natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
OSB Deutschland GmbH, established in Meppen (Germany), represented by H.-J. Niemeyer, Rechtsanwalt (C-80/05 P), with an address for service in Luxembourg, appellants,
OSB Deutschland GmbH, s sedežem v Meppenu (Nemčija), ki ju zastopa H.-J. Niemeyer, odvetnik, (C-80/05 P), z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu, pritožnice,
JUDGMENT OF 11. 9.
SODBA Z DNE 11. 9.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-75/05 P AND C-80/05 P the other parties to the proceedings being:
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-75/05 P IN C-80/05 P druge stranke v postopku so
Commission of the European Communities, represented by V. Kreuschitz, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg, defendant at first instance,
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, ki jo zastopa V. Kreuschitz, zastopnik, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu, tožena stranka v postopku na prvi stopnji,
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 15 February 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 March 2008, gives the following
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 15. februarja 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 6. marca 2008 izreka naslednjo
By their appeals, the Federal Republic of Germany, Glunz AG (‘Glunz’) and OSB Deutschland GmbH (‘OSB’) seek to have set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 Krono­france v Commission [2004] ECR II-4177 (‘the judgment under appeal’), whereby the Court of First Instance annulled Commission Decision SG (2001) D of 25 July 2001 not to raise objections against the State aid granted by the German authorities to Glunz (‘the contested decision’).
Zvezna republika Nemčija ter Glunz AG in OSB Deutschland GmbH (v nadaljevanju: Glunz in OSB) v okviru pritožb predlagajo razveljavitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 1. decembra 2004 v zadevi Kronofrance proti Komisiji (T-27/02, ZOdl., str. II-4177, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba), s katero je to sodi�če razglasilo za nično Odločbo Komisije SG (2001) D z dne 25. julija 2001 o nenasprotovanju pomoči, ki so jo nem�ke oblasti dodelile družbi Glunz (v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba).
Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p.
Člen 1 Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena [88] Pogodbe ES (UL L 83, str.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-75/05 P AND C-80/05 P
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-75/05 P IN C-80/05 P
‘For the purpose of this Regulation:
„V tej uredbi:
(h) “interested party” shall mean any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, in particular the beneficiary of the aid, competing undertakings and trade associations.’
[…] h) ‚zainteresirana stranka‘: pomeni katero koli državo članico ali osebo, podjetje ali združenje podjetij, na katerih interese bi lahko dodelitev pomoči vplivala, predvsem upravičenca pomoči, konkurenčna podjetja in poklicna združenja.“
Article 4 of that regulation, entitled ‘Preliminary examination of the notification and decisions of the Commission’, states:
Člen 4 te uredbe, naslovljen „Predhodna preučitev uradne prijave in odločb Komisije“, določa:
Where the Commission, after a preliminary examination, finds that no doubts are raised as to the compatibility with the common market of a notified measure, in so far as it falls within the scope of Article [87(1) EC], it shall decide that the measure is compatible with the common market (hereinafter referred to as a “decision not to raise objections”).
Če Komisija po predhodni preučitvi ugotovi, da ni dvomov o združljivosti prijavljenega ukrepa s skupnim trgom, kolikor sodi na področje uporabe člena [87(1)] Pogodbe, potem odloči, da je ukrep združljiv s skupnim trgom (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločba o nenasprotovanju).
Where the Commission, after a preliminary examination, finds that doubts are raised as to the compatibility with the common market of a notified measure, it shall
Če Komisija po predhodni preučitvi ugotovi, da obstajajo dvomi o združljivosti prijavljenega ukrepa s skupnim trgom, potem se odloči za začetek postopka na
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE decide to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article [88(2) EC] (hereinafter referred to as a “decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure”).
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE podlagi člena [88(2)] Pogodbe (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločba o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave).
The multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (OJ 1998 C 107, p.
Večsektorski okvir za regionalno pomoč, namenjeno večjim naložbenim projektom (UL 1998, C 107, str.
7, ‘the multisectoral framework of 1998’), in force at the material time, lays down the rules for assessing aid which falls within its scope, for the purpose of applying Article 87(3) EC.
7, v nadaljevanju: večsektorski okvir 1998), ki je veljal v času nastanka dejanskega stanja, za namen uporabe člena 87(3) ES določa pravila za oceno pomoči, ki spadajo na njegovo področje uporabe.
Under the multisectoral framework of 1998, the Commission decides on a case-by-case basis the maximum allowable aid intensity for projects which are subject to the notification requirement provided for in Article 2 of Regulation No 659/1999.
Komisija v skladu z večsektorskim okvirom 1998 za vsak primer posebej določi največjo dovoljeno intenzivnost pomoči za projekte, ki jih je treba, kot določa člen 2 Uredbe �t. 659/1999, priglasiti.
Paragraph 3.10 of the multisectoral framework of 1998 describes the calculation formula which the Commission uses to determine the maximum allowable intensity.
V točki 3.10 tega večsektorskega okvira je opisana formula za izračun, na podlagi katere Komisija določi navedeno intenzivnost.
The formula is based, first, on determination of the maximum allowable intensity for aid to large companies in the area concerned, referred to as the ‘regional ceiling’ (factor R), which is then adjusted by three coefficients corresponding, in turn, to competition in the sector concerned (factor T), the capital/labour ratio (factor I) and the regional impact of the aid in question (factor M).
Ta formula temelji, prvič, na določitvi največje dovoljene intenzivnosti, ki se uporablja za pomoč velikim podjetjem na zadevnem območju in se imenuje „regionalna zgornja meja“ (dejavnik R), ki se nato pomnoži s tremi količniki, in sicer s stanjem konkurence v zadevnem sektorju (dejavnik T), z razmerjem med kapitalom in delom (dejavnik I) ter regionalnim učinkom zadevne pomoči (dejavnik M).
The formula for the maximum allowable aid intensity is thus R x T x I x M.
Največjo intenzivnost pomoči, ki se jo odobri, tako dobimo s formulo R x T x I x M.
According to point 3.2 of the multisectoral framework of 1998, factor T (the competition factor) calls for an analysis aimed at determining whether the notified project will be implemented in a sector or subsector affected by structural overcapacity.
V skladu s točko 3.2 tega večsektorskega okvira dejavnik T, „stanje konkurence“, vključuje analizo, s katero se ugotavlja, ali se bo prigla�eni projekt izvajal v sektorju ali podsektorju, za katerega so značilni presežki strukturnih zmogljivosti.
Thus, in accordance with point 3.3 of the multisectoral framework of 1998, in determining whether or not such overcapacity exists, the Commission considers, at the Community level, the difference between the average capacity utilisation rate for manufacturing industry as a whole and the capacity utilisation rate of the relevant sector or subsector.
Tako v skladu s točko 3.3 večsektorskega okvira 1998 Komisija, pri ugotavljanju obstoja ali neobstoja tak�nih 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 analysis covers a reference period corresponding to the last five years for which data are available.
Navedena analiza zajema referenčno obdobje zadnjih petih let, za katero so na voljo podatki.
Point 3.4 of the multisectoral framework of 1998 reads as follows:
Točka 3.4 tega večsektorskega okvira določa:
For this purpose, the Commission will compare the evolution of apparent consumption of the product(s) in question (that is, production plus imports minus exports) with the growth rate of [European Economic Area] manufacturing industry as a whole.’
V ta namen primerja gibanje očitne porabe zadevnega proizvoda ali proizvodov (to je proizvodnja plus uvoz minus izvoz) s stopnjo rasti celotne predelovalne industrije na ravni [Evropskega gospodarskega prostora].“
Under point 3.10.1 of the multisectoral framework of 1998, an adjustment factor of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 or 1 is applied to factor T (the competition factor), on the basis of the following criteria:
V skladu s točko 3.10.1 tega večsektorskega okvira se za dejavnik T, „stanje konkurence“, uporabi korekcijski količnik 0,25, 0,5, 0,75 ali 1, in sicer na podlagi teh 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�evanja: 0,25 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
(iii) Project which results in a capacity expansion in a sector facing structural overcapacity and/or a declining market: 0.75
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE 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“.
By letter of 4 August 2000, the Federal Republic of Germany notified the Commission of a project to grant investment aid to Glunz for the construction of an integrated wood processing centre at Nettgau in the Land of Saxony-Anhalt (Germany), which fell within the multisectoral framework of 1998.
Zvezna republika Nemčija je z dopisom z dne 4. avgusta 2000 Komisiji priglasila načrt pomoči za naložbo, ki spada v večsektorski okvir 1998, v korist družbe Glunz za izgradnjo integriranega centra za obdelavo lesa v Nettgau v deželi Sa�ka-Anhalt (Nemčija).
On 25 July 2001 the Commission decided, in accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation No 659/1999, not to raise objections to the grant of that aid and specified the maximum allowable intensity on the basis of an assessment of the aid under the criteria laid down in the multisectoral framework of 1998.
V skladu s členom 4(3) Uredbe �t. 659/1999 je Komisija 25. julija 2001 odločila, da ne bo nasprotovala dodelitvi te pomoči in na podlagi ocene pomoči glede na merila, določena v večsektorskem okviru 1998, določila največjo dovoljeno intenzivnost.
In that context, given that an examination of the data relating to the capacity utilisation rate of the economic sector to which the manufacture of wood panels and boards belongs had not revealed any structural overcapacity, the Commission applied the maximum adjustment factor of 1 in respect of factor T (competition factor), without proceeding to examine the possibility that the investment in question was carried out in a declining market.
Ker analiza podatkov o stopnji izkori�čenosti zmogljivosti gospodarskega sektorja, ki obsega proizvodnjo lesenih plo�č, ni pokazala nobenega presežka strukturnih zmogljivosti, je Komisija pri dejavniku T, „stanje konkurence“, uporabila najvi�ji korekcijski količnik 1, ne da bi preučila možnost, da se bo naložba izvedla na trgu v zatonu.
The proceedings at first instance and the judgment under appeal
Postopek na prvi stopnji in izpodbijana sodba
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 4 February 2002, Kronofrance SA (‘Kronofrance’) brought an action for the annulment of the
Družba Kronofrance SA (v nadaljevanju: Kronofrance) je 4. februarja 2002 v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje zoper sporno odločbo vložila ničnostno tožbo, v kateri
2008 — JOINED CASES C-75/05 P AND C-80/05 P contested decision, in which it relied on four pleas in law: first, infringement of Article 87 EC and of the multisectoral framework of 1998; second, infringement of Article 88(2) EC; third, misuse of powers; and fourth, breach of the obligation to state reasons.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-75/05 P IN C-80/05 P je uveljavljala �tiri tožbene razloge, prvič, kr�itev člena 87 ES in večsektorskega okvira 1998, drugič, kr�itev člena 88(2) ES, tretjič, zlorabo pooblastil in, četrtič, kr�itev obveznosti obrazložitve.
The Commission for its part raised a plea of inadmissibility, on the ground that the applicant did not have locus standi.
Komisija je zahtevala, naj se tožba razglasi za nedopustno, ker naj tožeča stranka ne bi imela procesnega upravičenja.
According to the Commission, Kronofrance could not be considered to be a competitor of the beneficiary of the aid and consequently could not claim the status of ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Regulation No 659/1999.
Družbe Kronofrance po mnenju tožene institucije ni mogoče obravnavati kot konkurenčnega podjetja upravičenca pomoči in zato ne more zahtevati statusa „zainteresirane stranke“ v smislu Uredbe �t. 659/1999.
For that reason, it did not have standing to challenge the contested decision.
Zaradi tega ni dopustno, da izpodbija sporno odločbo.
As to the substance, Kronofrance claimed inter alia that, by authorising the aid in question after only a preliminary examination, the Commission had infringed Article 88(2) EC and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999, which require the formal investigation procedure to be initiated once ‘doubts are raised’ as to the compatibility with the common market of a notified measure.
Družba Kronofrance glede utemeljenosti zlasti navaja, da je Komisija, s tem da je odobrila zadevno pomoč le po predhodnem preizkusu, kr�ila člen 88(2) ES in člen 4(4) Uredbe �t. 659/1999, v katerih se zahteva uvedba formalnega postopka preiskave, če „obstajajo dvomi“ o združljivosti prigla�enega ukrepa s skupnim trgom.
According to Kronofrance, a specific investigation of the situation in the relevant market should have given rise to such doubts.
Po mnenju družbe Kronofrance bi se tak�ni dvomi pojavili po podrobni preučitvi razmer na zadevnem trgu.
Indeed, during the administrative procedure, Kronofrance had sent the Commission data on the apparent consumption of wood panels and boards, which showed that the investment at issue related to a declining market.
Družba Kronofrance je namreč med upravnim postopkom Komisiji posredovala podatke o očitni porabi lesenih plo�č in s tem dokazala, da se zadevna naložba nana�a na trg v zatonu.
Nevertheless, the Commission limited itself to investigating only the possible existence of structural overcapacity and considered that it was not required to verify whether the investments in question were carried out in a declining market.
Vendar pa se je Komisija omejila le na preizkus morebitnega obstoja presežkov strukturnih zmogljivosti in menila, da ni dolžna preveriti, ali so bile zadevne naložbe izvedene na trgu v zatonu.
In paragraphs 38 to 44 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance found that Glunz and Kronofrance were in competition with one another, which accorded the latter the status of an interested party which could be regarded as directly and individually concerned by the contested decision within the meaning
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 38 do 44 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da med družbama Glunz in Kronofrance obstaja konkurenčno razmerje in da je slednja zainteresirana stranka, za katero se lahko �teje, da jo sporna odločba neposredno in posa-
GERMANY AND OTHERS v KRONOFRANCE of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
NEMČIJA IN DRUGI PROTI KRONOFRANCE mično zadeva v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES. S to utemeljitvijo je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrnilo ugovor nedopustnosti, ki ga je podala Komisija.
As to the substance, in paragraphs 79 to 111 of the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance found that, by examining the competitive situation in the market in question on the sole basis of the data relating to structural overcapacity, without having at the same time ascertained whether the proposed aid was intended for a declining market, the Commission had infringed Article 87 EC and the multisectoral framework of 1998.
Glede utemeljenosti je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 79 do 111 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da je Komisija, s tem da je preverila stanje konkurence na zadevnem trgu le na podlagi podatkov o presežku strukturnih zmogljivosti, ne da bi tudi preverila, ali je načrtovana pomoč namenjena trgu v zatonu, kr�ila člen 87 ES in večsektorski okvir 1998.
The Court of First Instance reached that conclusion after having held in particular, on one hand, that a different interpretation would amount to denying the specificity of the two criteria for the assessment of factor T (competition factor) and, on the other hand, that investments undertaken in a declining market carry serious risks of distorting competition, which is plainly contrary to the objective of undistorted competition pursued by Article 87 EC.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je to sklenilo zlasti po tem, ko je ugotovilo, da drugačna razlaga zanika posebnost dveh meril za oceno dejavnika T, „stanje konkurence“, in da naložbe na trgu v zatonu povzročajo resno nevarnost za izkrivljanje konkurence, kar je jasno v nasprotju s ciljem neizkrivljene konkurence, ki se zasleduje s členom 87 ES.
Such a conclusion was, moreover, consistent with the aim that the Commission itself had laid down when it had adopted the multisectoral framework of 1998, which according to point 1.2 was to limit aid for large-scale projects to a level which avoids as much as possible adverse effects on competition but which at the same time maintains the attraction of the assisted area.
Tak�no sklepanje je med drugim skladno s ciljem, ki si ga je Komisija zastavila s sprejetjem večsektorskega okvira 1998, znotraj katerega v točki 1.2 obstaja omejitev pomoči velikim projektom, tako da bi se čim bolj preprečili neugodni učinki na konkurenco, hkrati pa ohranilo privlačnost območja, ki je prejelo pomoč.
The Court of First Instance accordingly annulled the contested decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zato sporno odločbo razglasilo za nično.
Procedure before the Court and the forms of order sought
Postopek pred Sodiščem in predlogi strank
The Federal Republic of Germany, and Glunz and OSB, brought two appeals against that judgment, which were registered respectively on 11 February 2005 under the number C-75/05 P and on 16 February 2005 under the number C-80/05 P.
Zvezna republika Nemčija in družbi Glunz ter OSB so vložile dve pritožbi zoper izpodbijano sodbo, vpisani pod �tevilko C-75/05 P z dne 11. februarja 2005 in �tevilko C-80/05 P z dne 16. februarja 2005.
By order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2005, the two cases were joined for the purposes of the oral procedure and the judgment.
S sklepom predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 13. oktobra 2005 sta bili za namene ustnega postopka in izdaje sodbe ti zadevi združeni.
The Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission claim that the Court should:
Zvezna republika Nemčija in Komisija predlagata Sodi�ču, naj:
— set aside the judgment under appeal;
— razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo,
— declare Kronofrance’s action inadmissible or dismiss it as unfounded, and
— tožbo družbe Kronofrance razglasi za nedopustno ali jo zavrne kot neutemeljeno, in
— order Kronofrance to pay the costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
— družbi Kronofrance naloži plačilo stro�kov v zvezi s prvostopenjskim in pritožbenim postopkom.
Glunz and OSB claim that the Court should:
Družbi Glunz in OSB predlagata Sodi�ču, naj:
— dismiss the action or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance, and
— zavrne tožbo ali, podredno, vrne zadevo Sodi�ču prve stopnje v ponovno odločanje, in
— order Kronofrance to pay the costs.
— družbi Kronofrance naloži plačilo stro�kov.
Kronofrance contends that the Court should:
Družba Kronofrance predlaga Sodi�ču, naj:
— order the appellants to pay the costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
— pritožnicam naloži plačilo stro�kov prvostopenjskega in pritožbenega postopka.
The Federal Republic of Germany advances three grounds of appeal, whilst Glunz and OSB put forward four grounds of appeal, which partly coincide with Germany’s grounds.
Zvezna republika Nemčija v podporo svoje pritožbe uveljavlja tri pritožbene razloge, družbi Glunz in OSB pa navajata �tiri pritožbene razloge, ki s pritožbenimi razlogi Zvezne republike Nemčije delno sovpadajo.
Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC
Kršitev člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES
The Federal Republic of Germany, by its first ground of appeal, and Glunz and OSB, by their second ground of appeal, supported by the Commission, maintain that the judgment under appeal infringes the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, in that the Court of First Instance considered the contested decision to be ‘of direct and individual concern’ to Kronofrance and consequently held the action brought by that undertaking to be admissible.
Zvezna republika Nemčija v okviru prvega pritožbenega razloga, družbi Glunz in OSB pa v okviru drugega pritožbenega razloga, ob podpori Komisije, navajajo, da je izpodbijana sodba pomenila kr�itev člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES, ker je Sodi�če prve stopnje menilo, da družbo Kronofrance sporna odločba „neposredno in posamično zadeva“, in zato presodilo, da je tožba tega podjetja dopustna.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-75/05 P AND C-80/05 P able extension of the scope of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and from a misinterpretation of that provision in the light of Regulation No 659/1999.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-75/05 P IN C-80/05 P naj bi izhajala iz pretirane �iritve področja uporabe člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES in iz njegove napačne razlage glede na Uredbo �t. 659/1999.
The Court of First Instance wrongly concluded that any person potentially ‘interested’ by the formal procedure for investigating aid within the meaning of Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999 was to be regarded as directly and individually concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, by an approval decision taken at the end of the preliminary examination stage, and that it was therefore unnecessary to show that the competitive position of Kronofrance was ‘substantially’ affected by that decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi namreč neupravičeno menilo, da je treba vsakogar, ki je potencialno zainteresiran za formalni postopek preiskave pomoči na podlagi člena 1(h) Uredbe �t. 659/1999, obravnavati, kot da ga odločba o odobritvi, izdana ob končanem predhodnem preizkusu pomoči, neposredno in posamično zadeva v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES, ne da bi bilo torej treba dokazati, da je bil konkurenčni položaj tožeče stranke na prvi stopnji s to odločbo „občutno“ prizadet.
By contrast, according to the Federal Republic of Germany, Glunz and OSB, the status of ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Regulation No 659/1999 does not automatically imply the right to bring legal proceedings.
Po mnenju Zvezne republike Nemčije in družb Glunz in OSB pa pojem „zainteresirana stranka“ v smislu Uredbe �t. 659/1999 ne vsebuje avtomatične pravice vlaganja pravnega sredstva.