natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Andet direktiv fastsætter ikke nogen bestemt sanktion i tilfælde af tilsidesættelse af direktivets bestemmelser, og at de almindelige privatretlige sanktioner således vil kunne finde anvendelse.
'Community law does not preclude national courts from applying a provision of national law which enables them to determine whether a right deriving from a Community law provision is being abused However, in making that determination, it is not permissible to deem a shareholder relying on Article 25(1) of the Second Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, to be abusing his rights under that provision merely because he is a minority shareholder of a company subject to reorganisation measures, or has benefited from reorganisation of the company, or has not exercised his right of pre-emption, or was among the shareholders who asked for the company to be placed under the scheme applicable to companies in serious difficulties, or has allowed a certain period of time to elapse before bringing his action.
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen havde således ved sagsanlægget ret til, blandt de nationale retsmidler, som stod til rådighed for at sanktionere overtrædelser af andet direktivs artikel 25, at vælge at anlægge sag til prøvelse af
In contrast, Community law does not preclude national courts from applying the provision of national law concerned if, of the remedies available for a situation that has arisen in breach of that provision, a shareholder has chosen a remedy that will cause
gyldigheden af ændringerne i selskabskapitalen, hvilket han også gjorde.
to the legitimate interests of others that it appears manifestly such serious damage disproportionate. '
En sådan bedømmelse ændrer således ikke ved rækkevidden af bestemmelsen og er heller ikke i strid med dens formål.
Advocate General A. Saggio delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 28 October 1999.
»Fællesskabsretten er ikke til hinder for, at nationale domstole anvender en bestemmebe i national ret, som gør det muligt for dem at bedømme, om en ret i henhold til en fællesskabsbestemmelse bliver misbrugt.
(Competition - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Statement of reasons -Admissibility) (First Chamber, Extended Composition)
Derimod er fællesskabsretten ikke til hinder for, at de nationale domstole anvender den pågældende bestemmebe i national ret, såfremt en aktionær, blandt de retsmidler, som står til rådighed, og som kan give ham oprejsning i tilfælde af overtrædebe af direktivet, vælger det, som forårsager så alvorlig skade på andres retmæssige interesser, at det er åbenbart, at det udgør et uforholdsmæssigt indgreb.«
In addition to its operations in the United States CCE became, following a series of acquisitions from 1993 onwards, the bottler of TCCC's products in Belgium, France and the Netherlands.
Generaladvokat A Saggio fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet CSjette Afdeling) den 28. oktober 1999.
The applicant, The Coca-Cola Company, (hereinafter TCCC') and Cadbury Schweppes pic (hereinafter 'CS"), a company incorporated under English law, own rights to various trade marks for carbonated soft drinks marketed in Great Britain and elsewhere.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
The first such proceeding was that initiated in September 1987 under Article 86 of the Treaty against an Italian
Forenede sager T-125/97 og T-127/97 The Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Konkurrence
In its decision, the Commission also took note of the fact that CCE undertook that, so long as CCE controlled CCSB, CCSB would adopt the undertakings given to the Commission by TCCEC in 1989, to refrain from certain forms of commercial practices considered illegal when employed by an undertaking in a dominant position.
»Konkurrence — forordning (EØF) nr. 4064/89 — beslutning hvorved en fusion erklæres forenelig med fællesmarkedet — annullationssøgsmål — begrundebe —formaliteten« (Første Udvidede Afdeling)
By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 22 April 1997, TCCC and CCE each brought an action for annulment of the decision, Cases T-125/97 and T-127/97 respectively.
Sagsøgeren The Coca-Cola Company (herefter »TCCC«) og det engelske selskab Cadbury Schweppes plc (herefter »CS«) er indehavere af retten til forskellige varemærker for kulsyreholdige læskedrikke, der sælges i Storbritannien og i andre lande.
The notified operation concerned the agreement between CS and TCCC to liquidate ABGB by selling their respective shares in it to CCE which, at the material time, carried out no commercial operations in Great Britain.
De leverer de koncentrater og ingredienser, der anvendes til fremstilling af de læskedrikke, der sælges under de nævnte varemærker, til uafhængige aftapningsvirksomheder, som de giver tilladelse til at distribuere læskedrikkene i et bestemt område.
By orders of 18 March 1999, the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance granted the applications for leave to intervene in both cases by Virgin and the Federal Republic of Germany.
Amalgamated Beverages Great Britain (herefter »ABGB«) var et datterselskab af TCCC og CS, som forestod aftapning, distribution, markedsføring og salg af selskabernes læskedrikke og udførte disse aktiviteter gennem datterselskabet Coca-Cola & Schweppes Beverages Ltd (herefter »CCSB«). Kommissionen har indledt i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 85 og 86 (nu artikel 81 EF og 82 EF), og som involverer TCCC og/eller selskabets aftapningsvirksomheder i Europa.
By its Decision 97/540/EC of 22 January 1997 the Commission declared the notified operation compatible with the common market under Article 8(2) of Regulation No 4064/89 and with the functioning of the European Economic Area Agreement (hereinafter 'the decision' or 'the contested decision').
Baggrunden for den første sag er en procedure, som blev indledt i september 1987 i henhold til traktatens artikel 86 mod et italiensk datterselskab af TCCC, The Coca-Cola Export Corporation (herefter »TCCEC«), og hvorunder Kommissionen indtog det standpunkt, at TCCEC havde en dominerende stilling på markedet for kulsyreholdige læskedrikke med colasmag (herefter »colaer«).
It is settled caselaw that any measure which produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action under Article 173 of the Treaty for a declaration that it is void (IBM ν Commission, cited above, paragraph 9, Joined Cases C-68/94 and C-30/95).
CCE afgav samme tilsagn i den beslutning, der er genstand for nærværende søgsmål.
To determine whether an act or decision produces such effects, it is necessary to look to its substance.
Den 9. august 1996 modtog Kommissionen fra CCE en anmeldelse i henhold til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 4064/89 af 21. december 1989 om kontrol med fusioner og virksomhedsovertagelser.
In that decision, the Commission found inter alia that: first, TCCC is in a position to exercise a decisive influence over CCE and therefore controls that company within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 4064/89; second, colas sold in Great Britain constitute a relevant market for purposes of assessing the notified concentration, and, third, CCSB holds a dominant position on the British cola market. However it concluded that:
Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. (herefter »CCE«) er verdens største aftapningsvirksomhed for TCCC's produkter.
The mere fact that the contested decision declares the notified operation compatible with the common market and thus, in principle, does not have an adverse effect on the applicants does not dispense the Court from examining whether the contested findings have binding legal effects such as to affect the applicants' interests.
Den anmeldte transaktion vedrørte CS og TCCC's aftale om at likvidere ABGB ved at sælge deres respektive aktier i dette selskab til
The obligations imposed on undertakings by Article 86 of the Treaty do not require a finding in a Commission decision that those
CCE, som på daværende tidspunkt ikke drev virksomhed i Storbritannien.
undertakings are in a dominant position but derive directly from Article 86.
interventionsbegæringerne fra Virgin Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland i de to sager.
Where an undertaking is in a dominant position it is obliged, where appropriate, to modify its conduct accordingly so as not to impair effective competition on the market regardless of whether the Commission has adopted a decision to that effect.
Ved beslutning 97/540/EF af 22. januar 1997 erklærede Kommissionen den anmeldte transaktion for forenelig med fællesmarkedet i henhold til artikel 8, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 4064/89 og med EØS-aftalens funktion (herefter »beslutningen« eller »den anfægtede beslutning«).
The possibility that a national court applying Article 86 of the Treaty directly in the light of the decision-making practice of the Commission might reach the same finding that CCSB holds a dominant position mean that the contested finding has binding legal effects.
Ifølge fast retspraksis foreligger der retsakter eller beslutninger, der kan gøres til genstand for et annullationssøgsmål i medfør af traktatens artikel 173, når foranstaltningerne har bindende retsvirkninger, som kan berøre sagsøgerens interesser gennem en væsentlig ændring af hans retsstilling (IBM-dommen, præmis 9, Domstolens dom af 31.3.1998, forenede sager C-68/94 og C30/95).
A national court which has to assess action taken by CCSB after the contested decision in the context of a dispute between CCSB and a third party is not bound by previous findings of the Commission.
Ved afgørelsen af, om en retsakt eller en beslutning har sådanne virkninger, skal der lægges vægt på indholdet.
There is nothing to prevent it from concluding that CCSB is no longer in a dominant position, contrary to the Commission's finding at the time when the contested decision was adopted.
I begrundelsen for beslutningen konstaterede Kommissionen bl.a. for det første, at TCCC var i en position til at udøve afgørende indflydelse på CCE og dermed kontrollerede selskabet som omhandlet i artikel 3, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 4064/89, for det andet at de colaer, der blev solgt i Storbritannien, udgjorde det relevante marked med henblik på bedømmelsen af den anmeldte fusion, og for det tredje at CCSB havde en dominerende stilling på det britiske colamarked. Kommissionen konkluderede imidlertid følgende:
A finding of a dominant position by the Commission, even if likely in practice to influence the policy and future commercial strategy of the undertaking concerned, does not have binding legal effects as referred to in the IBM judgment.
»Selv om den påtænkte transaktion ... fører til en strukturændring, der også kan medføre en ændring af CCSB's markedsadfærd, ... [er det] ikke ... muligt at skelne mellem de muligheder, der vil opstå direkte som følge af den påtænkte transaktion, og allerede eksisterende muligheder inden for CCSB's nuværende struktur, i en sådan grad, at man kan konkludere, at den påtænkte transaktion fører til en styrkelse af CCSB's dominerende stilling på colamarkedet i Storbritannien som omhandlet i ... artikel 2 [i forordning nr. 4064/89].«
In the course of any decision applying Article 86 of the Treaty, the Commission must define the relevant market again and make a fresh analysis of the conditions of competition which will not necessarily be based on the same considerations as those underlying the previous finding of a dominant position.
De forpligtelser, der er pålagt virksomhederne ved traktatens artikel 86, forudsætter ikke, at det i en kommissionsbeslutning er blevet fastslået, at de pågældende virksomheder har en dominerende stilling, men følger direkte af artikel 86.
Where the Commission intends to declare a notified operation compatible with the common market it is bound, in the light of the particular characteristics of each operation, to provide sufficient reasons for its decision in order to permit third parties, where necessary, to challenge the merits of its analysis in the Community courts.
En virksomhed, der har en dominerende stilling, er forpligtet til om fornødent at tilpasse sin adfærd til denne situation for ikke at skade mulighederne for en effektiv konkurrence på markedet, uanset om Kommissionen måtte have truffet en beslutning herom.
Whilst it is true that, as TCCC pointed out, under the Commission's decision-making practice it generally only makes a detailed analysis of the definition of the relevant market and those operating on it if it intends to decide that an operation is incompatible, there is nothing to prevent it, in view of the obligation to state reasons referred to above, from carrying out such an analysis when it adopts a decision that an operation is compatible, particularly if it is a decision taken under Article 8(2) of Regulation No 4064/89.
I beslutningen tog Kommissionen endvidere til efterretning, at CCE havde givet tilsagn om, at så længe CCE kontrollerer CCSB, ville CCSB overholde de samme forpligtelser som dem, TCCEC påtog sig i 1989, og som bestod i at afholde sig fra visse former for forretningsmæssig adfærd, der betragtes som ulovlig, når den udvises af en virksomhed, som har en dominerende stilling.
As regards the applicants' reference to the risk that they will have fines imposed on them for breach of competition rules, it should be borne in mind that it is not the mere finding that CCSB holds a dominant position at a given time that may, possibly, give rise to that risk, but the applicants' resorting to conduct which constitutes an abuse of that position.
TCCC og CCE har ved stævninger indleveret til Rettens Justitskontor den 22. april 1997 anlagt to annullationssøgsmål til prøvelse af beslutningen (sag T-125/97 og T-127/97).
The fact that, in the event of a decision applying Article 86 of the Treaty, the Commission may, as it stated itself at the hearing, be influenced by the contested finding does not mean that, for that reason alone, that finding has binding legal effects in the terms of IBM.
En konstatering fra Kommissionens side af, at der foreligger en dominerende stilling, kan ganske vist faktisk have indflydelse på den berørte virksomheds fremtidige politik og handelsstrategi, men den har ikke bindende retsvirkninger som omhandlet i IBM-dommen.
The mere finding in the contested decision that CCSB holds a dominant position has no binding legal effects so that the applicants' challenge to its merits is not admissible.
Den adfærd, som en virksomhed, der er blevet anset for at have en dominerende
The finding relating to the definition of the relevant market
Ved kendelser af 18. marts 1999 har formanden for Rettens Første Afdeling imødekommet
As regards the effects which a finding of a dominant position may have on the application of the competition rules by national courts, it must be borne in mind that the contested decision was not taken on the basis of Article 86 of the Treaty but on that of Regulation No 4064/89 and in no way affects the power of national courts to apply Article 86.
konstaterede på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af den anfægtede beslutning — ikke længere har en dominerende stilling.
so that TCCC's application must be declared inadmissible in so far as it concerns the legality of that undertaking.
stilling, herefter vil være nødsaget til at udvise for at undgå en eventuel overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 86, afhænger således af en række faktorer, der til enhver tid afspejler konkurrencevilkårene på markedet.
As the applicants' challenge to the finding of a dominant position is not admissible, a fortiori their challenge to the preliminary finding that there is a cola market is not admissible either.
Såfremt Kommissionen agter at erklære en anmeldt transaktion forenelig med fællesmarkedet, er den forpligtet til på baggrund af den enkelte transaktions særlige kendetegn at give en tilstrækkelig begrundelse for sin beslutning, således at tredjemand eventuelt kan anfægte den af Kommissionen anlagte vurdering ved Fællesskabets retsinstanser.
First of all, the Commission's objection to the admissibility of the applicants' challenge to the legality of the undertaking on the ground that it was not the subject of a formal condition within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Regulation No 4064/89 must be rejected.
Det fremgår ganske vist - som understreget af TCCC — af Kommissionens beslutningspraksis, at Kommissionen som hovedregel kun foretager en detaljeret undersøgelse af afgrænsningen af det relevante marked og af aktørerne på dette marked, hvis den agter at fastslå, at en transaktion er uforenelig med fællesmarkedet, men der er intet til hinder for, at den i betragtning af den ovennævnte begrundelsespligt foretager en sådan undersøgelse, når den træffer en beslutning om en transaktions forenelighed med fællesmarkedet, bl.a. når der er tale om en beslutning i henhold til artikel 8, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 4064/89.
According to the caselaw on this subject such an undertaking can be the subject of an action for annulment if it is clear from an analysis of its substance that it seeks to produce binding legal effects in the sense of the IBM judgment.
Det forhold, at Kommissionen i forbindelse med en eventuel beslutning i henhold til traktatens artikel 86 vil kunne blive påvirket af den omtvistede konstatering — hvilket Kommissionen selv har givet udtryk for under retsmødet — indebærer ikke, at den pågældende konstatering har bindende retsvirkninger som omhandlet i IBM-dommen.
Like the finding of a dominant position, the finding that TCCC exercises a decisive influence over CCE, within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 4064/89, is determined by a series of factors which are constantly changing, such as the participation of shareholders in annual general meetings of CCE.
I modsætning til hvad TCCC gør gældende, er dette selskab ikke afskåret fra at anlægge annullationssøgsmål ved Retten til prøvelse af en eventuel beslutning, hvorved Kommissionen måtte fastslå, at CCSB har gjort sig skyldig i et misbrug.
Consequently, the contested decision does not result in paralysing for the future the nature of the commercial relationship or the structural or other links between TCCC and CCE.
Hvad angår den af sagsøgerne påberåbte risiko for, at de bliver pålagt bøder for overtrædelse af konkurrencereglerne, bemærkes, at sagsøgerne ikke udsættes for en sådan risiko, blot fordi det konstateres, at CCSB på et givet tidspunkt har en dominerende stilling, men kun hvis selskaberne udviser en adfærd, der udgør et misbrug af en sådan stilung.
It follows that the applications are inadmissible in so far as they seek the annulment of the Commission's finding that TCCC controls CCE,
Hvad angår de virkninger, som konstateringen af, at der foreligger en dominerende stilling, kan have i relation til de nationale domstoles anvendelse af konkurrencereglerne, bemærkes, at den anfægtede beslutning ikke er truffet på grundlag af traktatens artikel 86, men på grundlag af forordning nr. 4064/89, og på ingen måde påvirker de nationale domstoles kompetence til at anvende artikel 86.
In order to determine whether the undertaking in question produces such effects, it is necessary to consider whether the declaration that the notified operation is compatible was affected by it in the sense that, in the event of breach of its terms, the Commission could revoke its decision, as it declared it could in its written replies to the questions of the Court of First Instance on the subject of certain decisions confirming compatibility adopted under Article 6(l)(b) of Regulation No 4064/89.
Konstateringen vedrørende afgrænsningen af det relevante marked
In adopting the contested decision, the Commission, as it stated in its correspondence with CCE, did not intend to make the authorisation granted conditional upon the undertaking at issue.
Eftersom sagsøgerne ikke kan anlægge sag til prøvelse af konstateringen af, at CCSB har en dominerende stilling, er de så meget mere afskåret fra at anlægge sag til prøvelse af den forudgående konstatering af, at der findes et colamarked.
It follows that the contested undertaking has no binding legal effects in the sense that a breach of its terms would not affect the contested decision in any way and would not entail its revocation. Accordingly, it is not an act open to challenge within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty,
Det forhold, at en national domstol under direkte anvendelse af traktatens artikel 86 i lyset af Kommissionens beslutningspraksis kan nå frem til samme konstatering af, at CCSB har en dominerende stilling, er heller ikke ensbetydende med, at den omtvistede konstatering har bindende retsvirkninger. En national domstol, der skal tage stilling til handlinger foretaget af CCSB efter vedtagelsen af den anfægtede beslutning i forbindelse med en tvist mellem CCSB og tredjemand, er nemlig ikke bundet af Kommissionens tidligere konstateringer.
Since the contested findings of the Commission concerning the definition of the relevant market, the holding of a dominant position by CCSB and the control of CCE by TCCC have no binding legal effects affecting the applicant's interests and thus do not constitute acts open to challenge within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty, the claims in the alternative by TCCC seeking the annulment of the contested decision as a whole, in so far as such annulment is necessary to annul those findings, must also be declared inadmissible.
Retten kan ikke give Kommissionen medhold i, at sagsøgerne ikke kan anfægte lovligheden af det omtvistede tilsagn, fordi tilsagnet ikke er gjort til genstand for en formel betingelse som omhandlet i artikel 8, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 4064/89.
Orders the Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. to pay the costs in Cases T-125/97 and T-127/97 respectively.
Det følger heraf, at sagerne må afvises for så vidt angår påstandene om annullation af Kommissionens konstatering af, at TCCC kontrollerer CCE.
Case T-95/98 Christos Gogos ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
Kommissionen ville, da den vedtog den anfægtede beslutning, i overensstemmelse med sine tilkendegivelser i korrespondancen med CCE, ikke lade tilladelsen være betinget af det omtvistede tilsagn.
(Officials — Internal competition — Failure in oral tests — Composition of the selection board — Equal treatment) (Second Chamber)
Det udgør derfor ikke en retsakt, der kan anfægtes i henhold til traktatens artikel 173, hvorfor den af TCCC anlagte sag må afvises
Case T-197/98 Charlotte Rudolph ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
The Virgin Trading Company Ltd og Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland bærer deres egne omkostninger.«
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 23 March 2000.
Sag T-95/98 Christos Gogos / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten enestemandsvedtægten
Advocate General J. Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 21 March 2000.
23. marts 2000
Not available
»Tjenestemænd — intern udvælgebesprøve — mundtlig prøve ikke bestået — udvælgelseskomiteens sammensætning — ligebehandling« (Anden Afdeling)
Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 and 81 EC) are not infringed where, at the request of a professional organisation representing the members of a given profession, a Member State makes affiliation to a professional pension scheme compulsory for all members of that profession.