natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under certain conditions, those codes authorise derogations from the prohibition in principle on State aid laid down in Article 4(c) CS for specific categories of aid which they list exhaustively.
Ta pravila pod nekaterimi pogoji dovolijo odstopanja od načelne prepovedi državnih pomoči, določene v členu 4(c) PJ, v prid določenih kategorij pomoči, ki so taksativno na�tete.
The rules which they establish are, in my view, clear.
Pravila, ki jih določajo, so po mojem mnenju jasna.
I have already expressed this view, in points 232 to 238 of this Opinion, in the context of the obligation to give prior notification of planned aid.
To sem že ugotovil v točkah od 232 do 238 teh sklepnih predlogov, v zvezi z obveznostjo predhodne priglasitve načrtov o pomočeh.
The Federal Republic of Germany, as a member of the ECSC Consultative Committee, and Salzgitter, as a major economic operator, were both well-placed to be aware of the scope of the obligations imposed on them by the Commission under the scheme for controlling State aid.
Zvezna republika Nemčija, glede na njeno sodelovanje v Svetovalnem odboru ESPJ, in družba Salzgitter, zaradi njenega močnega gospodarskega položaja, sta se lahko seznanili z obsegom njunih obveznosti, ki jima jih je naložila Komisija v okviru sistema nadzora državnih pomoči.
The principle of legal certainty requires Community legislation to be certain and its application foreseeable by those subject to it.
Načelo pravne varnosti zahteva, da mora biti zakonodaja Skupnosti določena in da mora biti njena uporaba predvidljiva za osebe, ki jih zadeva 125.
That principle must be observed all the more strictly in the case of an act liable to have financial consequences, in order that the person concerned may know precisely the extent of the obligations which it imposes on him.
Zahteva, da je vsak akt institucij, ki pravno učinkuje, jasen, natančen in da je z njim seznanjena zadevna oseba tako, da ga lahko z gotovostjo pozna od trenutka, ko navedeni akt obstaja in začne pravno učinkovati.
126This may be true of decisions adopted by the Commission in matters of State aid. 127
To načelo je �e posebej strogo predpisano, če gre za akt, ki ima lahko finančne posledice, zato da se zadevni osebi omogoči, da se z gotovostjo seznani z obsegom obveznosti, ki ji jih določa 126.
126 — See, in particular, the judgments in Case 169/80 Gondrand Frères and Garancini [1981] ECR 1931, paragraph 17; and Case T-313/04 Hewlett-Packard v Commission [2006] ECR II-77, paragraph 66 and the caselaw cited there.
126 – Glej zlasti sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 9. julija 1981 v zadevi Gondrand Frères in Garancini (169/80, Recueil, str. 1931, točka 17) in sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje 3. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Hewlett-Packard proti Komisiji (T-313/04, točka 66, in navedena sodna praksa).
As to the foreseeability of the applicable rules, I also consider that Salzgitter was in a position to foresee that the rules laid down by the Commission under the various steel
Glede predvidljivosti veljavnih pravil menim, da je družba Salzgitter lahko predvidela, da se pravila, ki jih je Komisija določila v okviru različnih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu,
127 — Judgment in Duff and Others, paragraph 20.
127 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Duff in drugi (točka 20).
aid codes might be adapted and amended in response to developments in the economic situation of the steel sector.
nove predpise, če meni, da je taka re�itev, h kateri mora voditi pravilna uporaba pravil Pogodbe ESPJ.
Consequently, I consider that, by pointing out that the aid at issue had not been notified and, as a consequence, ordering its repayment, the contested decision does not therefore show that the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty, when, at the same time, the Federal Republic of Germany, by failing to notify that aid in accordance with the requirements of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Codes, failed to comply with that principle.
Posledično menim, da sporna odločba, ob poudarku, da zadevne pomoči niso bile prigla�ene in da se posledično zahteva njihova povrnitev, ni izkazala, da naj bi Komisija ravnala v nasprotju z načelom pravne varnosti, medtem ko Zvezna republika Nemčija, ko navedenih pomoči ni priglasila v skladu s predpisi tretjih, četrtih in petih pravil, ni spo�tovala tega načela.
(ii) Alleged infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
ii) Domnevna kr�itev načela varstva legitimnih pričakovanj
The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations can be seen as the corollary of the principle of legal certainty.
Načelo varstva legitimnih pričakovanj se pokaže kot posledica načela pravne varnosti.
Where rules are altered, it seeks to ensure the protection of situations legitimately entered into by one or more natural or legal persons in particular. 129 None the less,
Ob spremembi predpisa je njegov namen zagotoviti varstvo položajev, ki so jih legitimno pridobile ena ali več fizičnih ali zlasti pravnih oseb 129. Vendar gospodarski
As the Commission has rightly observed, the rules on aid to the steel sector are constantly evolving.
Kot je Komisija pravilno ugotovila, se pravila v zvezi s pomočmi jeklarstvu stalno spreminjajo.
The steel aid codes and the rules laid down by them are valid only for a given period of time.
Pravila o pomoči jeklarstvu in predpisi, ki jih ta določajo, so veljavna le za določeno obdobje.
One code repeals another and each code involves redrafting the provisions creating derogations by adapting them to technical and economic developments in the steel industry.
Ta pravila razveljavljajo druga drugo in vsaka pravila prinesejo novo določitev določb o odstopanju, tako da se jih prilagodi tehničnim in gospodarskim spremembam jeklarske industrije.
In reworking those codes, the Commission specifically sought to ensure that the granting of aid should not be a permanent situation, but that it should remain an exception limited in time and designed to address specific circumstances and needs.
Natančneje, Komisija je s tem, da je spremenila ta pravila, želela, da dodelitev pomoči ne bi bil stalni položaj, ampak da ostane časovno omejena izjema, ki ustreza okoli�činam in določenim potrebam.
Consequently, a decision by the Commission, under a steel aid code, to authorise the grant of specific aid to certain steel undertakings creates a legal situation which is capable of being altered by the Community institutions in the exercise of their discretionary power, as may be the case, in particular, in the area of the common organisation of the markets, the objective of which involves constant adjustment to reflect changes in economic circumstances.
Zato odločba Komisije, ki v okviru pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu odobri dodelitev določenih pomoči nekaterim jeklarskim družbam, ustvarja pravni položaj, ki ga je mogoče spremeniti v okviru pooblastila institucij Skupnosti za odločanje po prostem preudarku, kot se lahko zgodi zlasti na področju skupnih ureditev trga, katerih cilj je stalno prilagajanje glede na spreminjanja gospodarskega položaja 128.
128 Upon expiry of one of the steel aid codes, the Commission may therefore adopt new rules under another code, if it considers that that is the position to which
Po prenehanju veljavnosti pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu lahko Komisija torej v okviru drugih pravil sprejme
128 — See, in particular, the judgment in Case C-104/97 P Atlanta v European Community [1999] ECR I-6983, paragraph 52.
129 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 18. maja 2000 v zadevi Rombi in Arkopharma (C-107/97, Recueil, str. I-3367, točka 66 in navedena sodna praksa).
129 — See, in particular, the judgment in Case C-107/97 Rombi and Arkopharma [2000] ECR I-3367, paragraph 66 and the caselaw cited there.
128 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 14. oktobra 1999 v zadevi Atlanta proti Komisiji in Svetu (C-104/97 P, Recueil, str. I-6983, točka 52).
130 economic operators may have a legitimate expectation that aid is lawful only if it was granted in accordance with the procedure laid down for that purpose, and, in particular, with due regard for the powers conferred on the Commission.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER subjekti niso upravičeni zaupati v ohranitev obstoječega položaja, ker ga lahko institucije Skupnosti spremenijo v okviru diskrecijske pravice 130.
In this case, in the light of the conclusions drawn earlier, I am of the opinion, first of all, that neither Salzgitter nor the Federal Republic of Germany may claim infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
V tem sporu in glede na sklepne predloge, ki sem jih navedel zgoraj, najprej menim, da se niti družba Salzgitter niti Zvezna republika Nemčija ne moreta sklicevati na kr�itev načela varstva legitimnih pričakovanj.
In the context of this Opinion, I would submit that, by failing to notify the aid at issue, the Federal Republic of Germany did not comply with the procedure laid down by the various steel aid codes since 1986.
V okviru teh sklepnih predlogov torej trdim, da Zvezna republika Nemčija, ko ni priglasila zadevnih pomoči, ni spo�tovala postopka, ki ga od leta 1986 določajo različna pravila o pomoči jeklarstvu.
I also consider that Salzgitter was in a position to know precisely the scope of its obligations under the State aid controls established by the Commission.
Prav tako menim, da se je družba Salzgitter lahko natančno seznanila o obsegu svojih obveznosti v okviru nadzora državnih pomoči, ki ga je vzpostavila Komisija.
It is a known fact that, in the area of State aid, Member States cannot rely on the legitimate expectations of recipients in order to avoid the obligation to recover aid granted unlawfully where that aid was granted in breach of the rules of procedure.
Vemo namreč, da se države članice na področju državnih pomoči ne morejo sklicevati na legitimna pričakovanja prejemnikov pomoči, da bi se izognile obveznosti povrnitve nezakonito dodeljenih pomoči, ker so bile te dodeljene s kr�itvijo procesnih predpisov.
The Court of Justice takes the view that, if that were the case, the national authorities would be able to rely on their own unlawful conduct in order to undermine the effectiveness of the control exercised by the Commission. 131
Sodi�če namreč meni, da če bi bilo tako, bi se nacionalni organi lahko sklicevali na nezakonitost njihovega lastnega ravnanja za onemogočanje učinkovitosti nadzora, ki ga izvaja Komisija 131.
I therefore take the view that, in the light of the aforementioned caselaw and in the particular circumstances of the case at issue, neither the Federal Republic of Germany nor Salzgitter may claim infringe-
Glede na zgoraj navedeno sodno prakso in posebne okoli�čine obravnavane zadeve torej menim, da se niti Zvezna republika Nemčija niti družba Salzgitter ne moreta
130 — Judgments in Delacre and Others v Commission, paragraph 33 and the caselaw cited there; and Case T-244/94 Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission [1997] ECR II-1963, paragraphs 58 and 59.
130 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Delacre in drugi proti Komisiji (točka 33, in navedena sodna praksa) in sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 24. oktobra 1997 v zadevi Wirtschafts -vereinigung Stahl in drugi proti Komisiji (T-244/94, Recueil, str. II-1963, točki 58 in 59).
132 — See, in particular, in the context of the EC Treaty, the judgment in Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479, paragraphs 150 to 152.
132 – V okviru pogodbe ES glej zlasti sodbo z dne 22. junija 2006 v združenih zadevah Belgija in Forum 187 proti Komisiji (C-182/03 in C-217/03, ZOdl., str. I-5479, točke od 150 do 152).
131 — See, in particular, in the context of the EC Treaty, the judgment in Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-135, paragraph 48 and the caselaw cited there.
131 – V okviru Pogodbe ES glej zlasti sodbo z dne 14. januarja 1997 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji (C-169/95, Recueil, str. I-135, točka 48 in navedena sodna praksa).
133 — See the judgment in Alcan Deutschland, paragraph 25 and the caselaw cited there.
133 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Alcan Deutschland (točka 25 in navedena sodna praksa).
In any event, I do not consider that the Commission could have created on the part of the Member State concerned and the Salzgitter a legitimate expectation as to the compatibility of the aid measures at issue in the light of the rules of the ECSC Treaty.
V vsakem primeru ne mislim, da bi Komisija pri zadevni državi članici in družbi prejemnici na podlagi predpisov Pogodbe ESPJ lahko vzbudila legitimno pričakovanje glede združljivosti zadevnih pomoči.
As Advocate General Léger stated in points 365 to 370 of his Opinion in Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission, cited above, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is permitted under the caselaw of the Court of Justice where three conditions are met.
Kot je generalni pravobranilec Léger poudaril v točkah od 365 do 370 sklepnih predlogov v zgoraj navedeni zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana sodba Belgija in Forum 187 proti Komisiji, je kr�itev načela varstva legitimnih pričakovanj glede na sodno prakso Sodi�ča dopustna, če so izpolnjeni trije pogoji.
Thirdly, the Community interest which the contested measure seeks to achieve must not justify the infringement of the legitimate expectation of the party concerned.
Tretjič, interes Skupnosti, ki je cilj izpodbijanega akta, ne sme upravičiti vpliva na legitimna pričakovanja zadevne osebe.
That condition is satisfied where the balancing of the interests in question shows that, in the circumstances of the case, the Community interest does not prevail over that of the person concerned in seeing the situation maintained that it might legitimately have assumed to be a stable one. 136
Ta pogoj je izpolnjen, če tehtanje prisotnih interesov pokaže, da v okoli�činah obravnavane zadeve interes Skupnosti ne prevlada nad interesom zadevne osebe, da se ohrani položaj, ki ga je legitimno imela za stabilnega 136.
First, there must be an act or conduct on the part of the Community administration capable of having given rise to such an expectation.
Prvič, obstajati mora akt ali ravnanje uprave Skupnosti, ki lahko povzroči to zaupanje.
That administration must also have given precise assurances. 134
Poleg tega mora ta uprava zagotoviti natančna zagotovila 134.
134 — Judgment in Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission, paragraph 147 and the caselaw cited there.
136 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 17. julija 1997 v zadevi Affish (C-183/95, Recueil, str. I-4315, točka 57).
136 — By way of example, see the judgment in Case C-183/95 Affish [1997] ECR I-4315, paragraph 57.
134 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Belgija in Forum 187 proti Komisiji (točka 147 in navedena sodna praksa).
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER treaty and by the measures adopted for its implementation.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER trgom za premog in jeklo torej veljali posebni predpisi zadnjenavedene pogodbe in akti, sprejeti za njeno izvajanje 137.
137 sion could have established on the part of the recipient undertaking a legitimate expectation such as to prevent the Commission from requiring the Federal Republic of Germany to recover the aid and Salzgitter to repay the aid.
mnicah lahko povzročili tako legitimno pričakovanje, ki bi preprečilo Komisiji, da od Zvezne republike Nemčije zahteva, da odredi izterjavo pomoči, in od družbe Salzgitter, da povrne te pomoči.
Next, I likewise consider that the rules laid down by the Commission under the First Steel Aid Code could not have created on the part of Salzgitter a legitimate expectation as to the compatibility of the aid at issue with the common market.
Dalje, v zvezi s predpisi, ki jih je Komisija določila v okviru prvih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu, prav tako menim, da ti pri družbi Salzgitter niso mogli vzbuditi legitimnih pričakovanj glede združljivosti zadevnih pomoči s skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo.
I do not think so.
Sam ne menim tako.
Contrary to the submissions of Salzgitter and the Federal Republic of Germany, I take the view that the Commission could not have created a legitimate expectation when it authorised, on the basis of the EC Treaty, the general scheme of aid laid down in Article 3 of the ZRFG, when it adopted the First Code, or when it failed to react to the information sent to it by Salzgitter.
V nasprotju s tem, kar zatrjujeta družba Salzgitter in Zvezna republika Nemčija, namreč menim, da Komisija ni mogla vzbuditi legitimnega pričakovanja, ko je na podlagi Pogodbe ES odobrila splo�ni sistem pomoči, določen s členom 3 ZRFG, oziroma ko je sprejela prva pravila, ali ko ni ukrepala glede informacij, ki ji jih je posredovala družba Salzgitter.
As I have stated, the rules laid down by the Commission under a steel aid code serve to address specific circumstances and needs and are valid only for a given period of time.
Namreč, kot sem navedel, predpisi, ki jih Komisija določa v okviru pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu, ustrezajo okoli�činam in določenim potrebam in veljajo le za določeno obdobje.
Settled caselaw shows that, although the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is one of the fundamental principles of the Community, economic operators have no grounds for entertaining a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the Community institutions in the exercise of their discretionary power will be maintained.
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse torej izhaja, da čeprav načelo varstva legitimnih pričakovanj sodi med temeljna načela Skupnosti, gospodarski subjekti ne morejo upravičeno zaupati v ohranitev obstoječega položaja, ki ga lahko institucije Skupnosti spremenijo v okviru svoje diskrecijske pravice.
In the judgment in Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl v Commission, cited above, the Court thus pointed out that ‘[t]he proper functioning of the common market in steel clearly [involved] the obvious need for constant adjustments to fluctuations in the economic situation’. 138As regards the
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Wirt -schaftsvereinigung Stahl in drugi proti Komisiji je sodi�če Skupnosti poudarilo, da je „pravilno delovanje skupnega trga [vključevalo] očitno potrebo po stalnem prilagajanju
First, the Commission’s decisions not to raise objections to Article 3 of the ZRFG, in my view, could not have given precise assurances as to the compatibility of the aid at issue with the rules of the ECSC Treaty.
V zvezi z odločbami Komisije, da ni ugovarjala glede člena 3 ZRFG, najprej menim, da te niso mogle dati natančnih zagotovil glede združljivosti zadevnih pomoči s predpisi Pogodbe ESPJ.
As I stated when examining the crossappeal, those decisions were adopted on the sole basis of Article 87 EC and 88 EC and related to undertakings falling within the scope of the EC Treaty.
Kot sem navedel v okviru preučitve nasprotne pritožbe, so bile te odločbe sprejete samo na podlagi členov 87 ES in 88 ES ter so se nana�ale na družbe, za katere velja Pogodba ES.
In so far as the aid at issue benefited an undertaking falling within the scope of the ECSC Treaty, its compatibility with the common market was therefore governed by the specific rules of the latter
Če bi bile zadevne pomoči v prid družbi, za katero velja Pogodba ESPJ, bi za njihovo združljivost s skupnim
139 in a position to foresee that that legislation might be adapted and amended in response to the prevailing economic situation on the market in steel.
V zvezi z ukrepi, namenjenimi preprečevanju kriznih situacij, je presodil, da gospodarski subjekti niso mogli uveljavljati pridobljene pravice za ohranitev pravnega položaja, ki je obstajal v točno določenem trenutku 139.
In other words, where the Commission decides, under the Second Code, to establish a uniform procedure for all aid to the steel sector and, more specifically, lays down an obligation, under the Third Code, to notify aid such as that at issue in this case, it does not, in my view, infringe the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
glede na kratkoročne podatke z jeklarskega trga. Povedano drugače, ker se je Komisija v okviru drugih pravil odločila, da vzpostavi enoten postopek za vse pomoči jeklarstvu in da v okviru tretjih pravil natančneje določi obveznost priglasitve pomoči, kot so te, ki jih obravnavamo v tem sporu, po mojem mnenju ni kr�ila načela varstva legitimnih pričakovanj.
Consequently, as we have seen, the Commission’s decision, under a steel aid code, to authorise the grant of a category of aid to certain steel undertakings, creates a legal situation which is capable of being altered by it in the exercise of its discretionary power.
Posledično, kot smo videli, odločba Komisije, ki v okviru pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu odobri dodelitev ene kategorije pomoči nekaterim jeklarskim družbam, ustvari pravni položaj, ki se lahko spremeni na podlagi njene diskrecijske pravice.
Lastly, as I see it, the Commission’s failure to react once the information from Salzgitter had been sent could not have established on the part of Salzgitter a legitimate expectation as to the compatibility of the aid at issue with the common market in coal and steel.
Nazadnje, glede neukrepanja Komisije po prenosu podatkov, ki jih je posredovala družba Salzgitter, menim, da pri tej družbi ni bilo mogoče dokazati legitimnih pričakovanj glede združljivosti zadevnih pomoči s skupnim trgom za premog in jeklo.
That information was not sent as part of a notification satisfying the requirements of Article 6 of the Third and subsequent codes, but as part of the steel production framework programmes and investment monitoring programmes.
Ti podatki namreč niso bili posredovani v okviru priglasitve, ki bi ustrezala predpisom iz člena 6 tretjih in poznej�ih pravil, ampak v okviru okvirnih načrtov proizvodnje jekla in programov spremljanja naložb.
In my opinion, this was not a sufficient basis on which Salzgitter could reasonably form the view that the Commission had no objection to the aid which it received. 140
To, da bi družba Salzgitter mogla razumno verjeti, da pomoči, ki jih je prejela, niso sprožile nobenih nasprotovanj Komisije, se mi ne zdi zadostno 140.
It follows that, where the Commission states, first, in the fourth recital in the preamble to the First Code, that the code is restricted to ‘specific aids only’ — the application to the steel industry of general aid schemes remaining subject to constant review by the Commission pursuant to Article 67 of the ECSC Treaty and Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — and, secondly, in Article 10 of that code, that it ‘shall apply until 31 December 1981’, it is clear that the Commission may adopt different rules after that date.
Iz tega sledi, da ker je Komisija natančno opredelila, v okviru četrte uvodne izjave prvih pravil, da so ta omejena „samo na posebne pomoči“ – ker uporabo splo�nih sistemov pomoči �e naprej nadzira Komisija na podlagi členov 67 PJ ter 87 ES in 88 ES –, in ker je opozorila na člen 10 navedenih pravil, ki „veljajo do 31. decembra 1981“, je jasno, da od tega datuma Komisija lahko sprejme drugačne predpise.
Salzgitter, deemed to be cognisant of the applicable legislation, was therefore
Družba Salzgitter, za katero se domneva poznavanje veljavnih predpisov, je torej lahko predvidela, da se ti lahko prilagodijo in spremenijo
140 — The judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 223/85 RSV v Commission [1987] ECR 4617 cannot be applied to this case.
140 – Sodbe Sodi�ča z dne 24. novembra 1987 v zadevi RSV proti Komisiji (223/85, Recueil, str.
In that case, the Court took the view that the Commission’s delay (26 months) in giving the decision concerning the compatibility of State aid could establish a legitimate expectation on the part of the recipient of the aid so as to prevent the Commission from requiring the national authorities to order the refund of the aid.
4617) ni mogoče prenesti na obravnavano zadevo. V tej zadevi je namreč Sodi�če menilo, da bi zamuda Komisije (26 mesecev) pri sprejetju odločbe o združljivosti državne pomoči lahko pri prejemnikih pomoči vzbudila taka legitimna pričakovanja, ki bi preprečila Komisiji, da od nacionalnih organov zahteva, da odredijo izterjavo pomoči.
In that case, however, that aid had been notified.
Vendar je bila v navedeni zadevi ta pomoč prigla�ena.
139 — Ibid.
138 – Točka 59.139 – Idem.
VII — Reference back to the Court of First Instance
VII – Vrnitev zadeve v ponovno odločanje Sodišču prve stopnje