natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Retten fandt på grundlag heraf, at den bøde på 700 000 ECU, som var pålagt sagsøgeren, ikke var rimelig, navnlig når henses til den ringe omsætning vedrørende de af overtrædelsen omfattede produkter.
On 15 July 1992 the Commission adopted Decision 92/426/EEC (Case IV/32.725 - ViholParker Pen) which declared that Parker Pen Ltd and Herlitz AG had infringed Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty by including an export ban in an agreement concluded between them and imposed a fine of ECU 700 000 on Parker Pen Ltd and a fine of ECU 40 000 on Herlitz AG.
Med hjemmel i sin fulde prøvelsesret nedsatte Retten herefter den Parker pålagte bøde til 400 000 ECU.
Parker Pen Ltd was not to adopt any measures having the same object or the same effect as the Treaty infringements which had been established.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Herlitz submitted two pleas in support of its action.
I øvrigt frifindes sagsøgte.
Secondly, it claimed that it had never actually implemented the prohibition laid down in the agreement.
Sag T-534/93 Arlette Grynberg og Eileen Hall mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Personalesag
On 12 February 1991 the Commission sent a Statement of Objections to Herlitz.
»Tjenestemænd — personaleudvalg - valgprocedure inddeling af de valgte - udskiftning af de valgte« (Fjerde Afdeling)
fact that a clause which is intended to restrict competition has not been implemented by the contracting parties is not sufficient to remove it from the prohibition in Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
Sag T-17/93 Matra Hachette SA mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Konkurrence
Moreover, the Court found that Herlitz actually justified its refusal to supply Viho on the grounds of the clause at issue, which proved to the requisite legal standard that Herlitz relied on that clause to support its refusal, the motives which might have driven its employee in that respect being irrelevant.
Joint venturet skulle kunne påbegynde sin virksomhed i 1995.
The plea alleging infringement of Article 15 (2) (a) of Regulation No 17
Den 26. marts og den 16. april 1991 anmeldte de portugisiske myndigheder i henhold til EØF-traktatens artikel 93 et støtteprojekt for det omhandlede projekt til Kommissionen, som indebærer en samlet offentlig støtte, der ifølge sagsøgeren beløber sig til 750 mio. ECU og ifølge Ford til 547 mio. ECU.
The Court added that Article 85(1) of the Treaty concerns both the production sector and the distribution and service sector, which, moreover, clearly follows from the reference to the various types of agreements, decisions and concerted practices prohibited under Article 85(l)(b), (c) and (d).
Den 16. juli 1991 meddelte Kommissionen de portugisiske myndigheder, at den fandt, at det anmeldte støtteprogram var i overensstemmelse med traktatens artikel 92.
The Court considered, first, that Herlitz's allegation that the clause at issue was inserted in the contract without any particular aim is irrelevant.
Den 23. december 1992 vedtog Kommissionen at give de stiftende selskaber den ønskede fritagelse, idet der hertil blev knyttet visse betingelser og påbud (herefter benævnt »fritagelsesbeslutningen«).
In the present case, Herlitz could not deny that it has pursued an economic activity, since it imported and sold Parker products.
Kommissionen tilstillede sagsøgeren en kopi af beslutningen, der har virkning til den 31. december 2004. Der blev samtidig hermed fremsendt en beslutning, hvorved sagsøgerens klage blev afvist.
The fact that Herlitz, in part, offers a bundle of services whereby it equips and supplies itself the floorspace placed at its disposal for office equipment and, in part, makes retail sales cannot preclude that being an economic activity falling within the scope of Article 85 of the Treaty.
Den 4. februar 1991 anmeldte Ford of Europe Inc. og Volkswagen AG (herefter benævnt »VW«) (herefter benævnt »de stiftende selskaber«) i henhold til Rådets forordning nr. 17 af 6. februar 1962, første forordning om anvendelse af bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 85 og 86, herefter benævnt »forordning nr. 17«) en aftale til Kommissionen, som sigtede mod oprettelse af et joint venture ved navn AutoEuropa med hjemsted i Setúbal (Portugal) med henblik på fremstilling af et multifunktionelt køretøj (»multi-purpose vehicle« eller »MPV«).
Next, the Court found that, in view of the clear and unequivocable wording of the clause at issue, Herlitz could not have been mistaken about its implications.
I henhold til aftalen skal de to stiftende selskaber hver eje halvdelen af joint venturet og drive dette i fællesskab.
Since Herlitz was aware that the object of the clause at issue was to restrict, and even prohibit, exports, and thereby to partition the market, Herlitz was considered to have acted intentionally.
Med anmeldelsen søgte selskaberne principalt at opnå en erklæring fra Kommissionen om, at det ikke var nødvendigt at fortsætte proceduren (herefter benævnt en »negativattest«), subsidiært en erklæring fra Kommissionen i henhold til bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, om, at bestemmelserne i artikel 85, stk. 1, er uanvendelige på joint venturet (herefter benævnt en »fritagelse«).
The Court recalled that the fact that a clause prohibiting exports, which by its very nature constitutes a restriction of competition, had not been implemented by the distributor with which it had been agreed did not prove that it had no effect, because its existence could create a "visual and psychological" effect which contributes to a partitioning of the market, and accordingly the
Først anlagde sagsøgeren ved stævning registreret på Domstolens Justitskontor den 6. september
Furthermore, the Court considered that the fine imposed was appropriate in relation to the infringement.
kan tredjemand — i modsætning til hvad sagsøgeren har anført — ikke kræve adgang til Kommissionens sagsakter under samme betingelser som de virksomheder, Kommissionens undersøgelser er rettet mod.
Case T-77/92 Parker Pen Ltd ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
Ved Domstolens dom af 15. iuni 1993 (sag C-225/91, Matra mod Kommissionen) blev Kommissionen frifundet.
(Competition - Clause prohibiting exports - Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty) (First Chamber)
Det andet anbringende om formelle mangler: spørgsmålet om Kommissionen foregreb fritagelsesbeslutningen
(For the facts of the Case, see the judgment in Case T-66/92 above)
I denne sag, som blev anlagt ved stævning registreret på Rettens Justitskontor den 16. februar 1993, blev der nedlagt påstand om annullation dels af beslutningen om at indrømme fritagelse for det omhandlede joint venture projekt, dels af beslutningen om at afvise den af sagsøgeren indgivne klage, for så vidt som den udelukkende er baseret på begrundelsen for fritagelsesbeslutningen.
However, the Commission could not penalize anti-competitive conduct under Article 85(1) of the Treaty unless it affected trade between Member States.
Rettens bemærkninger mangler ved
The daim for annulment of the decision, or in the alternative a reduction of the fine
Spørgsmålet om formelle fritagelsesbeslutningen
The alleged infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty
Sagsøgeren havde gjort gældende, at Kommissionen ved i henhold til traktatens artikel 93 at give tilladelse til statsstøtte til et joint venture, næsten et år inden fritagelsen herfor blev givet, foregreb udfaldet af proceduren i henhold til traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3.
The plea alleging infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty was in two parts.
Selskabet anførte, at Kommissionen, når den undersøger et offentligt støtteprojekt, ikke blot skal vurdere projektets forenelighed med de særlige bestemmelser i traktatens artikel 92, men også dets forenelighed med traktatens øvrige regler.
First, although Parker did not deny the existence of the clause prohibiting exports, it complained that the Commission had failed to prove that it affects trade between Member States.
Sagsøgeren fandt desuden, at Kommissionens beslutning af 16. juli 1991 i henhold til traktatens artikel 93 nødvendigvis medførte, at den i forordning nr. 17 foreskrevne høring mistede enhver betydning.
Secondly, Parker considered that in any event the Commission had no legal interest in bringing the proceedings against it.
Sagsøgeren havde til støtte for anbringendet om formelle mangler ved fritagelsesbeslutningen gjort gældende, at beslutningen er truffet under tilsidesættelse af generelle fællesskabsretlige principper og under tilsidesættelse af væsentlige formforskrifter.
To be capable of affecting trade between Member States, a decision, an agreement or a concerted practice must make it possible to foresee with a sufficient degree of probability, on the basis of a set of objective elements of law or fact, that it may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the pattern of trade between Member States capable of hindering the attainment of the objectives of a single market between States.
Retten bemærkede, at den administrative procedure, der er fulgt i det foreliggende tilfælde, rejser problemet med forbindelsen mellem reglerne om offentlig støtte og reglerne i traktatens artikel 85 og 86 ved behandlingen af én og samme sag.
Accordingly, even an agreement according absolute territorial protection escapes the prohibition laid down in Article 85 of the Treaty where it affects the market only insignificantly, regard being had to the weak position of those concerned on the market for the products in question.
Sagsøgeren havde i relation til spørgsmålet om en tilsidesættelse af generelle fællesskabsretlige principper alene anført, at fritagelsesbeslutningen er truffet under tilsidesættelse af kontradiktionsprincippet, idet selskabet ikke fik adgang til visse væsentlige dele af sagens akter og derfor ikke havde tilstrækkelig mulighed for at fremføre sine synspunkter for Kommissionen.
When it is evident that the sales of at least one of the parties to an anti-competitive agreement constitute a not inconsiderable proportion of the relevant market, Article 85(1) of the Treaty should be applied
Retten finder imidlertid, at sagsøgerens andet anbringende om formelle mangler ikke er holdbart.
Parker and Herlitz are undertakings of sufficient importance for their conduct to be, in principle, capable of affecting intraCommunity trade.
Spørgsmålet om materielle mangler ved fritagelsesbeslutningen
The Court recalled that, as regards the effect on trade between Member States, it was not disputed in this case that in 1986 Parker concluded an agreement with Herlitz which included a clause prohibiting exports.
Spørgsmålet, om joint venturet bidrager til at fremme den tekniske eller økonomiske udvikling
Moreover, it was not disputed that Herlitz is a major client of Parker on the German market.
Hvad nærmere angår den første af de fire betingelser i artikel 85, stk. 3, bemærkes, at der i henhold til bestemmelsen kan indrømmes fritagelse for aftaler, »som bidrager til at forbedre produktionen eller fordelingen af varerne eller til at fremme den tekniske eller økonomiske udvikling«.
As regards the lack Community interest in bringing the proceedings, the Court found that the applicant relied essentially to the fact that on 30 September 1992 the Commission rejected the complaint in which Viho challenged Parker's policy of referring orders from customers in a Member State to its local subsidiary based in that Member State.
Sagsøgeren havde fremført fire anbringender om materielle mangler ved fritagelsesbeslutningen. Selskabet anførte, at beslutningen for det første er truffet under tilsidesættelse af traktatens artikel 85, fordi den hviler på åbenbart urigtige skøn, at den for det andet også er i strid med artikel 85, fordi den hviler på en urigtig retsopfattelse, at beslutningen for det tredje desuden hviler på en urigtig retsopfattelse, idet der er sket en tilsidesættelse af traktatens artikel 86, og at der for det fjerde er sket magtfordrejning og begået procedurefejl i forbindelse med beslutningen.
The Court considered that, having regard to the importance of the position which Parker holds, the size of its production, its sales in the Member States and the proportion of sales of Parker products made by Herlitz, the Court therefore considered that the clause at issue, which sought to prevent exports and, accordingly, parallel imports into the other Member States and thus to partition national markets, was capable of affecting appreciably patterns of trade between Member States in such a way as to jeopardize the attainment of the objectives of the common market.
Det første anbringende om materielle mangler: spørgsmålet om beslutningen hviler på åbenbart urigtige skøn og således er truffet under tibidesættebe af traktatens artikel 85
Consequently, the Commission was correct in considering in point 18 of the contested decision that, by restricting parallel imports and exports, the agreement between Parker and Herlitz was such as to affect trade between Member States appreciably.
Efter Rettens opfattelse er en sådan optimering af produktionsprocessen — uanset sagsøgerens påstand om det modsatte — i overensstemmelse med ordlyden af og formålet med den første af de fire betingelser i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3.
In that connection, the Court also recalled that, in order to assess the Community's interest in pursuing the investigation of a case, the Commission must take account of the circumstances of the individual case and the matters of fact and of law contained in the complaint submitted to it.
Retten bemærkede, at det første led i sagsøgerens anbringende ikke kan tiltrædes. Anbringendets første led går nemlig - uden at der sættes spørgsmålstegn ved Kommissionens konklusion om, at den omtvistede aftale falder inden for anvendelsesområdet for traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3 — ud på, at Kommissionen har foretaget en mangelfuld undersøgelse af aftalens konkurrencebegrænsende virkninger, og at en korrekt undersøgelse heraf ville have vist, at de negative virkninger for konkurrencen på det fælles marked er af en sådan karakter, at den omtvistede aftale ikke kan opnå en individuel fritagelse.
In this case, it was sufficient to find that the Commission was correct to describe the clause prohibiting exports as an agreement within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty and to hold that it was capable of affecting trade between Member States to an appreciable extent.
Hvad angår de tekniske forbedringer af produktet, som af sagsøgeren er betegnet som »kosmetiske«, bemærkes, at disse skal vurderes i forhold til det tekniske udviklingsstade for bilproduktionen i Europa på det tidspunkt, hvor fritagelsesbeslutningen blev truffet. På den baggrund finder Retten, at de tekniske forbedringer af køretøjet falder ind under artikel 85, stk. 3, da der er tale om, at forskellige former for teknik, som ganske vist allerede eksisterer, men kun særskilt i forskellige modeller, samles i ét enkelt produkt.
As regards the application of the clause prohibiting exports, the Court recalled that the fact that a clause prohibiting exports, which by its very nature constitutes a restriction of competition, had not been implemented by the distributor with which it had been agreed does not prove that it had no effect, because its existence could create a "visual and psychological" effect which contributes to a partitioning of the market, and accordingly the fact that a clause which was intended to restrict competition had not been implemented by the contracting parties was not sufficient to remove it from the prohibition in Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
En gennemgang af sagsøgerens kritik på dette punkt viser, at denne rejser to hovedspørgsmål.
The claim alleging a lack of Community interest was therefore rejected.
Retten finder tværtimod, at der i princippet ikke kan findes former for konkurrencebegrænsende praksis, som uanset omfanget af deres virkninger for et bestemt marked ikke kan fritages, selv om alle betingelserne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, er opfyldt, og den pågældende praksis er behørigt anmeldt til Kommissionen.
Furthermore, the Court found that in this case Herlitz used the export ban to justify its refusal to sell Parker products to Viho.
Anbringendets andet led vedrørende spørgsmålet om joint venturet opfylder betingelserne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3
It followed from the foregoing that the plea of infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty was to be rejected.
Sagsøgeren fandt, at det til Kommissionen anmeldte projekt ikke opfylder nogen af de fire betingelser i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3.
The plea alleging an inadequate statement of reasons
dette trin af behandlingen af begæringen om fritagelse vurdere det pågældende projekt så objektivt som muligt, idet den skal undlade at foretage nogen form for vurdering af projektets hensigtsmæssighed i forhold til andre teknisk m¡;:; < »e eller økonomisk holdbare valg.
infringement of the duty to state the reasons on which the decision was based. Accordingly, the plea alleging an inadequate statement of reasons was to be rejected.
Kommissionen kan snarere tage hensyn til andre mulige valg i forbindelse med undersøgelsen af, om den tredje af de fire betingelser i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, er opfyldt, dvs. ved vurderingen af, om de konkurrencebegrænsninger, projektet medfører, er nødvendige. Det af sagsøgeren anførte om, at den fordel, det omhandlede projekt giver forbrugerne, skal vurderes i forhold til den fordel, andre teknisk mulige eller økonomisk holdbare valg ville give forbrugerne, kan således for så vidt ikke tiltrædes.
In this case, the Court considered that the Commission took into account the mitigating factors in favour of Parker, in particular the fact that it cooperated from the beginning of the administrative procedure and also that it implemented a compliance programme intended to ensure compliance by its distributors and subsidiaries with the competition rules.
85, stk. 3, om joint venturet er strengt nødvendigt for, at de stiftende selskaber kan trænge ind på det omhandlede marked.
The plea alleging infringement of the procedural rules
Såfremt dette spørgsmål besvares bekræftende, vil det nemlig ipso facto være godtgjort, at de konkurrencebegrænsninger, aftalen medfører, er nødvendige for at nå de mål, som er omhandlet i de to tidligere behandlede betingelser, navnlig den første af dem.
The Court recalled that the essential content of the statements made by each person is to be recorded in minutes which are to be read and approved by him.
Dette er tilfældet, idet Kommissionen — uden at det for alvor er blevet bestridt af sagsøgeren, som har taget udgangspunkt i nogle ikke-sammenlignelige situationer — har anført, at selv om de to stiftende selskaber hver for sig i realiteten teknisk og økonomisk var i stand til at træde ind på markedet alene, kunne dette kun ske med tab, når henses til det særlig høje »nulpunkt« for virksomheden og de foreliggende oplysninger om de forventede salg og markedsandele.
In this case, Parker was able to ascertain the contents of the minutes sufficiently since they were signed by its lawyer and its president.
Spørgsmålet om aftalens gennemførelse kan udelukke konkurrencen for en væsentlig del af de pågældende varer
Infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17
Efter Rettens opfattelse hviler sagsøgerens argumentation på den forudsætning, at det både lægges til grund, at de stiftende selskaber tilsammen vil opnå en dominerende stilling, og at de vil misbruge denne stilling.
On the other hand, it was apparent to the Court from the decision that the Commission did not take into account the fact that the turnover accounted for by the products to which the infringement relates was relatively low in comparison with the turnover resulting from Parker's total sales.
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at der i henhold til den sidste af de fire betingelser i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, kan indrømmes individuel fritagelse for aftaler, der ikke medfører, at der »gives (virksomhederne) mulighed for at udelukke konkurrencen for en væsentlig del af de pågældende varer«.
With regard to intentional infringement, the Court pointed out that, for an infringement of the Treaty's competition rules to be considered to have been committed intentionally, it is not necessary for the undertaking to have been aware that it was infringing a prohibition laid down by those rules; it is sufficient that it was aware that the object of the offending conduct was to restrict competition.
Spørgsmålet om de konkurrencebegrænsninger, aftalen medfører, er nødvendige
In this case, the Court had to point out that Parker had accepted from the beginning of the administrative procedure that a clause prohibiting exports is contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
Sagsøgeren har over for disse to begrundelser for fritagelsesbeslutningen for det første anført, at Sétubal-fabrikken vil skabe overskydende produktionskapacitet på det omhandlede marked. Sagsøgeren har imidlertid ikke godtgjort, at de i beslutningen indeholdte oplysninger, er forkerte.
In the light of those considerations, the Court considered that the fine of ECU 700 000 imposed on Parker was inappropriate, having regard in particular to the low turnover to which the infringement relates, and that it was justified in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction to reduce to ECU 400 000 the amount of the fine imposed on Parker.
Det følger heraf, at det i fritagelsesbeslutningen skal godtgøres, at de negative virkninger for konkurrencen, projektet har, står i rimeligt forhold til dets bidrag til den økonomiske eller tekniske udvikling.
With regard to the disproportionate nature of the fine, the Court observed that the Court of Justice had held that the amount of the fine must be fixed at a level which takes account of the circumstances and the gravity of the infringement.
Det er imidlertid ikke i sig selv forbudt i henhold til traktatens artikel 85 og 86, at et selskab alene eller sammen med andre erhverver eller forstærker en dominerende stilling. Artikel 86 indeholder nemlig kun et forbud mod, at en eller flere virksomheder misbruger deres dominerende stilling.
Reduces to ECU 400 000 the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of Commission Decision 92/426/EEC of 15 July 1992 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (Case 1V/3Z725 - Viho/Parker Pen).
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Orders each party to bear its own costs."
Sagsøgeren betaler sagens omkostninger, herunder de af intervenienterne Ford of Europe Inc., Ford-Werke AG og Volkswagen AG afholdte omkostninger.
Case T-17/93 Matra Hachette SA ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
Den Portugisiske Republik bærer sine egne omkostninger. «
The summarized text of this Judgment will appear in a subsequent issue.
Forenede sager T-576/93 - T-582/93 M. Browet m.fl. mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Personalesag
Joined Cases T-576/93 to T-582/93 M. Browet and Others ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Case
»Tjenestemænd —strejke—aftale med Kommissionen —fagforeninger og faglige organisationer —samordningsprocedure—manglende betaling f or dage, hvor arbejdet indstilles — anbringende om ordre public — begrundelsespligt« (Tredje Afdeling)
Officials - Strike - Commission agreement - Union and professional organizations -Consultation -Non-payment for days not worked - Absolute bar - Requirement to give statement of reasons
Invoerrechten en dbkriminerende og udskibning af passagerer ordning
OPINIONS of less than weight on the dry product 45%."
Generaladvokat C. O. Lenz fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 12. juli 1994.
Case C-381/93 Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic
Generaladvokat C. Gulmann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum') den 12. juli 1994.
Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 12 July 1994.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare de forelagte spørgsmål således: mod Land Baden-
He proposed that the Court should:
23.04 B i den fælles toldtarif var fortsat gældende på det i hovedsagen relevante tidspunkt som den forordning, der præciserede indholdet af underpos.
- order the defendant Member State to pay the costs in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure".