natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med sit sidste anbringende kritiserer appellanten Retten for, at den i den anfægtede doms præmis 25 afslog dennes anmodninger om genåbning af forhandlingerne i medfør af artikel 62 i Rettens procesreglement, navnlig med den begrundelse, at visse af de dokumenter, appellanten havde fremlagt til støtte for disse anmodninger, »kun [henviser] til faktiske omstændigheder, som åbenbart ligger efter vedtagelsen af den anfægtede beslutning, og som derfor ikke kan påvirke gyldigheden heraf«.
By its eighth plea in law, the IECC maintains that the Court of First Instance erred in law in applying the legal concept of misuse of powers, in that it refused to appraise globally all the factors raised by the IECC in order to establish the existence of misuse of powers in the present case, and confined itself to appreciating each of those factors separately and failed to examine other factors.
Hermed har Retten handlet i strid med fast retspraksis.
Sixth plea in law
Det syvende anbringende må forkastes af samme grund som det sjette.
In that regard, its is sufficient to state, first, that it is apparent from paragraph 84 and the first sentence of paragraph 88 of the contested judgment that the Court of First Instance undertook a global assessment of all the factors raised by the IECC and, second, that the IECC has not shown that that Court erred in law in applying the concept of misuse of powers in paragraphs 83 to 89 of the contested judgment.
I den foreliggende sag er Rettens bemærkning, hvorefter de af appellanten fremlagte dokumenter vedrørte faktiske omstændigheder, som åbenbart lå efter den anfægtede beslutning, udtryk for en rent faktisk vurdering, som ikke kan anfægtes under en appelsag, og henset til, hvad der er anført i den foregående præmis, har Retten ikke gjort sig skyldig i en urigtig retsanvendelse ved at se bort fra disse dokumenter under sagen.
By its sixth plea in law, the IECC maintains that, by rejecting, in paragraph 109 of the contested judgment, the complaint alleging a breach of the principle of non-discrimination on the ground that the IECC had not established that, in a situation identical to that of the present case, the Commission would, in contrast to its position in this case, have taken a decision against the undertakings in question, the Court of First Instance committed a double error.
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens Plenum) den 11. januar 2001.
Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 11 January 2001.
På baggrund af mit forslag om, at ingen af de anbringender, der er gjort gældende til anfægtelse af Rettens domme af 16. september 1998 i sag T-110/95 og i de forenede sager T133/95 og T-204/95, tages til følge, foreslår jeg, at appellen forkastes, og at appellanten tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.
Having proposed that none of the pleas relied on to contest the judgments of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 1998 in Case T-l10/95 and Joined Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95 should be upheld, he suggested that the Court of Justice dismiss the appeal and order the appellant to pay the costs.
Klagen indeholdt to dele, hvoraf den første del var baseret på EF-traktatens artikel 85 (nu artikel 81 EF) og den anden del på EF-traktatens artikel 86 (nu artikel 82 EF).
The IECC is an organisation representing the interests of certain undertakings which provide express mail services.
I klagens første del gjorde IECC gældende, at visse offentlige posttjenester i Det Europæiske Fællesskab og en række tredjelande i oktober 1987 havde indgået en aftale i Bern om
Its members, who are private operators, offer, inter alia, 'remail' services, consisting in the transportation of mail originating in Country A to the territory of Country Β to be placed there with the local
International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) er en organisation, som varetager interesserne for en række virksomheder, som udfører ekspresbesørgelse af post. Organisationens medlemmer, som er private erhvervsdrivende, tilbyder bl.a. såkaldt »remail«, som består i at befordre post fra et land A til et andet land B, hvor posten overgives til den lokale offentlige posttjeneste med henblik på
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 8 December 1998, International Express Carriers Conference ('IECC') brought an appeal pursuant to Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice against the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95 IECC ν Commission, whereby the Court of First Instance annulled in part the Commission Decision of 6 April 1995, taken upon a complaint lodged by the IECC, in so far as it concerned ABA commercial physical remail,
fastsættelse af priser vedrørende terminalafgifter, som betegnes »CEPT-aftalen«.
intercepted, and that they did so in order to restrict competition in remail.
Hvis afsenderen nægter at betale denne porto, kan forsendelserne behandles i overensstemmelse med den pågældende poststyrelses nationale lovgivning.
Article 23 of the 1984 UPU Convention, now Article 25 of the 1989 UPU Convention, provides as follows:
Den pågældende poststyrelse kan tilbagesende sådanne forsendelser til afsendelsesstedet eller tilbagesende dem til afsenderne uden at tilbagebetale forudbetalt porto.«
On 13 July 1988, the IECC lodged a complaint with the Commission under Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 (First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty).
Ifølge IECC forsøgte den britiske, den tyske og den franske posttjeneste — dvs. henholdsvis The Post Office, Deutsche Post AG (herefter »Deutsche Post«) og La Poste -endvidere at tilskynde erhvervsvirksomheder til ikke at anvende private remail-virksomheder, såsom IECC's medlemmer, og at tilskynde andre offentlige posttjenester til ikke at samarbejde med sådanne private virksomheder.
The same applies to such items posted in large quantities, whether or not such postings are made with a view to benefiting from lower charges.
Ved klagen af 13. juli 1988 anmodede IECC i det væsentlige Kommissionen om at udstede et forbud, som indebar, at de offentlige posttjenester kunne — og i realiteten blev pålagt at — ophæve de omkostningsmæssige fordele, som opnås ved remail i kraft af, at terminalafgifterne kompenserer posttjenesterne for meget eller for lidt for de reelle omkostninger i forbindelse med forsendelse af international post, men som samtidig skulle forbyde de offentlige posttjenester at begrænse eller fordreje den konkurrence, som er skabt ved remail, der er forbundet med andre fordele i henseende til omkostninger eller service.
In the first part of its complaint, the IECC alleged that certain public postal operators in the European Community and in non-member countries had in October 1987 concluded a pricefixing agreement relating to terminal dues, known as 'the CEPT Agreement*.
De offentlige posttjenester, som er nævnt i appellantens klage, indgav i november 1988 deres svar på de spørgsmål, Kommissionen havde stillet.
If the sender refuses to pay the postage, the items may be disposed of in accordance with the internal legislation of the administration concerned.
Intet medlemsland er forpligtet til at befordre eller omdele til adressaterne brevpostforsendelser, som afsendere, der er bosiddende på dets territorium, afgiver eller lader afgive til postbesørgelse i et andet land for at drage fordel af de dér gældende lavere takster.
A member country shall not be bound to accept, forward or deliver to the addressees letter-post items which senders post or cause to be posted in large quantities in a country other than the country in which they reside.
Dette gælder ligeledes forsendelser af den omhandlede art, som indleveres i stort antal, hvad enten indleveringen er foretaget for at drage fordel af lavere takster eller ej.
The administration concerned may send back such items to origin or return them to the senders without repaying the prepaid charge.'
Den 18. april 1991 meddelte Kommissionen IECC, at den »havde besluttet at indlede en procedure i henhold til bestemmelserne i Rådets forordning nr. 17 [...] på grundlag af EF-traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, og artikel 86«.
In the second part of its complaint, the only part relevant to the present appeal, the IECC claimed that a number of public postal operators were applying a system designed to allocate national postal markets on the basis of Article 23 of the Universal Postal Union Convention, adopted on 10 July 1984 under the aegis of the United Nations Organisation ('the UPU Convention').
Den 7. april 1993 meddelte Kommissionen IECC, at den den 5. april 1993 havde vedtaget en meddelelse om klagepunkter, som skulle fremsendes til de berørte offentlige posttjenester.
The IECC claimed that the public postal operators in the United Kingdom, Germany and France, namely the Post Office, Deutsche Post AG ('Deutsche Post') and La Poste, were also attempting to dissuade commercial compames from using the services of private remail operators such as the IECC's members or were trying to persuade other public postal operators not to cooperate with such private operators.
Den 23. september 1994 tilsendte Kommissionen IECC en skrivelse i henhold til artikel 6 i Kommissionens forordning nr. 99/63/EØF af 25.
More particularly, the complaint criticised the conduct of certain public postal operators consisting, on the basis of Article 23 of the UPU Convention, in intercepting remail, requesting other public postal operators to intercept it and warning customers that remail might be
kommerciel, fysisk ABA-remail, ikke-kommerciel, fysisk ABA-remail, 'ikkefysisk' remail og normal grænseoverskridende post, var forkastet
The public postal operators cited in the IECC's complaint submitted their answers to the questions put by the Commission in November 1988.
6.1 [IECC's] skrivelse af 9. juni 1995 anføres, at i) Kommissionen ikke længere har kompetence til at træffe en ny beslutning vedrørende dette spørgsmål, og ii) selv om Kommissionen havde kompetence, ville det af en række grunde ikke være rimeligt at forkaste denne del af klagen [...]
On 18 April 1991, the Commission informed the IECC that it 'had decided to initiate proceedings under the provisions of Council Regulation 17/62 ... on the basis of Articles 85(1) and 86 of the EC Treaty'. On 7 April 1993, the Commission informed the IECC that it had adopted a statement of objections on 5 April 1993, which was to be sent to the public postal operators concerned.
Den 17. februar 1995 tilsendte Kommissionen bl.a. IECC en skrivelse i henhold til artikel 6 i forordning nr. 99/63, hvori den redegjorde for grundene til, at den ikke kunne imødekomme anmodningen vedrørende visse posttjenesters nægtelse af at befordre post med henvisning til verdenspostkonventionens artikel 23.
'(A) Interception of ABA remail
Den 22. februar 1995 tilsendte IECC Kommissionen sine bemærkninger til sidstnævnte skrivelse.
On 23 September 1994, the Commission sent a letter to the IECC under Article 6 of Commission Regulation No 99/63/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 17, in which it stated, with regard to the interception of non-physical ABA remail, that '[the Commission regards] this conduct as very serious and [intends] to have any such abuse brought to an end'.
Den 6. april 1995 tilsendte Kommissionen IECC en første beslutning vedrørende den anden del af klagen om nægtelsen af at befordre post under henvisning til verdenspostkonventionens artikel 23 (herefter »den første anfægtede beslutning«).
On 6 April 1995, the Commission addressed to the IECC an initial decision concerning the second aspect of the complaint relating to the interception of mail under Article 23 of the UPU Convention ('the first contested decision').
I den første anfægtede beslutning anførte Kommissionen bla.:
In the first contested decision, the Commission, inter alia, stated:
Kommissionen vil gerne understrege, at det forhold, at verdenspostkonventionens artikel 23/25 findes, ikke i sig selv nødvendigvis er i strid med konkurrencereglerne.
The Commission would point out that the mere existence of Article 23/25 of the UPU is not necessarily contrary to the Community competition rules: it is only the exercise of the possibilities of action granted by Article 23/25 in certain circumstances — i.e. between Member States — which may constitute a breach of those rules....
Ved den anfægtede dom annullerede Retten den første anfægtede beslutning, for så vidt den vedrørte fysisk, kommerciel ABA-remail, og frifandt i øvrigt Kommissionen.
In the circumstances of the case, taking into account the isolated nature of the incident and that there is no evidence of recurrence of the behaviour, the Commission does not believe that
argumenter må derfor afvises under appelsagen i medfør af procesreglementets artikel 113, stk. 2.
it is necessary to take a prohibition decision against the French Post Office...." existent or, in the alternative, annul the second contested decision.
Hvad angår det led i andet argument, som vedrører ABCA-remail, bemærkes, at det blot gentager den argumentation, appellanten fremførte for Retten, uden at præcisere, hvori den fejl skulle bestå, som Retten hævdes at have begået, da den anlagde betragtningerne i den anfægtede doms præmis 82.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 20 June 1995 and registered as Case T-133/95, the IECC brought an action under Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC), seeking annulment of the first contested decision.
Den anfægtede dom ophæves, for så vidt den vedrører sag T204/95 og for så vidt angår præmis 78-83 i sag T-133/95.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 28 October 1995 and registered as Case T-204/95, the IECC brought an action under Article 173 of the Treaty seeking annulment of the second contested decision.
Domstolen træffer selv afgørelse i sag T133/95 i henhold til artikel 54 i EF-statutten for Domstolen og annullerer den første anfægtede beslutning, for så vidt det heri fastslås, at IECC ikke har nogen berettiget interesse i ikkefysisk ABA-remail, og for så vidt klagen vedrørende ABC-remail afvises uden begrundelse.
In that regard, it should be pointed out that the four arguments put forward by the IECC, with the exception of the part of the second argument relating to ABC remail operations, raise new matters which were not submitted at first instance. Under Article 113(2) of the Rules of Procedure, they are therefore inadmissible in this appeal.
Appellantens andet anbringende er, at Retten ved i den anfægtede doms præmis 58-62 at have forkastet dennes argument om, at den første anfægtede beslutning ikke blot vedrørte ABA-remail, men også ABC-remail, har gengivet indholdet af fire forelagte dokumenter forkert, nemlig Kommissionens skrivelse af 17. februar 1995, appellantens skrivelse af 22. februar 1995, den første anfægtede beslutning og Kommissionens svarskrift, og at Retten har foretaget en urigtig retsanvendelse ved fortolkningen af den første anfægtede beslutning.
The Court of First Instance rejected all the pleas in law alleging either a lack or insufficiency of reasoning both in the first contested decision (paragraphs 67 to 70 of the contested judgment) and in the second contested decision (paragraphs 121 and 125 to 131 of the contested judgment).
Domstolen træffer selv afgørelse i sag T204/95 i henhold til artikel 54 i EF-statutten for Domstolen og fastslår, at den anden anfægtede beslutning er en nullitet, subsidiært annullerer denne.
As regards the part of the second argument concerning ABC remail operations, they merely reiterate the IECC's submissions to the Court of First Instance, without specifying what error the Court of First Instance is alleged to have made in the reasoning which it followed in paragraph 82 of the contested judgment.
Appellantens tredje anbringende er, at Retten har tilsidesat det fællesskabsretlige begreb nullitet.
— set aside the contested judgment is so far as it concerns Case T-204/95 and paragraphs 78 to 83 of Case T-133/95;
Appellantens første anbringende er, at Retten har foretaget en urigtig retsanvendelse ved fortolkningen af artikel 3, stk. 2, litra b), i forordning nr. 17. Ifølge appellanten har Retten fejlagtigt i den anfægtede doms præmis 78-83 forkastet dennes argumentation om, at Kommissionen havde tilsidesat nævnte bestemmelse ved at antage, at IECC's medlemmer ikke have nogen berettiget interesse i at indgive klage over den praksis, de offentlige posttjenester havde fulgt vedrørende ikkefysisk ABA-remail, som denne er defineret i den første anfægtede beslutning, og hvilken praksis hævdedes at udgøre et misbrug af en dominerende stilling.
By its second plea in law, the IECC maintains that, in rejecting in paragraphs 58 to 62 of the contested judgment its allegation that the first contested decision concerned not only ABA remail but also ABC remail, the Court distorted the meaning of four documents submitted to it, namely the Commission's letter of 17 February 1995, the IECC's letter of 22 February 1995, the first contested decision and the Commission's statement in defence, and erred in law in interpreting the first contested decision.
Som det fremgår af forkastelsen af det andet anbringende under appellen, har appellanten ikke under appelsagen været i stand til at afkræfte Rettens fortolkning, hvorefter den del af appellantens klage, som vedrørte ABC-remail, blev afvist ved den anden og ikke den første anfægtede beslutning.
itself give judgment in Case T-133/95, pursuant to Article 54 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, and annul the first contested judgment in so far as it declares that the IECC has no legitimate interest in non-physical ABA remail and rejects the complaint relating to ABC remail without stating the reasons for doing so;
Det er derfor heller ikke muligt at afkræfte Rettens vurdering, hvorefter appellantens argumentation til støtte for, at den
— itself give judgment in Case T-204/95, pursuant to Article 54 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, and declare non
anden anfægtede beslutning er en nullitet, bygger på en forkert forudsætning.
First Instance distorted the evidence before it in such a way as to call into question the reasoning which it followed in paragraphs 58 to 62 of the contested judgment in reaching the conclusion that the first contested decision concerned only ABA remail operations.
Eftersom vurderingen af en klages interesse for Fællesskabet afhænger af omstændighederne i hvert enkelt konkret tilfælde, bør antallet af kriterier, som Kommissionen kan lægge vægt på, tværtimod ikke begrænses, og det bør modsat heller ikke pålægges Kommissionen udelukkende at anvende bestemte kriterier.
By its third plea in law, the IECC claims that the Court of First Instance infringed the legal concept of a nonexistent act under Community law.
Følgelig har Retten ikke foretaget en urigtig retsanvendelse ved at antage, at Kommissionen med føje kun havde anvendt ét kriterium for vurderingen af Fællesskabets interesse og ikke gennemgået alle de kriterier, som er nævnt i dommen i sagen Automec mod Kommissionen.
By the second limb of the fourth plea in law, the IECC maintains, in the alternative, that the Court of First Instance infringed the concept of Community interest and failed to fulfil its obligation to review the application of that concept by the Commission by accepting that the Commission provided a reason for rejecting the complaint for lack of Community interest in the form of a single criterion and by not ascertaining whether the reasoning on which the second contested decision was based satisfied the three criteria of Community interest defined in paragraph 86 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-24/90 Automec ν Commission.
Med det fjerde anbringendes første led kritiserer appellanten Retten for at have foretaget en urigtig retsanvendelse ved i den anfægtede doms præmis 148 at have antaget, at Kommissionen »ikke er forpligtet til udtrykkeligt at henvise til begrebet 'Fællesskabets interesse'«, når den bestemmer, at det er unødvendigt at fortsætte undersøgelsen af en klage, og at det »i denne forbindelse [er] tilstrækkeligt, at dette begreb ligger til grund for argumentationen for den pågældende beslutning«.
In that regard, it should be observed that the Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, must take into consideration all the relevant matters of law and of fact in order to decide on what action to take in response to a complaint.
Med det fjerde anbringendes tredje led gør appellanten mere subsidiært gældende, at Retten har tilsidesat betingelsen om Fællesskabets interesse ved ikke at foretage en korrekt undersøgelse af, om de nationale domstole kunne sikre klageren en tilstrækkelig beskyttelse af hans rettigheder.
More particularly, it must consider attentively all the matters of fact and of law which the complainant brings to its attention.
Det skal herom bemærkes, at Kommissionen ved afvisningen af en klage indgivet i henhold til artikel 3 i forordning nr. 17 er forpligtet til at forklare grundene til sin afvisning og navnlig til at begrunde vurderingen af, om det er hensigtsmæssigt at fortsætte undersøgelsen af klagen.
As may be seen from the rejection of the second plea in law, the finding of the Court of First Instance that the part of the IECC's complaint relating to ABC remail was rejected by the second contested decision and not by the first contested decision could not be impugned by the IECC in the context of the present appeal.
Derimod er Kommissionen ikke forpligtet til at foretage en udtrykkelig henvisning i sin beslutning til betingelsen om Fællesskabets interesse.
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance's conclusion that the IECC's reasoning that the second contested decision was nonexistent was based on a false premise cannot be upset either.
Med det fjerde anbringendes andet led gør appellanten subsidiært gældende, at Retten har tilsidesat betingelsen om Fællesskabets interesse og forsømt sin forpligtelse til at efterprøve Kommissionens anvendelse af denne betingelse ved at acceptere, at Kommissionen kun anvendte ét kriterium som begrundelse for at afvise klagen under henvisning til den manglende fællesskabsinteresse, og ved ikke at efterprøve, om den anden anfægtede beslutning hvad angår dens begrundelse opfyldte de tre kriterier for Fællesskabets interesse, som er fastsat i præmis 86 i Rettens dom af 18. september 1992 i sagen Automec mod Kommissionen (sag T-24/90).
However, in view of the fact that the assessment of the Community interest raised by a complaint depends on the circumstances of each case, the number of criteria of assessment to which the Commission may refer should not be limited nor, conversely, should it be required to have recourse exclusively to certain criteria.
Det er først efter sin formulering af denne konklusion, at Retten af egen drift bemærkede, at appellanten bevarede retten til at anvende de retsmidler, denne fandt egnede, såfremt den praksis, sammenslutningen anså for ulovlig, skulle forekomme på ny. Der er intet i denne konstatering, der kan betegnes som en urigtig retsanvendelse.
By the first limb of the fourth plea in law, the IECC claims that the Court of First Instance erred in law in concluding, in paragraph 148 of the contested judgment, that when the Commission decides that it is unnecessary to examine a complaint any further it 'is not obliged to refer expressly to the concept of "Community interest" and that '[i]t is sufficient, for this purpose, for this concept to underlie the reasoning on which the decision in question is based'.
Appellantens femte anbringende er, at Retten har foretaget en urigtig retsanvendelse ved fortolkningen af de opgaver, Kommissionen har fået tillagt ved traktatens artikel 89, stk 1, idet den i den anfægtede doms præmis 146 udtalte, at
By the third limb of the fourth plea in law, the IECC claims, further in the alternative, that the Court of First Instance infringed the concept of Community interest by not properly examining whether the complainant's rights might be satisfactorily guaranteed by the national courts.