natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Gennemgangen af det forelagte spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af artikel 3, stk 3, i forordning nr. 1626/85.
Consideration of the question has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 1626/85.
Artikel 3, stk 3, i forordning nr. 1626/85 skal fortolkes således, at der ved udtrykket 'eksportøren i det land, hvor produkterne har oprindeke', udelukkende skal forstås den eksportør, hvis virksomhed har hjemsted i det land, hvor varerne har oprindelse.*
Article 3(3) of Regulation No 1626/85 is to be interpreted as meaning that the phrase 'the exporter in the country in which the products originated" refers exclusively to an exporter whose undertaking is established in the country of origin of the goods.'
Generaladvokat W. Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 27. september 1994.
Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 27 September 1994.
Han foreslog følgende besvarelser:
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
Sag C-351/93:
'In Case C-351/93
»1) Artikel 2, stk. 3, initio, litra b), og in fine, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2237/85 af 30. juli 1985 om gennemførelsesbestemmelserne til ordningen med minimumsimportpriser for tørrede druer, skal - sammenholdt med bl.a. artikel 9 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 426/86 af 24. februar 1986 om den fælles
Article 2(3)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2237/85 of 30 July 1985 laying down detailed rules for the application of the minimum import price system for dried grapes must, having regard in particular to Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 426/86 of 24 February 1986 on the common organisation of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables, be interpreted as meaning that if the competent authorities have doubts as to whether the price declared in the entry for release for free circulation of the goods reflects the actual import price, they may, after having invited the importer to adduce further evidence that the minimum import price has been
2) Gennemgangen af de forelagte spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af artikel 2, stk. 3, initio, litra b), og in fine, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2237/85, for så vidt som der herved gives hjemmel til en rekonstruktion af importprisen, såfremt der foreligger tvivl om rigtigheden af den af importøren angivne pris.«
Consideration of the questions has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 2(3)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2237/85 in that it permits reconstruction of the import price where there are doubts as to the correctness of the price declared by the importer.
Sag C-352/93:
In Case C-352/93:
»1) Artikel 2, stk. 2, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2742/82 af 13. oktober 1982 om beskyttelsesforanstaltninger over for indførsel af tørrede druer, sammenholdt med Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 994/88 af 15. april 1988, er hjemmelen for beregningen af en udligningsafgift ved import af tørrede druer, som opkræves for første gang efter Domstolens dom af 11. februar 1988 i sag 77/86.
Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2742/82 of 13 October 1982 on protective measures applicable to imports of dried grapes, in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 994/88 of 15 April 1988, constitute the legal basis for calculating a countervailing charge on the import of dried raisins levied for the first time after the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 February 1988 in Case 77/86.
3) Artikel 4, stk. 3, i Kommissionens forordning nr. 2742/82 skal fortolkes således, at når de kompetente myndigheder er i tvivl om, hvorvidt den pris, der er anført i angivelsen om overgang til fri omsætning, afspejler den reelle importpris, kan de, efter at have anmodet importøren om at fremlægge mere detaljerede beviser for, at han har overholdt minimumsimportprisen, foretage en rekonstruktion af importprisen under hensyntagen til alle de oplysninger, de har kendskab til, og som kan tages i betragtning i henhold til national ret.
Article 4(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2742/82 is to be interpreted as meaning that if the competent authorities have doubts as to whether the price declared in the entry for free circulation reflects the actual import price, they may, after having invited the importer to adduce further evidence that the minimum import price has been observed, reconstruct the import price by using all the evidence of which they are aware and which their national law permits to be taken into account.
4) Gennemgangen af de forelagte spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af artikel 4, stk. 3, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2742/82, for så vidt som der herved gives hjemmel til en rekonstruktion af importprisen, såfremt der foreligger tvivl om rigtigheden af den af importøren angivne pris.«
Consideration of the questions has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 4(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2742/82 in that it permits the import price to be reconstructed in the event of doubts as to the correctness of the price declared by the importer.
Sag C-353/93:
In Case C-353/93:
»1) Artikel 3, stk. 3, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1626/85 af 14. juni 1985 om beskyttelsesforanstaltninger over for indførsel af visse surkirsebær, skal - sammenholdt med bl.a. artikel 18, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 426/86 — fortolkes således, at når de kompetente myndigheder er i tvivl om, hvorvidt den pris, der er anført i angivelsen om overgang til fri omsætning, afspejler den reelle importpris, kan de, efter at have anmodet importøren om at fremlægge mere detaljerede beviser for, at han har overholdt minimumsimportprisen, foretage en rekonstruktion af importprisen under hensyntagen til alle de oplysninger, de har kendskab til, og som kan tages i betragtning i henhold til national ret.
Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1626/85 of 14 June 1985 on protective measures applicable to imports of certain Morello cherries must, having regard in particular to Article 18(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 426/86, be interpreted as meaning that, if the competent authorities have doubts as to whether the price declared in the entry for free circulation of the goods reflects the actual import price, they may, after having invited the importer to adduce further evidence that the minimum import price has been observed, reconstruct the import price by using all the evidence of which they are aware and which their national law permits to be taken into consideration.
2) Gennemgangen af de forelagte spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af artikel 3, stk. 3, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1626/85, for så vidt som der herved gives hjemmel til en rekonstruktion af importprisen, såfremt der foreligger tvivl om rigtigheden af den af importøren angivne pris.
Consideration of the questions has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation No 1626/85 in that it permits the import price to be reconstructed where there are doubts as to the correctness of the price declared by the importer.
3) Artikel 3, stk. 3, i Kommissionens forordning nr. 1626/85 skal fortolkes således, at der ved udtrykket 'eksportøren i det land, hvor produkterne har oprindelse', skal forstås den eksportør, hvis virksomhed har hjemsted i det land, hvor varen har oprindelse.«
Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation No 1626/85 is to be interpreted as meaning that "the exporter in the country of origin" is to be understood as the exporter whose undertaking is established in the country of origin of the products.'
Sag C-66/94 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Kongeriget Belgien Landbrug
Case C-66/94 Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of Belgium Agriculture
»Traktatbrud — manglende gennemførelse af et direktiv* (Sjette Afdeling) forpligtelser i henhold til henholdsvis artikel 4 og artikel 2 i de to direktiver samt EF-traktatens artikel 5 og 189.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations (Sixth Chamber) obligations under the penultimate articles of the said directives and Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty.
Kongeriget Belgien har ikke bestridt, at direktiverne 91/687 og 91/688 ikke er blevet gennemført inden for den fastsatte frist.
The Kingdom of Belgium does not deny that Directives 91/687 and 91/688 were not transposed within the prescribed period.
Det har imidlertid gjort gældende, at bekendtgørelserne til gennemførelse af direktiverne er under udarbejdelse.
However, it has stated that the decrees intended to transpose the directives are in the process of completion.
Kongeriget Belgien har ved ikke inden for den fastsatte frist at have vedtaget de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser for at efterkomme Rådets direktiv 91/687/EØF af 11. december 1991 om ændring af direktiv 64/432/EØF, 72/461/EØF og 80/215¡EØF for så vidt angår en række foranstaltninger med hensyn til klassisk svinepest, og Rådets direktiv 91/688/EØF af 11. december 1991 om ændring af direktiv 72/462/EØF om sundhedsmæssige og veterinærpolitimæssige problemer i forbindelse med indførsel af kvæg, svin, får og geder samt fersk kød og kødprodukter fra tredjelande, tilsidesat sine gennemførelsesforpligtelser i henhold til artikel 4 i direktiv 91/687/EØF og artikel 2 i direktiv 91/688/EØF.
Declares that by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/687/EEC of 11 December 1991 amending Directives 64/432/EEC, 72/461/EEC and 80/215/EEC as regards certain measures relating to swine-fever and with Council Directive 91/688/EEC of 11 December 1991 amending Directive 72/462/EEC on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries the Kingdom of Belgium has f ailed to fulfil the obligations regarding their transposition imposed on it by Article 4 of Directive 91/687/EEC and Article 2 of Directive 91/688/EEC;
Kongeriget Belgien betaler sagens omkostninger.*
Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.'
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 17. november 1994.
Advocate General Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 17 November 1994.
Kongeriget Belgien tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.'
them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the penultimate articles of the said directives and Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty; order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.'
12.1.1995 koncerner — traktatens artikel 85, stk. 7«
(Competition — Complaints — Rejection — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices Groups of companies — Article 85(1) of the Treaty) (First Chamber)
»Konkurrence — klage — afvisning — karteller (Første Afdeling) forhandlere at eksportere dette selskabs varer, opdelte det fælles marked i markeder svarende til de nationale markeder i medlemsstaterne og på disse nationale markeder opretholdt kunstigt høje priser på Parker-produkter.
The applicant, Viho Europe BV (hereafter 'Viho'), a company incorporated under Netherlands law, markets office equipment on a wholesale basis and imports and exports that equipment.
Sagsøgeren, det nederlandske selskab Viho Europe BV (herefter benævnt »Viho«), driver virksomhed med engrosfprhandling af kontorudstyr og importerer og eksporterer sådant udstyr.
On 22 May 1991 Viho lodged another complaint against Parker in which it claimed that the distribution policy pursued by Parker whereby it required its subsidiaries to restrict the distribution of Parker products to their allocated territories constituted an infringement of Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty.
Parker Pen Ltd (herefter benævnt »Parker«), der er et engelsk selskab, producerer et omfattende sortiment afskriveredskaber og andre tilsvarende varer, som selskabet sælger overalt i Europa gennem datterselskaber eller uafhængige forhandlere.
Parker Pen Ltd (hereafter 'Parker'), a company incorporated under English law, produces a wide range of writing utensils, which it sells throughout Europe through subsidiary companies or independent distributors.
Den 22. maj 1991 indgav Viho endnu en klage over Parker, hvori selskabet gjorde gældende, at den forhandlingspolitik, som Parker havde iværksat, og som gik ud på at forpligte datterselskaberne til kun at forhandle Parkerprodukter inden for de dem tildelte områder, udgjorde en overtrædelse af artikel 85, stk. 1, i EØF-traktaten).
On 15 July 1992 the Commission, in response to a complaint lodged by Viho on 19 May 1988, adopted Decision 92/426/EEC in which it found that Parker and Herlitz had infringed Article 85(1) of the Treaty by including an export ban in an agreement concluded between them and also imposed a fine of ECU 700 000 on Parker and a fine of ECU 40 000 on Herlitz.
Den 19. maj 1988 indgav Viho efter forgæves at have forsøgt at komme i forretningsforbindelse med Parker og få leveret Parkerprodukter på vilkår, der svarede til de vilkår Parker's datterselskaber og uafhængige forhandlere havde opnået, en klage i henhold til artikel 3 i Rådets forordning nr. 17 af 6. februar 1962, hvori selskabet klagede over, at Parker forbød sine
On 30 September 1992 the Commission rejected Viho's complaint of 22 May 1991. In its decision the Commission found that the integrated distribution system set up by Parker to sell its products in Germany, France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands through subsidiary companies established there fulfilled the conditions laid down by the Court of Justice for
Under henvisning til den af Viho den 19. maj 1988 indgivne klage vedtog Kommissionen den 15. juli 1992 beslutning 92/426/EØF, hvori den dels fastslog, at Parker og Herlitz havde overtrådt traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, ved at indsætte et eksportforbud i en aftale, der var indgået mellem
Having attempted without success to enter into business relations with Parker and to obtain Parker products on conditions equivalent to those granted to Parker's subsidiaries and independent distributors, Viho lodged a complaint on 19 May 1988 under Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17, in which it complained that Parker was prohibiting the export of its products by its distributors, dividing the common market into national markets of the Member States, and maintaining artificially high prices for Parker products on those national markets.
idet der derved i strid med traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, litra d), anvendes ulige vilkår for ydelser af samme værdi.
85(1) may be considered inapplicable in the relationship between it and the parent company with which it forms one economic unit'.
Det fremgår desuden af Rettens praksis, at traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, kun omhandler forholdet mellem økonomiske enheder, der er i stand til at konkurrere med hinanden, men ikke aftaler eller samordnet praksis mellem virksomheder i samme koncern, såfremt virksomhederne udgør en økonomisk enhed.
It also follows from the case-law of the Court of First Instance that Article 85(1) of the Treaty refers only to relations between economic entities which are capable of competing with one another and does not cover agreements or concerted practices between undertakings belonging to the same group if the undertakings form an economic unit.
Den 30. september 1992 afviste Kommissionen Viho's klage af 22. maj 1991. Kommissionen anførte i beslutningen, at det af Parker indførte integrerede forhandlingssystem, der varetager forhandling af selskabets varer i Tyskland, Frankrig, Belgien, Spanien og Nederlandene gennem datterselskaber, som er etableret i disse lande, måtte anses for at være i overensstemmelse med de kriterier, der ifølge Domstolens praksis kan begrunde, at traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, ikke finder anvendelse, idet »datterselskaberne og moderselskabet udgør en økonomisk enhed, inden for hvilken datterselskaberne ikke har nogen reel selvstændighed ved fastlæggelsen af deres markedspolitiske linje«, og idet »tildelingen til hver af Parker-datterselskaberne af et bestemt salgsområde ... ikke går ud over, hvad der normalt anses for nødvendigt med henblik på en rimelig opgavefordeling inden for en koncern«.
the non-applicability of Article 85(1) of the Treaty on the grounds that 'the subsidiaries and the parent company form one economic unit within which the subsidiaries do not enjoy real autonomy in determining their course of action in the market' and moreover that 'the assignment of a specific distribution area to each of the Parker subsidiaries does not exceed the limits of what can normally be regarded as necessary for the purpose of a proper distribution of tasks within a group'.
Kommissionen fandt desuden, at Parker retmæssigt uden at tilsidesætte forbuddet mod karteller kunne afslå at handle med Viho til de samme priser og på de samme betingelser som dem, der var blevet givet selskabets uafhængige forhandlere.
The Commission also found that Parker was entitled to deny Viho similar prices and terms to those granted to its independent distributors without thereby infringing the ban on restrictive practices.
Viho har herefter, ved stævning indgivet til Rettens justitskontor den 30. november 1992, anlagt nærværende sag.
It was in those circumstances that Viho brought this action by application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 30 November 1992.
Første anbringende: overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1
First plea: infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty
For det første står det i nærværende sag fast, at Parker's datterselskaber i Tyskland, Frankrig, Belgien og Nederlandene er helejede datterselskaber.
It is not disputed in this case that Parker owns 100% of the capital of its subsidiaries established in Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
For det andet fremgår det af Parker's redegørelse for datterselskabernes virksomhed, der ikke bestrides af sagsøgeren, at datterselskabernessalgs-og marketingvirksomhed ledes af en områdegruppe, der er udpeget af moderselskabet, og som navnlig kontrollerer salgsmål, bruttofortjeneste, salgsomkostninger, »cash flow« og varelagre.
It is also apparent from the description given by Parker of the operation of its subsidiary companies, which the applicant has not disputed, that the sales and marketing activities of the subsidiaries are directed by an area team which is appointed by the parent company and which controls, in particular, sales targets, gross margins, sales costs, cash flow and stocks.
Denne områdegruppe fastlægger også, hvilket produktudvalg der skal udbydes, kontrollerer reklamevirksomheden og giver instrukser vedrørende priser og rabatter.
That area team also lays down the range of products to be sold, monitors advertising and issues directives concerning prices and discounts.
Retten fastslår på grundlag heraf, at Kommissionen med rette i beslutningen beskriver Parker-koncernen som »en økonomisk enhed, inden for hvilken datterselskaberne ikke har nogen reel selvstændighed ved fastlæggelsen af deres adfærd på markedet«.
Consequently, the Court concludes that the Commission correctly classifies the Parker group as 'one economic unit within which the subsidiaries do not enjoy real autonomy in determining their course of action in the market'.
Heraf følger, at forbindelserne inden for en økonomisk enhed ikke, da disse forbindelser ikke hviler på en overenskomst mellem indbyrdes økonomisk uafhængige parter, kan udgøre en aftale eller en samordnet praksis mellem virksomheder, der begrænser konkurrencen i
The plea alleging infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty is in two parts. First, the applicant claims that Parker's distribution system, which consists in requiring its subsidiaries to refer orders from customers in other Member States to the subsidiary established in the same State as the customer, pursues the same objective as express export bans imposed on exclusive distributors, namely the preservation of national markets and their partitioning from each other in order to prevent, restrict or distort competition within the common market.
Anbringendet om overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, falder i to led.
Prohibition on Parker subsidiaries from supplying Parker products to customers established in Member States other than that of the subsidiary
Sagsøgeren har for det første gjort gældende, at Parker's forhandlingssystem, hvorefter datterselskaberne er forpligtede til at henvise ordrer fra kunder, der er etableret i andre medlemsstater, til datterselskabet i kundens land, er led i den samme målsætning som de udtrykkelige forbud mod eksport til eneforhandlerne, nemlig en opdeling i nationale markeder og disse markeders opretholdelse med henblik på at hindre, begrænse eller fordreje konkurrencen inden for det fælles marked.
Where there is no agreement between economically independent entities, relations within an economic unit cannot amount to an agreement or concerted practice between undertakings which restricts competition within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty. Where, as in this case, the subsidiary, although having a separate legal personality, does not freely determine its conduct on the market but carries out the instructions given to it directly or indirectly by the parent company by which it is wholly controlled, Article 85(1) does not apply to the relationship between the subsidiary and the parent company with which it forms an economic unit.
Sagsøgeren har dernæst gjort gældende, at dette system udgør en forskelsbehandling af samtlige handelspartnere,
As regards the appraisal under Article 85(1) of the Treaty of agreements concluded within a group of companies, the Court of Justice has held that Vhere a subsidiary does not enjoy real autonomy in determining its course of action in the market, the prohibitions set out in Article
I øvrigt har Retten ovenfor fastslået, at Parker og dets datterselskaber udgør én økonomisk enhed, hvis ensidige adfærd ikke er omfattet af forbuddet ifølge traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, litra d).
Second plea: infringement of Article 86 of the Treaty apparent from its very terms that Article 85(1) does not apply to conduct which is in reality performed by an economic unit.
Følgelig udsættes Viho under nærværende sags omstændigheder ikke for en forskelsbehandling, der kan medføre sanktioner efter artikel 85, stk. 1, litra d).
It is not for the Court, on the pretext that certain conduct, such as that to which the applicant objects, may fall outside the competition rules, to apply Article 85 to circumstances for which it is not intended in order to fill a gap which may exist in the system of regulation laid down by the Treaty.
Andet anbringende: overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 86
The Court notes that in this case the applicant, which merely claims without giving any other particulars that the other major suppliers of pencils and pens and other office equipment operate the same distribution policy as Parker, argues that it should be inquired whether Article 86 of the Treaty ought to apply as a result of the collective dominant position held by the main manufacturers on the relevant market.
Den påståede forskelsbehandling af Viho for så vidt angår priser og salgsbetingelser
Alleged discriminatory treatment of Viho with respect to prices and conditions of sale
Den blotte henvisning i stævningen til traktatens artikel 86 uden tilføjelser i øvrigt vedrørende de pågældende virksomheders stilling på markedet, deres eventuelt ensartede adfærd eller deres økonomiske forbindelser, kan imidlertid ikke anses for at være tilstrækkelig under hensyn til statutten og procesreglementet.
In the absence of precise submissions as to the market position of the undertakings concerned, their uniform conduct or economic links, the mere reference to Article 86 of the Treaty in the application cannot be regarded as sufficient for the purposes of the Statute and the Rules of Procedure.
Tredje anbringende: overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 190
Third plea: infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty