natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In those circumstances, the Court held that the Commission could not automatically consider that the portion of the financing had necessarily benefited Valmont but should have first examined, in the light of the information available, whether or not that portion of the financing could be regarded as being in fact compensation for the burden borne by Valmont.
Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da Komisija v teh razmerah ni mogla takoj presoditi, da je od tega dela financiranja imel prednost predvsem Valmont, ampak bi bila morala najprej na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je imela na voljo, raziskati, ali se je ta del financiranjalahkoštelzadejanskoplačilo stroškov Valmonta ali ne.
To that end, the Commission was required to ascertain whether the conditions set out in Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, cited above, were
Morala bi preveriti, ali so bili pogoji iz zgoraj navedene sodbe v zadevi Altmark Trans in Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg izpolnjeni ali ne.
Namely: (i) the recipient undertaking must actually be responsible for carrying out public service obligations and those obligations must be clearly defined; (ii) the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner to avoid it conferring an economic advantage which may favour the recipient undertaking over competing undertakings; (iii) the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations; (iv) when the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped to be able to satisfy the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.
In sicer, prvič, podjetje, ki je prejemnik, mora biti dejansko odgovorno za izvrševanje obveznosti javnih služb in te obveznosti morajo biti jasno določene; drugič, parametri, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, morajo biti predhodno določeni objektivno in transparentno, da ne štejejo za gospodarsko korist, ki podjetju, ki je prejemnik, daje prednost pred konkurenčnimi podjetji; tretjič, nadomestilo naj ne bi presegalo tega, kar je potrebno za pokritje stroškov, nastalih pri izvrševanju obveznosti javnih služb, upoštevajoč prihodke, povezane s slednjimi, in primerno korist zaradi izvrševanja teh obveznosti; četrtič, kadar se izbira podjetja za izvrševanje obveznosti javnih služb v konkretnem primeru ne opravi v okviru postopka javnih naročil, je treba stopnjo potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih povprečno podjetje, dobro vodeno in primerno opremljeno, da lahko zadosti zahtevam potrebnih javnih služb, imelo pri izvrševanju teh obveznosti, upoštevajoč prihodke, povezane s slednjimi, in primerno korist zaradi izvrševanja teh obveznosti.
Last, by its judgment in Danske Busvognmaend v Commission, the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission decision declaring the aid granted by Danish authorities to the bus company Combus to be compatible with the common market.
Ta ničnostni razlog odločbe z dne 18. julija 2001 je dodan h kršitvi člena 87(1) ES – ugotovljeni v isti sodbi –, ki jo je Komisija zagrešila s tem, da je na podlagi strokovnega poročila brez dokazne vrednosti odločila, da je bila cena zemljišča, prodanega tožeči stranki, nižja od cene na trgu, zaradi česar je vsebovala element državne pomoči.
28 It considered that an undertaking, such as Combus, whose obligations to operate, to carry and to collect the tariffs were not imposed unilaterally, which was not obliged to operate its transport services in an unprofitable manner, contrary to its commercial interests, but which, on the contrary, had voluntarily assumed those obligations once it had been successful in the tendering procedures, which did not provide for any State subsidies and in which it had been free to participate or not, depending on its economic interests, and whose transport services were paid for by the price it had proposed in its bids in the tendering procedures and which had been included in the contracts subsequently concluded, did not bear public service obligations within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1191/69; such an undertaking did not therefore receive compensation within the meaning of that article, as the Commission had found, but financial remuneration provided for in the transport contracts.
Posebej je Sodišče prve stopnje sodilo, da tej družbi ni bilo naloženo izvrševanje obveznosti javnih služb v smislu Uredbe št. 1191/6928. Menilo je, da podjetje, kot je Combus, ki mu obveznosti upravljanja in izvajanja prevozov ter unovčenja tarif niso bile enostransko naložene in ki ni bilo dolžno izvajati prevoznih storitev na neprofitennačin v nasprotju z njegovim gospodarskim interesom, ampak je te obveznosti prevzelo prostovoljno, potem ko je bilo uspešno v natečajnem postopku, ki ni predvidel nobene državne subvencije in ki se ga je podjetje glede na svoje gospodarske interese udeležilo svobodno, ter katerega prevozne storitve so bile poplačane po ceni, ki jo je podjetje predlagalo v svojih vlogah v natečajnem postopku in ki je bila zajeta s kasneje sklenjenimi pogodbami, ni nosilec obveznosti javnih storitev v smislu člena 2(1) Uredbe št. 1191/69: tako podjetje torej ne prejema nadomestila v smislu tega člena, kot je to menila Komisija, ampak finančno poplačilo, določeno v navedenih prevoznih pogodbah.
Specific or selective nature of the State measure
Posebnost ali selektivnost državne pomoči
In Lenzing v Commission, the Court considered that the Commission had been entitled to conclude that the measure granted in favour of Sniace was selective.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi Lenzing proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da bi bila Komisija morala odločiti, da je bil ukrep, dodeljen v korist družbe Sniace, selektiven.
The Court recalled, in that regard, that measures of purely general scope do not fall within Article 87(1) EC, but that, however, the case-law has already established that even assistance which at first sight is applicable to undertakings in general may present a certain selectivity and, accordingly, be regarded as a measure intended to favour certain undertakings or certain products.
V tem oziru je spomnilo, da člen 87(1) ES ne zadeva ukrepov zgolj splošnega pomena, ampak da lahko celo posredovanja, ki se na prvi pogled na splošno uporabljajo za podjetja, predstavljajo določeno selektivnost in s tem veljajo za ukrepe, ki dajejo prednost določenim podjetjem ali proizvodnjam.
That is the case, in particular, where the administration called upon to apply the general rule has a discretion when applying the measure.
Za tak primer gre zlasti takrat, kadar ima pristojna uprava, ki naj bi uporabila splošno pravilo, diskrecijsko pravico glede uporabe akta.
In this case, the Court found that the Spanish public bodies responsible for collecting social security contributions had a certain discretion both when concluding restructuring and repayment agreements and when determining certain detailed terms in those agreements, such as the repayment timetable, the amount of the surcharges and the sufficiency of the guarantees offered in return for the settlement of the debts.
V tem primeru je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da so španske javne organizacije, zadolžene za zbiranje prispevkov socialnega zavarovanja, imele določeno diskrecijsko pravico za sklenitev sporazumov o porazdelitvi ali povračilu in za določitev določenih pogojev teh sporazumov, takih kot so časovni plan povračil, višina zapadlih plačil (obresti) in zadostnost garancij, ponujenih v zameno za plačilo dolgov.
As well as this ground for annulment of the decision of 18 July 2001, there had been an infringement of Article 87(1) EC – established in the same judgment – by the Commission, which had concluded on the basis of an expert report having no probative calue that the price of the land sold to the applicant was below market price and, accordingly, contained an element of State aid.
V utemeljitev svoje presoje Sodišče prve stopnje navaja – redko dejanje, ki pa je vredno omembe, – sodbo Sodišča EFTE 29 in poudarja, da je za to, da bi se ukrep lahko kvalificiralkotdržavna pomoč, potrebno, da podjetja, katerim je slednja dodeljena, pripadajo kategoriji, ki se določi s pravno ali dejansko uporabo merila, oblikovanega z zadevnim ukrepom.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p.
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1191/69 z dne 26. junija 1969 o o ukrepanju držav članic glede obveznosti javne službe v železniškem in cestnem prometu ter prometu po celinskih plovnih poteh (UL L 156, str.
276), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991 (OJ 1991 L 169, p. 1).
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) št. 1893/91 z dne 20. juniija 1991 (UL L 169, str. 1).
Judgment of the EFTA Court of 20 May 1999 in Case E-6/98 Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority Reports of EFTA Court, p. 74.
Sodba Sodišča EFTE z dne 20. maja 1999 v zadevi Norway proti EFTA Surveillance Authority, E-6/98, Poročilo Sodišča EFTE, str. 74.
Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (OJ 1996 L 107, p. 4).
Priporočilo 96/280/ES Komisije z dne 3. aprila 1996 o definicijimalihinsrednjihpodjetij(MSP)(UL L 107, str. 4).
Commission notice on the Community guidelines on State aid for SMEs (OJ 1996 C 213, p. 4).
Sporočilo Komisije o okviru Skupnosti glede državnih pomoči MSP (UL 1996, C 213, str. 4).
Proceedings that undertakings in receipt of aid cannot in principle have a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in Article 88 EC but that, none the less, the case-law does not preclude the possibility that, in order to challenge its repayment, the recipients of unlawful aid may, in the procedure for recovery of the aid, plead exceptional circumstances which may have legitimately given rise to a legitimate expectation that the law was lawful.
Dejavnost napake pri presoji, da načrt preoblikovanja družbi Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau ne bi omogočil izboljšanja stanja in posledično zavrnila pravno sredstvo.
However, the Court held that those recipients can rely on such exceptional circumstances, on the basis of the relevant provisions of national law, only in the framework of the recovery procedure before the national courts, and that it is for those courts alone to assess the circumstances of the case, if necessary after obtaining a preliminary ruling on interpretation from the Court of Justice.
Nasprotno je zgoraj navedena sodba v zadevi Kronofrance proti Komisiji razglasila ničnost odločbe Komisije o tem, da ne bo ugovarjala zoper pomoč, ki so jo nemški organi dodelili družbi Glunz za gradnjo integriranega centra za obdelavo lesa. Sodišče prve stopnje je menilo, da Komisija ni spoštovala pravil, izdanih v Večsektorskih smernicah o regionalni pomoči za velike investicijske projekte, kolikor ni preverila, kot to določajo smernice, ali je bil trg proizvodov, na katere se nanaša zadevna pomoč, „v upadanju“.
In so holding, the Court of First Instance took a clear position on a question to which hesitant answers had thus far been given (see, in that regard, the Annual Report 1999).
Zaradi te pravne napake Komisije priglašene lastnosti združljivosti pomoči ni bilo mogoče presoditi na podlagi celote uporabnih meril.
Unlike the applicant in Fleuren Compost v Commission, Salzgitter maintained, in order to challenge repayment of the aid, not that the Commission had breached the principle of protection of legitimate expectations but that it had failed to observe the principle of legal certainty; and the Court considered that the breach of that principle of legal certainty justified in that case the annulment of the provisions of the Commission decision 34 requiring the Federal Republic of Germany to recover the aid granted to the undertakings forming part of Salzgitter AG.
Vendar Sodišče prve stopnje sodi, da se lahko prejemniki sklicujejo na take izjemne okoliščine na podlagi primernih določb nacionalnega prava samo v okviru postopka o vračilu pred nacionalnimi sodišči, ki so edina pristojna za presojo o zadevnih okoliščinah, potem ko so na Sodišče vložila predloge za sprejem predhodne odločbe o razlagi. Tako sodeč je Sodišče prve stopnje sprejelo jasno mnenje o vprašanju, na katero so bili do takrat podani oklevajoči odgovori (v tem oziru glej Letno poročilo za leto 1999).
In Salzgitter v Commission the Court of First Instance held, first of all, that the possibility of relying on the principle of legal certainty did not depend on the conditions which must be satisfied where a party relies on a legitimate expectation that State aid was properly granted.
Za razliko od tožeče stranke v zadevi Fleuren Compost proti Komisiji, posledica katere je bila ravnokar pojasnjena sodba, Salzgitter, zato da bi ugovarjala vračilu pomoči, ni navajala, da je Komisija kršila načelo varstva zaupanja v pravo, ampak da je kršila načelo pravne varnosti.
It was for that reason that the steel undertaking which had obtained State aid which had not been notified to the Commission could rely, in order to challenge the Commission decision requiring repayment of the aid, on legal certainty, although the recipient of aid is precluded, other than in certain circumstances, from having a legitimate expectation that the aid was properly granted if it was granted in breach of the provisions on prior control of State aid.
Sodišče je menilo, da kršitev načela pravne varnosti v tem primeru upravičuje razglasitev ničnosti določb odločbe Komisije34, ki so Zvezni republiki Nemčiji naložile, naj izterja pomoči, ki jih je dodelila podjetjem, združenim pod imenom Salzgitter AG.
The Court of First Instance then held that the steel undertaking which had received unlawful aid was entitled to rely on the principle of legal certainty in order to challenge the lawfulness of a Commission decision ordering repayment of the aid in a case where at the time when it received the aid there was, owing to reasons attributable to the Commission, a situation of uncertainty and lack of clarity as regards the legal rules applicable to the type of aids involved, combined with the prolonged lack of reaction on the part of the Commission, which was none the less aware that the aid was being paid and which thus led to the creation, in disregard of its duty of care, of an equivocal situation which the Commission was under a duty to clarify before it could take any action to order the repayment of the aid which had been paid.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi Salzgitter proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje najprej sodilo, da sklicevanje na načelo pravne varnosti ni bilo odvisno od pogojev, v katerih se je glede pravilnosti državne pomoči dovoljeno sklicevati na zaupanje v pravo. Zato se železarsko podjetje, ki je prejelo državno pomoč, ki ni bila priglašena Komisiji, lahko sklicuje na načelo pravne varnosti zato, da nasprotuje odločbi Komisije, ki mu je naložila vračanje, čeprav je izključeno, razen v izjemnih okoliščinah, da bi se prejemnik pomoči glede pravilosti le-te lahko skliceval na zaupanje v pravo, če so bile z njeno dodelitvijo kršene določbe o postopku predhodnega nadzora državnih pomoči.
Commission Decision 2000/797/ECSC of 28 June 2000 on State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group’s steel-industry subsidiaries, now known as Salzgitter AG – Stahl und Technologie (SAG) (OJ 2000 L 323, p. 5).
Odločba Komisije 2000/797/ESPJ z dne 28. junija 2000 o izvrševanju državne pomoči, ki jo je Nemčija dodelila Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG in železarskim podružnicam skupine, združenim v Salzgitter AG – Stahl und Technologie (SAG) (UL L 323, str. 5).
The question of the scope of the rights recognised to the interested parties in the formal procedure involving examination of State aid has been clarified.
Vprašanje obsega pravic, ki se priznajo zadevnim strankam v uradnem postopku preizkusa državne pomoči, je bilo razjasnjeno.
The case-law of the Court of First Instance draws a clear distinction between the Member States providing the aid and the parties concerned.
Sodna praksa Sodišča prve stopnje je vzpostavila jasno razlikovanje med državami članicami, ki dajejo pomoči, in zadevnimi strankami.
Whereas the Member States enjoy the full rights of defence, the parties concerned are only entitled to present observations.
Medtem ko prvim v celoti pripadajo pravice obrambe, so druge upravičene zgolj do predložitve pripomb.
First, in one of the pleas examined in the case which it brought against the Commission, Ferriere Nord – an undertaking in the steel, mechanical and metallurgical industrial sector – claimed that the Commission had breached its rights of defence in initiating the formal examination procedure in accordance with the 1994 Community guidelines framework on State aid for environmental protection, 35 although the decision had been adopted on the basis of the 2001 guidelines, 36 without either the Italian Republic or itself having been invited to submit comments on the new guidelines.
Najprej je treba ugotoviti, da v enem od preizkušenih razlogov v okviru zadeve, v kateri je Komisiji nasprotujoča stranka, Ferriere Nord – podjetje sektorja železarske, mehanske in metalurške industrije –, navajala, da je Komisija kršila njene pravice do obrambe s tem, da je začela uradni postopek preizkusa na podlagi Smernic Skupnosti državnih pomoči za varstvo okolja za leto 199435, medtem ko je odločbo sprejela na podlagi okvira za leto 200136, ne da bi Italijansko republiko in podjetje pozvala k predložitvi svojih pripomb o novem okviru.
In its judgment in Ferriere Nord v Commission, the Court of First Instance stated, first of all, that that plea must be examined not from the point of view of the rights of the defence, which only the States enjoy in State aid matters, but in consideration of the right which, pursuant to Article 88(2) EC, the ‘parties concerned’ have to submit comments during the review stage referred to in that provision.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi Ferriere Nord proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje najprej navedlo, da je treba ta razlog preizkusiti ob upoštevanju pravice, s katero razpolagajo „zadevne stranke“ na podlagi člena 88(2) ES za predložitev pripomb med postopkom iz te določbe, in ne glede na pravice do obrambe, s katerimi razpolagajo samo države, ki so upravičene do državnih pomoči.
The Court then observed that the Commission would not have been able, without disregarding the procedural rights of the parties concerned, to have based its decision on new principles introduced by the 2001 Guidelines without inviting the parties concerned to submit their comments in that regard.
Po njegovem mnenju naj Komisija ne bi mogla utemeljiti svoje odločbe na novih načelih, ki jih je uvedel okvir za leto 2001, ne da bi kršila procesne pravice zadevnih strank in ne da bi od njih zahtevala predložitev pripomb v tem oziru.
However, the Court found that the principles laid down by the two sets of guidelines were, in the light of the grounds on which the Commission relied to declare the aid in question incompatible, substantially identical; it concluded that there had been no requirement to consult the parties concerned again.
Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da so načela, določena s tema okviroma, glede na razloge, ki jih je Komisija navedla za to, da je razglasila nezdružljivost zadevne pomoči, v bistvu ista; na podlagi navedenega je odločilo, da ponovno posvetovanje z zadevnimi strankami ni bilo potrebno.
Second, the question arose whether the undertaking in receipt of the aid must be recognised as having guarantees over and above the right to submit comments after initiation of the procedure recognised to all the parties concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC.
Na drugem mestu se je postavilo vprašanje, ali bi morala biti podjetju, ki je prejemnik pomoči, priznana jamstva, ki presegajo pravico predložitve pripomb po začetku postopka, ki je priznana vsem zadevnim strankam v smislu člena 88(2) ES.
The answer given by the Court of First Instance in Fleuren Compost v Commission and Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission is unambiguous: ‘the recipient of the aid does not play a special role pursuant to any provision governing the procedure for the review of State aid’, and the Court recalled that the procedure for the review of State aid is not a procedure initiated ‘against’ the recipient of aid by virtue of which it could rely on rights as extensive as the rights of the defence as such.
Odgovor Sodišča prve stopnje, zajet v njegovih zgoraj navedenih sodbah v zadevi Fleuren Compost proti Komisiji in Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau proti Komisiji je nedvoumen: „v postopku nadzora državnih pomoči ni nobene določbe, ki bi prejemniku pomoči omogočala poseben položaj v primerjavi z zadevnimi strankami“, pri čemer Sodišče prve stopnje opozarja, da postopek nadzora državnih pomoči ni postopek, sprožen „zoper“ prejemnika pomoči, ki bi slednjemu omogočil, da se sklicuje na tako široke pravice, kot so pravice do obrambe kot take.
Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (OJ 2001 C 37, p. 3).
Smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja (UL 2001, C 37, str. 3).
In one of the pleas which it formulated in the action for annulment of the Commission decision declaring incompatible with the common market the aid which the Italian Republic proposed to grant to Ferriere Nord, that undertaking criticised the Commission for not having asked it or the Italian Republic to provide documentation relating to the environmental purpose of the investment, then for having stated in its decision that no evidence on that point had been provided.
V enem od razlogov, ki jih je navedel v ničnostni tožbi zoper odločbo Komisije o nezdružljivosti s skupnim trgom pomoči, ki jo je Italijanska republika nameravala dodeliti Ferriere Nord, je slednji Komisiji očital, da ne od njega ne od Italijanske republike ni zahtevala predložitve dokumentacije v zvezi z okoljevarstvenimi nameni investicij ter da je v svoji odločbi navedla, da ni bil predložen noben dokument v zvezi s tem.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance (Ferriere Nord v Commission) held that the principle of protection of legitimate expectations meant that in carrying out the procedure involving review of State aid, the Commission must take account of the legitimate expectations which the parties concerned might entertain as a result of what had been said in the decision opening the formal examination procedure and, subsequently, that it did not base its final decision on the absence of elements which, in the light of those indications, the parties concerned had been unable to consider that they must provide to it.
Glede na to Sodišče prve stopnje (zgoraj navedena sodba v zadevi Ferriere Nord proti Komisiji) sodi, da načelo varstva zaupanja v pravo od Komisije terja, da v postopku preizkusa državne pomoči upošteva načelo zaupanja v pravo, ki je lahko bilo posledica podatkov, zajetih v odločbi o začetku uradnega postopka preizkusa, ter da svoje končne odločbe ne utemelji na odsotnosti elementov, za katere zadevne stranke na podlagi teh podatkov niso mogle vedeti, da jih je treba predložiti.
In that case, the plea was rejected on the ground that the indications in the decision to open the procedure were sufficiently clear and precise. 37
V tem primeru je bil razlog zavrnjen na temelju dovolj jasne in določene narave podatkov, ki jih je vsebovala odločba o začetku postopka37.
Trade protection measures
Ukrepi za zaščito trgovine