natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I beslutningen belysesde drsftelser, der fandt stedmellem en reekke europaiske producenter som reaktionpä importen af grask cement ogklinker til Fallesskabets medlemsstater midt i firserne, og det anfores,at droftelsernefsrte til oprettelsen af en gruppe med betegnelsen EuropeanTask Force, oprettelsen afet falles ksbs- og salgsselskab, vedtagelse af beskyttelsesforanstaltninger pä detitalienske marked og vedtagelsen af foranstaltninger til opkob af de mrengder cementeller klinker, der kunne destabiliseremarkedet.
If preparationof non-confidential versionsof all thedocuments proves difficult, it must send to the parties concerned a sufficientlyprecise list of the documentsposing problems so as to enable them to ascertain,with knowledge of the facts, whether the documents described are likely to berelevant for their defence. In the case in point, the Court found that a list ofdocuments which did not describe the content of the documents was notsufficiently precise.
Endelig drager den en rakkevirksomheder og sammenslutninger af virksomheder til ansvar for at have deltaget iforskellige former for samordnetpraksis i strid med traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, indenfor rammerne af to komit6er oprettet af branchentil at drsfte problemer i forbindelsemed eksport, European Cement Export Committee og European Export Policy
The Court explained the consequences for the legality of the final decision of alack of proper access to the file during the administrative procedure incompetition matters, stating that suchafinding cannot in itself lead to annulment
Ved vurderingen af bevisverdien afet dokument mä der fsrst og fremmest tages hensyn til sandsynligheden af denberetning, som dokumentetindeholder.
Thus, the right of access to the file isinseparable from and dependent on the principle of the rights of the defence.
Der mä herved navnlig tages hensyntil, fra hvern dokumentet hidrsrer, under hvilke omstrendigheder det er blevettil, hvem det er rettet til, og om dokumentetefter sit indhold virker fornuftigtog trovrerdigt.
Thecontesteddecision therefore cannot be annulled unless it is found that lack ofproper access to the file preventedthe parties from perusing documents whichwere likely to be of use in th€ir defence and thus infringed their rights of defence.
Ved undersogelsen af, om der var fffit bevis for aftalerne i den anfegtedebeslutnings artikel 4, päpegedeRetten, at alene den omstrendighed, at enproducenti en medlemsstatvidste, at de ksb, andre europeiske producenterforetog hos ham, havde til formäl at bringe hans direkte salg pä de europreiskemarkeder til ophor eller reducere det, ikke fsrer til, at han mä anses for parti en aftale i strid med traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1. En sädanviden kan kunanses for udtryk for en ulovlig adferd, hvis det godtgsres,at producentensamtidig tilsluttede sig det mäI, de ovennrevnte europreiske producenterforfulgte med opkobene.Hvis mälet er i strid med den pägreldende producentsinteresser, kan han kun anses for at have tilsluttet sig mälet, hvis det bevises,at han pätog sig at ophore med eller reducere sine direkte salg pä deeuropeiske markeder som modydelsefor de omhandledeopkob. opkob.
When, in the context of an action seeking annulment of the Commission's finaldecision, an applicant challenges the Commission's refusal to disclose a documentor documents in the file, it is for the Court to require production of thedocuments and to examine them, action which the Court took in the Cement casessince it requestedthe Commission to forward the file to it so that it could beinspected in its entirety by the parties.
Ifolge den anfregtede beslutning bestod Cembureau-aftalen af alle de ordninger,der er vedtaget inden for rammerne af Cembureau,og bi- og/eller multilateralemsder og kontakter.
The Court also defined an "incriminating document" vis-d-vis an undertakingwhich is party to a competition proceeding as a document used by the Commission to supporta finding of an infringement in which that ündertaking isalleged to haveparticipated.
Pä foranledning af sagsogernes anbringender undersogteRetten , om den konstaterede overtraedelse kunne anses for at vrere en samletog kontinuerlig aftale.
The rights of the defence are therefore not infringedmerely because the undertaking was unable to express its views during theadministrative procedure on a document used in the contested decision.
Inden Retten näede frem til, at det kunne den, anfsrteden for det fsrste, at visse af de former for adfrerd, der var omhandlet i denanfregtedebeslutningsdispositivedel,havdedetsammekonkurrencebegrrensende formäl som Cembureau-aftalen, og at de derforkunne anses for at vrere forhold, som udgjorde den i beslutningens artikel 1omhandlede overtrredelse.
It isnecessary for the undertaking to prove that in the decision the Commission useda new item of evidence in order to sustainan infringement in which it is allegedto haveparticipated. participated.
I den forbindelse bemrrkede Retten, at bi- ogmultilaterale aftaler kun kan anses for at udgore en samletkonkurrencebegrrensende aftale, hvis det er bevist, at de er en del af en samletplan med et frelles mä I. Retten var imidlertid af den opfattelse, at det forhold, at formälet med de bi- og multilaterale aftaler og den konkurrencebegrensendeaftale var sammenfaldende, ikke i sig selv var tilstrrekkeligt til, at drage envirksomhed, der var part i de bi- og multilaterale aftaler, til ansvar fordeltagelse i den konkurrencebegraensende aftale, og den undersogtederefter, derefter, tt7
Finally, the Court confirmed that the Commission is under no obligation to grantaccess to internal documents during the administrative procedure in competitionmatters. Furthermore, in proceedings before the Community judicature such
om sagssgerne havde haft kendskab til Cembureau-aftalen.
documents are not to be communicatedto the applicants, unless the circumstancesof the case are exceptional and the applicants make out a plausible case for the need to do so.
Ifolge Retten vardet kun, hvis virksomheden,da den deltog i de bi- og multilaterale aftaler,vidste eller burde have vidst, at den derved tog del i den samlede aftale, atdens deltagelse i de pägrldende bi- og multilaterale aftaler kunne v & re udtrykfor, at den havde tilsluttet sig den samlede aftale.
That restriction on access to internal documents is justified by theneed to ensure the proper functioning of the institution when it deals with infringements of the Treaty competition rules.
Efter en gennemgang af de i den anfegtede beslutning nrevnte beviser udtalte Retten, at visse virksomheders deltagelse i den samlede aftale ikke var blevettilstrrekkeligt bevist af Kommissionen(nemlig Buzzi, Castle, Cedest, ENCI,Titan, Heracles, Nordcement,Alsen-Breitenburgog Rugby),For sä vidt angikde ovrige adressater for beslutningen fandt Retten, at deres deltagelse iovertrndelsen havde varet korteretid, end Kommissionen havde antaget.
In judgments of 30 March 2000 in Case T-65196 Kish Glassv Commission (underappeal, Case C-24L100 P) and of 30 November 2000 in Case T-5197 Industrie des Poudres Sphöriques v Commission, the Court had the opportunity to reiterate thatan undertaking which has lodged a complaint with the Commission cannot claimto have a right of access to the file held by the Commission on the same basis as the undertaking under investigation.
Af alle Rettens bemrerkninger er der srerlig grund til at henledeopmaerksomheden pä betragtningerne vedrsrende begrebet samordnetpraksis .Retten fastslog, at samordnetpraksis faktisk forudsetter kontakt, der erkendetegnet ved gensidighed.
In the Cement cases, the applicants alleged various infringements of their rightsof defence during the administrative procedure.
Denne betingelse om gensidighed er opfyldt, nären konkurrent efter snske fra en anden eller med dennes accept over for denanden afslorer, hvad han agter at foretage sig, eller hvilken adfrerd hanfremtidigt vil indtage pä markedet.
Several of them, who were notpresent at the meeting of 14 January 1983 (see above), contended that in thedecision the Commission had considered that they were represented at thatmeeting and had thereby participated in the agreement from the date on which themeeting was held, when that was not included in the statement of objections.
Dette er tilfeldet, när den samtale,hvorunder en part af sin konkurrent informeres om, hvad konkurrenten agterat foretage sig, eller hvilken adfrerd han fremtidigt vil indtage pä markedet,finder sted pä foranledning af parten, og det af dennesreferat af samtalenfremgär, at parten ikke tog forbehold eller afstandderfra, da konkurrentenorienterede om, hvad han agtedeat foretage sig.
The Court held that the Commission should have announcedits intention to take themeeting of 14 January 1983 as the starting date of the infringement for all theundertakings to which its future decision would be addressed.
Partensrolle under samtalenkan under disse omstrendigheder ikke reduceres til, at den blot passivt modtogde oplysninger, konkurrenten ensidigt havde besluttet at meddeleden, uden atparten havde bedt om det.
The Court thusdetermined, for each undertaking, the starting date of its participation in theinfringement without having regard to the criterion concerning representation adopted by the Commission.
Der er i domme af 6. juli 2000, Volkswagen mod Kommissionen (T-62198,endnu ikke trykt i Sarnling af Afgorelser (appelsag:C-338/00 P)) og af 26.oktober 2000, Bayer mod Kommissionen (sag T-41196, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgorelser (appelsag: forenede sager C-2101P og C-3l01 P))n & rmere blevet redegjort for sondringenmellem egentlig ensidig adfrerd hosen producenti forbindelse med dennes kontraktforhold med forhandlere pä denene side og adfrerd, som kun tilsyneladendeer ensidig, pä den anden side.
The obligations owed by the Commission when dealing with complaints submittedunder Article 3 of Regulation No 17 are defined by settled case-law of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. Several judgments helpedto refine theobligations on the Commission and attestto the review of its assessments whichis carried out (udgments in StorkAmsterdamv Commission, cited above, in Kish G la ss v Commission, cited above, of 25 May 2000 in Case T-77195 RY Ufex and Others v Commission, of 26 October 2000 in Case T-154198Asia Motor and Others v Commission (under appeal, Case C-1/01 P) and in Industrie des Poudres
Retten stadfestede i det store hele beslutningen, men nedsatte bsden til90 mio. EUR, navnlig fordi Kommissionen ikke havde bevist, at overtredelsenvar blevet begäet i hele den periode, det var lagt til grund.
In its judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission, cited above, delivered after the Court of Justice had referred the case back to it by judgment of 4 March 1999in Case C-Il9l97 P Ufex and Others v Commission [1999] ECR l-1341, 15 the
I beslutningen drog Kommissionen Volkswagen til ansvar for at have indgäet aftaler med italienskeforhandlere i dens distributionsnet indeholdende et forbud mod eller enbegrrensning med hensyn til salg i Italien af karetojeraf mrerkerne Volkswagenog Audi til endeligeforbrugere i andre medlemsstater og til forhandlere i densdistributionsnet i andre medlemsstater.
Court of First Instance found that the Commission had not complied with itsobligations in the context of its examination of the complaint made to it by theapplicant. Here, the complaint was rejected on the basis of lack of Communityinterest, as the unlawful practices complainedof had ceased.
Blandt de midler, Volkswagen anvendtetil at forhindre eller begrense denne parallelimport fra ltalien, var enkvoteordning for forsyningen af de italienske forhandlere og enpremieordning, der indebar en tilskyndelsefor forhandlerne til ikke at srelgetil ikke-italienskekunder.
While the Courtconfirmed that the Commission may reject a complaint on the ground of lack ofa sufficient Community interest in further investigation of the case, it held, inaccordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice, that the Commission isobliged to assess,on the basis of all the elements of fact and law obtained, theseriousness and duration of the alleged infringements and whether they continueto have effects, even if the allegedly abusive practices have ceasedsince thecomplaint was made.
I det vresentlige fandt Retten, at Kommissionenhavde fsrt bevis for disse foranstaltninger, som Retten fastslog ganske rigtigtkunne medfsre en afskrermning af markedet for visse produkter mellemmedlemsstaterne og dermed vanskeliggoreden skonomiske integration, somer tilsigtet med traktaten.
After examining the contested decision, the Court foundthat the Commission had failed to comply with its obligations. It thereforeannulled the contested decision.
Retten anfsrte endvidere, at artiklen under ingenomstrendigheder kan erkleres for uanvendelig,när parterne i en kontrakt omselektiv distribution handler pä en sädan mäde, at parallelimport begrrenses.
In its judgment the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instancein CaseT-77/95 SFEI and Others v Commission[T9971ECR tr-l.
Retten annullerede derimod ved ovennrvnte dom af 26, oktober 2000, Bayermod Kommissionen, Kommissionens beslutning af 10. januar 1996, hvori denfastslog,at der forelä en aftale mellem Bayer og selskabets franske og spanskegrossister om at forbyde eksport af preparatetAdalat (eller Adalate)til Det Forenede Kongerige, og pälagde Bayer en bsde pä 3 mio. EUR.
In the Cement judgment, the Court found it necessary to reduce appreciably theamount of the fines imposed on the undertakings whose participation in theagreement was established,the fines having been set by reference to the gravityand the duration of the infrinsement. 16
Sagens baggrund var, at det blev konstateret, at prisen pä lregemidlet Adalatvar langt hojere i Det Forenede Kongerige end den pris, der var fastsat af despanske og franskesundhedsmyndi-uheder.
In particular, the Court explained the extent of the obligation to provide astatement of reasons for a decision imposing fines on a number of undertakingsor associations for infringement of the Community competition rules.
Dette fik grossisterne i Spanien og Frankrig til at eksportere lregemidlet til Det Forenede Kongerige, Virkningerneaf parallelimporten pä salgeti det britiske datterselskab i Bayer-koncernen fikkoncernen til kun at opfylde de ordrer, de spanske og franskegrossister afgav,i det omfang, ordrerne svarede til grossisternes srdvanlige behov.
It recalledthat this obligation must be assessed inter alia in the light of the fact that thegravity of the infringement dependson a large number of factors, without therebeing a binding or exhaustive list of the criteria to be applied, and that the Commission has a discretion when determining the amount of each fine.
Foranledigetaf en klage fra grossisterne fastslog Kommissionen, at Bayer-koncernen havdetilsidesat traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, og pälagde den en sanktion herfor.
It thenreiterated that it is desirablethat, in order to enable undertakings to define theirposition in fulI knowledge of the facts, they should be able to determine in detail,in accordance with such system as the Commission might consider appropriate,the method of calculating the fine imposed upon them, without their beingobliged, in order to do so, to bring court proceedings against the decision.
Retten fandt ikke, at Kommissionen havde fsrt bevis for, at der forelä en aftalemellem Bayer og de spanske og franskegrossister.
Thatis sö especially where the Commission uses detailed arithmetical formulas tocalculate the fines.
Den kunne derfor ikke antage, at Bayersadferd iforbindelse med dens kontraktforhold med forhandlerne skyldtes en aftalemellem virksomheder i traktatens artikel 85. stk. 1.'s forstand.
Such explanations, which it is for the Court to seek ifnecessary from the Commission, do not, however, constitute an additional aposteriori statement of reasons for the contested decision, but translateinto figuresthe criteria set out in it that are capable of being quantified. 17
I beslutning af 11. juni 1998 fastslog Kommissionen, at Adroports de Parishavde tilsidesat traktatens artikel 86 ved at bruge sin dominerende stilling tilat pälegge leverandsrer af visse former for ground-handling-tlenester,
This, in conjunction with other factors, resulted in the overall amount of the fines beingreduced from approximately EUR 250 000 000 to approximately EUR 110 000 000 (see p. 146 of this report).
Kommissionens forordning (EOF) nr. 123/85 af 12.12.1984om anvendelse af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, pä kategorieraf salgs-og serviceaftaler vedrsrende motorkoretojer(EFT 1985 L 15, s. 16),fra den 1.10.1995erstattet af Kommissionens forordning (EF)nr. 1475195af 28.6.1995(EFTL145, s. 25).
See, in this regard, the reference to the judgments delivered on appeal in the"cartonboard" cases in the section of this report devoted to the proceedings of the Court of Justice in 2000 (paragraph 16. 1., p. 47 et seq.) r20r20
diskriminerende omsretningsbaserede afgifter i de parisiske lufthavne Orly og Roissy-Charles-de-Gaulle. I ovennrevnte dom af 12. december 2000, Aöroportsde Paris mod Kommissionen, blev sagsogte frifundet for pästanden omannullation af beslutningen, idet Retten fastslog, at Kommissionensafgraensning af markedet for produktet og af det geografiske marked var rigtig,at Aöroports de Paris faktisk indtog en dominerende stilling i traktatens artikel86's forstand, og at der forelä misbrug.
In the field of State aid, the Court decided actions brought under the fourthparagraph of Article I73 of the EC Treaty 18 and Article 33 of the ECSCTreaty. re Its decisions explain various aspects of the substantivelaw on aid.
Retten til kontradiktion a) Aktindsigt
Concept of State aid
Aktindsigt for virksomheder, der er genstand for Kommissionensundersogelser
The Court was required in a number of cases to rule, first, on the constituents ofthe concept of State aid and, second, on the distinction between new and existingaid.
Reglerne onl aktindsigt i Kommissionens forberedende sagsakter er blevetgentaget og udfyldt i Cement-dommen.Praktisk talt alle adressaterne forbeslutningen gjorde grldende, at Kommissionen havde indrsmmet demutilstrrekkelig aktindsigt under den administrative procedure.
For the purposes of Community law, aid is an advantage, granted by the State orby means of State resources, in favour of certain undertakings or certain products.In the past year the Court considered both the notion of an advantage conferredby a State measure and the need for the measure to be specific in nature.
Retten henviste säledes til reglen - som navnlig folger af det almindeligeprincip om processuel ligestilling - om, at Kommissionen er forpligtet til atgive parterne adgang til alle de forberedende sagsakter, dog ikke andrevirksomheders forretningshemmeligheder og andre fortrolige oplysninger samt Kommissionens interne dokumenter, säledes at de pä hensigtsmressig mäde kantage til genmrele.I overensstemmelse med sine domme i ICl-sagenog Solvay-sagen 14 fandt Retten, at hvis det er Kommissionens opfattelse, at vissedokumenter indeholder forretningshemmetighedereller andre fortroligeoplysninger, skal den udarbejde eller lade de parter, hvorfra dokumenternehidrsrer, udarbejde ikke-fortrolige udgaver heraf.
- In EPAC v Commission, cited above, the Court recalled that the concept of State aid embracesnot only positive benefits, such as subsidies themselves, butalso interventions which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which arenormally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, without thereforebeing subsidiesin the strict meaning of the word, are similar in character andhave the same effect.
Säfremt udarbejdelsen afikke-fortrolige udgaver af alle dokumenterne viser sig at v & re vanskelig, skal Kommissionen til de bersrte parter fremsende en tilstrekkelig prrecisfortegnelse over de dokumenter, der giver anledning til problemer, säledes atde med kendskab til sagen kan afgore, om de opregnede dokumenter kan vrererelevante for deres forsvar.
In determining whether a State measure constitutes aid, itis necessary to establish whether the recipient undertaking receives an economicadvantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Under de i sagen foreliggende omstandighederfandt Retten, at en liste over dokumenter, der ikke indeholdt nogen beskrivelseaf dem, ikke var tilstrrekkeligprrecis. prrecis.
Judgments of 16 March 2000 in Case T-72198 Astilleros hmacona v Commission; in SICv Commission, cited above; in EPAC v Commission, cited above; of 15 June 2000 in Joined Cases T-298197, T-312197, T-313197, T-315197, T-600197 to T-607197, T-1198,T-3198 to T-6198 and T-23198Alzetta and Others v Commisslon (under appeal, Case C-298/00 P); in BP Chemicals v Commission, cited above; in CETM v Commission, citedabove; in Alitalia v Commission, cited above; and of 14 December 2000 in Case T-6L3197Ufex and Others v Commission.
Konsekvenserne, det tär for lovligheden af en endelig beslutning, at der er sketet brud pä reglerne om aktindsigt under den administrative procedure i enkonkurrencesag, blev n & rmere fastlagt säledes, al en konstatering heraf ikke i sig selv kanfore til annullation af den anfegtede beslutning.
EPAC submitted that the Commission had infringed Article 92(l) of the ECTreaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) in taking the view that theguarantee granted to it by the Portuguese authorities constituted State aid.
Aktindsigt ersäledes ikke et mäl i sig selv, men formälet hermed er at sikre retten til kontradiktion. Retten til aktindsigt er säledesuadskilleligt forbundet med ogaftrrengig af retten til kontradiktion.
The Court thus examined whether, under normal market conditions, the guaranteegranted by the Portuguese State to EPAC for the purpose of enablingit to obtaina loan from banking institutions would also have been given by a private operatorin view, above all, of the risk of the guarantee being enforced in the event ofnon-repayment of the loan.
Annullation af den anfregtede beslutningforudsaetter derfor, at det fastsläs,at det forhold, at sagssgerne under denadministrative procedure ikke har fäet forskriftsmressig aktindsigt i deforberedende sagsakter, har afskäret dem fra at fä kendskab til dokumenter,som de kunne have anvendt til deresforsvar, og dermed tilsidesat deres ret tilkontradiktion.
Having regard, in particular, to EPAC's seriouslyexposed financial position, the Court found that the Commission was justified intaking the view that, in the circumstances of the case, a private operator wouldnot have granted EPAC the guarantee.
När en part under et annullationssogsmäl til provelse af en endeligkommissionsbeslutning anfegter et afslag fra Kommissionen pä at udlevere eteller flere dokumenter i sagen, tilkommer det Retten at anmode om at tädokumentet forelagt og undersoge det, hvilket Retten gf orde i disse sager, idetden anmodede Kommissionen om at fremlreggesagsakterne for Retten, säledesat parterne kunne fä indsigt i dem i deres helhed.
- In determining whether an undertaking which benefits from a measure adoptedby a public authority would have obtained the same economic advantages from a private investor operating under market conditions, the Commission is entitledto use the private-investor test.
Retten skal ikke trrede istedet for Kommissionen, men den pägreldende undersogelse skal for det fsrsteangä sporgsmälet om, hvorvidt der er en objektiv forbindelse mellem dedokumenter, som ikke har vreret tilgengelige under den administrativeprocedure, og et klagepunkt, som er fastsläet over for sagssgeren i denanfregtede beslutning.
This test is useful when deciding whether anundertaking has receivedaid within the meaning of Article 92(l) of the Treaty.It is also useful when deciding whether a measure adopted by a public authority,acting as an economic operator or through the intermediary of an economicoperator, in favour of an undertaking constitutes State aid for the purposes of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty, as the Court held in DSG v Commission, citedabove.