natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959–62, p. 87).
Odločba Komisije 2003/757/ES z dne 17. februarja 2003 o shemi pomoči, ki jo je Belgija uveljavila za centre za usklajevanje s sedežem v Belgiji (UL L 282, str. 25).
Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ C 207, 18.7.1996, p. 4).
Odločba Komisije 2003/442/ES z dne 11. decembra 2002 o delu ureditve glede prilagoditve nacionalnega davčnega sistema posebnostim Avtonomne regije Azorov, ki zadeva znižanje stopnje davka na dohodek (UL L 150, str. 52).
Proceedings which, although it was not obliged to answer a question asked by the Commission, did answer it, but in an incomplete and misleading way, cannot be considered to reect a spirit of cooperation.
Razvoj in dejavnost bistvena, kadar je treba preveriti, ali je ukrep selektiven, je med drugim presodilo, da tega referenčnega okvira ni treba nujno opredeliti v mejah ozemlja zadevne države članice in da lahko tako v položaju, ko regionalni ali lokalni organ pri izvrševanju pristojnosti, ki so dovolj avtonomne glede na osrednjo oblast, določi davčno stopnjo, ki je nižja od nacionalne stopnje in ki se uporablja le za podjetja na zadevnem ozemlju v njegovi pristojnosti, upoštevni pravni okvir za presojo selektivnosti davčnega ukrepa omejimo na zadevno geografsko ozemlje, kadar samoupravna poddržavna tvorba, zlasti zaradi svojega statusa in pristojnosti, opravlja temeljno vlogo pri opredelitvi političnega in gospodarskega okolja, v katerem delujejo podjetja, ki so prisotna na ozemlju v njegovi pristojnosti.
In Showa Denko v Commission, moreover, the Court also recalled that the fine imposed on an undertaking for an infringement of the competition rules may be calculated by including a deterrence factor and that that factor is assessed by taking into account a large number of factors and not merely the particular situation of the undertaking concerned.
Da bi lahko šteli, da je bila odločitev, sprejeta v podobnih okoliščinah, sprejeta pri izvrševanju dovolj avtonomnih pristojnosti, mora po presoji Sodišča to odločitev najprej sprejeti regionalni ali lokalni organ, ki ima na ustavni ravni politični in upravni status, ki je ločen od osrednje vlade.
Last, a final judgment must be mentioned in connection with fines, especially because it conrms the Court’s Courage caselaw (Case C-453/99 Courage v Crehan[2001] ECR I-6297).
Dalje, morala bi biti sprejeta, ne da bi osrednja vlada lahko neposredno posegla v njeno vsebino.
In Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 Manfredi and Others (judgment of 13 July 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court recalled that, as Article 81(1) EC produces direct eects in relations between individuals and creates rights for the individuals concerned which the national courts must safeguard, any individual is entitled to rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohibited under Article 81 EC and, where there is a causal relationship between that agreement or practice and the harm suered, to claim damages for that harm.
Nazadnje, finančnih posledic znižanja nacionalne stopnje obdavčitve, ki se uporablja za podjetja v regiji, ni mogoče nadomestiti s pomočjo ali subvencijami iz drugih regij ali osrednje vlade.
In that regard, the Court also recalled that, in the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to determine the detailed rules governing the exercise of that right, including those on the application of the concept of ‘causal relationship’, provided that those rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render practically impossible or excessively dicult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of eectiveness).
V zadevi Laboratoires Boiron (sodba z dne 7. septembra 2006, C-526/04, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče obravnavalo dve vprašanji za predhodno odločanje, ki ju je Cour de cassation (Francija) predložilo v okviru spora o„prispevku“, ki ga člen 12 zakona št. 97-1164 z dne 19. decembra 1997 o financiranju socialnega varstva za leto 1998 (člen L-245-6-1 francoskega zakona o socialni varnosti) uvaja v breme farmacevtskih laboratorijev iz naslova njihove prodaje zdravil na debelo, ki ga nosilec zdravstvenega zavarovanja povrne in ga grosisti-distributerji ne krijejo in o katerega drugih vidikih se je Sodišče že opredelilo v sodbi Ferring (sodba z dne 22. novembra 2001, C-53/00, Recueil, str. I-9067).
They allowed the Court to conrm its case-law, while providing certain information on matters as diverse as the concept of an ‘undertaking’ within the context of Article 87(1) EC, the denition of‘aid’, or, again, the application of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and the role of the national courts in implementing the system of control of State aid.
Sodišče je v odgovor na prvo vprašanje, pri čemer se je sklicevalo na svojo sodno prakso Banks (sodba z dne 20. septembra 2001, C-390/98, Recueil, str.
In Case C-222/04 Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze and Others [2006] ECR I-289, a reference had been made to the Court by the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) for a preliminary ruling on a number of questions concerning the compatibility with Community law of the tax arrangements of entities which had arisen as a result of the privatisation of banks in the Italian public sector and, more specically, of that compatibility in relation to the tax arrangements applicable to the banking foundations that replaced the traditional savings banks on that occasion.
I-6117), v skladu s katero se zavezanci za plačilo dajatve, zato da bi se izognili njenemu plačilu ali da bi dosegli njeno vračilo, ne morejo sklicevati na to, da oprostitev plačila, ki jo uživajo druga podjetja, pomeni državno pomoč, presodilo, da to drži le, kadar gre za oprostitev splošne dajatve v korist nekaterih subjektov, in da je položaj povsem drugačen, kadar gre za dajatev, za plačilo katere je zavezana le ena od dveh kategorij subjektov v konkurenčnem položaju.
In answer to the first two questions, and on the basis of its consistent caselaw on the concept of ‘undertaking’ in the context of competition law and also of its caselaw relating to the concept of ‘economic activity’, the Court, first, held that an entity which, through owning controlling shareholdings in a company, actually exercises that control by involving itself directly or indirectly in the management thereof must be regarded as taking part in the economic activity carried on by the controlled undertaking and must therefore itself, on that basis, be regarded as an undertaking within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
V takem primeru neenakomerne zavezanosti za dajatev je Sodišče namreč menilo, da lahko pomoč izhaja iz dejstva, da druga kategorija gospodarskih subjektov, ki ji z dajatvijo obdavčena kategorija neposredno konkurira, ni zavezana za plačilo omenjene dajatve in da zato v sistemu, v katerem obstajata dve neposredno konkurenčni poti distribucije zdravil in v katerem je cilj neobdavčenje grosistov-distributerjev z dajatvijo na neposredno prodajo, predvsem ponovno uravnovešenje pogojev konkurence med distribucijskimi potmi za zdravila, ki so po mnenju zakonodajalca izkrivljene zaradi obstoja obveznosti javne službe, ki veljajo samo za grosiste-distributerje, sama dajatev na neposredno prodajo, in ne katerakoli oprostitev, ločena od nje, pomeni zadevni ukrep pomoči.
The Court concluded that a banking foundation which controls the capital of a banking company whose system includes rules which reect a purpose going beyond the simple placing of capital by an investor and make possible the exercise of functions relating to control, such as direction and financial support, thus illustrating the existence of organic and functional links between the banking foundations and the banking companies, must be treated as an ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of that provision. In view of the role
Iz tega je sklepalo, da je treba priznati, da se lahko farmacevtski laboratorij, ki je zavezanec za ta prispevek, zato da bi prejel povračilo dela izplačanega zneska, ki ustreza gospodarski ugodnosti, ki so jo neupravičeno prejeli grosisti-distributerji, sklicuje na to, da dejstvo, da grosisti-distributerji niso zavezanci za plačilo tega prispevka, pomeni državno pomoč.V tem pogledu je Sodišče v odgovor na drugo vprašanje, sklicujoč se na svojo sodno prakso o procesni avtonomiji, ki, če na tem področju ni pravil Skupnosti, nacionalnim pravnim redom prepušča, da zagotovijo zaščito pravic, ki jih imajo posamezniki na podlagi neposrednega učinka prava
Court of Justice entrusted to banking foundations by the national legislation in the fields of public interest and social assistance, the Court nonetheless took care to distinguish the simple payment of contributions to non-prot-making organisations and the activity carried on directly in those fields.
Skupnosti, in postavlja dvojno omejitev v zvezi z nujnostjo spoštovanja načel ekvivalence in učinkovitosti, odgovorilo, da pravo Skupnosti ne nasprotuje uporabi predpisov nacionalnega prava, ki povračilo obveznega prispevka, kot je dajatev, ki je obravnavana v postopku v glavni stvari, pogojuje z dokazom, ki ga mora predložiti vlagatelj zahteve za povračilo, da ugodnost, ki jo imajo grosisti-distributerji od tega, da se jih ne obravnava kot zavezance za ta prispevek, presega dodatne stroške, ki jih nosijo za izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe, ki jim jih nalaga nacionalna ureditev, in zlasti, da vsaj en od pogojev, opredeljenih v sodbi„Altmark“27, ni izpolnjen.
It held that the Community rules on State aid were applicable only in the second hypothesis, emphasising that where a banking foundation, acting itself in the fields of public interest and social assistance, uses the authorisation given it by the national legislature to eect financial, commercial, real estate and asset operations necessary or opportune in order to achieve the aims prescribed for it, it is capable of oering goods or services on the market in competition with other operators and, accordingly, must be regarded as an undertaking and thus be subject to the application of the Community rules relating to State aid.
Sodišče je v zadevi Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich (sodba z dne 5. oktobra 2006, C368/04, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) obravnavalo predlog Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Avstrija) za sprejetje predhodne odločbe o razlagi zadnjega stavka člena 88(3) ES in tako lahko potrdilo ter natančneje določilo več vidikov vloge nacionalnih sodišč pri izvajanju sistema nadzora nad državnimi pomočmi, posebej v primeru pomoči, ki je bila nezakonita, ker je bila dodeljena ob kršitvi obveznosti priglasitve, določene v tej določbi, vendar jo je Komisija z odločbo naknadno razglasila za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
In answer to the third question, the Court, after observing that the concept of aid is more general than that of a subsidy and that a measure by which the public authorities grant certain undertakings a tax emption which, although not involving the transfer of State resources, places the recipients in a more favourable financial position than other taxpayers amounts to State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, further held that an exemption from retention on dividends which benets banking foundations holding shares in banking companies and which pursue exclusively aims of social welfare, education, teaching, and study and scientic research, may be categorised as State aid.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je Sodišče po eni strani presodilo, da je zadnji stavek člena 88(3) ES treba razlagati tako, da morajo nacionalna sodišča varovati pravice posameznikov v primeru mogoče kršitve prepovedi izvedbe pomoči s strani nacionalnih organov, preden Komisija sprejme odločitev o njihovi odobritvi, in poudarilo, kot je to pred kratkim storilo v sodbi Air Liquide Industries Belgium (sodba z dne 15. junija 2006, C-393/04 in C-41/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.), da morajo pri tem nacionalna sodišča v celoti upoštevati interes Skupnosti, ki jim prepoveduje sprejetje ukrepa, katerega edini učinek bi bila razširitev kroga upravičencev pomoči.
In Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgique and Forum 187 v Commission (judgment of 22 June 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Kingdom of Belgium and the limited company Forum 187, the representative body for the coordination centres in Belgium, sought annulment of Decision 2003/757/EC 25, particularly insofar as it did not authorise the Kingdom of Belgium to grant, even temporarily, renewal of coordination centre status to the centres which beneted from that scheme as at 31 December 2000.
Po drugi strani je Sodišče opozorilo, da odločba Komisije o razglasitvi pomoči, ki ni bila priglašena, za združljivo s skupnim trgom, ne vodi do naknadne pridobitve veljavnosti izvršilnih aktov, ki so neveljavni, ker so bili sprejeti v nasprotju s prepovedjo iz te določbe, saj bi bil v nasprotnem primeru okrnjen neposredni in polni učinek zadnjega stavka člena 88(3) ES in bi bili kršeni interesov posameznikov, ki jih morajo varovati nacionalna sodišča.
As the basis for its finding that one of the applicants’pleas, alleging breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, was well founded, the Court recalled that, in the absence of an overriding public interest, the Commission had infringed a superior rule of law by failing to couple the repeal of a set of rules with transitional measures for the protection of the expectations which a trader might legitimately have derived from the Community rules.
V zvezi s tem po presoji Sodišča ni pomembno, da se v odločbi Komisije pojasni, da slednja svojo presojo zadevne pomoči opira na obdobje pred njenim sprejetjem oziroma da je bila vloga za povračilo vložena pred sprejetjem odločbe o razglasitvi pomoči za združljive s skupnim trgom ali po njem, ker se je ta vloga nanašala na nezakonito stanje, ki je izhajalo iz dejstva, da ni bilo priglasitve.
The Court further held that there is a breach of both the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of equality when a Commission decision which reverses previous findings to the contrary requires the abolition of a specic tax regime, on the ground that it constitutes State aid incompatible with the common market, without providing for transitional measures in favour of traders whose approval, reviewable without diculty and necessary to benet from that scheme, expires at the same time as or shortly after the date of notication of the decision, but does not prevent authorisations in force on that date from continuing to produce their eects for several years, since the abovementioned traders, who cannot adapt to the change in the scheme in question at short notice, could, in any event, expect that a Commission decision reversing its previous finding would allow them the necessary time to take that change in assessment into account and since no overriding public interest prevents that time from being granted to them.
Sodišče je na koncu opozorilo na svojo sodno prakso, v skladu s katero morajo nacionalna sodišča zagotoviti posameznikom, ki se lahko sklicujejo na kršitev obveznosti priglasitve, v skladu z nacionalnim pravom, da bodo sprejela vse ustrezne ukrepe, tako glede veljavnosti aktov o izvedbi ukrepov pomoči kot glede izterjave finančne pomoči, odobrene ob kršitvi te določbe ali morebitnih začasnih ukrepov, in razsodilo, da lahko v skladu z možnostmi, ki jih ponuja nacionalno pravo, in pravnimi sredstvi, ki jih določa, nacionalno sodišče glede na posamezen primer upravičencem odredi povračilo nezakonite pomoči, čeprav jo je Komisija naknadno razglasila za združljivo s skupnim trgom, oziroma odloči o zahtevi za povrnitev škode, ki je nastala zaradi nezakonitosti takega ukrepa.
Decision 2003/442/EC 26.
Sodišče se je na tem področju moralo ukvarjati z različnimi elementi zakonodaje Skupnosti.
The Court referred to its consistent caselaw according to which the concept of State aid does not refer to State measures which dierentiate between undertakings where that dierentiation arises from the nature or the overall structure of the system of charges of which they are part and held, first of all, that a measure which creates an exception to the application of the general tax system may be justied on that ground only if the Member State concerned can show that that measure results directly from the basic or guiding principles of its tax system and stated, in that connection, that a distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the objectives attributed to a particular tax scheme which are extrinsic to it and, on the other, the mechanisms inherent in the tax system itself which are necessary for the achievement of such objectives.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi International Air Transport Association in drugi je Sodišče o vprašanju, ali je člen 6 Uredbe št. 261/200428 v zvezi s pravicami letalskih potnikov skladen z Montrealsko konvencijo, presodilo, da so ukrepi pomoči in oskrbe potnikov v primeru velike zamude letov, ki so predvideni v tem členu, standardizirani in takojšnji ukrepi za nadomestilo škode, ki ne preprečujejo, da bi zadevni potniki, če bi jim ta zamuda povzročila tudi pravno priznano škodo, lahko vložili tudi tožbe za nadomestilo navedene škode pod pogoji, določenimi z Montrealsko konvencijo.
After observing that, when it is a question of examining whether a measure is selective, it is essential to determine the reference framework, the Court further held that that framework is not necessarily dened within the limits of the national territory and that thus, in a situation in which a regional or local authority, in the exercise of powers which are suciently autonomous vis-à-vis the central power, a tax rate which is lower than the national rate and which is applicable solely to undertakings present on the territory within its competence, the relevant legal framework for the purpose of determining the selectivity of a tax measure may be limited to the geographical area concerned where the infra-State body, in particular on account of its status and powers, occupies a fundamental role in the denition of the political and economic environment in which the undertakings present on the territory within its competence operate.
Sodišče je še odločilo, da je bila obveznost obrazložitve spoštovana, ker Uredba podaja bistveni cilj, ki ga želijo doseči institucije, in da zato ni mogoče zahtevati, da za vsako izmed tehničnih odločitev poda obrazložitev. Glede spoštovanja načela sorazmernosti, ki je splošno načelo prava Skupnosti in zahteva, da morajo biti ukrepi, ki se izvajajo na podlagi predpisov Skupnosti, primerni za uresničitev zastavljenega cilja in ne smejo prekoračiti okvirov, potrebnih za njegovo doseganje, je Sodišče razsodilo, da ukrepi pomoči, oskrbe in plačila odškodnine potnikom, ki so določeni s to uredbo, niso očitno neprimerni glede na zastavljeni cilj normodajalca Skupnosti, ki je izboljšanje varstva potnikov, katerih let je odpovedan ali katerih let ima veliko zamudo.
According to the Court, in order that a decision taken in such circumstances can be regarded as having been adopted in the exercise of suciently autonomous powers, that decision must, first of all, have been taken by a regional or local authority which has, from a constitutional point of view, a political and administrative status separate from that of the central government.
Glede načela enakega obravnavanja je Sodišče menilo, da obveznosti iz te uredbe niso neveljavne, čeprav naj take obveznosti ne bi veljale za druge načine prevoza.
Next, it must have been adopted without the central government being able to directly intervene as regards its content.
Različni načini prevoza namreč niso zamenljivi in potnik, čigar let je odpovedan ali čigar let ima veliko zamudo, je v objektivno drugačnem položaju kot potnik, ki uporablja drug način prevoza.
Finally, the financial consequences of a reduction of the national tax rate for undertakings in the region must not be oset by aid or subsidies from other regions or central government.
Sicer so si škode, ki jo utrpijo potniki letalskih prevoznikov ob odpovedi ali veliki zamudi letov, podobne, in sicer ne glede na to, s katerimi letalskimi družbami so sklenili pogodbo, in nimajo zveze s politikami cen.
In Case C-526/00 Laboratoires Boiron (judgment of 7 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court, on a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassation (France), examined two questions which had been raised in proceedings concerning the ‘contribution’ introduced by Article 12 of Law No 97-1164 of 19 December 1997 on social security funding for 1998 (Article L-245-6-1 of the French Social Security Code) and payable by pharmaceutical laboratories on their bulk sales of medicines reimbursable by the sickness insurance funds, but not paid by wholesale distributors and in respect of which the Court had already given a ruling on other points in Case C-53/00 Ferring [2001] ECR I-9607.
I-199) je bilo Sodišču zastavljeno vprašanje, ali navedena direktiva nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, po kateri dobavitelj neomejeno odgovarja za objektivno odgovornost proizvajalca v smislu te direktive. Ker je ugotovilo, da ta vzpostavlja objektivno odgovornost, ki jo nalaga proizvajalcu, in skuša doseči popolno uskladitev glede vprašanj, ki jih ureja, je Sodišče sklenilo, da je določitev kroga odgovornih oseb treba šteti za taksativno.
In answer to the first question, the Court stated, with reference to its decision in Case C-390/98 Banks [2001] ECR I-6117, according to which persons liable to pay a charge cannot rely on the argument that the exemption enjoyed by other persons constitutes State aid in order to avoid payment of or obtain reimbursement of that charge, that that is true only in the case of an exemption in favour of certain traders of a charge having general scope and that the situation is quite dierent in the case of a situation involving a charge for which only one
Ker navedena direktiva določa odgovornost dobavitelja, le če proizvajalca proizvoda ni mogoče identicirati, je nacionalna ureditev, ki določa, da dobavitelj za proizvode z napako odgovarja neposredno oškodovancem, ta krog odgovornih oseb razširila in zato ni dopustna. Glede, nasprotno, krivdne odgovornosti proizvajalca je Sodišče razsodilo, da ista direktiva ne nasprotuje nacionalnemu pravilu, po katerem dobavitelj neomejeno
Commission Decision 2003/442/EC of 11 December 2002 on the part of the scheme adapting the national tax system to the specic characteristics of the Autonomous Region of the Azores which concerns reductions in the rates of income and corporation tax (OJ L 150, 18.6.2003, p. 52).
Uredba (ES) št. 261/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. februarja 2004 o določitvi skupnih pravil o odškodnini in pomoči potnikom v primerih zavrnitve vkrcanja, odpovedi ali velike zamude letov ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe št. 295/91 (UL L 46, str. 1).
Court of Justice of the two categories of competing operators is liable.
V zadevi O’Byrne (sodba z dne 9. februarja 2006, C-127/04, ZOdl., str.