natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It submits that this matter was also addressed during a meeting with the Commission in 1982 which was also attended by representatives from the departments responsible for managing steel quotas and from those responsible for controlling State aid.
Zatrjuje, da je bila ta zadeva obravnavana na sestanku s Komisijo leta 1982, na katerem so bile navzoče tudi službe, zadolžene za upravljanje kvot jekla, in službe, zadolžene za nadzor nad državnimi pomočmi.
It considers that the obligation on the Commission to take cognisance of information sent to it arises from the right to be heard 93and that the Commission cannot, in any event, rely as against a citizen on the
Meni, da obveznost Komisije, da se seznani s podatki, ki so ji poslani, izhaja iz pravice biti sli�an 93
93 — Judgment in Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88 Hoechst v Commission [1989] ECR 2859.
93 – Sodba z dne 21. septembra 1989 v združenih zadevah Hoechst proti Komisiji (46/87 in 227/88, Recueil, str. 2859).
It is true that, under Article 32d of the ECSC Treaty, which is identical to Article 225 EC, an appeal must be restricted to points of law, since the Court of First Instance has, in
Vem, da mora biti po določilih člena 32d Pogodbe ESPJ, ki je identičen členu 225 ES, pritožba omejena na pravna vpra�anja in
COMMISSION v SALZGITTER principle, exclusive jurisdiction to assess the facts.
KOMISIJA PROTI SALZGITTER da je Sodi�če prve stopnje načeloma edino pristojno za presojanje dejstev 94.
94 relation to any obligation as to the transfer of information between Commission departments are specific to the case at issue.
izpeljalo v okviru izpodbijane sodbe v zvezi z morebitno obveznostjo posredovanja podatkov med službami Komisije, posebne v obravnavani zadevi.
This point was made by the Court of First Instance repeatedly, in particular in paragraphs 179 and 182 of that judgment.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je to že večkrat poudarilo, zlasti v točkah 179 in 182 omenjene sodbe.
Its conclusions are drawn from the specific obligations which the Commission imposed on steel undertakings with a view to overcoming the manifest crisis in which the European steel industry found itself.
Njegove ugotovitve so izvedene iz posebnih obveznosti, ki jih je Komisija naložila jeklarskim podjetjem, da bi premagala stanje očitne krize evropskega železarsko-jeklarskega sektorja.
I am nevertheless of the view that the analysis of this limb is not concerned merely with an assessment of the facts.
Vseeno menim, da preučitev te točke ne vzbuja samo vpra�anja presoje dejstev.
It is my opinion that, in the light of the conclusions drawn under the first limb, the examination of the merits of this limb actually raises a point of law.
Mislim namreč, da preučitev njene utemeljenosti, glede na zaključke, ki sem jih izpeljal v okviru prvega dela, odpira resnično pravno vpra�anje.
The question is whether the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in finding that the Commission had not discharged its duty of diligence by failing to observe the existence of the aid at issue and the failure to notify it, even though the Member State had a clear and unconditional obligation to notify it.
Vpra�anje, na katerega je treba odgovoriti, je, ali je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo pri presoji dejstva, da Komisija ni izpolnila dolžnosti skrbnega ravnanja, ko ni opozorila na obstoj zadevnih pomoči in na odsotnost priglasitve teh, medtem ko je država članica imela jasno in brezpogojno obveznost priglasitve.
In paragraphs 176 and 177 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance describes the obligations on steel undertakings arising from the establishment of a system to monitor their steel production.
V točkah 176 in 177 izpodbijane sodbe je Sodi�če prve stopnje opisalo obveznosti, ki za jeklarska podjetja izhajajo iz vzpostavitve sistema nadzora nad njihovo proizvodnjo jekla 95.
95For the application of that system, introduced in 1980, the Court of First Instance pointed out, in particular, that the Commission possessed regular information concerning production and deliveries by the undertakings concerned.
Za izvajanje tega sistema, vzpostavljenega leta 1980, je Sodi�če prve stopnje namreč navedlo, da ima Komisija redne podatke o proizvodnji in dobavah zadevnih podjetij.
It also noted that the Commission had established, when adapting that system, a clear link between the granting of unauthorised aid and the production quotas so as to avoid a cumulation of those measures.
Zabeležilo je tudi, da je v okviru prilagoditve omenjenega sistema vzpostavilo jasno povezavo med dodeljevanjem neodobrenih pomoči in proizvodnimi kvotami, da bi se tako izognilo kopičenju teh ukrepov.
Thus, Article 15A(1) of Commission Decision No 2177/83/ECSC, 96
Tako je na podlagi člena 15A(1) Odločbe Komisije �t. 2177/83/ESPJ 96Komisiji bilo
First, it should be pointed out that the conclusions drawn by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal in
Uvodoma je treba opozoriti, da so ugotovitve, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje
95 — This system was established, on the basis of Article 58 CS, by Commission Decision No 2794/80/ECSC of 31 October 1980 establishing a system of steel production quotas for undertakings in the iron and steel industry (OJ 1980 L 291, p. 1).
95 – Ta sistem je bil vzpostavljen na podlagi člena 58 PJ z Odločbo Komisije �t. 2794/80/ESPJ z dne 31. oktobra 1980 o vzpostavitvi sistema kvot jeklarske proizvodnje za podjetja jeklarske industrije (UL L 291, str.1).
It was extended on numerous occasions until 30 June 1988.
Ta sistem je bil večkrat podalj�an do 30. junija 1988.
96 — Decision of 28 July 1983 on the extension of the system of monitoring and production quotas for certain products of undertakings in the steel industry (OJ 1983 L 208, p. 1).
Vendar, potem ko je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo ali presodilo dejstva, Sodi�če ostane pristojno za izvajanje nadzora nad pravnim ovrednotenjem teh dejstev in pravnimi posledicami, ki jih je iz teh izpeljalo Sodi�če prve stopnje (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 6. aprila 2006 v zadevi General Motors proti Komisiji, C-551/03 P, ZOdl., str. I-3173, točki 51 in 52).
The content of Article 15A of that decision appears, in almost identical terms, in Article 15A of the subsequent extension decisions, that is to say Commission Decision No 234/84/ECSC of 31 January 1984 (OJ 1984 L 29, p.
Vsebina člena 15A te odločbe se v skoraj identičnem besedilu nahaja v členu 15A naknadnih odločb o podalj�anju, namreč Odločbe Komisije �t. 234/84/ESPJ z dne 31. januarja 1984 (UL L 29, str. 1), 3485/85/ESPJ z dne 27. novembra 1985 (UL L 340, str. 5) in 194/88/ESPJ z dne 6. januarja 1988 (UL L 25, str. 1).
It was in the light of those considerations and the information sent by Salzgitter to the Commission in accordance with the aforementioned obligations that the Court of First Instance held, in paragraph 179 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission ‘should have observed and found that there was a failure to notify [the aid at issue] and then commenced appropriate proceedings.’
Ob upo�tevanju teh elementov in informacij, ki jih je družba Salzgitter posredovala Komisiji v skladu z zgoraj omenjenimi obveznostmi, je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 179 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da bi ta „morala zaznati in ugotoviti odsotnost priglasitve [spornih pomoči] in v zvezi s tem začeti ukrepati“.
Given the Commission’s prolonged failure to react and the uncertainty and lack of clarity of the legal situation, the Court of First Instance therefore held, in paragraph 180 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission had created, ‘in disregard of its duty of diligence, an equivocal situation’ which it was under a duty to clarify before it could order the recovery of the aid already granted.
V odsotnosti podalj�anega neodzivanja Komisije in glede na negotovost in pomanjkanje jasnosti pravnega položaja je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 180 izpodbijane sodbe zato presodilo, da je Komisija „ob kr�itvi dolžnosti skrbnega ravnanja […] ustvarila stanje dvoumnosti“, ki bi ga morala razjasniti, preden bi odredila vračilo dodeljenih pomoči.
Contrary to the finding reached by the Court of First Instance, I take the view that it is difficult in this case to accuse the Commission of having failed to discharge its duty of diligence, even though the grant of the aid at issue was not notified in any form whatsoever, despite the clear and unconditional nature of the obligation to do so.
V nasprotju s tem, kar je presodilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, mislim, da je v tem primeru Komisiji težko očitati neizpolnitev dolžne skrbnosti, saj dodelitev zadevnih pomoči ni bila predmet nikakr�ne priglasitve v kakr�ni koli obliki, kljub jasnemu in brezpogojnemu značaju te zahteve.
The Court of First Instance also noted the existence of a strong framework of investment programmes for steel undertakings 98 and pointed out that the Commission had re-examined the aid scheme provided for by the ZRFG in 1988 and had adopted a nonobjection decision in December 1988 on the basis of the EC Treaty.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je obenem poudarilo obstoj močnega okvira programov naložb za jeklarske družbe 98in spomnilo, da je Komisija ponovno preučila sistem pomoči na podlagi ZRFG leta 1988 ter da je decembra 1988 na podlagi Pogodbe ES sprejela odločbo o nenasprotovanju.
98 — The Court of First Instance refers to Commission Decision No 3302/81/ECSC of 18 November 1981 on the information to be furnished by steel undertakings about their investments (OJ 1981 L 333, p.
98 – Sodi�če prve stopnje se sklicuje na Odločbo Komisije �t. 3302/81/ESPJ z dne 18. novembra 1981 o informacijah, ki jih morajo posredovati podjetja jeklarske industrije glede svojih investicij (UL L 333, str.
35), as amended by Commission Decision No 2093/85/ECSC of 26 July 1985 (OJ 1985 L 197, p.
35), kot je bila spremenjena z Odločbo Komisije �t. 2093/85/ESPJ z dne 26. julija 1985 (UL L 197, str.
19), in force until 16 October 1991.
19), v veljavi do 16. oktobra 1991.
My assessment is based on an analysis of the powers and responsibilities falling to the Commission and the Member States respectively under a scheme for controlling State aid.
Svojo presojo utemeljujem na podlagi preučitve pooblastil in odgovornosti, ki so tako v pristojnosti Komisije kot držav članic v okviru sistema nadzora državnih pomoči.
The Commission, like all the Community institutions, is subject, in the exercise of its administrative responsibilities, to the principle of good administration.
Komisija in vse institucije Skupnosti so pri izvajanju svojih upravnih odgovornosti dolžne spo�tovati načelo dobrega upravljanja.
to it. The duty of diligence which the Court of First Instance accuses the Commission of having breached amounts to a requirement that administrative procedures be completed ‘within a reasonable period’.
skrbnega ravnanja, katere kr�itev Sodi�če prve stopnje očita Komisiji, se izraža kot zahteva po upravnem obravnavanju „v razumnem roku“.
The Community judicature held that that period ‘must be determined in relation to the particular circumstances of each case and, especially, its context, the various procedural stages to be followed by the Commission, the complexity of the case and its importance for the various parties involved’.
Po mnenju sodi�ča Skupnosti je treba „ta rok presojati glede na okoli�čine vsake posamezne zadeve in zlasti v povezavi z njenim kontekstom, glede na različne faze v postopku, ki jih mora Komisija upo�tevati, glede na kompleksnost zadeve in glede na pomen zadeve za različne zainteresirane stranke“ 102.
102The institutions must not prolong procedures indefinitely and it is in a sense the fact that they are passive, even though they have an obligation to act within a reasonable period, which is penalised.
Institucije torej postopkov ne smejo podalj�evati v neskončnost, ker so dolžne delovati v razumnem roku, njihova pasivnost pa se lahko tudi sankcionira.
That principle has been an integral part of the unwritten rules of Community legality since one of the first judgments delivered by the Court of Justice.
Po objavi ene izmed prvih sodb Sodi�ča je to načelo sestavni del nepisanih pravil zakonitosti Skupnosti 99.
99 The requirements attached to that principle were gradually established by the caselaw of the Court of Justice before being enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 100
Zahteve, ki se navezujejo na omenjeno pravilo, je polagoma navajala sodna praksa Sodi�ča, preden so bile uzakonjene v členu 41 Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije 100.
In practice, compliance with the principle of good administration requires the Commission to make all appropriate administrative arrangements for the proper operation of its departments.
V praksi spo�tovanje načela dobrega upravljanja zahteva, da Komisija sprejme vse notranje ukrepe, ki so primerni za zagotavljanje dobrega delovanja njenih služb 103.
103To that end, it has powers of internal organisation.
V ta namen ima na voljo pooblastila za ureditev notranje organiziranosti.
The Commission forms a single organisational and functional unit.
Komisija tvori eno samo organizacijsko in funkcionalno enoto.
104It is none the less divided up into directorates general, direct -orates, units and divisions on the basis of a table of duties devised in such a way as to avoid any unnecessary overlapping of
104 Te službe so kljub temu razčlenjene v generalne direktorate, enote ali oddelke glede na načrt porazdelitve pooblastil, ki je
102 — Judgment in Case T-95/96 Gestevisión Telecinco v Commission [1998] ECR II-3407, paragraph 75.
102 – Sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 15. septembra 1998 v zadevi Gestevisión Telecinco proti Komisiji (T-95/96, Recueil, str.
99 — Judgment in Joined Cases 1/57 and 14/57 Usines à tubes de la Sarre v High Authority [1957 and 1958] ECR 105, at 113.
II-3407, točka 75).
103 — See, in the context of the ECSC Treaty, Article 16 CS.
103 – Glej v okviru pogodbe ESPJ člen 16 PJ.
Such measures of internal organisation are laid down in rules of procedure.
Ti ukrepi o notranji organizaciji so določeni v okviru poslovnika.
The rules of procedure in force at the material time were those of 9 January 1963 (OJ 1963, 17, p.
Poslovnika, ki sta veljala ob nastanku dejstev, sta bila poslovnik z dne 9. januarja 1963 (UL 1963, 17, str.
181) and 17 February 1993 (OJ 1993 L 230, p. 15).
181) in poslovnik z dne 17. februarja 1993 (UL L 230, str. 15).
The latter were replaced by the Commission Rules of Procedure of 18 September 1999 (OJ 1999 L 252, p.
Zadnjega je zamenjal poslovnik Komisije z dne 18. septembra 1999 (UL L 252, str.
41), and then by those of 29 November 2000 (OJ 2000 L 308, p. 26).
41) in nato z dne 29. novembra 2000 (UL L 308, str. 26).
104 — Under Article 17 of the 1963 and 1992 Rules of Procedure, ‘[a] number of departments forming a single administrative service shall assist the Commission in the performance of its official functions’.
104 – Na podlagi člena 17 poslovnikov iz leta 1963 in 1993 „[…] Komisija ima za pripravo in izvajanje njene dejavnosti skupino služb, ki tvorijo eno samo upravo“.
Like the Court of First Instance, I take the view that the Commission was in a position to know about the existence of the aid at issue.
Tako kot Sodi�če prve stopnje menim, da se je Komisija lahko seznanila z obstojem zadevnih pomoči.
As is clear from the judgment under appeal, the Commission endeavoured to monitor the activities of steel undertakings by taking a collection of ‘anti-crisis’ measures providing it with access to all information on Salzgitter’s financial situation. 107
Kakor to dejansko izhaja iz izpodbijane sodbe, se je Komisija trudila nadzirati dejavnosti jeklarskih družb s pomočjo celote „protikriznih“ ukrepov, ki so ji omogočali imeti na voljo kar največ informacij o finančnem položaju družbe Salzgitter 107.
Commission thus provides, in Article 21(1) of its 1963 Rules of Procedure, that its departments are to ‘work together as closely as possible’.
bi Komisija zagotovila učinkovitost svojega ukrepanja, je v členu 21(1) Poslovnika iz leta 1963 predvidela, da njene službe „delajo v čim tesnej�em možnem medsebojnem sodelovanju“.
Under that provision, before submitting a document to the Commission, the department responsible must inform all the departments concerned by virtue of the table of duties or the nature of the subject, in order to avoid any duplication of work and to obtain their consent or their comments. 106
V skladu s to določbo mora odgovorna služba, �e preden se neki dokument predloži Komisiji, o tem obvestiti vse zadevne službe glede na načrt porazdelitve pooblastil ali glede na vrsto zadeve, z namenom preprečiti vsakr�no podvajanje nalog, in pridobiti njihovo privolitev ali pripombe 106.
The link between the system of steel production quotas and the State aid system is clear.
Povezava med sistemom proizvodnih kvot jekla in državnimi pomočmi je jasna.
It follows from Article 15 A of the decisions referred to by the Court of First Instance and from Article 14 of those decisions.
To izhaja iz člena 15A odločb, ki jih navaja Sodi�če prve stopnje, in iz njihovega člena 14 108.
108 Where the Commission applies one or other of those provisions, it is necessarily prompted to examine the undertaking’s accounts on the basis of the information sent by that undertaking. 109
Če Komisija uporabi eno ali drugo od teh odločb, mora nujno preveriti račune podjetja na temelju podatkov, ki ji jih to sporoči 109.
In this case, the account of the facts given by the Court of First Instance shows that, from 1988, the Commission was sent Salzgitter’s annual report and accounts, which indicated that it had had the benefit of exceptional reserves under Article 3 of the ZRFG.
V tem sporu iz obrazložitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje izhaja, da je bila Komisija od leta 1988 obve�čena o poslovnih poročilih in letnih obračunih družbe Salzgitter, iz katerih je izhajalo, da je bila na podlagi člena 3 ZRFG deležna izrednih rezerv.
The Court of First Instance takes the view that that information could also have been gleaned from the examination which the Commission carried out in 1988 into the compatibility of the general scheme of aid with the EC Treaty.
Po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje bi te navedbe lahko izhajale tudi iz preučitve Komisije, opravljene leta 1988, v zvezi z združljivostjo splo�nega sistema pomoči s Pogodbo ES.
107 — Following the disappearance of the quota scheme in June 1988, Commission Decision No 2448/88/ECSC introducing a surveillance system for certain products of undertakings in the steel industry (OJ 1988 L 212, p.
107 – Opozarjam, da je bila po prenehanju sistema kvot junija 1988 na podlagi člena 47 PJ oblikovana Odločba Komisije �t.
1) was adopted on the basis of Article 47 CS.
2448/88/ESPJ z dne 19. julija 1988, ki vzpostavlja sistem spremljanja za nekatere proizvode za družbe jeklarske industrije (UL L 212, str. 1).
From 1991, in an attempt to resolve the continuing difficulties in the steel market, Commission Decision No 3010/91/ECSC of 15 October 1991 on the information to be furnished by steel undertakings about their investments (OJ 1991 L 286, p.
Od leta 1991, z namenom odpraviti nenehne težave na trgu jekla, je bila na podlagi člena 54 PJ oblikovana Odločba Komisije �t. 3010/91/ESPJ z dne 15. oktobra 1991 o podatkih, ki jih morajo predložiti družbe v jeklarski industriji v zvezi z njihovimi investicijami (UL L 286, str. 20).
108 — See Article 14 of the extension decisions cited in footnote 93.
108 – Glej člen 14 odločbe o podalj�anju v opombi spodaj na strani 96.
106 — That provision was reproduced in almost identical terms in the first paragraph of Article 20 of the 1993 Rules of Procedure, the first paragraph of Article 19 of the 1999 Rules of Procedure and the first paragraph of Article 21 of the 2000 Rules of Procedure.
106 – Omenjena določba je bila povzeta v določilih, ki so skoraj enaka določilom iz člena 20(1) poslovnika iz 1993, določilom iz člena 19(1) poslovnika iz leta 1999 in določilom iz člena 21(1) poslovnika iz leta 2000. Glej tudi Kindblom-Törnell, M., „The role of the cabinets in the decision making process of the European Commission“, v Liber amicorum v čast Svena Norberga, Bruylant, Bruselj, 2006, str. 329, 230.
109 — See the Commission communication on the information to be provided by steel undertakings when submitting requests to benefit from Articles 14 and 15 of Decision No 1696/82/ECSC and on the criteria adopted by the Commission for the application thereof (OJ 1982 C 318, p. 3).
109 – Glej sporočilo Komisije o podatkih, ki jih morajo priskrbeti jeklarske družbe, ki zaprosijo za ugodnosti iz členov 14 in 15 Odločbe �t. 1696/82/ESPJ in o merilih, ki jih je Komisija določila za njihovo izvajanje (UL 1982, C 318, str. 3).
The Court of Justice has held that all the measures form a coherent whole and that the introduction into the system of production quotas of criteria from the steel aid system cannot be criticised as they both serve the purpose of restructuring, whatever the differences between their legal bases and the criteria for their application.
Sodi�če je presodilo, da so vsi ukrepi sestavljali skladno celoto in da ni mogoče grajati uvedbe, v sistem proizvodnih kvot, meril, ki sodijo v sistem pomoči jeklarstvu, saj je cilj tako enega kot drugega ne glede na razlike med njunimi pravnimi podlagami in merili za uporabo prestrukturiranje.
The Court of Justice takes the view that it is therefore neither arbitrary nor discriminatory that the information obtained from the application of either of those systems should be available for use as a reference in the other. 110 the grant of those State subsidies.
Po mnenju Sodi�ča torej ni arbitrarno ali diskriminatorno, da se podatki, ki izhajajo iz uporabe enega od obeh sistemov, lahko kot referenčni povzamejo v drugem 110.
The Court held that ‘there are no grounds for assuming that when adopting the measures provided for in Article 58 [CS],[ 112] the Commission was under theobligation to take account of distortions on the steel market caused by the grant of aids which might be incompatible with the Treaty’.
bi morala Komisija ob dodelitvi teh državnih subvencij ukrepati. Sodi�če je menilo, da Komisija ni bila „dolžna upoštevati, v okviru ukrepov, predvidenih v členu 58 [PJ] [ 112], izkrivljenj, ki jih na trgu jeklarstva ustvarja dodeljevanje pomoči, ki so lahko nezdružljive s Pogodbo“ 113.
113It pointed out that the application of Article 58 CS, which by definition demands prompt action which must be based on simple criteria, is incompatible with taking into account factors, such as the grant of State aids, the appraisal of which involves particularly complex investigations.
Poudarilo je, da je bilo izvajanje člena 58 PJ, ki po značaju zahteva hitro ukrepanje in ki temelji na preprostih merilih, nezdružljivo z upo�tevanjem podatkov kot so javne pomoči, katerih presoja obsega zlasti zapletene preiskave.
The Court thus held that, ‘[a]lthough it cannot be denied that when working out the rules on production quotas the Commission may take account of situations which are contrary to Article 4(c) [CS] and to the rules laid down by its decisions in the field and which are duly proven to exist in the course of the relevant procedures, as it already does when monitoring investment, it is however not possible to go so far as to demand that the anti-crisis measures envisaged by Article 58 [CS] should be used to counteract the effect of illegal aids granted by Member States.’ 114
Sodi�če je tako presodilo, da „[č]e ni mogoče izključiti, da pri urejanju proizvodnih kvot Komisija lahko upošteva položaje, ki so nasprotni členu 4(c) [PJ] in drugim standardom, določenim v odločbah za to področje in pravilno vzposta­vljenim s postopki v ta namen, glede na to, da �e sedaj spo�tuje svoje ukrepanje nadzora na področju naložb, vendarle ni mogoče iti tako daleč, da bi zahtevalo, naj se protikrizni ukrepi iz člena 58 [PJ] uporabljajo kot korektiv učinka prepovedanih pomoči, ki jih dodelijo države članice“ 114.
None the less, there is no obligation on the Commission as to the conclusions which it would have to draw from a finding of failure to notify aid.
Komisija kljub temu nima nobene obveznosti v zvezi s posledicami, ki bi morale izhajati iz morebitne ugotovitve o odsotnosti priglasitve pomoči.