natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
vrcsentlige gjorde sagsogerne greldende, at Kommissionen burde have anseteksklusivitetsklausulen og klausulen angäende emnekanaler (somblev fritageti medfsr af artikel 81, stk. 3, EF) for at v & re begransninger, der varaccessoriske i forhold til stiftelsen af TPS (med hensyn til hvilken Kommissionen havde fundet, at der ikke var anledning til at gribe ind i medfsraf artikel81, stk. 1, EF).
applicability of that article to an agreement, account should be taken of theactual conditions in which it functions,in particular the economic and legalcontext in which the undertakings operate, the nature of the products orservices covered by the agreement and theffactual operation and structure ofthemarket concerned.
Ved en begrensning, der er direkte forbundet med gennemforelsen afhoveddispositionen, skal der ifolge denne domforstäs enhver begrensning, derer af underordnet betydning for gennemfsrelsen af dennedisposition, og somhar en klar forbindelse hertil.
A restriction'directly related'to implementation of a main operation must,according to this judgment, be understood to be any restriction which issubordinate to the implementation of that operation and which has an evidentlink with it.
Betingelsen om, at begransningen skal verensdvendig, indebarer,at der mä foretages en efterprsvelse af to forhold, delsaf, at begrrensningen objektivt set er nodvendig for gennemforelsen afhoveddispositionen, dels af, at den ikke gär ud over, hvad der er nodvendigt.Efterprovelsen af, om en begrensning objektivt set er nsdvendig i forhold tilhoveddispositionen, kan kun v & re forholdsvis abstrakt. Hvishoveddispositionen viser sig at v & revanskelig eller umulig at gennemfsre udenbegransningen, kan begrensningen anses for objektivt set nodvendig forgennemforelsen.
The condition that a restriction be necessary implies a two-foldexamination, establishing, first, whether the restriction is objectively necessaryfor the implementation of the main operation and, second, whether it isproportionate to it.
Hvis imidlertid dens varighed eller materielle og geografiskeanvendelsesomräde gär ud over, hvad der er nsdvendigt for at gennemfsredispositionen, skal denunderssges separat i medfor af artikel 81, stk. 3, EF.
If, without therestriction, the main operation is difficult or even impossible to implement, therestriction may be regarded as objectively necessary for its implementation.However, if the duration or the scope of the restriction exceed what isnecessary in order to implement the operation, it must be assessed separatelyunder Article 81(3).
Med hensyn til konsekvenserne fandt Retten, at sporgsmälet, om enbegransning, der er blevet kvalificeret som accessorisk, er forenelig medkonkurrencereglerne, skal undersoges sammen med hoveddispositionen.
As regards the consequences, the Court of First Instance took the view that thecompatibility of that restriction with the competition rules must be examinedwith that of the main operation.
Närhoveddispositionen säledes ikke er omfattet af forbuddet i artikel 81, stk. 1,EF, gfrr det samme sig geldende for de begrrensninger, der er direkteforbundetmed og nodvendige for dennedisposition. Hvis hoveddispositionenderimod udgor en begraensning i denne bestemmelses forstand, men er fritageti medfsr af artikel 81, stk. 3, EF, dakker fritagelsen tillige de accessoriskebegrensninger. I den foreliggende sag fandt Retten ikke, at Kommissionenhavde anlagt en äbenbart urigtig vurdering ved ikke at anse de ovennrvnteklausuler for at v & re begrrensninger, der var accessoriske i forhold til stiftelsenaf TPS, og ved i konsekvens derafat foretage en separat undersogelse af, omde var forenelige med konkurrencereglerne.
Thus, if the main operation does not fallwithin the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, the sameholds for the restrictions directly related to and necessary for that operation.If, on the otherhand, the main operation is a restriction within the meaning
Ulovligeafialer afialer b.1)
(b) (b) Prohibited Prohibited agreements agreements
Aftaler, der er ulovlige i medfsr af artikel 81, stk, 1, EF
(b.1) Agreements prohibited by Article 81(1) EC
I dom af 12.juli 2001 , Tate & Lyle m.fl. mod Kommissionen (forenede sager T-202198, T-204198 og T-207198 (appelsag C-359/01 P), Sml. II, s.2035), fandt Retten, at Kommissionen havde foretaget en korrekt anvendelse afbetingelserne for forbud mod en aftale i dens beslutning af 14. oktober1998 tt, og gav derfor ikke sagssgerne medhold pä dettepunkt. punkt. Problematikken vedrsrendekonkurrencebegrrensninger som falge af den akkumulerede virkning af samme type vertikale aftaler blev indgäendebehandlet i dom af 5. juli 2001 , Roberts mod Kommissionen (sag T-25199,
& Lyle and Others v Commission [200L] ECR II-2035 (under appeal, Case C-359/OlP), it held that the conditions for prohibiting an agreement had been
I den pägeldende sag havdeforpagterne af enpub i Det Forenede Kongerigei en klage i medfsr af artikel 3, stk.2, i Rädets forordning nr.l7 af 6. februar1962, fsrste forordning om anvendelse af bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel t81l og t82l (EFT I959-L962, s.81), gjort galdende, ät den forpagtningsaftale, der blev brugt af det egnsdrekkende bryggeri
In In that that case, case, the the operators operators of of a a pub pub in in the the
King", som sagsogerne som forpagtere havde en forpligtelse til at kobe ol hos, stred mod artikel [81], stk. 1, EF.
Kingdom Kingdom claimed, claimed, in in aa complaint under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February
Efter en detaljeret provelse af, at den anfegtede beslutning indeholdt en rigtigafgrrensning af det pägeldende marked, nemlig markedet for salg af sl tilvirksomheder, der salgeralkoholholdige drikkevarer, somindtages pä stedet- det safirme marked, som Domstolen fastlagde i dom af 28. februar 1991,Delimitis (sag C-234189,Sml.
1992,First Regulation implementing Articles [8U and [82] of the Treaty (OJ,English Special Edition t959-L962,p.
I, s.935) undersogte Retten, om Kommissionen med rette'havdelagt til grund, at Greene King's aftalenetbestäende af de forpagtningsaftaler mellem dette bryggeri og detsforpagtere, forpagtere,
87), that the lease used by the local brewery, Greene King, from which, as tenants, they were subject to anobligation to obtain beer, was contrary to Article 81(1) EC. Their complaint was was rejected rejected by by the the
Kommissionens beslutning 199912t0/EF af 14.10,1998 om en procedure i henhold til
Commission Commission on on the the ground ground that that the the standard standard lease lease used used by by
hvortil var knyttet en kobsforpligtelse,ikke bidrog merkbart til enafskermningaf det pägaldende marked, hvorfor aftalerne ikke faldt ind underforbuddet i traktatens artikel 81, stk. 1, EF. Retten tilträdtedenne opfattelse.
Greene King's network of agreements, consisting of the leaseswith apurchasing obligation concluded between that brewery and its tenants, did notmake asignificant contribution to that foreclosure of the relevant market, sothat the agreements were not caughtby the prohibition in Article 81(1) EC.The Court of First Instance endorsed that conclusion.
Den bemarkede for det forste, at der for at bedsmme, om en standardkontraktom levering af ol bidrager til en afskarmningaf markedet som folge af denakkumulerede virkning af alle lignende aftaler, ifolge Domstolens praksis skaltages hensyn til aftaleparternes stilling pä markedet.
In that connection it recalled,first, that in order to assess whether a standardbeer supply agreement contributes to the cumulative effect of closingoff themarket produced by all such agreements, it is necessary, as held in the caselaw of the Court of Justice, to take into consideration the position of thecontracting parties in the market.
Om kontrakten bidragerhertil, aftrangerdesuden af aftalernes varighed.
The contribution also dependson thedurationof the agreements.
Hvis varigheden heraf eruforholdsmessig lang set i forhold til den gennemsnitlige varighed af deaftaler, der sredvanligvis indgäspä det pägeldende marked, er den enkelteaftale omfattet af forbuddet i traktatens artikel 81, stk. l, EF. Et bryggeri, derhar en forholdsvis lille markedsandel, men som binder sine salgssteder i mangeär, kan nemlig bidragetil en lige sä betydeligafskrermning af markedet somet bryggeri,hvis stilling pä markedet er forholdsvis strerk, men som normaltstiller salgsstederne frit med kortere mellemrum.
If it is manifestlyexcessive in relation to theaverage duration of agreements generally concluded in the relevant market, theindividual agreement falls under the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC.A brewery holding a relatively small shareof the market which ties its salesoutlets for many years may contribute to foreclosure of the market assignificantly as a brewery with a comparatively strong position in the marketwhich regularly frees its outlets at frequentintervals.
I den konkrete sag blevhverken bryggeriets markedsandel eller lsbetidenfor aftalerne om levering afsl anset for vesentligtat bidragetil en afskermning af markedet.
In this case neither themarket shareof the brewer nor the duration of the beer supply contracts wereheld to contribute significantlyto the foreclosure of the market.
Retten undersogte derefter, om en brygger/grossists - i den konkrete sag Greene King's aftalenet, som ikke i sig selv bidrager markbart tilafskermningen af markedet, kan knyttes sammen med de nationale bryggeriersaftalenet, som bidrager merkbart til markedets afskermning,og derved bliveomfattet af artikel 81, stk. 1, EF.
The Court of First Instance went on to consider whether a network ofagreements of a wholesaling brewery, here Greene King, which does not initself significantly contribute to the foreclosure of the market, may be linkedto networks of agreements of supplying breweries, which do contributesignificantlyto suchforeclosure, and may thus fall within the scope of Article81(1)EC.
Dette kr & ver, at to betingelser er opfyldt.For det forste mä det undersages, om de aftaler om levering af sl, som erindgäet mellem bryggeriet/grossisten og bryggerierne/leverandsrerne, dvs.
Two conditions must be met in that regard. First, it must be considered whether the beer supply agreements concluded between that
aftalerne "pä forudgäende omsretningstrin", kan antages at indgä i nettet afaftaler for bryggerier/leverandsrer.
'upstream' wholesaling brewery and thesupplying breweries, known as agreements, may be regarded as forming part of thesupplying breweries'networksof agreements.
Denne betingelse er opfyldt, hvis aftalerne pä forudgäende omsretningstrin indeholder en bestemmelse, der fastsatter enkobsforpligtelse (forpligtelser til et vist mindsteksb, til lagerforing eller til ikke at fme konkurrence).
That condition is satisfied if theupstream agreementscontain terms which may be analysed as a purchasing obligation (commitmentsto purchase minimum quantities,stocking obligations or non-competitionobligations).
For det andet er det for, at ikke blot aftalerne "päforudgäende omsretningstrinu, men ogsä de aftaler, der er indgäet mellem bryggeriet/grossisten og de etablissementer, som er bundet til denne,dvs. dvs.
Second, for not only the 'upstream' agreements but also theagreements concluded between the wholesaling brewery and the establishmentstied to it - the 'downstream' agreements - to be attributed to thesupplying supplying
fä adgang til dennes net af aftaler efterfolgendeomsetningstrin".
'downstream' enter the latter's network of agreements.
De vil
The
Forekomsten af et net af aftaler "pä efterfolgendeomsretningstrin" udgor derfor et element, som kan fremme andre bryggeriers indtrangen pä markedet.
'downstream' existence of a network of agreements thus constitutes a factor which can promote penetration of the market by otherbreweries.
Efter sin gennemgang udtalte Retten, at Kommissionen ikke havde anlagt nogen äbenbart urigtig vurdering, da den iden anfegtede beslutning fandt, at Greene King's net af aftaler 'päefterfolgende omsretningstrinui1qk. kunne anses for at v & re knyttet til debryggerier/leverandorer, som havde indgäet aftaler om levering af sl med
Concludingits analysis, the court of First Instance held that the commission did not makea manifest error of assessment in concluding in the contested decision (point106) that Greene King's network of 'downstream' agreements could not be attributed to those of thesupplying breweries which had concluded beer supplyagreements with GreeneKing.
Aftaler, der er ulovlige i medfor af artikel 65 KS
(b.2) Agreements prohibited by Article 65 CS
II, s. l2I7), idet Retten fandt, at Kommissionen med urette i sin vurdering havde lagt vaegt pä oplysninger, derikkevarblevetanmeldttilden.Rettenhenvistetil,atinformationsudvekslingsaftaler ikke generelt automatisk er forbudt i henholdtil artikel 65 KS, men kun, hvis de frembyder vissekarakteristiske trek, bl.a.at der er tale om fslsomme og detaljeredeoplysninger af nyere dato, somudveksles med korte mellemrum.
Others Others v CommissionI200ll ECR II-1217), the Court of First Insrance having pointedout that the Commission wrongly took account in its assessment of matterswhich were not notified to it.
Eftersom Kommissionen havde baseret sinbedsmmelse af aftalen pä den samledevirkning, udvekslingenaf de tre EKSF-sporgeskemaer 2-71, 273 og 2-74, selv om der efter den anmeldte aftale ikkeskulle ske udveksling af EKSF-sporgeskema 2-73, som netop gav de mestnojagtige og detaljeredeoplysninger og derfor kunne afslsre de forskelligeproducenters strategier, faldt dens analyse fuldstendig fra hinanden.
In that regard it recalled that information exchange exchange agreements agreements are are not not generally generally prohibited prohibited automatically automatically but but only only if if theythey have certain characteristics relating,in particular, to the sensitive and accuratenature of recent data exchanged at shortintervals.
Hvis Kommissionen havde taget hensyn til den reelle rrekkeviddeaf den anmeldteaftale, var det ikke udelukket,at dens vurdering ville have veret en anden, ogat den ville havefundet, at aftalen ikke var i strid med artikel 65, stk. l, KS.
Where the Commission based its assessment on the combined effect of the exchange of the three ECSCquestionnaires2-7L,2-73 and2-74, whereas the notified agreement does notprovide for the exchange of ECSC questionnaire 2-73, which specificallyfurnishes the most accurate and detailed data and is accordingly likely to revealthe strategyof the various producers, that fact has the effect of completelyinvalidating the analysis made by the Commission. If the Commission had
I dom af L3. december 2001 , Krupp Thyssen Stainless og Acciai speciali Ternimod Kommissionen (forenede sagerT-45198 og T-47198, endnu ikke trykt i
taken account of the real scope of the notified agreement, it is notinconceivable that its evaluation would have been different and that it wouldhave considered that the agreement was not contrary to Article 65(1)CS. CS.
I forbindelse med sin provelse henviste Retten til, at
Itimposed penalties on them on that basis.
Kommissionen ikke behsverat päviseen skadelig virkning pä konkurrencenfor at bevise en overtrredelse af traktatens artikel 65, stk. 1, KS, när den hargodtgiort, at der foreligger en aftale eller en samordnet praksis, der har tilformäl at begrrense konkurrencen, og fandt, at dettegialdt, selv om aftalen kunvedrsrte et element i den endelige pris pä flade produkter af rustfrit stä I.
In its findings it recalled that the Commission is notobliged, in order to establish an infringement of Article 65(l) CS, todemonstrate that there was an adverse effect on competition, provided that ithas established the existence of an agreement or concerted practice intendedto restrict competition, even though the agreement related only to onecomponent of the final price of stainless steelflat products.
Undtagelser fra forbuddet
Exemptions from prohibition rohibition
En fritagelse skal vrere af tilstrrkkelig lang varighed til at give de fritagnevirksomheder mulighed for at realisere de fordele, som begrunder fritagelsen.Alligevel anfegtede en rekke sagsogere lovligheden af de beslutninger, de varadressater for, under henvisning til, at de fandt, at varigheden af denindividuelle fritagelse, de havde fäetmeddelt, var for kort (ovennrevnte dommeaf 28.3.2001,Institut des mandataires agröös mod Kommissionen, og af18.9.2001, M6 m.fl. mod Kommissionen).
The duration of an exemption must be sufficient to enable the beneficiaries toachieve the benefits justiffing suchexemption. However, some applicantsdisputed the legality of decisions addressed to them on the ground that theyconsidered the duration of the individual exemption granted to them to be too short short
Som led i provelseni dommen M6 m.fl. mod Kommissionen konstaterede Retten, at sagssgeren ikke havde fremlagt tilstrrekkelige beviser for, at
Institut Institut des des mandataires mandataires agröös agröös v v Commission Commission and and
Kommissionen havde anlagt en äbenbart urigtig vurdering ved fastsettelsen afvarigheden af fritagelsen i medfor af artikel 81, stk. 3, EF, og fremhevede i
Others v Commission, cited above). However, neither of those two actionswas upheld in that regard.
den forbindelse, at Rettens kontrol med hensyn til forhold angäende enkompliceret skonomisk vurdering serligt mä begrrenses til en undersagelse afrigtigheden af de faktiske forhold og Kommissionens retlige vurdering heraf.
In its findings in M6 and Others v Commission the Court of First Instance heldthat the applicants had not adduced sufficient evidence that the Commissionhad made a manifest error of assessment in determining the duration of theexemption under Article 8l(3) EC, pointing out that, with regard to complexevaluations on economic matters, judicial review of those evaluations mustconfine itself to an examination of the relevance of the facts and of the legalconsequences which the Commission deduces from them.
"Ved dom af 22. november 200L, AAMS mod Kommissionen(sagT-139198, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgorelser), stadfrestede Retten Kommissionensbeslutning 14, hvori den havde konstateret, at et organ under Amministrazionefinanziaria dello Stato italiano, nemlig Amministrazione Autonoma de i Monopoli di Stato,der bl.a. drev virksomhed med produktion, import, eksportog distribution en gros af forarbejdettobak, ved at udnytte sin dominerendestilling pä det italienske marked for distribution en gros af cigaretter, havdeudvist forskellige former for adfard, der udgjorde et misbrug, med henblik päat beskytte sin stilling pä det italienske marked for cigaretteri strid med artikel82 EF.
In its judgment of 22 November 2001 in Case T-139198 AAMSv Commission(not yet published in the ECR), the Court of First lnstanceupheld theCommission decision ta finding that Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato,a bodyforming part of the financial administration of the ltalian State which, inparticular, engages in theproduction, import, export and wholesale distributionof manufactured tobaccos, in taking advantage of its dominant position on the Italian market had engaged in improper behaviour in order to protect itsposition on the Italian market for cigarettes, in breach of Article 82 EC.
Ret til kontradiktion
Rights of the defence
Selskabet gjorde galdende, at dets ret tilkontradiktion var blevet tilsidesat i forbindelse med beslutningen.
The applicant claimedthat the decisioninfringed its rights of defence.
I sin dom af 20. februar 2001 , Mannesmannröhren-Werke mod Kommissionen
In its judgment in CaseT-Ll2l98 Mannesmannröhren-Werke v Cornmission
I den konkrete sagannullerede Retten delvis Kommissionens beslutning, i det omfang den
Decision 98/538/EC of 17 June 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Domstolens dom af 18.10.1989, sag 374/87, Orkem mod Kommissionen, Sml. s. 3283.
Judgment in Case 374187 Orkem v Commission
indeholdt sporgsmäl, hvorved virksomheden blev opfordret til at beskriveformälet med visse msder samt de beslutninger, der var blevet truffet herunder.
In this case, the Court of First Instance partiallyannulled the Commission decision in so far as it contained questions callingupon the undertaking to describe the purpose of certain meetings and thedecisions adopted during them.
Hvad angärargumenterne om, at EMRK's artikel 6, stk. l og 2, giver enperson, der er adressat for en begrering om oplysninger, ret til ikke at besvare sporgsmäI, endog spargsmäl af rent faktisk karakter, samt til at afslä atfremsende dokumenter tit Kommissionen, understregede Retten, at sagsogerenikke direkte kunne ststte ret pä EMRK ved Frellesskabets retsinstanser.
As regards the arguments to the effect thatArticle 6(1) and (2) of the ECHRenables a person in receipt of a request for information to refrain fromanswering the questions asked, even if they are purely factual in nature, andto refuse to produce documents to the Commission, the Court of First Instancepointed out that the applicant cannot directly invoke the ECHR before theCommunity court.
Retten fremhavede dog, at frellesskabsretten anerkender de grundlaggende principper om ret til kontradiktion og om retten til en retfardig rettergan g, og serlige at det i medfsr af disse princippey - vflst" inden for konkurrencerettens omräde, som n & rverende sag angär, giver en lignendebeslryttelse beslryttelse som den, der sikres ved EMRK's artikel 6., - i Domstolens og Rettens faste praksis var antaget, at adressaterne for begeringer fra Kommissionen i medfor af artikel11, stk.5, i forordning m. L7 har ret til kun at besvare spsrgsmäaf rentl faktisk karakter og til kun at udlevere beviser og dokumenter, der allerede ereksisterende, idet en sädan ret i svrigt anerkendes, helt fra Kommissionensundersogelse indledes.Den udtalte endvidere, at pligten til at besvaresporgsmäl af rent faktisk karakter fra Kommissionen samt til at efterkommedennes begeringer om at udlevere eksisterende dokumenter ikke kan antagesat vrere i strid med princippet om ret til kontradiktion eller retten til enretfardig rettergang. Der er säledes intet til hinder for, at adressaten senereunder den administrative procedure eller under en sag for Frellesskabetsretsinstanser ved at udsve sin ret til kontradiktion godtgor, at de faktiske omstaendigheder, der omhandles i den pägreldendes besvarelser eller i defremlagte dokumenter, har en anden betydning end den, som Kommissionenhar lagt til grund.
However, it emphasised that Community law doesrecognise as fundamentalprinciples both the rights of defence and the right to fair legalprocess. It is in application of those principles, which offer, in the specific field of competition competition law, law, at at issue issue in in the the present present case, case, plotection plotection equivalent equivalent to to thatthat guaranteed by Arttcle 6 of the ECHR, that the Court of Justice and the Courtof First Instance have consistently held that the recipient of requests sent bythe Commission pursuant to Article 11(5)of Regulation No 17 is entitled toconfine himself to answering questions of a purely factual nature and toproducing only the pre-existing documents and materials sought and,moreover, is so entitled as from the very first stage of an investigation initiatedby the Commission.
Med hensyn til sporgsmälet, om Den Europreiske Unions charter omgrundleggende rettigheder (EFT C 364,s. 1), der blev proklameret i Nice den7. december 2000,og som blev päberäbt af sagsogeren, kunne have betydningfor bedsmmelsen af den konkrete sag, udtalte Retten blot, at charteret endnuikke var blevetproklameret pä tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af den anfagtedebeslutning (den 15.5.1998),og at den derfor ikke kunne fä nogenkonsekvenser for lovligheden heraf,
There is nothingto prevent the addressee of such questions orrequests from showing, whether later during the administrative procedure orin proceedings before the Community courts, when exercising his rights ofdefence, that the facts set out in his replies or the documents produced by himhave a different meaning from that ascribed to them by the Commission.