natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In so far as the applicable national law contains a rule that precludes the retrospective application of legislation unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication to the contrary, a national court hearing a claim based on an infringement of a provision of national legislation transposing Direct ive 1999/70 is required, under Community law, to give that provision retrospective effect to the date by which that directive should have been transposed only if that national legislation includes an indication of that nature capable of giving that provision retrospective effect.
V primeru, da je v veljavnem nacionalnem pravu pravilo, ki izključuje retroaktivno uporabo zakona, razen v primerih, ko je jasno in nedvoumno navedeno nasprotno, mora nacionalno sodišče, ki mu je bila predložena zahteva zaradi kršitve določbe nacionalnega zakona, s katerim je bila prenesena Direktiva 1999/70, na podlagi prava Skupnosti priznati navedeni določbi retroaktiven učinek od dne poteka roka za prenos te direktive le, če obstaja v nacionalnem pravu takšna navedba, s katero je tej določbi podeljen takšen retroaktiven učinek.
Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixedterm work must be interpreted as meaning that employment conditions within the meaning of that clause encompass conditions relating to pay and to pensions which depend on the employment relationship, to the exclusion of conditions relating to pensions arising under a statutory social-security scheme.
Določbo 4 okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas je treba razlagati tako, da pogoji zaposlitve v smislu te določbe zajemajo pogoje v zvezi s plačilom in pokojninami, ki izhajajo iz delovnega razmerja, z izjemo pogojev v zvezi s pokojninami iz zakonskega sistema socialne varnosti.
Case C-390/06
Zadeva C-390/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Tribunale ordinario di Roma)
(State aid — Aid scheme authorised for a specific period — Notification of the amended aid scheme for a new period — Transitional measures between the two schemes — Decision of the Commission not to raise objections — Information available to the Commission — Validity of the Commission’s decision — Equal treatment — Statement of reasons)
„Državne pomoči – Sheme pomoči, odobrene za določen čas – Priglasitev spremenjene sheme pomoči za novo obdobje – Ukrepi za prehod med zaporednima shemama pomoči – Odločba Komisije o nenasprotovanju – Podatki, ki jih je imela Komisija na voljo – Veljavnost odločbe Komisije – Enako obravnavanje – Obrazložitev“
Opinion of Advocate General Mazák delivered on 27 November 2007 . . . . .
Mazáka, predstavljeni 27. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary rulings — Assessment of validity — Question relating to the validity of a decision of the Commission considered by the national court to be the event occasioning loss — Admissibility
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Presoja veljavnosti – Vprašanje veljavnosti odločbe Komisije, za katero predložitveno sodišče meni, da povzroča škodo – Dopustnost
SUMMARY — CASE C-390/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-390/06
State aid — Examination by the Commission — Compatibility of the aid with the common market — Incompatibility of aid which infringes the general principles of Community law such as the principle of equal treatment
Pomoči, ki jih dodelijo države – Pregled Komisije – Združljivost pomoči s skupnim trgom – Nezdružljivost pomoči, ki krši splošna načela prava Skupnosti, kot je načelo enakega obravnavanja
(Art. 88 EC)
(člen 88 ES)
State aid — Planned aid — Examination by the Commission — Assessment of the validity of a Commission decision taken at the end of the preliminary investigation stage by reference to the information available at the time the decision was adopted
Pomoči, ki jih dodelijo države – Načrtovanje pomoči – Pregled Komisije – Presoja veljavnosti odločbe Komisije, sprejete ob koncu stopnje predhodne preučitve, glede na podatke, ki so bili na voljo ob sprejetju odločbe
State aid — Compatibility of the aid with the common market — Aid improving the financial situation of the recipient undertaking without being necessary for the attainment of the objectives laid down by Article 87(3) EC — Not compatible
Pomoči, ki jih dodelijo države – Združljivost pomoči s skupnim trgom – Pomoč za izboljšanje finančnega položaja upravičenega podjetja, ne da bi bila ta pomoč nujna za izpolnitev cilja iz člena 87(3) ES – Neobstoj
(Art. 87(3) EC)
(člen 87(3) ES)
(Art. 253 EC)
Akti institucij – Obrazložitev – Obveznost – Obseg (člen 253 ES)
State aid, certain of the conditions of which contravene the general principles of Community law, such as the principle of equal treatment, cannot be declared by the Commission to be compatible with the common market.
ki z nekaterimi podrobnimi pravili kr�i splo�na načela prava Skupnosti, na primer načelo enakega obravnavanja.
A question referred for a preliminary ruling which relates to a decision of the Commission is admissible where the national court takes the view that that decision is the event occasioning the loss suffered by an undertaking and is interposed between the substantive conduct objected to by that undertaking as against the national authorities and the occurrence of the damage which it claims to have suffered.
Vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki se nana�a na odločbo Komisije, je dopustno, ker predložitveno sodi�če meni, da ta odločba povzroča �kodo podjetju, saj se ume�ča med materialno ravnanje, ki ga ta družba očita nacionalni upravi, in nastanek �kode, ki jo zatrjuje.
The preliminary stage of the proce d- ure for reviewing aids under Article 88(3) EC, which is governed by Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation No 659/1999,
Edini cilj stopnje predhodne preučitve pomoči po členu 88(3) ES, ki jo urejata člena 4 in 5 Uredbe �t. 659/1999, je omogočiti Komisiji, da oblikuje prvo
NUOVA AGRICAST application for aid being submitted to the competent authorities. In such a case, the aid concerned cannot operate as an incentive.
NUOVA AGRICAST organom, kar izključuje možnost, da bi zadevna pomoč imela spodbujevalno vlogo.
is intended merely to allow the Commission to form a prima facie opinion on the partial or complete conformity of an aid measure or an aid scheme.
(Glej točki 68 in 69.) mnenje o delni ali popolni združljivosti pomoči ali sheme pomoči.
The validity of a Commission decision not to raise objections against an aid measure or an aid scheme cannot fall to be determined by reference to information which could not have been available to it on the conclusion of the preliminary investigation.
Veljavnosti odločbe Komisije o nenasprotovanju pomoči ali shemi pomoči ni mogoče presoditi glede na podatke, ki ji niso mogli biti na voljo ob koncu predhodne preučitve.
Were the position to be otherwise, the Commission would be encouraged systematically to initiate the investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC and to give the parties concerned notice to submit their comments, in order to prevent information which could not be available to it leading to the annulment of its decision to authorise the aid measure or the aid scheme in question.
V nasprotnem primeru bi morala Komisija sistematično začeti postopek na podlagi člena 88(2) ES in zadevne stranke pozvati, naj predložijo pripombe, da ne bi bila njena odločba o odobritvi navedene pomoči ali navedene sheme pomoči razgla�ena za nično zaradi podatkov, ki jih ni mogla imeti na voljo.
(see paras 57, 60)
(Glej točki 57 in 60.)
The obligation to state reasons laid down by Article 253 EC is in principle restricted to the reasons for which a given category of operators is to benefit from a given measure and does not mean that it is necessary to justify the exclusion of all other operators which are not in a comparable situation.
Obveznost obrazložitve iz člena 253 ES je načeloma omejena na razloge, zaradi katerih je določena skupina subjektov upravičena do določenega ukrepa, in ne pomeni, da je treba utemeljiti izvzetje vseh drugih subjektov, ki niso v primerljivem položaju.
Since the number of categories excluded from the benefit of a measure is potentially unlimited, the Community institutions cannot be under a duty to provide specific reasoning in relation to each of them.
Ker je �tevilo skupin, ki so izvzete iz ugodnosti ukrepa, potencialno neomejeno, se namreč od institucij Skupnosti ne more zahtevati, naj podajo posebno obrazložitev za vsako od njih.
None the less, where the beneficiaries of the measure, on the one hand, and other excluded operators, on the other, are in a comparable situation, the Community institution which is the author of the act is under a duty to explain in what way the difference in treatment thus introduced is objectively justified and to give specific reasons in that regard.
Nasprotno, kadar so upravičenci akta in drugi izključeni subjekti v primerljivem položaju, mora institucija Skupnosti, ki je akt izdala, v okviru posebne obrazložitve navesti, s čim je tako določeno različno obravnavanje objektivno utemeljeno.
State aid which improves the financial situation of the recipient undertaking without being necessary for the attainment of the objectives laid down by Article 87(3) EC cannot be considered compatible with the common market.
Državne pomoči za izbolj�anje finančnega položaja upravičenega podjetja, ne da bi bila ta pomoč nujna za izpolnitev cilja iz člena 87(3) ES, se ne more �teti za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
A finding that an aid measure is not necessary can arise in particular from the fact that the aid project has already been started, or even completed, by the undertaking concerned prior to the
Ugotovitev neobstoja nujnosti pomoči bi lahko izhajala predvsem iz dejstva, da je zainteresirano podjetje podprti projekt že začelo izvajati ali ga celo končalo, preden je pro�njo za pomoč predložilo pristojnim
(see paras 81, 82)
(Glej točki 81 in 82.)
MAZÁKdelivered on 27 November 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAJANA MAZÁKA, predstavljeni 27. novembra 2007 1
I — Relevant national legislation
I – Upoštevna nacionalna zakonodaja
The present request for a preliminary ruling concerns the validity of Commission Decision SG(2000)D/105754 of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the Treaty an aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy 2 (‘the contested decision’).
Ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na veljavnost odločbe Komisije SG(2000)D/105754 z dne 12. julija 2000, s katero je bil program pomoči za vlaganja na gospodarsko �ibkih območjih Italije razgla�en za združljivega s Pogodbo 2(v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana odločba).
A — Old aid scheme
A – Stari program pomoči
(‘the 1997 decision’), the Commission decided, with effect until 31 December 1999, not to raise any objections to the State aid scheme 5 based on Law No 488/92 and various provisions implementing that Law.
Komisija je z Odločbo z dne 21. maja 1997 4(v nadaljevanju: odločba iz leta 1997) odločila, da do 31. decembra 1999 ne bo nasprotovala programu državnih pomoči 5 na podlagi zakona �t. 488/92 in različnih določb za izvajanje tega zakona.
The reference was made in the course of an action for damages brought by the Italian company Nuova Agricast against the Italian State.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe je bil vložen v okviru od�kodninske tožbe, ki jo je vložila italijanska družba Nuova Agricast proti italijanski državi.
In essence, Nuova Agricast claims it has suffered damage by reason of the fact that it cannot be a beneficiary of a State aid scheme authorised by the Commission in the contested decision and seeks to establish the extent to which the Italian authorities may be held liable for this.
Družba Nuova Agricast zatrjuje, da je utrpela �kodo, ker ne more biti upravičenec do državnih pomoči, ki jih je Komisija odobrila v izpodbijani odločbi, in želi, da se določi obseg, v katerem lahko italijanski organi za to odgovarjajo.
5 — This means that after a preliminary examination of the scheme, the Commission considered that there was no reason to object to the aid scheme which was notified by the Member State.
5 – To pomeni, da je Komisija po predhodni preučitvi programa pomoči ugotovila, da ni bilo razloga za nasprotovanje programu pomoči, ki ga je priglasila država članica.
The aid scheme authorised by the 1997 decision (‘the old aid scheme’) consisted of the following main features:
Program pomoči, ki je bil odobren z odločbo iz leta 1997 (v nadaljevanju: stari program državnih pomoči), je imel te glavne značilnosti: d) Izdatki, ki jih je mogoče uveljavljati, so bili izdatki, ki so nastali od dne, ki sledi končnemu roku za oddajo zahtevka na razpis, ki je bil objavljen pred razpisom, na katerega se nana�a zahtevek.
(a) The financial resources of each year were divided in two equal parts and allocated through two invitations to apply.
6 a) Vsakoletni finančni viri so bili razdeljeni na dva enaka dela in razporejeni na podlagi dveh razpisov za dodelitev.
On the basis of the funds available in the year to which the resources related, the rules for the distribution of funds could be modified by Ministerial decree, in particular by allowing the funds in question to be allocated through a single invitation to apply.
Glede na sredstva, ki so na voljo v letu, na katero se nana�ajo viri, je bilo mogoče pravila za razdelitev sredstev spremeniti z ministrskim dekretom, zlasti tako, da se je dovolila razporeditev zadevnih sredstev z enim razpisom za dodelitev.
(b) The applications submitted under an invitation to apply were examined by competent credit institutions, which attributed marks based on regulatory criteria (in Italian ‘indicatori’, hereinafter ‘indicators’).
b) Pristojne kreditne institucije so zahtevke, vložene na podlagi razpisa za dodelitev, pregledale in jih ocenile na podlagi zakonskih meril (v italijan�čini indictori, v nadaljevanju: merila).
(e) Undertakings whose applications were placed on a regional list but which could not benefit from the support measures because the available funds fell short of the amount required to cover all the measures requested could either resubmit the same project, once only, in the first appropriate invitation thereafter, without amending the relevant assessment indicators (known as ‘automatic inclusion’), or waive ‘automatic inclusion’ and resubmit the same project but with amendments to some of the assessment indicators, in order to make the application more competitive, joining the list of the next ‘appropriate invitation’ 7(known as ‘revision’ of the application).
e) Podjetja, katerih zahtevki so bili na regionalnem seznamu, vendar niso mogla prejeti pomoči, ker je zmanjkalo razpoložljivih sredstev za zneske, ki so bili potrebni za pokritje vseh zahtevanih ukrepov, so lahko samo enkrat ponovno prijavila isti projekt, in sicer v prvem naslednjem ustreznem razpisu, ne da bi spremenila ustrezna merila ocenjevanja („avtomatična vključitev“) ali se odpovedala „avtomatični vključitvi“ in ponovno predložila isti projekt, vendar s spremembami določenih meril ocenjevanja, da bi bil zahtevek konkurenčnej�i, in se s tem vključila na seznam naslednjega „ustreznega razpisa“ 7(„revizija“ zahtevka).
In both cases, the conditions laid down for the original applications were maintained as valid for the purposes of the eligibility of the expenditure, which meant that the support measures were also to be allocated in respect of expenditure incurred as from the date of the first application.
V obeh primerih so pogoji, določeni za prvi zahtevek, �e naprej veljali za izdatke, ki bi jih bilo mogoče uveljaviti, kar je pomenilo, da bi morala biti pomoč razporejena glede na izdatke, ki so nastali od datuma vložitve prvega zahtevka.
6 — Except for expenditure on engineering plans and studies and on the purchase and organisation of company land, which was eligible from 12 months preceding the date on which the application was submitted.
6 – Razen izdatkov za inženirske načrte in �tudije ter izdatkov za nakup in ureditev zemlji�ča podjetja, ki so bili upravičeni 12 mesecev pred datumom, ko je bila predložena ponudba.
7 — An ‘appropriate’ invitation is an invitation relating to support measures in the same economic sector.
7 – „Ustrezni“ razpis je razpis v zvezi s pomočmi v istem gospodarskem sektorju.
(c) Thereafter, the competent Ministry established regional rankings of the applications on the basis of marks obtained pursuant to this examination and adopted a decree on the allocation of the aid to the applicants in descending order, starting with the first, until the funds available for each list were exhausted.
c) Pristojno ministrstvo je nato uvedlo regionalno razvr�čanje zahtevkov na podlagi ocen, pridobljenih pri tem pregledu, in sprejelo dekret o razporeditvi pomoči vlagateljem v padajočem vrstnem redu, začen�i s prvim, dokler niso bila sredstva, ki so bila na voljo za vsak seznam, izčrpana.
B — New aid scheme introduced on the occasion of the last invitation organised on the basis of the preceding scheme and approved by the Commission up to 31 December 1999, which were considered eligible for aid but were not cleared because insufficient financial resources were allocated to that invitation, will exceptionally be eligible.’
B – Novi program pomoči ki so bili vloženi ob zadnjem razpisu, izvedenem na podlagi prej�njega programa, ki ga je Komisija odobrila do 31. decembra 1999, za katere naj bi se pomoč dodelila, vendar zaradi omejenosti finančnih virov pomoč ni bila dodeljena, pomoč lahko dodeljena izjemoma.“
On 18 November 1999, the Italian authorities notified to the Commission 8 a State aid scheme adopted by the Italian authorities pursuant to Law No 488/92.
Italijanski organi so 18. novembra 1999 Komisiji 8 priglasili program državne pomoč, ki so ga italijanski organi sprejeli v skladu z zakonom �t. 488.
The scheme was in fact a modified extension of the old aid scheme from 1 January 2000.
Program je bil v bistvu spremenjena raz�iritev starega programa pomoči z dne 1. januarja 2000.
Following alterations to the scheme by the Italian authorities, on 12 July 2000 the Commission issued the contested decision, in which it stated that it did not intend to raise any objections to the notified scheme with effect until 31 December 2006.
V Italiji je Ministero dell’Industria, Commercio e d’Artigianato (ministrstvo za industrijo, trgovino in obrt, v nadaljevanju:
In Italy, the contested decision was followed by the adoption of the Decree of 14 July 2000 9 by the Ministero dell’Industria, Commercio e d’Artigianato (the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Crafts) (‘the MICA’) and of Circular No 900315 of 14 July 2000, 10which laid down the modalities of implementation of the aid scheme authorised by the contested decision (‘the new aid scheme’).
MICA) na podlagi izpodbijane odločbe sprejelo dekret z dne 14. julija 2000 9 in okrožnico �t. 900315 z dne 14. julija 2000 10, ki sta dolo- čala pravila za izvajanje programa pomoči, ki je bil odobren z izpodbijano odločbo (v nadaljevanju: novi program pomoči).
The contested decision contains a transitional provision which states:
Izpodbijana odločba vsebuje prehodno določbo, v kateri je navedeno:
These national rules provide that support measures could be granted on the basis ‘of the expenditure held to be eligible in the context of programmes relating to the last appropriate invitation to apply for support measures, which had been examined and approved but had not been supported because the necessary financial resources were not available’.
Ta nacionalna pravila določajo, da je pomoč mogoče odobriti na podlagi „izdatkov, za katere naj bi se pomoč dodelila v okviru programov, ki so se nana�ali na zadnji ustrezen razpis za dodelitev pomoči, ki so bili pregledani in odobreni, vendar zanje pomoč ni bila dodeljena, ker ni bilo finančnih sredstev“.
‘Only on the occasion of the first implementation of the scheme in question, that is to say on the occasion of the first invitation to apply for support measures to be organised on the basis of the scheme in question, it being understood that applications for aid must in any case be introduced before work is started on the investment project, applications
„Le ob prvi izvedbi zadevnega programa, torej v primeru prvega razpisa za dodelitev pomoči, ki se opravi na podlagi zadevnega programa, pri čemer morajo biti zahtevki za dodelitev pomoči v vsakem primeru vloženi, preden se začnejo dela na investicijskem projektu, bo na podlagi zahtevkov,
II — Factual background
II – Dejansko stanje
The new aid scheme, authorised by the contested decision, did not maintain as valid, for the purposes of determining the expenditure that was eligible, the conditions which were applicable to Nuova Agricast’s initial application.
V novem programu pomoči, ki je bil odobren v izpodbijani odločbi, pogoji za določitev upravičenih izdatkov, ki so veljali za prvi zahtevek družbe Nuova Agricast, niso ostali v veljavi.
Its revised application was rejected and thus not listed in the relevant regional list.
Njen spremenjeni zahtevek je bil zavrnjen in se tako ni uvrstil na zadevni regionalni seznam.
Under the old aid scheme, Nuova Agricast submitted an application for State aid in response to the third appropriate invitation, which concerned the first semester of 1998.
Družba Nuova Agricast je na podlagi starega programa pomoči vložila zahtevek za državno pomoč na tretji ustrezni razpis, ki se je nana�al na prvo polletje leta 1998.
Its application was included in the regional list for the region of Apulia, approved by decree of the MICA on 14 August 1998.
Njen zahtevek je bil vključen na regionalni seznam dežele Apulija, ki je bil 14. avgusta 1998 potrjen z dekretom MICA.
III — Proceedings before the national court and the question referred
III – Postopki pred nacionalnim sodiščem in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
Given its ranking in the regional list and the insufficiency of available funds, it did not receive the funds it had applied for.
Glede na razvrstitev na regionalnem seznamu in nezadostnost razpoložljivih sredstev ji zahtevana sredstva niso bila dodeljena.
Nuova Agricast brought an action before the Tribunale ordinario (District Court) di Roma (Italy) against the competent Italian Ministry (the Ministero delle Attività Produttive, which has taken over the powers of the MICA) for damages allegedly suffered by it as a consequence of the non-payment of the State aid that it had applied for.
Družba Nuova Agricast je pri Tribunale ordinario di Roma (okrožno sodi�če v Rimu, Italija) vložila tožbo proti pristojnemu italijanskemu ministrstvu (Ministero delle Attività Produttive, ki je prevzel pooblastila MICA) zaradi �kode, ki naj bi jo utrpela, ker ji ni bila izplačana zahtevana državna pomoč.
A fourth invitation, concerning the second semester of 1998, was published.
Objavljen je bil četrti razpis, ki se je nana�al na drugo polletje leta 1998.
Nuova Agricast decided not to use its right to automatic inclusion of its application for that invitation but to wait for the next appropriate invitation in order to submit its application in a revised form.
Družba Nuova Agricast se je odločila, da pri tem razpisu ne bo uveljavljala pravice do avtomatične vključitve svojega zahtevka, ampak bo počakala na naslednji ustrezni razpis, da bi vložila spremenjeni zahtevek.
No such invitation was published before 31 December 1999, the date on which the Commission’s approval of the old aid scheme expired.
Pred 31. decembrom 1999, dnem, ko je prenehala veljati odobritev starega programa pomoči od Komisije, tak razpis ni bil objavljen.
The next appropriate invitation, in response to which Nuova Agricast could finally submit its revised application, was published only on 14 July 2000, when the new aid scheme had already entered into force.
Naslednji ustrezni razpis, na katerega je družba Nuova Agricast končno lahko vložila svoj spremenjeni zahtevek, je bil objavljen 14. julija 2000, ko je že začel veljati novi program pomoči.
extraordinary exception applied only to those requests which had been submitted under the fourth and last invitation under the old aid scheme.
Začasna in izredna izjema velja le za zahtevke, ki so bili vloženi na podlagi četrtega in zadnjega razpisa v okviru starega programa pomoči.