natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In determining whether structural overcapacity exists in the sector or subsector concerned, the Commission compares, at the European Community level, the average capacity utilisation rate for manufacturing industry as a whole and the capacity utilisation rate of the relevant sector or subsector.
Komisija pri ugotavljanju obstoja ali neobstoja takih presežkov zmogljivosti na ravni Evropske skupnosti upo�teva razliko med povprečno stopnjo izkori�čenosti proizvodnih zmogljivosti celotne predelovalne industrije in stopnjo izkori�čenosti zmogljivosti v zadevnem (pod)sektorju.
The Commission refers to the last five years for which data are available. 17
Komisija se sklicuje na obdobje zadnjih petih let, za katero so na voljo podatki 17.
Point 3.4 of the multisectoral framework is worded as follows:
Točka 3.4 večsektorskega okvira določa:
The maximum aid intensity is calculated in accordance with a methodology set out in point 3 of the aforementioned framework.
Največja dovoljena intenzivnost pomoči se izračuna v skladu z metodologijo, ki je opisana v točki 3 omenjenega okvira.
To make that calculation, it is first necessary to determine the ‘regional aid ceiling’ (factor R) which corresponds to the maximum aid intensity which a large company could obtain in the area concerned, within the context of the authorised regional aid system valid at the moment of notification.
Za izračun je treba najprej določiti „regionalno zgornjo mejo“ pomoči (dejavnik R), ki ustreza največji dovoljeni intenzivnost pomoči, ki jo lahko prejme veliko podjetje v zadevni regiji v skladu s pravili za regionalno pomoč, ki je odobrena z dnem priglasitve.
If it is ad hoc aid, the aid ceiling fixed for the region concerned will be applied.
Če gre za posamezno pomoč, bo zgornja meja pomoči določena za ustrezno zadevno področje.
It is then necessary to determine three adjustment factors corresponding to (a) competition in the sector under consideration (factor T), (b) the capital/labour ratio (factor I), and (c) the regional impact of the aid on the economy of the area concerned (factor M).
Nato je treba za izračun določiti korekcijske količnike, ki ustrezajo, prvič, stanju konkurence v upo�tevnem sektorju (dejavnik T), drugič, razmerju med kapitalom in delom (dejavnik I) ter, tretjič, regionalnemu učinku pomoči na gospodarstvo zadevne regije (dejavnik M).
‘In the absence of sufficient data on capacity utilisation, the Commission will consider whether the investment takes place in a declining market.
„Komisija pri nezadostnih podatkih o izkori�čenosti zmogljivosti obravnava, ali se zadevne naložbe izvajajo na trgu v zatonu.
For this purpose, the Commission will compare the evolution of
V ta namen primerja gibanje očitne porabe zadevnega proizvoda ali proizvodov […]
15 — See inter alia paragraph 6 of the First Resolution of 20 October 1971 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on general systems of regional aid (OJ English Special Edition, Second Series IX, p.
15 – Glej zlasti točko 6 Prve resolucije z dne 20. oktobra 1971 predstavnikov vlad držav članic, ki so se sestali v okviru Sveta v zvezi s splo�nimi pravili za regionalne pomoči (UL C 111, str.
57); paragraphs 10 to 12 of the Communication of the Commission on regional aid systems (OJ 1979 C 31, p.
1); točke od 10 do 12 Sporočila Komisije o pravilih za regionalne pomoči (UL 1979, C 31, str.
9); and paragraph 1.6, second and third indents, of the Commission communication on the method for the application of Article [87(3)(a) and (c) EC] to regional aid (OJ 1988 C 212, p. 2).
9) in točko I, 6, druga in tretja alinea, Sporočila Komisije o načinu uporabe člena 88(3)(a) in (c) ES za regionalne pomoči (UL 1988, C 212, str. 2).
17 — According to point 7.7 of the multisectoral framework, the Commission considers structural overcapacity to exist when, on average over the last five years, the capacity utilisation rate of the relevant sector or subsector is more than two percentage points below that of manufacturing as a whole.
17 – Komisija v skladu s točko 7.7 večsektorskega okvira ugotavlja presežek strukturnih zmogljivosti, saj je delež uporabe zmogljivosti zadevnega (pod)sektorja v zadnjih petih letih v povprečju za več kot dve odstotni točki manj�i od deleža predelovalnega sektorja v celoti.
Structural overcapacity is described as serious when the difference with respect to the average for manufacturing is more than five percentage points.
Presežek strukturnih zmogljivosti je velik, kadar se od povprečja predelovalnega sektorja razlikuje za več kot 5 odstotnih točk.
16 — Point 1.4 of the multisectoral framework.
16 – Točka 1.4 večsektorskega okvira.
The projects which are subject to a duty to notify are defined in point. 2.1 of the framework.
Načrti, ki jih je treba priglasiti, so opredeljeni v točki 2.1 tega okvira.
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE apparent consumption of the product(s) in question… with the growth rate of [European Economic Area (“EEA”) manufacturing industry as a whole. [ 18]’
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE s stopnjo rasti celotne predelovalne industrije na ravni [Evropskega gospodarskega prostora, v nadaljevanju: EGP]“ [ 18].
(iii) Project which results in a capacity expansion in a sector facing structural overcapacity and/or a declining market: 0.75
iii) projekt, ki povečuje zmogljivosti v sektorju, za katerega so značilni presežki strukturnih zmogljivosti in/ali trg v zatonu: 0,75 iv) ni verjetnih negativnih učinkov v smislu primerov od i) do iii): 1,00“
Finally, under point 3.10.1 of the framework, four adjustment factors are applicable to the competition factor.
Končno je treba na podlagi točke 3.10.1 omenjenega okvira uporabiti �tiri korekcijske količnike, povezane s stanjem konkurence.
The value of those factors depends on the following assessment criteria:
Vrednost teh količnikov je odvisna od naslednjih ocenjevalnih meril:
‘(i) Project which results in a capacity expansion in a sector facing serious structural overcapacity and/or an absolute decline in demand: 0.25
„i) projekt, ki povečuje zmogljivosti v sektorju, za katerega so značilni veliki presežki strukturnih zmogljivosti in/ali absolutno zmanj�evanje povpra�e -vanja: 0,25
Within the meaning of the multisectoral framework, the relevant product market for determining market share comprises the products envisaged by the investment project and, where appropriate, the products considered by the consumer or by the producer to be interchangeable with them.
V skladu z večsektorskim okvirom upo�tevni proizvodni trg obsega proizvode naložbenega projekta in proizvode, ki jih potro�nik ali proizvajalec �tejeta za nadomestne proizvode.
The geographic market comprises usually the EEA or, alternatively, any significant part of it if the conditions of competition in that area can be sufficiently distinguished from other areas of the EEA. 19
Geografski trg pa navadno vključuje EGP ali kateri koli bistveni del ozemlja EGP, če se pogoji konkurence na tem območju očitno razlikujejo od pogojev na drugih območjih EGP 19.
(ii) Project which results in a capacity expansion in a sector facing structural overcapacity and/or a declining market and which is likely to reinforce high market share: 0.50
II – Dejansko stanje v teh zadevah ii) projekt, ki povečuje zmogljivosti v sektorju, za katerega so značilni presežki strukturnih zmogljivosti in/ali trg v zatonu, in lahko okrepi visok tržni delež: 0,50
The facts, as they are stated in the contested judgment, may be summarised as follows:
Iz izpodbijane sodbe izhaja dejansko stanje, kot je opisano v nadaljevanju.
18 — Under point 7.8 of the multisectoral framework, the market for the products in question will be deemed to be declining if, over the last five years, the average annual growth rate of apparent consumption is significantly (more than 10%) below the annual average of EEA manufacturing industry as a whole, unless there is a strong upward trend in the relative growth rate of demand for the product(s).
18 – V skladu s točko 7.8 večsektorskega okvira se bo za trg zadevnih proizvodov domnevalo, da je v zatonu, če bo povprečni letni delež rasti vidne potro�nje v zadnjih petih letih občutno manj�i (za več kot 10 %) od letnega povprečja celotne predelovalne industrije na ravni EGP, razen če relativni delež rasti povpra�evanja po proizvodu ali proizvodih ne kaže krepkega trenda rasti.
An absolutely declining market is one in which the average annual growth rate of apparent consumption over the last five years is negative.
Trg v absolutnem zatonu je tisti trg, na katerem je povprečni letni delež rasti vidne potro�nje v zadnjih petih letih negativen.
19 — Point 7.6 of the multisectoral framework.
19 – Točka 7.6 večsektorskega okvira.
Glunz, the German company which was the recipient of the aid in question, and Kronofrance, the French company which was the applicant at first instance, both manufacture and market wood panels and boards.
Nem�ko podjetje Glunz, ki je bilo prejemnik obravnavanih pomoči, in francosko podjetje Kronofrance, ki je bilo tožeča stranka na prvi stopnji, proizvajata in prodajata lesene plo�če.
European Community, 20the Commission chose to base its analysis on the data relating to the capacity utilisation rate of class 20.20 of that classification, which includes the manufacture of wood panels and boards, covering the period from 1994 to 1998.
v Evropski skupnosti 20se je Komisija odločila, da bo analizo oprla na podatke o stopnji izkori�čenosti zmogljivosti iz razreda 20.20 te klasifikacije, ki obsega proizvodnjo lesenih plo�č v obdobju od leta 1994 do leta 1998.
The Commission concluded that the investment project in question would entail an increase in capacity in a sector in which there was no overcapacity, which justified the application of the adjustment factor 1 to the competition factor.
Komisija je sklepala, da bo zadevni naložbeni projekt povečal zmogljivosti v sektorju, v katerem ni presežkov zmogljivosti, kar je upravičilo uporabo korekcijskega količnika 1 za dejavnik stanja konkurence.
By letter of 4 August 2000, the Federal Republic of Germany notified the Commission of a project to grant investment aid of an intensity of 35% (that is, EUR 69 797 988 in total) to the companies Glunz and OSB for the construction of an integrated wood processing centre at Nettgau in the Land of Saxony-Anhalt.
Zvezna republika Nemčija je z dopisom z dne 4. avgusta 2000 Komisiji priglasila načrt pomoči za naložbo z intenzivnostjo v vi�ini 35 % (skupni znesek 69.797.988 EUR) v korist družb Glunz AG in OSB za gradnjo integriranega centra za obdelavo lesa v Nettgauu v deželi Sa�ka-Anhalt (Nemčija).
On the basis of an assessment of the notified aid in the light of the criteria laid down in the multisectoral framework, the Commission set out the reasons why it considered that the investment aid project proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany was in accordance with the maximum authorised aid intensity. 21
Komisija je na podlagi ocene prigla�ene pomoči glede meril, določenih v večsektorskem okviru, navedla razloge, zaradi katerih je menila, da je bil naložbeni projekt pomoči Zvezne republike Nemčije skladen z največjo dovoljeno intenzivnostjo pomoči 21.
In accordance with the rules laid down by that framework, the Commission determined the maximum intensity of aid which companies could receive in that area, by evaluating each of the adjustment factors (factors T, I and M).
Komisija je v skladu s pravili tega okvira z uporabo vseh korekcijskih količnikov (dejavniki T, I in M) določila največjo dovoljeno intenzivnost pomoči, ki jo smejo ta podjetja v tej regiji prejeti.
On 25 July 2001, the Commission therefore decided, on the basis of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 659/1999, not to raise objections to the grant of that aid.
Komisija je tako 25. julija 2001 na podlagi člena 4(3) Uredbe �t. 659/1999 sprejela odločbo o nenasprotovanju dodelitvi upo�tevne pomoči.
20 — This classification was established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 of 9 October 1990 on the statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community (OJ 1990 L 293, p.
20 – Ta nomenklatura je bila določena z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) �t. 3037/90 z dne 9. oktobra 1990 o statistični klasifikaciji gospodarskih dejavnosti v Evropski skupnosti (UL L 293, str.
1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 761/93 of 24 March 1993 (OJ 1993 L 83, p. 1).
1) in spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (EGS) �t. 761/93 z dne 24. marca 1993 (UL L 83, str. 1).
With regard to the assessment of the competition factor, the Commission stated that, in accordance with points 3.3 and 3.4 of the framework, when there is sufficient data relating to the capacity utilisation rate, it had to limit its analysis to determining whether or not there was structural overcapacity in the relevant sector.
Komisija je glede ocene dejavnika o stanju konkurence poudarila, da če je na voljo dovolj podatkov o stopnji izkori�čenosti zmogljivosti, mora v skladu s točkama 3.3 in 3.4 omenjenega okvira svojo analizo omejiti na ugotavljanje, ali v zadevnem sektorju obstajajo strukturni presežki zmogljivosti.
Taking the view that the two products manufactured by Glunz represented a very significant share of all wood panel and board production in Europe, and referring to the lowest level of the general classification of economic activities in the
Ob upo�tevanju, da imata oba proizvoda družbe Glunz zelo velik delež v celotni proizvodnji lesenih plo�č v Evropi, in s sklicevanjem na najnižjo stopnjo iz statistične klasifikacije gospodarskih dejavnosti
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE prve
III — The procedure before the Court of First Instance and the contested judgment
III – Postopek pred Sodiščem stopnje in izpodbijana sodba
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 4 February 2002, Kronofrance brought an action for annulment of the contested decision.
Podjetje Kronofrance je 4. februarja 2002 v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje vložilo ničnostno tožbo zoper sporno odločbo.
By order of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2002, Glunz and OSB were granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
S sklepom predsednika četrtega raz�irjenega senata Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 10. septembra 2002 je bila podjetjema Glunz in OSB dovoljena intervencija v podporo predlogom Komisije.
Basing its argument on settled caselaw, the Court of First Instance pointed out, first, in paragraph 32 of the contested judgment that it was necessary to distinguish between the two stages of the procedure for reviewing State aid, namely the preliminary examination of the measure and the formal investigation procedure.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je najprej s sklicevanjem na ustaljeno sodno prakso v točki 32 izpodbijane sodbe poudarilo, da je treba razlikovati dve fazi v postopku nadzora državnih pomoči, in sicer fazo predhodnega preizkusa državnih pomoči in fazo formalnega preizkusa 22.
22 The former stage enables the Commission to form a prima facie opinion on the compatibility of the aid, and the latter stage enables it to be fully informed of all the facts of the case and, in that context, imposes on it an obligation to give the parties concerned notice to submit their comments.
Komisija naj bi si v prvi od teh faz ustvarila prvo mnenje o združljivosti pomoči, druga pa ji omogoča bolj podroben pregled dejstev v zadevi in jo obvezuje v zvezi s tem, da pozove zainteresirane stranke k predložitvi svojih mnenj.
The Court therefore stated, in paragraph 33 of the judgment, that, where the Commission finds, on the basis only of the preliminary examination, that aid is compatible with the common market, the persons intended to benefit from the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 88(2) EC may secure compliance therewith only if they are able to challenge that decision before the Community judicature. 23
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi s tem v točki 33 te sodbe poudarilo, da kadar Komisija le na podlagi predhodnega preizkusa pomoči ugotovi, da je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom, lahko osebe, ki so jim zagotovljena procesna jamstva po členu 88(2) ES, ta uveljavijo le, če imajo možnost navedeno odločbo izpodbijati pred sodi�čem Skupnosti 23.
In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance annulled the contested decision after declaring that the action brought by Kronofrance was admissible and well founded.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v izpodbijani sodbi sporno odločbo razglasilo za nično, potem ko je ugotovilo, da je tožba podjetja Kronofrance dopustna in utemeljena.
Consequently, the Court concluded, in paragraph 34 of the contested judgment:
Zato je Sodi�če prve stopnje sklepalo v točki 34 izpodbijane sodbe:
It is apparent from that judgment that, at the hearing, the Commission and the interveners raised a plea of inadmissibility on the ground that Kronofrance did not have locus standi.
Iz te sodbe izhaja, da so Komisija in interventi med obravnavo zahtevali, da se tožba razglasi za nedopustno, saj družba Kronofrance ni imela procesnega upravičenja.
They contended that Kronofrance was not individually concerned by the contested decision since its position on the market was not substantially affected by the aid in question.
Navajali so, da slednja ni bila posamično prizadeta s sporno odločbo, ker njen položaj na trgu z upo�tevno pomočjo ni bil bistveno prizadet.
22 — The Court referred to Cook v Commission, paragraph 22; Matra v Commission, paragraph 16; Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 38; and Case T-158/99 Ther­menhotel Stoiser Franz and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-1, paragraph 57.
22 – Sodi�če prve stopnje se sklicuje na zgoraj navedene sodbe Cook proti Komisiji (točka 22); Matra proti Komisiji (točka 16) in Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France (točka 38) in na sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 13. januarja 2004 v zadevi Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz in drugi proti Komisiji (T-158/99, Recueil, str. II-1, točka 57).
23 — The Court referred to Cook v Commission, paragraph 23; Matra v Commission, paragraph 17; Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 47; and Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz and Others v Commission, paragraph 69.
23 – Sodi�če prve stopnje se sklicuje na zgoraj navedene sodbe Cook proti Komisiji (točka 23); Matra proti Komisiji (točka 17); Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France (točka 47) in na Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz in drugi proti Komisiji (točka 69).
In paragraphs 29 to 46 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance therefore examined the admissibility of the action.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 29 do 46 omenjene sodbe odločalo o dopustnosti tožbe.
guarantees provided for in Article 88(2) EC, the mere fact that it has the status of a “party concerned” within the meaning of that provision is sufficient for it to be regarded as directly and individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC [ 24]…’
člena 88(2) ES, že dejstvo, da je zadevna stranka v smislu navedene določbe, zadostuje, da se jo obravnava, da jo odločba neposredno in posamično zadeva v smislu četrtega pododstavka člena 230 ES [ 24] […]“
The Court held that the first plea raised by Kronofrance was well founded and on that ground annulled the contested decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je odločilo, da je prvi tožbeni razlog podjetja Kronofrance utemeljen in zato sporno odločbo razglasilo za nično.
The Court then considered whether the applicant could be regarded as an interested party for the purposes of Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je torej obravnavalo, ali se tožečo stranko lahko obravnava kot zainteresirano stranko v skladu s členom 1(h) Uredbe �t. 659/1999.
By that first plea, Kronofrance disputed the Commission’s assessment of the maximum allowable aid intensity and more particularly of the adjustment factor applicable to the competition factor (factor T).
S tem prvim tožbenim razlogom je slednje izpodbijalo presojo Komisije glede največje dovoljene intenzivnosti pomoči in zlasti korekcijski količnik za dejavnik o stanju konkurence (dejavnik T).
It criticised the Commission inter alia for failing to examine whether the proposed investments were to take place in a declining market and for merely analysing the structural capacities of the sector.
Komisiji je zlasti očitalo, da ni preučila, ali se bodo naložbeni projekti izvajali na trgu v zatonu, ter da se je zadovoljila že z analizo strukturnih zmogljivosti v sektorju.
The Court therefore declared the action admissible. 25
Zato je sodi�če Skupnosti tožbo razglasilo za dopustno 25.
After noting, in paragraph 79 of the contested judgment, the wide discretion enjoyed by the Commission in the exercise of its review of State aid, the Court of First Instance examined whether the Commission had committed an error of law in its interpretation and application of the multisectoral framework.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 79 izpodbijane sodbe opozorilo Komisijo na meje diskrecijske pravice, s katero razpolaga pri izvajanju nadzora državnih pomoči, nato pa je preučilo, ali ta ni zmotno uporabila prava pri razlagi in izvajanju določb večsektorskega okvira.
The Court then analysed the pleas in law put forward by Kronofrance.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v nadaljevanju analiziralo tožbene razloge, ki jih je navedlo podjetje Kronofrance.
The applicant relied, essentially, on four pleas in support of its claim for annulment, alleging, first, infringement of Article 87 EC and of the multisectoral framework; second, infringement of Article 88(2) EC; third, misuse of
Slednje je v bistvu navedlo �tiri tožbene razloge za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe, ki se nana�ajo, prvič, na kr�itev člena 87 ES in večsektorskega okvira, drugič, na kr�itev člena 88(2) ES, tretjič, na
24 — The Court referred to Cook v Commission, paragraphs 23 to 26; Matra v Commission, paragraphs 17 to 20; and Case T-11/95 BP Chemicals v Commission [1998] ECR II-3235, paragraphs 89 and 90.
24 – Sodi�če prve stopnje se sklicuje na zgoraj navedeni sodbi Cook proti Komisiji (točke od 23 do 26) in Matra proti Komisiji (točke od 17 do 20) in na sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 15. septembra 1998 v zadevi BP Chemicals proti Komisiji (T-11/95, Recueil, str. II-3235, točki 89 in 90).
Although the Court acknowledged, in paragraph 89 of the contested judgment, that, on the basis of its wording alone, the multisectoral framework could be understood in the sense claimed by the Commission, it nevertheless considered that the framework must be interpreted in the light of Article 87 EC and of the objective sought by
Čeprav je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 89 te sodbe priznalo, da je glede na njegovo besedilo ta okvir mogoče razumeti v pomenu, ki ga zagovarja Komisija, je navedeni okvir kljub temu treba razlagati z vidika člena 87 ES in v njem vsebovanega cilja, to je neizkrivljene konkurence na skupnem trgu.
25 — Paragraph 46 of the contested judgment.
25 – Točka 46 izpodbijane sodbe.
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE that provision, namely undistorted competition in the common market.
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE
IV — The procedure before the Court of Justice and the forms of order sought by the parties
IV – Postopek pred Sodiščem in predlogi strank
By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 16 and 18 February 2005 respectively, the Federal Republic of Germany and Glunz and OSB brought the present appeals.
Zvezna republika Nemčija ter podjetji Glunz in OSB so 16. oziroma 18. februarja 2005 v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča vložili zadevne pritožbe.
In paragraphs 90 to 95 of the contested judgment, the Court examined the organisation of points 3.2 to 3.10 of the multisectoral framework.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 90 do 95 omenjene sodbe preučilo smisel točk od 3.2 do 3.10 večsektorskega okvira.
In paragraph 96 of the contested judgment, it concluded that the application of an adjustment factor equal to 1 to the competition factor implied a prior finding that there was no structural overcapacity in the sector concerned and also that the market was a declining market.
V točki 96 izpodbijane sodbe je sklepalo, da uporaba korekcijskega količnika o stanju konkurence, ki je enak 1, vključuje predhodno ugotovitev neobstoja presežkov strukturnih zmogljivosti v zadevnem sektorju in tudi trga v zatonu.