natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det er vedrørende dette punkt tilstrækkeligt at bemærke, at det fremgår af den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 80-121, 223-243 og 311 samt mere specifikt af betragtning 313 og 314 og af beslutningens artikel 1, der nævnes af Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 226, at det blev lagt til grund, at overtrædelserne fandt sted i en periode på 24 måneder, nemlig mellem den 1. januar 1989 og den 31. december 1990.
The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance was wrong to approve the Commission's imposing on it alone, by the contested decision, a fine penalising an unlawful course of conduct which was also adopted by its sister company, Aristrain Olaberria.
Det er således med rette og uden at fordreje indholdet af den anfægtede beslutning, at Retten fastslog, at angivelsen af den 31. december 1989 i stedet for den 31. december 1988 i artikel 4 i beslutningens spanske og franske version var en skrivefejl.
In the present case the contested decision does not establish that the appellant had the power to direct the conduct of Aristrain Olaberria to the point of depriving it of any real independence in determining its own course of action on the market.
Med det sjette anbringende gøres det gældende, at fællesskabsretten er tilsidesat som følge af en urigtig fortolkning og anvendelse af ligebehandlingsprincippet og proportionalitetsprincippet, idet Retten ikke foretog en rigtig bedømmelse af de indtrufne devalueringer af den spanske peseta i forhold til ecu, hvilket førte til en forøgelse af den bøde, der blev pålagt appellanten, i forhold til de bøder, der blev pålagt virksomhederne fra medlemsstater, hvis valutaer ikke er blevet devalueret eller er blevet revalueret.
The Court of First Instance was wrong to rule, in paragraph 141 of the judgment under appeal, that it is possible to impute to a company all of the acts of a group even though that company has not been identified as the legal person at the head of that group with responsibility for coordinating the group's activities.
Det bemærkes, at Retten med rette fandt, at det med henblik på at vurdere grovheden af den overtrædelse, som den enkelte virksomhed havde begået, var relevant at tage hensyn til den omsætning, som hver af virksomhederne havde opnået i referenceåret.
The contested decision states no reasons in that regard and even contains an internal contradiction since it suggests that responsibility for the infringements found to have been committed must be attributed to both companies in equal measure while at the same time ordering only one of them to pay a global fine covering the acts of both.
Med det syvende anbringende gøres det gældende, at der foreligger en tilsidesættelse af fællesskabsretten som følge af, at Retten ikke pålagde Kommissionen at betale omkostningerne og renterne som følge af garantistillelsen eller den eventuelle betaling af bøden.
It follows that, in not censuring the failure to state reasons in the contested decision with respect to this issue and in finding, in paragraph 142 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission was justified in imposing on the two companies jointly and severally a single fine at a level calculated by reference to their combined turnover and, in paragraph 143 of that judgment, that the Commission could demand payment of that fine from the appellant alone, the Court of First Instance committed errors in law which must lead to annulment of the judgment under appeal in respect of those matters.
Det må fastslås, at anbringendet hviler på en urigtig forudsætning, nemlig at den omstændighed, at en kommissionsbeslutning kan anfægtes ved et søgsmål, hvorunder der er fuld prøvelsesret, gør beslutningen foreløbig, så længe den ikke er blevet bekræftet af Fællesskabets retsinstanser.
The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes Community law in that the aggravating circumstance of awareness that its conduct was illegal was attributed to the appellant on the basis of evidence relating to other undertakings and that the Court of First Instance refused to satisfy itself as to whether the allegation in question was true.
Ifølge det ottende anbringende foreligger der en tilsidesættelse af artikel 33 i Rettens procesreglement og af de processuelle garantier, i det omfang kun tre af de fem dommere, som udgjorde afdelingen på tidspunktet for retsmødet, havde deltaget i den afsluttende fase af rådslagningen om den appellerede dom og havde underskrevet dommen.
By the third limb of the ground of appeal, the appellant is essentially alleging that the Court of First Instance distorted the contested decision in taking the view that the fine imposed on the appellant had been for infringements committed after 31 December 1988 even though Article 4 of that decision, in the Spanish and French versions, stated that the fine was to penalise infringements committed 'after 31 December 1989'.
I den foreliggende sag traf Rettens Anden Udvidede Afdeling gyldigt afgørelse i en sammensætning, der var indskrænket til tre medlemmer som følge af, at embedsperioden for to af de fem medlemmer, som afdelingen oprindelig var sammensat af, udløb efter den mundtlige forhandling og den første fase af rådslagningen.
It is clear from recitals 80 to 121, 223 to 243 and 311 of the grounds of the contested decision and, more specifically, from recitals 313 and 314 of the grounds and Article 1 of that decision, referred to by the Court of First Instance in paragraph 226 of the judgment under appeal, that the infringement period chosen was the period of 24 months from 1 January 1989 to 31 December 1990.
Hvad angår den påståede overtrædelse af EMK bemærkes, at appellanten blot hævder, at en sådan overtrædelse foreligger, men på ingen måde gør forsøg på at påvise, hvorledes Rettens overholdelse af bestemmelserne i dens procesreglement skulle kunne være i strid med en bestemmelse i denne konvention.
The Court of First Instance was therefore right and did not distort the content of the contested decision in finding that the reference to 31 December 1989 rather than 31 December 1988 in the Spanish and French versions of Article 4 of that decision was a clerical error.
Ifølge det niende anbringende foreligger der en tilsidesættelse af EMK's artikel 6, fordi appellanten blev nægtet en retfærdig rettergang inden en rimelig frist.
The sixth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Community law as a result of the misinterpretation and misapplication of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in that the Court of First Instance failed to assess correctly the devaluations of the Spanish peseta as against the ecu, which led to an increase in the fine imposed on the appellant as compared with those imposed on the undertakings from Member States whose currencies were not devalued or revalued.
Ifølge Domstolen kan varigheden af den sagsbehandling, der blev afsluttet med den appellerede dom, navnlig forklares med antallet af virksomheder, der havde deltaget i det påtalte kartel og havde anlagt sag til prøvelse af den anfægtede beslutning, hvilket havde nødvendiggjort en parallel behandling af disse forskellige søgsmål, med de retsspørgsmål, der var knyttet til adgangen til Kommissionens omfattende sagsmateriale, med den grundige undersøgelse af sagsmaterialet, som Retten foretog, og med de sproglige krav, der stilles i Rettens regler for sagsbehandlingen.
The Court of First Instance was right to hold that it was relevant to take into account the turnover achieved by each undertaking during the reference year, that is to say, the last full year of the chosen period of infringement, when assessing the gravity of the infringement committed by each undertaking.
Den nævnte argumentation begrunder således kun, at beslutningen annulleres, for så vidt som den pålægger appellanten en del af bøden, hvorved der tillige er taget hensyn til Aristrain Olaberrfas adfærd.
This ground of appeal is based on the erroneous presumption that an action brought before a Community Court exercising its unlimited jurisdiction against a Commission decision renders that decision provisional until it has been confirmed by that Court.
Fastsættelsen af størrelsen af denne del af bøden, der med urette er pålagt appellanten, forudsætter imidlertid nødvendigvis bl.a. en undersøgelse af de to selskabers regnskabsdokumenter, og især en undersøgelse af den omsætning, som de på daværende tidspunkt hver især havde opnået inden for stålbjælkesektoren.
Suffice it to state in that regard, first, that, under Article 92 of the ECSC Treaty, decisions of the Commission which impose a pecuniary obligation are to be enforceable, that is to say, they may be enforced without its being necessary first to satisfy any conditions or procedural requirements and, second, that, under Article 39 of that Treaty, actions brought before the Community judicature do not have suspensory effect.
Sagen kan herefter ikke anses for at være moden til påkendelse. Følgelig bør sagen hjemvises til Retten med henblik på, at denne fastsætter størrelsen af den del af bøden, som det kan pålægges appellanten at hæfte for, og annullerer den anfægtede beslutning for så vidt angår resten af bøden, og afgørelsen om sagens omkostninger skal udsættes.
The eighth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and of procedural guarantees in that only three of the five judges of whom the Chamber was composed at the time of the hearing took part in the final stage of the deliberations of the judgment under appeal and signed that judgment.
•1) Dommen afsagt af Retten i Første Instans den 11. marts 1999 i sagen Aristrain mod Kommissionen (sag T-156/94) ophæves, for så vidt som Retten fastslog, at annullationssøgsmålet til prøvelse af Kommissionens beslutning 94/215/EKSF af 16. februar 1994 om en procedure i henhold til EKSF-traktatens artikel 65 vedrørende aftaler og forskellige former for samordnet praksis mellem europæiske producenter af stålbjælker var ubegrundet for så vidt angår den bøde, som Siderùrgica Aristrain Madrid SL var blevet tilpligtet at betale, og hvorved der også var taget hensyn til Aristrain Olaberria SL's adfærd.
In the present case, the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance therefore reached a valid decision in a composition reduced to three members following the expiry, after the oral procedure and the initial stage of the deliberations, of the mandates of two of the five members of whom that Chamber was initially composed.
Sagen hjemvises til Retten i Første Instans.
The action on the substance
Afgørelsen om sagens omkostninger udsættes.«
The grounds set out above which justified the partial annulment of the judgment under appeal cannot lead to annulment of the contested decision in its entirety.
Generaladvokat C. Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 26. september 2002.
Those grounds justify annulment of that decision only in so far as it imposes on the appellant a share of the fine also covering the conduct of Aristrain Olaberria.
at ophæve dommen afsagt af Retten i Første Instans den 11. marts 1999, Aristrain mod Kommissionen (sag T-156/94), i det omfang Retten bekræfter, at det var lovligt alene at pålægge Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL en bøde.
However, the determination of the amount of that share of the fine erroneously imposed on the appellant requires an examination of the accounts of the two companies and, in particular, an examination of the turnover achieved at the time by each of them in the beams sector.
Ved denne beslutning havde Kommissionen pålagt sagsøgeren en bøde i henhold til den nævnte artikel 65.
Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
Det må konstateres, at med andet led i det første anbringende kritiserer appellanten Rettens bevisbedømmelse.
Case C-198/99 Ρ Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA (Ensidesa) ν Commission of the European Communities ECSC
Følgelig må det andet led i det første anbringende afvises.
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European producers of beams) (Fifth Chamber)
Hvad angår det tredje led i det første anbringende må det fastslås, at appellanten på ny anfægter Rettens bevisbedømmelse. I den appellerede doms præmis 144 formodede Retten således, at dokumenterne K(94)321/2 og K(94)321/3 var vedlagt mødereferatet, mens den i dommens præmis 147 fandt, at bekræftelsen af genpartens overensstemmelse fra Kommissionens faste generalsekretær udgjorde et tilstrækkeligt bevis for, at den originale version af mødereferatet er forsynet med de originale underskrifter fra Kommissionens formand og generalsekretær.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 25 May 1999, Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA (Ensidesa) brought an appeal under Article 49 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-157/94 Ensidesa ν Commission [1999], by which the Court of First Instance dismissed in part its application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams. By that decision, the Commission imposed a fine on the appellant under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty.
Det andet anbringende, hvorefter der foreligger en tilsidesættelse af EKSF-traktatens artikel 65, stk. 1, er opdelt i tre led.
By the first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance infringed Community law by failing to censure the non-compliance with essential procedural requirements when the contested decision was adopted.
Det bemærkes, at Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 237-242 undersøgte den sammenhæng, som EKSF-traktatens artikel 65, stk. 1, indgår i. I dommens præmis 243-253 undersøgte den også, hvorvidt traktatens artikel 60 var relevant for bedømmelsen efter den nævnte artikel 65, stk. 1, af den adfærd, der var lagt appellanten til last.
The Court finds that as regards the claim that the Court should itself order production of the diaries and other similar documents of the Commissioners, suffice it to state that such a measure of inquiry may not be ordered in appeal proceedings, the purpose of which is to review the legality of the decision adopted by the Court of First Instance and which are limited to points of law.
De af Retten i så henseende anførte betragtninger findes i det hele at kunne tiltrædes.
By the second limb of the first ground of appeal, the appellant is challenging the assessment of evidence by the Court of First Instance.
Retten modsagde ikke sig selv, da den tog hensyn til de økonomiske virkninger af de nævnte aftaler med henblik på bedømmelsen af bødens størrelse, selv om sådanne virkninger ikke er en nødvendig betingelse for, at der kan fastslås en overtrædelse af EKSF-traktatens artikel 65, stk. 1.
In paragraph 135 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance, after having examined the documents submitted to it, held that it had not been established that there was any substantive difference between the notified version of the contested decision and versions C(94)321/2 and C(94)321/3, which were annexed to the minutes.
Under hensyn til relevant retspraksis må det derfor afvises.
It follows that the second limb of the first ground of appeal must be declared inadmissible.
Med det tredje anbringende gør appellanten gældende, at Retten har tilsidesat fællesskabsretten ved ikke at annullere den anfægtede beslutnings artikel 1, uanset at denne bestemmelse ikke angiver varigheden af overtrædelsen vedrørende fastsættelse af priserne.
Concerning the third limb of the first ground of appeal, the appellant is again challenging the assessment of evidence by the Court of First Instance.
Ifølgen Domstolen undersøgte Retten den anfægtede beslutnings forskellige dele og konkluderede derefter i den appellerede doms præmis 263, at overtrædelsens varighed faktisk var 24 måneder. Den fastslog ganske vist i dommens præmis 259, at deltagelsen i overtrædelsen i fjerde kvartal 1990 ikke fremgik af den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 227-237, men støttede sin konklusion på forskellige dele i beslutningen, der er beskrevet i dommens præmis 260-262.
In paragraph 144 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance assumed that documents C(94)321/2 and C(94)321/3 were annexed to the minutes while, in paragraph 147 of that judgment, it held that the certification of authenticity by the titular Secretary-General of the Commission provided sufficient proof for legal purposes that the original version of the minutes bore the original signatures of the President and the Secretary-General of the Commission.
Med det fjerde anbringende gøres det gældende, at fællesskabsretten er tilsidesat som følge af en urigtig retlig bedømmelse af aftalen om opdeling af det franske marked.
The second ground of appeal, which alleges infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, can be divided into three limbs.
Det skal blot bemærkes, at Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 296-298 foretog en bevisbedømmelse.
In paragraphs 237 to 242 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance examined the context of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty.
Den gav dér bla. udtryk for sin overbevisning om, at de konstaterede faktiske forhold ikke kunne forklares på anden måde end med appellantens deltagelse i den påtalte aftale.
In paragraph 254 of that judgment, it examined Articles 46 to 48 of the ECSC Treaty and concluded, in the following paragraph, that none of the articles referred to in the present paragraph allowed undertakings to breach the prohibition in Article 65(1) by concluding agreements or participating in concerted practices relating to price-fixing such as those at issue in the present case.
Med det femte anbringende gøres det gældende, at Retten har udøvet sin kontrolfunktion ulovligt, og at appellantens ret til kontradiktion er tilsidesat.
The Court finds that all of the reasons set out by the Court of First Instance in that regard were correct in law.
Det skal hertil blot bemærkes, at når Retten træffer afgørelse i en sag vedrørende en påstand om annullation af en fællesskabsretsakt, tilkommer det den selv at fortolke denne retsakt.
The Court of First Instance did not contradict itself in taking into account the economic effect of those agreements when assessing the level of the fine even though those effects are not essential for a finding that there has been an infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty.
For så vidt som anbringendet kan fortolkes som en beskyldning mod Retten for at have forvansket den anfægtede beslutning, skal det bemærkes, at Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 333-337 foretog en detaljeret gennemgang af beslutningens betragtning 263-271.
The third limb of the second ground of appeal is, in reality, directed against the assessment of the evidence by the Court of First Instance. Having regard to the relevant case-law, it must for that reason be declared inadmissible.
Det fremgår imidlertid ikke af en sammenligning af de nævnte præmisser i den appellerede dom med den anfægtede beslutnings nævnte betragtninger, at Retten har forvansket beslutningens indhold.
By the third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance infringed Community law by failing to annul Article 1 of the contested decision even though that article does not state the duration of the infringement relating to price-fixing.
Med det sjette anbringende gøres det gældende, at fællesskabsretten er tilsidesat som følge af valget af den omsætning, der blev anvendt med henblik på beregningen af bøden og omregningen af denne omsætning i ecu.
It is true that it found, in paragraph 259 of that judgment, that it was not clear from recitals 227 to 237 of the grounds for the contested decision how long participation in the infringement during the fourth quarter of 1990 lasted but it based its conclusion on various elements of the contested decision, which are described in paragraphs 260 to 262 of the judgment under appeal.
Retten anerkendte i den appellerede doms præmis 470-477 med føje rigtigheden af den af Kommissionen benyttede metode for bødeberegningen.
The appellant is not justified in contrasting the finding made in paragraph 259 of the judgment under appeal with the conclusion in paragraph 263 without taking account of paragraphs 260 to 262, in which the Court of First Instance set out the elements which it had taken into consideration.
Generaladvokat C. Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet fFemte Afdeling) den 26. september 2002.
In those paragraphs, that Court stated, in particular, that it was satisfied that the facts established could be explained only by participation of the appellant in the agreement which was the subject of complaint.
Sag C-199/99 Ρ Corns UK Ltd / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber EKSF
In paragraphs 470 to 477 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance properly justified the method used by the Commission to calculate the fine.
»Appel — aftaler og samordnet praksis — europæiske producenter af stålbjælker« (Femte Afdeling)
Orders Empresa Siderúrgica SA (Ensidesa) to pay the costs.'
Retten fratog således appellanten retten til en retfærdig rettergang inden en rimelig frist.
Case C-199/99 Ρ Corus UK Ltd ν Commission of the European Communities ECSC
Hvad angår det andet led i det første anbringende gør appellanten gældende, at Retten har begået uregelmæssigheder med hensyn til vidneafhøringen.
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European producers of beams) (Fifth Chamber)
Appellanten fik ikke lejlighed til før retsmødet at stille spørgsmål til de tre vidner, der blev afhørt af Retten, og blev ikke underrettet om indholdet af de erklæringer, som disse vidner ville afgive. Endvidere blev appellanten frataget retten til at stille spørgsmål til vidnerne eller, mere generelt, at anfægte de erklæringer, som de afgav.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 25 May 1999, Corus UK Ltd, formerly British Steel pic, brought an appeal under Article 49 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-151/94 British Steel ν Commission [1999], by which the Court of First Instance dismissed in part its action for annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams.
Denne tilsidesættelse af appellantens rettigheder er så meget alvorligere, som Retten i den appellerede dom i vidt omfang baserede sig på vidnebeviserne.
By that decision, the Commission imposed a fine on the appellant under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty.
Der skal indledningsvis mindes om, at som det fremgår af artikel 32d, stk. 1, KS og artikel 51 i EKSF-statutten for Domstolen, er appel begrænset til retsspørgsmål.
The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, ('the ECHR').
Med det tredje anbringende gøres det gældende, at EKSF-traktatens artikel 65, stk. 1, er tilsidesat.
The appellant submits that the proceedings before the Court of First Instance were not fair.
Anbringendet er opdelt i to led, idet der ifølge det første foreligger en urigtig retlig kvalifikation af beviserne, og ifølge det andet en fejlagtig fortolkning af denne bestemmelse.
There was an infringement of the principle of equality of arms, notably on account of the late disclosure of numerous documents.
Det bemærkes, at appellanten ikke har fremført noget argument, der kan anfægte de vurderinger, Retten anlagde i den appellerede doms præmis 539-576.
First of all, the appellant has not established how the allegedly late production of the documents in question adversely affected it, that is to say, how its defence might have been better assured had the documents been available to it earlier.