natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By its second question, the referring court essentially asks whether Community law imposes a limit in time for making an application for review of an administrative decision that has become final.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali pravo Skupnosti določa časovno omejitev za vložitev predloga za ponovno preučitev pravnomočne upravne odločbe.
Kempter notes first of all that Community law does not contain any specific provision relating to a timelimit or limitation period for an application for review.
Družba Kempter najprej poudarja, da pravo Skupnosti ne vsebuje nobene posebne določbe o prekluzivnem ali zastaralnem roku predloga za ponovno preučitev.
It adds that, in accordance with Kühne & Heitz, the person concerned can assert his right to review of the administrative decision that has become final only in so far as a national provision so permits. Therefore, in order to decide whether or not this right is subject to a time-limit, the national provisions concerning limitation should be referred to. I - 463
Dodaja tudi, da lahko stranka v skladu z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Kühne & Heitz pravico do ponovne preučitve pravnomočne upravne odločbe uveljavlja, samo če to dovoljuje nacionalna določba. Pri odločanju, ali je ta pravica časovno omejena, je torej treba upo�tevati nacionalne določbe o zastaranju. I - 463
Kempter also submits that, if Community provisions governing timelimits or limitation periods were to be applied by analogy, its application should still not be regarded as out of time, in view of the fact that it was lodged less than three years after the date of the Advocate General’s Opinion in Emsland-Stärke, that is to say the time from which a change in the German courts’ settled caselaw could have been envisaged.
Družba Kempter prav tako trdi, da če bi po analogiji uporabili določbe Skupnosti, ki urejajo prekluzivni ali zastaralni rok, se za njen predlog ne bi smelo �teti, da je bil vložen prepozno, glede na to, da je bil vložen manj kot tri leta po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Emsland-Stärke, kar je bil trenutek, ko je bilo mogoče pričakovati preobrat v ustaljeni sodni praksi nem�kih sodi�č.
In the case of the fourth condition established by the Court in Kühne & Heitz, the Czech and Finnish Governments agree with the view expressed by the referring court that the timelimit which the Court thereby created for applying for review of an administrative decision that has become final should be linked to positive awareness of the caselaw on the part of the person concerned. 51
V zvezi s četrtim pogojem, ki ga je Sodi�če določilo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Kühne & Heitz, se če�ka in finska vlada strinjata z mnenjem predložitvenega sodi�ča, da bi moral biti rok, ki ga je Sodi�če tako določilo za vložitev predloga za ponovno preučitev pravnomočne upravne odločbe, povezan z dejansko seznanitvijo stranke z navedeno sodno prakso. 51
They further submit that Community law does not prevent the right to apply for review of an unlawful administrative decision from being limited in time.
Poleg tega menita, da pravo Skupnosti ne nasprotuje temu, da je pravica do vložitve predloga za ponovno preučitev nezakonite upravne odločbe časovno omejena.
National procedural rules may thus legitimately provide that this type of application must be made within a specific period, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed.
Nacionalna postopkovna pravila bi torej lahko utemeljeno določala, da je tak predlog treba vložiti v posebnih rokih, če sta spo�tovani načeli enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti.
According to the Commission, the second question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns only the interval between delivery of the Court’s judgment causing the administrative decision to be unlawful and the application submitted by Kempter for review and withdrawal of that decision.
Po mnenju Komisije se drugo vpra�anje nana�a le na čas med izrekom sodbe Sodi�ča, iz katere izhaja, da upravna odločba ni zakonita, ter predlogom za ponovno preučitev in odpravo navedene odločbe, ki ga je vložila družba Kempter.
In addition, the Commission states that the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States precludes the setting of a timelimit at Community level.
Komisija poleg tega navaja, da načelo postopkovne avtonomije držav članic nasprotuje določitvi roka na ravni Skupnosti.
It suggests that, for reasons of legal certainty, the fourth condition established by Kühne & Heitz I - 464
Zaradi razlogov pravne varnosti predlaga, naj se četrti pogoj iz navedene sodbe Kühne & Heitz dopolni tako, da se mora stranka I - 464
KEMPTER be supplemented so as to require the person concerned to have complained to the administrative body immediately after becoming aware of the preliminary ruling of the Court causing the administrative decision that has become final to be unlawful, and within a period of time after delivery of the Court’s judgment which appears to be reasonable in light of the principles of national law and consistent with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
KEMPTER obrniti na upravni organ takoj po seznanitvi s sodbo Sodi�ča v zvezi z vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje, iz katere izhaja nezakonitost pravnomočne upravne odločbe, in v roku po izreku navedene sodbe, ki se zdi razumen glede na načela nacionalnega prava in skladen z načeloma enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti.
With regard to the question of timelimits for making an application for review, it should be noted first of all that, in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Kühne & Heitz, the claimant undertaking applied for review and amendment of the administrative decision within a period not exceeding three months after it had become aware of the judgment in Case C-151/93 Voogd Vleesimport en -export [1994] ECR I-4915 which caused the administrative decision to be unlawful. 55
V zvezi z vpra�anjem o časovnih omejitvah za vložitev predloga za ponovno preučitev je treba najprej poudariti, da je v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Kühne & Heitz, tožeče podjetje vložilo predlog za ponovno preučitev in popravo upravne odločbe v roku, ki ni presegal treh mesecev, odkar se je to podjetje seznanilo s sodbo z dne 5. oktobra 1994 v zadevi Voogd Vleesimport en – export (C-151/93, Recueil, str. I-4915), iz katere izhaja nezakonitost pravnomočne upravne odločbe. 55
It is true that, in its assessment of the factual circumstances of the case which gave rise to the judgment in Kühne & Heitz, the Court held that the length of the period within which the application for review had been made was to be taken into consideration and, in conjunction with the other circumstances indicated by the referring court, justified review of the contested administrative decision. Nevertheless, the Court did not require that an application for review necessarily had to be made immediately after the applicant had become aware of the decision of the Court on which the application was based. I - 465
Sodi�če je pri preučevanju dejanskih okoli�čin v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Kühne & Heitz, presodilo, da je treba upo�tevati časovni okvir, v katerem je bil vložen predlog za ponovno preučitev, in da ta časovni okvir skupaj z drugimi pogoji, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če, upravičuje ponovno preučitev sporne upravne odločbe. Kljub temu pa Sodi�če ni zahtevalo, da bi bilo predlog za ponovno preučitev treba vložiti takoj po tem, ko se je tožeča stranka seznanila s sodno prakso Sodi�ča, na kateri je predlog temeljil. I - 465
It is clear that, as the Advocate General notes in points 132 and 134 of his Opinion, Community law does not impose any specific timelimit for making an application for review.
Ugotoviti je treba, kot je navedel generalni pravobranilec v točkah 132 in 134 sklepnih predlogov, da pravo Skupnosti ne določa natančnega roka za vložitev predloga za ponovno preučitev.
Consequently, the fourth condition referred to by the Court in Kühne & Heitz cannot be interpreted as an obligation to make the application for review in question within a certain specific period after the applicant has become aware of the decision of the Court on which the application itself is based. 57
Četrtega pogoja, ki ga je Sodi�če omenilo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Kühne & Heitz, se zato ne sme razlagati kot obveznost vložitve predloga za zadevno ponovno preučitev v natančno določenem času po tem, ko se je tožeča stranka seznanila s sodno prakso Sodi�ča, na kateri je predlog temeljil. 57
Such timelimits are not liable to render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (Grundig Italiana, paragraph 34).
I-8003, točka 34). Taki roki v praksi pravzaprav ne onemogočajo ali znatno otežujejo uveljavljanja pravic, ki jih podeljuje pravni red Skupnosti (zgoraj navedena sodba v zadevi Grundig Italiana, točka 34).
It follows from that settled caselaw that the Member States may, on the basis of the principle of legal certainty, require an application for review and withdrawal of an administrative decision that has become final and is contrary to Community law as interpreted subsequently by the Court to be made to the competent administrative authority within a reasonable period.
Iz te ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da lahko države članice na podlagi načela pravne varnosti zahtevajo, da mora biti predlog za ponovno preučitev in odpravo pravnomočne upravne odločbe, ki je v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, kot ga je pozneje razlagalo Sodi�če, predložen pristojnemu upravnemu organu v razumnem roku.
Consequently, the answer to the second question referred must be that Community law does not impose any limit in time for making an application for review of an administrative decision that has become final.
Na drugo vpra�anje je treba zato odgovoriti, da pravo Skupnosti ne določa časovne omejitve za vložitev predloga za ponovno preučitev pravnomočne upravne odločbe.
The Member States nevertheless remain free to set reasonable timelimits for seeking remedies, in a manner consistent with the Community principles of effectiveness and equivalence.
Kljub temu lahko države članice v skladu z načeloma učinkovitosti in enakovrednosti svobodno določijo razumne roke za vložitev tožbe.
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
Ker je ta postopek za stranke v postopku v glavni stvari ena od stopenj v postopku pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, to odloči o stro�kih.
In the context of a procedure before an administrative body for review of an administrative decision that became final by virtue of a judgment, delivered by a court of final instance, which, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, was based on a misinterpretation of Community law, Community law does not require the claimant to have relied on Community law in the legal action under domestic law which he brought against the administrative decision.
V postopku pred upravnim organom v zvezi s ponovno preučitvijo upravne odločbe, ki je postala pravnomočna na podlagi sodbe sodišča, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, pri čemer je ta sodba glede na poznejšo sodno prakso Sodišča temeljila na napačni razlagi prava Skupnosti, pravo Skupnosti ne zahteva, da se je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari sklicevala na pravo Skupnosti v okviru pravnega sredstva nacionalnega prava, ki ga je vložila zoper to odločbo.
Community law does not impose any limit in time for making an application for review of an administrative decision that has become final.
Pravo Skupnosti ne določa časovne omejitve za vložitev predloga za ponovno preučitev pravnomočne upravne odločbe.
Case C-199/06
Zadeva C-199/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Conseil d’État (Francija))
(State aid — Article 88(3) EC — National courts — Recovery of unlawfully implemented aid — Aid declared compatible with the common market)
„Državne pomoči – Člen 88(3) ES – Nacionalna sodi�ča – Vračilo nezakonito izvajanih pomoči – Pomoč, razgla�ena za združljivo s skupnim trgom“
State aid — Planned aid — Granting of aid contrary to the prohibition laid down by Article 88(3) EC — Subsequent Commission decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market — Obligations of national courts before which claims for repayment are brought
Državne pomoči – Načrt pomoči – Dodelitev pomoči v nasprotju s prepovedjo iz člena 88(3) ES – Poznejša odločba Komisije, s katero je bila pomoč razglašena za združljivo s skupnim trgom – Obveznosti nacionalnih sodišč, pri katerih je bila vložena zahteva za vračilo
(Art. 88(3) EC)
(člen 88(3) ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-199/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-199/06
State aid — Planned aid — Granting of aid contrary to the prohibition laid down by Article 88(3) EC — Subsequent Commission decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market — Annulment of that decision by the Community court — Retroactivity — Recipients’ legitimate expectations — None save for exceptional circumstances
Državne pomoči – Načrt pomoči – Dodelitev pomoči v nasprotju s prepovedjo iz člena 88(3) ES – Poznejša odločba Komisije, s katero je bila pomoč razglašena za združljivo s skupnim trgom – Razglasitev ničnosti te odločbe s strani sodišča Skupnosti – Retroaktivnost – Legitimno zaupanje prejemnikov – Neobstoj razen v izjemnih okoliščinah
(Arts 88(3) EC, 231, first para., EC and 249 EC)
(členi 88(3) ES, 231, prvi odstavek, ES in 249 ES)
In a situation where a claim based on the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is examined after the Commission has adopted a positive decision, the national court, notwithstanding the declaration of the compatibility of the aid in question with the common market, must adjudicate on the validity of the implementing measures and on the recovery of the financial support granted.
V primeru, ko je zahteva na podlagi čle -na 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES obravnavana po tem, ko je Komisija sprejela pozitivno odločitev, mora nacionalno sodi�če kljub ugotovitvi, da je sporna pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom, odločiti o veljavnosti izvr�ilnih aktov in izterjavi dodeljenih finančnih podpor.
In such a case, Community law requires that court to order the measures appropriate effectively to remedy the consequences of the unlawfulness.
V takem primeru mu pravo Skupnosti nalaga sprejetje primernih ukrepov za učinkovito odpravo učinkov nezakonitosti.
However, even in the absence of exceptional circumstances, Community law does not impose an obligation of full recovery of the unlawful aid.
Vendar pa mu, tudi kadar ni izjemnih okoli�čin, ne nalaga obveznosti popolne izterjave nezakonite pomoči.
payment of the aid. In that case, from the point of view of operators other than the recipient of such aid, its unlawfulness will, first, expose them to the risk, in the result unrealised, of the implementation of incompatible aid, and, second, make them suffer, depending on the circumstances earlier than they would have had to, in competition terms, the effects of compatible aid.
trgom, in konkurenčnim učinkom pomoči, ki je združljiva s skupnim trgom, morda prej, kot bi bilo nujno.
From the aid recipient’s point of view, the undue advantage will have consisted, first, in the nonpayment of the interest which it would have paid on the amount in question of the compatible aid, had it had to borrow that amount on the market pending the Commission’s decision, and, second, in the improvement of its competitive position as against the other operators in the market while the unlawfulness lasts.
Z vidika prejemnika pomoči bo neupravičena prednost neplačilo obresti, ki bi jih ta plačal za zadevni znesek pomoči, združljive s skupnim trgom, če bi si moral ta znesek izposoditi na trgu med čakanjem na odločbo Komisije, in izbolj�anje njegovega konkurenčnega položaja glede na druge subjekte na trgu med trajanjem nezakonitosti.
The national court must therefore, applying Community law, order the aid recipient to pay interest in respect of the period of unlawfulness.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora torej na podlagi prava Skupnosti prejemniku pomoči naložiti plačilo obresti za obdobje nezakonitosti.
The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is based on the preservative purpose of ensuring that compatible aid alone is implemented.
Podlaga člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES je namreč varovalni namen, in sicer da se zagotovi, da bodo izvedene samo pomoči, ki so združljive s skupnim trgom.
In order to achieve that purpose, the implementation of planned aid is to be deferred until the doubt as to its compatibility is resolved by the Commission’s final decision.
Da bi se doseglo ta cilj, se izvedba načrta pomoči odloži, dokler ni z dokončno odločitvijo Komisije odpravljen dvom o združljivosti.
When the Commission adopts a positive decision, it is then apparent that such purpose has not been frustrated by the premature
Zdi se, da takrat, ko Komisija sprejme pozitivno odločitev, predčasno izplačilo pomoči ni v nasprotju s ciljem.
Within the framework of its domestic law, the national court may, if appropriate, also order the recovery of the
V okviru svojega nacionalnega prava lahko nacionalno sodi�če poleg tega, če je to predvideno, naloži vračilo nezako-
CLEF AND MINISTRE DE LA CULTURE ET DE LA COMMUNICATION unlawful aid, without prejudice to the Member State’s right to re-implement it, subsequently.
CELF IN MINISTRE DE LA CULTURE ET DE LA COMMUNICATION nite pomoči kljub pravici države članice, da pomoč pozneje ponovno izvaja.
It may also be required to uphold claims for compensation for damage caused by reason of the unlawful nature of the aid.
Prav tako lahko ugodi od�kodninskim zahtevkom za �kodo, ki je nastala zaradi nezakonitosti pomoči.
(see paras 45-53, 55, operative part 1)
(Glej točke od 45 do 53, 55 in točko 1 izreka.)
Whilst it is true that a recipient cannot be precluded from relying on exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it had legitimately assumed the aid to be lawful and thus from declining to refund that aid, on the other hand the mere existence of the subsequently annulled positive decision cannot be regarded as capable of having caused such an expectation.
Sicer se ne more izključiti možnosti, da se prejemnik sklicuje na izjemne okoli�čine, na podlagi katerih je lahko legitimno utemeljil svoje zaupanje v zakonitost pomoči, in tako nasprotuje njenemu vračilu, vendar pa obstoj pozitivne odločitve, ki je bila pozneje razgla�ena za nično, ne more utemeljiti tak�nega zaupanja.
Where an action for annulment has been brought against a positive decision, the recipient is not entitled to harbour any assurance as to the lawfulness of the aid so long as the Community court has not delivered a definitive ruling.
Ob vložitvi ničnostne tožbe zoper pozitivno odločitev prejemnik namreč ne more biti prepričan o zakonitosti pomoči, ki lahko edina utemelji njegovo legitimno zaupanje, dokler se sodi�če Skupnosti o tem dokončno ne izreče.
It follows that, where a Commission decision declaring compatible with the common market aid implemented in breach of the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is annulled by the Community court, the obligation arising from that provision to remedy the consequences of the aid’s unlawfulness extends also, for the purposes of calculating the sums to be paid by the recipient, and save for exceptional circumstances, to the period between that adoption of the Commission’s positive decision and its annulment by the Community court.
Iz tega izhaja, da ko sodi�če Skupnosti razglasi za nično odločbo Komisije, s katero je bilo ugotovljeno, da je združljiva s skupnim trgom pomoči, ki je bila izvajana v nasprotju s čle nom 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES, obveznost iz te določbe, da se odpravi učinke nezakonitosti pomoči, zajema pri izračunu zneskov, ki jih mora plačati prejemnik, razen v izjemnih okoli�činah, tudi obdobje od sprejetja pozitivne odločitve Komisije do njene razglasitve ničnosti s strani sodi�ča Skupnosti.
When the Community court annuls a Commission decision declaring compatible with the common market aid which, contrary to the prohibition laid down by the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, had been implemented without awaiting the Commission’s final decision, the presumption of the lawfulness of the acts of the Community institutions and the rule that annulment is retroactive apply in turn.
Ko sodi�če Skupnosti razglasi za nično odločbo Komisije, s katero je bilo ugotovljeno, da je s skupnim trgom združljiva pomoč, ki je bila v nasprotju s prepovedjo iz člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES izvajana, ne da bi se počakalo na dokončno odločitev Komisije, se domneva zakonitosti aktov institucij Skupnosti in pravilo o retroaktivnosti ničnosti uporabita zaporedno.
Aid implemented after the Commission’s positive decision is presumed lawful until the Community court decides to annul that decision and subsequently, on the latter decision, the aid is deemed, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 231 EC, not to have been declared compatible by the annulled decision, with the result that its implementation must be regarded as unlawful.
Za pomoči, izvajane po pozitivni odločitvi Komisije, se domneva, da so zakonite do odločbe sodi�ča Skupnosti o razglasitvi ničnosti, potem pa z dnem te odločbe za zadevne pomoči v skladu s členom 231, prvi odstavek, ES velja, da z nično odločbo niso bile razgla�ene za združljive s skupnim trgom, tako da je treba njihovo izvajanje obravnavati kot nezakonito.
It is thus apparent that, in that case, the rule arising from the first paragraph of Article 231 EC puts a stop, retroactively, to the application of the presumption of lawfulness.
Tako se v tem primeru zdi, da se s pravilom iz člena 231, prvi odstavek, ES retroaktivno prekine uporaba domneve zakonitosti.
(see paras 62-69, operative part 2)
(Glej točke od 62 do 69 in točko 2 izreka.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALMAZÁK delivered on 24 May 2007 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAJÁNA MAZÁKA, predstavljeni 24. maja 2007 1
I — Introduction between 1980 and 2002. The aid, which was granted without prior notification to the Commission, was for the purpose of reducing the cost of processing small orders from abroad for books written in French.
I – Uvod dodeljena brez predhodne priglasitve Komisiji, je bila namenjena zmanj�evanju stro�kov pri obravnavanju naročil na drobno iz tujine za knjige, ki so napisane v francoskem jeziku.
In this preliminary reference the referring court seeks clarification on the extent of the obligation of national authorities, pursuant to Article 88(3) EC, to recover State aid granted in contravention of the notification and standstill obligations imposed by that provision, in the event that the Commission subsequently declares the aid in question compatible with the common market.
V tem predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe predložitveno sodi�če želi, naj se pojasni obseg obveznosti, ki jo imajo nacionalni organi v skladu s členom 88(3) ES pri vrnitvi pomoči, ki je bila dodeljena v nasprotju z obveznostmi priglasitve in mirovanja, naloženimi s tem členom, v primeru, če Komisija naknadno razglasi zadevno pomoč za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
By decision dated 18 May 1993, the Commission found the aid to be compatible with the common market. 2
Komisija je z odločbo z dne 18. maja 1993 ugotovila, da je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom. 2
II — Background
II – Dejansko stanje
A — Procedures at Community level
A – Postopki na ravni Skupnosti
That decision was partially annulled by the Court of First Instance in a judgment of 18 September 1995 on grounds of procedural irregularities.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je s sodbo z dne 18. septembra 1995 razglasilo odločbo za delno nično zaradi kr�itev postopka.
3The Court of First Instance
3 Sodi�če
2 — Aid to exporters of French Books, No NN 127/92 (OJ 1993 C 174, p. 6).
2 – Odločba NN 127/92 „Podpore izvoznikom francoskih knjig“ (UL C 174, str. 6).
Following that judgment, the Commission opened that formal procedure on 30 July 1996.
Po tej sodbi je Komisija 30. julija 1996 pričela ta uradni postopek.