natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
31 — See Joined Cases T-116/01 and T-118/01 P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission [2003] ECR II-2957, paragraph 209. 48.
31 – Glej sodbo z dne 5. avgusta 2003 v združenih zadevah P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) in Diputación Foral de Vizcaya proti Komisiji (T-116/01 in T-118/01, Recueil, str. II-2957, točka 209). 48.
I accordingly consider that the answer to the second question should be that the obligation to repay unlawful aid applies to any period prior to the adoption by the Commission of a final decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market pursuant to the procedure under Article 88 EC, the term ‘final decision’ being understood to mean a decision which has not been the object of review proceedings pursuant to Article 230 EC within the twomonth period laid down in that provision or, where such proceedings have been brought, has had its validity upheld by the Community Courts.
Glede na to menim, da bi moral biti odgovor na drugo vpra�anje, da obveznost povračila nezakonite pomoči velja za vsako obdobje pred sprejetjem dokončne odločitve Komisije o razglasitvi pomoči za združljivo s skupnim trgom na podlagi postopka iz člena 88 ES, pri čemer se izraz „dokončna odločitev“ razume, kot da pomeni odločitev, ki ni bila predmet postopka nadzora na podlagi člena 230 ES v obdobju dveh mesecev, določenem v tem členu, ali, kadar se je tak postopek pričel, ko so Sodi�ča Skupnosti potrdila njeno veljavnost.
(1) In accordance with the terms of Article 88(3) EC a Member State, which has granted unlawful aid in breach of the notification and standstill requirements established by that provision, must recover that aid from the beneficiary, even where the procedure under Article 88 EC has resulted in a final decision declaring the aid in question compatible with the common market.
(1) V skladu s členom 88(3) ES mora država članica, ki je dodelila nezakonito pomoč s kr�itvijo zahtev za priglasitev in mirovanje, določenih v tem členu, to pomoč izterjati od upravičenca, tudi ko se je postopek v členu 88 ES zaključil z dokončno odločitvijo o razglasitvi zadevne pomoči za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
(2) The obligation to repay unlawful aid applies to any period prior to the adoption by the Commission of a final decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market pursuant to the procedure under Article 88 EC, the term ‘final decision’ being understood to mean a decision which has not been the object of review proceedings pursuant to Article 230 EC within the twomonth period laid down in that provision or, where such proceedings have been brought, has had its validity upheld by the Community Courts.
(2) Obveznost povračila nezakonite pomoči velja za vsako obdobje pred sprejetjem dokončne odločitve Komisije o razglasitvi pomoči za združljivo s skupnim trgom na podlagi postopka iz člena 88 ES, pri čemer se izraz „dokončna odločitev“ razume, kot da pomeni odločitev, ki ni bila predmet postopka nadzora na podlagi člena 230 ES v obdobju dveh mesecev, določenih v tem členu, ali, kadar se je tak postopek pričel, ko so Sodi�ča Skupnosti potrdila njeno veljavnost.
2008 — CASE C-199/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-199/06
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Conseil d’État (France), made by decision of 29 March 2006, received at the Court on 2 May 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-199/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Conseil d’État (Francija) z odločbo z dne 29. marca 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 2. maja 2006, v postopku
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: J. Swedenborg, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 27 February 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Mazák, sodni tajnik: J. Swedenborg, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 27. februarja 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the French Government, by G. de Bergues and S. Ramet, acting as Agents,
– za francosko vlado G. de Bergues, zastopnik, in S. Ramet, zastopnica,
— the Hungarian Government, by J. Fazekas, acting as Agent,
– za madžarsko vlado J. Fazekas, zastopnica,
— the Commission of the European Communities, by V. Di Bucci and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents,
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti V. Di Bucci in J.-P. Keppenne, zastopnika,
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 88(3) EC.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 88(3) ES.
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between the Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF) (French Book Export Centre; hereinafter ‘CELF’) and the Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication (Minister for Culture and Communication), on the one hand, and the Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition (SIDE) (International Distribution and Publishing Company; hereinafter ‘SIDE’), on the other, concerning aid paid to CELF by the French State.
Vložen je bil v okviru spora med tožečima strankama Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF) (v nadaljevanju: CELF) in Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication (v nadaljevanju: minister za kulturo in komunikacije) ter toženo stranko Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition (SIDE) (v nadaljevanju: SIDE) zaradi pomoči, ki jih je francoska država izplačala družbi CELF.
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
Facts which gave rise to the dispute in the main proceedings, and Community proceedings
Dejansko stanje v postopku v glavni stvari in postopki Skupnosti
CELF, a cooperative society in public limited company form, carries on the activity of export agent.
Družba CELF, ki je zadružna delni�ka družba, opravlja dejavnost izvoznega posredni�tva.
Under its articles of association, its object is to process directly orders for abroad and the French overseas territories and departments for books, brochures and any communication media and, more generally, to perform any operations aimed, in particular, at increasing the promotion of French culture throughout the world, using the above media.
Na podlagi njenega statuta je njena naloga neposredno obravnavanje naročil za po�iljanje knjig, bro�ur in kakr�nih koli nosilcev sporočil v tujino ter francoska čezmorska ozemlja in departmaje, splo�neje pa izvajanje vseh postopkov, ki imajo zlasti namen razvijati predstavljanje francoske kulture po svetu z zgoraj navedenimi nosilci.
It combines small orders for books, thus enabling foreign clients to deal with a single intermediary rather than a host of suppliers, whilst benefiting from the widest possible supply base.
Zbira manj�a naročila knjig in tako omogoča tujim naročnikom, da poslujejo le z enim sogovornikom in ne z množico dobaviteljev ter da imajo kljub temu na voljo naj�ir�o mogočo ponudbo.
It satisfies all the orders of operators, without regard to the size of the orders, even if they are unprofitable.
Izpolni vse zahteve udeležencev, pri tem pa ne upo�teva zneska naročil, tudi če ta niso donosna.
CELF’s obligations were a reaffirmed in agreements concluded with the French Ministry of Culture and Communication.
Obveznosti družbe CELF so bile potrjene v pogodbah, sklenjenih s francoskim ministrstvom za kulturo in komunikacije.
From 1980 to 2002, CELF received operating subsidies from the French State to offset the extra costs of handling small orders placed by booksellers established abroad.
Družba CELF je od leta 1980 do leta 2002 prejemala od francoske države subvencije za poslovanje za kritje povi�anja stro�kov v zvezi z obravnavanjem majhnih naročil knjigarn na tujem.
In the course of 1992, SIDE, a competitor of CELF, asked the Commission of the European Communities whether or not it had been informed, under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC), of the aid granted to CELF.
V letu 1992 je družba SIDE, konkurentka družbe CELF, vpra�ala Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti, ali so bile pomoči, ki so bile dodeljene družbi CELF, prigla�ene v skladu s členom 93(3) Pogodbe ES (sedaj člen 88(3) ES).
The Commission requested of, and obtained from, the French Government information about the measures in favour of CELF.
Komisija je o tem povpra�ala francosko vlado in prejela podatke o ukrepih v korist družbe CELF.
The Commission confirmed the aid’s existence to SIDE and informed it that the measures in question had not been notified.
Družbi SIDE je potrdila obstoj pomoči in jo obvestila, da zadevni ukrepi niso bili prigla�eni.
By decision NN 127/92 of 18 May 1993, notice of which was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 25 June 1993 under the title ‘Aid to exporters of French books’ (OJ 1993 C 174, p.
V Odločbi NN 127/92 z dne 18. maja 1993, obvestilo o kateri je bilo objavljeno v Uradnem listu Evropskih Skupnosti z dne 25. junija 1993, pod naslovom „Pomoči izvoznikom francoskih knjig“ (UL C 174, str.
6), the Commission concluded that, given the special nature of competition in the book trade and the cultural purpose of the aid schemes in question, the derogation provided for in Article 92(3)(d) of the EC Treaty (now Article 87(3)(d) EC) applied to them.
6), je Komisija menila, da se zaradi posebnega položaja konkurence na knjižnem področju in kulturnega cilja teh programov pomoči zanje uporablja izjema, določena v členu 92(3)(d) Pogodbe ES (sedaj člen 87(3)(d) ES).
SIDE brought an action for annulment of that decision before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
Družba SIDE je pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti vložila ničnostno tožbo zoper to odločbo.
By judgment of 18 September 1995 in Case T-49/93 SIDE v Commission [1995] ECR II-2501, the Court of First Instance annulled the decision in so far as it concerned the subsidy granted exclusively to CELF to offset the extra cost involved in handling small orders for Frenchlanguage books placed by booksellers established abroad.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je s sodbo z dne 18. septembra 1995 v zadevi SIDE proti Komisiji (T-49/93, Recueil, str. II-2501) razglasilo navedeno odločbo za nično v delu, ki se nana�a na subvencijo, dodeljeno izključno družbi CELF za kritje povi�anja stro�kov v zvezi z obravnavanjem majhnih naročil knjig v francoskem jeziku s strani knjigarn na tujem.
It decided that the Commission should have undertaken a detailed investigation of the conditions of competition in the sector concerned prior to ruling on the measures’ compatibility with the common market.
Menilo je, da bi Komisija morala začeti podrobno preiskavo razmer konkurence na tem področju, preden je izrazila mnenje o združljivosti ukrepov s skupnim trgom.
The Commission should therefore have initiated the adversarial procedure under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC).
Komisija bi torej morala uvesti kontradiktorni postopek iz člena 93(2) Pogodbe ES (sedaj člen 88(2) ES).
On 30 July 1996, the Commission decided to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of the aid in question.
Komisija je 30. julija 1996 odločila, da bo uvedla formalni postopek preiskave o navedenih pomočeh.
Following its investigation, it adopted Decision 1999/133/EC of 10 June 1998 concerning State aid in favour of Centre d’exportation du livre français CELF (OJ 1999 L 44, p.
Ob koncu preiskave je sprejela Odločbo 1999/133/ES z dne 10. junija 1998 o državni pomoči v korist Coopérative d’exportation du livre français (CELF) (UL L 44, str.
37), in which, first, it found that the aid was unlawful, on the ground that it had not been notified, and, second, declared the aid compatible with the common market on the ground that it satisfied the conditions for derogation under Article 92(3)(d) of the Treaty.
37), s katero je ugotovila nezakonitost pomoči, ker ji niso bile prigla�ene, hkrati pa razglasila navedene pomoči za združljive s skupnim trgom, ker izpolnjujejo pogoje za uporabo izjeme iz člena 92(3)(d) Pogodbe.
Two actions were brought for annulment of that decision.
Zoper to odločbo sta bili vloženi dve ničnostni tožbi.
The first, brought before the Court of Justice by the French Republic on the ground that the Commission had failed to apply Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(2) EC), was dismissed by judgment of 22 June 2000 in Case C-332/98 France v Commission [2000] ECR I-4833.
Prva tožba, ki jo je pri Sodi�ču vložila Francoska republika, ker Komisija ni uporabila člena 90(2) Pogodbe ES (sedaj člen 86(2) ES), je bila zavrnjena s sodbo z dne 22. junija 2000 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji (C-332/98, Recueil, str. I-4833).
The second, brought before the Court of First Instance by SIDE, was upheld by judgment of 28 February 2002 in Case T-155/98 SIDE v Commission [2002] ECR II-1179), which, finding a manifest error of assessment in the definition of the relevant market, annulled the Commission’s decision in so far as it declared the aid compatible with the common market.
Drugi tožbi, ki jo je pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje vložila družba SIDE, je bilo ugodeno s sodbo z dne 28. februarja 2002 v zadevi SIDE proti Komisiji (T-155/98, Recueil, str. II-1179), s katero je bila ugotovljena očitna napaka pri presoji opredelitve upo�tevnega trga in s katero je bila odločba Komisije razgla�ena za nično v delu, v katerem so pomoči razgla�ene za združljive s skupnim trgom.
SIDE brought an action for annulment of that decision before the Court of First of Instance.
Družba SIDE je vložila ničnostno tožbo zoper to odločbo pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
Those proceedings are currently pending before that Court (Case T-348/04).
Postopek pred tem sodi�čem �e ni zaključen (zadeva T-348/04).
The national proceedings and the questions referred
Nacionalni postopki in vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
At the same time as the Community proceedings, proceedings were brought before the national authorities and courts.
Vzporedno s postopki Skupnosti so bili uvedeni postopki pred nacionalnimi organi in sodi�či.
Following the Court of First Instance’s judgment of 18 September 1995 in SIDE v Commission, cited above, SIDE requested the Minister for Culture and Communication that payment of the aid granted to CELF be stopped and that the aid already paid be repaid.
Po zgoraj navedeni sodbi z dne 18. septembra 1995 v zadevi SIDE proti Komisiji je družba SIDE zahtevala od ministra za kulturo in komunikacije, naj se preneha izplačevati pomoč, dodeljena družbi CELF, in naj se povrne znesek že izplačanih pomoči.
That request was rejected by decision of 9 October 1996.
Ta zahteva je bila zavrnjena z odločbo z dne 9. oktobra 1996.
SIDE brought an action for annulment of that decision before the Tribunal administratif de Paris (Administrative Court, Paris).
Družba SIDE je vložila ničnostno tožbo zoper to odločbo pri Tribunal administratif de Paris.
By judgment of 26 April 2001, that court annulled the contested decision.
S sodbo z dne 26. aprila 2001 je to sodi�če razglasilo izpodbijano odločbo za nično.
The Minister for Culture and Communication and CELF appealed against that judgment to the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris (Paris Administrative Court of Appeal).
Minister za kulturo in komunikacije ter družba CELF sta vložila pritožbo zoper to sodbo pri Cour administrative d’appel de Paris.
By judgment of 5 October 2004, the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris upheld the judgment appealed against and ordered the French State to recover, within three months of the date of notification of the judgment, the sums paid to CELF for handling small orders for books placed by booksellers established abroad and, in default, to pay a penalty of EUR 1 000 per day for delay.
S sodbo z dne 5. oktobra 2004 je Cour administrative d’appel de Paris potrdilo izpodbijano sodbo in francoski državi naložilo, naj izterja vsote, izplačane družbi CELF za obravnavanje majhnih naročil knjig s strani knjigarn v tujini, v trimesečnem roku od vročitve sodbe, v nasprotnem primeru se ji bo naložila denarna kazen v vi�ini 1000 EUR za vsak dan zamude.
CELF and the Minister for Culture and Communication appealed to the Conseil d’État (Council of State) to set aside that judgment and the judgment of the Tribunal administratif de Paris.
Družba CELF in minister za kulturo in komunikacije sta pri Conseil d’État vložila pravno sredstvo, s katerima sta zahtevala razveljavitev te sodbe in sodbe Tribunal administratif de Paris.
In those appeals, the appellants argued, among other things, that the Cour administrative d’appel had made an error of law and an error of legal characterisation by not holding, in the present case, that the fact that the Commission had recognised the
V okviru teh pravnih sredstev sta tožeči stranki zatrjevali zlasti, da je Cour administrative d’appel napačno uporabilo pravo in napačno določilo pravno opredelitev, ker v tej zadevi ni presodilo, da je okoli�čina, da je Komisija razglasila pomoči za
2008 — CASE C-199/06 aid’s compatibility with the common market precluded the obligation to repay the aid which follows, as a rule, from unlawfulness in the implementation of measures of State aid, contrary to Article 88(3) EC, by the Member State.
2008 – ZADEVA C-199/06 združljive s skupnim trgom, ovira za njihovo vračilo, ki načeloma izhaja iz nezako -nitosti, povezane s tem, da je država članica izvajala ukrepe pomoči v nasprotju s členom 88(3) ES.
Since it took the view that the resolution of the dispute depended on the interpretation of Community law, the Conseil d’État decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Glede na to, da je re�itev spora odvisna od razlage prava Skupnosti, je Conseil d’État prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
The first question
Prvo vprašanje
By its first question, the referring court is asking, in essence, whether the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is to be interpreted as meaning that the national court is bound to order the recovery of aid implemented contrary to that provision, where the Commission has adopted a final decision declaring that aid to be compatible with the common market, within the meaning of Article 87 EC.
S prvim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES razlagati tako, da mora nacionalno sodi�če naložiti vračilo pomoči, ki je bila izvajana v nasprotju s to določbo, če je Komisija sprejela dokončno odločitev, da je navedena pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom glede na člen 87 ES.
In that regard, it is appropriate to note that the first sentence of Article 88(3) EC imposes on the Member States an obligation to inform the Commission of any plans to grant or alter aid.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je v členu 88(3), prvi stavek, ES določena obveznost držav članic, da priglasijo načrte za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči.
Under the second sentence of Article 88(3) EC, if the Commission considers that the plan notified is not compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87 EC, it is without delay to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC.
V skladu s členom 88(3), drugi stavek, ES Komisija nemudoma sproži postopek iz člena 88(2) ES, če meni, da prigla�eni načrt ni združljiv s skupnim trgom glede na člen 87 ES.
Under the final sentence of Article 88(3) EC, the Member State which envisages granting aid must not put its proposed measures into effect until that procedure has resulted in a final decision of the Commission.
V skladu s členom 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES država članica, ki namerava dodeliti pomoč, ne sme izvajati predlaganih ukrepov, dokler v navedenem postopku ni sprejeta dokončna odločitev Komisije.
The prohibition laid down by that provision is designed to ensure that a system of aid cannot become operational before the Commission has had a reasonable period in which to study the proposed measures in detail and, if necessary, to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC (Case C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-307, ‘Boussac’, paragraph 17).
S prepovedjo iz te določbe se posku�a zagotoviti, da pomoč ne učinkuje, dokler Komisija nima na voljo razumnega roka za podrobno preučitev načrta, in če je to potrebno, za uvedbo postopka iz odstavka 2 istega člena (sodba z dne 14. februarja 1990 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji, imenovana Boussac Saint Frères, C-301/87, Recueil, str. I-307, točka 17).
Article 88(3) EC thus institutes prior control of plans to grant new aid (Case 120/73 Lorenz [1973] ECR 1471, paragraph 2).
S členom 88(3) ES je tako uveden preventivni nadzor novih načrtov pomoči (sodba z dne 11. decembra 1973 v zadevi Lorenz, 120/73, Recueil, str. 1471, točka 2).
Whilst the Commission must examine the compatibility of the proposed aid with the common market, even where the Member State has acted in breach of the prohibition on giving effect to aid, national courts do no more than preserve, until the final decision of the Commission, the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 88(3) EC (Case C-354/90 Fédération nationale du commerce extérieur des produits alimentaires and Syndicat national des négociants et transformateurs de saumon [1991] ECR I-5505, ‘FNCE’, paragraph 14).
Medtem ko mora Komisija preučiti združljivost načrtovane pomoči s skupnim trgom, tudi kadar država članica ni spo�tovala prepovedi izvajanja ukrepov pomoči, nacionalna sodi�ča le varujejo do dokončne odločitve Komisije pravice posameznikov, če državni organi morda ne spo�tujejo prepovedi iz člena 88(3) ES (sodba z dne 21. novembra 1991 v zadevi Fédération nationale du commerce extérieur des produits alimentaires in Syndicat national des négociants et transformateurs de saumon, imenovana FNCE, C-354/90, Recueil, str. I-5505, točka 14).
It is, indeed, important to protect parties affected by the distortion of competition caused by the grant of the unlawful aid (see, to that effect, Case C-368/04 Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich and Others [2006] ECR I-9957, paragraph 46).
Treba je namreč za�čititi stranke, na katere vpliva izkrivljanje konkurence, povzročeno z dodelitvijo nezakonite pomoči (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 5. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich in drugi, C-368/04, ZOdl., str. I-9957, točka 46).
The national courts must in principle allow an application for repayment of aid paid in breach of Article 88(3) EC (see, in particular, Case C-39/94 SFEI and Others [1996] ECR I-3547, paragraph 70).
Nacionalna sodi�ča morajo načeloma ugoditi zahtevi za vračilo pomoči, izplačanih v nasprotju s členom 88(3) ES (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 11. julija 1996 v zadevi SFEI in drugi, C-39/94, Recueil, str. I-3547, točka 70).
The Commission’s final decision does not have the effect of regularising, retrospectively, implementing measures which were invalid because they had been taken in disregard of the prohibition laid down by that article.
Dokončna odločitev Komisije namreč ne vodi do naknadne odprave pomanjkljivosti izvr�ilnih aktov, ki niso veljavni, ker so bili sprejeti v nasprotju s prepovedjo iz tega člena.
Any other interpretation would have the effect of according a favourable outcome to the non-observance, by the Member State concerned, of the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC and would deprive it of its effectiveness (‘FNCE’, cited above, paragraph 16).
Vsaka druga razlaga bi vodila do tega, da bi zadevna država članica dajala prednost nespo�tovanju člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES in mu odvzela njegov polni učinek (zgoraj navedena sodba FNCE, točka 16).
The national courts must therefore ensure that all appropriate conclusions will be drawn from an infringement of the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, in accordance with their national law, as regards both the validity of measures giving effect to the aid
Nacionalna sodi�ča morajo torej zagotoviti, da bodo v skladu z njihovim nacionalnim pravom odpravljene vse posledice kr�itve člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES, tako glede veljavnosti izvr�ilnih aktov ukrepov pomoči kot glede izterjave finančne podpore,