natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved dom af 18. september 1992, sag T-28/90, Asia Motor France m.fl. mod Kommissionen, bestemte Retten herefter, at det var ufornødent at tage stilling til stævningens påstande, for så vidt disse støttedes på traktatens artikel 175.
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance held, by judgment of 18 September 1992 in Case T-28/90 Asia Motor France and Others ν Commission, that there was no need to proceed to judgment on the form of order sought in the application in so far as the application was based on Article 175 of the Treaty.
Herudover afviste Retten sagsøgernes erstatningspåstand.
For the rest, the Court dismissed the applicants' claims for compensation as inadmissible.
Ved dom af 29. juni 1993, sag T-7/92, Asia Motor France m.fl. mod Kommissionen (herefter »Asia Motor France II-dommen«), annullerede Retten beslutningen af 5. december 1991, for så vidt den vedrørte traktatens artikel 85, under hensyn til for det første, at den første begrundelse for afvisningen hvilede på en faktisk og retlig vildfarelse med hensyn til de forhold, som Kommissionen skulle bedømme, og for det andet at den anden begrundelse var behæftet med en retlig mangel.
By judgment of 29 June 1993 in Case T-7/92 Asia Motor France and Others ν Commission (hereinafter *Asia Motor France II») the Court annulled the decision of 5 December 1991 in so far as it related to Article 85 of the Treaty, on the grounds, first, that the first ground for rejecting the complaints was based on an incorrect factual and legal assessment of the evidence submitted for the Commission's appraisal and, secondly, that the second ground for rejecting the complaints was vitiated by an error of law.
Den 5. juni 1990 indgav virksomheden Somaco ligeledes en klage til Kommissionen over handlinger foretaget af virksomhederne CCIE, SIGAM, SAVA SIDA og Auto GM, der alle har sæde i Lamentin (Martinique), og som er forhandlere af henholdsvis mærkerne Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Honda og Mitsubishi og importerer disse mærker til øen.
On 5 June 1990, Somaco also lodged a complaint with the Commission about the practices of the CCIE, SIGAM, SAVA SIDA and Auto GM companies, all based at Lamentin (Martinique), which are dealers for Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Honda and Mitsubishi, respectively, and importers of those makes in Martinique.
Denne klage, der støttedes på traktatens artikel 30 og 85, vedrørte ligeledes den franske forvaltnings handlemåde, idet denne skulle have som formål at forhindre klagerens parallelimport af køretøjer af visse japanske mærker og af køretøjer af det koreanske mærke Hyundai.
The complaint, which was based on Articles 30 and 85 of the Treaty, also took issue with the practices of the French administration, on the ground that
Som følge af denne dom har Kommissionen den 25. august 1993 til de franske myndigheder og de forhandlere på Martinique, som Somaco's klage af 5. juni 1990 var rettet imod, fremsat begæring om oplysninger i henhold til artikel 11, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 17 af 6. februar 1962, første forordning om anvendelse af bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 85 og 86.
Following that judgment, on 25 August 1993, the Commission requested the French authorities
I skrivelse af 13. oktober 1994, underskrevet af det kommissionsmedlem, der varetager konkurrencespørgsmål, meddelte Kommissionen de fem sagsøgere, at den afviste deres klager (herefter »den anfægtede beslutning«).
By letter dated 13 October 1994, signed by the member of the Commission responsible for competition matters, the Commission notified to the five applicants a new decision rejecting their complaints (hereinafter «the contested decision»).
I denne beslutning gentages blot den første begrundelse for den afvisning, der er meddelt ved beslutningen af 5. december 1991.
That decision relied solely on the first ground of the decision of 5 December 1991 rejecting the original complaints.
Indledende bemærkninger
Claims for annulment
Sagsøgerne har herefter ved stævning indleveret til Retten den 12. december 1994 anlagt nærværende sag.
Those were the circumstances in which the applicants brought these proceedings by application received at the Court on 12 December 1994.
Stævningen er udtrykkeligt opdelt i tre dele.
Formally, the application is divided into three parts.
I første del af stævningen, der har overskriften »Passivitetssøgsmål«, fremfører sagsøgerne en argumentation vedrørende opfyldelsen af Asia Motor France li-dommen og konkluderer på grundlag heraf, at »Kommissionens adfærd er udtryk for passivitet i henhold til traktatens artikel 176, idet det er åbenbart og ubegrundet, at den ikke har opfyldt Rettens dom«.
In the first part, entitled «action for failure to act», the applicants expound an argument relating to compliance with the judgment in Asia Motor France II, following which they claim that the «attitude of the Commission's departments constitutes a failure to act within the meaning of Article 176 of the Treaty, since the refusal to give effect to the Court's judgment is manifest and unjust».
I anden del af stævningen gennemgås anbringenderne og argumenterne vedrørende annullationspåstanden og i tredje del argumenterne vedrørende erstatningspåstanden.
The second part of the application sets out pleas and arguments in support of the claims for annulment and the third part arguments in support of the claims for damages.
Det bemærkes, at Kommissionen i den anfægtede beslutning har forkastet en række klager i det væsentlige med den begrundelse, at de pågældende importører/forhandlere ikke havde »nogen handlefrihed i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af den importregulering«, der var anfægtet i klagerne, og som fuldt ud var af »statslig karakter«.
The Court finds that, in the contested decision, the Commission rejected the various complaints essentially on the ground that the importers/dealers in question had «no freedom of action in implementing the import scheme» with which the complaints take issue and which was «exclusively [of a] State nature».
Ifølge den anfægtede beslutning afkræftes den antagelse, at der skulle være tale om en aftale om fordeling, »af to forhold: Når muligheden for at modtage biler var begrænset til fem mærker (af de omhandlede japanske biler), beroede det ikke på importørerne, men på, at der ikke var nogen officiel godkendelse af andre mærker. Endvidere kunne de omhandlede selskaber ikke have nogen interesse i en kontrol af importen, idet det medførte en begrænsning af deres marked med 50%«.
According to the contested decision, the claim that there is an agreement to divide up the quota is also «contradicted by two facts: on the one hand, type approval was reserved to the aforementioned five makes (of Japanese cars in question), not as a result of any action on the part of their importers, but because there was no official authorization of other makes or other importers: on the other hand, the companies implicated could have no interest in an import control which cut back their market by 50%».
Retten finder herefter at kunne fastslå, at Kommissionen afslog klagerne under henvisning til, at der ikke forelå en aftale som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, idet den anfægtede adfærd var pålagt de pågældende virksomheder af de offentlige myndigheder og ikke var udtryk for et forretningsmæssigt valg fra deres side.
As regards the applicants' first head of claim, it should be recalled that the Community courts have no jurisdiction to give a ruling, at an applicant's initiative, on the compatibility of natural or legal persons' conduct with the provisions of the Treaty. It follows that the applicants' claims that the Court should declare that «the agreements complained of constitute an infringement within the meaning of Article 85 of the Treaty» must be declared inadmissible.
relevante risici og fordele, antages at være udtryk for et forretningsmæssigt valg.
In the absence of evidence of the existence of irresistible pressures forcing the importers to agree to limit their imports, the importers' conduct in complying with the wishes of the French administration must be regarded as being the exercise of a commercial choice, having regard to all the relevant risks and advantages.
Somaco's klage af 5. juni 1990 vedrørende forhandlerne på Martinique
Somaco's complaint of 5 June 1990 against the dealers in Martinique
Det må for det første fastslås, at de franske myndigheder selv har bekræftet, at der ikke findes bestemmelser i fransk ret, hvorved importørerne af japanske biler i det franske hovedland pålægges den i klagerne nævnte adfærd.
It must immediately be concluded that the French authorities themselves confirmed that no provision of French law imposed on the importers of Japanese cars into metropolitan France the conduct with which issue is taken in the complaints.
Myndighederne har således bekræftet, at »ordningen med kontrol af import af japanske biler, der er gennemført i Frankrig, kun er drøftet mundtligt«.
Indeed, the French authorities stated that the «machinery introduced by France for controlling imports of Japanese vehicles was the subject of a purely oral procedure».
Det må undersøges, om de nye oplysninger, som er indsamlet i forbindelse med behandlingen af sagen, efter at Retten annullerede Kommissionens beslutning af 5. december 1991, kan medføre en anden vurdering af de dokumenter, som ifølge Rettens Asia Motor France II-dom måtte antages at være et afgørende bevis for, at der sandsynligvis var et viljessammenfald.
It is necessary to consider whether new evidence collected during the inquiry conducted following the Court's annulment of the Commission's decision of 5 December 1991 is capable of casting a new light on the documents to which, following an initial analysis, the Court attached strong probative force in relation to the probable existence of a consensus in its judgment in Asia Motor France II.
I forbindelse med vurderingen af, om klagen med rette blev afslået, bemærkes indledningsvis, at den i klagen nævnte adfærd ikke er blevet pålagt forhandlerne af japanske biler på Martinique ved lovbestemmelser.
For the purposes of examining whether that ground for rejecting the complaint is well founded, the Court finds in the first place that no regulatory provision imposed the conduct taken issue with in the complaint on the Japanese car dealers in Martinique.
Da der ikke findes bindende lovbestemmelser, hvorved den anfægtede adfærd pålægges virksomhederne, finder Retten ikke, at Kommissionen kan afvise klagerne med den begrundelse, at de pågældende virksomheder ikke kunne handle selvstændigt, medmindre det fremgår af objektive, relevante og sammenhængende indicier, at denne adfærd er pålagt dem ensidigt af de nationale myndigheder på den måde, at disse har udøvet et pres, som virksomhederne ikke kunne modstå, f.eks. ved at true dem med statslige foranstaltninger, som kunne påføre dem betydelige tab.
In the absence of any binding regulatory provision imposing the conduct at issue, the Court considers that the Commission is entitled to reject the complaints for want of autonomy on the part of the undertakings in question only if it appears on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence that that conduct was unilaterally imposed upon them by the national authorities through the exercise of irresistible pressures, such as, for example, the threat to adopt State measures likely to cause them to sustain substantial losses.
Det må dernæst undersøges, om det på grundlag af objektive, relevante og sammenhængende indicier kan fastslås, at nationale myndigheder har udøvet et ensidigt og uimodståeligt pres på de pågældende forhandlerne for at få dem til at udvise den i klagen nævnte adfærd.
Next, it is necessary to consider whether it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence that the national authorities unilaterally exerted irresistible pressures on the dealers in question to adopt the conduct which was the subject of the complaint.
Det fremgår imidlertid, at for så vidt angår klagerne vedrørende importen af japanske biler til det franske hovedland, har Kommissionen baseret den anfægtede beslutning på de samme forhold, som lå til grund for dens tidligere beslutning af 5. december 1991, hvori det blev fastslået, at de pågældende erhvervsdrivende ikke havde nogen selvstændighed eller »handlefrihed«.
It transpires, nevertheless, that the Commission based the contested decision, in so far as it relates to the complaints calling in question imports of Japanese cars into metropolitan France, on the same evidence used to support the conclusion reached in its earlier decision of 5 December 1991 that the economic operators in question had no autonomy or freedom of action.
Det fremgår af sagen, at den samlede kvote på 15% af de på Martinique indregistrerede biler blev pålagt de lokale importører ensidigt af de franske myndigheder.
The Court finds that it appears from the documents in the casefile that the aggregate quota of 15% of vehicles registered in Martinique was imposed unilaterally on local importers by the French authorities.
At forhandlerne ikke havde nogen selvstændighed bekræftes endvidere af, at begrænsningen af importen af japanske biler til 15% af markedet på Martinique medførte en begrænsning af deres marked med 50%.
Moreover, the lack of autonomy on the part of the dealers is further corroborated by the fact that the limitation of imports of Japanese cars to 15% of the Martinique market deprived the dealers of 50% of their market.
Det er således ikke bestridt, at markedsandelen for japanske biler på Martinique lå på omkring 30% inden indførelsen af importreguleringen.
It is undisputed that the market share of Japanese cars in Martinique was approaching 30% before the import scheme complained of was introduced.
Retten fastslog i Asia Motor France II-dommen, dels på grundlag af de oplysninger, Kommissionen havde indsamlet under den administrative procedure, som havde resulteret i beslutningen af 5. december 1991, dels på grundlag af de oplysninger, parterne havde givet under sagens behandling for Retten, at der forelå en åbenbar faktisk vildfarelse, da Kommissionen fastslog, at importørerne af japanske mærker til det franske hovedland og Martinique ikke havde nogen selvstændighed eller handlefrihed i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af importreguleringen.
However, the Court held in the judgment in Asia Motor France II, on the basis of the items in the casefile which the Commission had collected during the administrative procedure which led to the adoption of the decision of 5 December 1991 and of the evidence adduced by the parties during the proceedings before the Court in that case, that the Commission's conclusion that the importers of cars of Japanese makes into
og en såkaldt »protocole d'accord«, der er vedhæftet referatet.
brought «had no autonomy in implementing the import scheme in question» is based, prima facie, on objective, relevant and consistent evidence.
myndighederne blev fastsat individuelle kvoter for hver forhandler, underbygges også af skrivelsen af 3. september 1986 fra Nissan-forhandleren til Martinique's præfektur, hvori forhandleren klagede over, at den »kvote, som var tildelt [ham], er for lav og ikke muliggør en naturlig udvikling for virksomheden, også fordi den er konstant faldende«.
The fact that individual quotas were fixed for each dealer by the public authorities is further borne out by the letter of 3 September 1986 from the Nissan car dealer to the Prefect of Martinique, according to which that dealer complained that «the quota allocated [to it] is much too small and does not enable [its] undertaking to develop normally, especially since it is constantly declining».
Hvis forhandlerne indbyrdes havde fordelt markedet på Martinique, ville Nissan-forhandleren i stedet havde rettet henvendelse direkte til de øvrige forhandlere med henblik på at opnå en forhøjelse af kvoten og ikke til myndighederne.
If the dealers had been dividing up the Martinique market amongst themselves, the Nissan car dealer would have addressed itself directly to the other dealers with a view to obtaining an increase in its quota, and not to the public authorities.
Kommissionen har imidlertid i den anfægtede beslutning anført, at når henses til de nye oplysninger, som er fremkommet i forbindelse med den undersøgelse, Kommissionen gennemførte efter afsigelsen af Asia Motor France II-dommen, ændrer referatet af det interministerielle møde den 19. oktober 1987 og den »protocole d'accord«, som er vedlagt referatet, set i deres rette sammenhæng ikke ved, at importreguleringen alene var af statslig karakter.
In the contested decision, however, the Commission explains that, in the light of new evidence which was brought to its attention in the inquiry which it carried out following delivery of the judgment in Asia Motor France II, if the minutes of the interministerial meeting of 19 October 1987 and the «draft agreement» annexed thereto are placed in their proper context, they do not alter the exclusively State nature of the import scheme.
Endvidere bemærkes, at tætheden i det system, som myndighederne havde gennemført, blev sikret ved, at de fem autoriserede forhandlere af japanske biler i det franske hovedland i overensstemmelse med en instruks fra de nationale myndigheder kun sendte forhandleren af »deres« mærke på Martinique et antal overensstemmelsescertifikater svarende til den kvote, som DIMME havde fastsat for forhandleren.
Next, the Court finds that the watertight nature of the system put in place in this way by the public authorities was ensured by the fact that the five authorized importers of Japanese cars in metropolitan France, acting in compliance with instructions from the national authorities, sent the dealer for «their» makes in Martinique only the number of certificates of conformity which corresponded precisely with the quota which DIMME had fixed for the dealer in question.
Det bemærkes, at Toyota-forhandleren på Martinique fra 1982 til 1986 i væsentligt omfang overskred den kvote, han var tildelt.
The Court finds that, between 1982 and 1986, the Toyota dealer in Martinique considerably exceeded the quota allocated to it.
Sagsøgerne bestrider i øvrigt ikke, at forhandleren overskred kvoten.
The overshooting of the quota is not, moreover, disputed by the applicants.
Det er endvidere ubestridt, at forhandleren var i stand til at sælge biler ud over den årlige kvote, han var tildelt, idet han lod de biler, som lå ud over kvoten, indregistrere på midlertidige nummerplader (»WW«-plader).
It is also uncontested that that dealer was able to sell vehicles over and above its annual quota by registering the excess vehicles under provisional number plates («WW» plates).
Det fremgår endvidere af sagen, at da de franske myndigheder fik viden om Toyota-forhandlerens misbrug af ordningen med midlertidig indregistrering, besluttede de — senest i marts 1987 — at der kun kunne udstedes midlertidige registreringsbeviser (»WW«) inden for den kvote, der var tildelt hvert mærke.
It also appears from the documents in the casefile that, after finding abuses of the provisional registration system by the Toyota dealer, the French authorities decided at the latest in March 1987 to count the issue of provisional (WW) logbooks against the quota allocated to each make.
Da alene de autoriserede forhandlere af de fem japanske mærker kunne udstede overensstemmelsescertifikater til forhandlerne på Martinique, og da overensstemmelsescertifikatet er en forudsætning for, at en importeret bil kan indregistreres på Martinique, kunne forhandlerne på Martinique blot acceptere den ordning, der var gennemført mellem de autoriserede forhandlere og de franske myndigheder.
In view of the fact that only the authorized importers of the five Japanese makes are competent to issue certificates of conformity to the Martinique dealers, on the one hand, and that obtaining a certificate of conformity is a necessary condition for registering an imported vehicle in Martinique, on the other, the Martinique dealers were bound to accept the consequences of the arrangement put in place as between the authorized importers and the French authorities.
Hvad dernæst angår de omstændigheder, hvorunder den overskridelse af kvoten, som Toyota-forhandleren havde fremkaldt ved misbrug af ordningen med midlertidig indregistrering fra 1982 til 1986, finder Retten, at Kommissionen med rette kunne anse mødet den 19. oktober 1987, som blev afholdt på initiativ af regionen Martinique's præfektur, for et udtryk for de franske myndigheders ønske om, at den importregulering, de havde fastsat, skulle overholdes.
With regard to the readjustment of the excess of quota on the part of the Toyota dealer resulting from its abuse of the provisional registration system between 1982 and 1986, the Court considers that the Commission was reasonably entitled to conclude that the meeting of 19 October 1987 called by the Prefect of the
Sagsøgerne har for det første henvist til referatet af et interministerielt møde den 19. oktober 1987
It follows from the foregoing that the Commission's conclusion that the Martinique dealers against which Somaco's complaint was
Anbringendet om manglende begrundebe af de franske myndigheder i 1982, med henblik på at undgå problemer svarende til dem, som Toyota-forhandleren havde haft.
The documents found during the new inquiry are capable of supporting the view that the dealers considered it necessary to «codify» the unwritten import policy unilaterally imposed by the public authorities since 1982, with a view to avoiding similar problems to those which had been experienced with the Toyota dealer in the future.
Det bemærkes, at klagerne ved den anfægtede beslutning afvises med den begrundelse, at de i klagerne nævnte importører og forhandler »ikke havde nogen selvstændighed i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af den omhandlede importregulering«, der fuldt ud var af »statslig karakter«.
The Court points out that the contested decision rejected the complaints on the ground that the importers and dealers against which the complaints were made had «no leeway in implementing the import scheme», which was of an «exclusively State nature».
Det angives i beslutningen, hvad denne opfattelse støttes på, således at sagsøgerne har haft mulighed for at anfægte beslutningen, og Retten kan udøve sin legalitetskontrol.
The contested decision indicates the evidence on which the position adopted was based, thus enabling the applicants to challenge the decision and the Court to review its legality.
Anbringendet om manglende begrundelse må herefter forkastes.
It follows that the plea alleging that the statement of reasons is defective must be rejected.
Endvidere følger heraf, at sagsøgerne ikke har påberåbt sig dokumenter, der afkræfter Kommissionens opfattelse, hvorefter forhandlerne på Martinique »ikke havde nogen selvstændighed i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af den omhandlede importregulering«.
It follows that the applicants, which merely refer to the actual wording of the minutes of the interministerial meeting of 19 October 1987 and to the «draft agreement» annexed thereto in order to prove the existence of an infringement of Article 85, have not established that there was a manifest error in assessing the facts on the part of the Commission when it concluded in the contested decision that, considered in context, those documents do not alter the exclusively State nature of the import scheme.
Retten finder, at det hverken på grundlag af sagsøgernes argumentation eller stævningen set under ét er muligt med den fornødne klarhed og præcision at fastslå, hvilke fejl Kommissionen menes at have begået, eller hvilken skade der skulle være påført sagsøgerne.
The Court considers that neither that argument put forward by the applicants nor the application considered as a whole enables the wrongful conduct imputed to the Commission or the nature of the damage allegedly sustained to be identified with the requisite degree of clarity and precision.
Påstanden om, at Retten skal fastslå, at der f oreligger en overtrædelse, afvises.
Dismisses as inadmissible the claims for a declaration of an infringement;
Påstanden om ulovlig passivitet afvises.
Dismisses the claims f or failure to act as inadmissible;