natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, Germany invited the Court to reconsider this caselaw in the light of the submissions made by France and Denmark.
Vendar pa je Nemčija zaprosila Sodi�če, naj pretehta to sodno prakso ob upo�tevanju predlogov Francije in Danske.
The Commission argued that an order of recovery of unlawful aid by the national courts would, in the present case, deprive its decision on compatibility of all practical effect.
Komisija je trdila, da bi v tej zadevi odredba nacionalnega sodi�ča o vračilu nezakonite pomoči njeni odločbi o združljivosti odvzela polni učinek.
It submits that in the present case an order of recovery by the national court of
Trdi, da bi v tej zadevi imela odredba nacionalnega sodi�ča o vračilu dodeljene pomoči enak učinek kot odločba
Article 88(3) EC must constitute more than a mere procedural irregularity which can be remedied ex post facto by a Commission decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market.
razglasitvi pomoči za združljivo s skupnim trgom odpravi po dejstvih.
Such an approach would considerably reduce the incentives of Member States to comply with Article 88(3) EC and the scope of the Commission’s obligation to review State aid prior to it being put into effect.
Tak�en pristop bi znatno zmanj�al stimuliranost držav članic za spo�tovanje člena 88(3) ES in obseg obveznosti Komisije, da preveri državno pomoč, preden se izvede.
Infringements of Article 88(3) EC must therefore be subject to the imposition of a dissuasive sanction.
Zato morajo biti za kr�itve člena 88(3) ES vzpostavljene odvračilne kazni.
The notification and the standstill obligations established by Article 88(3) EC constitute, in my view, one of the cornerstones of the State aid rules established by the EC Treaty.
Obveznosti priglasitve in mirovanja, ki ju določa člen 88(3) ES, po mojem mnenju pomenita enega od temeljev pravil o državnih pomočeh, ki so bila vzpostavljena s Pogodbo ES.
Indeed, in his Opinion in the Boussac case, 21Advocate General Jacobs noted that the obligation to notify proposed aids is of such manifest importance for the functioning of the common market that the obligation must be rigorously observed both as to content and as to form.
Res je, da je generalni pravobranilec Jacobs v svojih sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Boussac 21 nakazal, da je obveznost priglasitve predlaganih pomoči tako bistvenega pomena za delovanje skupnega trga, da jo je treba strogo upo�tevati po vsebini in po obliki.
22The Court in its Adria-WienPipeline and Wieterdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke judgment restated that the standstill obligation ‘is the safeguard of the review machinery established by Article 88 EC which, in turn, is essential for protecting the proper functioning of the common market’. 23 31.
22Sodi�če je v sodbi Adria-Wien Pipeline in Wieterdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke ponovno ugotovilo, da je obveznost mirovanja „varovalka kolesja preizkusa, ki ga vzpostavlja člen 88 ES, ki je kot tak nujen za varovanje pravilnega delovanja skupnega trga“. 23 31.
In my view, in order to preserve the carefully crafted system of review of State aids, failure to comply with the requirements of
Da bi se ohranil skrbno izdelan sistem preizkusa državnih pomoči, mora po mojem mnenju nespo�tovanje zahtev člena 88(3) pomeniti več kot zgolj nepravilnosti v postopku, ki jih lahko odločba Komisije o
21 — Case C-301/87 France v Commission (‘Boussac’) [1990] ECR I-307.
21 – Glej sodbo z dne 14. februarja 1990 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji („Boussac“) (C-301/87, Recueil, str. I-307).
22 — See Opinion in ‘Boussac’, cited in footnote 21, point 19.
22 – Glej sklepne predloge v zadevi „Boussac“, navedene v opombi 21, točka 19.
Advocate General Jacobs stressed the necessity to ensure strict compliance with the procedures laid down in Article 88 EC, in particular, in the absence of a procedural regulation on the matter.
Generalni pravobranilec Jacobs je poudaril nujnost, da se zagotovi strogo spo�tovanje postopkov iz člena 88 ES, �e posebej, kadar na tem področju ni postopkovne ureditve.
Contrary to the arguments of a number of the interveners, I do not consider that an effective sanction for violation of the notification and standstill obligations laid down in Article 88(3) EC would be, inter alia, for the national court to order the recipient of an unlawful aid that was subsequently declared compatible by the Commission with the common market to pay interest on the aid for the period in which it was paid prematurely.
V nasprotju s trditvami več strank menim, da za kr�itev obveznosti priglasitve in mirovanja, določenih v členu 88(3) ES, ne bi bila učinkovita kazen, da bi nacionalno sodi�če med drugim odredilo prejemniku nezakonite pomoči, za katero je Komisija naknadno ugotovila združljivost s skupnim trgom, plačilo obresti od pomoči v obdobju, v katerem je bila prezgodaj plačana.
Moreover, I do not consider that the possibility for competitors to seek compensation for damages caused by such premature payment would be an effective sanction.
Poleg tega menim, da možnost konkurentov, da zahtevajo od�kodnino zaradi �kode, ki je nastala zaradi takega prezgodnjega plačila, ne bi bila učinkovita kazen.
It is extremely questionable whether in such circumstances private litigants would have any incentive to bring proceedings before national courts if the present sanction of recovery of the unlawful aid were to be replaced, for instance, by a mere obligation
Skrajno dvomljivo je, ali bi imeli zasebni tožniki v tak�nih okoli�činah kakr�no koli spodbudo za pričetek postopka pred nacionalnimi sodi�či, če bi se sedanjo kazen vračila nezakonite pomoči zamenjalo na primer zgolj z obveznostjo plačila obresti za prezgodnje plačilo pomoči ali z od�kodninsko tožbo.
to pay interest for the premature payment of aid or by an action for compensation for damages suffered.
Tak�en pristop ne bi deloval kot učinkovito svarilo zoper kr�itev člena 88(3) ES in bi znatno oslabil možnost učinkovitega preizkusa pomoči, ki jo ima Komisija v skladu s členom 88 ES.
Such an approach would not act as a cogent deterrent to infringement of Article 88(3) EC and would considerably undermine the possibility of effective review of aid by the Commission in accordance with Article 88 EC.
Ta postopek, ki je daleč od tega, da bi oslabil vlogo Komisije, ker naj bi domnevno povzročil, da bi imela njena dokončna odločitev manj�i pomen ali da ga ne bi imela, varuje vlogo Komisije v sistemu nadzora državnih pomoči, ki ga
Moreover, contrary to the arguments of some interveners, I do not believe that it is possible to reinterpret or alter the longstanding caselaw of the Court on this matter as recently confirmed in the Transalpine Ölleitung case, or to draw any meaningful distinction on the basis of the factual situation prevailing before the national court in the present case and those in the FNCE, Van Calster or Transalpine Ölleitung cases.
Poleg tega, nasprotno od trditev neka -terih intervenientov, ne verjamem, da je mogoče znova razložiti ali spremeniti dolgo obstoječo sodno prakso Sodi�ča na tem področju, kot je bila potrjena v zadevi Transalpine Ölleitung, ali narediti kakr�no koli pomembno razliko med dejanskim primerom, ki je v tej zadevi pred nacionalnim sodi�čem, in tistimi v zadevah FNCE, van Calster ali Transalpine Ölleitung.
It is very clear, for example, from a reading of the FNCE and Van Calster cases that the Court intended to extend to charges collected to finance unlawful aid the general principle that a Commission decision declaring aid compatible cannot retrospectively validate the aid.
Iz branja zadev FNCE in van Calster je na primer očitno, da je Sodi�če nameravalo na davke, obračunane za financiranje nezakonite pomoči, raz�iriti splo�no načelo, da odločba Komisije o razglasitvi združljivosti pomoči ne more potrditi pomoči za nazaj.
The Court did not intend to limit that general principle to the repayment of charges.
Sodi�če ni nameravalo omejiti splo�nega načela na povračilo davkov.
As to its ruling in Transalpine Ölleitung, the Court reconfirmed the long-established principle that it is for the national courts pursuant to Article 88(3) EC to safeguard the rights of individuals against possible disregard, by the national authorities, of the prohibition on putting aid into effect before the Commission has adopted a final decision authorising that aid.
Kar zadeva odločitev v sodbi Transalpine Ölleitung, je Sodi�če ponovno potrdilo dolgo vzpostavljeno načelo, da morajo nacionalna sodi�ča na podlagi člena 88(3) ES varovati pravice zainteresiranih oseb v primeru mogoče kr�itve prepovedi izvedbe pomoči nacionalnih organov, preden Komisija sprejme dokončno odločitev o odobritvi te pomoči.
In addition and without prejudice to the previous point, the Court considered that, in the light of the very specific facts of the case where some
Poleg tega in brez vpliva na prej�njo točko je Sodi�če menilo, da ob upo�tevanju zelo posebnih dejstev zadeve, da so nekatere stranke zahtevale raz�iritev pomoči, s tem da se jim povrne
CLEF AND MINISTRE DE LA CULTURE ET DE LA COMMUNICATION have notified certain payments in the belief that they did not constitute aid.
CELF IN MINISTRE DE LA CULTURE ET DE LA COMMUNICATION članice lahko ne priglasijo določenih plačil v prepričanju, da ne pomenijo pomoči.
the form of a tax rebate to them, the national courts when safeguarding individuals’ rights must take the Community interest fully into consideration and must not adopt a measure which would have the sole effect of extending the circle of recipients of the aid.
dajatve, morajo nacionalna sodi�ča, ko varujejo pravice posameznikov, v celoti upo�tevati interes Skupnosti in ne smejo sprejeti ukrepa, katerega edini učinek bi bila raz�iritev kroga upravičencev pomoči.
Thus the Court held at paragraph 50 of its ruling that ‘care must be taken by the national courts to ensure that whatever remedies they grant are such as in fact to negate the effects of the aid granted in breach of Article 88(3) EC and not merely to extend it to a further class of beneficiaries’.
Tako je Sodi�če v točki 50 sodbe menilo, da „morajo biti nacionalna sodi�ča pozorna na to, da zagotovijo, da izravnalni ukrepi, ki so jih odredila, dejansko lahko odpravijo učinke dodeljene pomoči, ki je kr�ila člen 88(3) ES, in ne smejo zgolj raz�iriti pomoči na večjo skupino upravičencev.“
In my view, any alleged ambiguity that may have arisen in the intervening period between the Court’s judgment in Ferring and its judgment in Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg with regard to payments by Member States as compensation for services provided in discharge of public service obligations does not appear to be of any relevance in the particular circumstances of the case before the referring jurisdiction.
Po mojem mnenju kakr�na koli domnevna dvoumnost, ki bi lahko nastala v obdobju med sodbo Sodi�ča v zadevi Ferring in njegovo sodbo v zadevi Altmark Trans in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg glede plačil držav članic kot nadomestil za opravljene storitve pri izvajanju obveznosti javnih služb, nima nikakr�nega pomena v posebnih okoli�činah zadeve pred predložitvenim sodi�čem.
Given that the payments to CELF took place on an annual basis between 1980 and 2002, it seems unlikely that those longstanding payments could have been induced in error as a result of the ruling in Ferring which was handed down on 22 November 2001.
Glede na to, da so se plačila CELF izvajala letno med letoma 1980 in 2002, je malo verjetno, da bi lahko bila ta dolgotrajna plačila nepravilna kot posledica sodbe Ferring, ki je bila izdana 22. novembra 2001.
At the oral hearing the representatives of the French, Danish and German Governments indicated that the ruling of the Court in this case could have far-reaching financial implications.
Na obravnavi so predstavniki francoske, danske in nem�ke vlade navedli, da bi lahko imela sodba Sodi�ča v tej zadevi obsežne finančne posledice.
During the period between the Ferring 24 and Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg 25judgments handed down by this Court, payments were made by Member States as compensation for the discharge of public service obligations which might in hindsight fail to satisfy the four criteria laid down in Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg and thus be caught by Article 87(1) EC.
V obdobju med sodbama Ferring 24 in Altmark Trans in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg 25, ki ju je izdalo Sodi�če, so države članice izvedle plačila kot nadomestila za izvajanje obveznosti javnih služb, in lahko bi se zgodilo, da ne izpolnjujejo �tirih meril, določenih v sodbi Altmark Trans in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg Trans, zato bi lahko zanje veljal člen 87(1) ES.
On the basis of the Ferring case, Member States may not
Na podlagi zadeve Ferring države
24 — Case C-53/00 [2001] ECR I-9067.25 — Case C-280/00 [2003] ECR I-7747.
24 – Sodba z dne 22. novembra 2001 v zadevi Ferring (C-53/00, Recueil, str. I-9067).
I therefore conclude that in accordance with the terms of Article 88(3) EC a Member State, which has granted unlawful aid in breach of the notification and standstill requirements established by that provision, must recover that aid from the beneficiary,
Zato zaključujem, da mora v skladu s členom 88(3) ES država članica, ki je dodelila nezakonito pomoč s kr�itvijo zahtev za priglasitev in mirovanje, določenih v tem členu, to pomoč izterjati od upravičenca, tudi ko je se je postopek v členu 88 ES zaključil
As with the first question, the second question also triggered diverging reactions from the interveners.
Tako kot prvo vpra�anje je tudi drugo vpra�anje sprožilo različne odzive intervenientov.
B — Second question
B – Drugo vprašanje
It is settled caselaw that acts of the Community institutions are in principle presumed to be lawful and accordingly produce legal effects until such time as they are withdrawn, annulled in an action for annulment or declared invalid following a reference for a preliminary ruling or a plea of illegality.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso za akte institucij Skupnosti načeloma velja domneva zakonitosti, zaradi česar imajo pravne učinke toliko časa, dokler niso umaknjeni, razgla�eni za nične v okviru ničnostne tožbe ali razveljavljeni v okviru postopka za sprejetje prehodne odločbe ali z ugovorom nezakonitosti.
26However, according to Article 231 EC, if an action for annulment is well founded, the Court of Justice declares the act concerned to be void.
26Vendar pa, če je ničnostna tožba utemeljena, Sodi�če v skladu s členom 231 ES razglasi zadevni akt za ničnega.
The annulment of an act leads to its retroactive disappearance with regard to all persons. 27
Razglasitev ničnosti akta glede na vse osebe pomeni retroaktivno odpravo. 27
The referring court’s second question arises if the first question is answered as I suggest in point 37 above.
Drugo vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča se postavlja, če se na prvo vpra�anje odgovori, kot sem predlagal zgoraj v točki 37.
In that question, the referring court asks whether, for the purpose of calculating the sums to be repaid, unlawful aid paid during the period subsequent to a Commission decision declaring that aid compatible with the common market, but prior to the annulment by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of that decision, must be taken into account.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali se mora za namen izračuna zneska, ki ga je treba povrniti, upo�tevati nezakonita pomoč, izplačana v obdobju po odločbi Komisije o razglasitvi pomoči za združljivo s skupnim trgom, vendar preden je Sodi�če prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti razglasilo ničnost te odločbe.
In the present case the decisions of the Commission dated 18 May 1993 and 10 June 1998 finding the aid to CELF compatible with the common market were annulled by the Court of First Instance in its judgments of 18 September 1995 and 28 February 2002 respectively.
V tej zadevi je Sodi�če prve stopnje v sodbah z dne 18. septembra 1995 oziroma 28. februarja 2002 za odločbi Komisije z dne 18. maja 1993 in 10. junija 1998 o razglasitvi pomoči CELF za združljivo s skupnim trgom ugotovilo ničnost.
Those judgments thus led to the retroactive disappearance of the decisions in question.
Ti sodbi sta tako pomenili retroaktivno odpravo zadevnih odločb.
Considering the answer indicated to Question one above, the third decision of the Commission of 20 April 2004, declaring the aid to CELF paid between 1980 and 2002 compatible with the common market,
Glede na naveden odgovor na zgornje vpra�anje odločba Komisije z dne 20. aprila 2004
26 — Case C-475/01 Commission v Greece [2004] ECR I-8923, paragraph 18 and the caselaw referred to therein.
26 – Sodba z dne 5. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji (C-475/01, ZOdl., str. I-8923, točka 18 in navedena sodna praksa).
27 — See Joined Cases C-442/03 P and C-471/03 P P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission [2006] ECR I-4845, paragraph 43 and the caselaw cited therein. 39.
27 – Glej sodbo z dne 1. junija 2006 v združenih zadevah P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) in Diputación Foral de Vizcaya proti Komisiji (C-442/03 P in C-471/03 P, ZOdl., str. I-4845, točka 43 in navedena sodna praksa). 39.
This question seems to have been prompted by the fact that the Commission on three occasions declared the aid in question compatible with the common market and that on two occasions, to date, the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission’s decisions.
Zdi se, da je to vpra�anje povzročilo dejstvo, da je Komisija trikrat razglasila, da je zadevna pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom in da je do danes Sodi�če prve stopnje dvakrat razglasilo ničnost odločb Komisije.
By its question, the referring court asks in effect whether such a situation might constitute an exceptional circumstance likely to preclude repayment of the unlawful aid for certain periods.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če pravzaprav spra�uje, ali lahko tak�en primer pomeni izjemno okoli�čino, ki bi lahko preprečila povračilo nezakonite pomoči za določena obdobja.
CLEF AND MINISTRE DE LA CULTURE ET DE LA COMMUNICATION does not have the effect of regularising those unlawful payments ex post facto and they must, in principle, be recovered by the Member State.
CELF IN MINISTRE DE LA CULTURE ET DE LA COMMUNICATION o razglasitvi pomoči, plačane CELF med letoma 1980 in 2002, za združljivo s skupnim trgom nima učinka v smislu naknadne zakonske ureditve teh nezakonitih plačil in jih morajo države članice načeloma izterjati.
by the Commission under Article 88 EC, undertakings to which aid has been granted may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in that article.
člena 88 ES, podjetja, ki so upravičena do pomoči, načeloma imela legitimno pričakovanje glede zakonitosti pomoči le, če so bile slednje dodeljene v skladu s postopkom iz tega člena.
A diligent businessman should normally be able to determine whether that procedure has been followed. 28
Vesten gospodarski subjekt mora biti navadno sposoben ugotoviti, ali je bil ta postopek spo�tovan. 28
The national court in this case must, however, prior to ordering recovery of the aid to CELF, examine whether CELF may entertain any legitimate expectations or whether there exist any special circumstances which would militate against repayment of the aid.
Vendar pa morajo nacionalna sodi�ča v tem primeru, preden odredijo vračilo pomoči, plačane CELF, preveriti, ali bi lahko CELF imel kakr�no koli legitimno pričakovanje oziroma ali obstajajo kakr�ne koli posebne okoli�čine, ki bi nasprotovale povračilu pomoči.
In this regard, a number of interveners have argued that, given that the Commission adopted, pursuant to its exclusive competence on the matter, a number of decisions declaring the aid to CELF compatible with the common market, the national court when calculating the amount to be recovered should not take into account the amounts paid during the period subsequent to a Commission decision declaring the aid compatible and the annulment of the decision by the Court of First Instance.
V tem pogledu je več intervenientov trdilo, da glede na to, da je Komisija na podlagi izključne pristojnosti na tem področju sprejela več odločb o razglasitvi pomoči CELF za združljivo s skupnim trgom, nacionalno sodi�če pri izračunu zneska, ki ga je treba izterjati, ne bi smelo upo�tevati zneskov, izplačanih v obdobju po odločbi Komisije o razglasitvi pomoči za združljivo in po tem, ko je Sodi�če prve stopnje razglasilo ničnost odločbe.
29 — ‘… judicial review by the Community Court of decisions concerning State aid cannot be regarded as an exceptional and unforeseeable event, forming as it does an integral and essential part of the system established by the Treaty for that purpose.
29 – „[…] sodni nadzor odločb o državnih pomočeh, ki ga izvajajo sodi�ča Skupnosti, ne more biti nekaj izjemnega in nepredvidljivega, glede na to, da je sestavni in bistveni del sistema, ki ga za ta namen ustanavlja Pogodba.
A diligent businessman should be well aware of the fact that a Commission decision to the effect that a State measure does not constitute State aid is, within the timelimit of two months referred to in Article 230 EC, liable to be challenged before the Community Court.’ Judgment cited in footnote 27; see point 153 of the Opinion.
Vesten gospodarski subjekt se mora dobro zavedati dejstva, da se lahko znotraj dvomesečnega roka iz člena 230 ES odločba Komisije z učinkom, da državni ukrep ni državna pomoč, izpodbija pred sodi�či Skupnosti.“ Sodba, navedena v opombi 27; glej točko 153 sklepnih predlogov.
I do not share that view.
Nisem tega mnenja.
As indicated above, in the normal course of events a Member State should, pursuant to Article 88(3) EC, notify any planned State aid and not put it into effect unless the Commission adopts a final decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market.
Kot je nakazano zgoraj, bi morala država članica ob normalnem poteku dogodkov na podlagi člena 88(3) ES priglasiti kakr�no koli načrtovano pomoč in je ne bi smela izvajati, razen če bi Komisija sprejela dokončno odločitev o razglasitvi pomoči za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
It is settled caselaw that due to the mandatory nature of the supervision of State aid
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da bi zaradi obveznosti nadzora nad državnimi pomočmi, ki ga izvaja Komisija na podlagi
In addition, as the Court of First Instance pointed out, to conclude otherwise would render ineffective the review conducted by the Community judicature of the legality of a Commission decision declaring State aid compatible.
Poleg tega, kot je poudarilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, če bi se zaključilo drugače, bi preizkus zakonitosti odločbe Komisije o razglasitvi državne pomoči za združljivo, ki ga izvaja sodi�če Skupnosti, postal neučinkovit.
31 The annulment of such a decision would ultimately become a pyrrhic victory, since the negative effects of the aid could not be remedied by recovery of aid.
31Razglasitev ničnosti tak�ne odločbe bi konec koncev postala Pirova zmaga, ker se negativni učinki pomoči ne bi mogli odpraviti z vračilom pomoči.
If a Commission decision declaring unlawful aid compatible with the common market were automatically to give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of the recipients of aid, competitors of those recipients or other third parties harmed by the Commission’s decision would have no interest in seeking its annulment.
Če bi odločba Komisije o razglasitvi nezakonite pomoči za združljivo s skupnim trgom samodejno povzročila legitimno pričakovanje na strani prejemnikov pomoči, konkurenti teh prejemnikov ali druge tretje stranke, o�kodovani z odločbo Komisije, ne bi imeli interesa zahtevati, da se razglasi njena ničnost.
In my view, in the context of the recovery by a Member State of unlawful aid and in the light of the caselaw of the Court, the term ‘final decision’ as referred to in Article 88(3)
Po mojem mnenju je treba izraz „dokončna odločitev“, kot se nanj sklicuje člen 88(3) ES, v okviru vračila nezakonite pomoči, ki ga zahteva država članica, in ob upo�tevanju sodne prakse Sodi�ča razumeti tako, da pomeni odločitev Komisije,