natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
56 That legislation, which was applicable before the Kingdom of Spain acceded to the European Communities, allowed a tax deduction to be offered to undertakings for expenditure and investments made abroad.
Ti predpisi, ki so se uporabljali pred pristopom Kraljevine Španije k Evropski skupnosti, so podjetjem omogočali davčno olaj�avo za njihove stro�ke in vlaganja v tujini.
After having been alerted by undertakings in competition with the recipients, the Commission initiated proceedings to examine the lawfulness of the aid at issue in relation only to the rules of the ECSC Treaty.
Potem ko so konkurenčna podjetja prejemnikov opozorila Komisijo, je ta odprla postopek za preizkus zakonitosti spornih pomoči samo glede na pravila Pogodbe ESPJ.
For, unlike the EC Treaty, the ECSC Treaty makes no provision for ‘existing aid’.
Pogodba ESPJ naj namreč, drugače kot Pogodba ES, ne bi poznala pojma „obstoječe pomoči“.
Having found that the tax deduction scheme at issue could place the steel undertakings at an advantage, the Commission decided that any aid granted by Spain under the legislation at issue to ECSC steel undertakings was incompatible with the common market in coal and steel, pursuant to Article 4(c) CS.
Potem ko je Komisija ugotovila, da bi zadevni sistem davčnih olaj�av lahko dajal prednost jeklarskim družbam, je odločila, da je bila vsaka pomoč, ki jo je Kraljevina Španija v skladu z zadevno zakonodajo odobrila jeklarskim družbam ESPJ, na podlagi člena 4(c) PJ nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo.
In the light of that caselaw, undertakings which carry on production activities that fall within the scope of the ECSC Treaty are therefore in a different situation from other undertakings which fall within the scope of the EC Treaty.
Glede na to sodno prakso so torej podjetja, ki izvajajo proizvodne dejavnosti, za katere velja Pogodba ESPJ, v drugačnem položaju kot druga podjetja, za katera velja Pogodba ES.
This follows from the specific rules established by the ECSC Treaty to ensure the proper functioning of the common market in coal and steel and to deal with its structural problems.
To izhaja iz posebnih pravil, določenih s Pogodbo ESPJ, da bi se zagotovilo pravilno delovanje skupnega trga za premog in jeklo in da bi se re�ile njegove strukturne težave.
Even though the EC Treaty introduces a system for controlling State aid which is much more flexible than the ECSC Treaty, such undertakings are still subject to the specific rules laid down by that Treaty. 58
Čeprav Pogodba ES izvaja sistem nadzora državnih pomoči veliko prožneje kot Pogodba ESPJ, za ta podjetja torej �e naprej veljajo posebna pravila, navedena v tej pogodbi 58.
For the purposes of this case, the following conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing:
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenih dejstev lahko sklepamo:
In its action, the Kingdom of Spain submitted in particular that the exclusion of steel undertakings from the benefit of the legislation at issue gave rise to a breach of the principle of equal treatment between undertakings.
Kraljevina Španija je namreč v okviru tožbe navedla, da je izključitev jeklarskih podjetij iz ugodnosti zadevnih predpisov pomenila kr�itev načela enakega obrav-
56 — That case concerned an action for annulment brought by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission Decision 2001/168/ECSC of 31 October 2000 on Spain’s corporation tax laws (OJ 2001 L 60, p. 57).
56 – Predmet te zadeve je bila ničnostna tožba, ki jo je Kraljevina Španija vložila zoper Odločbo Komisije 2001/168/ESPJ z dne 31. oktobra 2000 o �panskih zakonih glede davka na dobiček pravnih oseb (UL 2001, L 60, str. 57).
58 — Article 87 EC does contain a prohibition on State aid.
58 – Res je, da so s členom 87 ES prepovedane državne pomoči.
None the less, not only is that immediately qualified by a number of derogations, but it does not have, even in principle and despite the general terms in which it is framed, the absolute nature of that laid down in the ECSC Treaty, if only because it already incorporates the twofold caveat that the aid to which it applies must, first, distort or threaten to distort competition and, secondly, favour certain undertakings or certain productions.
Kljub temu ima ta prepoved takoj celo vrsto različnih izjem, vendar poleg tega nima, niti v svojem bistvu in kljub splo�ni obliki, absolutne narave prepovedi, določene s Pogodbo ESPJ, le zato, ker ima že dvojni značaj, ki se mora nana�ati na pomoči ki, prvič, izkrivljajo ali bi lahko izkrivljale konkurenco in ki, drugič, dajejo prednost nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterih vrst blaga.
— The ECSC Treaty provides for a specific scheme for controlling State aid granted to steel undertakings which is adapted to the way in which the common market for coal and steel operates.
Pogodba ESPJ določa sistem posebnega nadzora državnih pomoči, dodeljenih jeklarskim družbam, ki je prilagojen pogojem delovanja skupnega trga za premog in jeklo.
This scheme is laid down in Article 4(c) CS as well as in the various steel aid codes.
Ta sistem je določen s členom 4(c) PJ ter z različnimi pravili o pomočeh jeklarstvu.
In accordance with Article 305(1) EC and in the light of the settled caselaw of the Court, the provisions of the EC Treaty apply in the alternative;
Določbe Pogodbe ES se v smislu člena 305(1) ES in glede na ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča uporabljajo subsidiarno.
The issues of the case having thus been set out, I shall now explain why I consider that the Court of First Instance was entitled to take the view that the examination of the aid at issue did indeed fall within the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
Potem ko sem spomnil na mnenja in stali�ča, bom zdaj pojasnil, zakaj menim, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko �telo, da je preizkus zadevnih pomoči sodil na področje uporabe člena 4(c) PJ.
(ii) My proposed approach
– ii) Re�itev, ki jo predlagam
— Under Article 4(c) CS, aid granted to steel undertakings is incompatible with the common market unless it falls within the scope of the exemptions expressly provided for and duly authorised by the Commission in a steel aid code; 59
Na podlagi člena 4(c) PJ so pomoči, odobrene jeklarskim podjetjem, nezdružljive s skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo, razen če sodijo na področje uporabe izjem, ki jih Komisija izrecno določi in pravilno dovoli v okviru pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu 59.
We should recall that the aid at issue in this case constitutes individual aid which was granted to a steel undertaking under a scheme previously authorised by the Commission on the basis of the EC Treaty.
Opozarjam, da so zadevne pomoči v tej zadevi posamična pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena jeklarski družbi na podlagi sistema, ki ga je Komisija predhodno odobrila na podlagi Pogodbe ES.
— In so far as the ECSC Treaty achieves only partial integration, Article 67 CS allows the Commission to allow compensatory measures to a steel undertaking where it suffers as a result of action taken by a Member State as part of its general economic policy.
Če se s Pogodbo ESPJ uresniči le delna integracija, člen 67 PJ omogoča Komisiji, da dovoli kompenzacijske ukrepe v korist jeklarske družbe, če je ta o�kodovana zaradi ukrepa države članice, ki ga je sprejela v okviru svoje splo�ne gospodarske politike.
Since the EC Treaty
Pri uporabi Pogodbe
59 — As I said previously, aid may also be authorised on the basis of an individual decision.
59 – Kot sem navedel zgoraj, se lahko pomoč odobrijo tudi na podlagi posamične odločbe.
It is clear from the documents before the Court that the aid at issue forms part of a general policy to remedy the specific economic disadvantages suffered by the Zonenrandgebiet.
Iz elementov spisa izhaja, da zadevne pomoči sodijo v okvir splo�ne politike, ki želi odpraviti posebne gospodarske neugodnosti, ki jih je utrpelo območje Zonenrandgebiet.
It is the ZRFG which sets out the objectives and the framework within which the implementing measures, such as
ZRFG določa cilje in okvir, v katerem so sprejeti izvedbeni ukrepi, kot
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER je torej narava zadevnih
What, then, is the nature of the aid at issue?
Kak�na pomoči?
In this dispute, Salzgitter submits that the aid it received constitutes an individual measure implementing a general scheme of aid which had been previously authorised by the Commission.
Družba Salzgitter v tem sporu namreč zatrjuje, da so bile prejete pomoči posamičen izvedbeni ukrep splo�nega sistema pomoči, ki ga je predhodno odobrila Komisija.
It therefore contends that it was not required to notify that individual measure on the basis of the ECSC Treaty and relies in this regard on the judgment in Case C-47/91.
Zato navaja, da ji na podlagi Pogodbe ESPJ ni bilo treba priglasiti tega posamičnega ukrepa, in se v zvezi s tem sklicuje na sodbo z dne 5. oktobra 1994 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji 60.
60 those at issue, are adopted.
so ti v obravnavani zadevi.
It is therefore difficult to assess the contested aid by considering it in isolation, because it is the expression of a consistent line of policy pursued by the Federal Republic of Germany.
Sporne pomoči je torej težko presojati ločeno, ker odražajo koherentno politiko Zvezne republike Nemčije.
In other words, the ZRFG constitutes the legal basis on which all the specific implementing measures are adopted and which supports the view that those measures are interdependent.
Drugače povedano, ZRFG je pravna podlaga, na kateri so sprejeti vsi konkretni izvedbeni ukrepi in ki omogoča ugotovitev, da so soodvisni.
Accordingly, I cannot but acknowledge that the application of the aid in question to Salzgitter is intended to contribute towards the realisation of the bigger plan of securing the balanced development of the economy of that border region.
Ob upo�tevanju tega lahko le priznamo, da je uporaba zadevnih pomoči za družbo Salzgitter namenjena temu, da se prispeva k uresničitvi veliko večjega projekta, namreč skrbeti za uravnotežen razvoj gospodarstva tega mejnega območja.
In my view, it was essentially those general objectives which dictated the adoption of the ZRFG and that aid.
Menim, da so to v bistvu tisti splo�ni cilji, ki so narekovali sprejetje ZRFG in zadevnih pomoči.
It is therefore difficult for me to say, on the evidence available, that the steel industry was targeted as such and that the Federal Republic of Germany sought to support it specifically by reference to its own needs.
Glede na dejstva in dokaze, ki jih imamo, torej težko potrdim, da je bila cilj jeklarska industrija kot taka in da jo je Zvezna republika Nemčija želela posebej podpreti z ozirom na njene lastne potrebe.
In any event, the steel industry was not the only industry to benefit from the tax incentives provided for in the ZRFG and, moreover, the special depreciation allowances and taxfree reserves were not reserved for it alone.
V vsakem primeru jeklarska industrija ni bila edina prejemnica ugodnosti davčnih spodbud, določenih z ZRFG, in ji posebne amortizacije ter neobdavčene rezervacije in rezerve niso bile izključno pridržane.
In that case, the Court held that individual measures implementing a general scheme of aid which has been approved by the Commission do not need to be notified to the Commission, unless reservations to that effect have been issued in the approval decision.
V tej zadevi je Sodi�če presodilo, da posamičnih izvedbenih ukrepov splo�nega sistema pomoči, ki jih je potrdila Komisija, ni treba priglasiti Komisiji, razen če so bile rezerve izdane v tem smislu v odločitvi o potrditvi.
The Court considered that, ‘since the individual grants of aid are merely measures implementing the general aid scheme, the factors to be taken into consideration by the Commission in assessing that aid are the same as those which it applied on examining the general scheme’.
Sodi�če je namreč menilo, da, „ker [so] posamične pomoči samo izvedbeni ukrepi splo�nega sistema pomoči, bi bili dejavniki, ki bi jih Komisija morala upo�tevati pri njihovi presoji, enaki kot tisti, ki jih je uporabila pri preizkusu splo�nega sistema“.
The Court therefore concluded that it was unnecessary for the individual grants of aid to be subject to examination by the Commission. 61
Sodi�če je torej sklenilo, da ne bi bilo potrebno, da Komisija ponovno preuči posamične pomoči. 61
Consequently, this case does not concern measures specifically directed at and limited to steel undertakings.
Posledično torej nismo v okviru ukrepov, ki so posebno in izključno sprejeti v korist jeklarskih družb.
If that were so, the application of Article 4(c) CS would be beyond doubt.
Če bi bilo tako, ne bi bilo nobenega dvoma o uporabi člena 4(c) PJ.
The question in this case is therefore whether the aid paid to Salzgitter is merely an individual measure implementing the ZRFG — which, in the light of the caselaw above, would not need to be notified to the Commission — or whether that aid must, on the contrary, be assessed independently of the ZRFG.
V tem sporu obstaja torej vpra�anje, ali je pomoč, izplačana družbi Salzgitter, samo posamičen izvedbeni ukrep ZRFG – ki naj ga glede na zgoraj navedeno sodno prakso ne bi bilo treba priglasiti Komisiji – oziroma ali je treba to pomoč, ravno nasprotno, presojati neodvisno od ZRFG.
The grant to Salzgitter of the aid at issue does not therefore constitute a mere individual measure implementing the ZRFG since the examination of the compatibility of that aid must be subject to the specific rules laid down by the ECSC Treaty for controlling State aid.
Dodelitev zadevnih pomoči družbi Salzgitter torej ni samo posamičen izvedbeni ukrep ZRFG, ker je treba za preizkus njegove združljivosti uporabiti posebna pravila, ki jih Pogodba ESPJ določa za nadzor državnih pomoči.
In my opinion, the aforementioned caselaw cannot be transposed to this case.
Menim namreč, da zgoraj navedene sodne prakse ni mogoče prenesti na obravnavano zadevo.
In Italy v Commission, cited above, the individual aid at issue, and the general scheme of aid of which it formed part, concerned only undertakings falling within the scope of the EC Treaty.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana sodba Italija proti Komisiji, sta se zadevna posamična pomoč, pa tudi splo�ni sistem pomoči v okviru, v katerega je sodila, nana�ala le na družbe, za katere velja Pogodba ES.
That is not the case in this dispute.
V tem sporu ne gre za tak primer.
The undertakings which benefit from the ZRFG fall within the scope of both the EC and ECSC Treaties.
Družbe, ki imajo ugodnosti iz ZRFG, namreč sodijo na področje uporabe dveh Pogodb, ES in ESPJ.
As I have already said, the ECSC Treaty and the rules adopted on the basis of it establish a specific scheme for controlling State aid to which steel undertakings are subject. The factors which the Commission must take into consideration in
Kot sem že navedel, so Pogodba ESPJ in predpisi, sprejeti na njeni podlagi, vzpostavili poseben sistem nadzora državnih pomoči,
The objective is clearly not to remove the coal or steel industries from any benefits resulting from a general policy measure.
Očitno ni cilj, da se jeklarski in premogovni�ki industriji odtegne morebitne ugodnosti ukrepa splo�ne politike.
Nor do I accept, as the Federal Republic of Germany submits, that Article 4(c) CS applies to general schemes of aid.
Moj namen tudi ni dopustiti, kot to zatrjuje Zvezna republika Nemčija, uporabo čle -na 4(c) PJ za splo�ne sisteme pomoči.
My analysis is based solely on the purpose of the system introduced by the ECSC Treaty and the need to assess the compatibility of measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings with reference to the particular situation of the market in steel and the specific rules laid down by that treaty.
Moja preučitev temelji izključno na cilju sistema, ki je bil vzpostavljen s Pogodbo ESPJ, in na tem, da je nujno presoditi združljivost ukrepov, kot so ti v postopku v glavni stvari, glede na poseben položaj jeklarskega trga in posebna pravila, določena s to pogodbo.
It is in this regard that Article 6 of the Third Code, requiring Member States to notify the Commission of ‘plans to grant aid to the steel industry under schemes on which it has already taken a decision under the [EC] Treaty’ comes into its own.
Ravno v zvezi s tem člen 6 tretjih pravil, ko od držav članic zahteva, da Komisiji priglasijo „načrte za uporabo programov pomoči v jeklarskem sektorju, v zvezi s katerimi se je že opredelila na podlagi določb Pogodbe [ES]“, dobi ves svoj smisel.
In the light of the foregoing, I therefore take the view that the aid at issue, although it forms part of a general scheme of aid previously authorised by the Commission on the basis of the EC Treaty, must be examined, in isolation, in the light of the rules laid down in the ECSC Treaty.
Glede na zgoraj navedena dejstva torej menim, da je treba preizkus zadevnih pomoči, čeprav sodijo v okvir splo�nega sistema pomoči, ki ga je predhodno odobrila Komisija na podlagi Pogodbe ES, opraviti ločeno, v smislu pravil Pogodbe ESPJ.
and duration of which are left to the assessment of the Commission.
Ta pomoč je nadomestilo, katerega znesek, pogoji in čas trajanja so prepu�čeni presoji Komisije.
I do not think that Article 67 CS can lend legitimacy to a system of subsidies from which steel undertakings benefit solely because those subsidies constitute non-specific aid, that is to say that they are available to the coal and steel sectors as well as to other economic sectors at the same time. 64
Ne mislim, da bi člen 67 PJ lahko upravičil sistem subvencij, ki naj bi jih prejele jeklarske družbe samo zaradi dejstva, da naj bi �lo za neposebne pomoči, kar pomeni, da se istočasno nana�ajo na sektorje premoga in jekla ter druge gospodarske sektorje 64.
The question now is whether the aid at issue must be assessed with reference to Article 4(c) CS or Article 67 CS.
Zdaj nastane vpra�anje, ali je treba sporne pomoči presoditi na podlagi čle -na 4(c) PJ ali člena 67 PJ.
I am of the opinion that Article 67 CS is not applicable in this case.
Menim, da v obravnavani zadevi ni mogoče uporabiti člena 67 PJ.
In this case, it seems clear to me that the aid granted to Salzgitter does not constitute a compensatory measure within the meaning of that provision.
Po mojem mnenju je v tej zadevi očitno, da pomoč, odobrena družbi Salzgitter, ni kompenzacijski ukrep v smislu te določbe.
After all, the documents before the Court do not show that that aid was granted to Salzgitter to remedy distortions of competition from which it suffered following the adoption of the ZRFG.
Iz elementov spisa namreč ne izhaja, da naj bi ji bila ta pomoč odobrena za re�itev izkrivljanja konkurence, ki naj bi jo utrpela zaradi sprejetja ZRFG.
As I have stated, 62the Court long ago gave a restrictive interpretation of that provision, considering it to be a ‘protective measure’ against State measures which do not directly and immediately concern the coal and steel industries but which are nevertheless capable of affecting, by their effects, the competitive position of those industries.
Kot sem že navedel 62, je Sodi�če zelo zgodaj dalo ozko razlago te določbe, ko jo je �telo za „previdnostni ukrep“ zoper državne ukrepe, ki se ne nana�ajo neposredno in takoj na industrijo premoga in jekla, ki pa kljub temu lahko s svojimi učinki vplivajo na njen konkurenčni položaj.
63 Article 67 CS allows Member States to grant aid to steel undertakings which have been the victim of a State measure adopted under their general economic policy.
63Navedena določba omogoča državam članicam, da dodelijo pomoč jeklarskim družbam, ki so bile žrtve državnega ukrepa, sprejetega v
Consequently, I am of the opinion that the assessment of the aid at issue did not fall within the scope of Article 67 CS.
Zato menim, da za presojo zadevnih pomoči ni bilo treba uporabiti člena 67 PJ.
Like the Commission, I take the view, on the contrary, that the compatibility of that aid with the common market for coal and steel should have been examined in the light of Article 4(c) CS and the rules laid down in the Sixth Code.
Tako kot Komisija menim nasprotno, da bi bilo treba združljivost teh pomoči s skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo preizkusiti na podlagi člena 4(c) PJ in predpisov, določenih v �estih pravilih.
62 — See point 107 of this Opinion.
62 – Glej točko 108 teh sklepnih predlogov.
64 — See in this regard J. Mertens de Wilmars (op. cit., p. 429).
64 – V zvezi s tem glej Mertens de Wilmars, J., op.cit., (str. 429).
That interpretation is corroborated by the broad terms in which Article 4(c) CS is framed, referring, it will be recalled, to ‘aids granted by States […] in any form whatsoever’.
To razlago potrjuje �irok pomen člena 4(c) PJ, ki se nana�a, ponovno opozarjam, na „karšne koli pomoči, ki jih države dodelijo […]“ 65.
65In the light of my foregoing findings, I consider that that provision applies to all aid granted to steel undertakings, irrespective of its form or origin, be it granted specifically to a steel undertaking or adopted pursuant to a general or regional scheme of aid.
Glede na navedene elemente menim, da se ta določba nana�a na vse pomoči, dodeljene jeklarskim družbam, ne glede na njihovo obliko ali izvor, ne glede na to, ali so bile dodeljene posebno eni jeklarski družbi oziroma so bile sprejete na podlagi splo�nega ali regionalnega sistema pomoči.
It must not be forgotten that that provision was drafted in 1951, before the EEC even came into being and before the control of general or regional schemes of State aid was drawn up.
Ne smemo pozabiti, da je bila ta določba oblikovana leta 1951, celo pred nastankom EGS in oblikovanjem splo�nih ali regionalnih sistemov nadzora državnih pomoči.
My suggested interpretation of that provision allows uniform treatment to be afforded to all aid granted to the steel sector so that it is subject to a consistent and effective discipline.
Razlaga, ki jo predlagam za navedeno določbo, omogoča, da se zagotovi enotno obravnavanje vseh pomoči, odobrenih jeklarskemu sektorju, da bi bile te dosledno in učinkovito urejene.
With regard to the scope of Article 67 CS, I am of the opinion that it covers all measures which serve to compensate for the harmful effects suffered by steel undertakings as result of rules of general economic policy, with the exception of State aid the conditions for the grant of which are specifically governed by Article 4(c) CS and by the steel aid codes.
Glede področja uporabe člena 67 PJ menim, da velja za vse ukrepe, ki omogočajo kompenzacijo �kodljivih učinkov, ki nastanejo jeklarskim družbam zaradi predpisov splo�ne gospodarske politike, razen za državne pomoči, katerih pogoji za dodelitev so posebej urejeni v členu 4(c) PJ in pravilih o pomoči jeklarstvu.
That approach also ensures equal treatment as between Member States and economic operators.
Ta re�itev poleg tega omogoča, da se zagotovi enako obravnavanje med državami članicami in gospodarskimi subjekti.
After all, it would in my view be contrary to the principle of equal treatment to authorise the grant of aid to a steel undertaking because it is adopted under a general scheme of aid and yet to refuse, under Article 4(c) CS, aid the amount, conditions and duration of which are almost identical, for the sole reason that the latter aid is specifically granted to a steel undertaking. If that were the case, the Member States might
Po mojem mnenju bi bilo namreč v nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja, če bi se dovolila dodelitev pomoči jeklarski družbi, ker je sprejeta na podlagi splo�nega sistema pomoči, in bi se hkrati v smislu člena 4(c) PJ zavrnila pomoč, katere znesek, pogoji
In the light of the foregoing, I therefore take the view that the Court of First Instance did not commit an error of law in holding, in paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal, that the aid at issue fell within the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega torej menim, da Sodi�če prve stopnje nikakor ni napačno uporabilo prava, ko je v točki 116 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da so zadevne pomoči sodile na področje uporabe člena 4(c) PJ.
65 — Emphasis added.
65 – Moj poudarek.
In those circumstances, I propose that the Court should dismiss the first limb of the first plea.
V teh okoli�činah Sodi�ču predlagam, naj zavrne prvi del prvega pritožbenega razloga.
After all, this requires an amendment to the ECSC Treaty.
bi namreč pomenilo spremembo Pogodbe ESPJ.