natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I betragtning af sagsøgerens stærke position på det relevante marked, navnlig selskabets markedsandel, finder Retten, at aftalerne i betydelig grad bidrager til en afskærmning af markedet.
Since, by virtue of Article 85(3)(b) of the Treaty, Article 85(1) cannot be declared inapplicable to agreements which 'afford ... undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question', the Court considers, in the light of the foregoing considerations, that the Commission may also, where appropriate, withdraw, under Article 85(3)(b) of the Treaty, the benefit of a block exemption where access by other suppliers to the various sales outlets is made difficult to a significant extent within the meaning of Article 14(b) of Regulation No 1984/83.
På baggrund af det anførte er det således Rettens opfattelse, at Kommissionen med rette har lagt til grund, at de omtvistede aftaler medfører en mærkbar begrænsning af konkurrencen på de relevante marked.
In order to decide, next, whether the Commission was entitled to withdraw the benefit of the block exemption, it is necessary to examine how the Commission decided whether or not the contested agreements fulfilled the conditions laid down by Article 85(3) of the Treaty, to which Articles 7 of Regulation No 19/65 and 14 of Regulation No 1984/83 refer.
Anbringendets tredje led om manglendepåvirkning afhandelen mellem medlemsstater
Accordingly, the second part of the plea must be rejected.
Retten finder, at den kumulative virkning af et kompleks af eksklusive købsaftaler, som strækker sig over hele en medlemsstats område og dækker ca. (...)% af det relevante marked, kan forhindre konkurrenter fra andre medlemsstater i at trænge ind på markedet og dermed styrke afskærmningen af de nationale markeder, hvorved den med traktaten tilstræbte sammenkædning af økonomierne hæmmes.
The Commission enjoys considerable latitude in this matter. The Commission's exclusive power under Article 9 of Regulation No 17 to grant an exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty necessarily involves complex evaluations on economic matters.
Anbringendets fjerde led om Kommissionens påståede pligt til at foretage en opdeling af de enkelte aftaler således at en del af aftalerne ikke rammes af forbuddet i traktatens artikel 85, stk 1
The third part of the plea: whether the supply agreements satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 85(3) of the Treaty
I begge tilfælde er parterne ikke tvunget til, men har — hvis de ønsker det — fri adgang til, at tage deres aftaleforhold op til fornyet overvejelse og vurdere andre muligheder på markedet. En sådan undersøgelse, som artikel 3, litra d), i forordning nr. 1984/83 har til formål at gennemtvinge, kan føre til, at nye konkurrenter får adgang til detailhandlere, der er frigjort for enhver forpligtelse.
As regards the first of the four conditions laid down by Article 85(3) of the Treaty, the Court points out that, according to that provision, the agreements capable of being exempted are those which contribute 'to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress'.
En opdeling af de omtvistede aftaler i forskellige hypotetiske kategorier i det foreliggende tilfælde vil — som anført af Kommissionen — kunne være vilkårlig.
It is necessary, first, to examine the applicant's argument that Article 7 of Regulation No 19/65 must be interpreted as meaning that the Commission must, in the exercise of the power conferred on it by Article 14 of Regulation No 1984/83, comply with the conditions laid down in Article 8(3) of Regulation No 17, with the result that it may withdraw the benefit of a block exemption only if there has been a change in any of the facts which were basic to the grant of the exemption.
De aftaler, som forlænges stiltiende og som kan løbe i mere end fem år, må herefter anses for at være indgået for et ubestemt tidsrum, og de kan derfor ikke drage fordel af gruppefritagelsen i henhold til forordning nr. 1984/83.
Although it is apparent from the fifth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1984/83 that exclusive purchasing agreements lead in general to an improvement in distribution, in that they enable the supplier to plan the sale of his goods with greater precision and for a longer period and ensure that the reseller's requirements will be met on a regular basis for the duration of the agreement, and even if it is assumed that it would be necessary for the applicant, for reasons of cost, to terminate supplies to certain small sales outlets if it were obliged to give up supplies to them on an exclusive basis, the Commission considers nevertheless that the contested agreements do not give rise to objective and specific advantages for the public interest such as to compensate for the disadvantages which they cause in the field of competition.
Retten finder således, at et kompleks af ensartede aftaler skal vurderes samlet, og at Kommissionen derfor med rette ikke foretog en opdeling af aftalerne. Det pågældende led i anbringendet må dermed forkastes.
Pursuant to Article 8(3)(a) of Regulation No 17, the Commission may revoke or amend an exemption decision if there has been a change in any of the facts which were basic to the making of the decision.
Anbringendet om en tilsidesættelse af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, kan herefter ikke tiltrædes.
Being a condition concerning the revocation of formal decisions taken under Article 85(3) of the Treaty, that provision does not fall to be applied where the Commission decides to withdraw the benefit of a block exemption since, in such cases, there is no formal decision to revoke.
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Kommissionen med urette har ladet fordelen ved en gruppefritagelse bortfalde i henhold til artikel 14, litra a) og b), i forordning
Furthermore, the Court finds that a block exemption is not, by definition, subject to case-by-case verification that the exemption conditions laid down by the Treaty are actually fulfilled.
Anbringendet om en tilsidesættelse af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3
The applicant has not produced any convincing evidence of the special conditions in Germany
pågældende varer«, finder Retten på baggrund af ovenstående betragtninger, at Kommissionen også i henhold til traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, litra b), kan lade fordelen ved en gruppefritagelse bortfalde, såfremt (tet i urimelig grad vanskeliggøres for andre leverandører at få adgang til de forskellige salgssteder, jf. artikel 14, litra b), i forordning nr. 1984/83.
such infringement to an end'. The Court considers that that provision confers on the Commission only the power to prohibit existing exclusive agreements which are incompatible with the competition rules.
nr. 1984/83, fordi bestemmelserne ikke skulle finde anvendelse i det foreliggende tilfælde, kun vedrører de aftaler, som er indgået for maksimalt fem år og dermed ifølge Kommissionen opfylder betingelserne i artikel 3, litra b), i nævnte forordning, idet aftalerne af typen »aftaler med en fast løbetid på maksimalt to år og efterfølgende automatisk forlængelse« og aftalerne med en løbetid på over fem år ikke er omfattet af fritagelsen i henhold til forordningen artikel 1.
which made it necessary to create an ice-cream distribution system belonging to the producers, nor has it produced any evidence to counter the Commission's contention that wholesalers are willing and able to ensure ice-cream distribution throughout the territory.
Anbringendets andet led kan herefter ikke tiltrædes.
The Court therefore considers that the applicant has not shown that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the contested agreements did not fulfil the first condition laid down by Article 85(3) of the Treaty.
Anbringendets tredje led om, hvorvidt leveringsaftalerne opfylder betingelserne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3
Since the agreements at issue do not fulfil the first of the conditions laid down by Article 85(3) of the Treaty, the third part of the plea must be rejected.
Det følger af artikel 14, litra a) og b), i forordning nr. 1984/83, at Kommissionen er bemyndiget til at lade fordelen ved den i henhold til forordningen indrømmede gruppefritagelse — som ifølge sagens natur ikke forudsætter en konkret undersøgelse af, om betingelserne for en fritagelse i henhold til traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, faktisk er opfyldt — bortfalde, såfremt den i en konkret sag konstaterer, at aftaler, der i medfør af forordningen er fritaget, ikke opfylder alle betingelserne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3.
As regards the reintroduction of a network of exclusive purchasing agreements, it is apparent from the case-law on Article 85(1) that, even where an examination of all similar agreements entered into on the relevant market and the other factors relevant to the economic and legal context shows that access to the market in question is difficult, the exclusive purchasing agreements of a supplier whose contribution to a cumulative effect is insignificant are not caught by the prohibition contained in Article 85(1).
Der skal forst uges stilling til sagsøgerens argument om, at artikel 7 i forordning nr. 19/65 skal fortolkes således, at Kommissionen ved udøvelsen af sin beføjelse i henhold til artikel 14 i forordning nr. 1984/83 skal sikre sig, at betingelserne i artikel 8, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 17 er opfyldt, siledes at den kun kan lade fordelen ved en gruppefritagelse bortfalde, såfremt de faktiske forhold har ændret sig på et for fritagelsen væsentligt punkt.
It follows that Article 85(1) does not, as a general rule, preclude the conclusion of exclusive purchasing agreements, provided that they do not contribute significantly to any closing-off of the market. In that context, the Commission's argument that the prohibition of concluding future agreements is justified by the need to prevent any attempt to circumvent, by recourse to Regulation No 1984/83, the prohibition of existing agreements laid down in Article 1 of the contested decision must be rejected.
Betingelsen om opretholdelse af en effektiv konkurrence i artikel 14, litra a), i forordning nr. 1984/83 er således dækket af bemyndigelsen i artikel 7 i forordning nr. 19/65.
In view of all the foregoing considerations, the fourth plea must be rejected.
Endvidere bemærkes, at en gruppefritagelse ifølge sagens natur ikke er betinget af, at det i hvert enkelt tilfælde konstateres, at de i traktaten opstillede betingelser for en fritagelse faktisk er opfyldt.
According to the applicant, Article 4 of the decision has no legal basis whatsoever. There is no legal basis empowering the Commission to prohibit the applicant from concluding any exclusive agreements in the future.
Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, finder anvendelse på alle trin i den økonomiske proces og også på konkurrenceforholdene mellem leverandører, for så vidt angår adgangen til de forskellige salgssteder som omhandlet i nærværende sag.
Although Article 14 of Regulation No 1984/83 confers on the Commission power to withdraw the benefit of the regulation if it finds that, in a particular case, an exempted agreement nevertheless has certain effects which are incompatible with the conditions set out in Article 85(3) of the Treaty, Article 14 does not provide any legal basis for the benefit of a block exemption to be withheld from future agreements.
Da det følger af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, litra b), at bestemmelserne i artikel 85, stk. 1, ikke kan erklæres uanvendelige på aftaler, der giver virksomhederne »mulighed for at udelukke konkurrencen for en væsentlig del af de
Article 3 of Regulation No 17 provides that: "where the Commission ... finds that there is an infringement of Article 85 or 86 of the Treaty, it may by decision require the undertakings or associations of undertakings concerned to bring
Det må på den baggrund fastslås, at artikel 7 i forordning nr. 19/65 ikke kan fortolkes således, at en beslutning om at lade fordelen ved en gruppefritagelse bortfalde, kun kan træffes, såfremt betingelsen i artikel 8, stk. 3, litra a), i forordning nr. 17 er opfyldt. Sagsøgerens argument herom kan således ikke tiltrædes.
The Court also considers that it would be contrary to the principle of equal treatment, one of the fundamental principles of Community law,
urigtigt skøn ved at antage, at de omtvistede aftaler ikke opfylder den første betingelse i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3.
undertakings and create distortions of competition on the market, contrary to the objectives of the Treaty.
Med henblik på at vurdere, om Kommissionen var berettiget til at lade fordelen ved gruppefritagelsen bortfalde, skal Retten dernæst tage stilling til Kommissionens behandling af spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt de omtvistede aftaler opfylder betingelserne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, hvortil der henvises i artikel 7 i forordning nr. 19/65 og artikel 14 i forordning nr. 1984/83.
to exclude for certain undertakings the benefit of a block exemption regulation as regards the future whilst other undertakings, such as the intervener in this case, could continue to conclude exclusive purchasing agreements such as those prohibited by the decision.
Anbringendets fjerde led om, hvorvidt det er i strid med proportionalitetsprincippet at forbyde alle leveringsaftalerne
Such a prohibition would therefore be liable to undermine the economic freedom of certain
Endvidere bemærkes, at Kommissionen på dette område råder over et vidt skøn.
For all those reasons, the Court considers that the present plea in law is well founded.
Retten finder på den baggrund, at sagsøgeren ikke har godtgjort, at Kommissionens beslutning hviler på et åbenbart urigtigt skøn eller udgør en tilsidesættelse af proportionalitetsprincippet.Anbringendets fjerde led må således forkastes.
Annulled Article 4 of Commission Decision 93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty against Langnese-Iglo GmbH (1V/34.072);
Det fjerde anbringende kan herefter ikke tiltrædes.
For the rest, dismissed the application;
Anbringendet om en tilsidesættelse af artikel 3 i forordning nr. 17
Ordered the applicant to bear all the costs of the proceedings, including those in respect of the application for interim measures and those of the intervener, with the exception of one quarter of the costs incurred by the defendant;
Sagsøgeren har anført, at der ikke er nogen form for hjemmel for beslutningens artikel 4.
Ordered the defendant to bear one quarter of its own costs.'
Indledningsvis henvises til ordlyden af artikel 3 i forordning nr. 17: »Konsuterer Kommissionen ..., at der foreligger en overtrædelse af bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 85 eller artikel 86, kan den ved en beslutning pålægge de delugende virksomheder og sammenslutninger af virksomheder at bringe de konstaterede overtrædelser til ophør«.
(Competition - Exclusive purchasing agreements for ice-cream — Relevant market - Possible barriers to entry to the market by third parties — Comfort letter - Negative clearance Duration of agreements — Block exemption — Prohibition of concluding exclusive dealing agreements in the future) (Second Chamber, extended composition)
Hvad angår muligheden for at genoprette et kompleks af eksklusive købsaftaler bemærkes, at det fremgår af retspraksis omkring anvendelsen
The applicant notified to the Commission by letter of 7 May 1985 a form of 'supply agreement' governing its relations with its retail distributors.
begrænse retsvirkningerne af en generel retsakt, medmindre denne givèr en udtrykkelig hjemmel hertil.
applicant's lawyer, which included the following paragraphs:
Det følger heraf, at artikel 85, stk. 1, som udgangspunkt ikke er til hinder for, at der indgås eksklusive købsaftaler, såfremt dette ikke i væsentligt omfang bidrager til en afskærmning af markedet.
On 18 September 1991, Mars GmbH lodged a complaint with the Commission against the applicant and against Langnese-Iglo GmbH for infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty.
Desuden findes dét at være i strid med ligebehandlingsprincippet, som ér et af fællesskabsrettens grundlæggende principper, at afskære visse virksomheder fra fremover at drage fordel af én gruppefritagelsesforordning, mens andre virksomheder, såsom intervenienten i det foreliggende tilfælde, fortsat kan indgå eksklusive købsaftaler som dem, der forbydes ved beslutningen. Et sådant forbud ville således kunne gøre indgreb i bestemte virksomheders økonomiske handlefrihed og skabe konkurrencefordrejning på markedet, hvilket strider mod traktatens målsætninger.
The Commission adopted on 23 December 1992 Decision 93/405/EEC relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the Treaty against Schöller Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG, the operative part of which is as follows: According to the applicant, if the definition of the product market proposed by the Commission, constituting the ice-cream market in the broad sense, is accepted it is also necessary not to limit the geographical market to the German national market in view of the fact that, first, the Commission took account, in its decision, of the fact that the applicant, Langnese and Mars operate not only in Germany but also in numerous other countries and, secondly, the fact that the development of the domestic European market will continue to reduce the existing national differences.
Forordning nr. 1984/83 er nemlig en generel retsakt, som giver virksomhederne mulighed for at drage fordel af en gruppefritagelse for visse eksklusive købsaftaler, der som udgangspunkt opfylder betingelserne i artikel 85, stk. 3.
'Article 1
Af de således anførte grunde finder Retten, at dét pågældende anbringende kan tiltrædes. Beslutningens artikel 4 bør således annulleres.
The agreements concluded by Schöller Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG requiring retailers established in Germany to purchase single-item ice-cream for resale only from that undertaking infringe Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty. Article 2
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
An exemption pursuant to Article 85(3) of the EEC Treaty for the agreements referred to in Article 1 is hereby refused.
Artikel 4 i Kommissionens beslutning 93/4Ú6/E0F af 23. december 1992 om en procedure i heraldía til EØF-traktatens artikel ¿5 mod Langnese-Iglo GmbH (sag IV/34.072) annulleres.
It is apparent from the decision, and has not been denied by the applicant, that the distribution of industrially produced ice-cream is always undertaken at national level and that national characteristics are reflected in differences in market structure, product ranges and prices.
I øvrigt frifindes Kommissionen,
Accordingly, the complaint concerning the definition of the geographical market cannot be upheld.
Sagsøgeren betaler samtlige sagens omkostninger, herunder omkostningerne vedrørende sagen om foreløbige forholdsregler og intervenientens omkostninger, med undtagelse af en fjerdedel üf álle sagsøgtes omkostninger.
The third part of the plea: the Commission's alleged obligation to consider individual agreements separately so that some of them escape the prohibition contained in Article 85(1) of the Treaty
Kommissionen bærer en fjerdedel af sine egne omkostninger.*
The applicant, by a document lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 20
»Konkurrence — ekskluave købsaftaler vedrørende konsumis — relevant marked — eventuelle hindringer for tredjemands adgang til markedet — administrativ skrivebe ('comfort letter') — negativattest — aftalernes løbetid —gruppefritagelse —forbud mod at indgå eksklusivaftaler fremover* (Anden Udvidede Afdeling)
According to the applicant, that approach is particularly necessary in this case since, first, the Commission also prohibited the parallel exclusive agreements concluded by Langnese, which it took into consideration when examining the cumulative effect of similar agreements.
Faktiske omstændigheder fra nævnte virksomhed (salgsstedseksklusivitet), er i strid med EØF-traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1.
The Court considers that that article also confers on the Commission the power to require a notification of the kind imposed by Article 3 of the decision in order to ensure proper implementation of the decision.
Fritagelse i henhold til EØF-traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, for de i artikel 1 omhandlede aftaler afslås.
As regards, next, the question whether there is no legal basis for Article 4 of the decision, the Court considers that Article 3 of Regulation No 17 confers on the Commission only the power to prohibit existing exclusive purchasing agreements which are incompatible with the competition rules.
Sagsøgeren anmeldte den 7. maj 1985 en standardkontrakt til leveringsaftale til Kommissionen. Kontrakten regulerede selskabets forhold til forhandlerne i detailhandelen.
(The Court's findings are the same as in its judgment of 8June 1995 in Case T-7/93, Langnese-Iglo GmbH ν Commission: see above under the heading 'The plea of infringement of Article 3 of Regulation No IT.)
Den 20. september 1985 sendte Kommissionens generaldirektorat for konkurrence sagsøgerens advokat en administrativ skrivelse, et såkaldt »comfort letter« (herefter benævnt »den administrative skrivelse«), hvori det hedder: »(...)
As regards the question whether the Commission should have considered the restrictive effect on competition of a network of agreements set up by the applicant following the prohibition of a similar network set up by Langnese, it need merely be borne in mind that where the Commission finds, as in this case, that all the similar agreements concluded on the market and other factors pertaining to the economic and legal context are liable appreciably to affect competition within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty and then correctly concludes that a producer's supply agreements contribute significantly to that closing­off of the market, the contested agreements of that producer are all caught by the prohibition laid down by Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
Schöller's anmeldte leveringsaftaler er (...) forenelige med konkurrencereglerne i EØF-traktaten. (...)
This finding cannot be altered by the fact that the Commission simultaneously prohibits a network of similar agreements established by another producer.
Kommissionen forbeholder sig retten til at genoptage proceduren, såfremt det retlige eller det faktiske grundlag for den anlagte vurdering ændres væsentligt (...)«.
For all those reasons, the Court considers that the present plea in law is well founded. It is therefore appropriate to annul Article 4 of the decision.
Den 18. september 1991 indgav Mars GmbH en klage til Kommissionen over sagsøgeren og Langnese-Iglo GmbH under påberåbelse af en overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 85 og 86.
It follows that the application should be dismissed as unfounded, except as regards the claim for annulment of Article 4 of the decision.
Anbringendet om en tilsidesættelse af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1
For the rest, dismissed the application;
De af Scholier Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. KG indgåede aftaler, hvorefter detailhandlere med forretningssted i Tyskland er forpligtede til med henblik på videresalg udelukkende at købe småis Anbringendets første led om afgrænsningen af markedet
Ordered the applicant to bear all the costs of the proceedings, including those in respect of the application for interim measures and those of the intervener, with the exception of one quarter of the costs incurred by the defendant;
Den omstændighed, at Kommissionen samtidig forbyder en anden producents tilsvarende aftalekompleks, kan ikke ændre noget herved.
OPINIONS establishment of the criteria to be complied with where a lesser amount is paid.'
Anbringendet om en tilsidesættelse af artikel 3 i forordning nr. 17
Case C-342/93 Joan Gillespie and Others ν Northern Health and Social Services Board and Others