natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The aid in question in that case related to tax deduction measures for certain overseas investments, introduced initially by the French Law of 11 July 1986, in respect of which the Commission had raised no objections under Article 87 EC.
Sodišče prve stopnje določene čezmorske naložbe, ki izvirajo iz francoskega zakona z dne 11. julija 1986, glede katerega Komisija na podlagi člena 87 ES ni ugovarjala.
The operation in question consisted in ensuring the financing and operation of the cruise vessel Le Levant, for a period of approximately seven years, by investors who were natural persons, through oneperson limited liability undertakings (EURLs), constituted solely for that purpose and brought together in a maritime co-ownership.
Pri poslu je šlo za to, da v okviru tega zakona vlagatelji – fizične osebe prek enoosebnih družb z omejeno odgovornostjo (EURL), ki so ustanovljene izključno v ta namen in jih združujejo njihovi solastniški deleži – približno sedem let zagotavljajo financiranje in uporabo potniške ladje za križarjenje Le Levant.
In its judgment, the Court of First Instance found that the contested decision did not explain how the aid in question met three of the four conditions laid down in Article 87(1) EC.
Sodišče prve stopnje v svoji sodbi ugotavlja, da iz izpodbijane odločbe ni mogoče razbrati, kako naj bi zadevna pomoč izpolnjevala tri od štirih pogojev iz člena 87(1) ES.
First, as regards the eect on trade between Member States, the Court of First Instance observed that the Commission did not state how the aid in question might aect such trade, when the vessel was to be used at Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, which is not part of the territory of the Community.
Prvič, Sodišče prve stopnje glede vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami navaja, da Komisija ne opredeli, kako bi lahko zadevna pomoč vplivala na omenjeno trgovino, saj naj bi bila ladja uporabljena v Saint-Pierru in Miquelonu, ki ni del ozemlja Skupnosti.
Second, as regards the advantage conferred on the beneciary of the aid and the selective nature of that advantage, the Court of First Instance considered that the contested decision did not explain how the private investors had been placed in an advantageous position by the aid in question.
Drugič, Sodišče prve stopnje glede ugodnosti, dodeljene prejemniku pomoči, in selektivnosti te ugodnosti meni, da iz izpodbijane odločbe ni mogoče razbrati, zakaj zadevna pomoč pomeni prednost za zasebne vlagatelje.
Third, as regards the eects of the aid on competition, the Court observed that there was nothing in the contested decision explaining how, and on what market competition was aected or likely to be aected by the aid.
Tretjič, Sodišče prve stopnje glede učinkov navedene pomoči na konkurenco navaja, da izpodbijana odločba ne vsebuje navedb, na podlagi katerih bi lahko ugotovili, kako in na katerem trgu pomoč vpliva ali bi lahko vplivala na konkurenco.
On the ground, in particular, of that defective reasoning, the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission’s decision.
Zaradi te pomanjkljive obrazložitve je Sodišče prve stopnje odločbo Komisije razglasilo za nično.
It may be noted in that regard that the Court of First Instance also found insucient or lack of reasoning leading to the annulment in whole or in part of the contested decision in Ufex and Others v Commission, Lucchini v Commission and Italie and Wam v Commission 34.
V zvezi s tem lahko dodamo, da je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo tudi nezadostno ali pomanjkljivo obrazložitev, zaradi česar je v sodbah Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji, Lucchini proti Komisiji in Italija in Wam proti Komisiji34izpodbijano odločbo delno oziroma v celoti razglasilo za nično.
Although the Court of First Instance adjudicated in 2006 on many other points of the State aid system, mention will be made only of British Aggregates v Commission, in which the Court of First Instance examined the capacity of the national measure to confer a selective advantage to the exclusive benet of certain undertakings or of certain business sectors 35.
Čeprav se je Sodišče prve stopnje v tem letu opredelilo glede več drugih vprašanj sistema državnih pomoči, se na koncu omejujemo na omembo zadeve, v kateri je bila izdana sodba British Aggregates proti Komisiji, v kateri je Sodišče prve stopnje obravnavalo, ali lahko nacionalni ukrep selektivno daje prednost izključno določenim podjetjem ali določenim gospodarskim panogam35.
In that case, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had introduced an environmental levy which is, in principle, a burden on the commercial exploitation of virgin aggregates, that is to say granular material on first extraction used in the construction sector, and intended in principle to maximise the use of recycled aggregates and other alternative materials to virgin aggregate, to promote its ecient use and to ensure the
V tej zadevi je Združeno kraljestvo Velika Britanija in Severna Irska vpeljalo ekološko dajatev, s katero je načeloma obdavčena prodaja neobdelanih granulatov – zrnatih materialov prve ekstrakcije, ki se uporabljajo v gradbeništvu – in katere namen je povečati uporabo recikliranih granulatov ali drugih substitutov neobdelanih granulatov, pospeševati njihovo racionalno uporabo in zagotoviti internalizacijo škode za okolje zaradi pridobitve granulatov, ki so zajeti z dajatvijo v skladu z načelom„plača povzročitelj obremenitve“.
Judgments of 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Ufex and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; of 19 September 2006 in Case T-166/01 Lucchini v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; and of 6 September 2006 in Joined Cases T-304/04 and T-316/04 Italy and Wam v Commission, on appeal, not published in the ECR.
Sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 7. junija 2006 v zadevi Ufex in drugi proti Komisiji, T-613/97, ZOdl., str. II-1531; z dne 19. septembra 2006 v zadevi Lucchini proti Komisiji, T-166/01, še neobjavljena v ZOdl., ter z dne 6. septembra 2006 v zadevi Italija in Wam proti Komisiji,T-304/04 inT-316/04, v pritožbenem postopku, neobjavljena v ZOdl.
Judgment of 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02 British Aggregates v Commission (on appeal, Case C-487/06 P).
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 13. septembra 2006 v zadevi British Aggregates proti Komisiji, T-210/02 (v pritožbenem postopku, C-487/06 P).
Also concerned with the question of the selectivity of aid is the judgment of 26 January 2006 in Case T-92/02 Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall and Others v Commission (on appeal, Case C-176/06 P), not published in the ECR.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 26. januarja 2006 v zadevi Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall in drugi proti Komisiji, T-92/02 (v pritožbenem postopku, C-176/06 P), ZOdl., str. II-11, ki obravnava tudi vprašanje selektivnosti pomoči.
Proceedings internalisation of environmental costs of the extraction of the aggregates to which the tax applied, in accordance with the ‘polluter-pays’ principle.
Dejavnost ukrepom, nastalo zaradi narave ali splošne sheme celotnega sistema, ki se uporabi.
Where it was apparent that a dierentiation was based on objectives other than those pursued by the overall scheme, the measure in question would, in principle, be regarded as satisfying the condition of selectivity laid down under Article 87(1) EC.
Če se ugotovi, da je razlikovanje utemeljeno z drugimi cilji, kot jih zasleduje celotni sistem, se načeloma šteje, da zadevni ukrep izpolnjuje pogoj selektivnosti, ki je določen v členu 87(1) ES.
According to the Court of First Instance, an environmental levy is an autonomous fiscal measure which is characterised by its environmental objective and its specic tax base.
Po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje je okoljska ali ekološka dajatev samostojen davčni ukrep, za katerega sta značilna okoljevarstveni cilj in posebna osnova za odmero.
It seeks to tax certain goods or services so that the environmental costs may be included in their price and/or so that recycled products are rendered more competitive and producers and consumers are oriented towards activities which better respect the environment.
Ta dajatev določa obdavčitev določenih izdelkov ali storitev tako, da je v njihovo ceno vključena škoda za okolje in/ali da poveča konkurenčnost recikliranih proizvodov ter da proizvajalce in potrošnike usmeri k dejavnostim, ki so bolj okolju prijazne.
It is open to the Member States, which are competent in matters relating to environmental policy, to introduce sectoral environmental levies in order to attain certain environmental objectives.
Države članice, ki imajo pristojnost na področju okoljske politike, pa lahko uvajajo sektorske ekološke dajatve, da bi dosegle določene okoljevarstvene cilje.
In particular, the Member States are free, in balancing the various interests involved, to set their priorities as regards the protection of the environment and, as a result, to determine which goods or services they are to decide to subject to an environmental levy.
Države članice imajo pri uravnoteženju številnih prisotnih interesov zlasti pravico opredeliti prednostne naloge na področju varstva okolja in s tem določiti izdelke ali storitve, za katere odločijo, da jih obdavčijo z ekološko dajatvijo.
It follows that, in principle, the mere fact that an environmental levy constitutes a specic measure, which extends to certain designated goods or services, and cannot be seen as part of an overall system of taxation which applies to all similar activities which have a comparable impact on the environment, does not mean that similar activities, which are not subject to the levy, benet from a selective advantage.
Torej načeloma zgolj okoliščina, da ekološka dajatev pomeni poseben ukrep, ki se nanaša na določene posebne izdelke oziroma storitve, in je ni mogoče uvesti v splošni sistem obdavčitve, ki velja za vse podobne dejavnosti s primerljivim vplivom na okolje, ne dopušča sklepanja, da so podobne dejavnosti, ki niso predmet te ekološke dajatve, deležne selektivne ugodnosti.
In this case, the Commission had not exceeded the limits on its power of assessment in taking the view that scope of the levy in question could be justied by the pursuit of the desired environmental objectives and, accordingly, that the levy did not constitute State aid.
Komisija v tej zadevi ni prekoračila meja svojega pooblastila za odločanje po prostem preudarku, ko je ugotovila, da je področje uporabe zadevnega davka lahko upravičeno z zasledovanjem navedenih okoljevarstvenih ciljev in da zato navedeni davek ne pomeni državne pomoči.
Right of interested parties to submit observations
Pravica zainteresiranih oseb, da predložijo pripombe
In two judgments delivered in 2006, the Court of First Instance emphasised the detail which a decision to initiate the procedure must contain, in order to allow third parties to submit their comments.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v dveh sodbah, izdanih leta 2006, vztrajalo pri tem, da mora biti odločba o uvedbi postopka tako natančna, da se tretjim omogoči predstavitev njihovih stališč.
First, in Le Levant 001 and Others v Commission, to which reference has already been made, the Court of First Instance dened the Commission’s obligations under Article 88(2) EC as regards respect for the procedural guarantees of persons concerned by a decision which declares a national measure incompatible with Article 87(1) EC.
Prvič, Sodišče prve stopnje v že navedeni sodbi Le Levant 001 in drugi proti Komisiji določa obveznosti Komisije, ki izhajajo iz člena 88(2) ES glede spoštovanja postopkovnih jamstev oseb, ki jih zadeva odločba, s katero se ugotovi, da nacionalni ukrep ni združljiv s skupnim trgom glede na člen 87(1) ES.
The Court of First Instance held that the identication of the beneciary of the aid is necessarily one of the ‘relevant issues of fact and law’ which must be contained in the decision to open the procedure if that is possible at that stage of the procedure, since it is on the basis of that identication that the Commission will be able to adopt the recovery decision.
Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da opredelitev prejemnika pomoči nujno pomeni „bistvena dejanska in pravna vprašanja“ in jo je treba podati v odločbi o uvedbi postopka, če je to na tej stopnji postopka mogoče, saj bo prav na podlagi take opredelitve Komisija lahko sprejela odločbo o vračilu.
In this case, the Court of First Instance found that the decision to open the procedure had made no reference to the investors as potential beneciaries of the alleged aid but, on the contrary, had given the
Sodišče prve stopnje je na podlagi tega sklepalo, da je s tem, ko zasebni vlagatelji niso imeli možnosti učinkovito podati svojih stališč, Komisija kršila člen 88(2) ES in splošno načelo prava Skupnosti, ki zahteva, da je treba vsaki osebi, v zvezi s katero se lahko sprejme odločba, ki posega v položaj, dati
Court of First Instance impression that that beneciary was the manager of the co-ownership, which was referred to as the operator and ultimate owner of the vessel.
Sodišče prve stopnje možnost, da lahko učinkovito predstavi svoje stališče v zvezi z obremenilnimi elementi, na katere je Komisija oprla svojo odločbo.
Second, in Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) v Commission 36, the Court of First Instance stated that the Commission cannot be required to present a complete analysis on the aid in question in its notice of intention to initiate that procedure.
Drugič, Sodišče prve stopnje je v sodbi Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) proti Komisiji36navedlo, da Komisija v obvestilu o uvedbi postopka ne more biti zavezana k predložitvi dokončne analize glede zadevne pomoči.
It must, however, dene suciently the framework of its investigation so as not to render meaningless the right of interested parties to put forward their comments. In this case, the fundamental concept, namely that the oil companies could be the actual recipients of the aid in the light of the exclusive supply agreements, had been contained in the notice, so that the Commission, with the means it had at its disposal, had correctly performed its task of putting the interested parties on formal notice duly to submit their comments during the formal investigation procedure on the aid.
Nasprotno, nujno je, da Komisija zadostno opredeli okvir preiskave, da pravica zainteresiranih strank, da predložijo pripombe, ne bi izgubila pomena.V tej zadevi je bil v obvestilu prisoten temeljni koncept, ki omogoča identifikacijo upravičenk, tako da je Komisija v okviru razpoložljivih sredstev pravilno opravila nalogo omogočanja zainteresiranim strankam, da v formalnem postopku preiskave pomoči učinkovito predložijo svoje pripombe.
Reliance before the Court of First Instance on facts not mentioned during the administrative phase before the Commission
Navajanje dejstev pred Sodiščem prve stopnje, ki v upravnem postopku pred Komisijo niso bila navedena
In two judgments delivered in 2006, the Court of First Instance supplemented its caselaw limiting the right for an applicant to rely before the Court on evidence not available to the Commission during the administrative phase 37.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v dveh sodbah, razglašenih v tem letu, dopolnilo svojo novejšo sodno prakso s tem, da je omejilo pravico tožeče stranke, da se pred njim sklicuje na dejstva in dokaze, s katerimi Komisija med upravnim postopkom ni razpolagala37.
Thus, in Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke v Commission 38, the Court of First Instance held that as the applicant had not participated in the administrative procedure, it could not rely on elements of which the Commission had not been aware during that phase, although the applicant had been mentioned by name as being the beneciary of the aid in question and although the Commission had requested the German authorities and any interested parties to produce evidence of certain elements.
Tako je Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke proti Komisiji38razsodilo, da se tožeča stranka, ki ni sodelovala v upravnem postopku, ne more sklicevati na podatke, s katerimi Komisija med upravnim postopkom ni bila seznanjena, čeprav je bila tožeča stranka omenjena po imenu kot upravičenka do zadevne pomoči in je Komisija pozvala nemške organe in morebitne zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo določene dokaze.
Once the Commission has given the interested parties the opportunity to submit their comments, it cannot be criticised for having failed to take account of any elements of fact which could have been submitted to it during the administrative procedure but which were not, as the Commission is under no obligation to consider, of its own motion and on the basis of prediction, what elements might have been submitted to it.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v sodbi Ter Lembeek proti Komisiji39 enako ugotovilo, da se je tožeča stranka ne glede na to, da je bila dobro seznanjena z začetkom formalnega postopka preiskave in nujnostjo ter pomembnostjo dejstva, da posreduje določene informacije, odločila, da ne bo sodelovala pri tem postopku, vendar pa ni trdila, da odločba o uvedbi ni bila dovolj obrazložena, da bi ji omogočala učinkovito izvrševanje njenih pravic. V teh okoliščinah se tožeča stranka pred Sodiščem prve stopnje prvič ni
Judgment of 31 May 2006 in Case T-354/99 Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 31. maja 2006 v zadevi Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) proti Komisiji, T-354/99, ZOdl., str. II-1475.
Judgment of 6 April 2006 in Case T-17/03 Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. aprila 2006 v zadevi Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke proti Komisiji, T-17/03, ZOdl., str. II-1139.
In those circumstances, the applicant could neither rely for the first time before the Court on information which had been unknown to the Commission at the time when it had adopted the contested decision nor rely on a plea supported only by information which had been unknown to the Commission when it had adopted the contested decision, such a plea being inadmissible.
Dejavnost mogla sklicevati ne na informacije, ki Komisiji niso bile poznane v trenutku sprejetja izpodbijane odločbe, ne na tožbeni razlog, ki je utemeljen samo s podatki, ki Komisiji v trenutku sprejetja izpodbijane odločbe niso bili poznani, saj je ta nedopusten.
Reasonable time
Razumen rok
The Court of First Instance held that, as the reasonableness of the duration of an initial investigation procedure within the meaning of Article 88(3) EC must be determined in relation to the particular circumstances of each case, in the present case neither the volume of documents submitted to the Commission by the applicants nor the other circumstances of the case justied the duration of the initial investigation conducted by the Commission.
Sodišče prve stopnje je presodilo, da ob tem, da je treba v smislu člena 88(3) ES razumno trajanje postopka preiskave presojati glede na okoliščine vsake posamezne zadeve, v zadevi ne količina dokumentov, ki sta jih tožeči stranki predložili Komisiji, ne druge okoliščine zadeve ne utemeljujejo trajanja predhodne preiskave, ki jo je izvedla Komisija.
However, in the absence of other circumstances the existence of which had not been established by the applicants, the mere adoption of a decision after the expiry of a reasonable period was not regarded by the Court of First Instance as in itself sucient to render unlawful a decision taken by the Commission.
Ker pa tožeči stranki nista dokazali obstoja drugih okoliščin, samo dejstvo, da je bila odločba sprejeta po poteku razumnega roka, po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje ne zadostuje za nezakonitost odločbe, ki jo je sprejela Komisija.
The Court of First Instance therefore dismissed the action for annulment.
Sodišče je zato ničnostno tožbo zavrnilo.
In 2006 a great many decisions again concerned Regulation (EC) No 40/94 41.
Tudi v tem letu so bile odločitve v zvezi z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 40/9441 zelo številne.
The 90 trade mark cases completed thus account for 20 % of the cases disposed of by the Court in 2006.
Število rešenih zadev v zvezi z znamkami (90) predstavlja 20 % vseh zaključenih zadev Sodišča prve stopnje v letu 2006.
Absolute grounds for refusal of registration
Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev registracije
The Court annulled decisions of the Boards of Appeal in two of the total of eight judgments which disposed of substantive issues in cases concerning absolute grounds for refusal of registration 42.
Od skupaj osmih sodb, v katerih se je meritorno odločalo v zadevah v zvezi zabsolutnimi razlogi za zavrnitev registracije, je Sodišče prve stopnje dvakrat razveljavilo izpodbijani akt42.
In 2006 the caselaw dealt essentially with the absolute grounds for refusal
Sodna praksa v letu 2006 glede absolutnih razlogov za zavrnitev se nanaša predvsem na neobstoj razlikovalnega učinka in na opisni značaj (člen 7(1)(b) in (c) Uredbe št. 40/94).
Judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case T-217/02 Ter Lembeek v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Za opisno oziroma brez razlikovalnega učinka so bili na primer ugotovljeni oblika plastične steklenice za pijače, začimbe in tekočo hrano; znak „WEISSE SEITEN“, med drugim za določene nosilce zapisov in papirne proizvode, ter podolgovata oblika, ki spominja na predeno ali zvitek za določene prehrambene proizvode43.
Judgment of 12 December 2006 in Case T-95/03 Asociación de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid and Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 12. decembra 2006 v zadevi Asociación de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid in Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio proti Komisiji, T-95/03, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 40/94 z dne 20. decembra 1993 o znamki Skupnosti (UL 1994, L 11, str. 1).
Judgments of 4 October 2006 in Case T-188/04 Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted matt black bottle) and Case T-190/04 Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted white bottle), neither published in the ECR.
Sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 4. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Freixenet proti UUNT (Znak v obliki črne mat polirane steklenice), T-188/04, in v zadevi Freixenet proti UUNT (Oblika bele brušene steklenice), T-190/04, še neobjavljeni v ZOdl.
There was once again a great deal of caselaw in 2006 in relation to this point.
Letošnja sodna praksa se je v zvezi s tem ponovno izkazala za zelo bogato.
Mention can for example be made of the clarications to the relationship between distinctive character and reputation set out in the judgment in Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann v OHIM — Johnson’s Veterinary Products (VITACOAT), or the temporal assessment of the conict between two marks in MIP Metro v OHIM — Tesco Stores (METRO) 44.
Omenimo lahko na primer podrobnosti o razmerju med razlikovalnim učinkom in ugledom v sodbi Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann proti UUNT – Johnson’s Veterinary Products (VITACOAT) ali o presoji ratione temporis konikta med znamkama v sodbi MIP Metro proti UUNT –
Concept of a ‘family of marks’
Pojem „družina znamk“
In Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM — Marine Enterprise Projects (BAINBRIDGE), the Court explained the relevance of the concept of a ‘family of marks’ for the assessment of the likelihood of confusion 45.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v sodbi Ponte Finanziaria proti UUNT – Marine Enterprise Projects (BAINBRIDGE) natančno določilo pomen pojma „družina znamk“ za presojo verjetnosti zmede45.
In that case the applicant submitted that the earlier trade marks, all characterised by the presence of the same word component,‘bridge’, constituted a ‘family of marks’ or ‘marks in a series’.
V tej zadevi je tožeča stranka zatrjevala, da prejšnje znamke, za katere je bil značilen skupen besedni element („bridge“), pomenijo „družino znamk“ ali „serijo znamk“.
In its view, such a circumstance was liable to give rise to an objective likelihood of confusion.
Po njenem mnenju bi lahko taka okoliščina ustvarila objektivno verjetnost zmede.
For the Court, although the concept of ‘marks in a series’ is not referred to by Regulation (EC) No 40/94, the likelihood of confusion must nonetheless be assessed globally, taking into account all factors relevant in the circumstances.
Po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje pa je treba, čeprav Uredba št. 40/94 ne vsebuje pojma „serija znamk“, verjetnost zmede presojati celovito, upoštevajoč vse upoštevne dejavnike v zadevi.