natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
»En erhvervsdrivende kunne ikke påberåbe sig, at der var indtruffet force majeure hverken som følge af de foranstaltninger, som blev vedtaget ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1799/87 af 25. juni 1987 om ordningen for indførsel af majs til Spanien i perioden 1987 til 1990, eller som følge af de officielle meddelelser, som blev udsendt i de første måneder af 1987, dels om aftalen mellem EØF og Amerikas Forenede Stater, dels om resultatet af forhandlingerne om denne importordning inden for rammerne af GATT, og den erhvervsdrivende kunne derfor ikke af denne grund fritages for den hovedforpligtelse til at bringe støttet majs i fri omsætning, som han havde påtaget sig i henhold til Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3593/86 af 26. november 1986.«
By order of 20 March 1991 and by decision of 10 April 1992, both received at the Court on 1 June 1992, the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a number of questions on the interpretation of Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty and of Council Regulation No 26/62 of 4 April 1962 applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural products.
Sag C-250/92 Gøttrup-Klim m.fl.
Article 85(1) of the Treaty and may even have beneficial effects on competition.
Grovvareforeninger / Dansk Landbrugs Growareselskab AmbA Konkurrence
cooperative associations specializing in the distribution of farm supplies, hereinafter 'LAG').
Præjudiciel »Konkurrence — landbrug - forordning nr. 26 — andehindkøbsselskaber — eksklusion af medlemmer, der foretager alternative indkøb — overtrædelse af artikel 85, stk 1 — misbrug af dominerende stilling* (Femte Afdeling)
So, in order to escape the prohibition laid down in Article 85(1) of the Treaty, the restrictions imposed on members by the statutes of cooperative purchasing associations must be limited to what is necessary to ensure that the cooperative functions properly and maintains its contractual power in relation to producers.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en sådan forenings vedtægter er forenelige med EF's konkurrenceregler, kan ikke bedømmes abstrakt.
The national court seeks to ascertain whether a provision in the statutes of a cooperative purchasing association, the effect of which is to forbid its members to participate in other forms of organized cooperation which are in direct competition with it, is caught by the prohibition in Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
Det afhænger af det nærmere indhold af foreningens vedtægter og af de økonomiske forhold på de omhandlede markeder.
A cooperative purchasing association is a voluntary association of persons established in order to pursue common commercial object" ives.
Ved kendelse af 20. marts 1991 og beslutning af 10. april 1992, begge indgået til Domstolen den 1. juni 1992, har Østre Landsret i medfør af EØF-traktatens artikel 177 forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-traktatens artikel 85 og 86 og af Rådets forordning nr. 26 af 4. april 1962 om anvendelse af visse konkurrenceregler inden for produktion og handel med landbrugsvarer.
The particular features of the case at issue in the main proceedings, which are referred to in the questions submitted by the national court, must be assessed in the light of the foregoing considerations.
På et marked, hvor varernes pris varierer afhængig af efterspørgslens omfang, kan andelsindkøbsforeningernes virksomhed — alt efter deres medlemsantal — udgøre en vigtig modvægt over for de store producenters kontraheringsstyrke, og den bidrager til at gøre konkurrencen mere effektiv.
In addition, it is necessary to establish whether the penalties for non-compliance with the statutes are disproportionate to the objective they pursue and whether the minimum period of membership is unreasonable.
Disse spørgsmål er blevet stillet under en sag anlagt af 37 lokale andelsgrowareforeninger (herefter benævnt »sagsøgerne«) mod Dansk Landbrugs Growareselskab AmbA (herefter benævnt »DLG«).
The compatibility of the statutes of such an association with the Community rules on competition cannot be assessed in the abstract.
Sagsøgerne i hovedsagen er alle medlemmer af Landsforeningen af den lokale andel, som før 1991 hed Landsforeningen af Andels Grovvareforeninger (herefter benævnt »LAG«).
It will depend on the particular clauses in the statutes and the economic conditions prevailing on the markets concerned.
Hovedsagen vedrører spørgsmålet om retmæssigheden og de økonomiske følger af en af DLG gennemført vedtægtsændring, som har ført til eksklusion af sagsøgerne.
The amendment of DLG's statutes is restricted so as to cover only fertilizers and plant protection products, the only farm supplies in respect of which a direct relationship exists between sales volume and price.
Den omstændighed, at nogle medlemmer af to konkurrerende andelsindkøbsforeninger samtidig deltager i dem begge, kan svække hver af disse foreningers evne til at gennemføre deres mål til fordel for deres andre medlemmer, hvilket især vil være tilfældet, når de omhandlede medlemmer selv, som det er tilfældet i nærværende sag, er andelsforeninger med et stort antal enkeltpersoner som medlemmer.
In a market where product prices vary according to the volume of orders, the activities of cooperative purchasing associations may, depending on the size of their membership, constitute a significant counterweight to the contractual power of large producers and make way for more effective competition.
Den forelæggende ret ønsker oplyst, om en vedtægtsbestemmelse i en andelsindkøbsforening, hvorved det forbydes foreningens medlemmer at deltage i andre former for organiseret samarbejde, der direkte konkurrerer med foreningen, er omfattet af forbuddet i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1.
Where some members of two competing cooperative purchasing associations belong to both at the same time, the result is to make each association less capable of pursuing its objectives for the benefit of the rest of its members, especially where the members concerned, as in the case in point, are themselves cooperative associations with a large number of individual members.
Det følger af det anførte, at et sådant dobbelt tilhørsforhold både kan gøre det vanskeligt at drive andelsvirksomheden tilfredsstillende og mindske dens kontraheringsstyrke over for producenterne.
Finally, DLG's statutes authorize its members to buy fertilizers and plant protection products without using DLG as an intermediary, provided that such transactions are carried out otherwise than through an organized consortium.
Det må imidlertid erkendes, at en vedtægtsbestemmelse i en andelsindkøbsforening,
It follows that such dual membership would jeopardize both the proper functioning of the cooperative and its contractual power in relation to producers.
En andelsindkøbsforening er en frivillig personsammenslutning, der er oprettet for at forfølge fælles forretningsmæssige mål.
It would not seem that restrictions laid down in the statutes, of the kind imposed on DLG members, go beyond what is necessary to ensure
og for at opretholde dens kontraheringsstyrke over for producenterne.
that the cooperative functions properly and maintains its contractual power in relation to producers.
For så vidt angår de sanktioner, der er pålagt sagsøgerne i anledning af deres eksklusion på grund af tilsidesættelse af DLG's vedtægter, findes disse ikke at være uforholdsmæssigt strenge, idet DLG har ligestillet sagsøgerne med medlemmer, som har gjort brug af deres udtrædelsesret.
ásks whether intíá-CorHrhUtíity líadB is" affected, within the meaning of Articles' É5(ij arid 8ë of the Treaty, since the transactions involving the purchase of basic products are in pin concluded directly with producers established in non-member countries.
For ikke at være omfattet af forbuddet i traktatens artikel 85, stk 1, skal de begrænsninger, der påhviler medlemmerne i henhold til andelsindkøbsforeningernes vedtægter, følgelig begrænses til, hvad der er nødvendigt for at sikre en tilfredsstillende drift af andelsvirksomheden og for at opretholde dens kontraheringsstyrke over for producenterne.
As regards the penalties imposed on the plaintiffs as a result of their exclusion for infringing DLG's rules, these would not appear to be disproportionate, since DLG has treated the plaintiffs as if they were members exercising their right to withdraw.
Når alt kommer til alt, er det betegnende, at det efter eksklusionen er lykkedes sagsøgerne inden for rammerne af LAG at konkurrere effektivt med DLG, således at de i 1990 havde en markedsandel, der svarede til DLG's.
It is significant, in the last analysis, that after their exclusion, the plaintiffs succeeded, through LAG, in competing vigorously with DLG, with the result that in 1990 their market share was similar to DLG's.
Om misbruget af dominerende stilling
Abuse of a dominant position
Det er i lyset af disse betragtninger, at Domstolen skal undersøge de særlige omstændigheder, der foreligger i hovedsagen, og som der henvises til i spørgsmålene fra den forelæggende ret.
The Court has consistently held that, in order that an agreement between undertakings may affect trade between Member States, it must be possible to foresee with a sufficiënt degree of probability on the basis of a set of objective factors of law or fact that it may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the pattern of trade between Member States, such as might prejudice the realization of the aim of a single market in all thb Member States.
Det må endvidere efterprøves, om de fastsatte sanktioner for manglende overholdelse af vedtægtsbestemmelserne ikke er uforholdsmæssigt strenge i forhold til det formål, de har, og om minimumsperioden for medlemskab ikke er urimelig.
Accordingly, the effect on intra-Community trade is normally the result of a combination of several factors which, taken separately, are not necessarily decisive.
Med den tredje gruppe spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret oplyst, om en vedtægtsbestemmelse i en andelsindkøbsforening, hvorved det forbydes foreningens medlemmer at deltage i andre former for organiseret samarbejde i direkte konkurrence med foreningen, kan udgøre et misbrug af en dominerende stilling i strid med traktatens artikel 86.
In the third set of questions, the national court seeks to ascertain whether a provision in the statutes of a cooperative purchasing association, the effect of which is to prohibit its members from participating in other forms of organized cooperation which are in direct competition with it, may constitute an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Article 86 of the Treaty.
Ændringen af DLG's vedtægter er begrænset til kun at omfatte gødning og planteværnsmidler, som er de eneste grovvarer, for hvilke der foreligger en direkte sammenhæng mellem den indkøbte mængde og prisen.
It is for the national court, where appropriate, to undertake the economic analysis required, in accordance with the criteria laid down in the case-law cited above.
Vedtægtsmæssige begrænsninger som dem, der i den i hovedsagen omhandlede sag er pålagt medlemmerne af DLG, ses ikke at overskride disse grænser.
The activities of cooperative purchasing associations may encourage more effective competition on some markets, if the conditions imposed on the members are limited to what is necessary to ensure that the cooperative functions properly and maintains its contractual power in relation to producers.
Endvidere bemærkes, at det også efter ændringen af DLG's vedtægter og eksklusionen af sagsøgerne er muligt for »ikke-medlemmer« i dette selskab, herunder sagsøgerne, hos selskabet at købe hele det produktsortiment, som det sælger, herunder gødning og planteværnsmidler, på de samme kommercielle betingelser og til de samme priser som medlemmerne, bortset fra at »ikke-medlemmerne« naturligvis ikke har ret til at modtage en årlig overskudsbetaling på deres samhandel med selskabet.
In its fifth and final question, the national court seeks to ascertain what are the powers of thè national court where an agreement has been notified to the Commission in order to obtain negative clearance or exemption pursuant to Regulation No 17/62.
Endelig tillader DLG's vedtægter selskabets medlemmer at indkøbe gødning og planteværnsmidler uden om selskabet på betingelse af, at denne handel sker på en anden måde end et organiseret samvirke.
If the conditions for application of Article 85(1) are clearly not satisfied so that there is scarcely any risk of the Commission taking a different decision, the national court may continue the proceedings arid rule on the agreeihent in issue.
Det fremgår af fast retspraksis, at en aftale mellem virksomheder, for at kunne påvirke
Fertilizers and plant protection products do not come within the scope of the derogation from the competition rules laid down in Article 42 of the Treaty and Council Regulation No 26/62 of 4 April 1962 applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural products.
En vedtægtsbestemmelse i en andelsindkøbsforening hvorved det forbydes dens medlemmer at deltage i andre former for organiseret samarbejde i direkte konkurrence med foreningen, er ikke omfattet af forbuddet i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, såfremt den nævnte vedtægtsbestemmelse er begrænset til, hvad der er nødvendigt f or at sikre en tilfredsstillende drift af andelsvirksomheden og for at opretholde dens kontraheringsstyrke over for producenterne.
A provision in the statutes of a cooperative purchasing association, forbidding its members to participate in other forms of organized cooperation which are in direct competition with it, is not caught by the prohibition in Article 85(1) of the Treaty, so long as the abovementioned provision is restricted to what ¿s necessary to ensure that the cooperative functions property and maintains its contractual power in relation to producers.
Selv om en andelsindkøbsforening har en dominerende stilling på et bestemt marked, udgør en vedtægtsændring hvorved det forbydes dens medlemmer at deltage i andre former for organiseret samarbejde i direkte konkurrence med foreningen, ikke et misbrug af en dominerende stilling i strid med traktatens artikel 86, såfremt den omhandlede vedtægtsbestemmelse er begrænset til, hvad der er nødvendigt for at sikre en tilfredsstillende drift af andelsvirksomheden og for at opretholde dens kontraheringsstyrke over for producenterne.
Even if a cooperative purchasing association holds a dominant position on a given market, an amendment of its statutes prohibiting its members from participating in other forms of organized cooperation which are in direct competition with it does not constitute an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Article 86 of the Treaty, so long as the abovementioned provision is limited to what is necessary to ensure that the cooperative functions property and maintains its contractual power in relation to producers.
Samhandelen mellem medlemsstater kan være påvirket i Paktatens artikel 85, stk 1's og artikel 86's forstand, selv om de grovvarer, der omhandles i en vedtægtsbestemmelse, delvis indføres fra tredjelande.
Intra-Community trade may be affected, within the meaning of Articles 85(1) and 86 of the Treaty, even where the basic products concerned by a provision in the statutes are in part imported from non-member countries.
Den nationale ret har kompetence til at træffe afgørelse om lovligheden af en aftale, der er anmeldt til Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber, såfremt retten finder, at betingelserne for at anvende traktatens artikel 85, stk 1, klart ikke er opfyldt.*
A national court has jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of an agreement notified to the Commission of the European Communities where that court considers that the conditions for application of Article 85(1) of the Treaty are clearly not satisfied
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 16. juni 1994.
Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 16 June 1994.
Han fandt, at spørgsmålene skulle besvares som følger:
He proposed that the following reply should be given:
Den i forordning nr. 26/62 fastsatte undtagelse finder ikke anvendelse på produkter - såsom gødning og planteværnsmidler — som ikke er opregnet i bilag II til traktaten.
The derogation provided for in Regulation No 26/62 does not apply to products — such as fertilizers and pesticides — not listed in Annex II to the Treaty.
Med forbehold af, hvad det tilkommer den nationale retsinstans at fastslå i overensstemmelse med de kriterier, der er anført i dette forslag til afgørelse, har en bestemmelse i vedtægterne for et andelsselskab inden for landbruget, som foretager fællesindkøb af grovvarer til landbruget, hvorefter medlemmer, som med henblik på indkøb af sådanne varer permanent deltager i organisationer, der konkurrerer med andelsselskabet, kan ekskluderes af selskabet, ikke til formål eller til følge at hindre, begrænse eller fordreje konkurrencen, jf. traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1.
Subject to the findings falling to be made by the national court in accordance with the criteria laid down in this Opinion, a clause in the statutes of an agricultural cooperative association that makes collective purchases of basic products for agriculture, by virtue of which members may be expelled if, in order to purchase the products concerned, they join organizations competing with the cooperative, does not have the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
Betingelsen om påvirkning af handelen mellem medlemsstaterne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, er opfyldt i et tilfælde som det, der er hovedsagens genstand, hvor det er godtgjort, at de omhandlede produkter er genstand for samhandel inden for Fællesskabet, og hvor det ligeledes er godtgjort, at de pågældende virksomheder kan deltage og faktisk deltager i denne samhandel.
The requirement of an adverse effect on trade between Member States, within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, is fulfilled in a situation such as that in the main proceedings where the products in question are the subject of intra-Community trade and it is established that the undertakings concerned can, and do, take part in such trade.
Kommissionen har enekompetence til at træffe beslutning om fritagelse i henhold til traktatens artikel 85, stk 3.
The Commission has sole power to grant exemptions under Article 85(3).
Den nationale retsinstans har derimod kompetence til at anvende reglerne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1 og 2, og artikel 86.
However, the national court has jurisdiction to apply Articles 85(1) and (2) and 86 of the Treaty.
Sag C-195/91 Ρ Bayer AG / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Konkurrence
Case C-195/91 Ρ Bayer AG ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
— søgsmålsfrist — meddelelse*
- Time-limit for initiating proceedings -
Ved appelskrift indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 29. juli 1991 har Bayer AG (herefter benævnt »Bayer«) iværksat appel til prøvelse af dom afsagt af Retten i Første Instans den 29. maj 1991 i sag T-12/90, Bayer mod Kommissionen, hvorved den af appellanten anlagte sag blev afvist og selskabet pålagt at betale sagens omkostninger.
By application lodged on 29 July 1991, Bayer AG, a company incorporated under German law, brought an appeal under Article 49 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 May 1991 in Case T-12/90 Bayer ν Commission in so far as it dismissed Bayer's application as inadmissible and ordered it to pay the costs.
Appellanten har til støtte for sin påstand fremført fire anbringender.
Bayer puts forward four pleas in law in support of its appeal.
Hertil bemærkes, at det ikke var i strid med fællesskabsretten, at Retten fastslog, at beslutningen blev behørigt og gyldigt meddelt Bayer.
According to Bayer, the Court of First Instance acted in breach of a principle of 'transparency of the forms of notification of measures adversely affecting those to whom they are addressed', derived from the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, by rejecting the pleas alleging three breaches of that requirement of transparency committed by the Commission at the time when the decision was notified.
Appellanten har for første gang i retsmødet den 25. juni 1992 anført, at Kommissionens beslutning i overensstemmelse med, hvad der er fastslået i Rettens dom af 27. februar 1992, BASF m.fl. mod Kommissionen, må anses for en nullitct.
Basing itself on considerations identical to those set out in the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 February 1992 Bayer submitted for the first time at the hearing on 25 June 1992 that the Commission's decision was non-existent.
Bayer har tilføjet, at dette nye anbringende støttes på retlige omstændigheder, som selskabet først fik kendskab til, da den nævnte dom blev afsagt, og anbringendet kan derfor antages til realitetsbehandling, jf. artikel 42, stk. 2, i Domstolens procesreglement.
It must be held in that regard that the Court of First Instance could properly find, without infringing Community law, that the decision was duly and validly served on Bayer.
Det bemærkes i denne forbindelse, at Domstolen i dom af 15. juni 1994, Kommissionen mod BASF m.fl., fastslog, at de fejl, som Retten i denne sag havde fastslået, ikke var af en sådan karakter, at beslutningen var en nullitet.
It should be noted in that regard that, in its judgment of 15 June 1994 in Commission ν BASF and Others, the Court held that the defects found by the Court of First Instance did not justify the conclusion that the decision at issue in that case was non-existent. That conclusion must, for the
Af samme grund kan de fejl vedrørende den anfægtede beslutning, som er påberåbt i første instans, heller ikke medføre, at denne beslutning er en nullitet.
First, the Court of First Instance found that the decision contested before it had been sent to Bayer by registered letter with postal acknowledgement of receipt, which, as the Court of Justice had consistently held, is a suitable
For det første fastslog Retten, at Kommissionen tilstillede sagsøgeren beslutningen ved rekommanderet brev med modtagelsesbevis, hvilket ifølge Domstolens faste praksis er en korrekt meddelelsesmåde.
Bayer considers that the Court of First Instance should have declared its application admissible by recognizing the excusable nature of its error regarding the date from which the period for initiating proceedings began to run and should not have limited that concept only to those cases in which the conduct of the institution concerned had been such as to give rise to a pardonable confusion in the mind of a party acting in good faith.
Da konvolutten med beslutningen blev modtaget på appellantens hjemsted den 28. december 1989, kunne Retten med føje fastslå, at selskabet måtte antages at have fået kendskab til beslutningen på dette tidspunkt.
method of giving notice. Since the envelope containing that decision arrived at Bayer's registered office on 28 December 1989, the Court of First Instance was entitled to take the view that Bayer was deemed to have taken cognizance of it on that date.
Endvidere var formålet med at fremsende blanketten »Acknowledgement of receipt/Accusé de réception« i samme konvolut, således som Retten bemærkede, alene at sikre, at Kommissionen kunne fastslå, hvornår beslutningen måtte antages at være kommet til virksomhedens kendskab, såfremt postvæsenet ikke returnerede modtagelsesbeviset til Kommissionen.
Furthermore, as the Court of First Instance observed, the presence in the envelope of the form headed 'Acknowledgement of Receipt/Accuse de réception' was simply intended to ensure that the Commission would have an undisputable date on which the undertaking was deemed to have taken cognizance of the decision in case the postal authorities failed to return to it the postal acknowledgement of receipt.
Retten fastslog derfor med rette, at meddelelsen skete på en klar og utvetydig måde.
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance was correct in its finding that notification had taken place in a clear and unequivocal manner.