natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Then, if the Commission decides that the measure forming the subjectmatter of the complaint does not constitute aid, it is required to provide an adequate explanation of the reasons for which the facts and points of law put forward in the complaint have failed to demonstrate the existence of State aid.
Dalje, če Komisija odloči, da ukrep, naveden v pritožbi, ni pomoč, mora zadostno obrazložiti, zakaj dejanski in pravni elementi, navedeni v pritožbi, niso zadostovali za dokaz obstoja take pomoči 15.
15The same requirement to state reasons should logically be imposed
Logično bi morala veljati ista zahteva za obrazložitev,
Where a complaint has been made to the Commission, the Community judicature, in
Kadar je Komisija prejela pritožbo, je sodna praksa v zvezi s tem sklepala na obrav-
12 — Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 62.13 — Ibid.
12 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France, točka 62.
10 — See, to that effect, Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479, paragraph 72.
10 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 22. junija 2006 v združenih zadevah Belgija in Forum 187 proti Komisiji (C-182/03 in C-217/03, ZOdl., str. I-5479, točka 72).
11 — Case 6/64 Costa [1964] ECR 585, 596, and Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission, paragraphs 73 and 74.
1141, 1162) in zgoraj navedena sodba Belgija in Forum 187 proti Komisiji, točki 73 in 74.
15 — Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 64.
15 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France, točka 64.
The complainant’s rights if the Commission finds that the measure complained of constitutes aid compatible with the common market.
Pravice pritožnika če bi Komisija odločila, da je sporni ukrep pomoč, ki je združljiva s skupnim trgom.
The caselaw relating to complainants’ rights in the context of the proced- ure for monitoring State aid is founded on the premiss that decisions adopted by the Commission in that context are addressed to the Member States concerned, including where those decisions are given following complaints alleging that a measure is State aid contrary to the Treaty. 19
Sodna praksa na področju pravic pritožnikov v okviru postopka nadzora državnih pomoči temelji na predpostavki, da so naslovniki odločb, ki jih sprejme Komisija v tem okviru, države članice, in to tudi če so te odločbe sprejete na podlagi pritožbe, v kateri je ukrep opredeljen kot pomoč, ki je v nasprotju s Pogodbo. 19
Moreover, if, after the preliminary examination stage, the Commission concludes that the measure complained of constitutes aid incompatible with the common market or if it experiences serious difficulties in taking a view on whether that aid is compatible with the common market, it is required to initiate the formal investigation procedure, as is the case where the measure in question is notified to the Commission by the Member State concerned. 16
Poleg tega, če je bila Komisija v fazi predhodne preiskave prepričana, da je sporni ukrep pomoč, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom, ali če je imela resne težave pri odločanju o združljivosti te pomoči z navedenim trgom, mora začeti formalni postopek preiskave, kot na primer, če ji zadevni ukrep priglasi zadevna država članica. 16
It must also be noted that, under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, a natural or legal person may institute proceedings against a decision addressed to another person only if that decision is of direct and individual concern to him.
Prav tako je treba opozoriti, da v skladu s členom 230, četrti odstavek, ES fizične ali pravne osebe lahko sprožijo postopek zoper odločbe, ki so naslovljene na drugo osebo, le če jih te odločbe neposredno in posamično zadevajo.
From the point of view of time, the Court of First Instance has also inferred from the Commission’s exclusive competence and from the prohibition in principle of State aid that that institution, when it receives a complaint, cannot prolong indefinitely its preliminary examination into the State aid complained of therein.
S časovnega vidika je Sodi�če prve stopnje prav tako na podlagi izključne pristojnosti Komisije in načelne prepovedi državnih pomoči sklepalo, da ta institucija, ko prejme pritožbo, ne more neomejeno podalj�evati predhodnega preizkusa državnih ukrepov, ki so sporni v pritožbi.
According to the Court of First Instance, the Commission is required to complete that preliminary examination within a reasonable period. 17
Sodi�če prve stopnje meni, da mora ta predhodni preizkus izvesti v razumnem roku. 17
The rights of complainants in the context of the procedure for monitoring State aid, as they are set out in the caselaw, depend, first, on whether those complainants have the status of ‘parties concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC and, secondly, on the subjectmatter of the action brought by them.
Pravice pritožnikov v okviru postopka nadzora državnih pomoči, kot jih je določila sodna praksa, so, na eni strani, odvisne od vpra�anja, ali so ti pritožniki „zadevne stranke“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES, in, na drugi strani, od predmeta njihove tožbe.
Whether or not that period is reasonable must be determined in relation to the par -ticular circumstances of each case, in par -ticular to the context and complexity of the case and the various procedural stages. 18
Razumnost tega roka je treba presojati glede na okoli�čine vsake zadeve, zlasti glede na njen okvir in zapletenost ter različne faze postopka. 18
First, the concept of ‘parties concerned’ within the meaning of that provision has been broadly defined as covering the persons,
Najprej, pojem „zadevne stranke“ v smislu te določbe je bil opredeljen �iroko in se je nana�al na osebe, podjetja ali
16 — Ibid., paragraph 39.
16 – Prav tam, točka 39.
18 — Ibid.
II-1343, točka 61).
19 — Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 45.
19 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France, točka 45.
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI v COMMISSION
ATHINAÏKI TECHNIKI PROTI KOMISIJI
However, the Court has stated that the subjectmatter of such an action must be limited to safeguarding the procedural rights referred to in that provision, that is to say that it must call in question the failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Vendar je Sodi�če pojasnilo, da je predmet te tožbe lahko le varstvo procesnih pravic iz te določbe, to pomeni, da je treba izpodbijati neobstoj začetka formalnega postopka preiskave 23.
23 undertakings or associations of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the grant of the aid, in particular competing undertakings and trade associations.
podjetni�ka združenja, na katerih interese bi lahko vplivala dodelitev pomoči, torej zlasti konkurenčna podjetja upravičencev do te pomoči in poklicna združenja 20.
20 That definition was reproduced in Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999.
Ta oprede -litev je bila povzeta v členu 1(h) Uredbe �t. 659/1999.
It follows that any undertaking invoking the existence of a competitive relationship, albeit potential, may be regarded as having the status of ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC.
Iz tega izhaja, da je lahko vsako podjetje s sklicevanjem na konkurenčno razmerje, celo morebitno, „zadevna stranka“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES.
It follows that if the complainant has the status of ‘party concerned’, within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, he may be regarded as directly and individually concerned by the contested decision, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, in so far as he is challenging the failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Iz tega izhaja, da je mogoče na podlagi opredelitve pritožnika kot „zadevno stranko“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES ugotoviti, da ga izpodbijana odločba neposredno in posamično zadeva v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES, če izpodbija neobstoj začetka formalnega postopka preiskave.
However, if a complainant calls in question the merits of the decision appraising the aid as such or if he challenges a decision adopted following the formal investigation procedure, he is in the same situation as any private individual seeking to challenge a decision which is not addressed to him.
Po drugi strani, če pritožnik izpodbija utemeljenost odločbe o presoji pomoči kot take ali če izpodbija odločbo, sprejeto na koncu formalnega postopka preiskave, je v istem položaju kot vsak posameznik, ki namerava izpodbijati odločbo, ki ni naslovljena nanj.
The admissibility of his action is therefore subject to the requirement that he show that he is affected by that decision within the meaning of the caselaw developed since the judgment in Plaumann v Commission, 24that is to say that that decision affects him by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to him
Dopustnost njegove tožbe je torej pogojena s tem, da dokaže, da ga navedena odločba zadeva v smislu sodne prakse, uveljavljene od sodbe v zadevi Plaumann proti Komisiji 24, in sicer da ta odločba vpliva nanj zaradi določenih, njemu lastnih značil-
21 — Ibid., paragraph 34 and caselaw cited.
21 – Prav tam, točka 34, in navedena sodna praksa.
24 — Case 25/62 [1963] ECR 95.
24 – Sodba z dne 15. julija 1963 (25/62, Recueil, str. 197).
25 the latter failed to adopt a decision following its complaint. 28
ta ni sprejela odločbe na podlagi njegove pritožbe. 28
The Court of First Instance dismissed the Commission’s argument that Air One should have shown that its competitive pos -ition would be substantially affected by the measure referred to in its complaint.
Sodi�če prve stopnje ni upo�tevalo trditve Komisije, da bi morala družba Air One dokazati, da naj bi bil njen konkurenčni položaj bistveno prizadet z ukrepom, na katerega se nana�a njena pritožba.
The Court has acknowledged that that may be so, in particular, where the complainant’s market position is substantially affected by the aid to which the decision at issue relates.
Sodna praksa je potrdila da bi lahko �lo za tak primer, če je položaj pritožnika na trgu bistveno prizadela pomoč, ki je predmet zadevne odločbe.
26 The fact that a person is a potential competitor and has the status of ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC is therefore not sufficient to confer on him the right to bring an action before the Community judicature to challenge the merits of the decision appraising the aid as such. 27
26Dejstvo, da je nekdo morebitni konkurent in je „zadevna stranka“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES, torej ne zadostuje za priznanje pravice za vložitev tožbe pri sodi�ču Skupnosti za izpodbijanje utemeljenosti odločbe o presoji državne pomoči kot take. 27
Finally, in its judgment in Air One v Commission, the Court of First Instance extended the rights of a complainant who is a ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC to an action based on Article 232 EC, in declaring admissible an action for failure to act brought by that complainant against the Commission where
Nazadnje, Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Air One proti Komisiji raz�irilo pravice pritožnika kot „zadevne stranke“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES na tožbo na podlagi člena 232 ES, ko je razsodilo, da je dopustna tožba zaradi nedelovanja, ki jo je ta pritožnik vložil proti Komisiji, ker
The Court of First Instance inferred that the proceedings for failure to act instituted by Air One were admissible from the fact that the latter, as a competitor of the beneficiary of the alleged aid on the air routes to certain Italian towns, has the status of ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC and is thus entitled to challenge a decision taken by the Commission without initiating the formal investigation procedure, in order to safeguard its pro -cedural rights. 29
Dopustnost tožbe zaradi nedelovanja, ki jo je vložila družba Air One, je Sodi�če prve stopnje utemeljilo z dejstvom, da ima ta družba, kot konkurent upravičenca do spornih pomoči na letalskih progah v nekatera italijanska mesta, lastnosti „zadevne stranke“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES in naj bi bila zato upravičena izpodbijati odločbo, ki jo je sprejela Komisija brez začetka formalnega postopka preiskave, zato da bi bile zavarovane njene procesne pravice 29.
25 — Ibid., p. 223. See, also, Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, paragraph 37 and caselaw cited.
25 – Prav tam, str. 223.
In points 104 to 112 of my Opinion in Joined Cases C-75/05 P and C-80/05 P Germany and Others v Kronofrance, pending before the Court, I expressed my disagreement with that restriction on the right of action of the parties concerned.
V točkah od 104 do 112 sklepnih predlogov v združenih zadevah Nemčija in drugi proti Kronofrance, C-75/05 P in C-80/05 P, ki se trenutno obravnavata pred Sodi�čem, se nisem strinjal s to omejitvijo pravice do tožbe zainteresiranih strank.
That restriction has the effect of making the defence of procedural rights an end in itself whereas it should, in my view, be merely the key affording access to the Community judicature in order to review the compatibility of the contested measure with the rules of the Treaty concerning State aid.
Navedena omejitev je privedla do tega, da je obramba procesnih pravic sama sebi namen, medtem ko bi po mojem mnenju morala biti le ključ za dostop do sodi�ča Skupnosti za nadzor združljivosti inkriminiranega ukrepa z določbami Pogodbe na področju državnih pomoči.
28 — Air One SpA (‘Air One’), an airline company operating scheduled flights between Italian towns, submitted, by letter of 22 December 2003, a complaint to the Commission alleging unlawful aid granted by the Italian authorities to the air carrier Ryanair.
28 – Air One SpA (v nadaljevanju: Air One), letalski prevoznik, ki opravlja redne polete med italijanskimi mesti, je Komisiji z dopisom z dne 22. decembra 2003 posredoval pritožbo o pomočeh, ki naj bi jih italijanske oblasti nezakonito dodelile letalskemu prevozniku Ryanair.
Following an exchange of correspondence, Air One formally called upon the Commission to define its position with regard to its complaint in June 2004.
Po izmenjavi dopisov je Air One junija 2004 Komisijo uradno pozval, naj sprejme stali�če o njegovi pritožbi.
On 5 October 2004, it brought an action for failure to act.
Air One je 5. oktobra 2004 vložil tožbo zaradi nedelovanja.
27 — See, for a recent application, Case C-260/05 P Sniace v Commission [2007] ECR I-10005, paragraphs 53 and 54.
29 – Zgoraj navedena točki 30 in 34.
29 — Air One v Commission, paragraphs 30 and 34.
27 – Za nedavno uporabo glej sodbo z dne 22. novembra 2007 v zadevi Sniace proti Komisiji (C-260/05 P, ZOdl., str. I-10005, točki 53 in 54).
II — The facts giving rise to the dispute
II – Dejansko stanje
[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 that proced- ure has been carried out transparently and without discrimination.
Dejansko stanje spora je v izpodbijanem sklepu predstavljeno tako: na njegovo 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 jo je ta GD obvestil, da o tej zadevi ne bo odločal, dokler ne bo GD ‚Notranji trg‘ opravil preizkusa postopka oddaje zadevnega javnega naročila.
In October 2001, the Greek authorities initiated a procedure for the award of a public contract with a view to disposing of 49% of the capital of the Casino Mont Parnès.
„1 Helenski organi so oktobra 2001 začeli postopek oddaje javnega naročila za prenos 49 % kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès.
There were two competing applicants, namely the Casino Attikis consortium and the Hyatt consortium.
Konkurirala sta dva ponudnika, in sicer konzorcij Casino Attikis in Hyatt Consortium.
Following an allegedly invalid procedure, the contract was awarded to the Hyatt consortium.
Na podlagi domnevno nepravilnega postopka je bilo javno naročilo oddano Hyatt Consortium.
By electronic mail 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 ser -vices of the DG for “Competition” reiterated the wording of the letter of 15 July 2003 but nonetheless invited [Athinaïki Techniki] to provide them with additional information concerning any other aid which was not connected with the tendering of 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.
A member of the Casino Attikis consortium, Egnatia SA, which, following a merger, was succeeded by [Athinaïki Techniki] lodged complaints, respect -ively, with the Commission’s Directorate General (DG) for the “Internal Market” and DG for “Competition”.
Član konzorcija Casino Attikis, Egnatia SA, ki ga je po združitvi nasledil [Athinaïki Techniki], je vložil pritožbe pri službah generalnega direktorata (GD) ‚Notranji trg‘ in GD ‚Konkurenca‘ Komisije.
The former was called upon to take a view on the lawfulness of the contested procedure in the light of Community law on public contracts, 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, naj odloči o pravilnosti spornega postopka 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
GD ‚Konkurenca‘ je z dopisom z dne 15. julija 2003 opozoril [Athinaïki Techniki]
By letters of 22 January and 4 August 2004, the services of the DG for the “Internal Market” informed [Athinaïki Techniki] that they did not intend to continue the examination of the two complaints which had been addressed to them.
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.
7 to provide an adequate statement of reasons in the context of each of those pleas.
7 je prav tako sklicevala na neobstoj obrazložitve v okviru obeh tožbenih razlogov.
By letter of 2 December 2004 …, the DG for “Competition” informed [Athinaïki Techniki] that, by letter of 16 September 2003, the Commission had informed it that, “on the basis of the information in its possession, there [were] insufficient grounds for continuing to examine that case”.
GD ‚Konkurenca‘ je z dopisom z dne 2. decembra 2004 […] [Athinaïki Techniki] obvestil, da jo je Komisija z dopisom z dne 16. septembra 2003 obvestila, da ‚na podlagi podatkov, ki jih [je] im[ela], ni [bilo] zadostnih razlogov za nadaljevanje preiskave v tej zadevi‘.
The letter [of 2 December 2004] also stated that, “in the absence of additional information to justify continuing the investigation, the Commission [had], for the purposes of further administrative action, closed the file on the case on 2 June 2004”.’
V dopisu [z dne 2. decembra 2004] je prav tako pojasnil, da ‚je Komisija zato, ker ni imela dodatnih podatkov, ki bi upravičili izvedbo preiskave, 2. junija 2004 ustavila upravni postopek.‘“
By letter of 1 March 2005, the Registrar of the Court of First Instance informed Athinaïki Techniki that he had noted that the version of the application sent by fax on 11 February 2005 was not a completely identical copy of the signed original lodged on 18 February 2005 and that the date to be taken into consideration as that on which that document was lodged was, accordingly, that on which the original was delivered.
Sodni tajnik Sodi�ča prve stopnje je z dopisom z dne 1. marca 2005 Athinaïki Techniki obvestil, da je ugotovil, da različica tožbe, poslane po telefaksu 11. februarja 2005, ni bila popolnoma enak prepis podpisanega izvirnika, vloženega 18. februarja 2005, in da je zato datum, ki ga je treba upo�tevati za vložitev tega dokumenta, datum vložitve tega izvirnika.
III — The action before the Court of First Instance and the contested order
III – Tožba pri Sodišču prve stopnje in izpodbijani sklep
By letter of 16 March 2005, Athinaïki Techniki’s representative explained to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance that when the application was sent by fax the last page of it had been damaged and he had therefore had to replace it but had not altered its content.
Zastopnik Athinaïki Techniki je v dopisu z dne 16. marca 2005 sodnemu tajniku Sodi�ča prve stopnje pojasnil, da je bila pri po�iljanju tožbe po telefaksu zadnja stran po�kodovana, tako da jo je moral nadomestiti, pri čemer ni spreminjal njene vsebine.
On 11 February 2005, Athinaïki Techniki sent the Registry of the Court of First Instance a copy of the application by fax.
Athinaïki Techniki je v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prve stopnje 11. februarja 2005 po telefaksu poslala prepis tožbe.
On 18 February 2005, the signed original of the application was lodged with that Registry.
Podpisan izvirnik tožbe je bil v navedenem sodnem tajni�tvu vložen 18. februarja 2005.
By separate document registered at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 21 April 2005, the Commission, pursuant to Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, raised an objection of inadmissibility.
Komisija je z ločenim aktom, vpisanim v sodnem tajni�tvu 21. aprila 2005, na podlagi člena 114(1) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje vložila ugovor nedopustnosti.
By order of 8 September 2005, the Court of First Instance granted the application of Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon 30 for leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the Commission.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je s sklepom z dne 8. septembra 2005 sprejelo predlog za intervencijo Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon 30 v podporo predlogom Komisije.
In that application initiating proceedings, Athinaïki Techniki applied for the annulment of the Commission’s decision to close the file on its complaint and for the Commission to be ordered to bear the costs.
Athinaïki Techniki je v tej tožbi predlagala razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije o ustavitvi postopka s pritožbo in naložitev stro�kov Komisiji.
In support of its application, it relied on two pleas in law alleging infringement, first, of the Commission’s obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure and, secondly, of the provisions of Article 87(1) EC.
V utemeljitev tožbe je navajala dva tožbena razloga v zvezi s kr�itvijo, prvič, obveznosti Komisije, da začne formalni postopek preiskave, in, drugič, določb člena 87(1) ES.
Athinaïki Techniki also relied on a failure
Athinaïki Techniki se
The Court of First Instance then held that:
Nato je Sodi�če prve stopnje razsodilo:
In support of its objection of inadmissibility, the Commission put forward two pleas, alleging, first, the late lodgment of the application and, secondly, the nonactionable nature of the letter of 2 December 2004 and the non-existence of a decision.
Komisija je v utemeljitev svojega ugovora nedopustnosti navedla dva razloga, ki sta se nana�ala na prepozno vložitev tožbe in na neizpodbojnost dopisa z dne 2. decembra 2004 ter neobstoj odločbe.
The Court of First Instance, in the contested order, examined only the second plea.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v izpodbijanem sklepu preučilo le drugi razlog.