natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For så vidt angår nærværende sag bemærkes, at Retten fandt, at en udveksling af oplysninger om markedet på et stærkt koncentreret oligopolistisk marked vil give virksomhederne kendskab til deres konkurrenters placeringer på markedet og deres forretningsstrategi og således sandsynligvis mærkbart vil begrænse den konkurrence, der findes mellem de erhvervsdrivende.
The argument put forward in the fourth part of the third ground of appeal has never been put forward until this appeal.
Efter artikel 85,stk. 1, er en sådan bedømmelse imidlertid ikke begrænset til de faktiske virkninger, men der skal ved bedømmelsen også tages hensyn til aftalens potentielle virkninger for konkurrencen inden for fællesmarkedet.
Article 85(1) does not restrict such an assessment to actual effects alone; it must also take account of the agreement's potential effects on competition within the common market.
Ved denne bedømmelse tog Retten hensyn til arten af, hyppigheden af og modtagerne af de i sagen formidlede oplysninger.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance was right to hold that the fact that the Commission was unable to establish the existence of an actual anticompetitive effect had no bearing on the outcome of the case.
Følgelig fandt Retten med føje, at den omstændighed, at Kommissionen ikke kunne godtgøre, at der forelå en faktisk begrænsning af konkurrencen, var uden betydning for sagens afgørelse.
The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance was wrong to consider, at paragraph 51 of the contested judgment, that the fact that the market in question was 'highly concentrated' automatically meant that competition was 'greatly reduced'.
I betragtning af denne argumentation findes Retten med føje at have lagt til grund, at informationsudvekslingsordningen formindsker eller fjerner usikkerhedsgraden vedrørende markedets funktion, og at den følgelig begrænser konkurrencen mellem fabrikanterne.
The appellant submits first of all that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the words 'restriction ... of competition' used in Article 85(1). In its view, competition is restricted whenever undertakings cease to determine their market behaviour independently and thereby adversely affect competition.
Det andet led i det jjerde anbringende
In this instance, those two conditions were not satisfied.
Appellanten har for det første gjort gældende, at Retten har anlagt en forkert fortolkning af indholdet af ordene »begrænse konkurrencen« i artikel 85, stk. 1.
That statement, forming only part of a whole sentence, does not therefore lend itself to examination in isolation.
Ifølge appellanten begrænses konkurrencen, såfremt virksomhederne ophører med at bestemme deres adfærd på markedet uafhængigt og dermed hindrer konkurrencen.
When read in its context, it is clear that the Court of First Instance did not simply establish a straightforward correlation between the level of concentration and the intensity of competition, but took into account several factors particular to the circumstances of this case.
Disse to betingelser er imidlertid ikke opfyldt i nærværende sag.
The third part of the fourth ground of appeal
Appellanten gør gældende, at de nye erhvervsdrivende, som ikke tilslutter sig in f orma tionsudvekslingsordningen, kan fastlægge deres forretningsstrategi uafhængigt. En begrænsning ville alene foreligge, såfremt det var dem forbudt at tilslutte sig
First of all, according to the case-law of the Court, the criteria of coordination and cooperation necessary for determining the existence of a concerted practice, far from requiring an actual 'plan' to have been worked out, are to be understood in the light of the concept inherent in the Treaty provisions on competition, according to which each trader must determine independently the policy which he intends to adopt on the common market and the
at »yde hver af deres forhandlere en absolut områdebeskyttelse«.
conditions which he intends to offer to his customers.
informationsudvekslingsordningen, hvilket ikke er tilfældet.
Although it then retains its autonomy in deciding its commercial strategy, it forgoes the information exchanged under the agreement.
Vedrørende dette punkt bemærkes, at når appellanten bestrider, at informationsudvekslingsordningen kan yde en absolut områdebeskyttelse for hver af de forhandlere, der er parter i aftalen, fremfører selskabet et argument, som udelukkende vedrører Rettens bedømmelse af faktiske omstændigheder, uden at det herved rejses et retsspørgsmål, som kan undersøges af Domstolen.
In this respect, the fact that the market entrant could have joined the system is irrelevant since the issue is precisely to establish what the consequences are for a trader which does not join.
Det andet led i det sjette anbringende
The fifth ground of appeal
Appellanten gør gældende, at Retten burde have taget hensyn til, at blanket V55/5 fra den 1. september 1988 ikke længere blev sendt til medlemmerne af aftalen.
Furthermore, the Commission failed to adduce the slightest evidence to show that the members maintained a general high price level on the market.
Appellanten har understreget, at det i det mindste efter denne dato ikke kan hævdes, at den tidligere informationsudvekslingsordning eller Data System gjorde det muligt for medlemmerne af aftalen at gribe ind i parallelimporten.
Finally, it submits that the Court of First Instance was not entitled to make new findings replacing those of the Commission.
Endvidere har Kommissionen ikke fremført noget som helst bevis for, at medlemmerne opretholdt et generelt højt prisniveau på markedet. Appellanten har endelig anført, at Retten ikke var beføjet til at foretage nye konstateringer, der trådte i stedet for Kommissionens konstateringer.
In the present case, the Court of First Instance considered, however, that on a highly concentrated oligopolistic market, such as the market in question, the exchange of information on the market was such as to enable traders to know the market positions and strategies of their competitors and thus to impair appreciably the competition which exists between traders.
Det skal i denne forbindelse bemærkes, at appellanten fremfører argumenter, der er identiske med dem, som selskabet allerede havde fremført for Retten.
In this regard it must be stated that, the appellant is adducing arguments identical to those which it has already put before the Court of First Instance.
Hvad angår kritikken om, at Retten ubeføjet foretog nye konstateringer, bemærkes, at den er for upræcist formuleret til at kunne undersøges.
The objection that the Court of First Instance wrongly made new findings is too imprecisely worded for it to be considered.
Det skal i den forbindelse bemærkes, at Retten netop fastslog, »at ordningen — i hvert fald indtil den 1. september 1988, hvor SIL ophørte med at sende virksomhederne blanket V55/5 — muliggjorde en overvågning af sådanne indførsler ved hjælp af køretøjets chassisnummer, som i forvejen var anført på blanket V55/5 af producenten«.
In making that assessment, the Court of First Instance took account of the nature of the information exchanged, the frequency with which it was disseminated and of the persons to whom it was disclosed.
Eftersom aftalen, således som den er blevet anvendt siden november 1975, og således som den blev anmeldt den 4. januar 1988, ligesom den ændrede version af 12. marts 1990 er omhandlet af den omtvistede beslutning, kunne Retten med føje tage hensyn til aftalens virkninger for parallelimporten, selv om disse virkninger var ophørt efter den 1. september 1988.
Finally, it must be reiterated that the assessment of the evidence, unless it has been fundamentally misconstrued, is not a question of law subject to review by the Court of Justice.
Endelig mindes om, at bedømmelsen af beviserne ikke udgør et retsspørgsmål, der er undergivet Domstolens prøvelse, medmindre de er forkert gengivet.
In view of that reasoning, the Court of First Instance must be considered to have concluded correctly that the information exchange system reduces or removes the degree of uncertainty as to the operation of the market and that the system is therefore liable to have an adverse influence on competition between manufacturers.
Appellanten kritiserer Retten for ikke at have rejst spørgsmål om lovligheden af den omtvistede beslutning, fordi Kommissionen ikke kunne fremlægge beviser for, at informationsudvekslingsordningen var egnet til at fremme et højt prisniveau på markedet i Det Forenede Kongerige.
The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance erred in law in finding, at paragraph 96, that the information exchange system made it possible for the undertakings party to the agreement to 'confer absolute territorial protection on each of their dealers'.
Appellanten har endvidere anført, at Retten ikke tog hensyn til beviserne for, at priserne på landbrugstraktorer i Det Forenede Kongerige efter 1984 var lavere eller i
It must be held that the Court of First Instance was right in concluding that a trader wishing to penetrate the United Kingdom tractor market is at a disadvantage compared with the members of
Appellanten gør gældende, at Retten begik en retlig fejl, da den fandt, at informations udvekslingsordningen gør det muligt for de virksomheder, der deltager i denne aftale,
On this point, it must be stated that, by denying that the information exchange system can confer absolute territorial protection on each dealer supplied by the members of the agreement, the appellant is putting forward an argument which is concerned only with the Court of First
hvert fald svarende til priserne for de samme modeller i de fleste medlemsstater.
Instance's assessment of facts and which does not raise any question of law reviewable by the Court.
Det skal for det første bemærkes, at appellanten med den generelle påstand om, at Retten burde være nået til en anden konklusion, såfremt den havde tiltrådt appellantens argumenter, blot generelt anfægter Rettens bedømmelse af de faktiske omstændigheder, men ikke søger at påvise en angivelig retlig fejl i Rettens argumentation. Dette anbringende må derfor for denne dels vedkommende afvises.
The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance should have taken account of the fact that as from 1 September 1988 Form V55/5 was no longer forwarded to the members of the agreement.
For så vidt angår betydningen af Rettens konstatering om, at Kommissionen ikke havde kunnet godtgøre, at aftalen var egnet til at fremme et højt prisniveau, bemærkes, at de forhold, der er anført i den appellerede dom, med tilstrækkelig sandsynlighed gør det muligt at antage, at aftalen direkte eller indirekte, reelt eller potentielt, kan øve en sådan indvirkning på handelen med traktorer mellem medlemsstater, at det kan befrygtes, at den kan hindre virkeliggørelsen af et enhedsmarked mellem medlemsstaterne.
As regards the significance of the Court of First Instance's finding that the Commission had been unable to provide evidence that the information exchange system might have helped to maintain a high level of prices, the factors set out in paragraph 101 allow it to be affirmed with a sufficient degree of probability that the agreement may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the pattern of trade in tractors between Member States so as to give rise to the fear that the realisation of a single market between Member States might be impeded.
Hvad for det andet angår spørgsmålet om, i hvilket omfang de erhvervsdrivende kunne have rådet over de samme oplysninger ved hjælp af andre midler end informationsudvekslingsordningen, fremgår det klart af de indlæg, som appellanten indgav til Retten, at selskabet i det væsentlige havde gjort gældende, at virksomhederne, såfremt informationsudvekslingsordningen ikke fandtes, kunne have fremskaffet alle de udvekslede statistiske oplysninger uafhængigt, nemlig ved hjælp af undersøgelser. Appellantens kritik er på denne baggrund irrelevant og må forkastes.
The appellant alleges that the Court of First Instance erred in law in concluding that the information exchange system and the Data System did not satisfy the conditions for the grant of an exemption under Article 85(3).
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 16. september 1997.
In this regard it must be stated that the Court of First Instance specifically found that 'at least until 1 September 1988, the date on which SIL stopped sending a copy of Form V55/5 to the undertakings, the information exchange system at issue enabled such imports to be monitored by means of the chassis number of the vehicle, which was previously entered on Form V55/5 by the manufacturer'.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende besvarelse:
The seventh ground of appeal
Sag C-8/95 Ρ New Holland Ford Ltd / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Konkurrence
Case C-8/95 New Holland Ford Ltd ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
»Appel — formaliteten — retsspørgsmål — faktisk spørgsmål — konkurrence mformationsudvekslingsordning — konkurrencebegrænsninger — afslag på fritagelse* (Femte Afdeling)
(Appeal — Admissibility — Question of law — Question of fact — Competition — Information exchange system — Restriction of competition — Refusal to grant an exemption) (Fifth Chamber)
Medlemskab af den anmeldte aftale kan opnås af alle fabrikanter eller importører af landbrugstraktorer i Det Forenede Kongerige, uanset om de er medlemmer af AEA.
The Agricultural Engineers Association Limited (hereinafter "the AEA") is a trade association open to all manufacturers or importers of agricultural tractors operating in the United Kingdom.
a) Den administrative procedure b) Aftalens indhold og redige baggrund
The administrative procedure
Den 4. januar 1988 anmeldte AEA, primært for at opnå en negativattest og subsidiært en individuel fritagelseserklæring, en aftale til Kommissionen vedrørende en ordning for udveksling af oplysninger, der var baseret på data vedrørende indregistreringer af landbrugstraktorer, der findes i Det
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 13 January 1995, New Holland Ford Ltd, a company governed by the law of England and Wales, brought an appeal against the judgment of 27 October 1994 Fiatagri and New Holland Ford ν Commission (hereinafter 'the contested judgment'), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application which it, together with Fiatagri UK Ltd, had brought for annulment of Commission Decision 92/157/EEC of 17 February 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (hereinafter 'the contested decision').
om indregistrering af et køretøj skal indgives på en særlig blanket blanket V55.
By the contested decision, the Commission accordingly:
Efter aftale med Department of Transport tilsender dette SIL nogle af de oplysninger, det modtager i forbindelse med indregistrering af køretøjer.
On 4 January 1988 the AEA notified to the Commission, primarily with a view to obtaining negative clearance, or alternatively individual exemption, an agreement relating to an information exchange system based on data held by the United Kingdom Department of Transport relating to registrations of agricultural tractors, called the "UK Agricultural Tractor Registration Exchange" (hereinafter "the first notification").
Ifølge sagsøgerne er denne aftale identisk med den, der er indgået med fabrikanter og importører af andre kategorier af køretøjer.«
found that The UK Agricultural Tractor Registration Exchange, in both its original and its amended versions, infringed Article 85(1) of the Treaty
Kommissionen anførte, at den aftale, der var omhandlet i den første anmeldelse, ikke var nødvendig, og at det derfor ikke var fornødent at undersøge de fire betingelser for at opnå en fritagelse i henhold til traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3.
Membership of the notified agreement is open to all manufacturers or importers of agricultural tractors in the United Kingdom, whether or not they are members of the AEA.
Vedrørende den ændrede version af aftalen, der blev omhandlet i den anden meddelelse, anførte Kommissionen nærmere, at dens argumentation vedrørende aftalen, der var omhandlet i den første anmeldelse, gjaldt på tilsvarende vis i så henseende.
— ordered the AEA and the parties to the agreement to put an end to the infringement established, if they had not already done so, and in future to refrain from entering into any agreement or concerted practice that might have an identical or similar object or effect.
Ved den omtvistede Kommissionen således
By the contested judgment the Court of First Instance dismissed all the pleas in law put forward by the appellants and ordered them to pay the costs.
- pålagt AEA og parterne i aftalen at indstille den fastslåede overtrædelse, dersom dette ikke allerede var sket, og for fremtiden at undlade at indgå nogen aftale eller deltage i nogen samordnet praksis, der kan have det samme eller et lignende formål eller den samme eller en lignende virkning.
It follows from those provisions that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.
For så vidt angår nærværende sag må det fastslås, at appelskriftets første del, som har overskriften »Væsentlige faktiske omstændigheder«, ikke præcist angiver de argumenter, der gøres gældende over for den appellerede dom, og at det tager generelt forbehold over for de faktiske omstændigheder, som Retten har fastlagt Da det ikke opfylder de krav, som i retspraksis stilles til en appel, og som er gengivet ovenfor, må den nævnte første del af appelskriftet afvises fra realitetsbehandling.
That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal confined to repeating or reproducing word for word the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that Court.
Ved den appellerede dom forkastede Retten de anbringender, der var påberåbt af de to sagsøgere, og pålagde disse at betale sagens omkostninger.
The Commission found that the agreement first notified was not indispensable and that it was therefore unnecessary to consider the four conditions for obtaining exemption under Article 85(3).
Med det første anbringende har appellanten i første omgang kritiseret Retten for at have begrænset sig til en rent formel undersøgelse af den omtvistede beslutning uden at tage hensyn til
The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts.
appellantens argumentation, hvorefter den nævnte beslutning indeholdt flere åbenbare fejl.
paragraphs in the Court of First Instance's judgment.
Herved bemærker appellanten, at Retten ikke tog hensyn til de beviser, som appellanten havde fremlagt under den skriftlige og den mundtlige forhandling, og at den appellerede dom er i modstrid med, hvad Retten tilkendegav vedrørende visse omtvistede spørgsmål under den mundtlige forhandling.
Instance has established or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 168a of the Treaty to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the Court of First Instance and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them.
Appellanten har endvidere gjort gældende, at Retten ikke tog hensyn til den omstændighed, at Kommissionen på flere punkter havde tilsluttet sig appellantens opfattelse og således modsagde den omtvistede beslutning.
The Court of Justice thus has no jurisdiction to establish the facts or, in principle, to examine the evidence which the Court of First Instance accepted in support of those facts.
Ifølge appellanten undersøgte Retten ikke den vurdering, som Kommissionen foretog, men begrænsede sig til en rent formel undersøgelse.
By its second ground of appeal, the appellant contends that the Court of First Instance failed to address errors of fact made by the Commission and their impact on the lawfulness of the contested decision.
Det må indledningsvis fastslås, at appellantens argumentation som fremført i forbindelse med den første del af dette anbringende ikke er tilstrækkelig klar. Dette krav om klarhed er heller ikke opfyldt ved, at der som eksempler anføres visse præmisser i Rettens dom.
In the present case, it must be stated that the first part of the appeal, headed 'Essential Facts', does not propound precisely the arguments raised against the contested judgment and raises only a general challenge to the facts established by the Court of First Instance.
Det andet anbringende
The first ground of appeal
Argumenterne, der anføres til støtte for dette anbringende, vedrører Rettens bedømmelser af, for det første, definitionen af produktmarkedet, for det andet fastlæggelsen af det geografiske marked og for det tredje definitionen af markedets struktur efter en række andre kriterier.
In the present case, consideration of the arguments put forward by the appellant before the Court of Justice reveals that the appellant is merely challenging the Court of First Instance's assessment of the evidence. Its line of argument is that the Court of First Instance should have drawn conclusions other than those which it did draw from the evidence submitted to it.
Hvad angår definitionen af produktmarkedet fremgår det i denne forbindelse i den appellerede dom, at Retten vurderede, i hvilket omfang produktet var substituerbart, og bemærkede, at deltagelsen i informationsudvekslingsordningen alene var betinget af, at den pågældende er fabrikant eller importør af landbrugstraktorer i Det Forenede Kongerige, og derimod ikke af nogen bestemt kategori af landbrugstraktorer.
By its first ground, the appellant contends first of all that the Court of First Instance confined itself to a formalistic review of the contested decision, without taking into account the appellant's argument that the decision contained numerous manifest errors.
Retten lagde på baggrund af det anførte til grund, at virksomhederne i forbindelse med aftalen selv angav deres stilling i konkurrencen i forhold til det generelle begreb landbrugstraktor. traktor.
It claims that the Court of First Instance therefore failed to fulfil its obligation to state its reasons for rejecting a complaint laid before it.
Det fremgår af gennemgangen af de argumenter, som appellanten har fremført for Domstolen, at appellanten udelukkende bestrider den bedømmelse af beviserne, som Retten foretog.
The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance misapplied Article 85(1) of the Treaty in that, first, it wrongly defined the relevant market and, second, it misinterpreted the conditions to be satisfied if an agreement or concerted practice is to be found to be incompatible with that provision, in particular, the requirement of an anticompetitive object or effect.
Appellantens argumentation består nemlig i et anbringende om, at Retten på grundlag af de beviser, der forelå for den, burde have draget andre konklusioner, end dem, den lagde til grund.
According to the appellant, the Court of First Instance also failed to take into account evidence which* it had presented during the written and oral procedures and that the contested judgment stands in contradiction to what the Court of First Instance allowed to be understood in regard to several issues during the oral procedure.
Appellanten angiver ikke de sagsakter, hvoraf det klart skulle fremgå, at der foreligger en indholdsmæssig urigtighed; appellanten angiver heller ikke nærmere den fejl, som Retten skulle have begået ved anvendelsen af retsreglerne om bevisbyrde og bevisførelse, og nævner ingen anden retsregel, som Retten angiveligt har tilsidesat.
The appellant also claims that the Court of First Instance took no account of the fact that the Commission agreed with the appellant on a number of points, thus contradicting the contested decision.