brought by the Commission and for proposing that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal.
Ta ugotovitev bi načelno zadostovala za ugoditev pritožbi, ki jo je vložila Komisija, in za predlog Sodi�ču, naj razveljavi sodbo.
I consider, none the less, that it is appropriate to proceed with the examination of the fifth and third limbs of this plea in order to determine the conclusions to be drawn in this case from that error of law.
Vendar mislim, da je primerno nadaljevati s preučitvijo petega in tretjega dela prvega pritožbenega razloga, da bi se presodile posledice, ki jih je treba v tej zadevi izpeljati iz te napačne uporabe prava.
The Commission submits that, in paragraphs 175 to 179 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance merely lists the documents which were sent to the Commission, but does not specify whether they contained information on aid which had not been notified.
Komisija trdi, da se Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 175 do 179 izpodbijane sodbe zadovolji s tem, da navede dokumente, ki so bili vročeni Komisiji, ob tem pa ne pove, ali so vsebovali podatke o pomočeh, ki naj ne bi bile prigla�ene.
Furthermore, the Court of First Instance makes no reference to any legal provision requiring the Commission’s administration to take account of those documents outside the procedure in the context of which they were sent to it.
Poleg tega naj Sodi�če prve stopnje ne bi omenilo nobene zakonske določbe, ki bi upravni aparat Komisije zavezovale k upo�tevanju teh dokumentov zunaj postopka, v okviru katerega naj bi ji bili posredovani.
The fifth limb of the first plea, alleging an error of assessment as to whether the Commission was aware that the aid at issue had been granted
Peti del prvega pritožbenega razloga: napačna presoja seznanjenosti Komisije o dodelitvi zadevnih pomoči
By the fifth limb of the first plea, the Commission submits that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in taking the view, in paragraph 179 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission had been aware that the ZRFG was being applied to Salzgitter several years before it reacted and
Komisija v petem delu prvega pritožbenega razloga trdi, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, ko je v točki 179 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da je bila Komisija več let seznanjena z izvajanjem ZRFG v
The Commission states that the very existence of the scheme of State aid to the steel industry means that there is no provision nor any necessity for information to be transferred between the Commission departments responsible for monitoring the system of steel production quotas and those responsible for controlling State aid.
Komisija pojasnjuje, da prav zaradi obstoja sistema državnih pomoči jeklarstvu ni predvideno in ne potrebno, da bi obstajalo posredovanje podatkov med tistimi službami Komisije, ki so zadolžene za spremljanje sistema kvot proizvodnje jekla, in temi, ki so zadolžene za nadzor nad državnimi pomočmi.
It adds that the Federal Republic of Germany failed to comply with the obligation, under Article 7 of the steel aid codes in force between 1986 and 2002, to provide a record of any aid granted,
Nato dodaja, da Zvezna republika Nemčija ni spo�tovala obveznosti poročanja o dodeljenih pomočeh, ki je predvidena v členu 7 pravil o pomočeh jeklarstvu z veljavo
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER and that no information was sent to the departments responsible for implementing those codes.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER med letoma 1986 in 2002, in da službam, zadolženim za izvajanje omenjenih pravil o državnih pomočeh, niso bili posredovani nikakr�ni podatki.
The Commission considers that the Court of First Instance does not refer to any provision which would show that it has an obligation to take cognisance of documents outside the procedure in the context of which they were sent to it.
Komisija meni, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ne omenja določbe, iz katere bi lahko izhajalo, da je njena obveznost seznaniti se z dokumenti zunaj postopka, v okviru katerega so ji bili posredovani.
It adds that Salzgitter’s spontaneous transmission of documents cannot serve to prove that the Commission took cognisance of their content.
Dodaja, da spontano posredovanje dokumentov družbe Salzgitter ne more dokazovati, da se je Komisija seznanila z njihovo vsebino.
Furthermore, the recipient undertaking has not proved that that is the case.
Družba prejemnica naj takega dejstva ne bi dokazala.
The Commission points out that steel undertakings are not required to submit their annual reports or accounts to it under the system of steel production quotas, which means that it is not, in principle, required to read those documents.
Komisija poudarja, da ji jeklarske družbe v okviru sistema proizvodnih kvot jekla niso dolžna sporočati svojih poslovnih poročil ali letnih obračunov, tako da teh dokumentov načeloma ni dolžna prebirati.
In its written and oral observations, the Commission stressed the risks potentially associated with the analysis by the Court of First Instance both to the system for controlling State aid and its administrative organisation.
Komisija je v okviru pisnih in ustnih pripomb vztrajala pri tveganjih, ki jih ima lahko preučitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje tako za sistem nadzora državnih pomoči kot za njeno upravno ureditev.
It stated that, if the spontaneous transmission of documents to any Commission department — which may contain no more than vague observations on the grant of State aid — were sufficient to prohibit its only means of recourse against the grant of unlawful aid or aid incompatible with the common market, then State aid control, which is based on the obligation to notify, would be in danger of collapsing.
Po eni strani je namreč navedla, da če bi spontano posredovanje dokumentov, ki lahko vsebujejo le negotove podatke o dodelitvi državne pomoči, kateri koli službi Komisije zadostovalo za prepoved njenega edinega sredstva ukrepanja v zvezi z dodelitvijo prepovedanih pomoči ali pomoči, ki niso združljive s skupnim trgom, potem bi bil nadzor nad državnimi pomočmi, ki temelji na obveznosti priglasitve teh, v nevarnosti, da se zru�i.
The Commission disputes the finding by the Court of First Instance, in paragraph 179 of the judgment under appeal, that the annual reports and accounts which Salzgitter sent to the Commission indicated that it had had the benefit of exceptional reserves.
Komisija izpodbija ugotovitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje iz točke 179 izpodbijane sodbe, po kateri so poslovna poročila in letni obračuni družbe Salzgitter, ki jih je ta posredovala Komisiji, izkazali obstoj izrednih rezerv v korist te družbe.
The Commission adds that, in any event, it is not the amounts or the reserves used for investments which are decisive in the quota system, but the effects which the investments have had on production capacity and, subsequently, on production itself.
Komisija dodaja, da zneski ali rezerve, ki se uporabijo za naložbe, vsekakor niso odločilni v sistemu kvot, ampak so to učinki, ki so jih naložbe imele na zmogljivost proizvodnje in zatem na proizvodnjo samo.
It states that, even if the statement made by the Court of First Instance in paragraph 178 of the judgment under appeal, to the effect that the sources of financing did indeed have to be communicated to the Commission under the quota system, is true, the reserves at issue are not sources of financing but a deferment of tax granted in respect of specific investments.
Zatem pojasni, da tudi če se dopusti trditev Sodi�ča prve stopnje v točki 178 izpodbijane sodbe, po kateri bi viri financiranja morali dejansko biti sporočeni Komisiji v okviru sistema kvot, zadevne rezerve ne ustrezajo virom financiranja, ampak odlogu plačila davka, ki je bil odobren za posebne naložbe.
of the Commission’s modern administrative organisation, that is to say the clear and unambiguous division of responsibilities, in favour of an administrative system under which every Commission officer would immediately have to notify the competent authority of any infringement of the legal order detected by him.
organiziranosti Komisije, namreč jasno in razvidno porazdelitev pristojnosti v korist upravne ureditve, v kateri mora vsak predstavnik Komisije poobla�čeni organ nemudoma obvestiti o vsakr�ni kr�itvi pravnega reda, ki bi jo zasledil.
The Federal Republic of Germany submits that, as the authority responsible for controlling State aid, the Commission must take account of any information that may be sent to it.
Zvezna republika Nemčija zatrjuje, da mora Komisija kot nadzorni organ nad državnimi pomočmi upo�tevati vse informacije, ki se ji lahko sporočijo.
It adds that the administrative departments responsible for managing steel quotas are capable, by virtue of their sphere of responsibility, of recognising information received that relates to controls on aid to the steel sector and that they are required to forward any relevant information to the departments responsible for controlling aid.
Dodaja, da so upravne službe, zadolžene za upravljanje s kvotami za jeklo, že po pristojnosti sposobne prepoznati informacije, prejete zaradi nadzora nad pomočmi jeklarstvu, in da so pomembne informacije dolžne posredovati službam, ki so zadolžene za nadzor nad pomočmi.
Contrary to Salzgitter’s submissions, I take the view that this fifth limb is admissible.
V nasprotju s tem, kar trdi družba Salzgitter, menim, da je ta peti del pritožbenega razloga dopusten.
Salzgitter takes the view that this limb is concerned with considerations of fact which the Court of Justice should not hear and determine on appeal.
Družba Salzgitter meni, da se ta točka navezuje na dejanske ugotovitve, ki jih Sodi�ču ni treba poznati v okviru pritožbe.
In the alternative, it submits that implicit in the obligation incumbent on the Commission, under the system for monitoring steel quotas, to take account of aid granted previously is the obligation to take cognisance of the annual reports which have been sent to it.
Podredno navaja, da obveznost Komisije, določena v okviru sistema nadzora nad kvotami jekla, da upo�teva predhodno dodeljene pomoči, pomeni tudi obveznost seznanitve s poslovnimi poročili, ki so ji bila posredovana.
It adds that the annual accounts contained in those reports showed clearly that Salzgitter had benefited from the tax measures provided for by the ZRFG and that it was in fact on the basis of those annual reports that the Commission sent it a request for information in 1998.
Dodaja, da so letni obračuni, navedeni v teh poročilih, jasno izkazovali, da je družba Salzgitter imela koristi od davčnih ukrepov, predvidenih v ZRFG, in da ji je Komisija pro�njo za podatke v letu 1998 poslala na temelju teh poslovnih poročil.