natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Traktatens artikel 30 er til hinder for, at en offentlig virksomhed tillægges beføjelse til at godkende de telefoner, som skal tilsluttes det offentlige net, men som denne ikke selv har leveret, såfremt de afgørelser, den offentlige virksomhed har truffet, ikke kan indbringes for domstolene."
The Court of First Instance observed that the applicant, SEP, was a public limited liability company responsible for the production, and if necessary, the importation of electricity in the Netherlands. Approximately 50% of electricity was currently produced from natural gas.
Generaladvokat Marco Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 15. marts 1989.
NV Nederlandse Gasunie enjoyed a de facto monopoly in the Netherlands over the supply of natural gas.
Hans konklusion lød således:
On 16 June 1989 a gas supply contract was concluded between SEP and the Norwegian undertaking Statoil.
En sådan lov strider heller ikke mod EØF-Traktatens artikler 90 og 86, men kan dog udgøre et retsstridigt misbrug af en dominerende stilling i henhold til artikel 86 - forudsat samtlige betingelser i artikel 86 i øvrigt er opfyldt - såfremt den offentlige virksomhed udnytter sin godkendelsesbeføjelse til et andet formål end at føre kontrol med, at apparaterne er teknisk forenelige med nettet.
At the end of 1989 the Commission opened an investigation, on the basis of Article 11 of Regulation No 17 in order to determine whether the agreements
Sag T-30/89: Hilti AG mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
18 or concerted practices between SEP and Gasunie relating to the supply of natural gas were compatible with the rules on competition in the EEC Treaty and in particular Article 85 thereof.
12.12.1991 "Konkurrence ­ boltepistoler ­ det relevante marked ­ dominerende stilling ­ misbrug ­ produktansvar ­ bøde" (Anden Afdeling)
In response to that request, the applicant communicated the code of cooperation with Gasunie but it refused to send the Statoil contract.
Ved stævning, indgivet den 21. marts 1988, havde Hilti AG nedlagt påstand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning af 22. december 1987, hvorved Kommissionen fastslog for det første, at sagsøgeren i EØF indtager en dominerende stilling på markedet for boltepistoler og markedet for bolte og patroner til brug i de nævnte boltepistoler, og at sagsøgeren havde misbrugt den dominerende stilling i den i EØF­Traktatens artikel 86 forudsatte betydning, for det andet havde pålagt selskabet en bøde på 6 mio ECU, og for det tredje havde pålagt selskabet at bringe de påtalte overtrædelser til ophør.
Accordingly, the Commission adopted the contested decision in which it called upon the applicant to produce, within ten days, the original supply contract concluded between SEP and Statoil.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 17
Sagsøgeren betaler sagens omkostninger, herunder intervenienternes
The Court of First Instance stated that in the present case the contested decision was adopted as part of an investigation into relations between the applicant and Gasunie.
Sag T-39/90: NV Samenwerkende Elektriciteits-produktiebedrijven mod Kommissioran for Dr Europæiske Fællesskaber 12.12.1991 "Konkurrence ­ administrativ procedure ­ afgørelse om begæring om oplysninger rettet til en virksomhed ­ nødvendige oplysninger ­proportionalitetsprincippet og medlemsstaternes forpligtelse til, navnlig i forhold til offentlige virksomheder, at iagttage tavshedspligt med hensyn til de dokumenter, som Kommissionen tilsender dem" (Rådets forordning nr. 17, art. 10, stk. 1, og art. 11 og 20) (Anden Afdeling)
The content of the request of 6 March 1990 showed that the communication of the Statoil contract had, in the present case, been requested by the Commission solely in order to determine the effects of the code of conduct on competition.
Ved stævning indleveret den 26. september 1990 havde NV Samenwerkende Elektriciteits­produktiebedrijven (SEP) anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning af 2. august 1990 vedrørende en procedure i henhold til artikel 11, stk. 5, i Rådets forordning nr. 17 af 6. februar 1962, første forordning om anvendelse af bestemmelserne i Traktatens artikler 85 og 86 (EFT 1959­1962, s. 81).
In particular, the communication of the Statoil contract was required in the contested decision for the express reason that that contract was important for deciding whether the code of conduct was consistent with the Community rules on competition by verifying the effect of the code on the Statoil contract.
Sagsøgeren, SEP, er et aktieselskab, som er ansvarligt for produktion ou eventuelt import af elektricitet i Nederlandene. For tiden produceres cu.
Accordingly, it was for the Court of First Instance to determine whether, as the Commission claimed, the Statoil contract was sufficiently linked with the code of conduct with which the Investigation was concerned.
Selskabet ejes for 50% vedkommende af olieselskaberne Shell og Esso og for 50% vedkommende, direkte eller indirekte, af den nederlandske stat.
It was for the Commission to assess whether information was necessary in order to reveal a Infringement of the rules on competition.
Den 16. juni 1989 blev der underskrevet en kontrakt om levering af gas mellem SEP og den norske virksomhed Statoil.
With regard to the present case, the Court of First Instance stated that the Commission could reasonably have taken the view that there was a link between the Statoil contract and the code of conduct.
Det var den første kontrakt af denne art mellem SEP og et andet selskab end Gasunie.
There were a number of factors from which it could be presumed that the code of conduct could have had an effect on the Statoil contract.
Gasunie er dog fortsat SEP's leverandør for størstedelen af den gas, som SEP bruger.
Inadequate statement of the grounds upon which the contested decision was based
Indgåelsen af kontrakten med Statoil foranledigede Gasunie til at indgå en samarbejdskodeks med SEP med det formål for fremtiden at sikre sig mod enhver overraskelse hidrørende fra en eventuel fremtidig kontrakt om leverance af gas mellem SEP og en tredjepart, såfremt der måtte opstå nye behov for naturgas.
The Court of First Instance stated that by claiming that the statement of the grounds upon which the decision was based was inadequate, the applicant suggested that the Commission had not demonstrated in the abovementloned decision the existence of a link between the Statoil contract and the code of conduct.
I slutningen af 1989 indledte Kommissionen en undersøgelse i henhold til artikel 11 i forordning nr. 17 for at kunne vurdere, om de aftaler eller den samordnede praksis, der bestod mellem SEP og Gasunie med hensyn til levering af naturgas, var forenelige med EØF-Traktatens konkurrenceregler, navnlig artikel 85.
Analysis of the contested decision showed that the Commission had adduced legally adequate grounds in Its decision for the request for the communication of the Statoil contract in so far as it clearly showed the links between that contract and the code of conduct with which the investigation was concerned.
På denne baggrund traf Kommissionen den anfægtede beslutning, hvori Kommissionen pålægger sagsøgeren inden for en frist på ti dage af fremlægge den originale kontrakt mellem SEP og Statoil om levering af gas.
The Court of First Instance observed that the applicant claimed that the principle of proportionality was infringed in so far as the Commission had from the outset of the procedure required the production of the Statoil contract which was particularly confidential.
Sagsøgeren gjorde gældende, at kontrakten med Statoil ikke indeholder de nødvendige oplysninger i den i artikel 11 i forordning nr. 17 forudsatte betydning, og at Kommissionen ikke havde ret til at kræve den tilstillet, når den ikke havde godtgjort, at dette var nødvendigt for undersøgelsen.
Were the contract to be communicated to the Commission, the Member States, including the Netherlands State, would become aware of it, by virtue of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 17, which would be detrimental to the interests of the applicant by reason of the fact that the Netherlands public authorities were parties to the dispute in their capacity as SEP's principal supplier of gas through Gasunie, controlled by the Netherlands State.
Med hensyn til det første anbringende, hvormed sagsøgeren i det væsentlige gør gældende, at meddelelsen af Statoilkontrakten ikke var "nødvendig", fordi den ikke havde nogen forbindelse med den adfærdskodeks, som var gen stand for undersøgelsen, henviste Retten indledningsvis til, at der skal være en forbindelse mellem de oplysninger, som Kommissionen anmoder om, og den overtrædelse, der efterforskes, og som nævnes i anmodningen.
The applicant explained that its interests were not protected by the fact that the authorities of the Member States were required, under Article 20 of Regulation, not to disclose such information.
Kommissionen kan kun kræve meddelelse af oplysninger, som kan sætte den i stand til at kontrollere rigtigheden af de formodninger om overtrædelse, som
There was no administrative rule within the Ministry for Economic Affairs that could effectively guarantee that, if the Statoil contract were communicated to the competent Netherlands authorities - in the present case the competition directorate of the
Retten konstaterede i denne forbindelse, at den anfægtede beslutning i dette tilfælde var blevet truffet som led i en undersøgelse af forholdet mellem sagsøgeren og selskabet Gasunie.
Netherlands ministry for Economic Affairs - another department of the ministry, such as the directorate general for energy, would not learn of it.
Det fremgik af indholdet af anmodningen af 6. marts 1990, at Kommissionen i dette tilfælde udelukkende havde bedt om at få tilstillet Statoilkontrakten med det formål at klarlægge adfærdskodeksens virkninger på konkurrencen.
With regard to the third claim, based on infringement of the principle of proportionality, the Court pointed out firstly that the implementation of Article 11 of Regulation No 17 was subject to compliance with that principle.
På denne baggrund tilkom det Retten, som Kommissionen havde anført, at fastslå, om Statoilkontrakten havde en tilstrækkelig forbindelse med den adfærdskodeks, som var genstand for undersøgelsen.
In the present case, the Court of First Instance stated that the request that the Statoil contract be communicated to the Commission was not disproportionate.
Herom udtalte Retten indledningsvis, at begrebet "fornødne oplysninger" i artikel 11, stk. 1, skal fortolkes på baggrund af de formål, med henblik på hvilke Kommissionen har fået overdraget de pågældende undersøgelsesbeføjelser.
Assuming that the Statoil contract were communicated to the competent authorities of the Member States by the Commission, respect for the confidentiality of that contract, in particular in relation to Gasunie, was guaranteed by the provisions of Article 20 of Regulation No 17, which applied not only to the Commission but also to the competent authorities of the Member States and their officials and other servants.
Denne opfattelse bekræftes af Domstolens praksis, hvori det fastslås, . t Kommissionen ved forordning nr. 17 er tillagt vidtgående efterforsknir¡gsog kontrolbeføjelser, idet det i forordningens ottende betragtning udtales, at Kommissionen skal have beføjelse til at kræve de oplysninger og företaga sådanne kontrolundersøgelser, som er nødvendige for at kunne påvise handlinger i strid med Traktatens artikler 85 og 86.
The Court of First Instance stated that Article 20 provided protection in two ways: firstly, it prohibited the disclosure of information acquired of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy; secondly, it prohibited the use of such information for purposes other than that for which it was acquired.
Med hensyn til det foreliggende tilfælde konstaterede Retten, at Kommissionen havde haft rimeligt grundlag for at antage, at der var en forbindelse mellem Statoilkontrakten og adfærdskodeksen.
The Court of First Instance considered that the limits imposed on the Member States in Article 20 of Regulation No 17, both with regard to the disclosure and to the use of the information sent to them pursuant to Article 10(1) of the regulation, represented an adequate guarantee for the applicant.
Der forelå nemlig en række omstændigheder, der gav grundlag for at antage, at den kunne have indflydelse på Statoil-kontrakten.
The Court of First Instance held: "1. The application is dismissed; 2.
Det fremgik af gennemgangen af den anfægtede beslutning, at Kommissionen i beslutningen havde givet en retligt tilstrækkelig begrundelse for anmodningen om at få tilstillet Statoil-kontrakten, idet den havde gi 'et en klar fremstilling af forbindelserne mellem denne kontrakt og undersøgelsens genstand, adfærdskodeksen.
Case T-4/89: BASF Aktiengesellschaft ν Commission of the European Communities - 17 December 1991 (Competition - Concepts of agreement and concerted practice - Collective responsibility) (First Chamber)
Ifølge sagsøgeren havde Kommissionen tilsidesat proportionalitetsprincippet derved, at Statoil-kontrakten, som Kommissionen havde krævet fremlagt allerede fra procedurens første trin, havde særlig fortrolig karakter.
The seventh indent of Article 1 of the Commission's decision of 23 April 1986 (IV/31.149 - Polypropylene, OJ L 230, p.
Når denne kontrakt blev meddelt Kommissionen, ville medlemsstaterne, herunder den nederlandske stat, nemlig få kendskab til kontrakten i henhold til artikel 10, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 17, hvilket ville skade sagsøgerens interesser, fordi de nederlandske myndigheder var part i sagen i deres egenskab af SEP's hovedleverandør af gas gennem Gasunie, som kontrolleres af den nederlandske stat.
1) is annulled In so far as it states that BASF participated in the Infringement from some time between 1977 and 1979 and not from the end of 1978 or the beginning of 1979;
Sagsøgeren forklarede i denne forbindelse, at sagsøgerens interesser ikke beskyttes af, at medlemsstaternes myndigheder i henhold til artikel 20 i forordning nr. 17 er forpligtede til at overholde deres tavshedspligt.
The amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 3 of that decision shall be ECU 2 125 000, or DM 4 557 891.25;
Det er nemlig ikke tilstrækkeligt, at de krævede oplysninger har forbindelse med undersøgelsens genstand.
Judge B. Vesterdorf delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 10 July 1991.
Det er ligeledes væsentligt, at den forpligtelse til at give en oplysning, som er pålagt en virksomhed, ikke for denne udgør en byrde, der står i noget misforhold til nødvendigheden af undersøgelsen.
Case T-6/89: Enichem Anic S.p.A. ν Commission of the European Communities 17 December 1991 (Competition - Concepts of agreement and concerted practice - Collective responsibility) (First Chamber)
Retten konstaterede, at anmodningen om meddelelse af Statoilkontrakten til Kommissionen i det foreliggende tilfælde ikke stod i misforhold til det tilstræbte formål.
This case concerned a Commission decision imposing a fine on fifteen polypropylene producers for infringement of Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty.
Såfremt Statoilkontrakten nemlig blev meddelt medlemsstaternes kompetente myndigheder af Kommissionen, ville hemmeligholdelsen af denne kontrakt, navnlig i forhold til Gasunie, være garanteret af bestemmelserne i artikel 20 i forordning nr. 17, som ikke blot gælder for Kommissionen, men også for medlemsstaternes myndigheder samt deres tjenestemænd og øvrige ansatte.
The Court of First Instance considered that in prohibiting undertakings from entering into agreements or participating in concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which had as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the Common Market, Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty addressed itself to economic entitles constituted by a group of material and human elements capable of combining to commit the infringement covered by that provision.
22 - at den anfægtede beslutning, hvorved Kommissionen anmoder sagsøgeren om meddelelse af Statoil-kontrakten, ikke indebar den af sagsøgeren hævdede uforholdsmæssige risiko og dermed ikke var i strid med proporti onali tetspri nei ppet.
22 - person responsible for running that undertaking had ceased to exist legally, it was necessary to identify, initially, the group of material and human elements that had contributed to the commission of the infringement in order to then identify the person who had become responsible for running that group so as to prevent that, by reason of the disappearance of the person responsible for its running at the time of the commission of the Infringement, the undertaking could not be held accountable for it.
Sag T-4/89: BASF Aktiengesellschaft mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
(The remainder of the case is similar to Cases T-l/89, T-2/89, T-3/89 - See Bulletin of Proceedings No 18/91 - and T-4/89, T-7/89 and T-8/89)
Artikel 1, syvende led, i Kommissionens beslutning af 23. april 1986 (IV/31.149 - Polypropylen, EFT L 230, s. 1) annulleres, for så vidt det heri fastslås, at BASF har medvirket til overtrædelsen fra et tidspunkt mellem 1977 og 1979 og ikke fra slutningen af 1978 eller begyndelsen af 1979.
Article 1 of the Commission's decision of 23 April 1986 (IV/31.149 -Polypropylene, OJ L 230, p. 1) is annulled in so far as it finds that Anic participated in the infringement before the end of 1978 or the beginning of 1979 and after October 1982, in the system of regular meetings of polypropylene producers, in the price initiatives and in the restriction of monthly sales byreference to a previous period after mid-1982, and the implementation of the price in measures designed to facilitate initiatives;
Den bøde, der er pålagt sagsøgeren ved beslutningens artikel 3, fast sættes til 2 125 000 ECU, svarende til 4 557 891,25 DM.
The amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article decision shall be ECU 450 000, or LR 662 215 500;
I øvrigt frifindes sagsøgte.
The rest of the application is dismissed;
Kommissionen bærer den anden halvdel af sine omkostninger."
The parties shall bear their own costs".
Forslag til afgørelse i sagerne T-4/89, T-6/89, T-7/89 og T-8/89:
Case T-7/89: S.A. Hercules Chemicals N.V. ν Commission of the European Communities
Dommer B. Vesterdorf fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdeling) den 10. iuli 1991.
- 17 December 1991 (Competition - Concepts of agreement and concerted practice - Collective responsibility) (First Chamber)
(Se Arbejdet ved De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol og Ret i Første In stans, nr. 18/91, s. 13).
This case concerned a Commission decision imposing a fine on fifteen polypropylene producers for infringement of Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty.
Sag T-6/89: Etlichem Anic S.p.A. mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
However, the right to a fair hearing did not require that an undertaking involved in a procedure under Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty should be able to comment on all the documents contained In the Commission's file, since there were no provisions imposing on the Commission the obligation to disclose its files to the parties in question.
"Konkurrence - aftale og samordnet praksis - kollektivt ansvar -tilregnelse" (Første Afdeling)
The Court of First Instance stated that it followed from the foregoing that the Commission was under an obligation to make accessible to the undertakings involved in a procedure pursuant to Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty all the documents, for and against, that it had acquired during the investigation, except for the business secrets of other undertaking, the Commission's internal documents and other confidential information.
Nærværende sag vedrører en beslutning fra Kommissionen, hvorved der blev pålagt 15 polypropylen-producenter en bøde for overtrædelse af EØF-Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1.
The Court of First Instance considered that in the present case there were no factors such as to prove that the documents to which the applicant had been given access had been selected by the Commission in such a way as to prevent the applicant from proving that by reason of the status of its employee at the meetings of the polypropylene producers, it had not participated in the infringement.
TILREGNELSE
Instance held:
(Den øvrige del af sagen svarer til sagerne T-l/89, T-2/89 og T-3/89 - se Arbejdet ved De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol og Ret i Første Instans, nr. 18/91 - og T-4/89, T-7/89 og T-8/89).
(Similar case to Cases T-l/89, T-2/89, T-3/89 - see the Bulletin of Proceedings No 18-91 - and T-4/89, T-6/89 and T-7/89)
Nærværende sag vedrører en beslutning fra Kommissionen, hvorved der blev pålagt 15 polypropylen-producenter en bøde for overtrædelse af EØF-Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1.
The Court pointed out that the rules which were to apply in relations between the States making up the EEA were essentially the those laid down in the corresponding provisions of the EEC and ECSC Treaties and in measures adopted pursuant thereto.
Retten bemærkede, at det i henhold til reglerne om kontradiktion kræves, at sagsøgeren skulle sættes i stand at fremføre sit synspunkt, således som selskabet ønskede det, vedrørende alle de klagepunkter, som Kommissionen var fremkommet med i de meddelelser om klagepunkter, der var fremsendt til selskabet, og vedrørende alle de beviser, der skulle underbygge klagepunkterne, og som Kommissionen havde nævnt i meddelelserne om klagepunkter eller vedlagt disse.
The Court also pointed out that the aim of homogeneity in the interpretation and application of the law in the EEA as specified in Article 1 of the agreement was to be secured through the use of provisions which were textually identical to the corresponding provisions of Community law and through the establishment of a system of courts.
Retten til kontradiktion medfører derimod ikke, at en virksomhed, der er inddraget i en procedure i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, kan fremkomme med bemærkninger til alle Kommissionens dokumenter vedrørende sagen, idet der ikke findes bestemmelser, hvorefter Kommissionen skal gøre de berørte virksomheder bekendt med sagens akter.
The agreement provided for the setting up of an EEA Court, to which a Court of First Instance was to be attached. The jurisdiction of the EEA Court covered the settlement of disputes between the Contracting Parties, actions concerning the surveillance procedure regarding the EFTA States and, in the field of competition, appeals concerning decisions taken by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.
Retten bemærkede, at Kommissionen ikke kunne fravige de regler, den således har pålagt sig selv.
For the purposes of their implementation and application, the provisions of the agreement were to be interpreted in conformity with previous rulings of the Court of Justice.
Kommissionen er derfor forpligtet til at give de virksomheder, der er berørt af en procedure i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, adgang til alle de dokumenter, der er indsamlet ved undersøgelsen, uanset om de er til skade eller gunst for virksomhederne, dog ikke andre virksomheders forretningshemmeligheder, Kommissionens interne dokumenter og andre fortrolige oplysninger.
When applying or interpreting the provisions of the agreement, the Court of Justice, the EEA Court, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, the EEA Court of First Instance and the Courts of the EFTA States were to pay due account to the principles laid down in decisions delivered by the other courts.
Retten fandt, at det ikke var godtgjort, at Kommissionen havde udvalgt de dokumenter, som sagsøgeren havde fået adgang til, med henblik på at for hindre selskabet i at påvise, at det på grund af den stilling, den medarbejder indtog, der deltog i møderne for polypropylen-producenter, ikke havde medvirket til overtrædelsen.
The EEA Court was to be composed of eight judges, including five from the Court of Justice. The EEA Court of First Instance was to be composed of five judges - three nominated by the EFTA States and two judges of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.