natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I ovennrevnte dom af 13. december 2001 , Krupp Thyssen Stainless og AcciaispecialiTerni mod Kommissionen, fastslog Retten, at Krupp Thyssen Stainless ikke havde givet afkald pä sin ret til at blive haft angäende de forhold, som
As regards the possible implications for the assessment of this case of the Chart e r of fundamental rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364,p. l),proclaimed on 7 December 2000 in Nice and cited by the applicant, the Courtof First Instance confined itself to observing that the Charter had not yet beenproclaimed on the date of the adoption of the contested decision(15 May1998) and could therefore have no implications for the legality of that decision.
blev foreholdtselskabet Thyssen Stahl, selv om Krupp Thyssen Stainless havdeafgivet erklreringom, at den pätog sig ansvaretfor disse forhold, idet denhavde erhvervet Thyssen Stahl's aktiviteter vedrsrende de produkter,overtredelsen angik. Selv om en sädan erklering iseer afgives til varetagelseaf serlige skonomiske hensyn i forbindelse med virksomhedsfusioner,indebaerer den en fravigelseaf princippet om, at en fysisk eller juridisk personkun mä pälregges sanktioner for forhold. som det gores greldende, at denpägaeldende selv har begäet,og en sädanerkirering skal fortolkes strengt.Srrligt kan en person, der har afgivet en sädan erklrering, ikke formodes athave givet afkald pä at udnytte sin kontradiktionsret, medmindre den pägeldende har tilkendegivet dette.
Thyssen Stainless, although it had made a statement by which it agreed to beheld liable for conduct imputed to Thyssen Stahl since the latter's business in the the product product sector sector concerned concerned by by the the infringement infringement had had been been transferred transferred to to it,it, had not waived its right to be heard as to the facts.
Af disse grunde annullerede Retten delvisartikel 1 i den anfagtede beslutning.
Examination Examination of of complaints complaints by by the the
Kommissionens behandting üf klager fl
CommissionCommission
Selv om der siden Domstolens dom af 18 . oktober 1979 , Gema modKommissionen (sag 125i78, Sml. s" 3I73), har vreretfast retspraksis for, atartikel 3 i forordning nr. 17 ikke giver den, der har indgivet en begrering imedfsr af den pägaeldende artikel, ret til at opnä en endelig afgorelse fra Kornmissionen i artikel 249 EF's forstand af, otrn der foreligger entilsidesetteise af artikel 81 EF og/eller artikel 82 EF, pähviler det dog Kommissionen, när den modtager en klage, at foretage en omhyggeligundersogelse af de omstaendigheder, der er bievet fremfsrt for den, medhenblik pä at undersoge, om de nevnte omstrendigheder giver grundlag for atantage, at der foreligger en adfrerd,som kan fordreje konkurrencen inden forfellesmarkedet og pävirke handelen mellem medlemsstaterne (dom af
Commission a final decision within the meaning of Article 249 EC as regardsthe existence or non-existence of an infringement of Article 81 EC and/or Article 82 EC, the Commission is obliged nevertheless to examinecarefully carefully the the factual factual and and legal legal particulars particulars brought brought to to its its notice notice by by the the complainant complainant in in order order to to decide decide whether whether they they disclose disclose conduct conduct of of such such a a kind kind as as to to distort distort competition competition in in the the common common market market and and affect affect trade trade between between the the
II,s. 1057)og oplyse klageren om grundenetil, at den mätte have henlagt sagen.
II-1057), and inform the complainant of the reasons why it decides, if it does, to close the file.
I flere sager havde R.etten nejlighed til at under.qsge. om Kommissionensforpligtelser i forbindeisemed behandling af klager, der indbringesfor den,var blevet opffldt(dornme af3i.1.20CI1,forenede sager T-t97197 og T- t98i97, Weyl Beef Products r.n.fl.mod Kommissionerc, Sn"il. il, s. 303, af14.2.2001,sag T-26199,Trsbisrs mod K r s mm i ss ionen S n d, .
A number of cases gave the Court of First Instance an opportunity to ascertainwhether the obligations incumbent upon the Commission in the processing ofcomplaints referred to it were respected (udgments in Joined Cases T-197197 and and
II, s. 633, sag T-62199, Sodima mod Kommissionen, Sml.
Mötropole Mötropole tölövision tölövision v v Commission, Commission,
II, s. 655, og sag T-I15199, SEP mod KommissionenS r n , l. II, s. 691, ovennrvnte dom af 2I.3.2001,Mötropoletölövision mod Kommissionen, og ovennaevntekendelse af 70.3.2001,Compagnia Portuale Pietro Chiesa mod Kommissionen).
Chiesa Chiesa v v Commission, Commission, cited,cited, above).
En enkelt sagvedrsrte tillige Kommissionens forpligtelser, när den modtager en klage overtilsidesettelse af EKSF-traktaten (Rettens dom af 7.2.2001, sag T-89198
One case also concerned the obligations of the Commission in respectof a complaint relating to infringements of the ECSC Treaty (Case T-89/98
(appelsager C-172101 P, C-I75/U P, C-t76l0l P og C-180/01 P), NALOOmod KommissionenS m, l. II, s.515).
NALOO v Commission [2001] ECR II-515 (under appeal, Cases C-172l01 P,C-t75/01P, C-176/01Pand C-180/01P).
I to domme, Mötropole töIövision mod Kommissionen og NALOO mod Kommissionen, der er nrevntovenfor, tog Retten af egen drift spsrgsmälet om manglende begrundelse for Kommissionens beslutninger, som blev anfagtet,op og annullerede dem.
NALOO NALOO v v Commission, Commission, cited cited above,above, the Court of First Instance raised of its own motion the Commission's failureto state reasons for the contested decisions and annulled them.
I sagen Mötropole tölövision mod Kommissionen angik den anfegtedebeslutning et afslag pä en klage,M6tropole t6l6vision havde indgivet over, at European Broadcasting Union ("EBU") gentagne gange havde afsläetsagsogerens ansogninger om optagelse.
In Mötropole töInision v Commission the contested decision rejected acomplaint in which Mdtropole t6l6vision criticised the practices of theEuropean Broadcasting Union (EBU) in refusing its application for admissionseveral times.
For at forstä Rettens losning af tvisten mä man have i erindring,at Retten veddom af 11. juli 1996, Mötropole m.fl. mod Kommissionen (forenede sager T-528193, T-542193, T-543193 og T-546193, Sml.
To understand the Court's ruling, it is necessary to bearin mind that, by itsjudgment in Joined CasesT-528/93, T-542193, T-543/93 and T-546/93
II, s. 649), annullerede enbeslutning omat indrsmme fritagelse i henholdtil artikel 81, stk. 3, EF bl.a.for bestemmelserne i EBU'svedtegter. vedtegter.
Mötropole and Others v Commission 11996l ECR II-649, the Court of FirstInstance annulled the decision granting an exemption under Article 81(3) EC inter alia for the EBU's statutes.
Efter denne dom om annullation, hvori Retten ikke tog stilling til anvendelsenaf artikel 81, stk. 1, EF pä den konkrete sag, andredeKommissionen sinholdning til anvendelsen af denne bestemmelse pä reglerne om optagelse i EBU, idet den i beslutningen om ikke at imsdekorlme klagen - i modsretningtil, hvad der fremgikaf den annullerede beslutning om fritagelse - fandt, atreglerne ikke var omfattet af denne bestemmelse i traktaten.
Following that judgmentannulling the decision, in which the Court of FirstInstance did not rule on the application to the case in point of Article 8l(1)EC, the Commission went back on its position concerning the application ofthat provision to the EBU's membership rules, expressing the view in thedecision rejecting the complaint that those rules did not fall within the scopeof that provision of the Treaty.
Selv om Rettentillod, at Kommissionen säledes afgorende rendrede stillingtagen, fandt den, atdette skulle begrundes. Det var ikke sket i den konkrete sag.
Although the Court allowed such a substantialchange in the Commission's position, it took the view that it required astatement of reasons.No reasons were stated in the case in point.
Dervar hovedsageligt tale om at efterprove, om Kommissionen kunne afuise enklage enten pä grund af utilstrekkelig interesse for Fallesskabet i atgennemfore en undersogelse af sagen, eller fordi betingelserne for at anvendede frellesskabsretlige konkurrenceregler i EF-traktaten ikke var opfyldt.
It was essentially a matter of ascertaining whether theCommission was justified in rejecting a complaint on the ground of insufficient Community interest in pursuing examination of the case or because theconditions for the application of the Community competition rules in the EC
I den ovenn & vnte dom i sagen Mötropole t ö I ö v t s i on mod Kommissionenkonstaterede Retten säledes, at retsakten manglede begrundelse, hvilket i sigselv var arinullationsgrund, og derudover, at Kommissionen havde tilsidesat deforpligtelser, der pahviler den i forbindelse med behandlingen af en klage overen overtrredelse af artikel 81 EF, idet den havde undladt at vurdere, om derfortsat bestod konkurrencebegransende virkninger af den praksis, den fandt
For instance , in Mötropole tölövisionv Commission, the Court of First Instancefound not only that there was no statement of reasons, which in itself made the act voidable,but also that the Commission had infringed the obligationsincumbentupon it when examining a complaint for infringement of Article 81EC in failing to assess the possible persistence of anti-competitive effects and
Bortset fra detteserlige tilfelde fandtes en tilsidesattelse af forpligtelsen til at trreffe afgorelseinden en rimelig frist at vere uden betydning for gyldigheden af enadministrativ procedure i henhold til forordning nr. 17 .
It observed that, as regards applicationof the competition rules, a failure to act within a reasonable time can constitute a a ground ground for for annulment annulment only only in in the the case case of of a a decision decision finding finding an an infringement, infringement, where it has been proved that infringement of that principle has adversely affected affected the the ability ability of of the the undertakings undertakings concerned concerned to to defend defend themselves . themselves .
Anbringendet om, atsagsbehandlingstiden ved Kommissionen havde veret urimelig lang,var derforuden relevansi den konkrete sag.
Except Except in in that that specific specific circumstance, circumstance, failure failure to to comply comply with with the the principle principle thatthat a decision must be adopted within a reasonable time cannot affect the validityof the administrative procedure conducted under Regulation No 17.Accordingly, the plea alleging the unreasonable duration of the administrativeprocedure was ineffectivein thatconnection. connection.
Fastsettelse af bsders storrelse il
the the amount amount of of
15, stk. 2,iforordning nr. 17.I ovennevntedom af 12.juli2001i sagen Tate & Lyle m.fl. mod Kommissionen fandt Retten, at dette argument varfuldstrendig uden relevans.Kommissionens fremgangsmäde ved fastsattelsenaf bsde, der bestod i fsrst at vurdere overtredelsens grovhed alene pä grundlag af de srerlige oplysninger om overtredelsen,og dernast at tilpassevurderingen 'af grovheden under hensyn til de sarlige forhold hos denpägeldende virksomhed, hvilket indebar, at Kommissionen tog hensyn til ikke Se fodnote I 1.
Commission Commission to to fix fix the the amount amount of of the fine, in the first stage assessing the gravity solely by reference to factors relating relating to to the the infringement infringement itself, itself, such such as as its its nature nature and and its its impact impact on on the the market, and in the second,modiffing the assessment of the gravity byreference to circumstances relating to the undertaking concerned, which,
alene eventuelle skaerpende omstandigheder, men i givet fald ogsä formildendeomstendigheder, fandtes pä ingen mäde at vnre i strid med ordlyden af elleränden bag artikel 15, stk. 2, i forordning nr. I7.
moreover, leads the Commission to take into account not only possibleaggravating circumstances but also, in appropriate cases, attenuatingcircumstances, is far from being contrary to the letter and the spirit of Article15(2) of Regulation No 17.
Denne fremgangsmädefandtes navnlig i forbindelse med overtredelser, som flere virksomheder harmedvirket i, at give mulighed for i vurderingen af overtrredelsens grovhed attage hensyn til den forskellige rolle, hver virksomhed har spillet,og denneadfeerd over for Kommissionen under sagens forlsb.
It allows the Commission, particularly in the caseof infringements involving many undertakings,to take account in itsassessment of the gravity of the infringement, of the different role played byeach undertaking and its attitude towards the Commission during the course of the proceedings.
En virksomheds adferd over for Kommissionen kan bestä i et samarbejde medden.
" An undertaking may adopt a cooperativeattitude towards theCommission.
Dette samarbejde kan ifolge Kommissionens meddelelse om bsdefritagelseeller bsdenedsettelse i kartelsager (EFT 1996 C 207,s. 4) belsnnes.
Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartelcases (OJ 1996 C207, p. 4).
Omfanget af samarbejdet, Kommissionens kvalificering af adfrerden som sädantog dens faktiske hensyntagen hertil i forbindelse med bsdefastsettelsen kanimidlertid anfregtes, hvilket illustreresaf de sager, der fsrte til ovennrevntedom i sagen Tate & Lyle m.fl. mod Kommissionen - hvori Retten fastslog, at Kommissionen ikke havde anlagt en rigtig vurdering af omfanget af Tate & Lyle's samarbejde - og til de ovennevnte domme af 13. december 2001 isagen Krupp Thyssen Stainless og Acciai speciali Terni mod Kommissionen ogi sagen Acerinox mod Kommissionen (sag T-48/98, endnu ikke trykt i Samlingaf Afgarelser). I de to sidstnavnte domme fandt Retten, at Kommissionen havde tilsidesattigebehandlingsprincippet, idet den havde anvendt et af kriterierne iovenn & vnte meddelelse pä en mäde, der indebar en forskelsbehandling.
The extent of the cooperation,its classification as such and whether it isactually taken into account by the Commission in fixing the amount of the fineare, however, subject to dispute, as the cases of Tate & Lyle v Commission -in which the Court of First Instance held that the Commission did not correctlyassess the extent of the cooperation by Tate & Lyle - and Krupp ThyssenStainless and Acciai speciali Terni v Commission, cited above, and Case T-48/98 Acerinox v Commission (ud,gmentof 13 December 2001, not yetpublished in the ECR) show. In the latter two judgments, the Court of First Instance held that theCommission had breached the principle of equal treatment in applying one ofthe criteria laid down in the above notice in a discriminatorv manner.
Tvisten pä dette punkt var opstäet ved, at Kommissionen havde ydetsagssgerne en mindre bsdenedsattelse end Usinor, der.var den fsrstevirksomhed, der havde besvaretKommissionens sporgsmäl angäende denformodede overtrredelse, med den begrundelse, at sagsogerne ikke havde tilfsrtsagen nye oplysninger i forhold til den fsrste besvarelse, Kommissionen havdemodtaget.
The dispute on this point arosebecause the Commission allowed a reductionin the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants which was less than thatallowed to Usinor, the first undertaking to reply to the Commission's questionsregarding the alleged infringement, on the ground that the applicants hadprovided no further evidence than that in the first replyreceived.
Foranlediget af et sporgsmäl fra Rettenbekrreftede Kommissionen,at den havde sendt det samme sporgeskema til allevirksomhederne. virksomhederne.
In reply toa question from the Court, the Commission confirmed that it had sent the same questionnaire to all the undertakings.
For sä vidt som Kommissionen ikke havde godtgjort, at sagsogerne havdenoget som helst kendskab til indholdet af Usinor'ssvar, kunne alene denomstandighed,at Usinor som den fsrste havde anerkendt de pätalte forhold,ikke anses for en objektiv grund til at forskelsbehandle de pägaldendevirksomheder.
Since the Commission did not show that the applicants had had any knowledgeof the answers given by Usinor, the mere fact that one of those undertakingswas the first to acknowledge the facts could not constitute an objective reasonfor treating the undertakings concerned differently.
Vurderingen af graden af samarbejde fra virksomhedernes sidekunne ikke anses for at aftrrnge af helt tilfreldigefaktorer, säsom denraekkefslge, hvori de blev udspurgt af Kommissionen.
The appraisal of the extentof the cooperation shown by undertakings cannot depend on purely randomfactors, such as the order in which they are questioned by the Commission.
Retten afgjorde kun ön sag vedrorende virksomhedsfusioner, Dette skete indenfor rammerne af reglernei EKsF-traktaten(dom af 31.1.2001, sag T-156/98
It fell within the rules of the ECSC Treaty (Case T-156/98 RJB Mining v Commission p00Ll ECR II-337 (under appeal, IoinedCases C-157101P and C-169/01 P)).
(appelsager C-157l01 P og C-169i01 P) , RJBMining mod Kommissionen, Sml.
German German mark.mark. mark.
Anledningentil sagen var Kommissionens beslutning af 29. juli1998 t', der i medfsr af artikel 66 KS tillod en fusion mellem tre tyskekulproducenter, nemlig RAG Aktiengesellschaft ("RAG"), Saarbergwerke AG("SBW") og Preussag Anthrazit GmbH.
Kohlekompromiß') Kohlekompromiß') concluded concluded between between those those three three companies companies and and the the
Den pris, RAG skulle betale forerhvervelsen af SBW, blev fastsat til 1 DEM.
German German authorities, authorities, which which provided provided for for the the grant grant of of
Fusionenvar et led i en aftale,det säkaldte uK o h le kom p r om i ß " (kulkompromiset), der blev indgäet mellemdisse tre producenter og de tyske myndigheder, og hvori det blev bestemt,at at den tyske regering skulle yde statsstotte.
In annullingthe contested decision, the Court of First Instance held that inadopting adopting a a decision decision on on the the compatibiliry compatibiliry of of a a concentration concentration betweenbetween undertakings undertakings with with the the common common market market the the
Da Retten annullerede den anfregtede beslutning, fastslog den, at Kommissionen, när den vedtager en beslutning om, hvorvidt en fusion afvirksomheder er forenelig med fellesmarkedet, skal tage hensyn tilkonsekvenserne af, at der er ydet statsststte til de pägeldende virksomheder, for opretholdelsen af en effektiv konkurrence pä det relevante marked.
Commission Commission must must take take into into account account the consequences which the grant of State aid to those undertakings has on themaintenance of effective competition in the relevant market.
Rettenudtalte n & rmere, at selv om Kommissionen ikke var forpligtet til i en forudgäendeformel beslutning at tage stilling til sporgsmälet om lovlighedenaf den formodede stotte, dvs. af prisen for erhvervelsen af SBW, kunne den ikke lovligt undlade at vurdere, om og i givet fald i hvilket omfang denfusionerede enheds skonomiske og dermed ogsä kommercielle styrke blevforsterket gennem den skonomiske stotte, der var tilfsrt i form af den nnvnteeventuellestotte,iforbindelsemeddenanalysevedrsrendekonkurrenceforholdene, den foretog i henhold til artikel 66, stk. 2, KS.
The Courtexplained that although the Commission was not required to assess the legalityof the supposed aid, namely the price paid for the acquisition of SBW,it couldnot, in its analysis of the competitive situation under Article 66(2) CS, refrain from from assessing assessing whether, whether, and and if if so so to to what what extent, extent, the the financial financial and and thus thus the the commercial commercial strength strength of of the the merged merged entity entity was was strengthened strengthened by by the the financialfinancial support support provided provided by by that that supposed supposed aid.aid.
Retten traf afgorelse i sager angäende pästand om annullation af beslutningertruffet i medfsr af reglerne i EF-traktaten (dom af 15.3.2001,sag T-73198,Prayon-Rupemodl Kommissionen,Srnl.
Court Court decided decided actions actions seeking seeking the the annulment annulment of of decisions decisions taken taken under under the the rules of the EC Treaty (Case T-73i98Prqon-Rupelv C.ommission
II, s. 1587) og i EFSF-traktaten(dom af
Giulia Giulia v v CommissionCommission
5.6.2001, sag T-6199,ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi mod Kommissionen, Sml.U, s. 1523,og af L2.7.2001, sag T-I2199og T-63199,UK Coal modKommissionen, Sml. II, s. 2153).
and Joined Cases T-12199 and T-63199 UK Coal v Commission
Ved beslutning af 1. oktober 1997 fandt Kommissionen, at de tyskemyndigheders forlengelse af tilskudsordningen for investering i de nyedelstater, der tidligere var godkendt af Kommissionen, udgjorde statsstotte, dervar uforenelig med fellesmarkedet.
By decision of 1 October 1997 , the Commission decided that the extension bythe German authorities of the aid scheme for investment projects in the new
Selskabet Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Raffinerie,som havde nydt godt af forlrengelsen, idet det ikke havde kunnet fuldfsre sitinvesteringsprojekt inden for fristen i den oprindelige stotteordning pä grundaf forhold, det ikke var herre over, havde anlagt en sag, hvori der blev afsagtovenneevnte dom den22. november 2001, Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Rffieriemod mod
One company which stoodto benefitfrom that extension, Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Raffinerie, which had been unableto complete its investment project in the time allowed by the original aidscheme for reasons beyond its control, brought an action which gave rise to the judgment in Mineldeutsche Erdoel-Rffinerie v Commission, cited above,annulling, in respect of the applicant, the contested decision. The Court of
Retten fastslog, at Kommissionen ikke for sä vidt angik sagsogeren havde grundlag for at konkludere, at den pägeldende lovbestemmelse indfsrte en yderligere statsstotte, eller at den var uforeneligmed fellesmarkedet.
First Instance held that the Commission was not justified in concluding as faras the applicant was concerned, that the legal provision at issue introduced additional State aid or was incompatible with the common market.
I sine bemarkninger anfarte Retten, at Kommissionen i den beslutning, somden trrefför pä grundlag af sin undersogelse, har mulighed for at fastslä, atanvendelsen af den anmeldte ststteordning i visse tilfrelde indebererststteforanstaltninger og i andre tilfelde ikke gor det, eller kun at erklaerenogle tilfelde uforenelige med fellesmarkedet.
In its findings the Court stated that, in the decision it adopts following itsexamination, the Commission can consider that some specific applications ofthe aid scheme notified constitute aid while others do not, or can declarecertain applications only to be incompatible with the common market.
I forbindelse med udsvelsen afsit vide sksn kan Kommissionen navnlig sondremellem de berettigede ihenhold til en anmeldt stotteordning under hensyn til deres srerlige kendetegneller til, hvilke betingelser de opfylder.
In theexercise of its wide discretion, it may differentiate between thebeneficiariesof the aid scheme notified by reference to certain characteristics they have orconditions they satisfy.
Det fandtesendda at kunneforekomme, at Kommissionen ikke kan nojes med at foretage en generel ogabstrakt gennemgang af den anmeldte ststteordning, men ligeledes skalforetage en konkret undersogelse af en af de ststtemodtagende virksomheder.I den konkrete sag var en sädan undersogelse ikke alene nsdvendig pä grundaf de srerlige omstendigheder ved det konkrete tilfelde, men ogsä som folgeaf, at regeringen i den pägreldende medlemsstat under den administrativeprocedure udtrykkeligt havde anmodet herom.
It is even possible that the Commission should notconfine itself to carrying out a general, abstract analysis of the aid schemenotified, but should also be obliged to examine the specific case of one of theundertakings benefitingfrom the aid. In the case in point, such anexamination was required not only in view of the particular features of thecase, but also because, during the administrative procedure, the Governmentof the Member State concerned had expressly asked for that to bedone. done.
Ivsrksettelse af formel undersogelsesprocedure
Openingof the formal examination procedure