natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that regard, the Court referred to the specificity of those two assessment criteria.
Zato je Sodi�če prve stopnje opozorilo na posebnost teh dveh ocenjevalnih meril.
By order of 13 October 2005 of the President of the Court, Cases C-75/05 P and C-80/05 P were joined for the purposes of the oral procedure and the judgment.
Predsednik Sodi�ča je s sklepom z dne 13. oktobra 2005 za namene ustnega postopka in izdaje sodbe združil zadevi C-75/05 P in C-80/05 P.
It was in those circumstances that, in paragraph 97 of the contested judgment, it held that the first sentence of point 3.4 of the multisectoral framework must be understood as meaning that, ‘where the data on capacity utilisation in the sector concerned do not allow the Commission to reach the positive conclusion that there is structural overcapacity, the Commission must consider whether the market in question is a declining market’.
V teh okoli�činah je v točki 97 izpodbijane sodbe odločilo, da je treba prvi stavek točke 3.4 večsektorskega okvira razlagati tako, „da mora Komisija, če na podlagi podatkov o izkori�čenosti zmogljivosti v zadevnem sektorju ne more ugotoviti, da obstajajo strukturni presežki zmogljivosti, preveriti, ali je zadevni trg v zatonu“.
The appellants claim that the Court should annul the contested judgment and dismiss the action brought by Kronofrance.
Pritožniki so zahtevali, da sodi�če razglasi izpodbijano sodbo za nično in zavrne tožbo podjetja Kronofrance.
Glunz and OSB also request that, if appropriate, their case be referred back to the Court of First Instance for judgment on the merits.
Podjetji Glunz in OSB prav tako zahtevata, da se glede na okoli�čine primera zadeva vrne Sodi�ču prve stopnje v meritorno odločanje.
The appellants request, finally, that Kronofrance be ordered to pay the costs both of the appeals and of the action brought before the Court of First Instance.
Pritožniki zahtevajo, da se podjetju Kronofrance naloži plačilo stro�kov v zvezi s pritožbami in tožbo, vloženo pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
Accordingly, the Court held, in paragraph 103 of the contested judgment, that, in applying an adjustment factor equal to 1 to the competition factor without having first ascertained whether the aid project in question would take place in a declining market, the Commission had erred in law, infringing Article 87 EC and the multisectoral framework.
Zato je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 103 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da je Komisija, s tem, da je uporabila korekcijski količnik 1 za dejavnik o stanju konkurence, in s tem, da ni preverila, ali se bo zadevni načrt pomoči izvajal na trgu v zatonu, kr�ila člen 87 ES in večsektorski okvir.
The Court held that the forms of order sought by Kronofrance must therefore be granted and the contested decision annulled.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zato odločilo, da je treba ugoditi predlogom podjetja Kronofrance in sporno odločbo razglasiti za nično.
In each of these cases, the Commission claims that the contested judgment should be annulled.
V vsaki od obravnavanih zadev je Komisija predlagala razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane sodbe.
It requests the Court to dismiss Kronofrance’s action as inadmissible and, in the alternative, as unfounded, and to order
Od Sodi�ča zahteva, da zavrže tožbo podjetja Kronofrance kot nedopustno in podredno zavrne kot neutemeljeno ter da
Kronofrance to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
BOTA – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-75/05 P IN C-80/05 P slednjemu naloži plačilo stro�kov postopka na prvi stopnji in postopka s pritožbo.
They maintain that the Court disregarded the restrictions imposed on its judicial review and misinterpreted the multisectoral framework.
trgu. Poudarjajo, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje spregledalo omejitve, ki jih ima v zvezi s sodnim nadzorom, in napačno razlagalo večsektorski okvir.
In both cases, Kronofrance contends that the Court should dismiss the appeals and order the appellants to pay the costs both of the appeals brought before the Court of Justice and of the action brought before the Court of First Instance.
V teh dveh zadevah je podjetje Kronofrance predlagalo, da se pritožbe zavrnejo in se pritožnikom naloži plačilo stro�kov v zvezi s pritožbami in tožbo, vloženo pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
By their third plea, the Federal Republic of Germany and Glunz and OSB maintain that the Court of First Instance did not comply with the measures of organisation of procedure, in particular, Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
Zvezna republika Nemčija, Glunz in OSB v okviru tretjega pritožbenega razloga navajajo, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni uporabilo ukrepov procesnega vodstva in je kr�ilo člen 64 Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
V — Legal assessment
V – Pravna presoja
In my view, the appellants put forward four pleas in law in support of their appeals.
Pritožniki v podporo svoji pritožbi navajajo �tiri pritožbene razloge.
Finally, by their fourth plea, Glunz and OSB claim that the contested judgment infringes the second paragraph of Article 230 EC, because it rules on matters outside the scope of the pleas raised in support of the action for annulment brought by Kronofrance.
Podjetji Glunz in OSB sta na koncu trdili, da je izpodbijana sodba v nasprotju s členom 230, drugi odstavek, ES, ker presega okvire tožbenih razlogov, ki jih je navedlo podjetje Kronofrance v podporo svoji tožbi za razglasitev ničnosti.
Before giving my views on the validity of these pleas, I should like to make a preliminary point regarding the limits on the judicial review conducted by the Court of Justice in the context of an appeal.
Preden se izrečem o utemeljenosti teh pritožbenih razlogov, želim opraviti predhodno preučitev obsega sodnega nadzora Sodi�ča v okviru postopka s pritožbo.
By the first plea, the Federal Republic of Germany and Glunz and OSB claim that the contested judgment is marred by an error of law in that the Court of First Instance declared that the action brought by Kronofrance was admissible.
Zvezna republika Nemčija, Glunz in OSB v okviru prvega pritožbenega razloga zatrjujejo, da gre pri izpodbijani sodbi za zmotno uporabo prava v delu, v katerem je Sodi�če prve stopnje sprejelo tožbo podjetja Kronofrance kot dopustno.
By their second plea, which I consider comprises two limbs, the appellants dispute the nature and extent of the judicial review carried out by the Court of First Instance of the Commission’s assessment concerning the calculation of the competition factor.
V okviru drugega pritožbenega razloga, ki je po mojem mnenju sestavljen iz dveh delov, pritožniki prerekajo naravo in obseg sodnega nadzora, ki ga je izvajalo Sodi�če prve stopnje v zvezi s presojo Komisije glede izračuna dejavnika o stanju konkurence na
Under Article 225(1) EC and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal is limited to points of law.
Poudarjam, da je v skladu s členo - ma 225(1) ES in 58, prvi odstavek, Statuta Sodi�ča, pritožba omejena na pravna vpra�anja.
It must be based on grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the applicant
Temeljiti mora na nepristojnosti Sodi�ča prve stopnje, na kr�itvi postopka pred tem sodi�čem, s katero so o�kodo-
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE or infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance.
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE
26 invoked by the appellants in support of their appeals.
A – Prvi pritožbeni razlog: napačna presoja dopustnosti tožbe podjetja Kronofrance vani interesi pritožnika, ali na kr�itvi prava Skupnosti s strani Sodi�ča prve stopnje 26.
According to settled caselaw, the Court of First Instance thus has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to find the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse edino pristojno za ugotavljanje dejanskega stanja, razen če bi vsebinska nepravilnost njegovih ugotovitev izhajala iz podatkov v spisu, ki so mu bili predloženi, kakor tudi za presojo teh dejstev.
Save where the evidence adduced before the Court of First Instance has been distorted, the appraisal of the facts therefore does not constitute a point of law which is subject to review by the Court of Justice in the context of an appeal. 27
Presoja dejanskega stanja, razen pri izkrivljanju predloženih dokazov, torej ni pravno vpra�anje, ki bi bilo predmet nadzora Sodi�ča v okviru pritožbe 27.
On the other hand, it is established that, when the Court of First Instance has found or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 225 EC to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the Court of First Instance and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them. 28
Po drugi strani pa ni sporno, da je, potem ko Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovi ali presodi dejstva, Sodi�če pristojno, da na podlagi člena 225 ES opravlja nadzor nad pravno kvalifikacijo teh dejstev in pravnimi posledicami, ki jih je iz tega izpeljalo Sodi�če prve stopnje 28.
That having been noted, it is therefore necessary to examine the various pleas
V skladu s tem poudarkom je treba preučiti različne pritožbene razloge, ki jih v podporo svoje pritožbe navajajo pritožniki.
26 — See inter alia Case C-260/05 P Sniace v Commission [2007] ECR I-10005, paragraph 49 and the caselaw cited therein.
26 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 22. novembra 2007 v zadevi Sniace proti Komisiji (C-260/05 P, ZOdl., str. I-10005, točka 49 in navedena sodna praksa).
27 — See inter alia Case C-136/92 P Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others [1994] ECR I-1981, paragraphs 47 to 49, and Sniace v Commission, paragraph 35 and the caselaw cited therein.
27 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 1. junija 1994 v zadevi Komisija proti Brazzelli Lualdi in drugi (C-136/92 P, Recueil, str. I-1981, točke od 47 do 49) in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Sniace proti Komisiji (točka 35 in navedena sodna praksa).
The Federal Republic of Germany and also Glunz and OSB maintain that the contested judgment infringed the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, since the Court of First Instance considered that Kronofrance was ‘directly and individually concerned’ by the contested decision and therefore held that the action brought by that company was admissible.
Zvezna republika Nemčija ter podjetji Glunz in OSB navajajo, da je izpodbijana sodba pomenila kr�itev člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES v delu, v katerem je Sodi�če prve stopnje menilo, da podjetje Kronofrance sporna odločba „neposredno in posamično zadeva“, in sprejelo tožbo tega podjetja kot dopustno.
That incorrect conclusion stems, they claim, from an unreasonable extension of the scope of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and a misinterpretation of that provision in the light of Regulation No 659/1999.
Tak zmoten sklep izhaja iz pretirane �iritve področja uporabe člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES in iz njegove nepravilne razlage glede na Uredbo �t. 659/1999.
They claim that Court wrongly concluded, in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the contested judgment, that any person potentially ‘concerned’ by the formal procedure for examining aid under Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999 was to be regarded as directly and individually concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, by an approval decision taken at the end of the preliminary examination stage, and that it was therefore unnecessary to show that Kronofrance’s competitive position was ‘substantially’ affected by that decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi namreč v točkah 34 in 35 izpodbijane sodbe napačno ocenilo, da je treba vsakogar, ki je mogoče zainteresiran za formalni postopek preizkusa pomoči na podlagi člena 1(h) Uredbe �t. 659/1999, obravnavati kot neposredno in posamično prizadetega v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES z odločbo o odobritvi, izdano ob končanem postopku predhodnega preizkusa pomoči, ne da bi bilo treba dokazati, da je bil konkurenčni položaj podjetja Kronofrance s to odločbo „bistveno“ prizadet.
In that regard, the Federal Republic of Germany points out that the Court merely stated, in paragraph 43 et seq. of the contested judgment, that Glunz belonged to a group which included other companies active in wood production in France.
V zvezi s tem je Zvezna republika Nemčija poudarila, da se je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 43 in naslednjih izpodbijane sodbe zadovoljilo z ugotovitvijo, da spada podjetje Glunz v Franciji v združenje, v katero so povezane tudi druge družbe, ki se ukvarjajo z lesom.
However, that criterion is irrelevant because it is based on considerations relating to the group, not on the specific competition between the two undertakings.
To merilo pa naj ne bi bilo upo�tevno zato, ker je temeljilo na ocenah tega združenja in ne na dejanski konkurenci med tema dvema podjetjema.
However, according to the Federal Republic of Germany and Glunz and OSB, the status of ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Regulation No 659/1999 does not automatically imply a right to bring legal proceedings.
Po mnenju Zvezne republike Nemčije, podjetja Glunz in podjetja OSB pa pojem „zainteresirana stranka“ v smislu Uredbe �t. 659/1999 ne vsebuje avtomatično pravice vlaganja pravnega sredstva.
Only a specific examination based on the competitive relationship between the recipient of the aid and Kronofrance would be consistent with the caselaw established by the Court of Justice in Plau­mann v Commission.
Zato bi bila s sodno prakso Sodi�ča iz sodbe Plaumann proti Komisiji 29skladna le dejanska preiskava, ki bi temeljila na obstoječem konkurenčnem razmerju med prejemnikom pomoči in podjetjem Kronofrance.
29Therefore, in order to find that Kronofrance had locus standi, the Court of First Instance should have ascertained whether its position on the market was substantially affected.
Zato bi moralo Sodi�če prve stopnje v zvezi s procesnim upravičenjem podjetja Kronofrance preveriti, ali je bil njegov položaj na trgu bistveno prizadet.
Moreover, Glunz and OSB maintain that the Court’s finding that the marketing areas of Kronofrance and Glunz overlap is inaccurate.
Poleg tega sta podjetji Glunz in OSB poudarili, da ugotovitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje, po kateri naj bi se prodajna območja podjetij Kronofrance in Glunz prekrivala, ne drži.
The Court incorrectly assessed the information relating to the markets of the two undertakings.
Zato je Sodi�če prve stopnje zmotno ocenilo dejstva glede trgov teh dveh podjetij.
Contrary to the findings of the Court of First Instance, Kronofrance and Glunz are not actually in competition on the market in question and therefore Kronofrance’s market
Podjetji Kronofrance in Glunz pa si na upo�tevnem trgu, v nasprotju z ocenami Sodi�ča prve stopnje, dejansko nista konku-
In the light of these considerations, the appellants submit that the action brought by Kronofrance should have been declared inadmissible.
Glede na ta razmi�ljanja pritožniki poudarjajo, da bi bilo treba tožbo podjetja Kronofrance zavreči kot nedopustno.
29 — Case 25/62 [1963] ECR 95.
29 – Sodba z dne 15. julija 1963 (25/62, Recueil, str. 197).
The Commission shares, in essence, the appellants’ views regarding infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and cites in that regard the caselaw of the Court of Justice concerning the locus standi of competitors of a recipient of aid.
Komisija se v bistvu strinja s pritožniki glede kr�itve člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES in glede tega opozarja na sodno prakso Sodi�ča v zvezi s procesnim upravičenjem konkurentov upravičenca pomoči.
It refers, in particular, to the judgment in Cofaz and Others v Commission 30 and to the aforementioned judgments in Cook v Commission and Matra v Commission.
Še zlasti se sklicuje na sodbo z dne 28. januarja 1986 v zadevi Cofaz proti Komisiji 30 ter na navedeni sodbi Cook proti Komisiji in Matra proti Komisiji.
In connection with the first plea, the Court is, in essence, asked to give a ruling on the rights afforded to interested parties in the procedure for reviewing State aid, in particular where they bring an action for annulment of a Commission decision refusing to open the formal investigation stage provided for in Article 88(2) EC.
V okviru prvega pritožbenega razloga je Sodi�če v bistvu poklicano, da razsodi o pravicah, ki so priznane zainteresiranim strankam v okviru postopka za nadzor državnih pomoči, zlasti kadar te vložijo tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti zoper odločbo Komisije, ki zavrača začetek formalnega postopka preizkusa, ki je predviden v členu 88(2) ES.
Consideration of this plea requires, first, a summary of the caselaw on the matter.
Pri obravnavi tega pritožbenega razloga je treba najprej opozoriti na zadevno sodno prakso.
(a) The caselaw relating to the rights of interested parties in the procedure for reviewing State aid
a) Sodna praksa v zvezi s pravicami zainteresiranih strank v okviru postopka za nadzor državnih pomoči
Kronofrance maintains, on the other hand, that the Court was fully entitled to hold that it was an interested party within the meaning of Regulation No 659/1999 and that its action against the contested decision was admissible, since it had sought to secure compliance with the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 88(2) EC.
Podjetje Kronofrance je nasprotno poudarilo, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje upravičeno odločilo, da podjetje je zainteresirana stranka v smislu Uredbe �t. 659/1999 in da je tožba, ki jo je vložilo zoper odločbo Komisije o nenasprotovanju, dopustna v delu, v katerem se sklicuje na spo�tovanje procesnih jamstev v skladu s členom 88(2) ES.
Kronofrance points out inter alia that, if the formal investigation procedure is not opened, a competitor of a recipient of aid need only prove its status as a ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, where its action seeks to protect its procedural rights.
Podjetje Kronofrance je �e zlasti poudarilo, da kadar ni bil začet postopek formalnega preizkusa, mora konkurent upravičenca pomoči, če želi s svojim tožbenim zahtevkom ohraniti procesne pravice, dokazati le, da je „zainteresirana stranka“ v smislu člena 88(2) ES.
In that case, as is apparent from the settled caselaw of the Court of Justice, in particular from the judgment in ARAP and Others v Commission, 31 it is not necessary to show that the applicant’s competitive position is substantially affected.
V skladu s tak�no hipotezo na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča in zlasti na podlagi sodbe z dne 16. maja 2002 v zadevi ARAP in drugi proti Komisiji 31, ni treba dokazovati, da je bil konkurenčni položaj tožeče stranke bistveno prizadet.
It is sufficient if the applicant’s interest might be affected by the grant of the aid, a condition which is satisfied in the present cases, since there is a direct competitive relationship between Kronofrance and Glunz.
Zado�ča že dejstvo, da bi bili s prejemom pomoči lahko prizadeti njeni interesi, tak pogoj pa naj bi bil v teh zadevah izpolnjen, ker si podjetji Kronofrance in Glunz neposredno konkurirata.
In the procedure for reviewing State aid, decisions adopted by the Commission are addressed only to the Member States concerned.
V okviru postopka nadzora državnih pomoči so naslovniki odločb, ki jih sprejme Komisija, le zadevne države članice.
That is also so where a decision is given following a complaint in which objection is taken to the measure in question on the ground that it constitutes State aid contrary to the Treaty. 32
To velja, tudi če je odločba izdana na podlagi pritožbe, v kateri je zadevni ukrep opredeljen kot pomoč, ki nasprotuje Pogodbi 32.
32 — See inter alia Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 45.
32 – Glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France (točka 45).
Natural or legal persons wishing to bring an action for annulment against such decisions must therefore satisfy the conditions laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Fizične in pravne osebe, ki želijo vložiti tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti takih odločb, morajo izpolnjevati pogoje, ki so določeni v členu 230, četrti odstavek ES.
I would point out that that provision makes an action for annulment brought by any natural or legal person against a decision of which it is not the addressee subject to the dual condition that the decision must concern it directly and individually.
Opozarjam, da sta s to določbo za tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti zoper neko odločbo za vse fizične ali pravne osebe, ki niso naslovniki, določena dva pogoja, in sicer, da jih slednja zadeva neposredno in posamično.
If the measure in question does not fulfil those conditions, the action brought against it is inadmissible.
Če upo�tevni akt ne izpolnjuje teh pogojev, je vložena tožba nedopustna.
As the Court of First Instance pointed out, in paragraph 32 of the contested judgment, that review procedure comprises two stages, between which the Community judicature has always drawn a clear distinction. 36
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tudi v točki 32 izpodbijane sodbe opozorilo, da je postopek nadzora v bistvu sestavljen iz dveh faz, ki ju mora sodi�če Skupnosti vedno jasno razlikovati 36.
The first of those stages is established by Article 88(3) EC.
Prvo teh faz določa člen 88(3) ES 37.
Court held that persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of those factors distinguishes them individually ‘just as in the case of the person addressed’.
Poudarjam, da omogoča Komisiji začetek lahko osebe, ki niso naslovniki izpodbijane odločbe, sklicujejo na to, da jih odločba posamično zadeva, le kadar vpliva nanje zaradi njihovih značilnosti ali zaradi dejanskega položaja, ki jih razlikuje od vseh drugih oseb in jih zato individualizira enako, kot bi individualiziral „naslovnika take odločbe“.
the Commission to carry out a preliminary, simplified examination of the project in order to form a prima facie opinion as to the compatibility of the project with the common market.
predhodnega in poenostavljenega preizkusa prigla�enega projekta, s katerim dobi prvo mnenje glede združljivosti s skupnim trgom 38.
38 No provision is made for the participation of third parties in the procedure.
Udeležba tretjih oseb v postopku ni predvidena.
At the end of that examination, the Commission may decide that the measure in question does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC.
Na koncu preizkusa lahko Komisija odloči, da upo�tevni ukrep ni državna pomoč v smislu člena 87 ES.
It may also decide, if it is sure, that that measure constitutes State aid compatible with the Treaty.
Prav tako lahko odloči, če je o tem prepričana, da je upo�tevni ukrep državna pomoč, ki je združljiva s Pogodbo.
On the other hand, if the Commission has serious difficulty in assessing the compatibility of the aid with the common
Če pa ima Komisija resne težave pri presoji, ali je pomoč združljiva s skupnim
35 — See inter alia Cook v Commission, paragraph 21, and Matra v Commission, paragraph 15.
35 – Glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi Cook proti Komisiji (točka 21) in Matra proti Komisiji (točka 15).
In connection with the procedure for reviewing State aid, the Court has acknowledged that the concept of individual interest is applied in a particular way, having regard
V okviru postopka nadzora državnih pomoči je Sodi�če priznalo, da se pojem posamični interes razlaga na poseben način, in sicer ob upo�tevanju predmeta in poseb-
36 — In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance refers inter alia to Cook v Commission, paragraph 22; Matra v Commission, paragraph 16; and Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraphs 38 and 39.
36 – V izpodbijani sodbi se Sodi�če prve stopnje sklicuje zlasti na zgoraj navedene sodbe Cook proti Komisiji (točka 22); Matra proti Komisiji (točka 16) in Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France (točki 38 in 39).