natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Overførslen finder sted på datoen for virksomhedens overdragelse og kan ikke udsættes til en senere dato efter overdragerens eller erhververens ønske.«
They are transferred on the date of the transfer of the undertaking and neither the transferor nor the transferee may fix a later date.'
Sag C-333/94 Tetra Pak International SA / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Konkurrence
Case C-333/94 Ρ Tetra Pak International SA ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
Til støtte for appellen har Tetra Pak fremført fem anbringender.
The first plea examined, as the Court of Justice did in Case 322/81 Michelin ν Commusion [1983] ECR 3461, whether the products in question were particularly suitable for satisfying constant needs and only to a limited extent interchangeable with other products.
Som sit første anbringende har Tetra Pak gjort gældende, at den anfægtede doms afgrænsning af de pågældende produktmarkeder er selvmodsigende.
However, as this Court held in its judgment in Michelin, cited above, the competitive conditions and the structure of supply and demand on the market are relevant criteria for determining whether certain products are interchangeable with others.
Endvidere er afgrænsningen foretaget ud fra et forkert retligt kriterium.
The Court of First Instance was therefore right in this case to take the structure of demand into consideration.
Andet led af det første anbringende, hvorved det gøres gældende, at Retten har anvendt et forkert retligt kriterium, har tre aspekter.
It first found that the majority of cartons, both aseptic and nonaseptic, were used for packaging milk and that the Commission was not obliged to carry out a separate analysis of the non-dairy product packaging sector.
For det første har Tetra Pak gjort gældende, at markedet for maskiner og kartoner til emballering af andre produkter end mælkeprodukter ikke skulle have været inddraget under det relevante marked.
Thereafter, it took the stability of demand for aseptic and nonaseptic cartons used for packaging fruit juice as its basis for demonstrating that there was very little interchangeability in that sector too.
Retten skulle have undersøgt — ligesom Domstolen gjorde i dom af 9. november 1983, Michelin mod Kommissionen — om de pågældende produkter var særligt egnede til at opfylde vedvarende behov, og kun i ringe omfang kunne erstattes af andre produkter.
Concerning the first part of the plea, the Court of First Instance explained in its judgment that it had to consider whether the definition of the four aseptic and nonaseptic markets given in the contested decision was valid.
Ifølge Tetra Pak burde Retten ikke, have nøjedes med først at fastslå, at emballering af mælk udgjorde en langt mere omfattende virksomhed end emballering af andre produkter end mejeriprodukter, og dernæst, at ikkeaseptiske kartoner til emballering af frugtsaft kun udgjorde en »marginal andel« af markedet.
Then, it noted that, according to settled case-law, the definition of the market in the relevant products must take account of the overall economic context, so as to make it possible to assess the actual economic power of the undertaking in question and that, for that purpose, it was necessary first to define the products which, although not capable of being substituted for other products, are sufficiently interchangeable with the undertaking's own products, not only in terms of their objective characteristics but also in terms of the competitive conditions and the structure of supply and demand on the market.
Som Domstolen imidlertid netop fastslog i ovennævnte dom i sagen Michelin mod Kommissionen, er konkurrencevilkårene og efterspørgsels- og udbudsstrukturen på det pågældende marked relevante kriterier ved afgørelsen af, om visse produkter kan erstattes af andre.
At that stage in its examination, the Court of First Instance had merely established that the interchangeability of aseptic and nonaseptic systems must be assessed on the general market in systems for packaging liquid food products.
Det er således med rette, at Retten i den foreliggende sag har taget hensyn til efterspørgselsstrukturen.
It thus rejected Tetra Pak's argument that the markets should be distinguished according to the type of product packaged.
Først konstaterede Retten, at hovedparten af både aseptiske og ikkeaseptiske kartoner benyttedes til emballering af mælk, og at Kommissionen ikke var forpligtet til at foretage en særskilt analyse af sektoren for emballering af andre produkter end mælk.
Only after a detailed analysis of the situation on that general market did the Court of First Instance reach the conclusion that the four markets concerned, defined in the contested decision, were indeed separate markets.
Endelig lagde Retten vægt på den stort set uændrede efterspørgsel efter aseptiske og ikkeaseptiske kartoner, der anvendtes til emballering af frugtsaft, for at vise, at der også på dette område var ringe muligheder for substitution.
Thirdly, Tetra Pak challenges the reasoning of the Court of First Instance to the effect that 'the test of sufficient substitutability of products' had to be applied 'at the stage of the packaging systems themselves, which constitute the market in intermediate products on which Tetra Pak's position must be assessed, and not at the stage of
På dette stadium af sagens behandling fastslog Retten blot, at den indbyrdes substituerbarhed mellem systemer til aseptisk og ikkeaseptisk emballering skulle bedømmes på baggrund af det almindelige marked for emballering af flydende levnedsmidler.
The second part of the first plea, alleging that the Court of First Instance used the wrong legal standard, raises three points. First, Tetra Pak submits that the market for machines and cartons used for packaging non-dairy products should have been excluded from the relevant market.
Retten forkastede således Tetra Pak's anbringende om, at markederne skulle
The Court of First Instance should have
adfærden ikke har til formål at styrke stillingen på det dominerede marked.
light of the specific circumstances of each case which show a weakened competitive situation.
For det andet har Tetra Pak gjort gældende, at Retten har anlagt en urigtig retlig vurdering, da den fandt, at det var tilstrækkeligt at konstatere, at andre aseptiske emballagematerialer end karton besad en marginal markedsandel, som begrundelse for at udelukke, at der kunne være substituerbarhed med aseptiske systemer, der anvendte karton.
the finished products, in this case the packaged liquid food products'.
Det bemærkes, at Retten fastslog, at andre emballeringsmaterialer end karton i perioden fra 1976 til 1991 kun havde kunnet tilkæmpe sig en marginal del af markedet for emballering af UHT-mælk. Som allerede anført er denne stort set uændrede efterspørgsel et relevant kriterium ved afgørelsen af, om karton kan substitueres med andre materialer.
In Tetra Pak's submission, the Court of First Instance erred in law in taking account only of the possibility of short-term substitution when defining the relevant market, whereas it should have considered whether aseptic packaging systems were exposed to competition from nonaseptic systems only in a way that is hardly perceptible.
Det bemærkes for det første, at Rettens antagelse af, at artikel 86 ikke indeholder nogen angivelse af de kriterier, hvorefter misbruget på produktmarkedet skal fastslås, er uomtvisteligt.
It is true that application of Article 86 presupposes a link between the dominant position and the alleged abusive conduct, which is normally not present where conduct on a market distinct from the dominated market produces effects on that distinct market.
Retten kunne derfor med rette fastslå, at det materielle anvendelsesområde for de særlige forpligtelser, der påhviler en virksomhed i en dominerende stilling, skal vurderes under hensyn til de særlige omstændigheder i den enkelte sag, der kunne vise en svækkelse af konkurrencen.
In the case of distinct, but associated, markets, as in the present case, application of Article 86 to conduct found on the associated, non-dominated, market and having effects on that associated market can only be justified by special circumstances.
Ifølge Tetra Pak har Retten anlagt en urigtig retlig vurdering, da den ved afgrænsningen af det relevante marked kun tog hensyn til muligheden for substitution på kort sigt, idet Retten burde have undersøgt, om systemer til aseptisk emballering kun i lidet mærkbart omfang var udsat for konkurrence fra systemer til ikkeaseptisk emballering.
In its second plea, Tetra Pak principally casts doubt on the reasoning followed by the Court of First Instance.
Det er ubestridt, at Retten i den pågældende del af den anfægtede dom undersøgte, om de aseptiske systemer var tilstrækkeligt substituerbare med de ikkeaseptiske systemer.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance first considered that it was relevant that Tetra Pak held 78% of the overall market in packaging in both aseptic and nonaseptic cartons, that is to say seven times more than its closest competitor.
På grundlag af en række kriterier fastslog Retten, at dette ikke var tilfældet.
It stressed Tetra Pak's leading, position in the nonaseptic sector.
Det er korrekt, at det er en forudsætning for at anvende artikel 86, at der er en sammenhæng mellem den dominerende stilling og det påståede misbrug, som normalt ikke foreligger, når adfærd på et andet marked end det dominerede har virkninger på det ikke-dominerede marked.
In Tetra Pak's submission, the caselaw cited by the Court of First Instance does not justify the conclusion that conduct on a market other than the dominated market, which is not intended to reinforce the position on the dominated market, is covered by Article 86.
Når det drejer sig om særskilte markeder, der er indbyrdes forbundne, som i den foreliggende sag, er det kun berettiget at anvende artikel 86 på en adfærd, som er påvist på det ikke-dominerede, forbundne marked, og som har virkninger på dette marked, når der foreligger særlige omstændigheder.
Tetra Pak maintains that such a conclusion cannot even be justified by the associative links between the various markets found by the Commission and the Court of First Instance.
Med sit andet anbringende har Tetra Pak i det væsentlige anfægtet det resultat, som Retten nåede frem til.
The fact that the various materials involved are used for packaging the same basic liquid products shows that Tetra Pak's customers in one sector are also potential customers in the other.
Ifølge Tetra Pak er det ikke muligt at udlede af den retspraksis, som Retten henviser til, at en adfærd på et andet marked end det dominerede marked er omfattet af traktatens artikel 86, når
The circumstances thus described, taken together and not separately, justified the Court of First Instance, without any need to show that the undertaking was dominant on the nonaseptic markets, in finding that Tetra Pak enjoyed
Som anført fandt Retten det i denne forbindelse relevant, at Tetra Pak besad 78% af det samlede marked for emballering i både aseptiske og ikkeaseptiske kartoner, eller syv gange mere end virksomhedens største konkurrent.
There can be no question of challenging the Court of First Instance's assessment that Article 86 gives no explicit guidance as to the requirements relating to where on the product market the abuse took place.
Retten fremhævede Tetra Pak's førende stilling inden for den ikkeaseptiske sektor. Retten fastslog derefter, at Tetra Pak havde en monopollignende stilling på de aseptiske markeder, hvor selskabet
That Court was therefore correct in stating that the actual scope of the special responsibility imposed on a dominant undertaking must be considered in the
Endelig konkluderede Retten, at det af sammenhængen fulgte, at det var berettiget at anvende artikel 86 på baggrund af situationen på de forskellige markeder og den nære forbindelse mellem markederne.
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance was right to accept the application of Article 86 of the Treaty in this case, given that the quasimonopoly enjoyed by Tetra Pak on the aseptic markets and its leading position on the distinct, though closely associated, nonaseptic markets placed it in a situation comparable to that of holding a dominant position on the markets in question as a whole.
Det kan ikke bestrides, at sammenhængen mellem markederne, som Retten tillagde vægt, har relevans.
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance carried out the same examination as did this Court in Case C-62/86 AKZO ν Commission [1991] ECR 1-3359.
Det forhold, at de omhandlede forskellige materialer anvendes til emballering af de samme flydende råvarer, viser, at Tetra Pak's kunder inden for én sektor også er potentielle kunder inden for en anden.
For sales of nonaseptic cartons in Italy between 1976 and 1981, it found that prices were considerably lower than average variable costs.
Takket være Tetra Pak's stilling på de aseptiske markeder kunne selskabet koncentrere sin indsats om de ikkeaseptiske markeder og handle uafhængigt af de øvrige erhvervsdrivende.
For that reason, the Court of First Instance was at pains to establish — and the appellant has not criticized it in that regard - that Tetra Pak intended to eliminate a competitor.
Selv når koblingssalg af to produkter er i overensstemmelse med handelssædvane, eller når der er en naturlig forbindelse mellem de pågældende to produkter, kan det derfor alligevel udgøre misbrug i artikel 86's forstand, hvis det ikke er objektivt begrundet. Rettens argumentation er således ikke behæftet med nogen mangler.
In its third plea, Tetra Pak submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that the tied sales of cartons and filling machines were contrary to Article 86 in circumstances where there was a natural link between the two and tied sales were in accordance with commercial usage.
Det er på baggrund af de ovenfor beskrevne omstændigheder betragtet ikke hver for sig, men under ét, at Retten — uden, at det var nødvendigt at påvise, at Tetra Pak havde en dominerende stilling på de ikkeaseptiske markeder — kunne antage, at Tetra Pak havde udvist en uafhængig adfærd i forhold til andre erhvervsdrivende på disse markeder.
Tetra Pak interprets Article 86(d) of the Treaty as prohibiting only the practice of making the conclusion of contracts dependent on acceptance of additional services which, by nature or according to commercial usage, have no link with the subject-matter of the contracts.
I den anfægtede dom foretog Retten den samme undersøgelse som Domstolen i dom af 3. juli 1991, AKZO mod Kommissionen.
It must, moreover, be stressed that the list of abusive practices set out in the second paragraph of Article 86 of the Treaty is not exhaustive.
For så vidt angik ikkeaseptiske kartoner, der blev solgt i Italien mellem 1976 og 1981, konstaterede Retten, at priserne var langt lavere end de gennemsnitlige variable omkostninger.
Consequently, even where tied sales of two products are in accordance with commercial usage or there is a natural link between the two products in question, such sales may still constitute abuse within the meaning of Article 86 unless they are objectively justified.
Det var derfor ikke nødvendigt at føre bevis for, at Tetra Pak havde til hensigt at eliminere sine konkurrenter.
The reasoning of the Court of First Instance in paragraph 137 of its judgment is not therefore in any way defective.
I 1982 lå priserne på disse kartoner mellem gennemsnittet af de variable omkostninger og gennemsnittet af de samlede omkostninger.
Finally, Tetra Pak claims that the Court of First Instance did not deal with its arguments as to the mitigating circumstances which the Commission should have taken into account when fixing the amount of the fine.
Dette er grunden til, at Retten forsøgte — hvilket ikke i øvrigt er blevet kritiseret af sagsøgeren — at påvise, at Tetra Pak havde til hensigt at eliminere en konkurrent.
In its judgment, Tetra Pak submits, it merely examined whether the infringements were committed intentionally or negligently.
Det er tillige med rette, at Retten fulgte nøjagtig den samme metode med hensyn til salg af ikke-
It should also, in Tetra Pak's submission, have .taken account of the circumstances of the case, including the absence of precedent.
Som sit tredje anbringende gør Tetra Pak gældende, at Retten har anlagt en urigtig retlig vurdering, da den fastslog, at koblingssalg af kartoner og emballeringsmaskiner var i strid med artikel 86, når der var en naturlig forbindelse mellem disse produkter, og koblingssalgene var i overensstemmelse med handelssædvane.
In its fourth plea, Tetra Pak submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law when it characterized Tetra Pak's prices in the non-
Retten foretog derefter en afvejning af overtrædelsens grovhed og de af sagsøgeren påberåbte omstændigheder.
markets and its leading position on the nonaseptic markets, that the practices in issue contravened the rules in the Treaty.
Retten konkluderede derfor, at når det hensås til, at de konkurrencebegrænsende virkninger af misbruget havde været så åbenbare og usædvanligt grove, måtte det anses for berettiget at opretholde bøden til trods for, at visse retlige vurderinger i beslutningen angiveligt var nye.
The Court of First Instance concluded that the manifest nature and particular gravity of the restrictions on competition resulting from the abuses in question justified upholding the fine, notwithstanding the, allegedly unprecedented nature of certain legal assessments in the contested decision.
Med denne begrundelse tog Retten i tilstrækkeligt omfang stilling til sagsøgerens argument vedrørende de formildende omstændigheder, som sagsøgeren kunne påberåbe sig.
By that reasoning, the Court of First Instance dealt adequately with Tetra Pak's argument based on the mitigating circumstances on which it could rely.
Tetra Pak er af den opfattelse, at Retten kun undersøgte, om overtrædelserne var begået forsætligt eller uagtsomt.
Then the Court of First Instance weighed the seriousness of the infringement against the circumstances invoked by Tetra Pak.
Det bemærkes for det første, at Retten faktisk har taget stilling til Tetra Pak's argument om, at såvel metoden til afgrænsning af produktmarkederne som begrundelsen for at anvende traktatens artikel 86 i den aseptiske sektor var ny.
It considered that, even if in some respects defining the relevant product markets and the scope of Article 86 may have been a matter of some complexity, Tetra Pak could not have been unaware, given its quasimonopoly on the aseptic
Sagsøgeren tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.*
The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.'
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 27. juni 1996.
Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 27 June 1996.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE
Not available as at 20. 11.
Præjudiciel — Pretura circondariale di Verona, sezione distaccata diIsola della Scala —fortolkning af artikel 8 og artikel 10-12 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3478/92 afl. december 1992 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser for præmieordningen for råtobak — de nærmere betingeher for præmie til tobak i blade—datoenfor leveringen — sammenslutning af producent- eller forarbejdningskooperativer
Preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Art. 6(1) of Decision 1/80 of the Council of the EEC-Turkey Association — Worker belonging to the regular employment market of a Member State — Turkish national employed on board a vessel flying the flag of a Member State and subject to the legislation of that State as regards his conditions of employment, affiliation to social security and tax on hL· earnings — Consequences of voluntarily leaving his employment for any right of residence he might have
Præjudiciel — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — fortolkningen affællesskabsretten med henblik på statsstøtte — EF-traktatens artikel 92 og 93, stk. 3 — forptigtehe til at tilbagesøge en ulovlig støtte — vanskeligheder på grund af nationale regler, der beskytterstøttemodtageren:forældelse—undtagelser fra tilbagesøgningspligten
Preliminary ruling — Pretura circondariale di Verona, sezione distaccata di Isola della Scala — Interpretation of Arts 8 and 10 to 12 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92 of 1 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium system for raw tobacco — Detailed rules for the granting of premiums for leaf tobacco — Delivery date — Cooperative association ofproducers orprocessing undertakings
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum1) den
Not available as at 20. 11. 1996.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende besvarelse:
Case C-344/95 Commission ν Belgium
»Udtrykkene 'kontraktmæssig levering' henholdsvis 'leverancer' i artikel 10 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3478/92 af 1. december 1992 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser for præmieordningen for råtobak, henholdsvis i artikel 1 i Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 3477/93 af 17. december 1993 om landbrugsomregningskurserne for tobak skal i tilfælde, hvor forarbejdningsvirksomheden har indgået dyrkningskontrakten med en producentsammenslutning, fortolkes som henvisende til det tidspunkt, hvor råtobak som nævnt i dyrkningskontrakten er overgivet til forarbejdningsvirksomheden«.
Case C-97/95 Pascoal & Filhos ν Fazenda Pública Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Art. 48 of EC Treaty and Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families — Belgian legislation on the issue of residence permits to Community nationals — Job seekers ordered to leave the territory after three months — System of registration certification and issuing of certificates to workers whose residence is less than three months
»Har Kommissionen truffet en beslutning om tilbagebetaling af en statsstøtte, følger det af fællesskabsretten, at den nationale myndighed må tilbagekalde sin afgørelse om ydelse af den pågældende støtte, selv om tilbagekaldelsen er udelukket i medfør af den nationale ret, fordi de nationale myndigheder har ladet den herfor gældende frist i national ret springe, eller fordi myndigheden i så henseende er ansvarlig for, at den beslutning, som tilbagekaldelsen vedrører, er ulovlig, fordi en tilbagekaldelse for den begunstigede ville være i strid med redelig handlemåde eller fordi berigelsen efter national ret er gået til grunde«.
Preliminary ruling — Tribunal Tributário de Segunda Instância —Interpretation ofAnnex II, Art. 10, first para, and Art. 25, third para., of Council Decision 86/283/EEC on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community —Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code — Exportation of fish from Greenland to Portugal — Irregular EUR 1 Certificates — Action for recovery against an importer who, in good faith, presented EUR 1 documents containing inaccurate information on the origin of the goods
Generaladvokat G. Cosmas fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling') den 14. november 1996.
State, two successive certificates of registration and demanding payment for those certificates;
Resultatet af en kontrol, som eksportlandet foretager i medfør af artikel 25, stk. 3, i bilag II til Rådets afgørelse 86/283/EØF af 30. juni 1986 om oversøiske landes og territoriers associering med Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab binder ikke automatisk importmedlemsstatens toldmyndigheder, idet de har mulighed for at bestride resultaterne og forelægge tilfældet for den oprindelseskomité, der er oprettet i medfør af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 802/68 af 27. juni 1968 om den fælles definition af begrebet varers oprindelse.
— by issuing to employees and seasonal workers whose anticipated length of activity does not exceed three months a document relating to their residence and demanding payment for that document.