natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Heraf følger, at en sådan byrde er i strid med de formål, som fællesskabslovgiveren har haft for øje, og falder uden for de ensartede principper, der er opstillet ved direktiv 97/13.
In addition to laying down rules for authorisation procedures and the content of authorisations, that framework sets out the nature and scope of financial payments related to those procedures which Member States may impose on undertakings in the field of telecommunications services.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
As stated in the 12th recital in the preamble to Directive 97/13, those charges must be based on objective, non-discriminatory and transparent criteria.
»Bestemmelserne i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 97/13/EF af 10. april 1997 om ensartede principper for generelle tilladelser og individuelle tilladelser for teletjenester og navnlig direktivets artikel 11 forbyder medlemsstaterne at pålægge virksomheder med individuelle tilladelser for teletjenester økonomiske byrder som den i hovedsagerne omhandlede, der adskiller sig fra og opkræves ud over dem, der i henhold til direktivet lovligt kan pålægges, alene fordi virksomhederne er i besiddelse af disse tilladelser.«
In addition, it is significant that, in the first phase of the implementation of Community directives intended to liberalise the national telecommunications market, the Italian Republic discontinued the charge on turnover which telecommunications service franchisees were previously required to pay. Even if that former charge and the contested charge are not identical, the contested charge, like the former charge, is calculated on the basis of the turnover of undertakings which hold individual licences and thereby reintroduces a financial obstacle to the liberalisation process.
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling1) den 12. december 2002.
Such a charge considerably increases the fees and charges which Member States are expressly authorised to impose under Directive 97/13 and creates a significant obstacle to the freedom to provide telecommunications services.
Sag C-338/00 Ρ Volkswagen AG / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Konkurrence
It follows that such a charge is contrary to the objectives sought by the Community legislature and goes beyond the common framework established by Directive 97/13.
»Appel — konkurrence —forhandling af biler — opdeling af markeder — EF-traktatens artikel 85 (nu artikel 81 EF) — forordning (EØF) nr. 123/85 — spørgsmålet, om overtrædelsen kan tilregnes den pågældende virksomhed — retten til at blive hørt — begrundelsespligt — retlige følger af videregivelse af oplysninger til pressen — betydningen af en forskriftsmæssig anmeldelse for beregningen af bøden — kontraappel« (Sjette Afdeling)
'Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services and, in particular, Article 11 thereof, prohibit Member States from imposing financial charges other man and in addition to those allowed by the directive, such as the contested charge in the main proceedings, on undertakings which hold individual licences in the telecommunications sector solely because they hold such licences.'
Kommissionen tilpligtes at betale omkostningerne i sagen for Retten og for Domstolen.
Case C-338/00 Ρ Volkswagen AG ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
Med det første anbringende bestrider appellanten Rettens retlige vurdering, hvorefter 15-procentsreglen, selv isoleret set, ikke er forenelig med traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, eller i hvert fald ikke var dækket af den dagældende forordning nr. 123/85.
(Appeal — Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles - Partitioning of the market — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) - Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 - Whether the infringement can be attributed to the undertaking concerned — Right to a fair hearing — Duty to state reasons — Legal consequences of disclosure to the press — Effect of propriety of the notification on the calculation of the fine — Cross-appeal) (Sixth Chamber)
Med hensyn til fortolkningen af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, har appellanten gjort gældende, at appellanten i stævningen for Retten har fremført følgende ræsonnement, som materielt ikke er blevet bestridt. En forhandler, som sælger en bil på et område, som ikke hører til hans aftaleområde, bærer i almindelighed langt lavere omkostninger, såvel med hensyn til salgstransaktionen som med hensyn til service efter salg,
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 14 September 2000, Volkswagen AG brought an appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case T-62/98 Volkswagen ν Commission [2000] (hereinafter
Følgelig udlignes tabet af bonussen af en tilsvarende økonomisk fordel. Derfor har bonusordningen ikke været konkurrencebegrænsende, hverken i sit formål eller i sine virkninger.
referred to as 'the judgment under appeal') in which the Court of First Instance dismissed in part its application for the annulment of Commission Decision 98/273/EC of 28 January 1998.
Anbringendets første led bør må derfor afvises.
By its appeal, the appellant claims that the Court should:
Hertil bemærkes blot, at en foranstaltning, der har til formål at opdele markedet mellem medlemsstater, ikke kan være omfattet af bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 123/85 om de forpligtelser, som forhandleren lovligt kan påtage sig som led i en forhandleraftale.
- order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
Med det andet anbringende har appellanten bestridt Rettens stillingtagen i den appellerede doms præmis 236, hvorefter foranstaltningerne til begrænsning af forsyningen af det italienske marked er aftaler i traktatens artikel 85, stk. l's forstand, fordi de indgår i en helhed af løbende forretningsforbindelser, der er omfattet af en allerede bestående generel aftale.
In its first ground of appeal, the appellant challenges the legal assessment of the Court of First Instance to the effect that the 15% rule, even taken in isolation, is not compatible with Article 85(1) of the Treaty or was not, in any event, covered by Regulation No 123/85 in force at that period.
I den appellerede doms præmis 236 har Retten fastslået, at denne retspraksis fandt anvendelse i det foreliggende tilfælde, fordi de af appellanten trufne foranstaltninger, heriblandt 15procentsreglen og kontingenteringen af leverancerne, alle havde til formål at øve indflydelse på de italienske forhandlere i forbindelse med opfyldelsen af deres kontrakter med Autogerma.
For the purpose of challenging the findings by the Court of First Instance in relation to the breach of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, the appellant merely reproduces the arguments which it set out in this regard in its application at first instance without calling into question either the reasoning on the basis of which the Court of First Instance concluded that the 15% rule amounted to a market-partitioning measure or the finding that such a rule had to be classified as a measure incompatible with Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
Appellanten har hverken bestridt, at forhandleraftalen gav mulighed for at begrænse leverancerne til de italienske forhandlere, eller Rettens konstatering af, at denne begrænsning blev iværksat med det udtrykkelige formål at hindre reeksport fra Italien af køretøjer leveret til disse forhandlere.
The appellant also claims that, in finding that the 15% rule was not covered by Regulation No 123/85, the Court of First Instance misconstrued and misapplied that regulation in so far as it failed to take proper cognisance of the specific responsibility which a distributor is recognised as having in relation to his contract territory by Article 4(1)(3) and (8) of that regulation, read in the light of recitals 1 and 9 in its preamble.
Det følger heraf, at de italienske forhandlere ved at indgå forhandlerkontrakten har samtykket i en foranstaltning, som dernæst er blevet anvendt til at hindre reeksport fra Italien og således til at begrænse konkurrencen inden for Fællesskabet.
The Court of First Instance properly held in paragraph 49 of the judgment under appeal that, although that regulation provided manufacturers with substantial means by which to protect their distribution systems, it did not authorise them to adopt measures which contributed to a partitioning of the market.
Med det tredje anbringendes andet led gør appellanten gældende, at Retten har fortolket artikel 15, stk. 5, litra a), i forordning nr. 17 urigtigt ved i den appellerede doms præmis 344 at fastslå, at anvendelsen af 15procentsreglen siden 1993 lå uden for de grænser for erhvervsudøvelsen, som blev beskrevet i »convenzione
In its second ground of appeal, the appellant takes issue with the finding of the Court of First Instance, in paragraph 236 of the judgment under appeal, that the measures imposing supply quotas for the Italian market constituted agreements for the purposes of Article 85(1) of the Treaty on the ground that they
Β«, således at selv hvis det blev godtgjort, at sidstnævnte var blevet anmeldt under overholdelse af de gældende formkrav, fandt bødefritagelsen ikke længere anvendelse, og at 15procentsreglen følgelig skulle have været taget i betragtning ved fastsættelsen af bøden fra den 1. september 1993.
formed part of a set of continuous business relations governed by a general agreement drawn up in advance.
Hertil bemærkes, at ifølge artikel 15, stk. 5, litra a), i forordning nr. 17, kan bøder ikke pålægges for handlinger, som foretages efter, at anmeldelse er sket til Kommissionen, og inden denne træffer beslutning i henhold til traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, »for så vidt de ligger inden for grænserne for den i anmeldelsen beskrevne erhvervsudøvelse«.
The Court notes that it is settled case-law that a call by a motor vehicle manufacturer to its authorised dealers is not a unilateral act which falls outside the scope of Article 85(1) of the Treaty but is an agreement within the meaning of that provision if it forms part of a set of continuous business relations governed by a general agreement drawn up in advance.
Det fremgår modsætningsvis af denne bestemmelse, at når de pågældende handlinger ligger uden for grænserne for den anmeldte erhvervsudøvelse, kan bødefritagelsen ikke finde anvendelse for nogen af disse handlinger, da den pågældende erhvervsudøvelse ikke længere svarer til den, der beskrives i anmeldelsen.
In paragraph 236 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance ruled that this case-law was applicable to the present case because all of the measures adopted by the appellant, including the 15% rule and the imposition of supply quotas, were intended to influence Italian dealers in the performance of their contract with Autogerma.
Dette resultat støttes af den betragtning, at i et tilfælde som det foreliggende, hvor den påtalte adfærd består i en række foranstaltninger, der har samme formål, ville det være kunstigt at underopdele denne adfærd med det formål kun at anvende bødefritagelsen på nogle af de foranstaltninger, som den består i.
The appellant does not deny that the dealership contract provided for the possibility of limiting supplies to Italian dealers and does not dispute the finding of the Court of First Instance that this limitation was imposed with the express aim of blocking re-exportation from Italy of the vehicles delivered to those dealers.
Domstolen bemærker, at i den appellerede doms præmis 334 fastslog Retten, at sagsøgeren havde truffet foranstaltninger, der havde til formål at afskærme det italienske marked, og at sagsøgeren, når henses til den foreliggende faste retspraksis, hvorefter adfærd, der går ud på opdeling af markeder, er uforenelig med Fællesskabets konkurrenceregler, ikke kunne være uvidende om, at virksomhedens adfærd hindrede konkurrencen.
It should be borne in mind in this regard that, in accordance with Article 15(5)(a) of Regulation No 17, fines cannot be imposed in respect of acts taking place after notification to the Commission and before the decision by which the Commission grants or refuses application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty, 'provided they fall within the limits of the activity described in the notification'.
Hertil bemærkes, at den af sagsøgeren fremførte opfattelse ikke kan lægges til grund i Fællesskabets konkurrenceret, hvor begåede overtrædelser giver anledning til bøder, som i henhold til artikel 15, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 17 pålægges virksomheder, som forsætligt eller uagtsomt har medvirket ved overtrædelsen.
It follows from that provision that, on an a contrario reading, when the acts in question go beyond the limits of the notified activity, the exemption from fines cannot apply to any of those acts as the activity in question will no longer correspond to that described in the notification.
Det skal tilføjes, at såfremt sagsøgerens opfattelse blev lagt til grund, ville det være et alvorligt indgreb i fællesskabsrettens konkurrencereglers effektivitet.
This finding is corroborated by the fact that in a case such as the present, in which the conduct the subject of complaint consists of a series of measures pursuing the same objective, it would be artificial to subdivide that conduct for the purpose of applying the exemption from fines only to a certain number of the measures which make up that series.
Med det femte anbringende gør appellanten gældende, at den appellerede dom er baseret på andre faktiske omstændigheder end dem, der ligger til grund for den anfægtede beslutning.
In its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant challenges the finding by the Court of First Instance, in paragraph 334 of the judgment under appeal, that the infringement of which it is accused was intentional in nature.
Selskabet har i denne forbindelse anført, at Kommissionen i beslutningen som begrundelse for, at traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, er tilsidesat, har henvist til en række foranstaltninger, som den har anset for en enkelt overtrædelse.
It submits in this regard that the 'fault principle', which must be respected in Community competition law, means that, in order for a sanction to be imposed, the person concerned must have acted in a manner that was objectively unlawful and must have been subjectively aware that it was unlawful.
Det bemærkes, at den omstændighed, at Kommissionen i den anfægtede beslutning fandt, at den overtrædelse, som appellanten kritiseredes for, bestod i en række foranstaltninger, ikke kunne være til hinder for, at Retten delvis annullerede beslutningen, når den fandt, at nogle af de foranstaltninger, som den påtalte overtrædelse bestod af, ikke var bevist, eller at den fastslog, at de foranstaltninger, hvis konkurrencebegrænsende karakter var blevet bevist, i betragtning af deres fælles formål udgjorde en enkelt overtrædelse.
The Court of First Instance found, in paragraph 334 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellant had adopted measures the object of which was to partition the Italian market and that, in view of the existence of well-established case-law holding that market partitioning is incompatible with Community competition rules, it could not have been unaware that its conduct hindered competition.
Med det ottende anbringende gør appellanten gældende, at Retten ikke har opfyldt den begrundelsespligt, som påhvilede den i henhold til artikel 46, sammenholdt med artikel 33 i EF-statutten for Domstolen, fordi den i den appellerede doms præmis 347 og 348 ikke tilstrækkeligt har forklaret grundene til, at den fandt, at en bøde på 90 000 000 EUR var berettiget.
At the hearing, counsel for the appellant, requested by the Court to provide details on the fourth ground of appeal, stated that, in order to establish that the infringement was intentional in nature, the Commission and Court of First Instance ought to have identified the persons who had acted improperly and were therefore to be treated as responsible for the infringement committed or, at least, the person who ought to have been held responsible for the appellant's defective organisation which made such an infringement possible.
Efter dernæst at have fremhævet, at den begåede overtrædelses ganske særlige grovhed, nemlig opdelingen af det italienske marked, krævede en reelt afskrækkende bøde, fastslog Retten, at størrelsen af den bøde, som Kommissionen havde pålagt appellanten, ikke var unormalt høj i betragtning af Volkswagen-koncernens omsætning i 1997 i de tre stater, der var berørt af overtrædelsen, nemlig Italien, Tyskland og Østrig, samt i Den Europæiske Union.
It must be noted in this regard that the view supported by the appellant can have no application in Community competition law, in which infringements that have been committed give rise to fines which, under Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, are imposed on undertakings which have participated intentionally or through negligence in the infringement.
I betragtning af samtlige forhold og betragtninger, som er gengivet i foregående præmis, fandt Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 348, at det var passende at nedsætte bøden til 90 000 000 EUR.
It should be added that, were the appellant's view to be upheld, this would impinge seriously on the effectiveness of Community competition law.
Appellantens anbringende omfatter i det væsentlige tre klagepunkter.
The fifth ground of appeal
For det første gør appellanten under henvisning til dommen af 16. november 2002 i sagen Sarrio mod Kommissionen (sag C-291/98, præmis 98) gældende, at Retten ikke klart har angivet grundene til, at den fraveg de kriterier, som Kommissionen lagde til grund ved fastsættelsen af bøden.
In its fifth ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the judgment under appeal is based on facts which differ from those on which the contested decision was based.
For det andet gør appellanten gældende, at Retten ikke skulle tage hensyn til forholdet mellem bøden og Volkswagen-koncernens omsætning, dels fordi denne omstændighed blev inddraget i sagen for Retten, dels fordi omsætningen i henhold til artikel 15, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 17 kun er relevant for loftet for bøden, men ikke som kriterium for beregningen af dennes størrelse.
It submits in this regard that, in that decision, the Commission used, as grounds for the infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, a series of measures which it regarded as constituting a single infringement.
For det tredje har appellanten anført, at Retten i slutningen af den appellerede doms præmis 347 har anvendt en upræcis formulering, som ikke giver mulighed for at fastslå, hvilken grad af grovhed den har tillagt de forskellige former for adfærd, og at den praktisk talt ikke har ladet det komme til udtryk i størrelsen af den bøde, den har fastsat, dels at Kommissionens analyse af splitmargensystemet og opsigelsen af forhandlerkontrakterne blev forkastet, dels at den selv begrænsede overtrædelsens varighed.
The fact that the Commission, in the contested decision, took the view that the infringement of which the appellant was accused consisted of a series of measures was not such as to prevent the Court of First Instance from annulling that decision in part once it had formed the view that some of the measures of which the alleged infringement consisted had not been proved or from confirming that those measures, the anti-competitive effect of which had been established, constituted, in view of their common purpose, a single infringement.
Appellanten konkluderer heraf, at Retten ikke tilstrækkeligt har forklaret grundene til, at den fandt, at en bøde på 90 000 000 EUR er berettiget.
In its eighth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance failed to satisfy the obligation to state reasons imposed on it by Article 46 in conjunction with Article 33 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice inasmuch as it failed adequately to explain, in paragraphs 347 and 348 of the judgment under appeal, why it formed the view that a fine in the amount of EUR 90 million was justified.
Med hensyn til det første klagepunkt bemærkes, at Domstolen i præmis 97 og 98 i dommen i sagen Sarrio mod Kommissionen har fastslået, at udøvelsen af en fuld prøvelsesret ved fastsættelsen af bøders størrelse ikke må føre til en forskelsbehandling af de virksomheder, der har deltaget i en aftale i strid med traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, og at såfremt Retten specielt i forhold til en af disse virksomheder ønsker at fravige den beregningsmetode, som Kommissionen har fulgt, og som den ikke har draget i tvivl, skal den give en forklaring herpå i den appellerede dom.
It should be noted in this regard that, in paragraph 347 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance first of all indicated that the reduction of the fine did not necessarily have to be proportionate to the reduction in the infringement period which the Commission had taken into account or correspond to the method of calculation which it had used inasmuch as it is for the Court of First Instance itself to carry out, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction in the matter, its own assessment of the circumstances of the case in order to determine the amount of the fine.
Med hensyn til det andet klagepunkt bemærkes blot, at når den selv vurderer de foreliggende omstændigheder under udøvelse af sin fulde prøvelsesret, kan Retten i henhold til artikel 15, stk. 2, i
Finally, the Court of First Instance took the view that its rejection of the Commission's conclusions regarding the split margin system and the
forordning nr. 17 tage forholdet mellem størrelsen af den bøde, som Kommissionen har pålagt, og den pågældende virksomheds omsætning i betragtning.
termination of certain dealership contracts did not reduce the particularly serious nature of the infringement committed, which had been duly established by evidence of the other infringing conduct.
Under alle omstændigheder har Retten her ikke anvendt Volkswagen-koncernens omsætning som kriterium for beregningen af størrelsen af den bøde, der er pålagt appellanten, men som støtte for konstateringen i den appellerede doms præmis 347 af, at dette beløb ikke er unormalt højt.
Having regard to all of the circumstances and considerations set out in paragraph 347 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance ruled, in paragraph 348, that it was proper to reduce the amount of the fine to EUR 90 million.
Appellantens tredje klagepunkt går reelt ud på at bestride, at størrelsen af den bøde, som Retten har fastsat, er forholdsmæssig, i betragtning af dennes konstateringer, som førte til, at to af Kommissionens klagepunkter blev forkastet, samt i betragtning af overtrædelsens grovhed og varighed.
The ground of appeal relied on by the appellant consists essentially of three heads of complaint.
Imidlertid bemærkes, at det ikke tilkommer Domstolen, når den udtaler sig om retlige spørgsmål under en appelsag, af billighedsgrunde at omgøre det skøn, som Retten har udøvet under sin fulde prøvelsesret vedrørende størrelsen af de bøder, som er pålagt virksomheder for overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten.
First, the appellant, invoking the judgment in Case C-291/98 Ρ Sarrio ν Commission [2000], criticises the Court of First Instance for having failed clearly to indicate why it departed from the criteria chosen by the Commission for setting the level of the fine.
Følgelig kan Domstolen ikke under en appel undersøge, om størrelsen af den bøde, som Retten har fastsat inden for rammerne af sin fulde prøvelsesret, står i rimeligt forhold til overtrædelsens grovhed og varighed, således som de er fastslået af Retten, som resultat af dennes vurdering af de faktiske omstændigheder.
Second, it argues that the Court of First Instance should not have taken account of the relationship between the fine and the turnover of the Volkswagen group in view of the fact that this element had been introduced during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and that, in accordance with Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, turnover is relevant only in regard to the maximum amount of the fine and not as a criterion for calculating that amount.