natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For that reason, the action for annulment brought by Athinaïki Techniki is admissible, even if the date on which the action was brought should be determined as 18 February 2005.
Zato je ničnostna tožba, ki jo je vložila Athinaïki Techniki, dopustna tudi ob predpostavki, da se mora za dan vložitve tožbe �teti 18. februar 2005.
Secondly, I think that the starting point of the timelimit for the action of 2 months and 10 days cannot be determined as 6 December 2004 at the latest, as the Commission argues.
Drugič, menim, da rok dveh mesecev in desetih dni za vložitev tožbe ni mogel začeti teči najpozneje 6. decembra 2004, kot zatrjuje Komisija.
Having regard to those considerations, I take the view that the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission must be dismissed.
Glede na te ugotovitve menim, da je treba ugovor nedopustnosti tožbe, ki ga je vložila Komisija, zavrniti.
I also invite the Court to refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment on Athinaïki Techniki’s form of order seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 June 2004 relating to the closure of the file on its complaint and to order that the costs be reserved. 51
Sodi�ču tudi predlagam, naj zadevo vrne Sodi�ču prve stopnje, da bo odločilo o predlogih Athinaïki Techniki za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije z dne 2. junija 2004 o ustavitvi postopka s pritožbo, in pridrži odločitev o stro�kih. 51
50 — Case C-480/99 P Plant and Others v Commission and South Wales Small Mines [2002] ECR I-265, paragraph 49.
51 – Glej glede stro�kov sodbo z dne 15. maja 2003 v zadevi Pitsiorlas proti Svetu in BCE (C-193/01 P, Recueil, str. I-4837).
49 — Joined Cases 193/87 and 194/87 Maurissen and Union Syndicale v Court of Auditors [1989] ECR 1045, paragraph 46, and order in Case T-263/97 Gal Penisola Sorrentina v Commission [2000] ECR II-2041, paragraph 47.
49 – Sodba Sodi�ča z dne 11. maja 1989 v združenih zadevah Maurissen in Union syndicale proti Računskemu sodi�ču (193/87 in 194/87, Recueil, str.
51 — See, with regard to costs, Case C-193/01 P Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB [2003] ECR I-4837.
1045, točka 46) in sklep Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 13. aprila 2000 v zadevi GAL Penisola Sorrentina proti Komisiji (T-263/97, Recueil, str. II-2041, točka 47).
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court:
Glede na zgoraj navedene ugotovitve Sodi�ču predlagam, naj:
— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki v Commission;
– razveljavi Sklep Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 26. septembra 2006 v zadevi Athinaïki Techniki proti Komisiji, T-94/05;
— dismiss as unfounded the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission of the European Communities before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;
– zavrne ugovor nedopustnosti, na katerega se pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti sklicuje Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, kot neutemeljenega;
— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment on Athinaïki Techniki’s form of order seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 June 2004 relating to the closure of the file on its complaint;
– vrne zadevo Sodi�ču prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti, da bo to odločilo o predlogih Athinaïki Techniki AE za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije z dne 2. junija 2004 o ustavitvi postopka z njeno pritožbo;
— order that the costs be reserved.
– pridrži odločitev o stro�kih.
2008 — CASE C-521/06 P
2008 – ZADEVA C-521/06 P
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 18 December 2006,
V zadevi C-521/06 P, zaradi pritožbe na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, vložene 18. decembra 2006,
Athinaïki Techniki AE, established in Athens (Greece), represented by S. Pappas, dikigoros, appellant, the other parties to the proceedings being:
Athinaïki Techniki AE, s sedežem v Atenah (Grčija), ki ga zastopa S. Pappas, dikigoros, tožeča stranka, drugi stranki v postopku sta
Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg, defendant at first instance,
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, ki jo zastopa D. Triantafyllou, zastopnik, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu, tožena stranka na prvi stopnji,
Advocate General: Y. Bot, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 3 April 2008,
Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 3. aprila 2008
2008 — CASE C-521/06 P gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-521/06 P izreka naslednjo
By its appeal, Athinaïki Techniki AE (‘Athinaïki Techniki’) is seeking to have quashed the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki v Commission (‘the order under appeal’), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible Athinaïki Techniki’s action seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 June 2004 to take no further action on its complaint concerning alleged State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the public contract for the disposal of 49% of the capital of Casino Mont Parnès, of which the appellant was made aware by letter of 2 December 2004 (‘the letter in dispute’).
Družba Athinaïki Techniki AE (v nadaljevanju: Athinaïki Techniki) s pritožbo predlaga razveljavitev sklepa Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 26. septembra 2006 v zadevi Athinaïki Techniki proti Komisiji (T-94/05, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijani sklep), s katerim je to zavrnilo tožbo Athinaïki Techniki za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije Evropskih skupnosti z dne 2. junija 2004, s katero je bil ustavljen postopek s pritožbo v zvezi z domnevno državno pomočjo, ki jo je Helenska republika dodelila konzorciju Hyatt Regency v okviru javnega naročila za prenos 49 % kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès, in o kateri je bila tožeča stranka obve�čena z dopisom z dne 2. decembra 2004 (v nadaljevanju: sporni dopis).
Article 87(1) EC provides:
V členu 87(1) ES je določeno:
The first paragraph of Article 88(2) EC provides:
Člen 88(2), prvi pododstavek, ES določa:
Article 88(3) EC states:
V členu 88(3) ES je določeno:
‘The Commission shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid.
„Komisija mora biti obve�čena o vseh načrtih za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči dovolj zgodaj, da lahko predloži pripombe.
If it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the common market having regard to Article 87, it shall without delay initiate the procedure provided for in paragraph 2.
Če meni, da tak�en načrt glede na člen 87 ni združljiv s skupnim trgom, nemudoma sproži postopek iz odstavka 2.
The Member State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until this procedure has resulted in a final decision.’
Zadevna država članica ne sme izvajati svojih predlaganih ukrepov, dokler v tem postopku ni sprejeta dokončna odločitev.“
As is clear from the second recital in the preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p.
Kot izhaja iz druge uvodne izjave Uredbe Sveta (ES) 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena [88] Pogodbe ES (UL L 83, str.
1), that regulation codifies and reinforces the practice, with regard to examining State aid, established by the Commission in accordance with the caselaw of the Court.
1), ta uredba kodificira in potrjuje prakso na področju preiskave državnih pomoči, ki jo je v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča uveljavila Komisija.
Chapter II of that regulation is entitled ‘Procedures regarding notified aid’, and includes Article 4 which provides:
Člen 4 iz Poglavja II te uredbe z naslovom: „Postopek v zvezi s prijavljeno pomočjo“ določa:
Without prejudice to Article 8, the Commission shall take a decision pursuant to paragraphs 2, 3 or 4.
Brez poseganja v člen 8 Komisija sprejme odločbo skladno z odstavki 2, 3 ali 4.
Where the Commission, after a preliminary examination, finds that no doubts are raised as to the compatibility with the common market of a notified measure, in so far as it falls within the scope of Article [87](1) of the Treaty, it shall decide that the measure is compatible with the common market (hereinafter referred to as a “decision not to raise objections”).
Če Komisija po predhodni preučitvi ugotovi, da ni dvomov o združljivosti prijavljenega ukrepa s skupnim trgom, kolikor sodi na področje uporabe člena [87](1) Pogodbe, potem odloči, da je ukrep združljiv s skupnim trgom (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločba o nenasprotovanju).
Where the Commission, after a preliminary examination, finds that doubts are raised as to the compatibility with the common market of a notified measure, it shall decide to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article [88](2) of the Treaty (hereinafter referred to as a “decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure”).
Če Komisija po predhodni preučitvi ugotovi, da obstajajo dvomi o združljivosti prijavljenega ukrepa s skupnim trgom, potem se odloči za začetek postopka na podlagi člena [88](2) Pogodbe (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločba o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave).
Article 7 of Regulation No 659/1999 specifies the cases in which the Commission takes the decision to close the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC.
Člen 7 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 natančno določa primere, v katerih Komisija sprejme odločbo o koncu formalnega postopka preiskave, predvidenega v členu 88(2) ES.
Chapter III of Regulation No 659/1999 governs the procedure regarding unlawful aid.
Poglavje III navedene uredbe ureja postopek na področju nezakonitih pomoči.
In that chapter, Article 10(1) states:
Člen 10(1) tega poglavja določa:
Also in that chapter, Article 13(1) provides:
V členu 13(1) navedenega poglavja je predvideno:
‘The examination of possible unlawful aid shall result in a decision pursuant to Article 4(2), (3) or (4).
„Pregled morebitne nezakonite pomoči se zaključi z odločbo na podlagi člena 4(2), (3) ali (4).
In the case of decisions to initiate the formal investigation procedure, proceedings shall be closed by means of a decision pursuant to Article 7.
V primeru odločbe o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave se postopek zaključi z odločbo na podlagi člena 7.
If a Member State fails to comply with an information injunction, that decision shall be taken on the basis of the information available.’
Če država članica ne izpolni odredbe o predložitvi podatkov, se ta odločba sprejme na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov.“
Chapter VI of Regulation No 659/1999 is entitled ‘Interested parties’, and includes Article 20 which provides:
Člen 20 iz Poglavja VI Uredbe �t. 659/1999 z naslovom „Zainteresirane stranke“ določa:
Any interested party may submit comments pursuant to Article 6 following a Commission decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Vsaka zainteresirana stranka lahko po odločbi Komisije o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave predloži pripombe na podlagi člena 6.
Any interested party which has submitted such comments and any beneficiary of individual aid shall be sent a copy of the decision taken by the Commission pursuant to Article 7.
Vsaka zainteresirana stranka, ki je tak�ne pripombe predložila, in vsak upravičenec individualne pomoči prejme izvod odločbe, ki jo sprejme Komisija na podlagi člena 7.
Any interested party may inform the Commission of any alleged unlawful aid and any alleged misuse of aid.
Vsaka zainteresirana stranka lahko obvesti Komisijo o domnevni nezakoniti pomoči in o domnevni zlorabi pomoči.
Where the Commission considers that on the basis of the information in its possession there are insufficient grounds for taking a view on the case, it shall inform the interested party thereof. Where the Commission takes a
Če Komisija meni, da na podlagi podatkov, ki jih ima, ni zadostnih razlogov, da bi zavzela stali�če o zadevi, o tem obvesti zaintere-
2008 — CASE C-521/06 P decision on a case concerning the subject matter of the information supplied, it shall send a copy of that decision to the interested party.
2008 – ZADEVA C-521/06 P sirano stranko. Če Komisija sprejme odločbo o zadevi v zvezi z vsebino predloženih podatkov, po�lje izvod odločbe zainteresirani stranki.
At its request, any interested party shall obtain a copy of any decision pursuant to Articles 4 and 7, Article 10(3) and Article 11.’
Na zahtevo vsaka zainteresirana stranka dobi izvod katere koli odločbe na podlagi členov 4 in 7, člena 10(3) ter člena 11.“
Article 25 of Regulation No 659/1999 states:
Člen 25 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 določa:
‘Decisions taken pursuant to Chapters II, III, IV, V and VII shall be addressed to the Member State concerned. …’
„Odločbe, sprejete na podlagi poglavij II, III, IV, V in VII, so naslovljene na zadevno državo članico. […]“
The facts of the case
Dejansko stanje spora
The facts of the case were set out by the Court of First Instance in the order under appeal as follows:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v izpodbijanem sklepu dejansko stanje spora predstavilo tako:
A member of the Casino Attikis consortium, Egnatia SA, which, following a merger, was taken over by [Athinaïki Techniki] lodged complaints, respectively,
Član konzorcija Casino Attikis, Egnatia SA, ki ga je po združitvi nasledil [Athinaïki Techniki], je vložil pritožbe pri službah generalnega direktorata (GD) ‚Notranji
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI v COMMISSION with the Commission’s Directorate General (DG) for the “Internal Market” and DG for “Competition”.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI PROTI KOMISIJI trg‘ in GD ‚Konkurenca‘ Komisije.
The former was called upon to take a view on the lawfulness of the contested procedure (of the disposal of 49% of the capital of Casino Mont Parnès) in the light of Community law on public procurement, whereas the latter received a complaint concerning State aid which was alleged to have been granted to the Hyatt consortium in the context of that same procedure.
Prvi je bil pozvan, da odloči o pravilnosti spornega postopka [za prenos 49 % kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès] glede na pravo Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil, medtem ko je bila pri drugem vložena pritožba v zvezi z državno pomočjo, ki naj bi bila dodeljena Hyatt Consortium v okviru istega postopka.
By letter of 15 July 2003, the DG for “Competition” drew the attention of [Athinaïki Techniki] to its decisionmaking practice according to which the disposal of a public asset in the context of a tendering procedure does not constitute State aid where the procedure has been carried out transparently and without discrimination.
GD ‚Konkurenca‘ je z dopisom z dne 15. julija 2003 opozoril [Athinaïki Techniki] na svojo prakso odločanja, da odsvojitev javne dobrine v okviru postopka javnega razpisa ni pomenila državne pomoči, ker je ta postopek potekal pregledno in nediskriminatorno.
Consequently, the Commission informed the complainant that it would not take a view until the DG for the “Internal Market” had completed its examination of the procedure for the award of the public contract at issue.
Zato ga je ta GD obvestil, da o tej zadevi ne bo odločal, dokler ne bo GD ‚Notranji trg‘ opravil preizkusa postopka oddaje zadevnega javnega naročila.
By email of 28 August 2003, the representative of [Athinaïki Techniki] stated, in essence, that the complaint relating to the existence of State aid was concerned with factors separate from the procedure for the award of the public contract and that, consequently, the services of the DG for “Competition” should not wait for the conclusions of the DG for the “Internal Market”.
Zastopnik [Athinaïki Techniki] je 28. avgusta 2003 po elektronski po�ti v bistvu pojasnil, da se je pritožba v zvezi z obstojem državne pomoči nana�ala na elemente, ki so drugačni kot v postopku oddaje javnega naročila, in da zato službam GD ‚Konkurenca‘ ni treba čakati na odločitve GD ‚Notranji trg‘.
By letter of 16 September 2003, the services of the DG for “Competition” repeated the wording of the letter of 15 July 2003 but none the less invited [Athinaïki Techniki] to provide them with additional information concerning any other aid which was not connected with the tendering for the casino.
Službe GD ‚Konkurenca‘ so v dopisu z dne 16. septembra 2003 ponovile besedilo dopisa z dne 15. julija 2003, s tem da so [Athinaïki Techniki] pozvale, naj jim posreduje dodatne podatke v zvezi z vsemi drugimi pomočmi, ki naj ne bi bile povezane z oddajo naročila igralnici.
By letters of 22 January and 4 August 2004, the DG for the “Internal Market” informed [Athinaïki Techniki] that it did not intend to continue the examination of the two complaints which had been addressed to it.’
Službe GD ‚Notranji trg‘ so z dopisoma z dne 22. januarja in 4. avgusta 2004 [Athinaïki Techniki] obvestile, da ne nameravajo nadaljevati preiskave obeh pritožb, ki sta bili naslovljeni nanje.“
The Commission then sent Athinaïki Techniki the letter in dispute which states as follows:
Dalje, Komisija je Athinaïki Techniki poslala sporni dopis, v katerem je zapisano:
‘I refer to your telephone inquiry seeking to confirm whether the Commission is pursuing its investigation in the abovementioned case or whether there has been a decision to take no further action.
„Sklicujemo se na va�e telefonsko vpra�anje, naj potrdimo, ali je Komisija začela preiskavo v zgoraj navedeni zadevi ali pa je bil postopek v zvezi s to zadevo ustavljen.
By letter of 16 September 2003, the Commission informed you that, on the basis of the information in its possession, there are insufficient grounds for continuing to examine that case (in accordance with Article 20 of [Regulation No 659/1999]).
Komisija vas je z dopisom z dne 16. septembra 2003 obvestila, da na podlagi podatkov, ki jih ima, ni zadostnih razlogov za nadaljevanje preiskave v tej zadevi (na podlagi člena 20 [Uredbe �t. 659/1999]).
In the absence of additional information to justify continuing the investigation, the Commission has, for the purposes of administrative action, closed the file on the case on 2 June 2004.’
Komisija je zato, ker ni imela dodatnih podatkov, ki bi upravičili izvedbo preiskave, 2. junija 2004 ustavila upravni postopek.“
The action before the Court of First Instance and the order under appeal
Tožba pri Sodišču prve stopnje in izpodbijani sklep
By application filed at the Registry of the Court of First Instance, Athinaïki Techniki brought an action seeking annulment of the decision, referred to in paragraph one of this judgment, of which it had been informed by the letter in dispute.
Athinaïki Techniki je v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje vložil ničnostno tožbo zoper odločbo, navedeno v točki 1 te sodbe, o kateri je bila ta družba obve�čena s spornim dopisom.
By separate document lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 21 April 2005, the Commission raised a preliminary plea of inadmissibility, pursuant to Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, which that Court upheld in the order under appeal.
Komisija je z ločenim aktom, vloženim v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje 21. aprila 2005, vložila ugovor nedopustnosti na podlagi člena 114(1) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje, kateremu je to sodi�če ugodilo z izpodbijanim sklepom.
Referring to Regulation No 659/1999, the Court of First Instance held that the decisions adopted by the Commission in matters of State aid are addressed to the Member States.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je ob sklicevanju na Uredbo �t. 659/1999 opozorilo, da so odločbe, ki jih Komisija sprejme na področju državnih pomoči, naslovljene na države članice.
The Court of First Instance then held, at paragraphs 29 to 31 of the order under appeal, that:
V točkah od 29 do 31 izpodbijanega sklepa je nato presodilo:
‘29 In the present case, the letter [in dispute], which was addressed solely to [Athinaïki Techniki], informed it, pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation No 659/1999, that, on the basis of the information in its possession, the Commission considered that there were insufficient grounds for taking a view on the case which was submitted to it in the complaint.
„29 V obravnavani zadevi je bil v dopisu, naslovljenem samo na Athinaïki Techniki, ta na podlagi člena 20 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 obve�čen, da je Komisija na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je imela, menila, da ni bilo zadostnih razlogov za odločanje o primeru, ki ji je bil predložen v pritožbi.
In the letter [in dispute] the Commission then stated that, in the absence of additional information to justify continuing the investigation, it had, for the purposes of further administrative action, closed the file on [Athinaïki Techniki’s] complaint on 2 June 2004.
Komisija je v [spornem] dopisu tudi navedla, da je zato, ker ni prejela dodatnih podatkov, ki bi upravičili nadaljevanje preiskave, 2. junija 2004 ustavila upravni postopek v zvezi s pritožbo [Athinaïki Techniki].
The Commission, therefore, did not define its final position on the classification and the compatibility with the common market of the measure forming the subjectmatter of [Athinaïki Techniki’s] complaint.
Komisija torej ni sprejela končnega stali�ča glede opredelitve ukrepa, ki je bil predmet pritožbe [Athinaïki Techniki], in glede njegove združljivosti s skupnim trgom.
30 It follows that the letter [in dispute] does not constitute a decision within the meaning of Article 25 of Regulation No 659/1999 and that it has no legal effect.
30 Iz tega izhaja, da [sporni] dopis ni odločba v smislu člena 25 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 in da ne povzroča pravnega učinka.
That letter is not therefore open to challenge under Article 230 EC.
Zoper ta dopis zato ni mogoče vložiti tožbe na podlagi člena 230 ES.
31 It should be pointed out that [Athinaïki Techniki] cannot claim that the nonactionable nature of a letter rejecting a complaint has the effect of depriving citizens of access to Community Justice, since the complainant may provide additional information in order to support its complaint.
31 Opozoriti je treba, da [Athinaïki Techniki] ne more trditi, da naj bi neizpodbojnost dopisa, s katerim je bila zavrnjena pritožba, upravičencu preprečila dostop do pravnega varstva Skupnosti, ker lahko pritožnik predloži dodatne podatke za utemeljitev svoje pritožbe.
In the event that the information is sufficient the Commission would then be required to define its position on the State measure in question by adopting a decision within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, thus offering the complainant the option of bringing an action for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Če bi bili ti podatki zadostni, bi morala tako Komisija sprejeti stali�če o zadevnem ukrepu s sprejetjem odločbe v smislu člena 4 Uredbe �t. 659/1999, tako da bi bila pritožniku ponujena možnost vložiti ničnostno tožbo na podlagi člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES.
In addition as the Commission points out, it is also open to the complainant to bring an action for failure to act under the third paragraph of Article 232 EC.’
Poleg tega, kot je opomnila Komisija, lahko pritožnik prav tako vloži tožbo zaradi nedelovanja na podlagi člena 232, tretji odstavek, ES.“
Lastly, the Court of First Instance held that the procedure in the matters of State aid could not be treated in the same way as the procedure applicable in matters of competition.
Nazadnje, Sodi�če prve stopnje je menilo, da postopka na področju državnih pomoči ni mogoče enačiti s postopkom, ki se uporablja na področju konkurence.
In contrast to Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, Regulation No 659/1999 did not confer any procedural rights on complainants prior to the initiation of the formal investigation period in matters of State aid.
Uredba �t. 659/1999, v nasprotju s členoma 81 ES in 82 ES, pritožnikom ni priznala nobene procesne pravice pred začetkom formalnega postopka preiskave na področju državnih pomoči.
By its appeal, Athinaïki Techniki claims that the Court should:
Athinaïki Techniki s pritožbo Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— set aside the order under appeal;
– razveljavi izpodbijani sklep;