| SODBA SPLOŠNEGA SODIŠČA (prvi razširjeni senat) | JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber, Extended Composition) |
| z dne 19. junija 2019 ( *1 ) | 19 June 2019 ( *1 ) |
| „Državne pomoči – Posamična pomoč v korist kompleksa Nürburgring za izgradnjo zabaviščnega parka, hotelov in restavracij ter za organizacijo avtomobilskih dirk – Sklep, s katerim so bile pomoči razglašene za nezdružljive z notranjim trgom – Sklep, s katerim je bilo razglašeno, da vračilo pomoči, razglašenih za nezdružljive z notranjim trgom, ne zadeva novega lastnika kompleksa Nürburgring – Ničnostna tožba – Neobstoj znatnega vpliva na konkurenčni položaj – Nedopustnost – Sklep o ugotovitvi neobstoja državne pomoči ob koncu faze predhodne preučitve – Ničnostna tožba – Zainteresirana stranka – Pravni interes – Dopustnost – Kršitev postopkovnih pravic – Neobstoj težav, zaradi katerih bi bilo treba uvesti formalni postopek preiskave – Pritožba – Prodaja sredstev upravičencev do državnih pomoči, ki so bile razglašene za nezdružljive – Odprt, pregleden, nediskriminatoren in brezpogojen razpisni postopek – Skrbna in nepristranska preučitev – Obveznost obrazložitve“ | (State aid — Individual aid in favour of the Nürburgring complex for the construction of a leisure park, hotels and restaurants as well as for the organisation of motor races — Decision finding the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Decision finding that the reimbursement of the aid found to be incompatible does not concern the new owner of the Nürburgring complex — Action for annulment — No substantial effect on competitive position — Inadmissibility — Decision finding no State aid after the preliminary examination stage — Action for annulment — Interested party — Legal interest in bringing an action — Admissibility — Breach of procedural rights — No difficulties that would have required the initiation of a formal investigation procedure — Complaint — Sale of the assets of the beneficiaries of the State aid found to be incompatible — Open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional tender process — Diligent and impartial examination — Obligation to state reasons) |
| V zadevi T‑353/15, | In Case T‑353/15, |
| NeXovation, Inc. s sedežem v Hendersonvillu (Združene države), ki so jo sprva zastopali A. von Bergwelt, F. Henkel in M. Nordmann, nato A. von Bergwelt in Nordmann, odvetniki, | NeXovation, Inc., established in Hendersonville (United States), initially represented by A. von Bergwelt, F. Henkel and M. Nordmann, subsequently by A. von Bergwelt and M. Nordmann, lawyers, |
| tožeča stranka, | applicant, |
| proti | v |
| Evropski komisiji, ki jo zastopajo L. Flynn, T. Maxian Rusche in B. Stromsky, agenti, | European Commission, represented by L. Flynn, T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents, |
| tožena stranka, | defendant, |
| zaradi predloga na podlagi člena 263 PDEU za razglasitev ničnosti dela Sklepa Komisije (EU) 2016/151 z dne 1. oktobra 2014 o državni pomoči SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN), ki jo je Nemčija odobrila za dirkališče Nürburgring (UL 2016, L 34, str. 1), | ACTION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/151 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 1), |
| SPLOŠNO SODIŠČE (prvi razširjeni senat), | THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber, Extended Composition), |
| v sestavi I. Pelikánová, predsednica, V. Valančius, P. Nihoul, J. Svenningsen in U. Öberg (poročevalec), sodniki, | composed of I. Pelikánová, President, V. Valančius, P. Nihoul, J. Svenningsen and U. Öberg (Rapporteur), Judges, |
| sodna tajnica: N. Schall, administratorka, | Registrar: N. Schall, Administrator, |
| na podlagi pisnega dela postopka in obravnave z dne 30. januarja 2018 | having regard to the written part of the procedure and further to the hearing on 30 January 2018, |
| izreka naslednjo | gives the following |
| Sodbo | Judgment |
| I. Dejansko stanje | I. Background to the dispute |
| 1 | Kompleks Nürburgring (v nadaljevanju: Nürburgring), ki se nahaja v nemški zvezni deželi Porenje-Pfalška, vključuje dirkališče za avtomobilske dirke, zabaviščni park, hotele in restavracije. | 1 | The Nürburgring complex (‘the Nürburgring’), located in the German Land of Rhineland-Palatinate, consists of a race track, a leisure park, hotels and restaurants. |
| 2 | Med letoma 2002 in 2012 so lastniki kompleksa Nürburgring (v nadaljevanju: prodajalci), in sicer javna podjetja Nürburgring GmbH, Motorsport Resort Nürburgring GmbH in Congress- und Motorsport Hotel Nürburgring GmbH, prejeli, večinoma od zvezne dežele Porenje-Pfalška, ukrepe podpore pri izgradnji zabaviščnega parka, hotelov in restavracij ter pri organizaciji dirk formule 1. | 2 | Between 2002 and 2012, the owners of the Nürburgring (‘the sellers’), namely the public undertakings Nürburgring GmbH, Motorsport Resort Nürburgring GmbH and Congress- und Motorsport Hotel Nürburgring GmbH, were the beneficiaries, mainly from the Land of Rhineland-Palatinate, of support measures regarding the construction of a leisure park, hotels and restaurants as well as the organisation of Formula 1 races. |
| A. Upravni postopek in prodaja sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring | A. Administrative procedure and sale of the Nürburgring assets |
| 3 | Evropska komisija je z dopisom z dne 21. marca 2012 Zvezno republiko Nemčijo obvestila o svoji odločitvi, da uvede formalni postopek preiskave na podlagi člena 108(2) PDEU v zvezi z različnimi ukrepi podpore, izvedenimi med letoma 2002 in 2012 v korist kompleksa Nürburgring. Komisija je s tem sklepom, katerega povzetek je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije (UL 2012, C 216, str. 14), pozvala zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo pripombe k zadevnim ukrepom. | 3 | By letter of 21 March 2012, the European Commission notified the Federal Republic of Germany that it had decided to initiate a formal investigation procedure, under Article 108(2) TFEU, in respect of the various support measures implemented between 2002 and 2012 in favour of the Nürburgring. By that decision, a summary of which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 216, p. 14), the Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures concerned. |
| 4 | Zaradi odobritve dodatnih ukrepov podpore, ki ju je Zvezna republika Nemčija priglasila Komisiji, se je ta odločila razširiti formalni postopek preiskave na ta nova ukrepa. Zvezna republika Nemčija je bila o tem sklepu obveščena z dopisom z dne 7. avgusta 2012. Komisija je s tem sklepom, katerega povzetek je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu (UL 2012, C 333, str. 1), pozvala zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo pripombe k dodatnima ukrepoma. | 4 | As a result of the granting of additional support measures which were notified to it by the Federal Republic of Germany, the Commission decided to extend the formal investigation procedure to those new measures. The decision was notified to the Federal Republic of Germany by letter of 7 August 2012. By that decision, a summary of which was published in the Official Journal (OJ 2012 C 333, p. 1), the Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on those additional measures. |
| 5 | Amtsgericht Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler (okrajno sodišče v Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweilerju, Nemčija) je 24. julija 2012 ugotovilo insolventnost prodajalcev. 1. novembra 2012 je uvedlo postopek zaradi insolventnosti v obliki samoupravljanja premoženja. Odločeno je bilo, da se prodajo sredstva prodajalcev (v nadaljevanju: prodaja sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring). Prodajalci so imenovali revizijsko družbo KPMG AG za pravnega in finančnega svetovalca. | 5 | On 24 July 2012, the Amtsgericht Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler (Local Court, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany) made a finding that the sellers were insolvent. On 1 November 2012 it opened insolvency proceedings with no declining of jurisdiction. It was decided to proceed to the sale of the sellers’ assets (‘the sale of the Nürburgring assets’). The sellers designated the auditing firm KPMG AG as legal and financial advisor. |
| 6 | 1. novembra 2012 je upravljanje kompleksa Nürburgring prevzela družba Nürburgring Betriebsgesellschaft mbH, ki je hčerinska družba v 100‑odstotni lasti enega od prodajalcev, in sicer podjetja Nürburgring, in sta jo ustanovila stečajna upravitelja, ki ju je imenovalo Amtsgericht Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler (okrajno sodišče v Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweilerju). | 6 | On 1 November 2012, management of the Nürburgring was entrusted to Nürburgring Betriebsgesellschaft mbH, a 100% subsidiary of one of the sellers, Nürburgring GmbH, consisting of the administrators designated by the Amtsgericht Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler (Local Court, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler). |
| 7 | 15. maja 2013 se je začel razpisni postopek za prodajo sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring (v nadaljevanju: razpisni postopek). | 7 | On 15 May 2013, a tender process for the sale of the Nürburgring assets was launched (‘the tender process’). |
| 8 | Komisija je 23. maja 2013 Zvezni republiki Nemčiji in stečajnima upraviteljema posredovala merila, ki jih mora izpolnjevati razpisni postopek, da se izključijo elementi državne pomoči, ter jih obvestila o obveznosti kupca, ki bi bil izbran, da vrne ugodnosti, ki bi mu bile morda dodeljene. Od oktobra 2012 so o tem potekali pogovori med Komisijo, Zvezno republiko Nemčijo in stečajnima upraviteljema. | 8 | On 23 May 2013, the Commission informed the Federal Republic of Germany and the administrators of the criteria which the tender process was required to meet in order to rule out any element of State aid and informed them of the obligation on the part of the successful buyer to reimburse such advantages as it might receive. Discussions had taken place in this regard between the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany and the administrators since October 2012. |
| 9 | Razpisni postopek je potekal tako: | – | razpisni postopek je bil objavljen 14. maja 2013 v sporočilu za javnost, ki ga je objavil eden od stečajnih upraviteljev; | – | družba KPMG je 15. maja 2013 objavila razpis za prijavo interesa v časnikih Financial Times in Handelsblatt ter na spletnem mestu kompleksa Nürburgring; | – | svoj interes je prijavilo 70 podjetij; | – | zainteresirani vlagatelji so z dopisom z dne 19. julija 2013 prejeli dokumente v zvezi s kompleksom Nürburgring in bili pozvani k predložitvi okvirnih ponudb, in sicer za vsa sredstva, za določene skupine sredstev ali za posamezna sredstva; | – | kot rok za predložitev okvirne ponudbe je bil zaporedoma določen 12. september 2013 z dopisom z dne 19. julija 2013 in nato 26. september 2013 z dopisom z dne 12. septembra 2013; v vsakem od teh dopisov je bilo navedeno, da bodo upoštevane tudi ponudbe, predložene po izteku roka; | – | do začetka februarja 2014 je 24 potencialnih kupcev oddalo okvirno ponudbo, med njimi tožeča stranka NeXovation, Inc., ameriško zasebno podjetje, dejavno na področju informacijskih tehnologij, izdelkov široke potrošnje, energetike in avtomobilizma; | – | za potencialne kupce, povabljene v naslednjo fazo razpisnega postopka, med katerimi je bila tožeča stranka, je bil kot rok za predložitev potrdilnih ponudb, ki so morale biti v celoti financirane in vključevati vnaprej sklenjen dogovor o odkupu sredstev, zaporedoma določen 11. december 2013 z dopisom z dne 17. oktobra 2013 in nato 17. februar 2014 z dopisom z dne 17. decembra 2013; v zadnjenavedenem dopisu je bilo navedeno, da bodo upoštevane tudi ponudbe, predložene po izteku roka, vendar je bilo pojasnjeno, da se lahko prodajalci o identiteti izbranega kupca odločijo kmalu po roku za oddajo ponudb; | – | potrdilno ponudbo je predložilo 13 potencialnih kupcev, od katerih so štirje predložili ponudbo za vsa sredstva, in sicer družba Capricorn Nürburgring Besitzgesellschaft GmbH (v nadaljevanju: Capricorn ali kupec), drugi ponudnik (v nadaljevanju: ponudnik 2), tožeča stranka in četrti potencialni kupec; | – | v skladu z dopisoma, naslovljenima na zainteresirane vlagatelje 19. julija in 17. oktobra 2013, naj bi bili vlagatelji izbrani ob upoštevanju zahtev po čim večjem povečanju vrednosti vseh sredstev na eni strani in zagotovitvi varnosti transakcije na drugi strani; na podlagi teh meril sta bili v zadnji fazi razpisnega postopka upoštevani ponudbi ponudnika 2 in družbe Capricorn, ki sta po eni strani predlagala prevzem vseh sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring in po drugi strani predložila dokaz o finančni trdnosti svojih ponudb 7. oziroma 11. marca 2014. S tema ponudnikoma sta bila sočasno sklenjena osnutka pogodb o odkupu; | – | 11. marca 2014 je odbor upnikov prodajalcev v okviru postopka zaradi insolventnosti prodajalcev odobril prodajo sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring družbi Capricorn, ki je ponudila 77 milijonov EUR, medtem ko je ponudba ponudnika 2 znašala med 47 in 52 milijonov EUR. | 9 | The tender process was carried out as follows: | – | The launch of the tender process was announced on 14 May 2013 with a press release issued by one of the administrators; | – | A call for tenders was published by KPMG in the Financial Times, the Handelsblatt and on the Nürburgring website on 15 May 2013; | – | 70 entities expressed their interest; | – | By letter of 19 July 2013, all interested investors received documentation on the Nürburgring and were invited to submit an indicative offer for the assets in their entirety, for defined asset clusters or for individual assets; | – | The deadline for the submission of an indicative offer was set successively to 12 September 2013, by letter of 19 July 2013, and then to 26 September 2013, by letter of 12 September 2013; each of those letters indicated that offers submitted after expiry of the deadline would also be considered; | – | At the beginning of February 2014, 24 potential buyers had submitted an indicative offer, including the applicant, NeXovation, Inc., a privately owned US undertaking operating in the information technology, consumer products, energy and automotive fields; | – | For the potential buyers invited to proceed to the next stage of the tender process, including the applicant, the deadline for the submission of confirmatory offers, which had to be fully financed and include a pre-negotiated asset purchase agreement, was set successively to 11 December 2013, by letter of 17 October 2013, and then to 17 February 2014, by letter of 17 December 2013; that last letter indicated that offers submitted after expiry of the deadline would also be considered, but pointed out that the sellers could nevertheless choose the successful buyer shortly after expiry of the deadline for the submission of offers; | – | 13 potential buyers submitted confirmatory offers, four of which submitted an offer for the assets in their entirety, namely Capricorn Nürburgring Besitzgesellschaft GmbH (‘Capricorn’ or ‘the buyer’), a second bidder (‘Bidder 2’), the applicant and a fourth potential buyer; | – | As set out in the letters sent to interested investors on 19 July and 17 October 2013, investors were to be selected on the basis of requirements relating to (i) the maximisation of the total proceeds for all the assets and (ii) transaction security; in accordance with those criteria, in the last stage of the tender process, the offers made by Bidder 2 and by Capricorn were considered, both of which (i) offered to buy all the Nürburgring assets and (ii) had provided proof of the financial solidity of their offers on 7 and 11 March 2014, respectively. Draft transfer agreements were negotiated with both tenderers simultaneously; | – | On 11 March 2014, the committee of the sellers’ creditors, in the context of the sellers’ insolvency proceedings, approved the sale of the Nürburgring assets to Capricorn, which offered EUR 77 million, while Bidder 2 offered between EUR 47 million and EUR 52 million. |
| 10 | Tožeča stranka je 10. aprila 2014 pri Komisiji vložila pritožbo, ker naj razpisni postopek ne bi bil odprt, pregleden, nediskriminatoren in brezpogojen ter naj ne bi privedel do prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring po tržni ceni, ker so bila ta sredstva prodana lokalnemu ponudniku, čigar ponudba je bila nižja od njene in ki je bil v okviru razpisnega postopka obravnavan ugodneje. Po navedbah tožeče stranke je torej družba Capricorn prejela pomoč, ki ustreza razliki med ceno, ki jo je morala plačati za nakup sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, in tržno ceno teh istih sredstev, ter zagotovila kontinuiteto gospodarskih dejavnosti prodajalcev, tako da bi moral biti sklep o vračilu pomoči, ki so jih prejeli prodajalci, razširjen na družbo Capricorn. | 10 | On 10 April 2014, the applicant filed a complaint with the Commission, on the ground that the tender process had not been open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional and had not achieved a market price for the sale of the Nürburgring assets, since the assets had been transferred to a domestic tenderer, whose offer was lower than the applicant’s offer and which had been preferred in the tender process. According to the applicant, there was thus aid in favour of Capricorn, corresponding to the difference between the purchase price it had to pay for the Nürburgring assets and the market price of those assets, and Capricorn ensured the continuity of the sellers’ economic activities, so that the decision on recovery of the aid received by the sellers ought to be extended to Capricorn. |
| B. Izpodbijana sklepa | B. The contested decisions |
| 11 | Komisija je 1. oktobra 2014 sprejela Sklep (EU) 2016/151 o državni pomoči SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN), ki jo je Nemčija odobrila za dirkališče Nürburgring (UL 2016, L 34, str. 1), 13. aprila 2015 pa popravek navedenega sklepa, objavljen na njenem spletnem mestu (v nadaljevanju skupaj: končni sklep). | 11 | The Commission adopted, on 1 October 2014, Decision (EU) 2016/151 on the State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 1) and, on 13 April 2015, a corrigendum to that decision, published on its website (together, ‘the final decision’). |
| 12 | Komisija je v členu 2 končnega sklepa ugotovila nezakonitost nekaterih ukrepov podpore v korist prodajalcev (v nadaljevanju: pomoči prodajalcem) in njihovo nezdružljivost z notranjim trgom. | 12 | In Article 2 of the final decision, the Commission found that certain support measures in favour of the sellers were unlawful and incompatible with the internal market (‘the aid to the sellers’). |
| 13 | Komisija je v členu 3(2) končnega sklepa odločila, da morebitno vračilo pomoči prodajalcem ne zadeva družbe Capricorn in njenih hčerinskih družb (v nadaljevanju: prvi izpodbijani sklep). | 13 | The Commission decided, in Article 3(2) of the final decision, that any potential recovery of the aid to the sellers would not concern Capricorn or its subsidiaries (‘the first contested decision’). |
| 14 | Komisija je v členu 1, zadnja alinea, končnega sklepa ugotovila, da prodaja sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring družbi Capricorn ne pomeni državne pomoči (v nadaljevanju: drugi izpodbijani sklep). | 14 | In the final indent of Article 1 of the final decision, the Commission determined that the sale of the Nürburgring assets to Capricorn did not constitute State aid (‘the second contested decision’). |
| 15 | Komisija je namreč menila, da je bil razpisni postopek voden odprto, pregledno in nediskriminatorno, da je privedel do prodajne cene, skladne s trgom, ter da med prodajalci in kupcem ni gospodarske kontinuitete. | 15 | The Commission took the view that the tender process had been conducted in an open, transparent and non-discriminatory manner, that that procedure had resulted in a sale price consistent with the market and that there was no economic continuity between the sellers and the buyer. |
| II. Postopek in predlogi strank | II. Procedure and forms of order sought |
| 16 | Tožeča stranka je 26. junija 2015 v sodnem tajništvu Splošnega sodišča vložila to tožbo. | 16 | By application lodged at the Court Registry on 26 June 2015, the applicant brought the present action. |
| 17 | Komisija je z dopisom z dne 15. oktobra 2015 prosila za prevod nekaterih prilog k tožbi v jezik postopka. | 17 | By letter of 15 October 2015, the Commission submitted a request for the translation of certain annexes to the application into the language of the case. |
| 18 | Prodajalci so 3. novembra 2015 v sodnem tajništvu Splošnega sodišča vložili predlog za intervencijo v tej zadevi v podporo predlogom Komisije. Predsednik osmega senata Splošnega sodišča je s sklepom z dne 18. aprila 2016 to intervencijo dopustil. | 18 | By document lodged at the Court Registry on 3 November 2015, the sellers sought leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the Commission. By order of 18 April 2016, the President of the Eighth Chamber of the General Court granted that leave to intervene. |
| 19 | Prodajalci so z dopisom, ki so ga v sodnem tajništvu Splošnega sodišča vložili 3. maja 2016, to sodišče obvestili o umiku svoje intervencije. | 19 | By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 3 May 2016, the sellers informed the Court that they were withdrawing their intervention. |
| 20 | Prodajalci so bili s sklepom predsednika osmega senata Splošnega sodišča z dne 6. julija 2016 izbrisani iz vpisnika Splošnega sodišča kot intervenienti in naloženo jim je bilo, da nosijo svoje stroške in stroške drugih strank v zvezi z njihovo intervencijo. | 20 | By order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the General Court of 6 July 2016, the sellers were removed from the Court Register as interveners and ordered to bear their own costs and pay those of the other parties relating to their intervention. |
| 21 | S sklepom predsednika Splošnega sodišča z dne 3. oktobra 2016 je bil določen nov sodnik poročevalec in zadeva je bila dodeljena prvemu senatu Splošnega sodišča. | 21 | By decision of the President of the General Court of 3 October 2016 a new Judge-Rapporteur was designated and the case was assigned to the First Chamber of the General Court. |
| 22 | Splošno sodišče je 31. julija 2017 v okviru ukrepov procesnega vodstva iz člena 89 Poslovnika Splošnega sodišča postavilo pisno vprašanje Komisiji in jo pozvalo, naj nanj pisno odgovori. Komisija je stališča v odgovor predložila 6. septembra 2017. | 22 | On 31 July 2017, by way of the measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the Court put a written question to the Commission, asking it to reply in writing. The Commission lodged its observations in response on 6 September 2017. |
| 23 | Splošno sodišče je na predlog prvega senata na podlagi člena 28 Poslovnika odločilo, da zadevo predodeli razširjeni sestavi. | 23 | Acting on a proposal from the First Chamber, the Court decided, pursuant to Article 28 of its Rules of Procedure, to refer the case to a chamber sitting in extended composition. |
| 24 | Splošno sodišče (prvi razširjeni senat) je 29. novembra 2017 odločilo, da začne ustni del postopka, in v okviru ukrepov procesnega vodstva iz člena 89 Poslovnika pozvalo stranki, naj predložita določene dokumente, ter jima postavilo pisna vprašanja in ju pozvalo, naj nanje pisno odgovorita. Tožeča stranka je svoja stališča v odgovor predložila 14. decembra 2017 in 8. januarja 2018, Komisija pa 13. in 21. decembra 2017. | 24 | On 29 November 2017, the Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) decided to open the oral part of the procedure and, by way of the measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89 of its Rules of Procedure, asked the parties to lodge certain documents and put to them written questions, asking them to reply in writing. The parties lodged their observations in response on 14 December 2017 and 8 January 2018, in the case of the applicant, and on 13 and 21 December 2017, in the case of the Commission. |
| 25 | Komisija je z ločenim aktom, vloženim v sodnem tajništvu Splošnega sodišča 24. januarja 2018, Splošnemu sodišču na podlagi člena 130(2) Poslovnika predlagala, naj ugotovi, da je ta tožba postala brezpredmetna in da je treba postopek v zvezi s to tožbo ustaviti. | 25 | By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 24 January 2018, the Commission sought from the Court, under Article 130(2) of the Rules of Procedure, a decision that the present action had become devoid of purpose and that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on it. |
| 26 | Stranki sta na obravnavi 30. januarja 2018 podali ustne navedbe in odgovorili na vprašanja Splošnega sodišča. Komisija je istega dne predložila svoja stališča glede poročila za obravnavo. | 26 | The parties presented oral argument, and answered the questions put to them by the Court, at the hearing on 30 January 2018. On the same day, the Commission lodged its observations on the report for the hearing. |
| 27 | Splošno sodišče je 6. marca 2018 v okviru ukrepov procesnega vodstva iz člena 89 Poslovnika pozvalo stranki, naj predložita določene dokumente, ter jima postavilo pisna vprašanja in ju pozvalo, naj nanje pisno odgovorita. Splošno sodišče je na podlagi člena 24 Statuta Sodišča Evropske unije tudi Zvezno republiko Nemčijo pozvalo k predložitvi določenih dokumentov, ji postavilo pisna vprašanja in jo pozvalo, naj nanje pisno odgovori. Stranki in Zvezna republika Nemčija so svoja stališča v odgovor predložile 27. marca 2018 ter 4. in 9. aprila 2018. | 27 | On 6 March 2018, by way of the measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court asked the parties to lodge certain documents and put to them written questions, asking them to reply in writing. In accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court also requested the Federal Republic of Germany to lodge certain documents and put to it written questions, asking it to reply in writing. The parties and the Federal Republic of Germany lodged their observations in response on 27 March 2018 and on 4 and 9 April 2018. |
| 28 | Tožeča stranka je 18. maja 2018 predložila stališča glede predloga Komisije za ustavitev postopka. | 28 | On 18 May 2018, the applicant lodged its observations on the Commission’s application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate. |
| 29 | Ustni del postopka je bil končan 12. junija 2018. | 29 | On 12 June 2018, the oral part of the procedure was closed. |
| 30 | Komisija je z aktom, vloženim v sodnem tajništvu Splošnega sodišča 20. julija 2018, na podlagi člena 113(2) Poslovnika vložila predlog za ponovno odprtje ustnega dela postopka. S sklepom predsednika prvega razširjenega senata Splošnega sodišča z dne 16. avgusta 2018 je bil ta predlog zavrnjen. | 30 | By document lodged at the Court Registry on 20 July 2018, the Commission submitted an application under Article 113(2) of the Rules of Procedure for reopening the oral part of the procedure. By decision of the President of the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of 16 August 2018, that application was rejected. |
| 31 | Tožeča stranka v okviru glavnega postopka Splošnemu sodišču predlaga, naj: | – | razglasi ničnost prvega in drugega izpodbijanega sklepa; | – | Komisiji naloži plačilo stroškov. | 31 | In the context of the main proceedings, the applicant claims that the Court should: | – | annul the first and second contested decisions; | – | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| 32 | Komisija v okviru istega postopka Splošnemu sodišču predlaga, naj: | – | tožbo zavrže kot delno nedopustno in zavrne kot delno neutemeljeno oziroma podredno zavrne kot neutemeljeno; | – | tožeči stranki naloži plačilo stroškov. | 32 | In the context of those proceedings, the Commission contends that the Court should: | – | dismiss the application as inadmissible in part and unfounded in part or, in the alternative, as unfounded; | – | order the applicant to pay the costs. |
| 33 | Komisija v okviru incidenčnega postopka Splošnemu sodišču predlaga, naj ugotovi, da je treba postopek v zvezi s tožbo ustaviti, ne da bi se izrecno izrekla o stroških. | 33 | In the context of the interlocutory procedure, the Commission claims that the Court should find that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the case, without making any express application for costs. |
| 34 | Tožeča stranka v okviru istega postopka Splošnemu sodišču predlaga, naj zavrne predlog Komisije za ustavitev postopka, ne da bi se izrecno izrekla o stroških. | 34 | In the context of that procedure, the applicant claims that the Court should dismiss the Commission’s application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate, without making any express application for costs. |
| III. Pravo | III. Law |
| 35 | V okoliščinah obravnavanega primera je treba odločanje o predlogu Komisije za ustavitev postopka združiti z odločanjem po vsebini in ga preučiti skupaj s predlogoma za razglasitev ničnosti prvega in drugega izpodbijanega sklepa, ki ju je tožeča stranka vložila v glavnem postopku. | 35 | In the circumstances of the present case, the Court’s decision on the Commission’s application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate must be considered together with the substance of the case and it must be examined jointly with the applications for annulment of the first and second contested decisions formulated by the applicant in the main proceedings. |
| A. Dopustnost predloga za razglasitev ničnosti prvega izpodbijanega sklepa | A. Admissibility of the application for annulment of the first contested decision |
| 36 | Tožeča stranka želi najprej doseči razglasitev ničnosti prvega izpodbijanega sklepa, s katerim je Komisija, potem ko je ugotovila, da ni gospodarske kontinuitete med prodajalci in kupcem, odločila, da morebitno vračilo pomoči prodajalcem ne zadeva kupca. | 36 | The applicant seeks, first, annulment of the first contested decision, whereby the Commission, after finding that there was no economic continuity between the sellers and the buyer, decided that any potential recovery of the aid to the sellers would not concern the buyer. |
| 37 | Tožeča stranka namreč z drugim tožbenim razlogom, ki se nanaša na napačno razlago načela gospodarske kontinuitete, zlasti navaja, da – ob upoštevanju tega, da prodaja sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring ni bila izvedena po tržni ceni, ker razpisni postopek ni bil odprt, pregleden, nediskriminatoren in brezpogojen ter ker sredstva kompleksa Nürburgring niso bila prodana najboljšemu ponudniku – med prodajalci in kupcem obstaja gospodarska kontinuiteta, zaradi katere je treba sklep o vračilu pomoči prodajalcem razširiti na družbo Capricorn. | 37 | By its second plea, alleging misinterpretation of the principle of economic continuity, the applicant submits, inter alia, that since the sale of the Nürburgring assets did not achieve a market price, because the tender process was not open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional and the Nürburgring assets were not sold to the highest bidder, there is economic continuity between the sellers and the buyer requiring that the decision on recovery of the aid to the sellers be extended to Capricorn. |
| 38 | Tožeča stranka trdi, da je bil prvi izpodbijani sklep sprejet ob koncu postopka predhodne preučitve in ne formalnega postopka preiskave, ker se sklepa o uvedbi formalnega postopka z dne 21. marca in 7. avgusta 2012 nista nanašala na vprašanje, ali je bila pomoč izplačana družbi Capricorn. | 38 | According to the applicant, the first contested decision was adopted after a preliminary examination procedure, rather than a formal investigation procedure, since the decisions of 21 March and 7 August 2012 to initiate the formal procedure did not cover the issue of whether aid had been granted to Capricorn. |
| 39 | Komisija je v odgovoru na tožbo navedla, da je tožba nedopustna v delu, v katerem se nanaša na izpodbijanje prvega izpodbijanega sklepa. Med drugim je poudarila, da ker gre za sklep, ki je povezan s sklepom, sprejetim ob koncu formalnega postopka preiskave, s katerim je ugotovljen obstoj nezdružljivih pomoči, ki jih je treba vrniti, in ki ta sklep dopolnjuje, se ne more šteti, da se posamično nanaša na tožečo stranko že samo zato, ker je bila dokazano zainteresirana stranka, temveč mora tožeča stranka dokazati, da je pomoč prodajalcem znatno vplivala na njen položaj na trgu, tako da je bila v dejanskem položaju, zaradi katerega je bila individualizirana na podoben način, kot bi bil individualiziran naslovnik takega sklepa. Vpliv na položaj tožeče stranke na trgu pa naj ne bi bil drugačen od vpliva na položaj drugega ponudnika. | 39 | In its defence, the Commission claimed that the action is inadmissible, in so far as it seeks to challenge the first contested decision. It argued, inter alia, that, since it is a decision which is related and complementary to the decision adopted after a formal investigation procedure establishing the presence of incompatible aid to be recovered, the applicant cannot be regarded as individually concerned merely by demonstrating that it is an interested party, but that it must show that its position on the market was substantially affected by the aid to the sellers, with the result that its circumstances distinguish it individually just as the person addressed by such a decision would have been. According to the Commission, however, the applicant’s position on the market was affected no differently to that of any other tenderer. |
| 40 | Vendar je Komisija pozneje Splošnemu sodišču predlagala, naj ustavi postopek odločanja o tožbi, vključno s predlogom za razglasitev ničnosti prvega izpodbijanega sklepa, ker naj tožeča stranka ne bi imela več nobenega pravnega interesa. | 40 | Subsequently, however, the Commission concluded that there was no longer any need for the Court to adjudicate on the case, including on the application for annulment of the first contested decision, on the ground that the applicant had lost any legal interest in bringing an action. |
| 41 | V obravnavanem primeru je treba začeti s preučitvijo ugovora nedopustnosti, ki ga posebej uveljavlja Komisija v odgovoru na tožbo v zvezi s predlogom za razglasitev ničnosti prvega izpodbijanega sklepa. | 41 | In the present case, it is appropriate to begin by examining the plea of inadmissibility specifically raised by the Commission in its defence with regard to the application for annulment of the first contested decision. |
| 42 | Tožeča stranka v odgovor na ta ugovor nedopustnosti trdi zlasti, da je odobritev pomoči v zvezi s prodajo sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring družbi Capricorn znatno vplivala na njen položaj na trgu, ker je bila zaradi dodelitve teh sredstev izključena hkrati s trga nakupa kompleksa Nürburgring in trga njegovega upravljanja. | 42 | In response to this plea of inadmissibility, the applicant’s main argument is that its position on the market was substantially affected by the granting of aid related to the sale of the Nürburgring assets to Capricorn, since it was removed, through the award of those assets, both from the market for the purchase of the Nürburgring and from the market for its operation. |
| 43 | Na prvem mestu je treba opozoriti, da je Sodišče v sodbi z dne 17. septembra 2015, Mory in drugi/Komisija (C‑33/14 P, EU:C:2015:609, točka 104), razsodilo, da je treba sklep, ki se nanaša na gospodarsko kontinuiteto, šteti za sklep, ki je „povezan“ s predhodnim končnim sklepom o zadevnih pomočeh „in ga dopolnjuje“, ker je zaradi dogodka, ki se je zgodil po sprejetju zadnjenavedenega sklepa – kot je prevzem tretje osebe sredstev prvotnega upravičenca do navedene pomoči – z njim pojasnjen domet glede statusa upravičenca do teh pomoči in s tem glede statusa dolžnika, ki je zavezan vrniti pomoči. | 43 | In the first place, it must be recalled that, in its judgment of 17 September 2015, Mory and Others v Commission (C‑33/14 P, EU:C:2015:609, paragraph 104), the Court of Justice held that a decision on economic continuity must be regarded as a decision which is ‘related and complementary’ to the final decision preceding it on the aid concerned, in so far as it defines the scope thereof as regards the status of beneficiary of that aid and, therefore, as regards that of the party obliged to repay that aid, following the occurrence of an event after the adoption of that decision, such as the acquisition by a third party of the assets of the initial beneficiary of that aid. |
| 44 | V obravnavanem primeru je Komisija s prvim izpodbijanim sklepom, potem ko je ugotovila, da ni gospodarske kontinuitete med prodajalci in kupcem, odločila, da morebitno vračilo pomoči prodajalcem ne zadeva kupca. | 44 | In the present case, by the first contested decision, the Commission, after finding that there was no economic continuity between the sellers and the buyer, decided that any potential recovery of the aid to the sellers would not concern the buyer. |
| 45 | Ugotoviti je torej treba, da je prvi izpodbijani sklep „povezan“ s sklepom, sprejetim ob koncu formalnega postopka preiskave v zvezi s pomočmi prodajalcem, „in ga dopolnjuje“. | 45 | It is therefore appropriate to find that the first contested decision is a decision which is ‘related and complementary’ to the decision on the aid to the sellers, taken after the formal investigation procedure. |
| 46 | Na drugem mestu je treba opozoriti, da člen 263, četrti odstavek, PDEU določa, da lahko „[f]izične ali pravne osebe […] pod pogoji iz prvega in drugega odstavka vložijo tožbe zoper nanje naslovljene akte ali zoper akte, ki se nanje neposredno in posamično nanašajo, in zoper predpise, ki se nanje neposredno nanašajo, a ne potrebujejo izvedbenih ukrepov“. | 46 | In the second place, it should be recalled that, under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, ‘any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures’. |
| 47 | Ker se prvi izpodbijani sklep nanaša na pomoči prodajalcem, ki so bile odobrene v obliki posamičnih pomoči in ne v okviru sheme pomoči, ga ni mogoče enačiti s predpisom v smislu člena 263, četrti odstavek, PDEU. | 47 | In so far as the first contested decision concerns the aid to the sellers, which was granted as individual aid and not under an aid scheme, that aid cannot be equated with a regulatory act within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. |
| 48 | V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso lahko drugi subjekti, ki niso naslovniki odločbe, trdijo, da se ta odločba nanje posamično nanaša, le če vpliva nanje zaradi nekaterih njihovih posebnih značilnosti ali zaradi posebnega položaja, zaradi katerega se razlikujejo od vseh drugih oseb, in ki jih zato individualizira podobno kot naslovnika te odločbe (sodbi z dne 15. julija 1963, Plaumann/Komisija, 25/62, EU:C:1963:17, str. 223, in z dne 19. maja 1993, Cook/Komisija, C‑198/91, EU:C:1993:197, točka 20). | 48 | According to a consistent body of case-law, persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned by that decision only if it affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed by such a decision (judgments of 15 July 1963, Plaumann v Commission, 25/62, EU:C:1963:17, p. 107, and of 19 May 1993, Cook v Commission, C‑198/91, EU:C:1993:197, paragraph 20). |
| 49 | Na področju državnih pomoči je bilo med drugim potrjeno, da se sklep Komisije, s katerim se je končal formalni postopek preiskave, posamično nanaša na podjetje, ki prejema pomoč, in na konkurenčna podjetja tega podjetja, ki so imela aktivno vlogo v okviru tega postopka, če zadevni ukrep pomoči bistveno vpliva na njihov položaj na trgu (glej sodbo z dne 17. septembra 2015, Mory in drugi/Komisija, C‑33/14 P, EU:C:2015:609, točka 98 in navedena sodna praksa; glej v tem smislu tudi sodbo z dne 5. novembra 2014, Vtesse Networks/Komisija, T‑362/10, EU:T:2014:928, točka 53 in navedena sodna praksa). | 49 | Concerning State aid, in addition to the undertaking in receipt of aid, competing undertakings have been recognised as individually concerned by a Commission decision terminating the formal examination procedure where they have played an active role in that procedure, provided that their position on the market is substantially affected by the aid concerned (see judgment of 17 September 2015, Mory and Others v Commission, C‑33/14 P, EU:C:2015:609, paragraph 98 and the case-law cited; see also, to that effect, judgment of 5 November 2014, Vtesse Networks v Commission, T‑362/10, EU:T:2014:928, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited). |
| 50 | Merilo znatnega vpliva omogoča identifikacijo konkurentov, ki jih pomoč individualizira tako, da izpolnjujejo pogoje za dopustnost, kot so navedeni v sodbi z dne 15. julija 1963, Plaumann/Komisija (25/62, EU:C:1963:17). Pomoč torej označuje konkurente, ki imajo procesno upravičenje, v razmerju do vseh drugih oseb in jih individualizira podobno kot naslovnika izpodbijane odločbe. Obstoj znatnega vpliva na položaj tožeče stranke na trgu torej ni neposredno odvisen od višine zadevne pomoči, ampak od stopnje vpliva, ki ga ta pomoč lahko ima na navedeni položaj. Tak vpliv se za pomoči v podobnem znesku lahko razlikuje glede na merila, kot so velikost zadevnega trga, posebna narava pomoči, dolžina obdobja, za katero je bila pomoč dodeljena, to, ali je dejavnost, za katero je pomoč dodeljena, primarna ali sekundarna dejavnost tožeče stranke, in možnosti tožeče stranke, da se izogne negativnim učinkom pomoči (glej sodbo z dne 5. novembra 2014, Vtesse Networks/Komisija, T‑362/10, EU:T:2014:928, točka 41 in navedena sodna praksa). | 50 | The criterion of substantial effect serves to identify competitors that, as a result of aid, are distinguished individually in such a manner that they fulfil the requirements for admissibility as laid down in the judgment of 15 July 1963, Plaumann v Commission (25/62, EU:C:1963:17). Accordingly, competitors that have standing to bring an action are affected by that aid by being differentiated from all other persons and distinguished individually just as in the case of the person to whom the decision under challenge is addressed. Thus, the existence of a substantial effect on the applicant’s position on the market does not depend directly on the amount of the aid at issue, but on the significance of the adverse effect which that aid may have on that position. Such an adverse effect may vary, in respect of aid of a similar amount, in the light of criteria such as the size of the market concerned, the specific nature of the aid, the length of the period for which it was granted, whether the activity affected is the applicant’s main or ancillary activity, and the possibilities which the applicant has to circumvent the negative effects of the aid (see judgment of 5 November 2014, Vtesse Networks v Commission, T‑362/10, EU:T:2014:928, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). |
| 51 | Zgolj status potencialnega konkurenta torej ne zadostuje, da bi imel posameznik pravico do vložitve tožbe pri sodišču Evropske unije za izpodbijanje odločbe, ki jo Komisija sprejme ob koncu formalnega postopka preiskave. | 51 | The mere status of potential competitor is therefore insufficient to confer on an individual the right to bring an action before the EU Courts in order to challenge a decision adopted by the Commission after a formal investigation procedure. |
| 52 | V obravnavanem primeru je treba ugotoviti, da je tožeča stranka imela dejavno vlogo v postopku, ki je pripeljal do sprejetja prvega izpodbijanega sklepa, saj je 10. aprila 2014 vložila pritožbo, ker naj bi bil razpisni postopek nezakonit in ker naj bi bilo treba sklep o vračilu pomoči prodajalcem razširiti na kupca. | 52 | In the present case, it is appropriate to find that the applicant played an active role in the procedure that preceded the adoption of the first contested decision, in that it lodged a complaint on 10 April 2014 on the ground that the tender process was unlawful and the decision on recovery of the aid to the sellers ought to be extended to the buyer. |
| 53 | Vendar iz sodne prakse, navedene v točki 49 zgoraj, izhaja, da ni mogoče zgolj na podlagi sodelovanja tožeče stranke v upravnem postopku sklepati, da ima ta procesno upravičenje. Tožeča stranka mora vsekakor dokazati, da so lahko pomoči prodajalcem znatno vplivale na njen položaj na trgu. | 53 | It is, however, clear from the case-law cited in paragraph 49 above that it cannot be inferred solely from the applicant’s participation in the administrative procedure that it has standing to bring an action. The applicant must, in any event, show that the aid to the sellers was likely to affect substantially its position on the market. |
| 54 | Komisija je v točki 20 obrazložitve končnega sklepa navedla, da so se ukrepi podpore v korist prodajalcev nanašali na financiranje gradnje in delovanja objektov kompleksa Nürburgring. Poleg tega je v točkah od 173 do 176 in 178 obrazložitve istega sklepa ugotovila, da so trgi, na katerih bi bila lahko konkurenca izkrivljena zaradi teh ukrepov, trgi upravljanja dirkališč, parkov za terensko vožnjo, zabaviščnih parkov, nastanitvenih objektov, restavracij, centrov varne vožnje, avtošol, večnamenskih dvoran, negotovinskih plačilnih sistemov ter trgi spodbujanja turizma, razvoja projektov, gradnje nepremičnin, vodenja podjetij in trgovine z avtomobili ali motornimi kolesi (v nadaljevanju: upoštevni trgi). Nazadnje, Komisija je v točki 180 obrazložitve navedenega sklepa pojasnila, da se lahko za upoštevne trge šteje, da imajo evropsko razsežnost. | 54 | In recital 20 of the final decision, the Commission stated that the support measures in favour of the sellers concerned the financing of the construction and operation of the Nürburgring facilities. In addition, in recitals 173 to 176 and 178 of the final decision, the Commission noted that the markets on which competition was likely to be distorted as a result of those measures were those concerning the operation of race tracks, off-road parks, leisure parks, accommodation facilities, restaurants, safety driving centres, driving schools, multifunctional halls, and cash-free payment systems as well as those concerning the promotion of tourism, project development, the construction of real property, business management and trade with cars or motor bikes (‘the relevant markets’). Lastly, in recital 180 of the final decision, the Commission indicated that the relevant markets could be considered to be EU-wide. |
| 55 | V odgovor na eno od vprašanj, ki jih je postavilo Splošno sodišče v okviru ukrepov procesnega vodstva, sprejetih 29. novembra 2017 (glej točko 24 zgoraj), je tožeča stranka priznala, da ob vložitvi tožbe in pred tem datumom ni bila prisotna na upoštevnih trgih. Zato ni imela nobenega položaja na upoštevnih trgih, na katerega bi lahko pomoči prodajalcem vplivale, kaj šele znatno. | 55 | In response to one of the questions put by the Court in the context of the measures of organisation of procedure adopted on 29 November 2017 (see paragraph 24 above), the applicant conceded that, at the time of submitting the application and before that, it was not present on the relevant markets. Therefore, it held no position on the relevant markets that was likely to be affected, let alone substantially, by the aid to the sellers. |
| 56 | Ker tožeča stranka v bistvu trdi, da bi lahko kupila sredstva kompleksa Nürburgring in s tem vstopila na upoštevne trge, če ne bi bila v okviru razpisnega postopka obravnavana diskriminatorno (glej točko 10 zgoraj), ter da je imela težave pri nakupu ali upravljanju drugih dirkališč zaradi izgube ugleda in negativne publicitete zaradi neuspeha v razpisnem postopku, je treba poudariti, da njeni argumenti na sodišču Unije in ob upoštevanju sodne prakse, navedene v točkah od 49 do 51 zgoraj, ne morejo zadostovati, da bi jo individualizirali glede na pomoči prodajalcem in prvi izpodbijani sklep, tako da bi izpolnjevala pogoje za dopustnost, kot so navedeni v sodbi z dne 15. julija 1963, Plaumann/Komisija (25/62, EU:C:1963:17). | 56 | To the extent that the applicant submits, in essence, that it would have been able to acquire the Nürburgring assets and, therefore, enter the relevant markets, had it not been discriminated against in the tender process (see paragraph 10 above), and that it found it difficult to acquire or operate other race tracks, due to the loss of reputation and the negative publicity resulting from the setback in the tender process, it must be pointed out that its arguments cannot suffice, before the EU Courts and in the light of the case-law cited in paragraphs 49 to 51 above, to distinguish it individually with regard to the aid to the sellers and the first contested decision, in such a manner as to fulfil the requirements for admissibility laid down in the judgment of 15 July 1963, Plaumann v Commission (25/62, EU:C:1963:17). |
| 57 | Iz tega izhaja, da tožeča stranka ni dokazala, da jo prvi izpodbijani sklep posamično zadeva. | 57 | It follows that the applicant has not shown that it is individually concerned by the first contested decision. |
| 58 | Opozoriti pa je treba, da so pogoji za dopustnost tožbe kumulativni (sodba z dne 28. marca 2012, Ryanair/Komisija, T‑123/09, EU:T:2012:164, točka 199). Tako je treba – ne da bi bilo treba preučiti pravni interes tožeče stranke, da predlaga razglasitev ničnosti prvega izpodbijanega sklepa, in še toliko manj predlog Komisije za ustavitev postopka, ki temelji na tem, da je tožeča stranka izgubila pravni interes za vložitev predloga za razglasitev ničnosti tega sklepa – tožbo razglasiti za nedopustno v delu, v katerem se nanaša na razglasitev ničnosti navedenega sklepa, saj se ta sklep na tožečo stranko ne nanaša posamično. | 58 | It should be remembered that the conditions for the admissibility of an action are cumulative (judgment of 28 March 2012, Ryanair v Commission, T‑123/09, EU:T:2012:164, paragraph 199). Thus, without there being any need to examine the applicant’s interest in bringing an action for annulment of the first contested decision, let alone the Commission’s application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate based on the applicant’s loss of its legal interest in bringing an action for annulment of the first contested decision, it is appropriate to find that the action is inadmissible, in so far as it seeks annulment of the first decision, for lack of individual effect. |
| B. Predlog za razglasitev ničnosti drugega izpodbijanega sklepa | B. The application for annulment of the second contested decision |
| 59 | Tožeča stranka želi doseči tudi razglasitev ničnosti drugega izpodbijanega sklepa, s katerim je Komisija ugotovila, da prodaja sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring družbi Capricorn ne pomeni državne pomoči. | 59 | The applicant also seeks annulment of the second contested decision, whereby the Commission determined that the sale of the Nürburgring assets to Capricorn did not constitute State aid. |
| 1. Dopustnost in predlog za ustavitev postopka | 1. Admissibility and the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate |
| 60 | Komisija v odgovoru na tožbo ni izrazila pomisleka glede dopustnosti tožbe v delu, v katerem se nanaša na drugi izpodbijani sklep. Vendar je pozneje Splošnemu sodišču predlagala, naj ustavi postopek odločanja o tožbi, vključno s predlogom za razglasitev ničnosti drugega izpodbijanega sklepa, ker naj tožeča stranka ne bi imela več nobenega pravnega interesa. V tem okviru je tudi izpodbijala procesno upravičenje tožeče stranke glede drugega izpodbijanega sklepa. | 60 | In its defence, the Commission expressed no doubt as to the admissibility of the action, in so far as it concerns the second contested decision. Subsequently, however, the Commission concluded that there was no longer any need for the Court to adjudicate, including on the application for annulment of the second contested decision, on the ground that the applicant had lost any legal interest in bringing an action. In that respect, the Commission also challenged the applicant’s standing to bring an action with regard to the second contested decision. |
| 61 | V obravnavanem primeru je treba najprej preučiti, ali ima tožeča stranka procesno upravičenje za vložitev predloga za razglasitev ničnosti drugega izpodbijanega sklepa, nato pa preiskati, v kakšni meri ima in ohrani interes za dosego take razglasitve ničnosti. | 61 | In the present case, it is appropriate to start by examining whether the applicant has standing to bring an action for annulment of the second contested decision, before exploring the extent to which it has and retains a legal interest in securing that annulment. |
| 62 | V zvezi s procesnim upravičenjem tožeče stranke, ta trdi, da se drugi izpodbijani sklep neposredno in posamično nanaša nanjo. S tega vidika in v skladu s sodno prakso naj bi njena posebna lastnost, da je „zainteresirana stranka“ v smislu člena 1(h) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena [108 PDEU] (UL, posebna izdaja v slovenščini, poglavje 8, zvezek 1, str. 339), povezana s konkretnim predmetom tožbe, zadostovala za njeno individualizacijo v smislu člena 263, četrti odstavek, PDEU. Nazadnje, na njen položaj na trgu naj bi znatno vplivala pomoč, ki naj bi bila odobrena kupcu v okviru razpisnega postopka. | 62 | As to its standing, the applicant maintains that it is directly and individually concerned by the second contested decision. In that regard and according to the case-law, the applicant claims that its specific status of ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 [TFEU] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1), in conjunction with the specific subject matter of the action, is sufficient to distinguish it individually, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. Lastly, it submits that its position on the market was substantially affected by the aid allegedly granted to the buyer in the tender process. |
| 63 | Komisija v predlogu za ustavitev postopka navaja, da tožeča stranka ne more utemeljiti tega, da je zainteresirana stranka, s tem, da je potencialni kupec sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, ker je Zvezna republika Nemčija v dopisu z dne 26. aprila 2016, naslovljenem na Komisijo, navedla, da je družba Capricorn plačala celotno nakupno ceno za ta sredstva in se odpovedala pravici do odpovedi prodajne pogodbe, če bi Komisija sprejela sklep o izterjavi pomoči prodajalcem od nje. Komisija trdi tudi, da tožeča stranka ne more utemeljiti tega, da je zainteresirana stranka, s tem, da je konkurentka družbe Capricorn, saj je mogoče na podlagi njenih odgovorov na vprašanja, ki jih je postavilo Splošno sodišče v okviru ukrepov procesnega vodstva, sprejetih 29. novembra 2017 (glej točko 24 zgoraj), ugotoviti, da tožeča stranka ni bila dejavna na upoštevnih trgih. | 63 | In its application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate, the Commission claims that the applicant cannot base its status of interested party on its status of potential buyer of the Nürburgring assets since, in a letter of 26 April 2016 addressed to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany stated that Capricorn had paid the purchase price of those assets in full and had waived its right to terminate the sales agreement in the event that the Commission should decide to recover the aid to the sellers from it. The Commission also submits that the applicant cannot base its status of interested party on its status of competitor of Capricorn either, since its replies to the questions put by the Court in the context of the measure of organisation of procedure adopted on 29 November 2017 (see paragraph 24 above) establish that the applicant was not active on the relevant markets. |
| 64 | V okviru postopka nadzora nad državnimi pomočmi je treba razlikovati med, prvič, fazo predhodne preučitve pomoči iz člena 108(3) PDEU, katere edini cilj je omogočiti Komisiji, da si oblikuje prvo mnenje o delni ali popolni združljivosti zadevne pomoči, in drugič, fazo preiskave iz člena 108(2) PDEU, katere namen je Komisiji omogočiti, da ima celovite informacije o vseh podrobnostih zadeve. Le v okviru postopka, ki ga predvideva zadnjenavedena določba, Pogodba DEU določa procesno jamstvo, ki pomeni obveznost Komisije, da zainteresirane stranke pozove k predložitvi pripomb (sodbe z dne 19. maja 1993, Cook/Komisija, C‑198/91, EU:C:1993:197, točka 22; z dne 15. junija 1993, Matra/Komisija, C‑225/91, EU:C:1993:239, točka 16, in z dne 17. julija 2008, Athinaïki Techniki/Komisija, C‑521/06 P, EU:C:2008:422, točka 35). | 64 | In the context of the procedure for reviewing State aid, the preliminary examination stage for reviewing aid under Article 108(3) TFEU, which is intended merely to allow the Commission to form a prima facie opinion on the partial or complete conformity of the aid in question, must be distinguished from the investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU, which is designed to enable the Commission to be fully informed of all the facts of the case. It is only in connection with the procedure laid down in the latter provision that the FEU Treaty imposes the procedural guarantee consisting in the obligation, for the Commission, to give the parties concerned notice to submit their comments (judgments of 19 May 1993, Cook v Commission, C‑198/91, EU:C:1993:197, paragraph 22; of 15 June 1993, Matra v Commission, C‑225/91, EU:C:1993:239, paragraph 16; and of 17 July 2008, Athinaïki Techniki v Commission, C‑521/06 P, EU:C:2008:422, paragraph 35). |
| 65 | Kadar Komisija, ne da bi uvedla formalni postopek preiskave iz člena 108(2) PDEU, s sklepom, sprejetim na podlagi odstavka 3 tega člena, ugotovi, da državni ukrep ne pomeni pomoči, ki ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, lahko osebe, ki so upravičene do tega procesnega jamstva, spoštovanje teh jamstev uveljavljajo, le če imajo možnost, da to odločbo izpodbijajo pred sodiščem Unije. Iz teh razlogov sodišče Unije ugotovi dopustnost tožbe za razglasitev ničnosti takega sklepa, ki jo vloži zainteresirana stranka v smislu člena 108(2) PDEU, kadar želi z vložitvijo te tožbe zaščititi postopkovne pravice, ki jih ima na podlagi te določbe (sodba z dne 17. julija 2008, Athinaïki Techniki/Komisija, C‑521/06 P, EU:C:2008:422, točka 36). | 65 | Where, without initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, the Commission finds, by a decision based on Article 108(3) TFEU, that a State measure does not constitute aid incompatible with the internal market, the persons intended to benefit from that procedural guarantee may secure compliance therewith only if they are able to challenge that decision before the EU Courts. For those reasons, the EU Courts declare to be admissible an action for annulment of such a decision brought by a party who is concerned within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU where it seeks, by instituting proceedings, to safeguard the procedural rights available to it under the latter provision (judgment of 17 July 2008, Athinaïki Techniki v Commission, C‑521/06 P, EU:C:2008:422, paragraph 36). |
| 66 | Ugotoviti je torej treba, da je treba za vsako zainteresirano stranko šteti, da se sklep, s katerim je bil ob koncu faze predhodne preučitve ugotovljen neobstoj pomoči, neposredno in posamično nanaša nanjo (sodba z dne 28. marca 2012, Ryanair/Komisija, T‑123/09, EU:T:2012:164, točka 68), pri čemer je treba opozoriti, da kadar je taka stranka vložila pritožbo, je treba zavrnitev Komisije, da bi taki pritožbi ugodila, vsekakor analizirati kot zavrnitev uvedbe postopka iz člena 108(2) PDEU (sodba z dne 18. novembra 2010, NDSHT/Komisija, C‑322/09 P, EU:C:2010:701, točke od 51 do 54). | 66 | Thus, it must be held that any interested party must be regarded as being directly and individually concerned by a decision finding the absence of aid at the conclusion of the preliminary examination phase (judgment of 28 March 2012, Ryanair v Commission, T‑123/09, EU:T:2012:164, paragraph 68), bearing in mind that, where an interested party has lodged a complaint, refusal by the Commission to uphold that complaint must in any event be regarded as a refusal to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 November 2010, NDSHT v Commission, C‑322/09 P, EU:C:2010:701, paragraphs 51 to 54). |
| 67 | V obravnavanem primeru se stranki strinjata, da je drugi izpodbijani sklep sklep, sprejet ob koncu faze predhodne preučitve pomoči iz člena 108(3) PDEU in ne ob koncu formalnega postopka preiskave. Ker za tožečo stranko iz razlogov, ki so bili že navedeni v točkah od 55 do 57 zgoraj, ni mogoče šteti, da izpolnjuje pogoje za dopustnost, kot so bili navedeni v sodbi z dne 15. julija 1963, Plaumann/Komisija (25/62, EU:C:1963:17), je treba za ugotovitev, ali ima procesno upravičenje, da predlaga razglasitev ničnosti drugega izpodbijanega sklepa, preveriti, ali je pravno zadostno dokazala, da je zainteresirana stranka. | 67 | In the present case, the parties agree that the second contested decision is a decision adopted after the preliminary stage of the procedure for reviewing aid under Article 108(3) TFEU, and not after a formal investigation procedure. Since the applicant cannot, for the reasons already mentioned in paragraphs 55 to 57 above, be regarded as fulfilling the requirements for admissibility as laid down in the judgment of 15 July 1963, Plaumann v Commission (25/62, EU:C:1963:17), it is appropriate, in order to ascertain whether it has standing to bring an action for annulment of the second contested decision, to determine whether it has proven to the requisite legal standard that it is an interested party. |
| 68 | V skladu s členom 1(h) Uredbe št. 659/1999 „zainteresirana stranka“ pomeni katero koli državo članico ali osebo, podjetje ali združenje podjetij, na katerih interese bi lahko dodelitev pomoči vplivala. Z drugimi besedami, gre za nedoločeno število naslovnikov. Ta določba ne izključuje, da bi se lahko podjetje, ki ni neposreden konkurent upravičenca do pomoči, štelo za „zainteresirano stranko“, če trdi, da bi dodelitev te pomoči lahko vplivala na njegove interese. Zadostuje, da to podjetje pravno zadostno dokaže, da ima lahko pomoč konkreten vpliv na njegov položaj (glej sodbo z dne 24. maja 2011, Komisija/Kronoply in Kronotex, C‑83/09 P, EU:C:2011:341, točke od 63 do 65 in navedena sodna praksa). | 68 | Under Article 1(h) of Regulation No 659/1999, any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid are to be regarded as an ‘interested party’. In other words, that term covers an indeterminate group of addressees. That provision does not rule out the possibility that an undertaking which is not a direct competitor of the beneficiary of the aid may be categorised as an ‘interested party’, provided that that undertaking demonstrates that its interests could be adversely affected by the granting of the aid. It is sufficient for that undertaking to show to the requisite legal standard that the aid is likely to have a specific effect on its situation (see judgment of 24 May 2011, Commission v Kronoply and Kronotex, C‑83/09 P, EU:C:2011:341, paragraphs 63 to 65 and the case-law cited). |
| 69 | Iz tega izhaja, da je lahko načeloma kateremu koli podjetju, ki se sklicuje na dejansko ali potencialno konkurenčno razmerje, priznan status „zainteresirane stranke“ v smislu člena 108(2) PDEU. | 69 | It follows that, in principle, any undertaking invoking the existence of an actual or potential competitive relationship may be regarded as having the status of interested party for the purposes of Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| 70 | V obravnavanem primeru je treba ugotoviti, da je tožeča stranka s svojim dejavnim sodelovanjem v razpisnem postopku do zadnje faze in pritožbo, ki jo je vložila v tem okviru pri Komisiji, izkazala svoj resni namen vstopiti na upoštevne trge in s tem, da je potencialna konkurentka družbe Capricorn, ki naj bi glede na navedeno pritožbo in ob upoštevanju konkretnih okoliščin prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring prejela državno pomoč, katere obstoj je Komisija v drugem izpodbijanem sklepu zavrnila. | 70 | In the present case, it must be held that the applicant has proven, by participating actively, up to the final stage, in the tender process and by lodging a complaint in that regard with the Commission, its genuine desire to enter the relevant markets and, therefore, its status of potential competitor of Capricorn, which had allegedly benefited, according to the complaint and in the light of the specific circumstances of the sale of the Nürburgring assets, from State aid, the existence of which the Commission rejected in the second contested decision. |
| 71 | Ob upoštevanju preudarkov, navedenih v točkah 68 in 69 zgoraj, in ugotovitev pred tem je treba torej tožeči stranki priznati, da je zainteresirana stranka glede drugega izpodbijanega sklepa. | 71 | Therefore, in the light of the considerations set out in paragraphs 68 and 69 above and of all the previous findings, the applicant’s status of interested party must be recognised with regard to the second contested decision. |
| 72 | V zvezi s pravnim interesom tožeče stranke Komisija v predlogu za ustavitev postopka trdi, da je tožeča stranka ta interes izgubila zlasti zato, ker je družba Capricorn plačala celotno nakupno ceno za sredstva kompleksa Nürburgring in se odpovedala pravici do odpovedi prodajne pogodbe, če bi Komisija sprejela sklep o izterjavi pomoči prodajalcem od nje (glej točko 63 zgoraj). | 72 | As to the applicant’s legal interest in bringing an action, the Commission submits, in its application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate, that the applicant lost that interest due, inter alia, to the fact that Capricorn had paid, allegedly, the purchase price of the Nürburgring assets in full and had waived its right to terminate the sales agreement in the event that the Commission should decide to recover the aid to the sellers from it (see paragraph 63 above). |
| 73 | Vendar je treba opozoriti, da imajo „zainteresirane stranke“ v smislu člena 108(2) PDEU interes za dosego razglasitve ničnosti odločbe, sprejete ob koncu faze predhodne preučitve, ker bi na podlagi določb člena 108 PDEU zaradi take razglasitve ničnosti Komisija morala uvesti formalni postopek preiskave, strankam pa bi bilo omogočeno, da predložijo svoje pripombe in tako vplivajo na novo odločbo Komisije (sodba z dne 10. februarja 2009, Deutsche Post in DHL International/Komisija, T‑388/03, EU:T:2009:30, točki 62 in 64). V obravnavanem primeru ima tožeča stranka interes za razglasitev ničnosti drugega izpodbijanega sklepa, ker s prvim delom četrtega tožbenega razloga izpodbija to, da je bil navedeni sklep, s katerim je bilo ugotovljeno, da družbi Capricorn v okviru razpisnega postopka ni bila dodeljena pomoč, sprejet, ne da bi Komisija uvedla formalni postopek preiskave, s čimer naj bi bile kršene postopkovne pravice tožeče stranke kot zainteresirane stranke. | 73 | It is important to recall, however, that ‘parties concerned’ within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU have a legal interest in securing the annulment of a decision taken after the preliminary examination stage, since, pursuant to the provisions of Article 108 TFEU, such annulment would require the Commission to initiate the formal investigation procedure, permitting them to submit their comments and thus exert an influence on the new Commission decision (judgment of 10 February 2009, Deutsche Post and DHL International v Commission, T‑388/03, EU:T:2009:30, paragraphs 62 and 64). In the present case, the applicant has a legal interest in having the second contested decision annulled in so far as, by the first part of its fourth plea, it calls into question the fact that that decision, which establishes that no aid was granted to Capricorn in the tender process, was adopted without the Commission initiating the formal investigation procedure, in breach of its procedural rights as an interested party. |
| 74 | Če bi Splošno sodišče drugi izpodbijani sklep razglasilo za ničen zaradi kršitve postopkovnih pravic tožeče stranke, bi morala Komisija načeloma uvesti formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi s prodajo sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring in bi tožečo stranko kot zainteresirano stranko pozvala k predložitvi pripomb. Zato ima lahko razglasitev ničnosti drugega izpodbijanega sklepa sama po sebi pravne posledice za tožečo stranko kot zainteresirano stranko. | 74 | If the Court were to annul the second contested decision for breach of the applicant’s procedural rights, the Commission would, in principle, have to initiate the formal investigation procedure with regard to the sale of the Nürburgring assets and ask the applicant, as an interested party, to submit its comments. Consequently, the annulment of the second contested decision may, in itself, have legal consequences for the applicant, as an interested party. |
| 75 | Glede drugega izpodbijanega sklepa je torej treba ugotoviti, da ima tožeča stranka procesno upravičenje kot zainteresirana stranka ter da ima in ohranja pravni interes zaradi varstva postopkovnih pravic, ki jih ima kot taka na podlagi člena 108(2) PDEU. | 75 | It must therefore be concluded, with regard to the second contested decision, that the applicant has standing to bring an action, as an interested party, and has and maintains a legal interest in bringing an action, arising from the safeguard of the procedural rights available to it, in that same capacity, under Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| 76 | Iz tega izhaja, da je treba predlog Komisije za ustavitev postopka zavrniti in da je ta tožba dopustna v delu, v katerem se nanaša na drugi izpodbijani sklep in je namenjen varstvu postopkovnih pravic, ki jih ima tožeča stranka na podlagi člena 108(2) PDEU. | 76 | It follows that the Commission’s application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate must be rejected and that the present action is admissible, in so far as it relates to the second contested decision and seeks to safeguard the procedural rights available to the applicant under Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| 2. Vsebinska presoja | 2. Substance |
| a) Uvodne ugotovitve o obsegu sodnega nadzora v zvezi s sklepom o neobstoju pomoči, sprejetim ob koncu faze predhodne preučitve | (a) Preliminary observations on the scope of the judicial review concerning a decision that there is no aid, taken after the preliminary examination stage |
| 77 | Najprej je treba spomniti, da člen 108(3) PDEU in člen 4 Uredbe št. 659/1999 vzpostavljata fazo predhodne preučitve priglašenih ukrepov pomoči, namen katere je omogočiti Komisiji, da si oblikuje prvo mnenje o združljivosti zadevnega ukrepa z notranjim trgom. Komisija na koncu te faze ugotovi, da ta ukrep bodisi ne pomeni pomoči bodisi spada na področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU. V drugem primeru lahko ni dvomov o združljivosti navedenega ukrepa z notranjim trgom ali pa dvomi o tem obstajajo (sodba z dne 24. maja 2011, Komisija/Kronoply in Kronotex, C‑83/09 P, EU:C:2011:341, točka 43). | 77 | It should be made clear at the outset that Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999 provide for a stage at which the aid measures notified undergo a preliminary examination, the purpose of which is to enable the Commission to form an initial view as to whether the aid notified is compatible with the internal market. On completion of that stage, the Commission is to make a finding either that the measure does not constitute aid or that it comes within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU. In the latter case, it may be that the measure does not raise doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market; on the other hand, it is also possible that the measure may raise such doubts (judgment of 24 May 2011, Commission v Kronoply and Kronotex, C‑83/09 P, EU:C:2011:341, paragraph 43). |
| 78 | Kadar Komisija na koncu faze predhodne preučitve sprejme sklep, s katerim ugotovi, da državni ukrep ne pomeni pomoči, ki je nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, s tem implicitno zavrne tudi uvedbo formalnega postopka preiskave. To načelo se uporablja tudi, kadar je sklep sprejet zato, ker Komisija meni, da je pomoč združljiva z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 4(3) Uredbe št. 659/1999, tako imenovano „odločbo o nenasprotovanju“, in prav tako kadar meni, da ukrep ne spada na področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU in torej ne pomeni pomoči na podlagi člena 4(2) Uredbe št. 659/1999 (glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 17. julija 2008, Athinaïki Techniki/Komisija, C‑521/06 P, EU:C:2008:422, točka 52, in z dne 28. marca 2012, Ryanair/Komisija, T‑123/09, EU:T:2012:164, točka 68). | 78 | When, after the preliminary examination stage, the Commission adopts a decision whereby it finds that a State measure does not constitute aid that is incompatible with the internal market, it also implicitly refuses to initiate the formal investigation procedure. That principle applies both where the decision is taken on the ground that the Commission considers that the aid is compatible with the internal market, under Article 4(3) of Regulation No 659/1999, namely ‘a decision not to raise objections’, and where it is of the opinion that the measure does not come within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU and thus does not constitute aid pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 (see, to that effect, judgments of 17 July 2008, Athinaïki Techniki v Commission, C‑521/06 P, EU:C:2008:422, paragraph 52, and of 28 March 2012, Ryanair v Commission, T‑123/09, EU:T:2012:164, paragraph 68). |
| 79 | V skladu s sodno prakso velja, da tožeča stranka, kadar predlaga razglasitev ničnosti sklepa, s katerim je ugotovljeno, da zadevni ukrep ni državna pomoč, ali odločbe o nenasprotovanju, izpodbija predvsem to, da je Komisija sklep glede zadevne pomoči sprejela, ne da bi uvedla formalni postopek preiskave, s čimer naj bi kršila njene postopkovne pravice. Tožeča stranka lahko, da bi bilo ugodeno njenemu predlogu za razglasitev ničnosti, za ohranitev postopkovnih pravic, ki jih ima v okviru formalnega postopka preiskave, navede kateri koli tožbeni razlog, s katerim bi lahko dokazala, da bi presoja informacij in elementov, s katerimi je Komisija razpolagala ali bi lahko razpolagala med fazo predhodne preučitve zadevnega ukrepa, morala vzbuditi dvome glede njegove opredelitve kot državne pomoči ali glede njegove združljivosti z notranjim trgom (sodbi z dne 13. junija 2013, Ryanair/Komisija, C‑287/12 P, neobjavljena, EU:C:2013:395, točka 60, in z dne 25. novembra 2014, Ryanair/Komisija, T‑512/11, neobjavljena, EU:T:2014:989, točka 31). | 79 | According to the case-law, where an applicant seeks the annulment of a decision declaring that the measure at issue is not State aid or of a decision not to raise objections, it essentially contests the fact that the Commission adopted the decision in relation to the aid at issue without initiating the formal investigation procedure, thereby acting in breach of the applicant’s procedural rights. In order to have its application for annulment upheld, the applicant may invoke, for the purpose of safeguarding the procedural rights available to it in the context of the formal investigation procedure, any plea capable of showing that the assessment of the information and evidence that was available to the Commission during the phase of preliminary examination of the measure at issue should have raised doubts as to its classification of that measure as State aid or its compatibility with the internal market (judgments of 13 June 2013, Ryanair v Commission, C‑287/12 P, not published, EU:C:2013:395, paragraph 60, and of 25 November 2014, Ryanair v Commission, T‑512/11, not published, EU:T:2014:989, paragraph 31). |
| 80 | Tak dokaz o obstoju dvomov je mogoče izpeljati zlasti iz zbira usklajenih indicev, pri čemer je v primeru sklepa, s katerim je ugotovljeno, da zadevni ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči, obstoj dvoma treba iskati tako v okoliščinah sprejetja navedenega sklepa, zlasti trajanja predhodne preučitve, kot v njegovi vsebini in pri tem presojo, na katero se je Komisija v navedenem sklepu oprla, primerjati z elementi, s katerimi je razpolagala ali bi lahko razpolagala, ko je odločala o opredelitvi zadevnega ukrepa kot državne pomoči (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 24. januarja 2013, 3F/Komisija, C‑646/11 P, neobjavljena, EU:C:2013:36, točka 31). | 80 | Proof of the existence of doubts may be furnished by, inter alia, reference to a body of consistent evidence: the question whether or not a doubt exists requires, with regard to a decision finding the measure at issue not to constitute State aid, investigation of both the circumstances in which that decision was adopted, inter alia the duration of the preliminary examination, and its content, comparing the assessments upon which the Commission relied in that decision with the information available to it when it took a view on the classification of the measure in question as State aid (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 January 2013, 3F v Commission, C‑646/11 P, not published, EU:C:2013:36, paragraph 31). |
| 81 | Komisija mora torej uvesti formalni postopek preiskave, če ima glede na informacije, ki jih je pridobila ali s katerimi je lahko razpolagala v fazi predhodne preučitve, še naprej resne težave pri presoji preiskovanega ukrepa. Ta obveznost izhaja neposredno iz člena 108(3) PDEU, kot ga razlaga sodna praksa, in je potrjena s členom 4 Uredbe št. 659/1999, če Komisija po predhodni preučitvi ugotovi, da obstajajo dvomi glede opredelitve zadevnega ukrepa kot pomoči ali glede njegove združljivosti z notranjim trgom (glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 21. decembra 2016, Club Hotel Loutraki in drugi/Komisija, C‑131/15 P, EU:C:2016:989, točke od 30 do 33, in z dne 12. februarja 2008, BUPA in drugi/Komisija, T‑289/03, EU:T:2008:29, točka 328). Komisija v takem primeru ne more zavrniti uvedbe formalnega postopka preiskave zaradi drugih okoliščin, kot so interes tretjih oseb, razlogi ekonomičnosti postopka ali kakršen koli drug razlog upravne ali politične smotrnosti (sodba z dne 10. februarja 2009, Deutsche Post in DHL International/Komisija, T‑388/03, EU:T:2009:30, točka 90). | 81 | Thus, the Commission is required to initiate the formal investigation procedure if, in the light of the information obtained or available to it during the preliminary examination stage, it still faces serious difficulties in assessing the measure under consideration. That obligation follows directly from Article 108(3) TFEU, as interpreted by the case-law, and is confirmed by Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, when the Commission finds, after a preliminary examination, that the measure at issue raises doubts as to its classification as aid or its compatibility with the internal market (see, to that effect, judgments of 21 December 2016, Club Hotel Loutraki and Others v Commission, C‑131/15 P, EU:C:2016:989, paragraphs 30 to 33, and of 12 February 2008, BUPA and Others v Commission, T‑289/03, EU:T:2008:29, paragraph 328). In such a case, the Commission may not decline to initiate the formal investigation procedure in reliance upon other circumstances, such as third party interests, considerations of economy of procedure or any other ground of administrative or political convenience (judgment of 10 February 2009, Deutsche Post and DHL International v Commission, T‑388/03, EU:T:2009:30, paragraph 90). |
| 82 | Med sodnim postopkom mora biti nadzor sodišča Unije osredotočen na vprašanje, ali so – glede na trditve in dokaze, ki jih je predložila tožeča stranka v obravnavanem primeru – presoje, na katere se je Komisija oprla v svojem sklepu o neobstoju pomoči, pomenile take težave, da so lahko vzbudile dvome in torej utemeljile uvedbo formalnega postopka preiskave (glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 19. maja 1993, Cook/Komisija, C‑198/91, EU:C:1993:197, točka 31, in z dne 15. junija 1993, Matra/Komisija, C‑225/91, EU:C:1993:239, točka 34). | 82 | At the litigation stage, review by the EU Courts must focus on whether, in the light of the arguments put forward and the evidence adduced by the applicant in the case concerned, the assessments on which the Commission relied in finding that there is no aid gave rise to such difficulties as to raise doubts and, accordingly, justify the initiation of the formal investigation procedure (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 May 1993, Cook v Commission, C‑198/91, EU:C:1993:197, paragraph 31, and of 15 June 1993, Matra v Commission, C‑225/91, EU:C:1993:239, paragraph 34). |
| b) Uvodne ugotovitve o predmetu tožbe | (b) Preliminary observations on the subject matter of the action |
| 83 | Prvi del četrtega tožbenega razloga se nanaša na kršitev postopkovnih pravic tožeče stranke, ker Komisija ni uvedla formalnega postopka preiskave iz člena 108(2) PDEU kljub obstoju resnih težav pri presoji zadevnega ukrepa. | 83 | The first part of the fourth plea alleges breach of the applicant’s procedural rights, in that the Commission failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in spite of the existence of serious difficulties in assessing the measure at issue. |
| 84 | V okviru tega dela tožeča stranka, da bi dokazala obstoj takih resnih težav pri presoji zadevnega ukrepa, zlasti trdi, da je bilo napačno uporabljeno pravo, da so bile pri presoji storjene napake in da je bil drugi izpodbijani sklep pomanjkljivo obrazložen. Te napake in ta pomanjkljivost so omenjene tudi v prvem, tretjem in petem tožbenem razlogu, ki se nanašajo na napačno razlago pojma državna pomoč, neupoštevanje nadaljevanja postopka prodaje z odstopom deleža družbe Capricorn v namenski družbi za nakup sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring končnemu kupcu oziroma nezadostno obrazložitev. | 84 | In that part of the fourth plea, in order to show the existence of such serious difficulties, the applicant puts forward, inter alia, errors of law, errors of assessment and a failure to state reasons that, it claims, vitiate the second contested decision. Those errors and that failure are invoked, in addition, in its first, third and fifth pleas, relating respectively to the misinterpretation of the meaning of State aid, the failure to take account of the continuation of the sales process by the transfer to a sub-purchaser of Capricorn’s shares in the acquisition vehicle for the Nürburgring assets, and a failure to state reasons. |
| 85 | Zato je treba najprej preučiti prvi del četrtega tožbenega razloga in nato – glede na ta del, ki se nanaša na kršitev postopkovnih pravic tožeče stranke – prvi, tretji in peti tožbeni razlog za presojo, ali trditve, navedene v njihovo podporo, omogočajo ugotovitev resnih težav pri presoji zadevnega ukrepa, zaradi katerih bi morala Komisija uvesti formalni postopek preiskave iz člena 108(2) PDEU, kot je to v skladu s sodno prakso dovoljeno Splošnemu sodišču (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 24. maja 2011, Komisija/Kronoply in Kronotex, C‑83/09 P, EU:C:2011:341, točki 56 in 58). | 85 | Therefore, the Court must examine, in the first place, the first part of the fourth plea, then, in the light of that part, alleging breach of the applicant’s procedural rights, turn to the first, third and fifth pleas, in order to assess whether the arguments put forward in support thereof make it possible to identify any serious difficulties in assessing the measure concerned in the presence of which the Commission should have initiated the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU, as the Court is allowed to do by the case-law (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 May 2011, Commission v Kronoply and Kronotex, C‑83/09 P, EU:C:2011:341, paragraphs 56 and 58). |
| 86 | Nato bo treba preučiti drugi, tretji in četrti del četrtega tožbenega razloga, ki se nanašajo na druge kršitve postopkovnih pravic tožeče stranke, ki lahko prav tako vplivajo na ugotovitev Komisije iz drugega izpodbijanega sklepa o neobstoju resnih težav pri presoji zadevnega ukrepa, ki bi utemeljevale uvedbo formalnega postopka preiskave iz člena 108(2) PDEU. Drugi del četrtega tožbenega razloga se nanaša na kršitev člena 20(2), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe št. 659/1999, tretji in četrti del četrtega tožbenega razloga pa na to, da naj Komisija ne bi skrbno in nepristransko preučila razpisnega postopka. Opozorjeno je, da je bil drugi tožbeni razlog v zvezi z obstojem gospodarske kontinuitete usmerjen samo proti prvemu izpodbijanemu sklepu, v zvezi s katerim se za tožečo stranko ni štelo, da ima procesno upravičenje. | 86 | The Court will examine, in the second place, the second, third and fourth parts of the fourth plea, alleging other breaches of the applicant’s procedural rights, which may also have had an impact on the Commission’s finding, in the second contested decision, that there were no such serious difficulties in assessing the measure concerned as to justify the initiation of the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. The second part of the fourth plea alleges breach of the second subparagraph of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999, and the third and fourth parts of the fourth plea allege a failure by the Commission to carry out a diligent and impartial examination of the tender process. It is recalled that the second plea of the application initiating proceedings, alleging the existence of economic continuity, was directed only against the first contested decision, in respect of which the applicant was found to have no standing. |
| c) Prvi del četrtega tožbenega razloga: obstoj resnih težav pri presoji prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring | (c) The first part of the fourth plea in law, alleging serious difficulties in assessing the sale of the Nürburgring assets |
| 87 | Tožeča stranka se na prvem mestu sklicuje na trajanje faze predhodne preučitve in na drugem mestu na vsebino drugega izpodbijanega sklepa. | 87 | The applicant invokes, in the first place, the duration of the preliminary examination stage and, in the second place, the content of the second contested decision. |
| 1) Trajanje faze predhodne preučitve | (1) The duration of the preliminary examination stage |
| 88 | Tožeča stranka trdi, da je Komisija večkrat preložila svojo odločitev, zlasti med 23. junijem in 1. oktobrom 2014, datumom, ko je bil nazadnje sprejet končni sklep. Poleg tega je bil popravek končnega sklepa sprejet 13. aprila 2015, kar je več kot eno leto po vložitvi njene pritožbe pri Komisiji. | 88 | The applicant submits that the Commission postponed its decision several times, particularly between 23 June and 1 October 2014, when the final decision was eventually adopted. Moreover, the corrigendum to the final decision was adopted on 13 April 2015, more than a year after its complaint had been lodged with the Commission. |
| 89 | Komisija trdi, da pri predhodni preučitvi ni imela resnih težav. | 89 | The Commission contends that it encountered no serious difficulties during the preliminary examination. |
| 90 | Treba je spomniti, da če zadevna država članica spornih državnih ukrepov ne priglasi, Komisija ni dolžna začeti postopka predhodne preučitve teh ukrepov v določenem roku. Vendar mora Komisija skrbno preučiti pritožbo glede obstoja pomoči, nezdružljive z notranjim trgom, pri čemer je treba razumnost trajanja faze predhodne preučitve presojati glede na posebne okoliščine vsake zadeve in predvsem glede na njen kontekst, različne faze postopka, ki jim mora slediti Komisija, in zapletenost zadeve (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 27. septembra 2011, 3F/Komisija, T‑30/03 RENV, EU:T:2011:534, točki 57 in 58 ter navedena sodna praksa). | 90 | It should be noted that, where the disputed State measures were not notified by the Member State concerned, the Commission is not required to carry out a preliminary examination of those measures within a specified period. However, the Commission is bound to carry out a diligent examination of a complaint alleging the existence of aid that is incompatible with the internal market, as the issue of whether or not the duration of the preliminary examination stage is reasonable 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 and the complexity of the case (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 September 2011, 3F v Commission, T‑30/03 RENV, EU:T:2011:534, paragraphs 57 and 58 and the case-law cited). |
| 91 | Komisija je v obravnavanem primeru pritožbo tožeče stranke prejela 10. aprila 2014. Ta pritožba se je nanašala na prodajo sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring družbi Capricorn po ceni, nižji od njihove tržne cene, in obstoj gospodarske kontinuitete med prodajalci in družbo Capricorn, zaradi katere naj bi bilo treba sklep o izterjavi pomoči od prodajalcev razširiti na to družbo. Poleg tega so bile vložene še tri pritožbe glede prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring. Končni sklep je bil sprejet 1. oktobra 2014, kar je manj kot šest mesecev po prejetju pritožbe tožeče stranke. To obdobje ne presega časa, potrebnega za prvo preučitev vprašanj, povezanih s prodajo sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring po ceni, nižji od njihove tržne cene, in torej ne dokazuje obstoja resnih težav pri presoji zadevnega ukrepa, ki bi utemeljevale uvedbo formalnega postopka preiskave. | 91 | In the present case, the applicant’s complaint was brought before the Commission on 10 April 2014. That complaint related to the sale of the Nürburgring assets to Capricorn at a price lower than their market price and to the issue of whether there was economic continuity between the sellers and Capricorn that would have justified extending to the latter the decision on recovery of the aid to the sellers. In addition, three more complaints were lodged in relation to the sale of the Nürburgring assets. The final decision was taken on 1 October 2014, less than six months after receipt of the applicant’s complaint. That lapse of time does not go beyond what was required of an initial examination of the questions relating to the sale of the Nürburgring assets at a price lower than their market price and thus does not show the existence of such serious difficulties in assessing the measure concerned as to justify the initiation of the formal investigation procedure. |
| 92 | Iz tega sledi, da je treba ta očitek zavrniti. | 92 | It follows that this claim must be rejected. |
| 2) Vsebina drugega izpodbijanega sklepa | (2) The content of the second contested decision |
| 93 | Tožeča stranka v bistvu trdi, da drugi izpodbijani sklep sam po sebi dokazuje obstoj resnih težav, pri čemer se v zvezi s tem sklicuje na pomanjkljivost preučitve, ki jo je opravila Komisija. Pomanjkljivosti naj bi se zlasti nanašale na preučitev odprtosti, preglednosti, nediskriminatornosti in brezpogojnosti razpisnega postopka, preučitev določenih dejstev, ki so v zvezi s tem upoštevna, kot je prenos sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring na končnega kupca, preučitev vprašanja, ali je ta postopek privedel do prodaje navedenih sredstev najboljšemu ponudniku, ter preučitev okoliščine, da družba Capricorn ni bila sposobna izpolniti zahteve po zagotovitvi varnosti plačila prodajne cene. | 93 | The applicant submits, in essence, that the second contested decision in itself shows the existence of serious difficulties, claiming in this regard that the examination carried out by the Commission was flawed. In its opinion, the flaws concern, in particular, the examination as to whether the tender process had been open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional, that of certain facts that are allegedly relevant in that regard, such as the sale of the Nürburgring assets to a sub-purchaser, that of whether the process led to the sale of those assets to the highest bidder as well as the assessment of the fact that Capricorn was allegedly unable to fulfil the requirement for payment security with regard to the purchase price. |
| 94 | Poleg tega naj bi to, da je Komisija napačno uporabila pravo, v povezavi z napačno uporabo člena 107(1) PDEU in člena 14 Uredbe št. 659/1999 ter pomanjkljivo obrazložitvijo, potrjevalo obstoj resnih težav pri presoji zadevnega ukrepa, ki utemeljujejo začetek formalnega postopka preiskave. | 94 | In addition, the applicant submits that the errors of law made by the Commission in misapplying Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999, together with the failure to state reasons, confirm the existence of serious difficulties in assessing the measure concerned that would have justified the initiation of the formal investigation procedure. |
| 95 | Komisija te trditve izpodbija. | 95 | The Commission disputes that line of argument. |
| 96 | Najprej je treba poudariti, da je Komisija v točki 285 obrazložitve končnega sklepa v zvezi s preučitvijo okoliščin obravnavane zadeve ugotovila, da „prodaja sredstev [kompleksa Nürburgring] ne pomeni državne pomoči“. | 96 | It should be noted, first of all, that the Commission found in recital 285 of the final decision, after consideration of the circumstances of the case, that ‘the sale of [the Nürburgring] assets d[id] not constitute State aid’. |
| 97 | Komisija je v točki 281 obrazložitve končnega sklepa navedla, da nima „dokazov o kršitvi načel odprtega, preglednega, nediskriminatornega in brezpogojnega razpisnega postopka v zvezi s prodajo sredstev [kompleksa Nürburgring] ali dokazov o tem, da je katera koli ponudba vključevala višjo ceno z varnim [zajamčenim] financiranjem v primerjavi s ponudbo podjetja Capricorn“. | 97 | In recital 281 of the final decision, the Commission stated that it found ‘[no] evidence of a breach of the principles of an open, transparent, non-discriminatory and [un]conditional tender process with regards to the sale of the [Nürburgring] assets or of any offer with a higher price bid with secured financing compared to the price bid made by Capricorn’. |
| 98 | Komisija je v točkah 240, 261, 266, 271, 276 in 280 obrazložitve končnega sklepa menila predvsem, da je družba Capricorn ponudnik, ki je predložil najboljšo ponudbo z jamstvom financiranja. Komisija je v zvezi s tem jamstvom navedla, da je že aprila 2014 imela na voljo dopis Deutsche Bank AG z dne 10. marca 2014 v podporo ponudbi družbe Capricorn (v nadaljevanju: dopis Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014). Ni torej razloga za dvom o trditvi Komisije, da je analizirala navedeni dopis in ugotovila, da pomeni jamstvo financiranja, katerega zavezujočo naravo so potrdili nemški organi. | 98 | In recitals 240, 261, 266, 271, 276 and 280 of the final decision, the Commission took the view, in particular, that Capricorn was the tenderer which submitted the highest offer including a proof of its financing. As to that proof, the Commission established that the letter from Deutsche Bank AG of 10 March 2014 in support of Capricorn’s offer (‘the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014’) had been available to it as early as April 2014. There is therefore no reason to doubt the Commission’s assertion that it had carried out its own assessment of that letter and considered that it amounted to proof of financing, the binding nature of which was confirmed by the German authorities. |
| 99 | Trditev v zvezi z jamstvom financiranja ponudbe, ki ga je predložila družba Capricorn, in vprašanjem, ali je razpisni postopek privedel do prodaje navedenih sredstev najboljšemu ponudniku, torej ni utemeljena. | 99 | The argument as to the proof of financing in respect of the offer submitted by Capricorn and as to whether the tender process had led to the sale of the assets to the highest bidder is therefore unfounded. |
| 100 | Tožeča stranka trdi tudi, da Komisija ni izčrpno preučila razpisnega postopka. Zlasti naj končni sklep ne bi omenjal nadaljevanja postopka prodaje. | 100 | The applicant also claims that the Commission failed to investigate thoroughly the tender process. In particular, it argues, the final decision fails to mention the continuation of the sales process. |
| 101 | V zvezi s tem iz sodne prakse izhaja, da nezadostna ali nepopolna preučitev, ki jo opravi Komisija v fazi predhodne preučitve, kaže na obstoj težav, ki lahko utemeljujejo začetek formalnega postopka preiskave (glej sodbo z dne 11. oktobra 2016, Søndagsavisen/Komisija, T‑167/14, neobjavljena, EU:T:2016:603, točka 24 in navedena sodna praksa). | 101 | In that regard, it is apparent from the case-law that if the examination carried out by the Commission during the preliminary examination stage is insufficient or incomplete, this constitutes evidence of such serious difficulties as to justify the initiation of the formal investigation procedure (see judgment of 11 October 2016, Søndagsavisen v Commission, T‑167/14, not published, EU:T:2016:603, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited). |
| 102 | Prav tako je treba v skladu s sodno prakso na splošno o zakonitosti sklepana področju državnih pomoči presojati glede na informacije, ki jih je Komisija imela ali bi jih lahko imela na voljo ob njenem sprejetju (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 22. decembra 2008, Régie Networks, C‑333/07, EU:C:2008:764, točka 81), pri čemer je treba opozoriti, da so informacije, ki bi jih Komisija „lahko imela na voljo“, tiste, ki se zdijo upoštevne pri presoji, ki jo je treba izvesti, in ki bi jih lahko pridobila, če bi jih zahtevala v upravnem postopku (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 20. septembra 2017, Komisija/Frucona Košice, C‑300/16 P, EU:C:2017:706, točka 71). | 102 | The case-law has also found that, generally, the legality of a decision concerning State aid is to be assessed in the light of the information available to the Commission when the decision was adopted (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 December 2008, Régie Networks, C‑333/07, EU:C:2008:764, paragraph 81), bearing in mind that the information ‘available’ to the Commission includes that which seemed relevant for the assessment to be carried out and which could have been obtained, upon request by the Commission, during the administrative procedure (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 September 2017, Commission v Frucona Košice, C‑300/16 P, EU:C:2017:706, paragraph 71). |
| 103 | Dejstvo, da Komisija po mnenju tožeče stranke ni odgovorila na nekatere očitke, ki jih je ta navedla, ne pomeni, da Komisija ni mogla odločiti o zadevnem ukrepu na podlagi informacij, s katerimi je razpolagala, in da bi torej morala uvesti formalni postopek preiskave, da bi preiskavo dopolnila (sodba z dne 28. marca 2012, Ryanair/Komisija, T‑123/09, EU:T:2012:164, točka 130). | 103 | The fact that the Commission, in the applicant’s opinion, did not reply to certain claims raised by the latter does not imply that it was unable to take a view on the measure in question on the basis of the information it possessed and that it therefore had to initiate the formal investigation procedure in order to complete its inquiry (judgment of 28 March 2012, Ryanair v Commission, T‑123/09, EU:T:2012:164, paragraph 130). |
| 104 | V obravnavanem primeru Komisiji ni mogoče očitati, da se v končnem sklepu ni izrekla o nadaljevanju postopka prodaje z odstopom deleža družbe Capricorn v namenski družbi za nakup sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring končnemu kupcu, ki je bil po navedbah tožeče stranke opravljen 28. oktobra 2014 na podlagi skrbniške pogodbe z dne 5. oktobra 2014 in torej po sprejetju navedenega sklepa. | 104 | In the present case, the Commission cannot be criticised for not taking a view, in the final decision, on the continuation of the sales process by the transfer to a sub-purchaser of Capricorn’s shares in the acquisition vehicle for the Nürburgring assets, which, according to the applicant, took place on 28 October 2014, on the basis of a trust agreement dated 5 October 2014, and thus after that decision had been adopted. |
| 105 | Nazadnje, tožeča stranka trdi, da to, da je Komisija napačno uporabila pravo, v povezavi z napačno uporabo člena 107(1) PDEU in člena 14 Uredbe št. 659/1999 ter pomanjkljivo obrazložitvijo, potrjuje obstoj resnih težav. Preučitev te trditve se prekriva s preučitvijo prvega in petega tožbenega razloga v zvezi z navedeno napačno uporabo prava in navedeno pomanjkljivo obrazložitvijo, ki bo opravljena v nadaljevanju. | 105 | Lastly, the applicant maintains that the errors of law made by the Commission in misapplying Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999, together with the failure to state reasons, confirm the existence of serious difficulties. Examination of this argument overlaps with that of the first and fifth pleas, relating to those errors of law and that failure to state reasons, which will be carried out below. |
| 106 | S pridržkom očitkov, ki bodo preučeni v okviru prvega in petega tožbenega razloga, trditve, navedene v podporo prvemu delu četrtega tožbenega razloga, torej ne omogočajo ugotovitve, da je Komisija ob koncu faze predhodne preučitve imela težave pri presoji prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, zaradi katerih bi morala začeti formalni postopek preiskave. Prvi del četrtega tožbenega razloga je torej treba zavrniti. | 106 | Thus, without prejudice to the claims that will be examined in the context of the first and fifth pleas, the arguments put forward in support of the first part of the fourth plea do not make it possible to establish that, after the preliminary examination stage, the Commission was facing difficulties in assessing the sale of the Nürburgring assets that would have required the initiation of a formal investigation procedure. The first part of the fourth plea must therefore be rejected. |
| d) Prvi tožbeni razlog: napačna razlaga pojma državna pomoč v zvezi z dodelitvijo državne pomoči kupcu v okviru razpisnega postopka | (d) The first plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the meaning of State aid, with regard to the granting of State aid to the buyer in the tender process |
| 107 | Tožeča stranka v prvem tožbenem razlogu, ki ima tri dele, trdi, da je Komisija napačno razložila pojem državna pomoč v smislu člena 107 PDEU s tem, ko je ugotovila, da kupcu v okviru razpisnega postopka ni bila dodeljena državna pomoč. | 107 | By its first plea, which consists of three parts, the applicant submits that the Commission misinterpreted the meaning of State aid for the purposes of Article 107 TFEU by finding that no State aid had been granted to the buyer in the tender process. |
| 1) Prvi del prvega tožbenega razloga: prednost, dodeljena kupcu v okviru razpisnega postopka | (1) The first part of the first plea in law, on the advantage conferred on the buyer in the tender process |
| 108 | Tožeča stranka v prvem delu prvega tožbenega razloga trdi, da je bila kupcu v okviru razpisnega postopka dodeljena prednost. Navedeni postopek naj ne bi bil pregleden. Zlasti naj prodajalci in družba KPMG ne bi jasno obvestili ponudnikov o veljavnih rokih, tako da naj bi bila zavedena glede roka za oddajo končne ponudbe. Kupec naj bi svojo končno ponudbo predložil šele 10. marca 2014, dan pred svojim imenovanjem za izbranega ponudnika za sredstva kompleksa Nürburgring, tako da naj bi bil rok dejansko podaljšan do tega datuma. | 108 | By the first part of the first plea, the applicant claims that an advantage was conferred on the buyer in the tender process. According to the applicant, that process was not transparent. In particular, the applicant argues that the sellers and KPMG did not give the tenderers clear information about the deadlines applicable, and that as a result, it was misled as to the deadline for submission of the final offer. The applicant claims that the buyer did not submit its final offer until 10 March 2014, the day before it was awarded the sale of the Nürburgring assets, and that, as a result, there was a de facto extension of the time limit until that date. |
| 109 | Poleg tega tožeča stranka trdi, da je bil razpisni postopek diskriminatoren. Zlasti naj bi pogajanja jeseni leta 2013 potekala med predstavniki prodajalcev in kupca, ne pa z njenimi predstavniki, čeprav kupec ni imel zajamčenega financiranja. Zadnjemu naj bi bilo zlasti dovoljeno, da sodeluje na upravnih sestankih prodajalcev. Poleg tega naj bi bila trditev Komisije, da nobeden od ponudnikov ni predložil jamstva financiranja za celotno ceno nakupa in da zato prodajalci niso kršili načela enakega obravnavanja s tem, ko so med razpisnim postopkom omilili zahtevo po zajamčenem financiranju, napačna, ker ta sprememba podrobnih pravil razpisa ni bila sporočena vsem ponudnikom. | 109 | In addition, the applicant submits that the tender process was discriminatory. In particular, the applicant claims that negotiations took place between representatives of the sellers and of the buyer, but not with its own representatives, during autumn 2013, despite the fact that the buyer had no secured financing. The applicant alleges, inter alia, that the buyer was permitted to attend management meetings held by the sellers. Moreover, according to the applicant, the Commission is wrong to argue that none of the tenderers had provided any proof of financing for the full purchase price and that, therefore, the sellers did not breach the principle of equal treatment by relaxing the requirement for secured financing during the tender process, in so far as that change in the terms governing the tender was not communicated to all tenderers. |
| 110 | Tožeča stranka trdi tudi, da kupec ni dokazal zajamčenega financiranja, zlasti ker je predložil le zavezo v obliki dopisa Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014, tj. nezavezujoče pismo o nameri, in ker je bil ta dopis le predhodni osnutek, katerega zavezujoči učinek je bil pogojen z izpolnjevanjem dodatnih pogojev in končno odločitvijo Deutsche Bank. | 110 | Furthermore, the applicant submits that the buyer produced no proof of secured financing, since, inter alia, it had provided solely a commitment in the form of the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014, that is a non-binding letter of intent, and that letter was only a preliminary draft, which was not binding in itself but was subject to additional conditions and to a final decision by Deutsche Bank. |
| 111 | Nazadnje, tožeča stranka trdi, da je ponudila najvišjo nakupno ceno in zajamčeno financiranje. | 111 | Lastly, the applicant claims that it offered the highest purchase price, together with secured financing. |
| 112 | Komisija te trditve izpodbija. | 112 | The Commission disputes that line of argument. |
| 113 | V zvezi z očitki iz prvega dela prvega tožbenega razloga je treba ugotoviti, ali je bila preučitev, ki jo je Komisija opravila glede pravilnosti razpisnega postopka, taka, da je bilo mogoče izključiti obstoj resnih težav pri presoji prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, zaradi katerih bi bilo treba uvesti formalni postopek preiskave. | 113 | It is necessary to ascertain, in view of the claims put forward in the first part of the first plea, whether the examination carried out by the Commission with regard to the proper conduct of the tender process was of such a kind as to rule out such serious difficulties in assessing the sale of the Nürburgring assets as to justify the initiation of a formal investigation procedure. |
| 114 | V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se v primeru, da je podjetje, ki je prejelo pomoč, nezdružljivo z notranjim trgom, kupljeno po tržni ceni, torej po najvišji ceni, ki jo je bil za to družbo v položaju, v katerem se je znašla zlasti po tem, ko je bila deležna državnih pomoči, v običajnih konkurenčnih pogojih pripravljen plačati zasebni vlagatelj, element pomoči oceni na podlagi tržne cene in vključi v nakupno ceno. V takih okoliščinah ni mogoče šteti, da je bila kupcu dana prednost pred drugimi gospodarskimi subjekti na trgu (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 29. aprila 2004, Nemčija/Komisija, C‑277/00, EU:C:2004:238, točka 80 in navedena sodna praksa). | 114 | According to consistent case-law, where an undertaking that has benefited from aid that is incompatible with the internal market is bought at the market price, that is to say, at the highest price which a private investor acting under normal competitive conditions was ready to pay for that company in the situation it was in, in particular after having enjoyed State aid, the aid element is assessed at the market price and included in the purchase price. In such circumstances, the buyer cannot be regarded as having benefited from an advantage in relation to other market operators (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 April 2004, Germany v Commission, C‑277/00, EU:C:2004:238, paragraph 80 and the case-law cited). |
| 115 | Če je, nasprotno, prodaja sredstev upravičencev do državne pomoči opravljena po nižji ceni od tržne, se lahko neupravičena prednost prenese na kupca (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 28. marca 2012, Ryanair/Komisija, T‑123/09, EU:T:2012:164, točka 161). | 115 | If, on the contrary, the assets of State aid beneficiaries are sold at a price lower than the market price, undue advantage could be conferred on the buyer (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 March 2012, Ryanair v Commission, T‑123/09, EU:T:2012:164, paragraph 161). |
| 116 | Za preveritev tržne cene se lahko upošteva zlasti oblika, ki se uporablja za prenos družbe, na primer javni razpis, ki naj bi zagotovil prodajo pod tržnimi pogoji. Iz tega sledi, da je, kadar se podjetje prodaja v okviru odprtega, preglednega in brezpogojnega razpisnega postopka, mogoče domnevati, da je tržna cena enaka najvišji ponudbi, pri čemer mora biti dokazano, prvič, da je ta ponudba zavezujoča in verodostojna, in drugič, da upoštevanje drugih ekonomskih dejavnikov poleg cene ni upravičeno (glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 24. oktobra 2013, Land Burgenland in drugi/Komisija, C‑214/12 P, C‑215/12 P in C‑223/12 P, EU:C:2013:682, točki 93 in 94, ter z dne 16. julija 2015, BVVG, C‑39/14, EU:C:2015:470, točka 32). | 116 | For the purposes of checking the market price, the form of the transfer of a company, in particular, for example, public tendering, deemed to ensure that a sale takes place under market conditions, may be taken into consideration. It follows that, where an undertaking is sold by way of an open, transparent and unconditional tender procedure, it can be presumed that the market price corresponds to the highest offer, provided that it is established, first, that that offer is binding and credible and, secondly, that the consideration of economic factors other than the price is not justified (see, to that effect, judgments of 24 October 2013, Land Burgenland and Others v Commission, C‑214/12 P, C‑215/12 P and C‑223/12 P, EU:C:2013:682, paragraphs 93 and 94, and of 16 July 2015, BVVG, C‑39/14, EU:C:2015:470, paragraph 32). |
| 117 | V skladu s sodno prakso se odprtost in preglednost razpisnega postopka presojata glede na sklop indicev, ki so značilni za okoliščine vsake zadeve (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 29. aprila 2004, Nemčija/Komisija, C‑277/00, EU:C:2004:238, točka 95). | 117 | According to the case-law, the question whether a tender procedure has been open and transparent is determined on the basis of a body of evidence specific to the circumstances of each case (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 April 2004, Germany v Commission, C‑277/00, EU:C:2004:238, paragraph 95). |
| 118 | Glede na sodno prakso, navedeno v točkah od 114 do 117 zgoraj, je treba v obravnavanem primeru preučiti utemeljenost različnih očitkov, navedenih v okviru prvega dela prvega tožbenega razloga, ob tem pa upoštevati dejstvo, da Splošno sodišče v tem okviru ne more odločati neposredno o sami zakonitosti razpisnega postopka. | 118 | It is in the light of the case-law referred to in paragraphs 114 to 117 above that it is appropriate to examine, in the present case, the merits of the various claims raised in the context of the first part of the first plea, while bearing in mind the fact that, in that context, the Court cannot rule directly on the very lawfulness of the tender process. |
| i) Očitek o nepreglednosti razpisnega postopka | (i) The claim that the tender process was not transparent |
| 119 | Ker tožeča stranka trdi, da je bil razpisni postopek nepregleden, je treba spomniti (glej točko 9, sedma alinea, zgoraj), da je bil kot rok za predložitev potrdilnih ponudb najprej določen 11. december 2013, kot izhaja iz dopisa družbe KPMG z dne 17. oktobra 2013, in nato 17. februar 2014, kot izhaja iz dopisa družbe KPMG z dne 17. decembra 2013. V zadnjem dopisu je bilo pojasnjeno, da bodo upoštevane tudi ponudbe, predložene po izteku roka. Vendar je bilo v njem pojasnjeno, da bodo lahko prodajalci odločitev o izboru sprejeli kmalu po roku za oddajo ponudb. | 119 | Inasmuch as the applicant alleges that the tender process was not transparent, it should be recalled (see seventh indent of paragraph 9 above) that the deadline for the submission of confirmatory offers was set successively to 11 December 2013, as is apparent from the letter from KPMG of 17 October 2013, and then to 17 February 2014, as is apparent from the letter from KPMG of 17 December 2013. That last letter stated that offers submitted after expiry of the deadline would also be considered. However, it indicated that the sellers could make the selection decision shortly after expiry of the deadline for the submission of offers. |
| 120 | Kot upravičeno trdi Komisija, je bila torej možnost predložitve ponudbe po 17. februarju 2014 znana vsem ponudnikom. Poleg tega je to, da je lahko kupec predložil svojo končno ponudbo 10. marca 2014, po izteku roka, in bil imenovan za izbranega ponudnika že 11. marca 2014, povsem v skladu z navedbami iz dopisa družbe KPMG z dne 17. decembra 2013. | 120 | As the Commission rightly contends, it was known to all tenderers that it was possible to submit an offer after 17 February 2014. Similarly, the fact that the buyer was able to submit its final offer on 10 March 2014, after expiry of the deadline, and be designated the successful tenderer as from 11 March 2014 is wholly consistent with the provisions of the letter from KPMG of 17 December 2013. |
| 121 | Iz tega sledi, da na podlagi tega očitka ni mogoče ugotoviti, da bi morala Komisija imeti dvome glede obstoja prednosti, dodeljene kupcu v okviru razpisnega postopka, zaradi njegove nepreglednosti v zvezi z rokom, določenim za oddajo potrdilne ponudbe. | 121 | It follows that that claim does not make it possible to establish that the Commission ought to have had doubts as to the possible existence of an advantage conferred on the buyer in the tender process because of the non-transparent nature of that process in the light of the deadline set for the submission of a confirmatory offer. |
| ii) Očitek o diskriminatornosti razpisnega postopka | (ii) The claim that the tender process was discriminatory |
| 122 | Tožeča stranka v okviru tega očitka trdi, da je bil razpisni postopek diskriminatoren. Zlasti naj kupec ne bi dokazal zajamčenega financiranja, ker naj dopis Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014 v podporo njegovi ponudbi, odobreni 11. marca 2014, ne bi imel zavezujočega učinka. | 122 | In the context of the present claim, the applicant submits that the tender process was discriminatory. In particular, the applicant claims that the buyer produced no proof of secured financing, since the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014, in support of its offer approved on 11 March 2014, was non-binding. |
| 123 | V dopisu družbe KPMG zainteresiranim vlagateljem z dne 17. oktobra 2013 je bilo pojasnjeno, da mora vsako financiranje s strani tretje osebe temeljiti na zavezujoči finančni zavezi (glej točko 9, deveta alinea, zgoraj). Preveriti je torej treba, ali je bila preučitev, ki jo je opravila Komisija in se navezuje na analizo nemških organov, taka, da je bilo mogoče izključiti dvome o zavezujoči naravi dopisa Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014. | 123 | The letter from KPMG of 17 October 2013 to interested investors stated that any sources of financing relying on third parties had to be supported by binding financing commitments (see ninth indent of paragraph 9 above). It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether the examination carried out by the Commission, reflecting the German authorities’ analysis, was of such a kind as to rule out any doubt as to the binding nature of the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014. |
| 124 | Najprej, v dopisu Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014 je navedeno, da je ta pripravljena kupcu odobriti posojilo v višini 45 milijonov EUR. Pogoji tega financiranja so podrobno opisani, kar – kot upravičeno trdi Komisija – kaže na to, da je Deutsche Bank temeljito preučila zadevo in da sta si s kupcem izmenjevala informacije. | 124 | First of all, the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014 states that the latter was willing to underwrite a loan of EUR 45 million to the buyer. The conditions governing that financing are described in detail, which, as the Commission rightly submits, suggests careful analysis by Deutsche Bank and an exchange of information between the latter and the buyer. |
| 125 | Dalje, dopis Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014 se večkrat sklicuje na zavezo Deutsche Bank, ki jo je ta sprejela do družbe Capricorn na podlagi navedenega dopisa. Banka Deutsche Bank se je torej štela za zavezano z navedenim dopisom. | 125 | Second, the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014 refers several times to Deutsche Bank’s commitment in respect of Capricorn under that letter. Deutsche Bank thus considered itself bound by that letter. |
| 126 | V zvezi s tem – kot upravičeno trdi Komisija – primerjava dopisa Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014 s pripravljalnima in nezavezujočima dopisoma Deutsche Bank z dne 17. oziroma 25. februarja 2014 potrjuje zavezujočo naravo dopisa Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014. V dopisu z dne 17. februarja 2014 je tako navedeno, da ne pomeni zaveze Deutsche Bank, v nasprotju z dopisom Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014, ki se sklicuje na zavezo Deutsche Bank, ki jo je ta sprejela do družbe Capricorn na podlagi tega dopisa. | 126 | In that regard, as the Commission rightly points out, a comparison of the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014 with two non-binding preparatory letters from Deutsche Bank of 17 and 25 February 2014 confirms the binding nature of the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014. Thus, the letter of 17 February 2014 states that it does not constitute a commitment on the part of Deutsche Bank, unlike the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014, which refers to Deutsche Bank’s commitment in respect of Capricorn under that letter. |
| 127 | Nazadnje, v dopisu Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014 je pojasnjeno, da je zaveza, ki jo je ta sprejela, pogojena s tremi pogoji. V skladu s temi pogoji (izvedba transakcije, brez znatnih sprememb glede kupljenih sredstev, brez nezakonitosti) bi se lahko Deutsche Bank svoji zavezi izognila le, če nakup ne bi bil izveden pod predvidenimi pogoji. | 127 | Lastly, the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014 specifies that Deutsche Bank’s commitment is subject to three conditions. However, those conditions (execution of the transaction, no material change to the assets purchased, no illegality or unlawfulness) did not allow Deutsche Bank to withdraw its commitment unless the acquisition failed to be carried out in accordance with the conditions stipulated. |
| 128 | Ob upoštevanju zgornjih ugotovitev se ne zdi, da bi morala Komisija imeti dvome o zavezujoči naravi dopisa Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014. | 128 | In the light of the foregoing, it does not appear that the Commission ought to have had doubts as to the binding nature of the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014. |
| 129 | Nasprotno in kot je Komisija upravičeno ugotovila v točki 272 obrazložitve končnega sklepa, tožeča stranka ni nikoli predložila dokaza o financiranju svoje ponudbe. | 129 | On the contrary, and as rightly noted by the Commission in recital 272 of the final decision, the applicant never provided proof of financing in respect of its offer. |
| 130 | Tožeča stranka je 30. septembra 2013 predložila okvirno ponudbo za vsa sredstva kompleksa Nürburgring v višini 150 milijonov EUR. Ta ponudba ni vključevala dokaza o njeni sposobnosti financiranja, kar ji je družba KPMG omenila v dopisih z dne 11. in 17. decembra 2013 ter v dopisu z dne 18. decembra 2013. Tožeča stranka je prejela tudi dopis družbe KPMG z dne 17. oktobra 2013, v katerem je bilo pojasnjeno, da mora vsako financiranje s strani tretje osebe temeljiti na zavezujoči finančni zavezi. | 130 | On 30 September 2013, the applicant submitted an indicative offer for all the Nürburgring assets, amounting to EUR 150 million. That offer was not supported by proof of its financing capacity, a fact which KPMG pointed out to the applicant in its letters of 11 and 17 December 2013 and in a letter of 18 December 2013. The applicant also received the letter from KPMG of 17 October 2013 stating that any sources of financing relying on third parties had to be supported by binding financing commitment letters. |
| 131 | Tožeča stranka je 17. februarja 2014 predložila končno ponudbo v višini 110 milijonov EUR za vsa sredstva. Takrat je trdila, da je od družbe DRC Capital LLP pridobila zavezujočo finančno zavezo za 30 milijonov EUR. Vendar ni bil ponudbi priložen noben dokument družbe DRC Capital, kar je družba KPMG tožeči stranki omenila v elektronskem sporočilu z dne 18. februarja 2014. | 131 | On 17 February 2014, the applicant submitted a final offer amounting to EUR 110 million for all assets. It claimed at that time that it had obtained a binding financing commitment of EUR 30 million from DRC Capital LLP. However, no document from DRC Capital was provided with the offer, a fact which KPMG pointed out to the applicant in an email of 18 February 2014. |
| 132 | Tožeča stranka je 21. februarja 2014 navedla, da bi lahko vse zavezujoče finančne zaveze pridobila v obdobju od dveh do petih tednov. 11. marca 2014 je predložila posodobljeno različico končne ponudbe v skupni višini 150 milijonov EUR in potrdila, da bo vse zavezujoče finančne zaveze predložila najpozneje do 31. marca 2014. Nazadnje trdi, da je 26. marca 2014 od družbe Jupiter Financial prejela finančno zavezo, vendar priznava, da je ni nikoli predložila družbi KPMG. Družba KPMG je v elektronskem sporočilu z dne 9. aprila 2014 tožeči stranki navedla, da še vedno ni prejela pisnega potrdila tretje osebe, ki naj bi financirala njeno ponudbo. | 132 | On 21 February 2014, the applicant stated that it should have all binding financing commitments within a period of two to five weeks. On 11 March 2014, it claims to have provided an updated version of the final offer, amounting to EUR 150 million, and confirmed that it would submit all binding financing commitments by 31 March 2014. Finally, it asserts that it received a financing commitment from Jupiter Financial on 26 March 2014 but acknowledges that it never sent this to KPMG. In an email of 9 April 2014, KPMG pointed out to the applicant that it had still not received written confirmation from third-party financing sources to support its offer. |
| 133 | Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je imel kupec, katerega ponudba je bila izbrana, najprej na voljo dva pripravljalna dopisa Deutsche Bank z dne 17. oziroma 25. februarja 2014 in nato dopis Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014, v zvezi s katerim se ne zdi, da bi Komisija morala imeti dvome glede njegove zavezujoče narave, medtem ko tožeča stranka, katere ponudba ni bila izbrana, ni nikoli predložila nobenega dokaza o financiranju. Poleg tega je bila tožeča stranka večkrat opozorjena na zahtevo po zavezujoči finančni zavezi. | 133 | As is apparent from the foregoing, the buyer, whose offer was successful, had, first, two preparatory letters from Deutsche Bank of 17 and 25 February 2014, and then the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014, in respect of which it does not appear that the Commission ought to have had doubts as to its binding nature, whereas the applicant, whose offer was not successful, at no time provided any proof of financing. Moreover, the requirement for a binding financing commitment was brought to the applicant’s attention on several occasions. |
| 134 | Glede na zgornje ugotovitve ni mogoče šteti, da bi Komisija ob upoštevanju dejanskih in pravnih okoliščin, ki jih navaja tožeča stranka, morala imeti dvome glede obstoja prednosti, dodeljene kupcu v okviru razpisnega postopka, zaradi njegove diskriminatornosti glede na zahtevo po zavezujoči finančni zavezi. | 134 | In view of the foregoing, it cannot be found that the Commission, in the light of the matters of fact and of law put forward by the applicant, ought to have had doubts as to the possible existence of an advantage conferred on the buyer in the tender process due to the alleged discriminatory nature of that process in the light of the requirement for a binding financing commitment. |
| iii) Očitek o višini in financiranju ponudb družbe Capricorn in tožeče stranke | (iii) The claim relating to the amount and financing of the offers made by Capricorn and by the applicant |
| 135 | Tožeča stranka v okviru tega očitka trdi, da je predlagala najvišjo nakupno ceno in zajamčeno financiranje, medtem ko je bila ponudba družbe Capricorn, ki je bila nazadnje izbrana, nižja od njene in ni imela zajamčenega financiranja. | 135 | In the context of the present claim, the applicant submits that it offered the highest purchase price as well as secured financing, whereas Capricorn’s offer, which was ultimately successful, was lower than its own and lacked secured financing. |
| 136 | Ker je višina končne ponudbe za nakup, ki jo je predložila tožeča stranka, znašala 110 milijonov EUR, medtem ko je ponudba družbe Capricorn znašala 77 milijonov EUR, tožeča stranka upravičeno trdi, da je ponudila višjo nakupno ceno kot družba Capricorn. | 136 | Given that the final purchase price offered by the applicant amounted to EUR 110 million, whereas Capricorn’s offer amounted to EUR 77 million, the applicant is right to assert that its purchase price offer was higher than that of Capricorn. |
| 137 | Vendar je v skladu s sodno prakso, navedeno v točki 116 zgoraj, mogoče predpostavljati, da tržna cena ustreza najvišji ponudbi, predloženi v okviru odprtega, preglednega in brezpogojnega razpisnega postopka, le če je dokazano, da je ta ponudba zavezujoča in verodostojna. | 137 | However, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 116 above, it cannot be presumed that the market price corresponds to the highest offer submitted in an open, transparent and unconditional tender procedure unless it has been established that that offer is binding and credible. |
| 138 | V obravnavanem primeru so morali biti zainteresirani vlagatelji v skladu z dopisoma, ki jim ju je 19. julija in 17. oktobra 2013 poslala družba KPMG, izbrani zlasti ob upoštevanju zahteve po zagotovitvi varnosti transakcije (glej točko 9, deveta alinea, zgoraj). | 138 | In the present case, as set out in the letters addressed to them on 19 July and 17 October 2013 by KPMG, interested investors were to be selected, inter alia, on the basis of the requirement for transaction security (see ninth indent of paragraph 9 above). |
| 139 | Tožeča stranka napačno trdi, da je ponudila zajamčeno financiranje, saj ni nikoli predložila nobenega dokaza o financiranju. Iz točke 272 obrazložitve končnega sklepa izhaja, da so lahko nemški organi, ker ni bilo dokazov o njeni finančni sposobnosti in solventnosti, dvomili o njeni sposobnosti, da zbere potrebna finančna sredstva za plačilo nakupne cene, ki jo je ponudila, ter s tem o verodostojnosti njene ponudbe in njeni skladnosti z zahtevo po zagotovitvi varnosti plačila prodajne cene. | 139 | However, the applicant is wrong to claim that it offered secured financing since at no time did it produce any proof of financing. It is apparent from recital 272 of the final decision that the German authorities could, in the absence of proof of its financial capacity and solvency, cast doubt on its capacity to raise sufficient funds to pay the purchase price that it was offering and, accordingly, on the credibility of its offer and its compliance with the requirement for payment security with regard to the sale price. |
| 140 | Nasprotno je imela družba Capricorn najprej na voljo dva pripravljalna dopisa Deutsche Bank z dne 17. in 25. februarja 2014 ter nato dopis Deutsche Bank z dne 10. marca 2014, glede katerega je bilo že ugotovljeno, da Komisiji ni bilo treba dvomiti o njegovi zavezujoči naravi (glej točki 128 in 133 zgoraj). | 140 | By contrast, Capricorn had, first, the two preparatory letters from Deutsche Bank of 17 and 25 February 2014, and then the letter from Deutsche Bank of 10 March 2014, the binding nature of which, it has already been noted, the Commission did not have to doubt (see paragraphs 128 and 133 above). |
| 141 | Poleg tega sta, kot je navedeno v točki 273 obrazložitve končnega sklepa, v zadnji fazi pogajanj, opravljenih v okviru razpisnega postopka, sodelovala le ponudnik 2 in družba Capricorn, katerih ponudbi sta bili nižji od ponudbe tožeče stranke, vendar sta vključevali zavezo o financiranju. Prodajalci so ponudbo družbe Capricorn torej primerjali s ponudbo ponudnika 2. To potrjuje dejstvo, da je bila po mnenju odvetnikov prodajalcev na dan 26. februarja 2014 potrdilna ponudba ponudnika 2 najboljša ponudba, čeprav je bila nižja od ponudbe družbe Capricorn, in da so se prodajalci ravno zaradi višjega zneska ponudbe zadnjenavedene družbe tudi poskušali dogovoriti o prodaji sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring z družbo Capricorn. Iz točke 273 obrazložitve končnega sklepa pa izhaja, da sta bila ponudba in zaveza o financiranju, ki ju je nazadnje predložila družba Capricorn, višja od ponudbe in obljube o financiranju, ki ju je predložil ponudnik 2. | 141 | In addition, as stated in recital 273 of the final decision, only Bidder 2 and Capricorn, whose offers were both lower than that of the applicant but included financial pledges, participated in the final stage of the negotiations carried out in the tender process. The sellers therefore compared Capricorn’s offer with that of Bidder 2. This is confirmed by the fact that, according to the sellers’ lawyers, on 26 February 2014 the confirmatory offer of Bidder 2 was the best offer, albeit of a lower amount than that of Capricorn, and that it is precisely because of the latter’s higher bid that the sellers also attempted to finalise the sale of the Nürburgring assets with Capricorn. However, it is apparent from recital 273 of the final decision that both the offer and the financial pledge submitted in fine by Capricorn were higher than the offer and the financial pledge submitted by Bidder 2. |
| 142 | Ni torej dokazano, da bi morala imeti Komisija dvome glede dejstva, da je bila družba Capricorn ponudnik, ki je predložil najboljšo zavezujočo in verodostojno ponudbo, ob upoštevanju ne le cene, ki je bila predlagana, temveč tudi jamstev glede zagotovitve varnosti transakcije, ki so bila ponujena. Povedano drugače, ni dokazano, da bi morala dvomiti o tem, da „so bila zadevna sredstva prodana ponudniku, ki je predložil najvišjo ponudbo, vključno z dokazom o financiranju,“ kot je poudarjeno v točki 276 obrazložitve končnega sklepa, in o tem, da „je katera koli ponudba vključevala višjo ceno z varnim financiranjem v primerjavi s ponudbo podjetja Capricorn“, kot je poudarjeno v točki 281 obrazložitve istega sklepa. | 142 | It has therefore not been established that the Commission ought to have doubted the fact that Capricorn was the tenderer which submitted the highest binding and credible offer, based not only on the price offered but also on the proof furnished in terms of transaction security. In other words, it has not been established that it ought to have had doubts as to whether ‘the assets in question [had] been sold to the bidder who submitted the highest bid including a proof of its financing’, as observed in recital 276 of the final decision, and as to the fact that there was ‘[no] offer with a higher price bid with secured financing compared to the price bid made by Capricorn’, as observed in recital 281 of that decision. |
| 143 | Tudi ta očitek je torej treba zavrniti. | 143 | This claim must therefore also be rejected. |
| 144 | V skladu s sodno prakso, navedeno v točkah od 114 do 117 zgoraj, je bila preučitev Komisije torej taka, da je bilo mogoče izključiti vse dvome glede obstoja neupravičene prednosti za kupca v okviru razpisnega postopka in s tem glede dodelitve državne pomoči zadnjenavedenemu. Zato ni mogoče ugotoviti, da prvi del prvega tožbenega razloga razkriva resne težave pri presoji prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, zaradi katerih bi morala Komisija uvesti formalni postopek preiskave iz člena 108(2) PDEU. | 144 | In accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraphs 114 to 117 above, the examination carried out by the Commission was therefore of such a kind as to rule out any doubt as to whether there had been any undue advantage in favour of the buyer in the tender process and, therefore, as to whether any State aid had been granted to the latter. Accordingly, it cannot be held that the first part of the first plea points to serious difficulties in assessing the sale of the Nürburgring assets that would have required the Commission to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| 145 | Zato je treba prvi del prvega tožbenega razloga zavrniti. | 145 | Consequently the first part of the first plea in law must be rejected. |
| 2) Drugi del prvega tožbenega razloga: prednost, dodeljena kupcu v okviru najemne pogodbe v zvezi s sredstvi kompleksa Nürburgring | (2) The second part of the first plea in law, alleging an advantage conferred on the buyer in the lease of the Nürburgring assets |
| 146 | Tožeča stranka v drugem delu prvega tožbenega razloga trdi, da je bila kupcu dodeljena tudi ugodnost v okviru najemne pogodbe v zvezi s sredstvi kompleksa Nürburgring. Iz točke 56 obrazložitve končnega sklepa izhaja, da je bil ta najem sklenjen med neodvisno družbo prodajalcev, ki je konkretno delovala kot skrbnica navedenih sredstev, in operativnim podjetjem, ki ga je ustanovila družba Capricorn, za obdobje od 1. januarja 2015 za ureditev prehodnega položaja, ki je ustrezal morebitni uresničitvi pogoja, na katerega je bila vezana prodaja sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring družbi Capricorn, in sicer temu, da Komisija sprejme sklep, s katerim se zavrne kakršno koli tveganje, da bi moral kupec navedenih sredstev vrniti pomoč prodajalcem. Letna najemnina ni presegala 5 milijonov EUR, medtem ko bi morala po mnenju tožeče stranke znašati vsaj 7,7 milijona EUR. | 146 | By the second part of the first plea, the applicant submits that an advantage was also conferred on the buyer in the lease of the Nürburgring assets. It follows from recital 56 of the final decision that that lease was concluded between a company independent of the sellers, operating in actual fact as trustee of those assets, and an operating company created by Capricorn for a period starting on 1 January 2015 with a view to structuring a temporary situation corresponding to the possible realisation of the condition to which the sale of the Nürburgring assets to Capricorn was subject, namely the adoption by the Commission of a decision ruling out any risk that the buyer of those assets might be required to reimburse the aid to the sellers. The annual lease did not exceed EUR 5 million, whereas, according to the applicant, it ought to have been at least EUR 7.7 million. |
| 147 | Komisija izpodbija to utemeljevanje in trdi zlasti, da je najemnina pomenila le predčasno plačilo delov prodajne cene za sredstva kompleksa Nürburgring, ki je bila sama v skladu s tržnimi pogoji. | 147 | The Commission disputes that line of argument and contends, inter alia, that the lease was no more than the advance payment of portions of the sales price of the Nürburgring assets, which was itself consistent with market conditions. |
| 148 | Iz razlogov, navedenih v točkah od 119 do 133 zgoraj, ni mogoče šteti, da bi morala Komisija imeti dvome o preglednosti in nediskriminatornosti razpisnega postopka. | 148 | For the reasons set out in paragraphs 119 to 133 above, it cannot be considered that the Commission ought to have had doubts as to whether the tender process was transparent and non-discriminatory. |
| 149 | Iz teh istih razlogov Komisija utemeljeno ni imela dvomov glede obstoja prednosti, dodeljene kupcu v okviru razpisnega postopka, vključno glede najemne pogodbe v zvezi s sredstvi kompleksa Nürburgring, ki je bila dogovorjena za primer, če pogoji, določeni za izvedbo prodaje, ne bi bili izpolnjeni. | 149 | For those same reasons, the Commission was justified in having no doubt as to whether an advantage had been conferred on the buyer in the tender process, including in relation to the lease of the Nürburgring assets that had been negotiated in case the conditions set for the sale to be perfected were not satisfied. |
| 150 | Zato je treba drugi del prvega tožbenega razloga zavrniti. | 150 | The second part of the first plea in law must therefore be rejected. |
| 3) Tretji del prvega tožbenega razloga: uporaba državnih sredstev v okviru prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring kupcu | (3) The third part of the first plea in law, alleging use of State resources in connection with the sale of the Nürburgring assets to the buyer |
| 151 | Tožeča stranka v tretjem delu prvega tožbenega razloga trdi, da Komisija ni preučila, ali so bila v okviru prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring družbi Capricorn uporabljena državna sredstva. Morala pa bi ugotoviti, da so bila. | 151 | By the third part of the first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to examine whether State resources were involved in connection with the sale of the Nürburgring assets to Capricorn. According to the applicant, the Commission should have found that that was the case. |
| 152 | Komisija te trditve izpodbija. | 152 | The Commission disputes that line of argument. |
| 153 | Spomniti je treba, da lahko Komisija ustavi postopek s pritožbo, kadar lahko že takoj izključi opredelitev zadevnih ukrepov za državno pomoč, potem ko je ugotovila, da eden od bistvenih pogojev za uporabo člena 107(1) PDEU ni izpolnjen (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 5. aprila 2006, Deutsche Bahn/Komisija, T‑351/02, EU:T:2006:104, točka 104). | 153 | It should be recalled that the Commission may decide to take no further action on a complaint when it is able to rule out at the outset classifying the measures in question as State aid after finding that one of the conditions that are fundamental to the application of Article 107(1) TFEU is not satisfied (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 April 2006, Deutsche Bahn v Commission, T‑351/02, EU:T:2006:104, paragraph 104). |
| 154 | V obravnavanem primeru je Komisija v točkah od 266 do 281 obrazložitve končnega sklepa preučila, ali je bil razpisni postopek odprt, pregleden, nediskriminatoren in brezpogojen ter ali je bila družba Capricorn ponudnik, ki je predložil najboljšo ponudbo skupaj z jamstvom financiranja, v bistvu z namenom, da bi preverila, ali so bila sredstva kompleksa Nürburgring prodana po njihovi tržni ceni, v skladu s sodno prakso, navedeno v točki 116 zgoraj. | 154 | In the present case, by examining, in recitals 266 to 281 of the final decision, whether the tender process had been open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional and whether Capricorn was the tenderer which submitted the highest offer with proof of its financing, the Commission intended, in essence, to check that the Nürburgring assets had been sold at their market price, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 116 above. |
| 155 | Če bi bila prodaja sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring opravljena po nižji ceni od tržne, kot je opozorjeno v točki 115 zgoraj, bi bila lahko kupcu dodeljena neupravičena prednost (sodba z dne 28. marca 2012, Ryanair/Komisija, T‑123/09, EU:T:2012:164, točka 161). Preučitev Komisije se je torej nanašala na vprašanje, ali je bila v obravnavanem primeru družbi Capricorn dodeljena taka prednost v okviru razpisnega postopka. | 155 | If the Nürburgring assets were sold at a price lower than the market price, as recalled in paragraph 115 above, undue advantage could have been conferred on the buyer (judgment of 28 March 2012, Ryanair v Commission, T‑123/09, EU:T:2012:164, paragraph 161). The Commission’s examination therefore concerned the issue of whether, in the present case, such an advantage had been conferred on Capricorn in connection with the tender process. |
| 156 | Komisija je ugotovila, da ker ni bilo take prednosti, družbi Capricorn v okviru prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring ni bila odobrena državna pomoč. Povedano drugače, Komisija je ugotovila, da eden od bistvenih pogojev za uporabo člena 107(1) PDEU v zvezi z obstojem prednosti ni bil izpolnjen. | 156 | The Commission concluded that, in the absence of such an advantage, no State aid had been granted to Capricorn in connection with the sale of the Nürburgring assets. In other words, the Commission found that one of the conditions that are fundamental to the application of Article 107(1) TFEU, relating to the existence of an advantage, was not satisfied. |
| 157 | Zato Komisiji ni mogoče utemeljeno očitati, da ni preučila tudi, ali je bil izpolnjen pogoj v zvezi s posredovanjem države ali z državnimi sredstvi. | 157 | Accordingly, it cannot validly be argued that the Commission failed to examine also whether the condition relating to an intervention by the State or through State resources was satisfied. |
| 158 | Posledično je treba ugotoviti, da preučitev tretjega dela prvega tožbenega razloga in s tem prvega tožbenega razloga v celoti ni razkrila indicev o obstoju dvomov glede opredelitve prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring kot državne pomoči, zaradi katerih bi bilo treba uvesti formalni postopek preiskave iz člena 108(2) PDEU. | 158 | Consequently, it is appropriate to hold that the examination of the third part of the first plea and, accordingly, of the first plea in its entirety, has revealed no evidence that doubts existed as to the classification as State aid of the sale of the Nürburgring assets that would have required the initiation of the formal investigation procedure set out in Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| 159 | Prvi tožbeni razlog v povezavi s prvim delom četrtega tožbenega razloga je torej treba zavrniti. | 159 | The first plea in law, read in the light of the first part of the fourth plea in law, must therefore be rejected. |
| e) Tretji tožbeni razlog: neupoštevanje nadaljevanja postopka prodaje z odstopom deleža družbe Capricorn v namenski družbi za nakup sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring končnemu kupcu | (e) The third plea in law, alleging a failure to take account of the continuation of the sales process by the transfer, to a sub-purchaser, of Capricorn’s shares in the acquisition vehicle for the Nürburgring assets |
| 160 | Tožeča stranka v tretjem tožbenem razlogu trdi, da je Komisija v končnem sklepu napačno navedla, da je bil postopek prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring končan 11. marca 2014 z njihovo dodelitvijo družbi Capricorn. | 160 | By its third plea, the applicant maintains that the Commission was wrong to state, in the final decision, that the sales process relating to the Nürburgring assets was concluded on 11 March 2014 with the award to Capricorn. |
| 161 | Prodajalci naj bi namreč julija 2014 nadaljevali postopek prodaje, potem ko se je izkazalo, da družba Capricorn ni sposobna izvesti drugega delnega plačila nakupne cene. Od septembra 2014 naj bi potekala neformalna pogajanja, med katerimi naj bi prodajalci sami predlagali prenos sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, kar naj bi 28. oktobra 2014 privedlo do odstopa deleža družbe Capricorn v namenski družbi za nakup teh sredstev končnemu kupcu. Tudi nadaljevanje postopka prodaje naj ne bi bilo v skladu z zahtevami odprtosti, preglednosti, nediskriminatornosti in brezpogojnosti. | 161 | The applicant claims that the sellers continued the sales process from July 2014, after Capricorn had made clear that it was unable to pay the second instalment of the purchase price. According to the applicant, informal negotiations took place from September 2014, during which the sellers themselves proposed the sale of the Nürburgring assets, leading to the transfer to a sub-purchaser, on 28 October 2014, of Capricorn’s shares in the acquisition vehicle for those assets. The continuation of the sales process was, it is claimed, not conducted in an open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional manner either. |
| 162 | Po mnenju tožeče stranke odstop deleža družbe Capricorn v namenski družbi za nakup sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring končnemu kupcu pomeni konec postopka prodaje navedenih sredstev ter je bil sklenjen v interesu prodajalcev in ne družbe Capricorn. Ta namreč od tega odstopa ni imela nobene koristi, razen prenehanja svojih pogodbenih obveznosti. Dejstvo, da je bila cena odstopa tega deleža enaka ceni prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring družbi Capricorn, naj v obravnavanem primeru ne bi upravičevalo neobstoja obveznosti izvedbe novega razpisnega postopka. | 162 | In the applicant’s view, the transfer, to a sub-purchaser, of Capricorn’s shares in the acquisition vehicle for the Nürburgring assets constituted the conclusion of the sales process relating to those assets and was carried out in the sellers’ interests and not in Capricorn’s interests. Capricorn gained no advantage from that transfer, the applicant argues, beyond that relating to the extinction of its contractual obligations. The applicant claims that the fact that the price for the transfer of those shares was identical to that of the sale of the Nürburgring assets to Capricorn did not justify the failure to launch, in the present case, a new tender process. |
| 163 | Komisija te trditve izpodbija. | 163 | The Commission disputes that line of argument. |
| 164 | Iz razlogov, ki so bili že navedeni v točkah 103 in 104 zgoraj, Komisiji ni mogoče očitati, da se v končnem sklepu ni izrekla o nadaljevanju postopka prodaje z odstopom deleža družbe Capricorn v namenski družbi za nakup sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring končnemu kupcu, ker je bil navedeni odstop izveden, kot priznava tožeča stranka sama, po sprejetju navedenega sklepa. | 164 | For the reasons already set out in paragraphs 103 and 104 above, the Commission cannot be criticised for not taking a view, in the final decision, on the continuation of the sales process by the transfer, to a sub-purchaser, of Capricorn’s shares in the acquisition vehicle for the Nürburgring assets, since that transfer took place, as the applicant itself recognises, after that decision had been adopted. |
| 165 | Poleg tega, čeprav iz članka v medijih z dne 30. septembra 2014 izhaja, da je banka Deutsche Bank umaknila svoje financiranje za družbo Capricorn in da sta stečajna upravitelja iskala nove prevzemnike sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, tožeča stranka ni dokazala, da je imela Komisija te informacije na voljo ali bi jih lahko imela na voljo, ko je sprejela končni sklep. | 165 | In addition, while it is apparent from a news article of 30 September 2014 that Deutsche Bank withdrew its financing to Capricorn and that the administrators searched for new purchasers for the Nürburgring assets, the applicant failed to establish that that information had been available to the Commission at the time of adopting the final decision. |
| 166 | Vsekakor je bil v skladu s sodno prakso, navedeno v točkah od 114 do 117 zgoraj, in kot je zatrdila Komisija v stališčih z dne 13. decembra 2017 v odgovor na pisna vprašanja Splošnega sodišča, namen njene preučitve raziskati, ali je bil razpisni postopek odprt, pregleden, nediskiminatoren in brezpogojen, da bi preverila, ali so bila sredstva kompleksa Nürburgring prodana po tržni ceni. V nasprotnem primeru bi bila lahko navedena prodaja opravljena po nižji ceni od tržne, kupcu pa dodeljena neupravičena prednost. | 166 | In any event, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraphs 114 to 117 above, and as the Commission contended in its observations of 13 December 2017 in response to the Court’s written questions, its examination was designed to ascertain whether the tender process had been carried out in an open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional manner in order to determine whether or not the Nürburgring assets had been sold at their market price. Otherwise, those assets might have been sold at a price lower than the market price, and undue advantage might have been conferred on the buyer. |
| 167 | Zato je treba šteti, da je bila pomoč, ki bi jo po mnenju tožeče stranke (glej točko 10 zgoraj) morala ugotoviti Komisija v drugem izpodbijanem sklepu ter bi morala ustrezati razliki med ceno, ki jo je plačala družba Capricorn za nakup sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, in tržno ceno teh sredstev, družbi Capricorn odobrena 11. marca 2014, tj. na datum, ko so bila sredstva kompleksa Nürburgring dodeljena tej družbi in ko je bila podpisana pogodba o prodaji, v kateri je bila določena cena za nakup sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, ki jo je morala plačati družba Capricorn. Iz tega sledi, da dejstva, poznejša od tega datuma, kot so težave družbe Capricorn v fazi izpolnitve pogodbe o prodaji in odstop njenega deleža v namenski družbi za nakup sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring končnemu kupcu, niso bila upoštevna pri preučitvi vprašanja, ali je bila v okviru razpisnega postopka družbi Capricorn morda odobrena pomoč. | 167 | Consequently, it is appropriate to take the view that the aid, which, according to the applicant (see paragraph 10 above), should have been established by the Commission in the second contested decision and which would have corresponded to the difference between the price paid by Capricorn to purchase the Nürburgring assets and the market price of those assets, would have been granted to Capricorn on 11 March 2014, the date on which the Nürburgring assets were awarded to Capricorn and the sales agreement setting the purchase price for the Nürburgring assets owed by Capricorn was signed. It follows that the facts subsequent to that date, such as the difficulties faced by Capricorn for the execution of the sales agreement and the transfer to a sub-purchaser, by Capricorn, of its shares in the acquisition vehicle for the Nürburgring assets, were not relevant in assessing whether aid might have been granted to Capricorn in the tender process. |
| 168 | Nazadnje, kot upravičeno trdi Komisija v stališčih z dne 13. decembra 2017 v odgovor na pisna vprašanja Splošnega sodišča, bi morala tožeča stranka, če bi želela, da preuči tudi obstoj nove pomoči, ki izhaja iz domnevnega nadaljevanja postopka prodaje po sprejetju drugega izpodbijanega sklepa, v zvezi s tem vložiti novo pritožbo. | 168 | Lastly, as the Commission rightly contended in its observations of 13 December 2017 in response to the Court’s written questions, had the applicant wished that the Commission also investigated whether new aid stemmed from the alleged continuation of the sales process, subsequent to the adoption of the second contested decision, it should have lodged a new complaint in that respect. |
| 169 | Iz tega sledi, da trditve, navedene v podporo tretjemu tožbenemu razlogu, ki se nanaša na neupoštevanje nadaljevanja postopka prodaje po sprejetju drugega izpodbijanega sklepa, ne omogočajo ugotovitve, da je Komisija ob koncu faze predhodne preučitve naletela na težave pri presoji prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, zaradi katerih bi morala uvesti formalni postopek preiskave. | 169 | It follows that the arguments put forward in support of the third plea, alleging a failure to take account of the continuation of the sales process after the adoption of the second contested decision, do not make it possible to establish that, after the preliminary examination stage, the Commission was facing difficulties in assessing the sale of the Nürburgring assets that would have required the initiation of a formal investigation procedure. |
| 170 | Tretji tožbeni razlog v povezavi s prvim delom četrtega tožbenega razloga je torej treba zavrniti. | 170 | The third plea in law, read in the light of the first part of the fourth plea in law, must therefore be rejected. |
| f) Peti tožbeni razlog: pomanjkljiva obrazložitev | (f) The fifth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons |
| 171 | Tožeča stranka v petem tožbenem razlogu trdi, da Komisija ni odgovorila na njene očitke glede, prvič, preučitve zahteve po zagotovitvi varnosti transakcije, drugič, nadaljevanja postopka prodaje in odstopa sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring končnemu kupcu, tretjič, uporabe državnih sredstev ter vključenosti države v sklenitev prodaje in najema v zvezi s sredstvi kompleksa Nürburgring, četrtič, dodatne odobritve državne pomoči v višini šestih milijonov EUR v korist kupca, ki ustreza delnemu plačilu nakupne cene, iz dobička upravljavca kompleksa Nürburgring za poslovno leto 2014 (glej točko 6 zgoraj), petič, vloge odvetniške pisarne, ki je zastopala kupca in prodajalce, šestič, diskriminatornosti razpisnega postopka v zvezi z dogovori, povezanimi z upravljanjem kompleksa Nürburgring, sedmič, najemne pogodbe, sklenjene med kupcem in prodajalci, ter vprašanja, ali je pomenila državno pomoč, in osmič, preveritve nakupne cene za sredstva kompleksa Nürburgring na podlagi strokovnih mnenj. | 171 | By its fifth plea, the applicant argues that the Commission failed to respond to its claims regarding (i) the examination of the requirement for transaction security, (ii) the continuation of the sales process and the sale of the Nürburgring assets to a sub-purchaser, (iii) the use of State resources and the involvement of the State in the conclusion of the sale and of the lease relating to the Nürburgring assets, (iv) the additional granting to the buyer of State aid in the amount of EUR 6 million, corresponding to the partial payment of the purchase price out of the 2014 profits of the Nürburgring manager (see paragraph 6 above), (v) the role of the law firm representing the buyer and the sellers, (vi) the discriminatory nature of the tender process as regards the agreements relating to the operation of the Nürburgring, (vii) the lease between the buyer and the sellers and the issue of whether it amounted to State aid, and (viii) the verification of the purchase price of the Nürburgring assets on the basis of expert opinions. |
| 172 | Tožeča stranka trdi tudi, da Komisija ni zagotovila jasne in nedvoumne obrazložitve v zvezi z, po eni strani, organizacijo, navedeno v točki 56 obrazložitve končnega sklepa, vzpostavljeno po zaključku prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring za zagotovitev njegovega začasnega delovanja do izvršljivega sklepa Komisije, ki bi pojasnil pravni položaj družbe Capricorn glede pomoči prodajalcem, in, po drugi strani, zahtevo po zagotovitvi varnosti te transakcije. | 172 | The applicant also submits that the Commission failed to provide clear and unequivocal reasons concerning, on the one hand, the arrangement, referred to in recital 56 of the final decision, put in place after the conclusion of the sale of the Nürburgring assets in order to ensure the temporary operation of those assets pending a non-challengeable decision by the Commission clarifying Capricorn’s legal position with regard to the aid to the sellers and, on the other hand, the requirement for transaction security. |
| 173 | Nazadnje, tožeča stranka trdi, da Komisija v okviru preučitve zahteve po zagotovitvi varnosti transakcije ter povezav med stečajnima upraviteljema in državo ni zagotovila podrobnejše obrazložitve glede sprememb njene prakse odločanja. | 173 | Lastly, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to provide more detailed reasoning in relation to alleged changes in its decision-making practice, in the context of the examination of the requirement for transaction security and the existing links between the administrators and the State. |
| 174 | Komisija te trditve izpodbija. | 174 | The Commission disputes that line of argument. |
| 175 | Obrazložitev, predpisana s členom 296, drugi odstavek, PDEU, mora omogočati, da se zainteresirane osebe seznanijo z razlogi za sprejeti ukrep in da lahko sodišče Unije opravi svoj nadzor (glej v zvezi z državnimi pomočmi sodbe z dne 6. septembra 2006, Portugalska/Komisija, C‑88/03, EU:C:2006:511, točki 88 in 89, z dne 22. aprila 2008, Komisija/Salzgitter, C‑408/04 P, EU:C:2008:236, točka 56, in z dne 30. aprila 2009, Komisija/Italija in Wam, C‑494/06 P, EU:C:2009:272, točki 48 in 49). Komisija mora vložniku pritožbe navesti zadostne razloge, iz katerih okoliščine dejanskega in pravnega stanja, navedene v pritožbi, niso zadoščale za dokaz o obstoju državne pomoči (sodbi z dne 2. aprila 1998, Komisija/Sytraval in Brink’s France, C‑367/95 P, EU:C:1998:154, točka 64, in z dne 1. julija 2008, Chronopost in La Poste/UFEX in drugi, C‑341/06 P in C‑342/06 P, EU:C:2008:375, točka 89). | 175 | The statement of reasons required by the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU must enable the parties concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and must enable the EU judicature to carry out its review (see, as to State aid, judgments of 6 September 2006, Portugal v Commission, C‑88/03, EU:C:2006:511, paragraphs 88 and 89; of 22 April 2008, Commission v Salzgitter, C‑408/04 P, EU:C:2008:236, paragraph 56; and of 30 April 2009, Commission v Italy and Wam, C‑494/06 P, EU:C:2009:272, paragraphs 48 and 49). The Commission must provide the complainant with an adequate explanation of the reasons for which the facts and points of law put forward in the complaint have failed to demonstrate the existence of State aid (judgments of 2 April 1998, Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, C‑367/95 P, EU:C:1998:154, paragraph 64, and of 1 July 2008, Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others, C‑341/06 P and C‑342/06 P, EU:C:2008:375, paragraph 89). |
| 176 | V obravnavanem primeru točke od 266 do 281 obrazložitve končnega sklepa pod naslovom „Pritožbe v zvezi s prodajo sredstev [kompleksa Nürburgring]“ vsebujejo podrobno predstavitev razlogov, zaradi katerih se je Komisija odločila, da prodaja sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring družbi Capricorn ne pomeni državne pomoči. Ta obrazložitev zadošča, da se lahko zainteresirane osebe seznanijo z razlogi za sprejeti ukrep in da lahko sodišče Unije opravi svoj nadzor ter da lahko tožeča stranka razume razloge, iz katerih okoliščine dejanskega in pravnega stanja, navedene v njeni pritožbi, niso zadoščale za dokaz o obstoju državne pomoči. | 176 | In the present case, recitals 266 and 281 of the final decision, under the heading ‘Complaints on the sale of [the Nürburgring] assets’, include a detailed account of the reasons that led the Commission to decide that the sale of the Nürburgring assets to Capricorn did not constitute State aid. That account provides an adequate explanation to enable the parties concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the EU judicature to carry out its review and for the applicant to understand the reasons for which the facts and points of law put forward in its complaint have failed to demonstrate the existence of State aid. |
| 177 | Zlasti in v nasprotju s trditvijo tožeče stranke Komisija ni opustila odgovora na njene očitke v zvezi z zahtevo po zagotovitvi varnosti transakcije, ki so preučeni v točkah 272 in 273 obrazložitve končnega sklepa, ki se nanašata na dokaz o financiranju ponudb tožeče stranke in družbe Capricorn, pogajanji o dogovorih, povezanih z upravljanjem kompleksa Nürburgring s strani družbe Capricorn, ki so navedena v točki 275(e) obrazložitve istega sklepa, ali vlogo odvetniške pisarne, ki je zastopala kupca in prodajalce, ki je navedena v točki 275(j) obrazložitve navedenega sklepa. | 177 | In particular, and contrary to the applicant’s assertions, the Commission did not fail to reply to its claims concerning the requirement for transaction security, which were examined in recitals 272 and 273 of the final decision relating to proof of financing of the offers made by the applicant and by Capricorn, the negotiation of agreements relating to the operation of the Nürburgring by Capricorn, which is mentioned in recital 275(e) of the final decision, or the role of the law firm representing the buyer and the sellers, mentioned in recital 275(j) of the final decision. |
| 178 | Torej, tudi če bi Komisija opustila odgovor na druge očitke tožeče stranke iz njene pritožbe, ta opustitev ne more pomeniti kršitve obveznosti obrazložitve, ker ta ne pomeni, da mora predstaviti druge elemente razen dejstev in pravnih ugotovitev, za katere šteje, da so bistvenega pomena za sistematiko sklepa. Zaradi potrebne soodvisnosti med razlogi, ki jih navede vlagatelj pritožbe, in obrazložitvijo sklepa Komisije namreč ni mogoče zahtevati, da je Komisija dolžna zavrniti vsako od trditev, ki so bile navedene v utemeljitev teh razlogov (glej sodbi z dne 1. julija 2008, Chronopost in La Poste/UFEX in drugi, C‑341/06 P in C‑342/06 P, EU:C:2008:375, točka 96 in navedena sodna praksa, in z dne 3. marca 2010, Freistaat Sachsen/Komisija, T‑102/07 in T‑120/07, EU:T:2010:62, točka 180 in navedena sodna praksa). | 178 | Accordingly, even if the Commission had failed to reply to other claims raised by the applicant in its complaint, such a failure could not amount to a breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the latter does not require the Commission to set out any elements other than the facts and the legal considerations which it deems of fundamental importance in the context of the decision. The necessary correlation between the grounds relied on by the complainant and the statement of reasons for the Commission’s decision cannot mean that the Commission is obliged to reject each of the arguments put forward in support of those grounds (see judgments of 1 July 2008, Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others, C‑341/06 P and C‑342/06 P, EU:C:2008:375, paragraph 96 and the case-law cited, and of 3 March 2010, Freistaat Sachsen v Commission, T‑102/07 and T‑120/07, EU:T:2010:62, paragraph 180 and the case-law cited). |
| 179 | To še toliko bolj velja v primeru sklepa, sprejetega ob koncu faze predhodne preučitve pomoči, ki mora zato, ker je sprejet v kratkem roku, zajemati le razloge, iz katerih je Komisija menila, da ne gre za resne težave pri presoji zadevnega ukrepa, ki bi utemeljevale uvedbo formalnega postopka preiskave (sodbi z dne 15. junija 1993, Matra/Komisija, C‑225/91, EU:C:1993:239, točka 48, in z dne 22. decembra 2008, Régie Networks, C‑333/07, EU:C:2008:764, točka 65). | 179 | This applies all the more with regard to a decision adopted after the preliminary stage of the procedure for reviewing aid which, that decision being taken in a short space of time, need contain only the reasons for which the Commission considers that it is not faced with such serious difficulties in assessing the measure concerned as to justify the initiation of the formal investigation phase (judgments of 15 June 1993, Matra v Commission, C‑225/91, EU:C:1993:239, paragraph 48, and of 22 December 2008, Régie Networks, C‑333/07, EU:C:2008:764, paragraph 65). |
| 180 | Iz tega sledi, da peti tožbeni razlog, ki se nanaša na pomanjkljivost obrazložitve, ne omogoča ugotovitve, da je Komisija ob koncu faze predhodne preučitve naletela na težave pri presoji prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, zaradi katerih bi morala uvesti formalni postopek preiskave. | 180 | It follows that the fifth plea, alleging a failure to state reasons, does not make it possible to establish that, after the preliminary examination stage, the Commission was facing difficulties in assessing the sale of the Nürburgring assets that would have required the initiation of a formal investigation procedure. |
| 181 | Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba peti tožbeni razlog zavrniti. | 181 | In the light of the foregoing considerations the fifth plea in law must be rejected. |
| 182 | Iz tega sledi, da niti prvi del četrtega tožbenega razloga niti prvi, tretji in peti tožbeni razlog ne omogočajo ugotovitve, da je Komisija ob koncu faze predhodne preučitve naletela na težave pri presoji prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, zaradi katerih bi morala uvesti formalni postopek preiskave. | 182 | It follows that neither the first part of the fourth plea in law nor the first, third and fifth pleas in law make it possible to establish that, after the preliminary examination stage, the Commission was facing difficulties in assessing the sale of the Nürburgring assets that would have required the initiation of a formal investigation procedure. |
| g) Drugi del četrtega tožbenega razloga: kršitev člena 20(2), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe št. 659/1999 | (g) The second part of the fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 |
| 183 | Tožeča stranka v drugem delu četrtega tožbenega razloga trdi, da je Komisija kršila člen 20(2), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe št. 659/1999, ker je ni obvestila o svoji nameri, da zavrne njeno pritožbo, in je ni pozvala k predložitvi novih pripomb. | 183 | By the second part of the fourth plea, the applicant maintains that the Commission infringed the second subparagraph of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999, in that it failed to inform the applicant of its intention to reject its complaint and also failed to invite it to submit further comments. |
| 184 | Komisija te trditve izpodbija. | 184 | The Commission disputes that line of argument. |
| 185 | Člen 20(2), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe št. 659/1999, kot je bil spremenjen z Uredbo Sveta (EU) št. 734/2013 z dne 22. julija 2013 o spremembi Uredbe št. 659/1999 (UL 2013, L 204, str. 15), določa, da „[č]e Komisija meni, da zainteresirana stranka ne izpolnjuje obveznega pritožbenega obrazca ali da dejstva in pravna vprašanja, ki jih je predložila zainteresirana stranka, ne predstavljajo zadostnih razlogov, da bi bilo med prvo preučitvijo ugotovljeno, da obstaja nezakonita pomoč ali zloraba pomoči, zainteresirano stranko o tem obvesti ter jo pozove, naj pošlje pripombe v predpisanem času, ki običajno ni daljši od enega meseca“. Poleg tega „[č]e zainteresirana stranka v predpisanem roku ne poda svojih stališč, se šteje, da je pritožba umaknjena“. | 185 | As amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 734/2013 of 22 July 2013 amending Regulation No 659/1999 (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 15), the second subparagraph of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 provides that ‘where the Commission considers that the interested party does not comply with the compulsory complaint form, or that the facts and points of law put forward by the interested party do not provide sufficient grounds to show, on the basis of a prima facie examination, the existence of unlawful aid or misuse of aid, it shall inform the interested party thereof and call upon it to submit comments within a prescribed period which shall not normally exceed one month’. In addition, ‘if the interested party fails to make known its views within the prescribed period, the complaint shall be deemed to have been withdrawn’. |
| 186 | Člen 20(2), tretji pododstavek, Uredbe št. 659/1999, kot je bil spremenjen z Uredbo št. 734/2013, določa, da „Komisija pritožniku pošlje izvod sklepa o zadevi glede vsebine pritožbe“. | 186 | As amended by Regulation No 734/2013, the third subparagraph of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 provides that ‘the Commission shall send a copy of the decision on a case concerning the subject matter of the complaint to the complainant’. |
| 187 | Člen 20(2) Uredbe št. 659/1999 je treba razlagati glede na pravilo iz točke 48 Kodeksa najboljših praks pri izvajanju postopkov za nadzor državne pomoči (UL 2009, C 136, str. 13), ki določa, da si bo Komisija načeloma prizadevala v dvanajstih mesecih sprejeti odločbo o prednostnih zadevah v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe št. 659/1999 in kopijo nasloviti na pritožnika ali pritožniku poslati začeten upravni dopis, v katerem bo opredelila svoje predhodno mnenje o neprednostnih zadevah. | 187 | Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 must be read in the light of the rule in paragraph 48 of the Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid control procedures (OJ 2009 C 136, p. 13), which provides that, within 12 months, the Commission will, in principle, endeavour to adopt a decision for priority cases pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999, with a copy addressed to the complainant, or send an initial administrative letter to the complainant setting out its preliminary views on non-priority cases. |
| 188 | Na podlagi drugega in tretjega pododstavka člena 20(2) Uredbe št. 659/1999, ki ureja pravice zainteresirane stranke, lahko Komisija po tem, ko je od take zainteresirane stranke dobila podatke o domnevni nezakoniti pomoči, bodisi presodi, da ni zadostnih razlogov, da bi zavzela stališče o zadevi in o tem obvesti zainteresirano stranko, bodisi sprejme odločbo o zadevi v zvezi z vsebino predloženih podatkov (sodba z dne 18. novembra 2010, NDSHT/Komisija, C‑322/09 P, EU:C:2010:701, točka 55). | 188 | According to the second and third subparagraphs of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999, which governs the rights of the interested party, the Commission, after obtaining from the interested party information concerning alleged unlawful aid, will either consider that there are insufficient grounds for taking a view on the case and inform the interested party thereof or take a decision on a case concerning the subject matter of the information supplied (judgment of 18 November 2010, NDSHT v Commission, C‑322/09 P, EU:C:2010:701, paragraph 55). |
| 189 | V obravnavanem primeru je Komisija sprejela sklep po preučitvi informacij, ki jih je predložila tožeča stranka, in zavzetju stališča o njih. | 189 | In the present case, the Commission took a decision by examining the information supplied by the applicant and stating its view on that information. |
| 190 | Ugotoviti je torej treba, da Komisija ni kršila člena 20(2), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe št. 659/1999. | 190 | It is therefore appropriate to find that the Commission did not infringe the second subparagraph of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999. |
| 191 | Zato je treba drugi del četrtega tožbenega razloga zavrniti. | 191 | The second part of the fourth plea in law must therefore be rejected. |
| 192 | Zdaj je treba preučiti četrti del četrtega tožbenega razloga, nato pa tretji del četrtega tožbenega razloga. | 192 | The Court will now turn to the fourth part of the fourth plea in law, and then to the third part of the fourth plea in law. |
| h) Četrti del četrtega tožbenega razloga: neizvedba skrbne preučitve pritožbe tožeče stranke | (h) The fourth part of the fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to carry out a diligent examination of the applicant’s complaint |
| 193 | Tožeča stranka v četrtem delu četrtega tožbenega razloga trdi, da Komisija ni opravila skrbne preučitve razpisnega postopka. Zlasti naj od prodajalcev in nemških organov ne bi zahtevala dodatnih informacij ter naj bi se oprla le na tiste, ki sta ju nemškim organom predložila stečajna upravitelja in katerih zanesljivost bi morala preveriti. Poleg tega naj Komisija ne bi ugodila predlogu tožeče stranke z dne 6. julija 2014, naj Zvezni republiki Nemčiji in zadevnim tretjim osebam postavi dodatna vprašanja. | 193 | By the fourth part of the fourth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to carry out a diligent examination of the tender process. In particular, it claims that the Commission failed to ask the sellers or the German authorities for further information, but relied solely on information provided by the administrators to the German authorities, the reliability of which it ought to have checked. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to act on the applicant’s request of 6 July 2014 inviting it to put further questions to the Federal Republic of Germany and to the third parties concerned. |
| 194 | Komisija te trditve izpodbija. | 194 | The Commission disputes that line of argument. |
| 195 | Komisija mora v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča skrbno in nepristransko preučiti pritožbe, ki jih prejme na področju državnih pomoči, zaradi česar mora morda pritožbo preiskati tako, da ne preuči le dejanskih in pravnih okoliščin, s katerimi jo je seznanil vložnik pritožbe, temveč preuči tudi elemente, na katere se vložnik pritožbe ni izrecno skliceval (sodbi z dne 2. aprila 1998, Komisija/Sytraval in Brink’s France, C‑367/95 P, EU:C:1998:154, točka 62, in z dne 2. septembra 2010, Komisija/Scott, C‑290/07 P, EU:C:2010:480, točka 90). | 195 | According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the Commission is required to conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the complaints it receives concerning State aid, which might oblige it to extend its investigation of a complaint beyond a mere examination of the facts and points of law brought to its notice by the complainant and to examine matters not expressly raised by the complainant (judgments of 2 April 1998, Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, C‑367/95 P, EU:C:1998:154, paragraph 62, and of 2 September 2010, Commission v Scott, C‑290/07 P, EU:C:2010:480, paragraph 90). |
| 196 | Čeprav mora v okviru nadzora državnih pomoči država članica na podlagi dolžnosti lojalnega sodelovanja iz člena 4(3) PEU sodelovati s Komisijo tako, da ji predloži elemente, na podlagi katerih se ta lahko izreče glede tega, ali ima zadevni ukrep naravo državne pomoči, še vedno velja, da mora Komisija v interesu dobrega upravljanja temeljnih pravil Pogodbe o državnih pomočeh opraviti skrbno in nepristransko preučitev ter da mora zaradi tega zlasti skrbno preučiti elemente, ki jih ji je predložila država članica (glej sodbo z dne 22. oktobra 2008, TV2/Danska in drugi/Komisija, T‑309/04, T‑317/04, T‑329/04 in T‑336/04, EU:T:2008:457, točka 183 in navedena sodna praksa). | 196 | In the context of State aid control, even though a Member State must, in accordance with the duty of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, cooperate with the Commission by providing it with the information that will allow the Commission to take a decision on whether the measure at issue involves State aid, the fact remains that the Commission is under an obligation, in the interest of sound administration of the fundamental rules of the Treaty relating to State aid, to carry out a diligent and impartial examination and that that obligation requires, in particular, a careful examination of the information which the Member State provides to the Commission (see judgment of 22 October 2008, TV2/Danmark and Others v Commission, T‑309/04, T‑317/04, T‑329/04 and T‑336/04, EU:T:2008:457, paragraph 183 and the case-law cited). |
| 197 | Komisija tako kljub diskrecijski pravici, ob upoštevanju svoje dolžnosti skrbne in nepristranske preiskave, ne sme opustiti zahteve za posredovanje podatkov, za katere se zdi, da bodo potrdili ali ovrgli druge upoštevne podatke za preiskavo zadevnega ukrepa, katerih zanesljivosti ni mogoče šteti za zadostno dokazano (sodba z dne 26. junija 2008, SIC/Komisija, T‑442/03, EU:T:2008:228, točka 225). | 197 | Thus, the Commission, although it enjoys a discretion, cannot, however, in view of its duty to undertake a diligent and impartial investigation, omit to require the disclosure of information which appears likely to confirm or to refute other information which is relevant for the examination of the measure at issue, but the reliability of which cannot be considered to be sufficiently established (judgment of 26 June 2008, SIC v Commission, T‑442/03, EU:T:2008:228, paragraph 225). |
| 198 | Nazadnje, Komisija mora presojo v okviru predhodne preučitve, ki jo določa člen 108(3) PDEU, oblikovati na podlagi informacij, s katerimi jo seznani zadevna država, in informacij, ki ji jih predložijo morebitni pritožniki (sodba z dne 3. maja 2001, Portugalska/Komisija, C‑204/97, EU:C:2001:233, točka 35). | 198 | Lastly, it is in the light of both the information notified by the State concerned and that provided by any complainants that the Commission must form its assessment in the context of the preliminary examination instituted by Article 108(3) TFEU (judgment of 3 May 2001, Portugal v Commission, C‑204/97, EU:C:2001:233, paragraph 35). |
| 199 | Tožeča stranka v prvem očitku trdi, da njena pritožba ni bila skrbno preučena, ker Komisija ni ugodila njenemu predlogu z dne 6. julija 2014, naj Zvezni republiki Nemčiji in zadevnim tretjim osebam postavi dodatna vprašanja. | 199 | By a first claim, the applicant alleges a failure by the Commission to carry out a diligent examination of its complaint in that the Commission failed to act on its request of 6 July 2014 inviting it to put further questions to the Federal Republic of Germany and to the third parties concerned. |
| 200 | V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da – kot je bilo navedeno v točki 178 zgoraj – Komisija ni dolžna izraziti stališča glede vseh trditev, ki jih pred njo navedejo zainteresirane osebe. Zadostuje, da predstavi dejstva in pravne ugotovitve, ki so bistvenega pomena za sistematiko sklepa (glej sodbi z dne 1. julija 2008, Chronopost in La Poste/UFEX in drugi, C‑341/06 P in C‑342/06 P, EU:C:2008:375, točka 96 in navedena sodna praksa, in z dne 3. marca 2010, Freistaat Sachsen/Komisija, T‑102/07 in T‑120/07, EU:T:2010:62, točka 180 in navedena sodna praksa). | 200 | In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, as has been set out in paragraph 178 above, the Commission is not obliged to adopt a position on all the arguments relied on before it by the parties concerned. It is sufficient if it sets out the facts and the legal considerations of fundamental importance in the context of the decision (see judgments of 1 July 2008, Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others, C‑341/06 P and C‑342/06 P, EU:C:2008:375, paragraph 96 and the case-law cited, and of 3 March 2010, Freistaat Sachsen v Commission, T‑102/07 and T‑120/07, EU:T:2010:62, paragraph 180 and the case-law cited). |
| 201 | Ker tožeča stranka ni dokazala, da je Komisija opustila preiskavo ali preveritev informacij, potrebnih za sprejetje drugega izpodbijanega sklepa, je torej treba ta očitek zavrniti. | 201 | Therefore, since the applicant has failed to establish that the Commission omitted to search for or verify the information necessary for the adoption of the second contested decision, that claim must be rejected. |
| 202 | Tožeča stranka v drugem očitku trdi, da njena pritožba ni bila skrbno preučena, ker Komisija od prodajalcev in nemških organov ni zahtevala dodatnih informacij ter se je oprla le na tiste, ki sta ju nemškim organom predložila stečajna upravitelja. | 202 | By a second claim, the applicant alleges a failure by the Commission to carry out a diligent examination of its complaint in that the Commission failed to ask the sellers or the German authorities for further information, but relied solely on information provided by the administrators to the German authorities. |
| 203 | V zvezi s tem iz listin v spisu izhaja, da je Komisija po vložitvi pritožbe tožeče stranke od nemških organov zahtevala informacije 23. maja ter 4. in 7. julija 2014, te pa so bile predložene 23. aprila, 26. maja in 10. julija 2014. Službe Komisije so se s predstavniki nemških organov, stečajnima upraviteljema in družbo KPMG sestale 22. julija in 5. septembra 2014. | 203 | In that regard, it is apparent from the documents in the case file that, after the applicant’s complaint had been lodged, the Commission requested information from the German authorities on 23 May and 4 and 7 July 2014, which was provided on 23 April, 26 May and 10 July 2014. The Commission services met with representatives of the German authorities, the administrators and KPMG on 22 July and 5 September 2014. |
| 204 | Komisija je v točkah od 272 do 276 obrazložitve končnega sklepa preučila in s pripombami tožeče stranke, navedenimi v točkah od 115 do 120 obrazložitve navedenega sklepa, primerjala pripombe stečajnih upraviteljev, ki so jih posredovali nemški organi, navedene v točkah od 121 do 135 obrazložitve istega sklepa. Komisija je v njih predstavila lastne ugotovitve in pripombe glede upoštevnih elementov, zlasti dokaz o sposobnosti financiranja nakupa sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring tožeče stranke na eni strani in družbe Capricorn na drugi strani. | 204 | In recitals 272 to 276 of the final decision, the Commission examined and compared the comments of the administrators sent by the German authorities, set out in recitals 121 to 135 of the final decision, with those of the applicant, set out in recitals 115 to 120 of the final decision. The Commission provided its own findings and comments with respect to the relevant aspects, in particular proof of the applicant’s financing capacity for the acquisition of the Nürburgring assets, on the one hand, and that of Capricorn, on the other hand. |
| 205 | Komisija je torej v obravnavanem primeru dejansko preučila in presodila informacije, ki jih je predložila tožeča stranka, in informacije, ki so jih predložili nemški organi. V tem okviru nikakor ni mogoče ugotoviti, da preiskava Komisije ni bila zadostna ali da ta ni izpolnila svoje obveznosti, da skrbno preuči pritožbo. | 205 | The Commission thus, in the present case, did indeed examine and assess the information provided by both the applicant and the German authorities. In that respect, there is nothing to justify the conclusion that the Commission failed to carry out an adequate investigation or that it failed to carry out a diligent examination of the complaint. |
| 206 | Ta drugi očitek in s tem četrti del četrtega tožbenega razloga je torej treba zavrniti kot neutemeljena. | 206 | It is therefore appropriate to reject that second claim and, accordingly, to reject the fourth part of the fourth plea in law as unfounded. |
| i) Tretji del četrtega tožbenega razloga: neizvedba nepristranske preučitve pritožbe tožeče stranke | (i) The third part of the fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to carry out an impartial examination of the applicant’s complaint |
| 207 | Tožeča stranka v tretjem delu četrtega tožbenega razloga trdi, da Komisija ni mogla nepristransko preučiti njene pritožbe zaradi izjave predstavnika člana Komisije, pristojnega za konkurenco, ki je bila objavljena v medijih 15. maja 2014 (v nadaljevanju: sporna izjava). Iz te izjave, kot je bila navedena v članku v medijih, ki ga je predložila tožeča stranka, izhaja, da so po informacijah, ki jih je imela na voljo Komisija, nemški organi sledili smernicam člana Komisije, pristojnega za konkurenco, v dopisu z začetka postopka prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, in da so bila ta prodana najboljšemu ponudniku ob koncu odprtega, preglednega in nediskriminatornega izbirnega postopka oziroma po zakonitem razpisnem postopku in po tržni ceni. | 207 | By the third part of the fourth plea, the applicant submits that it became impossible for the Commission to carry out an impartial examination of its complaint because of a statement by the spokesperson of the member of the Commission responsible for competition matters reported in the press on 15 May 2014 (‘the statement at issue’). According to that statement, as reported in the news article produced by the applicant, on the basis of the information allegedly available to the Commission, the German authorities followed guidance from the member of the Commission responsible for competition matters in a letter at the beginning of the sales process for the Nürburgring assets and that the latter were sold to the highest bidder in an open, transparent and non-discriminatory selection procedure, that is to say, after a lawful tender process and at the market price. |
| 208 | Komisija te trditve izpodbija. | 208 | The Commission disputes that line of argument. |
| 209 | V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso na področju omejevalnih sporazumov ali zlorab prevladujočega položaja lahko nepravilnost, kot je razkritje v medijih, ki ni omejeno na izraz osebnega stališča člana Komisije, pristojnega za konkurenco, o združljivosti preučevanih ukrepov s pravom Unije, privede do razglasitve ničnosti sklepa o teh ukrepih, če se dokaže, da bi imel navedeni sklep drugačno vsebino, če te nepravilnosti ne bi bilo (sodbi z dne 16. decembra 1975, Suiker Unie in drugi/Komisija, od 40/73 do 48/73, 50/73, od 54/73 do 56/73, 111/73, 113/73 in 114/73, EU:C:1975:174, točka 91, in z dne 6. julija 2000, Volkswagen/Komisija, T‑62/98, EU:T:2000:180, točka 283). | 209 | It is settled case-law on antitrust violations and abuses of dominant position that an irregularity, such as leaks to the press not restricted to expressing the personal views of the member of the Commission responsible for competition matters regarding the compatibility with EU law of the measures under examination, may lead to annulment of the decision concerning those measures if it is established that the content of that decision would have differed if that irregularity had not occurred (judgments of 16 December 1975, Suiker Unie and Others v Commission, 40/73 to 48/73, 50/73, 54/73 to 56/73, 111/73, 113/73 and 114/73, EU:C:1975:174, paragraph 91, and of 6 July 2000, Volkswagen v Commission, T‑62/98, EU:T:2000:180, paragraph 283). |
| 210 | V skladu z navedeno sodno prakso mora tožeča stranka predložiti vsaj indice v podporo takemu predlogu (sodba z dne 15. marca 2006, BASF/Komisija, T‑15/02, EU:T:2006:74, točka 606). | 210 | Under that same case-law, it is for the applicant to produce at least some indicia to support such a conclusion (judgment of 15 March 2006, BASF v Commission, T‑15/02, EU:T:2006:74, paragraph 606). |
| 211 | Ta sodna praksa, ki se nanaša na uporabo členov 101 in 102 PDEU, se lahko po analogiji uporabi za postopke na področju državnih pomoči v zvezi z uporabo členov 107 in 108 PDEU ter zlasti v obravnavanem primeru. | 211 | That case-law, which relates to the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, can be applied, by analogy, to proceedings concerning State aid relating to the application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, and, in particular, in the present case. |
| 212 | V skladu s to sodno prakso pa je treba poudariti, da tožeča stranka ni predložila nobenega dokaza ali indica, da bi končni sklep lahko imel drugačno vsebino, če sporna izjava ne bi bila dana. Splošno sodišče je namreč ugotovilo, da preučitev prvega, tretjega in petega tožbenega razloga ter prvega dela četrtega tožbenega razloga ne omogoča ugotovitve, da je Komisija ob koncu faze predhodne preučitve naletela na težave pri presoji prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring, zaradi katerih bi morala uvesti formalni postopek preiskave. Splošno sodišče je ugotovilo tudi, da četrti del četrtega tožbenega razloga ne omogoča ugotovitve, da preiskava Komisije ni bila zadostna ali da ta ni izpolnila svoje obveznosti, da skrbno preuči pritožbo. | 212 | In accordance with that case-law, it is appropriate to note that the applicant had not adduced any evidence or any indicia that, had the statement at issue not been made, the content of the final decision would have differed. The Court has found that the examination of the first, third and fifth pleas and of the first part of the fourth plea do not make it possible to establish that, after the preliminary examination stage, the Commission was facing difficulties in assessing the sale of the Nürburgring assets that would have required the initiation of a formal investigation procedure. The Court has also found that the fourth part of the fourth plea did not make it possible to establish that the Commission failed to carry out an adequate investigation or that it failed to carry out a diligent examination of the complaint. |
| 213 | Ne da bi se bilo treba izreči o naravi ali obsegu sporne izjave, je treba torej zavrniti tretji del četrtega tožbenega razloga in s tem četrti tožbeni razlog v celoti. | 213 | Without there being any need to rule on the nature or the scope of the statement at issue, it is thus appropriate to reject the third part of the fourth plea in law and, therefore, to reject the fourth plea in law in its entirety. |
| 214 | Ker so bili tožbeni razlogi, ki se nanašajo na razglasitev ničnosti drugega izpodbijanega sklepa zaradi kršitve postopkovnih pravic, ki jih tožeča stranka uveljavlja na podlagi člena 108(2) PDEU, zavrnjeni, je treba zavrniti predlog za razglasitev ničnosti navedenega sklepa. | 214 | Since the pleas seeking annulment of the second contested decision for breach of the procedural rights available to the applicant under Article 108(2) TFEU have been rejected, the application for annulment of that decision must be dismissed. |
| 215 | Tožeča stranka je predložila več dokaznih predlogov za zaslišanje prič. Ker se ti ne zdijo nujni za rešitev spora in zlasti za preveritev, ali bi morala Komisija zaradi dejstev ali indicev, ki jih je predložila tožeča stranka, imeti dvome, jih je treba zavrniti. | 215 | The applicant has relied on various oral testimonies. Since those testimonies do not appear necessary to the outcome of the dispute and, in particular, to ascertain whether the facts and indicia put forward by the applicant should have led the Commission to have doubts, they must be rejected. |
| 216 | Glede na vse zgoraj navedene preudarke je treba odločiti, da je treba tožbo zavrniti kot delno nedopustno, v preostalem pa kot neutemeljeno. | 216 | In the light of all the foregoing, it must be concluded that the action must be dismissed as inadmissible in part and unfounded as to the remainder. |
| IV. Stroški | IV. Costs |
| 217 | V skladu s členom 134(1) Poslovnika se plačilo stroškov na predlog naloži neuspeli stranki. Ker tožeča stranka ni uspela, se ji v skladu s predlogi Komisije naloži plačilo stroškov. | 217 | Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission. |
| | Iz teh razlogov je | SPLOŠNO SODIŠČE (prvi razširjeni senat) | razsodilo: | | On those grounds, | THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber, Extended Composition) | hereby: |
| | 1. | Predlog za ustavitev postopka v zvezi s tožbo se združi z vsebinskim odločanjem. | | 1. | Orders that the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate on the action be considered together with the substance of the case; |
| | 2. | Predlog za ustavitev postopka v zvezi s tožbo se zavrne. | | 2. | Orders that the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate on the action be dismissed; |
| | 3. | Tožba se zavrne. | | 3. | Dismisses the action; |
| | 4. | Družba NeXovation, Inc. nosi svoje stroške in stroške, ki jih je priglasila Evropska komisija. | | 4. | Orders NeXovation, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| | Pelikánová | Valančius | Nihoul | Svenningsen | Öberg | Razglašeno na javni obravnavi v Luxembourgu,19. junija 2019. | Podpisi | | Pelikánová | Valančius | Nihoul | Svenningsen | Öberg | Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 19 June 2019. | E. Coulon | Registrar | S. Gervasoni | President |
| Kazalo | Table of contents |
| | I. Dejansko stanje | | I. Background to the dispute |
| | A. Upravni postopek in prodaja sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring | | A. Administrative procedure and sale of the Nürburgring assets |
| | B. Izpodbijana sklepa | | B. The contested decisions |
| | II. Postopek in predlogi strank | | II. Procedure and forms of order sought |
| | III. Pravo | | III. Law |
| | A. Dopustnost predloga za razglasitev ničnosti prvega izpodbijanega sklepa | | A. Admissibility of the application for annulment of the first contested decision |
| | B. Predlog za razglasitev ničnosti drugega izpodbijanega sklepa | | B. The application for annulment of the second contested decision |
| | 1. Dopustnost in predlog za ustavitev postopka | | 1. Admissibility and the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate |
| | 2. Vsebinska presoja | | 2. Substance |
| | a) Uvodne ugotovitve o obsegu sodnega nadzora v zvezi s sklepom o neobstoju pomoči, sprejetim ob koncu faze predhodne preučitve | | (a) Preliminary observations on the scope of the judicial review concerning a decision that there is no aid, taken after the preliminary examination stage |
| | b) Uvodne ugotovitve o predmetu tožbe | | (b) Preliminary observations on the subject matter of the action |
| | c) Prvi del četrtega tožbenega razloga: obstoj resnih težav pri presoji prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring | | (c) The first part of the fourth plea in law, alleging serious difficulties in assessing the sale of the Nürburgring assets |
| | 1) Trajanje faze predhodne preučitve | | (1) The duration of the preliminary examination stage |
| | 2) Vsebina drugega izpodbijanega sklepa | | (2) The content of the second contested decision |
| | d) Prvi tožbeni razlog: napačna razlaga pojma državna pomoč v zvezi z dodelitvijo državne pomoči kupcu v okviru razpisnega postopka | | (d) The first plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the meaning of State aid, with regard to the granting of State aid to the buyer in the tender process |
| | 1) Prvi del prvega tožbenega razloga: prednost, dodeljena kupcu v okviru razpisnega postopka | | (1) The first part of the first plea in law, on the advantage conferred on the buyer in the tender process |
| | i) Očitek o nepreglednosti razpisnega postopka | | (i) The claim that the tender process was not transparent |
| | ii) Očitek o diskriminatornosti razpisnega postopka | | (ii) The claim that the tender process was discriminatory |
| | iii) Očitek o višini in financiranju ponudb družbe Capricorn in tožeče stranke | | (iii) The claim relating to the amount and financing of the offers made by Capricorn and by the applicant |
| | 2) Drugi del prvega tožbenega razloga: prednost, dodeljena kupcu v okviru najemne pogodbe v zvezi s sredstvi kompleksa Nürburgring | | (2) The second part of the first plea in law, alleging an advantage conferred on the buyer in the lease of the Nürburgring assets |
| | 3) Tretji del prvega tožbenega razloga: uporaba državnih sredstev v okviru prodaje sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring kupcu | | (3) The third part of the first plea in law, alleging use of State resources in connection with the sale of the Nürburgring assets to the buyer |
| | e) Tretji tožbeni razlog: neupoštevanje nadaljevanja postopka prodaje z odstopom deleža družbe Capricorn v namenski družbi za nakup sredstev kompleksa Nürburgring končnemu kupcu | | (e) The third plea in law, alleging a failure to take account of the continuation of the sales process by the transfer, to a sub-purchaser, of Capricorn’s shares in the acquisition vehicle for the Nürburgring assets |
| | f) Peti tožbeni razlog: pomanjkljiva obrazložitev | | (f) The fifth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons |
| | g) Drugi del četrtega tožbenega razloga: kršitev člena 20(2), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe št. 659/1999 | | (g) The second part of the fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 |
| | h) Četrti del četrtega tožbenega razloga: neizvedba skrbne preučitve pritožbe tožeče stranke | | (h) The fourth part of the fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to carry out a diligent examination of the applicant’s complaint |
| | i) Tretji del četrtega tožbenega razloga: neizvedba nepristranske preučitve pritožbe tožeče stranke | | (i) The third part of the fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to carry out an impartial examination of the applicant’s complaint |
| | IV. Stroški | | IV. Costs |
| ( *1 ) Jezik postopka: angleščina. | ( *1 ) Language of the case: English. |
