natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, where, by an action for annulment of a Commission decision taken at the end of a preliminary examination, an applicant seeks to secure compliance with the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 88(2) EC, the mere fact that it has the status of a ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of that provision is sufficient for it to be regarded as directly and individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Zato kadar želi tožeča stranka z ničnostno tožbo zoper odločbo Komisije, sprejeto na podlagi predhodnega preizkusa, doseči spo�tovanje postopkovnih jamstev iz člena 88(2) ES, že dejstvo, da je zadevna stranka v smislu navedene določbe, zadostuje, da je obravnavana kot neposredno in posamično prizadeta v smislu četrtega odstavka člena 230 ES.
In the context of an appeal, the assessment of the facts by the Court of First Instance is subject to review by the Court of Justice only where the facts and evidence put before the Court of First Instance have been distorted.
V okviru pritožbe presoja dejstev, ki jo opravi Sodi�če prve stopnje, ni predmet nadzora Sodi�ča, razen v primeru izkrivljanja teh dejstev in dokazov, predloženih prvostopenjskemu sodi�ču.
The ‘parties concerned’ are any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, in particular the beneficiary of the aid, competing undertakings and trade associations.
Zainteresirane stranke pomenijo katero koli državo članico ali osebo, podjetje ali združenje podjetij, na interese katerih bi dodelitev pomoči lahko vplivala; to so predvsem upravičenci do pomoči, konkurenčna podjetja in poklicna združenja.
(see paras 47-49)
(Glej točke od 47 do 49.)
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE
In adopting rules of conduct and, by publishing them, announcing that they will henceforth apply to the cases to which they relate, the Commission imposes a limit on the exercise of its discretion under Article 87(3) EC and cannot depart from those rules under pain of being found, where appropriate, to be in breach of general principles of law, such as equal treatment or the protection of legitimate expectations.
je pomoč morebiti namenjena za trg v zatonu. Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko tudi utemeljeno presodi, da je treba ta okvir razlagati z vidika člena 87 ES in v njem vsebovanega načela nezdružljivosti javnih pomoči, da bi se dosegel cilj te določbe, to je neizkrivljena konkurenca na skupnem trgu.
Commission took account, when determining the applicable adjustment factor, of whether that aid was intended for a declining market. The Court of First Instance is also justified in holding that the multisectoral framework should be interpreted in the light of Article 87 EC and of the principle of incompatibility of public aid set out therein, in order to attain the objective sought by that provision, namely undistorted competition in the common market.
Komisija se, s tem da sprejme pravila ravnanja in da z njihovo objavo razglasi, da jih bo v prihodnje uporabljala v primerih, na katere se nana�ajo, sama omejuje pri izvr�evanju diskrecijske pravice, ki jo ima v okviru člena 87(3) ES, in od teh pravil ne more odstopiti, ne da bi bila, glede na okoli�čine primera, sankcionirana na podlagi kr�itve splo�nih pravnih načel, kot so načelo enakega obravnavanja ali varstva zaupanja v pravo.
(see paras 59-74)
(Glej točke od 59 do 74.)
In the specific area of State aid, the Commission is bound by the guidelines and notices that it issues, inasmuch as they do not depart from the rules in the Treaty — since the texts cannot be interpreted in a way which reduces the scope of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC or which contravenes the aims of those articles — and are accepted by the Member States.
Na posebnem področju državnih pomoči je Komisija vezana na okvire in obvestila, ki jih sprejme, če ne odstopajo od pravil Pogodbe – saj teh besedil ni mogoče razlagati tako, da bi zmanj�evala obseg členov 87 ES in 88 ES ali da bi bila v nasprotju z njunim ciljem – in če jih države članice sprejmejo.
It is for the Court of First Instance to verify whether the Commission has observed those rules.
V teh okoli�činah je dolžnost Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da preveri, ali je Komisija ta pravila upo�tevala.
As regards the assessment by the Court of First Instance of applications made by a party for measures of organisation of the procedure or enquiry, the Court of First Instance is the sole judge of any need to supplement the information available to it in respect of the cases before it.
V zvezi s presojo predlogov za odreditev ukrepov procesnega vodstva in pripravljalnih ukrepov s strani prvostopenjskega sodi�ča, ki jih je vložila stranka v sporu, samo Sodi�če prve stopnje presoja morebitno potrebo po dopolnitvi podatkov, ki so mu na voljo v zadevi, o kateri odloča.
The sufficiency of the evidence before it is a matter to be appraised by it alone and is not subject to review by the Court of Justice on appeal, except where that evidence has been distorted or the inaccuracy of the findings of the Court of First Instance is apparent from the documents in the case-file.
Vpra�anje, ali imajo postopkovni dokumenti dokazno moč, je odvisno od proste presoje dejstev, ki v okviru pritožbene stopnje ni predmet nadzora Sodi�ča, razen v primeru izkrivljanja dokazov, predloženih Sodi�ču prve stopnje, ali če iz dokumentov v spisu izhaja vsebinska nepravilnost ugotovitev slednjega.
In determining whether aid within the multisectoral framework and regional aid for large investment projects is compatible with the common market, the Court of First Instance does not disregard the Commission’s broad discretion if it reviews whether the Commission, in adopting the contested decision, complied with that framework, and if it ascertains whether the
Sodi�če prve stopnje Komisiji v okviru presoje združljivosti pomoči, ki spada pod večsektorski okvir za regionalno pomoč, namenjeno večjim naložbenim projektom, s skupnim trgom priznava �iroko diskrecijsko pravico, s tem da nadzoruje, ali je Komisija, ko je sprejela sporno odločbo, delovala skladno s tem okvirom, in ali je ob določitvi veljavnega korekcijskega količnika upo�tevala, da
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALBOT delivered on 6 March 2008 1 parties’ in connection with the procedure for reviewing State aid.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAYVESA BOTA, predstavljeni 6. marca 2008 1 postopka za nadzor državnih pomoči.
The Court of Justice is again requested to examine the conditions for admissibility applicable to actions for annulment brought against a Commission decision adopted on the basis of Article 88(3) EC.
Sodi�če je ponovno povabljeno, da obravnava pogoje dopustnosti, ki veljajo za ničnostno tožbo zoper odločbo Komisije, sprejeto na podlagi člena 88, tretji odstavek, ES.
The present cases concern the appeals brought by the Federal Republic of Germany and by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH 2against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 1 December 2004 in Kronofrance v Commission.
Predmet obravnavanih zadev so pritožbe, ki so jih Zvezna republika Nemčija ter Glunz AG in OSB Deutschland GmbH 2vložili zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 1. decembra 2004 v zadevi Kronofrance proti Komisiji 3.
3By the contested judgment, the Court annulled the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001 relating to aid which the Federal Republic of Germany proposed to grant to the undertaking Glunz.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je odločbo Komisije z dne 25. julija 2001 o pomoči, ki jo je Zvezna republika Nemčija nameravala dodeliti podjetju Glunz, z izpodbijano sodbo razglasilo za nično 4.
4In the contested decision, the Commission of the European Communities considered, at the close of the preliminary examination established by Article 88(3) EC, that the measure at issue constituted State aid compatible with the common market and that it was therefore not necessary to raise objections to its grant.
V izpodbijani odločbi je Komisija Evropskih skupnosti po predhodnem preizkusu iz člena 88(3) ES zavzela stali�če, da je zadevni ukrep pomoč, združljiva s skupnim trgom, in da torej njeni dodelitvi ni treba nasprotovati.
These appeals raise, essentially, two legal problems.
Pritožbe v bistvu poudarjajo dve pravni vpra�anji.
The first problem is connected with the extent of the rights afforded to the ‘interested
Prvo se nana�a na obseg priznanih pravic „zainteresiranim strankam“ v okviru
The second problem relates to the interpretation by the Court of First Instance of the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects adopted by the Commission in a communication of 7 April 1998.
Drugo vpra�anje se nana�a na razlago, ki jo je uporabilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v zvezi z večsektorskim okvirom za regionalno pomoč, namenjeno večjim investicijskim projektom, ki ga je sprejela Komisija v obvestilu z dne 7. aprila 1998 5.
5That framework establishes the rules for calculating the ‘maximum allowable intensity’ for regional investment aid.
Ta okvir določa načine izračunavanja „največje dovoljene intenzivnosti“ regionalnih pomoči za naložbe.
In that regard, it lays down various assessment criteria, one of which is a competition factor.
Z njim se glede tega predvidevajo različna ocenjevalna merila, med katerimi je dejavnik o stanju konkurence na trgu.
It is the way in which the Commission calculated that factor which is at issue in these cases.
Predmet obravnave v teh zadevah je način, kako je Komisija izračunala ta dejavnik.
The Court of Justice is requested to examine inter alia whether the Court of First Instance exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing the assessment made by the Commission with regard to the method of evaluating that factor, and whether, in any event, it erred in law when interpreting the rules laid down by that framework.
Sodi�ču je med drugim predloženo vpra�anje, ali ni Sodi�če prve stopnje prekoračilo svoje pristojnosti, ko je nadzorovalo presojo Komisije v zvezi z metodo ocenjevanja tega dejavnika, in ali ni v vsakem primeru zmotno uporabilo prava, ko je razlagalo pravila, določena z omenjenim okvirom.
7; ‘the contested decision’.
7, v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba.
The text of the decision addressed to the German authorities is available in the authentic language, namely German, on the website http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/comp-2000/n517-00.pdf.
Besedilo odločbe, naslovljene na nem�ke državne organe, je na voljo v izvirnem jeziku zadeve, in sicer nem�čini, na spletni strani http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/comp-2000/n517-00.pdf.
I — The relevant Community provisions
I – Skupnostna ureditev
In this Opinion, I am going to propose that the Court dismiss these appeals.
V obravnavanih sklepnih predlogih predlagam Sodi�ču, naj pritožbe zavrne.
First of all, I shall set out the relevant articles of the EC Treaty, and then indicate the applicable provisions of Regulation No 659/1999 10 and the guidelines established by the multisectoral framework.
Najprej bom predstavil zadevne člene pogodbe ES, nato pa bom razčlenil ustrezne določbe Uredbe (ES) �t. 659/1999 10 ter smernice, določene z večsektorskim okvirom.
I submit, first, that the Court of First Instance did not err in law when examining the admissibility of the action brought by Kronofrance SA.
Na začetku poudarjam, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni zmotno uporabilo prava v okviru preizkusa dopustnosti pritožbe, ki jo je vložilo podjetje Kronofrance SA 6.
6I shall observe, in that regard, that the Court correctly applied the rules established by the Court of Justice in the judgments in Cook v Commission 7and Matra v Commission 8and subsequently confirmed in the judgment in Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum. 9
V zvezi s tem ugotavljam, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno uporabilo sodno prakso Sodi�ča iz sodb v zadevi Cook proti Komisiji 7 in Matra proti Komisiji 8 ter jo je nato potrdilo v sodbi
Under Article 87 EC, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort intra-Commu-nity competition is, in principle, prohibited, subject to the exceptions listed in Article 87(2) and (3) EC.
V skladu s členom 87 ES je načeloma prepovedana vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodelijo države članice, ali vsaka vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco na skupnem trgu, pri čemer so izjeme na�tete v členu 87, drugi in tretji odstavek, ES.
I shall go on to show why I consider that the Court was allowed to carry out a comprehensive review of the assessment made by the Commission with regard to the method of calculating the maximum admissible intensity of the aid.
Kasneje bom razložil svoje mnenje, zakaj je Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko v celoti izvajalo nadzor presoje, ki jo je Komisija opravila v zvezi z metodo izračunavanja največje dovoljene intenzivnosti pomoči.
Finally, I shall state the reasons why, in my view, the Court was right to hold that the calculation of the competition factor had to take account not only of the structural capacities of the market but also of a decline in the market.
Na koncu bom predstavil razloge, zaradi katerih je, po mojem mnenju, Sodi�če prve stopnje upravičeno menilo, da mora izračun dejavnika o stanju konkurence upo�tevati ne le strukturno zmogljivost trga, ampak tudi njegov morebiten zaton.
Article 87(2) EC lists the forms of aid which are ipso jure compatible with the common market.
V členu 87(2) ES so navedene vrste pomoči, ki so v celoti združljive s skupnim trgom.
These are aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers, provided that such aid is granted without discrimination related to the origin of the products, aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or other exceptional occurrences, and aid granted
Gre za socialno pomoč, dodeljeno posameznim potro�nikom, pod pogojem, da je dodeljena brez diskriminacije glede na izvor zadevnih izdelkov, pomoč za povrnitev �kode, ki so jo povzročile naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki, ter za pomoč, dodeljeno nekaterim območjem Zvezne republike
10 — Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
10 – Uredba Sveta z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 88 ES (UL L 83, str. 1).
OPINION OF MR BOT — JOINED CASES C-75/05 P AND C-80/05 P to certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of the territory of that Member State.
Nemčije za nadomestilo gospodarske �kode, ki jo je povzročila delitev ozemlja te države članice.
Article 88(3) EC requires Member States to inform the Commission of any plans to grant or alter aid and prohibits them from implementing such plans until the Commission has reached a decision in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 88(2) EC.
S členom 88(3) ES je državam članicam naloženo, da mora biti Komisija obve�čena o vseh načrtih za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči, in prepovedano izvajanje takih projektov, dokler Komisija ne sprejme odločitve v skladu s členom 88(2) ES.
Article 87(3) EC specifies the aid which may be considered to be compatible with the common market.
Člen 87(3) ES določa, katere vrste pomoči se lahko �tejejo za združljive s skupnim trgom.
This includes aid to promote the economic development of areas in which there is serious underemployment.
Med njimi je pomoč za pospe�evanje gospodarskega razvoja območij, na katerih je podzaposlenost velika.
Accordingly, as I shall point out in my assessment, the examination procedure provided for in Article 88 EC comprises two stages, namely a preliminary examination of the planned measure and, should the case arise, if the Commission doubts whether the aid is compatible with the common market, a more in-depth examination designed to enable it to have more complete information on all the data in the case.
Kakor bom pojasnil v tej analizi, je postopek preiskave v skladu s členom 88 ES sestavljen iz dveh faz, iz predhodnega preizkusa predvidenih ukrepov in, v danem primeru, če Komisija dvomi v združljivost teh s skupnim trgom, iz bolj poglobljenega preizkusa, s katerim je Komisiji omogočeno, da se v celoti seznani z vsemi podatki zadeve 11.
11 For that purpose, Article 88(2) EC provides that the Commission must invite the parties concerned to submit their comments.
Zato mora Komisija v skladu s členom 88(2) ES pozvati vse zadevne stranke k predložitvi pripomb.
In order to implement those provisions, the Treaty, in particular Article 88 thereof, establishes a procedure for reviewing and giving prior approval to State aid, in which the central role is reserved for the Commission.
Za zagotovitev izvajanja teh določb je s Pogodbo in zlasti s členom 88 ES omogočen postopek nadzora in predhodnega dovoljenja državnih pomoči, pri katerem ima glavno vlogo Komisija.
Finally, Article 89 EC authorises the Council of the European Union to adopt regulations for the application of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.
Nazadnje, člen 89 ES Svet Evropske unije poobla�ča za sprejetje ustrezne uredbe v skladu s členoma 87 ES in 88 ES.
Pursuant to that authorisation, the Council adopted Regulation No 659/1999.
Na podlagi tega pooblastila je Svet sprejel tudi Uredbo �t. 659/1999.
11 — See inter alia Case C-367/95 P Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France [1998] ECR I-1719, paragraphs 36 and 38.
11 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 2. aprila 1998 v zadevi Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France (C-367/95 P, Recueil, str. I-1719, točki 36 in 38).
Thus, Article 88(2) EC gives the Commission the task of assessing the compatibility of the aid with Article 87 EC.
Na podlagi člena 88(2) ES je naloga Komisije ugotoviti združljivost pomoči s členom 87 ES.
Under the first paragraph of that provision, ‘[i]f, after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the Commission finds that aid granted by a State or through State resources is not compatible with the common market having regard to Article 87, or that such aid is being misused, it shall decide that the State concerned shall abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Commission’.
Prvi odstavek te določbe določa, da „[č]e Komisija po tem, ko je pozvala zadevne stranke k predložitvi pripomb, ugotovi, da pomoč, ki jo je dodelila država članica, ali pomoč iz državnih sredstev ni združljiva s skupnim trgom glede na člen 87, ali če se tak�na pomoč zlorablja, odloči, da mora zadevna država tak�no pomoč odpraviti ali spremeniti v roku, ki ji ga določi“.
Article 4 of the regulation relates to the preliminary examination which the Commission must carry out when a Member State notifies it of plans to grant or alter aid.
Člen 4 omenjene uredbe je povezan s predhodnim preizkusom, ki ga mora izvesti Komisija, ko država članica priglasi načrt za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči.
Regulation No 659/1999 codified the practice by the Commission of the powers conferred on it by Article 88 EC.
Z Uredbo �t. 659/1999 je bila kodificirana praksa Komisije pri izvajanju pooblastil na podlagi člena 88 ES.
It lays down specific rules which have been formulated in accordance with the caselaw of the Court of Justice. 12
V Uredbi so predpisana pravila, ki so bila določena skladno s sodno prakso Sodi�ča 12.
According to that provision, the Commission may adopt three types of decision.
V skladu s to določbo lahko Komisija sprejme tri vrste odločitev.
It may decide that the notified measure does not constitute aid.
Lahko odloči, da prigla�eni ukrep ni pomoč.
It may also find that there is no doubt that the notified measure is compatible with the common market and decide not to raise objections to the grant of the aid in question.
Prav tako lahko ugotovi, da ni dvomov o združljivosti prigla�enega ukrepa s skupnim trgom, in izda odločbo o nenasprotovanju.
Finally, it may decide, where doubts are raised as to the compatibility with the common market of a notified aid project, to initiate the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.
Lahko pa se odloči za začetek formalnega postopka preiskave v skladu s členom 88(2) ES, če ugotovi, da obstajajo dvomi o združljivosti prigla�enega ukrepa s skupnim trgom.
Accordingly, Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999 reproduces, in almost identical terms, the definition which the Court has given of the term ‘interested parties’, a concept which, I would point out, lies at the heart of the present cases.
V členu 1(h) Uredbe �t. 659/1999 je s skoraj enakim besedilom ponovljena opredelitev, ki jo je podalo Sodi�če v zvezi s pojmom „zainteresirana stranka“, ki je bistvo obravnavane zadeve.
In its judgment of 14 November 1984 in Intermills v Commission, 13the Court held that the parties concerned are the persons, undertakings or associations whose interests might be affected by the grant of the aid, in particular competing undertakings and trade associations.
V sodbi z dne 14. novembra 1984 v zadevi Intermills proti Komisiji 13je Sodi�če menilo, da so zainteresirane stranke osebe, podjetja ali združenja, na katerih interese bi dodelitev pomoči lahko vplivala, torej zlasti konkurenčna podjetja in poklicna združenja 14.
14 Article 1(h) of the regulation defines the term ‘interested party’ as ‘any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, in particular the beneficiary of the aid, competing undertakings and trade associations’.
V skladu s členom 1(h) te uredbe izraz „zainteresirana stranka“ „pomeni katero koli državo članico ali osebo, podjetje ali združenje podjetij, na katerih interese bi lahko dodelitev pomoči vplivala, predvsem upravičenca pomoči, konkurenčna podjetja in poklicna združenja“.
12 — Recital 2 in the preamble to the regulation.13 — Case 323/82 [1984] ECR 3809.
12 – Druga uvodna izjava Uredbe.13 – 323/82, Recueil, str. 3809.
14 — Paragraph 16.
14 – Točka 16.
This definition was reproduced inter alia by the Court in Cook v Commission, paragraph 24; Matra v Commission, paragraph 18; and Commission v Aktionsge­meinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 36.
To opredelitev je Sodi�če uporabilo zlasti v zgoraj navedenih sodbah Cook proti Komisiji (točka 24); Matra proti Komisiji (točka 18) in Komisija proti Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum (točka 36).
In its assessment of the compatibility of regional aid, the Commission is required to take account not only of the positive effects on the development of the region but also of
V okviru ocenjevanja združljivosti regionalnih pomoči mora Komisija poleg pozitivnih učinkov na razvoj regije upo�tevati tudi
15 intensity is then calculated by applying these three adjustment factors to the regional aid ceiling (factor R).
morebitne posredne učinke teh pomoči na gospodarski položaj posameznih sektorjev 15.
It is for this purpose that the Commission adopted the multisectoral framework.
Komisija je zato sprejela večsektorski okvir.
This framework constitutes guidelines allowing the Commission to calculate, on a case-by-case basis, a maximum allowable intensity for regional investment aid. 16
V ta okvir spadajo smernice, ki omogočajo Komisiji, da od primera do primera izračuna največjo dovoljeno intenzivnost regionalnih pomoči za naložbe 16.
In accordance with points 3.2 and 3.3 of the multisectoral framework, the competition factor is designed to determine whether the proposed project will take place in a sector or subsector suffering from structural overcapacity.
V skladu s točkama 3.2 in 3.3 večsektorskega okvira se z dejavnikom o stanju konkurence ugotovlja, ali se bo prigla�eni projekt izvajal v sektorju ali podsektorju, za katerega so značilni presežki strukturnih zmogljivosti.