natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As a consequence, the Court of First Instance merely annulled Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it finds that the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary, SFMI-Chronopost, does not constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zato člen 1 sporne odločbe razglasilo za ničnega le v delu, v katerem je ugotovljeno, da logistična in komercialna podpora družbe La Poste njeni hčerinski družbi SFMI Chronopost nista državna pomoč v korist zadnjenavedene.
The appeals against the judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission
Pritožba zoper sodbo Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji
By applications lodged at the Court Registry on 19 and 23 February 2001 respectively, Chronopost, La Poste and the French Republic appealed against the judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission pursuant to Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
Družba Chronopost, družba La Poste in Francoska republika so z vlogami, ki so v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prispele 19. oziroma 23. februarja 2001, na podlagi člena 56 Poslovnika Sodi�ča vložile pritožbi zoper zgoraj navedeno sodbo Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji.
Those appeals were joined.
Ti pritožbi sta bili združeni.
By its judgment of 3 July 2003 in Joined Cases C-83/01 P, C-93/01 P and C-94/01 P Chronopost and Others v Ufex and Others [2003] ECR I-6993, the Court declared the first ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of Article 92(1) of the Treaty as a result of an incorrect interpretation by the Court of First Instance of the concept of normal market conditions, to be well founded.
Sodi�če je s sodbo z dne 3. julija 2003 v združenih zadevah Chronopost in drugi proti Ufex in drugim (C-83/01 P, C-93/01 P in C-94/01 P, Recueil, str. I-6993) ugotovilo, da je prvi pritožbeni razlog v zvezi s kr�itvijo člena 92(1) Pogodbe, ki izhaja iz nepravilne razlage pojma „običajne tržne razmere“, utemeljen.
According to paragraphs 32 to 41 of the judgment in Chronopost and Others v Ufex and Others:
Iz točk od 32 do 41 zgoraj navedene sodbe Chronopost in drugi izhaja, da:
‘32 … the Court of First Instance stated, in paragraph 75 of the judgment [in Ufex and Others v Commission], that the Commission should at least have checked that the payment received by La Poste was comparable to that demanded by a private holding company or a private group of undertakings not operating in a reserved sector.
„32 […] je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 75 sodbe [Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji] navedlo, da bi Komisija morala preučiti najmanj to, ali je storitev, ki jo je družba prejela od družbe La Poste, primerljiva s tisto, ki bi jo zahtevala zasebna finančna družba oziroma skupina podjetij brez monopolnega položaja.
33 That assessment, which fails to take account of the fact that an undertaking such as La Poste is in a situation which is very different from that of a private undertaking acting under normal market conditions, is flawed in law.
33 V tej presoji, v kateri je spregledano, da se podjetje, kot je družba La Poste, nahaja v popolnoma drugem položaju kot zasebno podjetje, ki opravlja dejavnost v običajnih tržnih razmerah, je pravo napačno uporabljeno.
34 La Poste is entrusted with a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty [now Article 86(2) EC] (see Case C-320/91 Corbeau [1993] ECR I-2533, paragraph 15).
34 Družba La Poste je namreč poobla�čena za izvajanje storitve splo�nega gospodarskega pomena v smislu člena 90(2) Pogodbe ES [postal člen 86(2) ES] (glej sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 19. maja 1993 v zadevi Corbeau, C-320/91, Recueil str.
Such a service essentially consists in the obligation to collect, carry and deliver mail for the benefit of all users throughout the territory of the Member State concerned, at uniform tariffs and on similar conditions as to quality.
I-2533, točka 15). To storitev v bistvu sestavlja obveznost, da se zagotovi zbiranje, prevoz in razna�anje po�tnih po�iljk v dobro vseh uporabnikov na celotnem ozemlju zadevne države članice po enakih cenah in podobni kakovosti.
35 To that end, La Poste had to acquire, or was afforded, substantial infrastructures and resources (the “postal network”), enabling it to provide the basic postal service to all users, even in sparsely populated areas where the tariffs did not cover the cost of providing the service in question.
35 Družba La Poste je za to potrebovala oziroma pridobila pomembno infrastrukturo in sredstva (t. i. po�tno omrežje), ki so ji omogočili, da je osnovne po�tne storitve opravljala za vse uporabnike, skupaj s tistimi v redko naseljenih območjih, v katerih cena ne pokrije stro�kov zadevne storitve.
36 Because of the characteristics of the service which the La Poste network must be able to ensure, the creation and maintenance of that network are not in line with a purely commercial approach.
36 Zaradi posebnosti storitve, katere opravljanje mora omrežje družbe La Poste omogočati, se za postavitev in vzdrževanje tega omrežja ne more uporabiti zgolj komercialni pristop.
As was recalled in paragraph 22 above, Ufex and Others have indeed accepted that a network such as that available to SFMI-Chronopost is clearly not a market network.
Kot je bilo navedeno v točki 22 te sodbe, so združenje UFEX in drugi zatrjevali, da omrežje, ki ga je družba SFMI-Chronopost lahko uporabljala, povsem očitno ni bilo na trgu.
Therefore that network would never have been created by a private undertaking.
Tega omrežja zato nikoli ne bi zgradilo zasebno podjetje.
37 Moreover, the provision of logistical and commercial assistance is inseparably linked to the La Poste network, since it consists precisely in making available that network which has no equivalent on the market.
37 Poleg tega je logistična in komercialna podpora neločljivo povezana z omrežjem družbe La Poste, ta podpora zagotavlja delovanje omrežja družbe La Poste, ki mu na trgu ni enakega.
38 Accordingly, in the absence of any possibility of comparing the situation of La Poste with that of a private group of undertakings not operating in a reserved sector, “normal market conditions”, which are necessarily hypothetical, must be assessed by reference to the objective and verifiable elements which are available.
38 Ker v teh okoli�činah položaja družbe La Poste ni mogoče primerjati s položajem zasebne skupine podjetij brez monopolnega položaja, je treba zato nujne hipotetične ‚običajne tržne razmere‘ ugotoviti z razpoložljivimi objektivnimi in dokazljivimi dejavniki.
39 In the present case, the costs borne by La Poste in respect of the provision to its subsidiary of logistical and commercial assistance can constitute such objective and verifiable elements.
39 V obravnavani zadevi bi bili taki objektivni in dokazljivi dejavniki lahko izdatki družbe La Poste za logistično in komercialno podporo njeni hčerinski družbi.
40 On that basis, there is no question of State aid to SFMI-Chronopost if, first, it is established that the price charged properly covers all the additional, variable costs incurred in providing the logistical and commercial assistance, an appropriate contribution to the fixed costs arising from use of the postal network and an adequate return on the capital investment in so far as it is used for SFMI-Chronopost’s competitive activity and if, second, there is nothing to suggest that those elements have been underestimated or fixed in an arbitrary fashion.
40 Na osnovi tega je lahko državna pomoč v korist družbe SFMI-Chronopost izključena, če se na eni strani ugotovi, da zahtevana protidajatev v skladu z dogovorom obsega vse variabilne dodatne stro�ke, ki so nastali z zagotavljanjem logistične in komercialne podpore, primeren prispevek k fiksnim stro�kom, ki so nastali z uporabo javnega po�tnega omrežja, in primerno nadomestilo za lastni kapital, če je bil uporabljen za konkurenčno dejavnost družbe SFMI-Chronopost, in če na drugi strani ne obstaja povod za domnevo, da so bili zadevni dejavniki podcenjeni oziroma določeni samovoljno.
41 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the Court of First Instance erred in law in interpreting Article 92(1) of the Treaty as meaning that the Commission was not entitled to determine whether there was aid to SFMI-Chronopost by reference to the costs borne by La Poste but that it should have checked whether the payment received by La Poste “was comparable to that demanded by a private holding company or a private group of undertakings not operating in a reserved sector, pursuing a structural policy — whether general or sectorial — and guided by long-term prospects”.’
41 Ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenega je Sodi�če prve stopnje, ker je člen 92(1) Pogodbe razlagalo tako, da Komisija ni mogla presoditi obstoja državne pomoči v korist družbe SFMI-Chronopost s tem, da se je sklicevala na stro�ke, ki jih je imela družba La Poste, ampak bi morala preučiti, ali je bila storitev, ki jo je družba prejela od družbe La Poste, primerljiva s tisto, ki bi jo zahtevala zasebna finančna družba oziroma skupina podjetij, ki nima monopolnega položaja in izvaja dolgoročnej�o globalno ali sektorsko politiko, napačno uporabilo pravo.“
Consequently, having found that there was no need to examine the other grounds of appeal and that the state of the proceedings did not permit the Court to give final judgment in the matter, the Court set aside the judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance.
Sodi�če je zato po tem, ko je ugotovilo, da drugih pritožbenih razlogov ni treba preučiti in da o sporu ni bilo mogoče odločiti, razveljavilo zgoraj navedeno sodbo Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji in vrnilo zadevo v novo odločanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
The second procedure before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal
Drugi postopek pred Sodiščem prve stopnje in izpodbijana sodba
The case was allocated to the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance.
Zadeva je bila dodeljena četrtemu raz�irjenemu senatu Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
Upon a change in composition of the Chambers of the Court pursuant to the Court’s decision of 13 September 2004 (OJ 2004 C 251, p.
Ker se je sestava senatov Sodi�ča prve stopnje na podlagi sklepa Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 13. septembra 2004 (UL C 251, str.
12), the Judge-Rapporteur was transferred to the Third Chamber (Extended Composition), to which the present case was consequently allocated (paragraph 37 of the judgment under appeal).
12) spremenila, je bil sodnik poročevalec razporejen v tretji raz�irjeni senat, kateremu je bila posledično dodeljena tudi obravnavana zadeva (točka 37 izpodbijane sodbe).
The oral procedure was initially closed on 23 August 2005, then, after having been reopened, on 19 December 2005.
Ustni postopek je bil končan 23. avgusta 2005 in nato – po njegovem ponovnem odprtju – 19. decembra 2005.
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance ruled on the forms of order sought by the parties that were still before it after the case was referred back.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je z izpodbijano sodbo odločilo o predlogih strank, ki so ostali predloženi po vrnitvi zadeve v novo odločanje.
In paragraph 49 of the judgment under appeal, the Court considered, first of all, that UFEX and Others were essentially maintaining the second, third and fourth pleas raised during the proceedings which gave rise to the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Ufex and Others v Commission, namely the pleas alleging, respectively, breach of the obligation to state reasons, errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment when analysing the remuneration for the assistance provided by La Poste, and an error in applying the concept of State aid.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 49 izpodbijane sodbe najprej navedlo, da združenje UFEX in drugi v bistvenem vztrajajo pri drugem, tretjem in četrtem navedenem tožbenem razlogu, ki so privedli do zgoraj navedene sodbe Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji, to je pri tožbenih razlogih nezadostne obrazložitve, nepravilne ugotovitve dejanskega stanja in očitne napake v presoji plačila, danega družbi La Poste za njeno podporo, ter napačne razlage pojma državna pomoč.
In paragraph 51 of the judgment under appeal, having considered it necessary to examine, first of all, the plea alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, the Court added that ‘[t]he pleas alleging errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment, as well as misapplication of the concept of State aid, which are indissociable, will then be examined together’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 51 izpodbijane sodbe, potem ko je navedlo, da je bilo treba najprej preizkusiti tožbeni razlog, s katerim je očitana kr�itev obveznosti obrazložitve, dodalo, da „[p]rekrivajoči se tožbeni razlogi, s katerimi se uveljavljajo nepravilna ugotovitev dejanskega stanja in očitna napaka v presoji ter napačna razlaga pojma državna pomoč, bodo obravnavani skupaj“.
After recalling, in paragraphs 63 to 71 of the judgment under appeal, the caselaw concerning the statement of reasons, the Court upheld the first plea in paragraphs 77 to 95 of that judgment on the ground that no assessment could be made, on the basis of the statement of reasons in the contested decision, of the additional, variable costs incurred in providing the logistical and commercial assistance, or the appropriate contribution to the fixed costs arising from use of the postal network, or the adequate return on the capital investment, or the coverage of costs in general.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je po tem, ko je v točkah od 63 do 71 izpodbijane sodbe opozorilo na vsebino sodne prakse na področju obrazložitve, v točkah od 77 do 95 iste sodbe sprejelo prvi tožbeni razlog, ker na podlagi obrazložitev sporne odločbe ni bilo mogoče oceniti variabilnih dodatnih stro�kov, ki so nastali z zagotavljanjem logistične in komercialne podpore, niti primernega prispevka k fiksnim stro�kom, ki so nastali z uporabo javnega po�tnega omrežja, niti primernega nadomestila za lastni kapital, niti pokritja stro�kov na splo�no.
The Court also referred in paragraphs 96 to 100 of the judgment under appeal to circumstances justifying a more detailed statement of reasons for the contested decision in the present case.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je poleg tega v točkah od 96 do 100 izpodbijane sodbe navedlo okoli�čine, ki v obravnavani zadevi utemeljujejo podrobnej�o obrazložitev sporne odločbe.
It concluded, in paragraph 101 of the judgment under appeal, ‘that the contested decision must be annulled for defective reasoning in so far as it concludes that the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost does not constitute State aid’.
V točki 101 navedene sodbe je ugotovilo, „[…] da je treba [sporno] odločbo zaradi nezadostne obrazložitve razglasiti za nično v delu, v katerem je ugotovljeno, da logistična in komercialna podpora družbe La Poste družbi SFMI-Chronopost ni državna pomoč.“
Next, the Court considered the plea alleging an error in applying the concept of State aid.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato preučilo tožbeni razlog, s katerim se očita napačna razlaga pojma državna pomoč.
First of all, it took the view in paragraph 102 of the judgment under appeal that, in view of the inadequate reasoning for the contested decision, it was not possible for it to consider the arguments relating to the alleged lack of coverage of SFMI-Chro-nopost’s costs, the underestimation and arbitrary nature of certain elements found by the Commission, errors in the accounting adjustments in Annex 4 to the Deloitte
Prvič, v točki 102 izpodbijane sodbe je ocenilo, da ob upo�tevanju pomanjkljive obrazložitve ni moglo preizkusiti navedb, s katerimi uveljavljajo, da naj družba SFMI-Chronopost ne bi pokrila stro�kov, da naj bi Komisija določene vidike podcenjevala oziroma upo�tevala samovoljno, da naj bi bile bilance v prilogi 4 k poročilu Delo-
2008 — JOINED CASES C-341/06 P AND C-342/06 P report, the abnormally high level of the IRR, or the causes of SFMI-Chronopost’s profitability.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-341/06 P IN C-342/06 P itte napačne in interna stopnja donosa neobičajno visoka ter navedb v zvezi z razlogi rentabilnosti družbe SFMI-Chronopost.
Second, in paragraphs 162 to 171 of the judgment under appeal, the Court rejected all of the other arguments advanced by UFEX and Others, except for the argument that the transfer of the Postadex client base constituted, by itself, a measure separate from the logistical and commercial assistance, and thus also State aid.
Drugič, Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 162 do 171 izpodbijane sodbe zavrnilo vse trditve združenja UFEX in drugih razen trditve, da je prenos strank službe Postadex ukrep, ki se razlikuje od logistične in komercialne podpore ter torej tudi od državne pomoči.
With regard to that last point, the Court considered that the Commission had erred in law in taking the view that that transfer did not constitute State aid on the ground that it did not entail any cash advantage.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi z zadnjenavedenim presodilo, da je Komisija napačno uporabila pravo, ko je domnevala, da ta prenos ni državna pomoč, ker se ni prispevala denarna vrednost.
In the judgment under appeal, the Court therefore:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zato z izpodbijano sodbo:
— annulled the contested decision in so far as it finds that neither the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary, SFMI-Chronopost, nor the transfer of Postadex constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost;
– sporno odločbo razglasilo za nično v delu, v katerem je ugotovljeno, da niti logistična in komercialna podpora družbe La Poste njeni hčerinski družbi SFMI-Chronopost niti prenos službe Postadex nista državna pomoč v korist družbe SFMI-Chronopost;
— ordered the Commission to bear its own costs and 75% of the costs of UFEX and Others, apart from those caused by the interventions, before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice;
– Komisiji naložilo plačilo lastnih stro�kov in 75 % stro�kov združenja UFEX in drugih, z izjemo stro�kov intervencije pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in Sodi�čem;
— ordered UFEX and Others to bear the remainder of their own costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice; and
– združenju UFEX in drugi naložilo preostanek lastnih stro�kov, nastalih v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in Sodi�čem;
— ordered Chronopost, La Poste and the French Republic to bear their own costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
– družbi Chronopost SA, družbi La Poste in Francoski republiki naložilo njihove stro�ke, nastale v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in Sodi�čem.
Procedure before the Court in the present appeals
Postopek pred Sodiščem v obravnavani pritožbi
In its appeal, Chronopost claims that the Court of Justice should:
V pritožbi družba Chronopost predlaga, naj Sodi�če:
— set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it partly annuls the contested decision;
– izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi v delu, v katerem sporno odločbo razgla�a za nično;
— endorse the remainder of the judgment under appeal and give final judgment in the matter;
– z novim odločanjem o preostalem delu izpodbijane sodbe brez sojenja dokončno odloči o sporu;
— dismiss the application for annulment of the contested decision; and
– zavrne predlog za razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe in
— order UFEX and Others to pay the costs.
– združenju UFEX in drugim naloži plačilo njihovih stro�kov.
In its appeal, La Poste claims that the Court of Justice should:
V pritožbi družba La Poste predlaga, naj Sodi�če:
— set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it partly annuls the contested decision; and
– izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi v delu, v katerem sporno odločbo razgla�a za nično;
— order UFEX and Others to pay the costs incurred by La Poste before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
– združenju UFEX in drugim naloži plačilo stro�kov družbe La Poste, nastalih v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in Sodi�čem.
UFEX and Others contend that the Court of Justice should:
Združenje UFEX in drugi predlagajo, naj Sodi�če:
— order Chronopost and La Poste to pay the costs.
– družbama Chronopost in La Poste naloži plačilo stro�kov.
By an order of the President of the Court of Justice of 18 April 2007, the two cases were joined for the purposes of the oral procedure and the judgment.
Predsednik Sodi�ča je s sklepom z dne 18. aprila 2007 zadevi združil za pisni postopek in izdajo sodbe.
Chronopost and La Poste, the present appellants, essentially raise four grounds of appeal alleging, respectively:
Družbi Chronopost in La Poste, tožeči stranki v obravnavanih pritožbah, v bistvu navajata �tiri pritožbene razloge, in sicer:
— a procedural defect arising from the unlawful composition of the Chamber which delivered the judgment under appeal;
– kr�itev postopka zaradi nezakonite sestave Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki je izdalo izpodbijano sodbo;
— a procedural defect in connection with the Court’s substantive ruling on an inadmissible plea;
– kr�itev postopka, ker je Sodi�če prve stopnje vsebinsko odločilo o nedopustnem tožbenem razlogu;
— an error of law by the Court in the assessment of the duty to state reasons in the contested decision with regard to the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to SFMI-Chronopost; and
– Sodi�če prve stopnje je napačno uporabilo pravo pri presoji obveznosti obrazložitve sporne odločbe v delu, ki se nana�a na logistično in komercialno podporo družbe La Poste družbi SFMI-Chronopost, in
— an error of law by the Court in the assessment of the concept of State aid with regard to the transfer of the Postadex client base.
– Sodi�če prve stopnje je napačno uporabilo pravo pri presoji pojma državna pomoč v zvezi s prenosom strank službe Postadex.
First ground of appeal: procedural defect arising from the unlawful composition of the Chamber which delivered the judgment under appeal
Prvi pritožbeni razlog: kršitev postopka zaradi nezakonite sestave Sodišča prve stopnje, ki je izdalo izpodbijano sodbo
Chronopost and La Poste submit that the judgment under appeal was delivered following an unlawful procedure since the Judge-Rapporteur in the formation of the Chamber which delivered that judgment was the President and Judge-Rapporteur in the formation of the Chamber which delivered the judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission.
Družbi Chronopost in La Poste zatrjujeta, da je bila izpodbijana sodba razgla�ena po končanju nezakonitega postopka, ko je bil sodnik poročevalec v sestavi, ki je izdala to sodbo, predsednik in sodnik poročevalec v sestavi, ki je izdala zgoraj navedeno sodbo Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji.
The fundamental principle of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’), which requires a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, means that the composition of the Chamber hearing the case on its referral back following the setting aside of the judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission may not give rise to doubt as to the impartiality of that formation on account of the presence within it of a Judge who had to hear and determine that case as Rapporteur in the formation which delivered the judgment that was set aside.
Temeljno načelo pravice do po�tenega sojenja, določeno v členu 6 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin, podpisane 4. novembra 1950 v Rimu (v nadaljevanju: EKČP), v skladu s katerim se zahteva odločanje pred neodvisnim in nepristranskim sodi�čem, torej pomeni, da ne sme biti nobenega dvoma o nepristranskosti sestave, ki obravnava pritožbo, po razveljavitvi zgoraj navedene sodbe Ufex in drugi zaradi prisotnosti sodnika, ki je to zadevo obravnaval kot sodnik poročevalec v sestavi, ki je izdala razveljavljeno sodbo.
Consequently, there was an infringement of Article 6 EU.
Zato naj bi �lo za kr�itev člena 6 EU.
UFEX and Others contend, first of all, that that ground of appeal is inadmissible.
Združenje UFEX in drugi prvič zatrjujejo, da je ta tožbeni razlog nedopusten.