natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Salzgitter contends that the appeal should be dismissed and, by a crossappeal, claims that the judgment under appeal should be set aside in so far as it partially dismissed its action for annulment, and that Article 1 of the contested decision, which classifies as ’State aid’ the special depreciation allowance and the taxfree reserves which Salzgitter enjoyed pursuant to the ZRFG, should be annulled.
Družba Salzgitter predlaga zavrnitev pritožbe in, z nasprotno pritožbo, razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe, ker je bila s to sodbo delno zavrnjena njena tožba, ter razglasitev ničnosti člena 1 sporne odločbe, v katerem so „državne pomoči“ opredeljene kot posebne amortizacije in neobdavčene rezervacije in rezerve, ki jih je dobila na podlagi ZRFG.
Salzgitter also contends that the Commission should be ordered to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.
Predlaga tudi, naj se Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov postopka na obeh stopnjah.
The Federal Republic of Germany contends that the Commission’s appeal should be dismissed, that the judgment under appeal should be set aside in so far as it partially dismissed the action brought by Salzgitter, and that Article 1 of the contested decision should be annulled.
Zvezna republika Nemčija predlaga zavrnitev pritožbe Komisije, razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe v delu, v katerem je bila delno zavrnjena tožba družbe Salzgitter, in razglasitev ničnosti člena 1 sporne odločbe.
The crossappeal
Nasprotna pritožba
If the Court upholds the crossappeal brought by Salzgitter, there will be no need to rule on the main appeal, which will become redundant.
Če bi Sodi�če ugodilo nasprotni pritožbi, ki jo je vložila družba Salzgitter, se mu ne bi bilo treba izreči o glavni pritožbi, ki bi postala brezpredmetna.
Therefore, the crossappeal must be examined first.
Zato je treba najprej preizkusiti nasprotno pritožbo.
The first plea
Prvi pritožbeni razlog
By its first plea, divided into three limbs, Salzgitter submits that there has been a breach of Articles 4(c) CS and 67 CS.
Družba Salzgitter s prvim pritožbenim razlogom, razdeljenim na tri dele, navaja kr�itev členov 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ.
The first limb of the first plea
Prvi del prvega pritožbenega razloga
According to Salzgitter, it does not follow from the judgment in Joined Cases 6/69 and 11/69 Commission v France [1960] ECR 523 that aid not specific to the coal and steel sector would already have been prohibited by Article 4(c) CS prior to adoption of the First Steel Aid Code.
Družba Salzgitter meni, da naj iz sodbe z dne 10. decembra 1969 v združenih zadevah Komisija proti Franciji (6/69 in 11/69, Recueil, str. 523) ne bi izhajalo, da naj bi bile pomoči, ki niso omejene na sektor premoga in jekla, prepovedane s členom 4(c) PJ že pred sprejetjem prvih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu.
The German Government develops arguments that are similar to Salzgitters.
Nem�ka vlada navaja podobne trditve kot družba Salzgitter.
The German Government also contends that the ECSC Treaty only brought about partial integration, confined to the coal and steel industry.
Navaja tudi, da je Pogodba ESPJ vzpostavila le eno delno integracijo, omejeno na sektor premoga in jekla.
The German Government contends that, taking into account the broad interpretation given to the notion of ’State aid’ in Article 87 EC, which is also given to the notion of ’aid’ in Article 4(c) CS (C-200/97 Ecotrade [1998] ECR I-7907), applying Article 4(c) CS to aid such as the aid covered by the contested decision would have the effect of divesting Article 67 CS of any effectiveness.
Poudarja, da naj bi glede na �iroko razlago pojma „državnih pomoči“ iz člena 87 ES, uporabljeno tudi za pojem „pomoči“ iz člena 4(c) PJ (sodba z dne 1. decembra 1998 v zadevi Ecotrade, C-200/97, Recueil, str. I-7907), uporaba člena 4(c) PJ za take pomoči, kot so pomoči, na katere se nana�a sporna odločba, povsem odvzela polni učinek člena 67 PJ.
Not applying Article 4(c) CS to aid not exclusively granted to steel undertakings would not weaken the control that the Commission exercises over State aid, since Articles 87 EC, 88 EC and 67 CS apply to such aid.
Neuporaba člena 4(c) PJ za pomoči, ki niso izključno dodeljene jeklarskim družbam, naj ne bi zmanj�ala nadzora Komisije nad državnimi pomočmi, saj se zanje uporabljajo členi 87 ES, 88 ES in 67 PJ.
Prohibiting that aid would restrict, in a manner that would be illegal, the scope of the exemptions provided for in Article 87(3)(a) to (e) EC.
Prepoved teh pomoči bi nezakonito omejila področje uporabe izjem, določenih s členom 87(3) od (a) do (e) ES.
The German Government also contends that the expression ’in any form whatsoever’ used in Article 4(c) CS only seeks to distinguish the notion of State aid itself from the manner in which it is granted, and does not permit extending the application of that provision to aid such as that covered by the contested decision.
Nem�ka vlada navaja, da se izraz „v kakr�nikoli obliki“, uporabljen v členu 4(c) PJ, nana�a le na razlikovanje pojma državnih pomoči od oblik dodelitve pomoči in ne omogoča raz�iritve uporabe te določbe na take pomoči, kot so pomoči, na katere se nana�a sporna odločba.
The German Government maintains that the judgment in Commission v France, cited above, establishes that Article 67 CS applies to aid that is not specific to the coal and steel industry and that that was confirmed by the judgments in Case 59/70 Netherlands v Commission [1971] ECR 639 and in Banks.
Meni, da zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Franciji določa uporabo člena 67 PJ za pomoči, ki niso omejene le na sektor premoga in jekla, in da je bilo to potrjeno s sodbo z dne 6. julija 1971 v zadevi Nizozemska proti Komisiji (59/70, Recueil, str. 639) in z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Banks.
The German Government argues that the Federal Republic of Germany satisfied its notification obligations by notifying the ZRFG to the Commission pursuant to Art -icles 87 and 88 EC, and stresses that that Member State was not under an obligation to inform the Commission under Article 67(1) CS, since the ZRFG was not liable to have appreciable repercussions on conditions of competition in the coal or steel industry within the meaning of Article 67(1) CS.
Meni, da je Zvezna republika Nemčija, s tem da je ZRFG na podlagi členov 87 ES in 88 ES priglasila Komisiji, izpolnila obveznosti priglasitve in poudarja, da za to državo članico ni veljala obveznost obvestitve na podlagi člena 67(1) PJ, ker ZRFG ni mogel pomembno vplivati na pogoje konkurence v sektorjih premoga in jekla v smislu slednje določbe.
For its part, the Commission submits that the caselaw cited by Salzgitter provides, in actual fact, that Article 67 CS does not apply to State aid, but only to general measures which Member States may adopt as part of their economic or social policy, or to sectoral measures which do not relate specifically to the steel or coal industry.
Komisija zatrjuje, da sodna praksa, na katero se sklicuje družba Salzgitter, dejansko določa, da se člen 67 PJ ne uporablja za državne pomoči, ampak le za splo�ne ukrepe, ki jih države članice lahko sprejmejo v okviru svoje ekonomske in socialne politike, ali za sektorske ukrepe, ki se ne omejujejo na jeklarsko oziroma premogovno industrijo.
According to the Commission, by contrast, Article 4(c) CS applies to aid even where it is of a general nature (see, in particular, De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg v High Authority).
Meni, da se v nasprotju s tem člen 4(c) PJ uporablja za pomoči, tudi če so splo�ne (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg proti Visoki oblasti).
The Commission submits that the German Government wrongly interpreted the caselaw by failing to distinguish between general measures and State aid schemes of general application, and that the Court has never referred, in the caselaw cited, to general aid schemes.
Komisija meni, da nem�ka vlada napačno razlaga sodno prakso, ker ne razlikuje med splo�nimi ukrepi in sistemi pomoči, ki se splo�no uporabljajo, ter da se Sodi�če v sodbah, ki jih navaja nem�ka vlada, ni nikoli sklicevalo na sisteme splo�nih pomoči.
The Commission submits that, in any event, even if Article 67 CS did apply in the present case, the Federal Republic of Germany did not inform it, in accordance with Article 67(1) CS, of its intention to apply the ZRFG to undertakings in the steel industry, and that that Member State could not rely on an authorisation, even implicit, for the aid covered by the contested decision based on that provision.
Komisija poudarja, da jo Zvezna republika Nemčija v vsakem primeru, čeprav je bil v obravnavani zadevi uporabljen člen 67 PJ, ni obvestila, kot to določa člen 67(1) PJ, o svoji nameri, da bo uporabila ZRFG za podjetja v jeklarskem sektorju, ter da se ta država članica, tudi implicitno, ni mogla na podlagi te določbe sklicevati na odobritev glede pomoči, na katere se nana�a sporna odločba.
It must be held, first, that while Article 4(c) CS prohibits the granting of State aid to steel and coal undertakings, without drawing a distinction between individual aid or aid disbursed under a State aid scheme, Article 67 CS refers expressly to State aid only in respect of protective measures that the Commission may authorise, pursuant to the first indent of paragraph 2 of that article, in favour of coal or steel undertakings where they suffer competitive disadvantages because of general economic policy measures.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da čeprav so s členom 4(c) PJ prepovedane državne pomoči jeklarskim in premogovnim družbam, ne glede na to, ali gre za posamične pomoči ali za pomoči, dodeljene z uporabo sistema državnih pomoči, se člen 67 PJ izrecno nana�a na državne pomoči le glede ohranitvenih ukrepov, ki bi jih Komisija lahko dovolila na podlagi odstavka 2, druga alinea, tega člena v korist jeklarskih in premogovnih družb, če bi slednje utrpele konkurenčne neugodnosti zaradi ukrepov splo�ne ekonomske politike.
Also, it is clear from consistent caselaw that Articles 4 CS and 67 CS concern two distinct areas, the first abolishing and prohibiting certain actions by Member States in the field which the ECSC Treaty places under Community jurisdiction, the second intended to prevent the distortion of competition which exercise of the residual powers of the Member States inevitably entails (see Banks, paragraph 88, and the caselaw cited there).
Poleg tega iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da se člena 4 PJ in 67 PJ nana�ata na dve različni področji, prvo odpravlja in prepoveduje določene intervencije držav članic na področju, ki je v skladu s Pogodbo ESPJ v pristojnosti Skupnosti, drugo pa je namenjeno preprečevanju izkrivljanja konkurence, ki ga neizogibno prina�a izvr�evanje pristojnosti, ki jih obdržijo države članice (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Banks, točka 88, in navedeno sodno prakso).
The Court deduces from this that Article 67 CS covers general measures which Member States may adopt in the context of their economic and social policy and measures taken by Member States which apply to industries other than coal and steel but which are capable of having significant repercussions on the conditions of competition in those industries (see Banks, paragraph 88).
Sodi�če je iz tega sklepalo, da člen 67 PJ pokriva splo�ne ukrepe, ki jih države članice lahko sprejmejo v okviru svoje ekonomske in socialne politike, ter ukrepe, ki so jih sprejele države članice in ki se uporabljajo v drugih sektorjih kot v premogovnih oziroma jeklarskih industrijah, vendar lahko občutno vplivajo na pogoje konkurence v navedenih industrijah (zgoraj navedena sodba Banks, točka 88).
The Court has also held that action taken under Article 67 CS cannot be what, in any other form whatsoever, Article 4 CS declares to be incompatible with the common market for coal and steel and abolished and prohibited (De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg v High Authority, p. 22).
Sodi�če je tudi razsodilo, da intervencije iz člena 67 PJ ne morejo biti intervencije, ki so s členom 4 PJ opredeljene kot nezdružljive s skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo, ki so odpravljene in prepovedane v katerikoli obliki (zgoraj navedena sodba De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg proti Visoki oblasti, stran 44).
The Court has held, in particu- lar, that it is inconceivable that the authors of the ECSC Treaty decided in Article
Sodi�če je zlasti poudarilo, da dejansko ni mogoče sprejeti, da bi avtorji Pogodbe ESPJ v členu 4(c) PJ
4(c) CS that subsidies and aids granted by Member States in any form whatsoever should be abolished and prohibited and then declared in Article 67 CS that, without even having been authorised by the Commission, that aid could be allowed subject to the measures recommended by the Commission to mitigate or remedy its effects (De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg v High Authority, p. 21).
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER odločili, da so subvencije oziroma pomoči, ki so jih dodelile države članice v kateri koli obliki, odpravljene in prepovedane, da bi nato v členu 67 PJ opredelili, da so, čeprav jih Komisija ni odobrila, lahko dovoljene, razen ukrepov, ki jih je priporočila Komisija, da se ublaži oziroma popravi njihove posledice (zgoraj navedena sodba De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg proti Visoki oblasti, stran 43).
The Court has also held that the first indent of Article 67(2) CS, which, by derogation from Article 4 CS, allows the granting of State aid in respect of protective measures to undertakings referred to in Article 80 CS, does not distinguish between aid specific to the coal and steel industry and aid which applies to it as the result of a general measure (Commission v France, paragraph 43).
Sodi�če je tudi pojasnilo, da člen 67(2), prva alinea, PJ, ki z odstopanjem od člena 4 PJ dovoljuje dodelitev državnih pomoči iz naslova ohranitvenih ukrepov za družbe, navedene v členu 80 PJ, ne razlikuje med posebnimi pomočmi za sektor premoga in jekla in pomočmi, ki zanj veljajo kot splo�ni ukrep (zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Franciji, točka 43).
The Court accordingly held that a preferential rediscount rate for exports constitutes aid which, in the case in point, had to be authorised by the Commission under Article 67(2) CS in so far as it concerned the industry covered by the ECSC Treaty (see Commission v France, paragraph 44).
Sodi�če je tako razsodilo, da preferenčna rediskontna stopnja za uvoz pomeni pomoč, ki bi jo Komisija v obravnavani zadevi morala dovoliti na podlagi člena 67(2) PJ, če ta zadeva sektor, ki ga zajema Pogodba ESPJ (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Franciji, točka 44).
Finally, State aid granted to an undertaking falling within the scope of the ECSC Treaty has identical anti-competitive effects, regardless of whether it constitutes individual aid or aid granted under a State aid scheme that is not specific to the coal and steel sector.
Nazadnje, državna pomoč – dodeljena družbi, ki spada na področje uporabe Pogobe ESPJ – ima enake protikonkurenčne učinke, ne glede na to, ali gre za posamično pomoč ali za pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena v okviru sistema državnih pomoči, ki niso specifične za sektor jekla in premoga.
In the light of the foregoing, it must consequently be held that Article 4(c) CS applies to State aid paid to coal and steel undertakings under a State aid scheme that is not specific to the coal and steel sector.
Glede na zgornje opredelitve je treba ugotoviti, da se člen 4(c) PJ uporablja za državne pomoči, ki so bile dodeljene jeklarskim in premogovnim družbam v okviru sistema državnih pomoči, ki ni specifičen za sektor premoga in jekla.
Contrary to what the German Government claims, that interpretation does not undermine the effectiveness of Article 67 CS.
V nasprotju s tem, kar je navedla nem�ka vlada, ta razlaga ne zmanj�uje polnega učinka člena 67 PJ.
General policy measures are liable to have appreciable repercussions on conditions of competition in the coal or steel industry within the meaning of Article 67(1) CS, without constituting State aid.
Ukrepi splo�ne politike lahko namreč pomembno vplivajo na pogoje konkurence v industriji premoga ali jekla v smislu člena 67(1) PJ, ne da bi ti pomenili državne pomoči.
In the present case, it is not contested that Salzgitter is an undertaking that falls within the scope of the ECSC Treaty and that the aid covered by the contested decision does not constitute protective measures falling within the scope of the first indent of Article 67(2) CS.
V obravnavani zadevi ni sporno, da je družba Salzgitter družba, ki spada na področje uporabe Pogodbe ESPJ in da pomoči iz sporne odločbe ne pomenijo ohranitvenih ukrepov, ki spadajo na področje uporabe člena 67(2), prva alinea, PJ.
It follows that the Court of First Instance did not commit an error of law in finding that the Commission was entitled to hold that Article 4(c) CS, and not Article 67 CS, applied to the aid covered by the contested decision.
Iz tega sledi, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni napačno uporabilo prava, s tem da je razsodilo, da je Komisija pravilno odločila, da se za pomoči iz sporne odločbe uporablja člen 4(c) PJ, ne pa člen 67 PJ.
Accordingly the first limb of the first plea cannot succeed and must be rejected.
Prvemu delu prvega pritožbenega razloga zato ni mogoče ugoditi in ga je treba zavrniti.
The second limb of the first plea
Drugi del prvega pritožbenega razloga
By the second limb of the first plea, Salzgitter submits that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in finding that the Commission was entitled to apply
Družba Salzgitter z drugim delom prvega pritožbenega razloga navaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem da je ugotovilo, da je Komisija glede
Article 4(c) CS, and not Article 67 CS, to the aid covered by the contested decision, in so far as the Commission was not competent, under a Steel Aid Code, to extend the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER pomoči iz sporne odločbe pravilno določila uporabo člena 4(c) PJ, ne pa člena 67 PJ, ker Komisija ni bila pristojna, da v okviru pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu raz�iri področje uporabe člena 4(c) PJ.
Salzgitter submits that the first and second paragraphs of Article 95 CS do not provide a sufficient legal basis for such an amendment of the ECSC Treaty and that the procedure under Article 96 CS, in its previous version, should have been complied with, or at least the procedure for a ’minor amendment’ provided for in the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 95 CS (Opinion 1/59 of 17 December 1959, ECR 1959, p. 533).
Družba Salzgitter meni, da člen 95(1) in (2) PJ ne zagotavlja zadostnega pravnega temelja za tako spremembo Pogodbe ESPJ in da bi bilo treba upo�tevati postopek iz člena 96 PJ v njegovi prej�nji različici oziroma vsaj postopek „majhne spremembe Pogodbe“, določene v členu 95, tretji in četrti odstavek, PJ (mnenje 1/59 z dne 17. decembra 1959, Recueil, str. 533).
The Commission states that there has been no revision of the ECSC Treaty, the wording of Article 4(c) CS having remained unchanged since 23 July 1952.
Komisija navaja, da Pogodba ESPJ nikakor ni bila spremenjena in da člen 4(c) PJ ostaja nepremenjen že od 23. julija 1952.
In light of the response to the first limb of the first plea, it must be held that the second limb of that plea is unfounded, on the same grounds as those set out in relation to that first limb, and that the second limb must therefore be rejected.
Glede na odgovor na prvi del prvega pritožbenega razloga je treba ugotoviti, da njegov drugi del ni utemeljen iz enakih razlogov kot so navedeni v okviru navedenega prvega dela, in da ga je zato treba zavrniti.
The third limb of the first plea
Tretji del prvega pritožbenega razloga
By the third limb of the first plea, Salzgitter submits that, in paragraphs 112 et seq. of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance presented the Commission’s decisionmaking practice in an incorrect manner.
Družba Salzgitter s tretjim delom prvega pritožbenega razloga zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 112 in naslednjih točkah izpodbijane sodbe napačno predstavilo prakso odločanja Komisije.
Salzgitter submits that it was on the entry into force of the ECSC Treaty in 1952, not in the early 1970s when the Commission formed the view that Article 4(c) CS applied only to aid specific to the coal and steel sector (see, to that effect, the report published by the High Authority of the ECSC in 1963, entitled ’Le Traité CECA de 1952 à 1962’).
Meni, da je Komisija od začetka veljavnosti Pogodbe ESPJ, ne pa od začetka sedemdesetih let, �tela, da se člen 4(c) PJ uporablja le za pomoči, ki so specifične za sektor premoga in jekla (glej v tem smislu poročilo, ki ga je objavila Visoka oblast ESPJ leta 1963, z naslovom „Pogodba ESPJ od leta 1952 do 1962“).
Salzgitter also submits that, as regards the interpretation of Articles 4(c) CS and 67 CS, the Commission has acted differently depending on whether aid is paid to coal undertakings or steel undertakings.
Navaja tudi obstoj različnih razlag Komisije v zvezi s členoma 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ glede pomoči, dodeljenih premogovnim družbam, v primerjavi s pomočmi, dodeljenimi jeklarskim družbam.
The Commission contends that the fact that it held a different view prior to the adoption of the Third Steel Aid Code has no bearing on the aid granted to Salzgitter, as that view was not recorded in any individual act addressed to Salzgitter capable of becoming final before 1 January 1986, the date on which that third code came into force.
Komisija meni, da dejstvo, da je pred sprejetjem tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu zagovarjala drugačno stali�če, ni pomembno za pomoči, odobrene družbi Salzgitter, ker to stali�če ni bilo zapisano v nobenem posamičnem aktu, naslovljenem na to družbo, ki bi lahko postal dokončen pred 1. januarjem 1986, ko so začela veljati navedena tretja pravila.
It must be held that the analysis of the Commission’s decisionmaking practice with regard to aid granted to undertakings that fall under the ECSC Treaty cannot affect the interpretation by the Court of First Instance of Articles 4(c) CS and 67 CS.
Ugotoviti je treba, da preučitev prakse odločanja Komisije glede pomoči, dodeljenih družbam, ki spadajo na področje uporabe Pogodbe ESPJ, ne vpliva na razlago čle -nov 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ, ki jo mora dati Sodi�če prve stopnje.
Consequently, the third limb of the first plea in law must be rejected as ineffective.
Zato je treba tretji del prvega pritožbenega razloga zavrniti kot neučinkovitega.
The first plea must therefore be rejected in its entirety.
Prvi pritožbeni razlog nasprotne pritožbe je treba torej v celoti zavrniti.
The second plea
Drugi pritožbeni razlog
By its second plea, Salzgitter submits that the Court of First Instance infringed the fourth indent of Article 5 CS and the first paragraph of Article 15 CS, by rejecting the plea alleging a failure to state the reasons on which the contested decision was based.
Družba Salzgitter z drugim pritožbenim razlogom navaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje, s tem da je z zavrnilo tožbeni razlog neobrazložitve sporne odločbe, kr�ilo člena 5, četrta alinea, PJ in 15, prvi odstavek, PJ.
Salzgitter submits that the Commission failed to explain the development of its understanding of the law in terms of the scope of Article 4(c) CS and Article 67 CS respectively and the reason why, in the present case, its assessment departed from its decisionmaking practice in the coal sector or in comparable cases.
Družba Salzgitter namreč ugotavlja, da Komisija ni pojasnila razvoja svojega pojmovanja prava glede področja uporabe členov 4(c) PJ in 67 PJ ter razlogov, zaradi katerih se je njena presoja v obravnavani zadevi razlikovala od njene prakse odločanja v sektorju premoga oziroma v podobnih zadevah.
The German Government submits that, because of the development of the Commission’s understanding of the law in relation to Article 4(c) CS, a more detailed statement of the reasons for the contested decision was required.
Nem�ka vlada poudarja, da bi bila zaradi razvoja Komisijinega pojmovanja prava glede člena 4(c) PJ potrebna podrobnej�a obrazložitev sporne odločbe.
The Commission contends that its practice changed with the enactment of the Third Steel Aid Code, which adequately states the reasons for that change.
Komisija navaja, da se je njena praksa spremenila od izdaje tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu in da je ta sprememba dovolj obrazložena.