natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
10 distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed (
Enaka problematika je bila obravnavana v okviru tožbe zaradi nedelovanja na podlagi člena 232 ES v zadevi Asklepios Kliniken20, v kateri je nemška družba, specializirana za upravljanje zasebnih bolnišnic, vložila tožbo na ugotovitev, da Komisija protipravno ni zavzela stališča glede pritožbe o obstoju državnih pomoči, ki naj bi jih nemške oblasti dodelile javnim bolnišnicam.
In its order in Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission (11) the Court held that, for the purpose of recognising standing to bring proceedings, the fact that the applicant belonged to a restricted group must be combined with a specic duty on the part of the Commission to protect that group.
Sodišče prve stopnje je opozorilo, da sta člena 230 ES in 232 ES izraz istega pravnega sredstva.
More specically, the decisive factor in identifying the persons individually concerned by a measure of general application consists in the specic protection to which they are entitled under Community law.
Tako kot člen 230, četrti odstavek, ES dopušča posameznikom, da vložijo tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti akta Skupnosti, ki jih zadeva neposredno in posamično, jim člen 232, tretji odstavek, ES omogoča, da zoper institucijo, ki ni sprejela akta, ki bi jih zadeval na enak način, vložijo tožbo zaradi nedelovanja21.
The Court also stated that the general interest which a region, as the competent entity for economic and social matters on its territory, might have in securing a favourable outcome for the economic prosperity of that territory is not sucient for it to be regarded as being individually concerned. Furthermore, the legislative and regulatory prerogatives that may be held by a legal person governed by the public law of a Member State other than the State are not of such a kind as to confer that person an individual interest in seeking annulment of a provision of Community law which has no eect on the extent of its powers, since, in principle, the person holding such prerogatives does not exercise them in his own interest.
V zadevi Salvat père & ls in drugi proti Komisiji22 je Komisija sprejela odločbo, s katero je določene ukrepe, ki so jih francoske oblasti sprejele za nanciranje sektorskega programa pomoči za vinogradnike, ki proizvajajo manjše količine vina, opredelila kot državne pomoči, nezdružljive s skupnim trgom. Tako je Francoski republiki naložila, da te pomoči, ki so bile izplačane nezakonito, izterja od njihovih prejemnikov. Na podlagi sodne prakse Sodišča, v skladu s katero dejanskega prejemnika individualne pomoči, ki je bila dodeljena z naslova splošne sheme, odločba Komisije, ki nalaga vračilo te pomoči, posamično zadeva23, je Sodišče prve stopnje opozorilo, da okoliščina, da v izpodbijani odločbi niso opredeljena podjetja, ki so prejemniki zadevne pomoči, velja v objektivno določenih položajih in ima pravne posledice za kategorijo oseb, ki so določene splošno in abstraktno, ter ne vodi k nedopustnosti tožbe.
14) the applicant sought annulment of the decision whereby
Nasprotno pa je Sodišče prve
Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, at 107.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 20. septembra 2007 (T-375/03).
Order of 28 August 2007 in Case T-46/06 (on appeal, Case C-483/07 P).
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 11. julija 2007 v zadevi Asklepios Kliniken proti Komisiji, (T-167/04).
Case C-309/89 [1994] ECR I-1853.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 20. septembra 2007 (T-136/05).
Judgment of 11 July 2007 in Case T-170/06.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 19. oktobra 2000 v zadevi Italija in Sardegna Lines proti Komisiji (C-15/98 in C-105/99, Recueil, str. I-8855).
Court of First Instance applicant. The Court examined of its own motion the admissibility of the action and held that the applicant was individually concerned by that decision, in so far as the decision had been adopted at the conclusion of proceedings in which the applicant had participated to a decisive extent, had been aimed at bringing to an end the long-standing trading relationship between the applicant and De Beers and had been liable to have an appreciable eect on the applicant’s competitive position on the market for the supply and production of rough diamonds.
Sodišče prve stopnje stopnje opozorilo, da so se dodeljeni zneski razlikovali glede na podjetja in so bili torej individualizirani glede na značilnosti posameznega podjetja, in ugotovilo, da je bila ena od tožečih strank dejanska prejemnica individualne pomoči, ki ji je bila dodeljena na podlagi zadevne sektorske sheme pomoči in katere vračilo je odredila Komisija. Ta del izpodbijane odločbe je tožečo stranko zato zadeval neposredno in posamično.
Interest in bringing proceedings
Spori o pravicah do emisije toplogrednih plinov
In Pergan Hilfsstoe für industrielle Prozesse v Commission (15) the applicant challenged the decision of the Commission’s hearing ocer rejecting its request for condential treatment for certain passages in a Commission decision (‘the peroxides decision’), which contained references to the applicant’s role in a number of cartels on certain markets for organic peroxides.
Leto 2007 je zaznamoval nov spor na podlagi tožbe, ki so jo vložili posamezniki zoper ukrepe, ki jih je sprejela Komisija in jih naslovila na države članice v okviru sistema za trgovanje s pravicami do emisije toplogrednih plinov, določenega z Direktivo 2003/8724.
However, as the proceedings against the applicant were time-barred, the Commission had made no reference in the operative part of the ‘peroxides decision’ to its participation in the infringement. The Court rejected the Commission’s plea that the applicant, which had not challenged the peroxides decision, had no interest in bringing an action against the decision of the hearing ocer.
Ta direktiva je uvedla sistem za trgovanje s pravicami, da bi pospešila zmanjšanje emisij, glede katerih je treba dodeliti pravice, ki upravljavcu, njihovemu imetniku, dovoljujejo določeno količino emisije toplogrednih plinov, pri čemer morajo biti te pravice dodeljene v skladu z nacionalnimi načrti razdelitve (v nadaljevanju: NNR), ki so bili priglašeni Komisiji.
It held, on the contrary, that the annulment of that decision was capable of conferring an advantage on the applicant in that the Commission should take account of the applicant’s legitimate interest in the information at issue not being disclosed.
Nobena od vloženih tožb, ki so jih podjetja, ki so jim bile dodeljene pravice, vložila zoper odločbe Komisije, ni bila dopustna, in to iz različnih razlogov glede na vrsto izpodbijane odločbe.
Their interest in bringing an action was challenged on the ground that, according to the interveners in support of the Commission, even if the contested measure were annulled, the Commission would be unable to establish the infringement complained of, since the excessive duration of the entire administrative procedure would have constituted a breach of the interveners’ rights.
Z uporabo besedne, sistematične in teleološke razlage Direktive 2003/87 je Sodišče prve stopnje v sklepu EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg proti Komisiji25 odločilo, da je Komisija po navedeni direktivi le omejeno pooblaščena za zavrnitev in se lahko tudi odreče uporabi tega pooblastila, ker če Komisija izrecno ne ugovarja v roku, določenem v direktivi, postane NNR pravnomočen in ga država članica lahko uporabi.
In that regard, the Court held that the interest in bringing an action of an applicant who had brought an action for annulment of a Commission decision rejecting the complaint whereby it denounced conduct capable of constituting an abuse of a dominant position could be denied only in exceptional circumstances, notably where it could be established beyond doubt that the Commission was not in a position to adopt a decision making a finding of infringement attributable to the dominant undertaking in question.
Sodišče prve stopnje je sklenilo, da kadar odločba vsebuje izrecno odobritev določenih vidikov NNR, ni mogoče šteti, da dovoljuje, niti implicitno, celoten NNR, ker tožeča stranka nima pravnega interesa za izpodbijanje drugih vidikov NNR26.
Judgment of 12 September 2007 in Case T-60/05.
Opazili bomo, da je bil ta nemški NNR za obdobje 2005-2007 obravnavan v sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 7. novembra 2007 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji (T-374/04).
Concept of interested party
Odločbe o nezdružljivosti NNR
A number of decisions adopted in 2007 gave the Court the opportunity to explain the application of the caselaw (17
Sodišče prve stopnje je v sklepu Fels-Werke in drugi proti Komisiji29 presodilo, da odločba Komisije, s katero je bila s prejšnjim NNR uvedena metoda dodelitve, ki je bila naklonjena novim napravam, razglašena za nezdružljivo, tožečih strank ni posamično zadevala.
) to the eect that a‘party concerned’ within the meaning of
Ta odločba se na tožeče stranke in na druge upravljavce naprav, ki so v enakem položaju, v bistvu nanaša enako.
Article 88(2) EC has capacity to bring an action for annulment of a decision adopted at the conclusion of the stage of the preliminary examination of aid referred to in Article 88(3) EC in order to protect its procedural rights.
Zadeva US Steel Košice proti Komisiji30 se je nanašala na razglasitev ničnosti odločbe
By its order in SID v Commission (18) the Court held that a seafarers’ union which had lodged a complaint in respect of certain tax measures applicable to seafarers employed on board vessels on the Danish international register was not a party concerned.
Komisije, s katero so bili določeni vidiki slovaškega NNR za obdobje 2008-2012 razglašeni za nezdružljive z Direktivo 2003/8731 in s katero se je zahtevalo zmanjšanje celotne količine predvidenih pravic.
Neither the seafarers’ union nor its members were competitors of the beneficiaries of the measures in issue.
Sodišče prve stopnje je presodilo, da omenjena direktiva in izpodbijana odločba nista vodili do samodejne razdelitve skupnega števila pravic med posamezne naprave, ki naj bi se pokazalo v določenih odstotkih pravic, dodeljenih tožeči stranki in drugim napravam.
Although bodies representing the employees of the undertakings in receipt of aid might, as parties concerned, submit comments to the Commission on considerations of a social nature, the fact remained that in this case any social aspects derived from the establishment of the register in question and not from the fiscal measures in issue, which alone were examined by the Commission with a view to assessing their compatibility with the common market.
Izpodbijana odločba tožeče stranka torej ni neposredno zadevala, saj bi bilo morebitno zmanjšanje njenih pravic posledica izvrševanja diskrecije slovaške vlade, kateri ni treba zmanjšati števila posameznih pravic tožeče stranke, ne sme pa preseči omejitev celotne količine pravic, ki jih lahko dodeli.
The Court recalled that Articles 230 EC and 232 EC prescribe one and the same remedy.
Sklep Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 1. oktobra 2007 (T-489/04).
Order of 23 April 2007 in Case T-30/03 (on appeal, Case C-319/07 P).
Sklep Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 11. septembra 2007 (T-28/07) (v pritožbenem postopku, C-503/07 P).
Judgment of 20 September 2007 in Case T-375/03.
Sklep Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 1. oktobra 2007 (T-27/07) (v pritožbenem postopku, C-6/08 P).
Court of First Instance them to bring an action for failure to act against an institution which has failed to adopt a measure which would have concerned them in the same way (21
Sodišče prve stopnje je v sklepu Drax Power in drugi proti Komisiji32presodilo, da odločba Komisije, s katero je bil zavrnjen predlog Združenega kraljestva Velika Britanija in Severna Irska, da spremeni svoj začasni NNR zaradi povečanja dokončnega skupnega števila pravic, ki jih lahko dodeli, tožeče stranke ni neposredno zadevala.
Aid regimes
Uporaba člena 81(3) ES
In Salvat père & ls and Others v Commission (22 ) the Commission had adopted a decision characterising as State aid incompatible with the common market certain measures taken by the French authorities to finance a sectoral aid scheme for wine-growers producing low-quality wine.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v sodbi Duales System Deutschland proti Komisiji33, v kateri je odločalo o zakonitosti odločbe o izjemi, sprejete na podlagi Uredbe št. 1734 in s katero so bile njenemu upravičencu naložene obveznosti, presodilo, da zaveza, ki jo je v upravnem postopku kot odgovor na pomisleke Komisije dalo podjetje, učinkuje kot razjasnitev vsebine dogovorov, ki so bili priglašeni z namenom pridobitve negativnega izvida ali izjeme na podlagi člena 81 ES, in Komisiji nakazuje, kako namerava to podjetje ravnati v prihodnosti.
The Commission had thus ordered the French Republic to recover the unlawfully paid aid from the recipients.
Zato je Komisija upravičeno sprejela odločbo in pri tem upoštevala to zavezo, Sodišču prve stopnje pa ni treba preučiti njene zakonitosti z vidika elementa, ki se mu je tožeča stranka odrekla v upravnem postopku.
The Court pointed out, on the contrary, that the amounts granted diered according to the undertakings and were therefore dierentiated according to the individual characteristics of each of them, and found that one of the applicants was the actual beneciary of individual aid granted under the sectoral aid scheme in question, recovery of which the Commission had ordered. Consequently, that applicant was directly and individually concerned by that part of the contested decision.
Poleg tega je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da lahko Komisija, kadar naprave, ki so last pogodbenih partnerjev enega podjetja, ki pokriva bistveni del povpraševanja, pomenijo ozko grlo za njegove konkurente, navedenemu podjetju kot pogoj za izjemo naloži obveznost, da skupaj s konkurenti deljeno uporablja navedene naprave, ker bi bila v nasprotnem primeru slednjim dejansko odvzeta vsaka resna možnost vstopiti in ostati na zadevnem trgu.
None of the applications against the Commission’s decisions brought by the undertakings which had been allocated allowances was considered admissible, on dierent grounds according to the type of decision contested.
Taka opredelitev pojma enotni cilj bi lahko pojmu enotne in trajajoče kršitve odvzela del njegovega smisla, ker bi moralo biti posledično več ravnanj, ki se nanašajo na gospodarski sektor in so prepovedana s členom 81(1) ES, sistematično opredeljenih kot sestavni deli enotne kršitve.
Case 15/70 Chevalley v Commission [1970] ECR 975 and Case T-395/04 Air One v Commission [2006] ECR II-1343.
Sklep Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 25. junija 2007 (T-130/06).
Judgment of 20 September 2007 in Case T-136/05.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 24. maja 2007 (T-289/01).
Joined Cases C-15/98 and C-105/99 Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission [2000] ECR I-8855.
Uredba št. 17 Prva uredba o izvajanju členov 85 in 86 Pogodbe (UL 1962, 13, str. 204).
In its order in EnBW Energies Baden-Württemberg v Commission (25) the Court gave a textual, contextual and teleological interpretation of Directive 2003/87 and held that that directive confers on the Commission only a limited power of rejection and allows it even to waive the use of that power, since, inter alia, where the Commission does not raise express objections within the time-limit laid down in the directive, the notied NAP becomes denitive and can be implemented by the Member State.
V zvezi s spornimi omejevalnimi sporazumi je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da svetovni in evropski dogovori niso mogli biti hkrati uporabljeni, da so sledili različnim ciljem, da so bili uresničeni z različnimi metodami in da Komisija ni dokazala namere evropskih proizvajalcev pristopiti k svetovnim dogovorom z namenom kasnejše razdelitve trga Evropskega gospodarskega prostora. Svetovni in evropski dogovori so torej pomenili dve ločeni kršitvi.
The Court concluded that, where the decision includes an explicit acceptance of certain aspects of a NAP, it cannot be regarded as even implicit authorisation of the NAP in its entirety, so that the applicant does not have an interest
Glede na to, da je kršitev s sodelovanjem pri svetovnem omejevalnem sporazumu zastarala, je Sodišče prve stopnje izpodbijano odločbo razglasilo za nično v delu, v katerem tožečima strankama nalaga globo zaradi sodelovanja pri tem omejevalnem sporazumu.
On the basis of similar reasoning, the Court held, in its order in US Steel Košice v
Iz sodbe Prym in Prym Consumer proti Komisiji36 izhaja, da je Komisiji naložena obveznost, da v odločbi, sprejeti z uporabo člena 81 ES, izvede opredelitev zadevnega trga le takrat, kadar brez take opredelitve ni mogoče določiti, ali omejevalni sporazum lahko vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in ali je njegov cilj ali učinek kršitev konkurence.
Commission (27), that the Commission decision not to raise any objections to the Slovak NAP did not have the eect of granting a rights-creating authorisation because, by their nature, the Slovak measures notied in that context did not require such authorisation.
Kadar je cilj dogovora razdelitev trga proizvodov in geografskega trga, Komisija ni dolžna opredeliti trga za uporabo člena 81 ES.
In those circumstances, the contested decision could not produce binding legal eects such as to aect the applicant’s interests and therefore did not constitute a measure against which an action could be brought.
Vendar so dejanske ugotovitve o zadevnem trgu primerne, če v izreku odločbe ni ugotovljena kršitev, pa je vseeno naložena globa.
Last, by order in Cemex UK Cement v Commission (28) the Court held that an action for annulment of the Commission decision raising no objections to the allocation to the applicant by the NAP of an individual allowance which it considered insucient and contrary to the directive was inadmissible on the ground that the applicant was not individually concerned, as only the United Kingdom was responsible for the implementation of the NAP and for the allocation of specic allowances to individual installations.
V skladu s smernicami o načinu določanja glob37je treba pri presoji teže kršitve upoštevati njen dejanski vpliv na trg, kjer se ga lahko meri, ter dejansko gospodarsko zmožnost kršiteljev, da povzročijo večjo škodo drugim subjektom.
In its order in Fels-Werke and Others v Commission (
Presoja teh dejavnikov zahteva določitev velikosti in delov trga, ki pripadajo zadevnim podjetjem.
) the Court considered that the applicants were not individually concerned by the Commission decision declaring incompatible an allocation method introduced during the preceding NAP that was favourable to new installations. That decision aected the applicants in the same way as
Ker pa je šlo za kršitev zaradi delitve trga proizvodov in geografskega trga, ki so jo smernice označile za „zelo resno“, je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da neobrazložitev v zvezi z opredelitvijo trga v obravnavani zadevi ne more privesti do razveljavitve ali zmanjšanja globe glede na to, da je Komisija izbrala minimalen izhodiščni znesek, ki je glede na navedene smernice določen za tako kršitev.
The same German NAP for the period 2005–07 formed the subject matter of the judgment of 7 November 2007 in Case T-374/04 Germany v Commission.
V sodbi Bolloré in drugi proti Komisiji38 je Sodišče prve stopnje uporabilo svojo neomejeno pristojnost v dveh pogledih.
By that judgment, the Commission’s decision was annulled on the ground of an error of law in so far as it had declared incompatible with Directive 2003/87 the possibility for ex post facto adjustments provided for in the NAP which allowed the German authorities to reduce the number of allowances allocated to a given installation and to transfer the allowances withdrawn to a reserve when the operator replaced an old installation by a new installation with a lower production capacity.
Prvič, Sodišče prve stopnje je opozorilo, da čeprav za dokaz kršitve ni pomembno, da eno podjetje ni sodelovalo pri vseh bistvenih dejanjih omejevalnega sporazuma, je treba tako dejanje upoštevati pri presoji teže kršitve in po potrebi pri določitvi globe, ter za 15 odstotkov znižalo končno globo, naloženo enemu od podjetji, ker Komisija ni dokazala, da nesodelovanja pri delitvah trga ni upoštevala v vseh parametrih, ki so privedli do določitve končne globe, ki je bila naložena temu podjetju.
The Court held that no provision of Directive 2003/87 prohibits a subsequent amendment of the number of allowances allocated individually, as the Member State has a margin of discretion when it makes downward corrections.
Drugič, v okviru zmanjšanja globe zaradi sodelovanja je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da čeprav je družba Mougeot, za razliko od družbe AWA, predložila dokumente iz spornega obdobja in čeprav so bile glede nekaterih vprašanj te izjave bolj natančne, so se podatki,
Order of 1 October 2007 in Case T-489/04.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 12. septembra 2007 (T-30/05) (v pritožbenem postopku, C-534/07 P).
Order of 6 November 2007 in Case T-13/07.
Smernice o načinu določanja glob, naloženih v skladu s členom 15(2) Uredbe št. 17 in člena 65(5) pogodbe ESPJ (UL 1998, C 9, str. 3).
Order of 11 September 2007 in Case T-28/07 (on appeal, Case C-503/07 P).
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 26. aprila 2007 (T-109/02, T-118/02, T-122/02, T-125/02, T-126/02, T-128/02, T-129/02, T-132/02 in T-136/02) (v pritožbenem postopku, C-322/07 P).
Court of First Instance all other operators of installations in the same situation.
Sodišče prve stopnje ki jih je predložila družba AWA, nanašali na daljše obdobje in so zajeli večji geografski prostor, ter ugotovilo, da je bilo njuno sodelovanje podobno.
The mere existence of the right arising under the German scheme relating to the previous allocation period, which was potentially called in question by the decision, was not capable of dierentiating the holder of the right when the same right was granted, in application of a general and abstract rule, to a multitude of operators determined objectively.
Družbi AWA je zato dodelilo enako znižanje, kot je bilo tisto, do katerega je bila upravičena družba Mougeot.
The case of US Steel Košice v Commission (30
Prav tako je Sodišče prve stopnje v zgoraj navedeni sodbi BASF in UCB proti Komisiji, potem ko je ugotovilo, da je kršitev zaradi sodelovanja tožečih strank pri svetovnih dogovorih zastarala, ponovno izračunalo globo, ki jima jo je naložila Komisija.
) was an action for annulment of a Commission decision declaring certain aspects of the Slovak NAP for the period 2008–12 incompatible with Directive 2003/87 (31) and requiring a reduction in the total quantity of allowances provided for.
Glede družbe BASF je Sodišče prve stopnje navedlo, da dejstvo, da podjetje Komisiji predloži podatke v zvezi z dejanji, za katera mu ne bi bila naložena nikakršna globa, ne pomeni sodelovanja, za katero bi veljalo obvestilo o ugodni obravnavi iz leta 199639.
The Court considered that neither Directive 2003/87 nor the contested decision resulted in an automatic reallocation of the total number of allowances between individual installations which would be reflected by specific percentages of allowances allocated to the applicant and to other installations.
Ker so se glavni elementi dokazov, ki jih je v zvezi s svojim sodelovanjem predložila družba BASF, nanašali na svetovne dogovore in ker je bilo ugotovljeno, da je kršitev, ki se je nanašala na te dogovore, zastarala, je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da to podjetje ni bilo več upravičeno do 10-odstotnega znižanja, ki mu je bilo dodeljeno s tega naslova.
Thus the applicant was not directly concerned by the contested decision, since any reduction in its individual allowance would be the consequence of the Slovak Government’s exercise of its discretion and that Government was not required to reduce the applicant’s individual allowances but only not to exceed the limits of the total quantity of allowances to be allocated.
Sodišče prve stopnje je menilo, da mora glede na značilnosti kršitve izhodiščna globa, ki se nanaša na evropske dogovore, ostati enaka tisti, ki je določena za skupek dogovorov, ker ugotovitev, da družbe BASF ni bilo mogoče kaznovati za eno od očitanih ravnanj zaradi zastaranja, ne privede do znižanja globe, ki ji je bila naložena.