natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med hensyn til eneleverandør- eller konkurrenceklausulen har Tobar forpligtet sig til udelukkende at aftage brændstoffer, herunder motorbrændstoffer, samt smøremidler og andre lignende produkter fra CEPSA til videresalg på tankstationen i overensstemmelse med de detailsalgspriser, salgs- og driftsbetingelser og salgs- og drifts -teknikker, CEPSA har fastsat. Denne
As regards the exclusive purchasing or non-competition clause, Tobar undertook to purchase exclusively from CEPSA fuels, including motorvehicle fuels, as well as lubricants and other related products, for resale in the service station at prices fixed for retail sale and in accordance with the conditions and methods of sale and business laid
Hvad angår klausulerne om fordeling af omkostninger og risici er Tobar for det første forpligtet til at bære risikoen for produkterne fra det tidspunkt, hvor de modtages fra leverandøren i oplagringstankene, og at opbevare dem på de vilkår, der er nødvendige for at undgå tab eller beskadigelse af dem.
As regards the clauses on the allocation of costs and risks, Tobar was obliged, first, to assume the risks associated with the goods as soon as they had been received from the supplier by being placed in the storage tanks and to keep them under the conditions necessary to ensure that they underwent no loss or deterioration.
Tobar er for det andet ansvarlig over for både leverandøren og tredjemand for ethvert tab og enhver forurening eller blanding, som produkterne måtte blive udsat for, og de skader, der hermed kan forvoldes 5.
Second, Tobar was liable, both to the supplier and to third parties, for any loss, contamination or adulteration which might affect the goods and for any damage caused by those goods.
For det tredje stiller Tobar garanti og er ansvarlig over for de kunder, som dette selskab har tilbudt kreditkortet CEPSA CARD, eller som det har ydet direkte kredit, men det bærer ikke risikoen for manglende betaling i forbindelse med anvendelsen af dette kort.
5Third, although Tobar did not bear the risk associated with unpaid debts arising from the use of the CEPSA CARD credit card, it nevertheless guaranteed and was responsible for customers who had signed up, through Tobar, for the use of that card or who had been allowed direct credit.
Tobar finansierer ligeledes en lille del af omkostningerne ved anvendelse af CEPSA’s loyalitetskort.
Tobar also contributed to the financing of a small proportion of the costs relating to use of the CEPSA loyalty card.
CEPSA afholder til gengæld alle omkostninger til transport af produkterne og udgifter til installation og vedligeholdelse af sit mærke på tankstationen.
On the other hand, CEPSA bore the cost of transporting the goods and the cost of installing and maintaining its brand image in the service station.
CEPSA overdrager endvidere tankene og brændstofstanderne til Tobar, som kun må bruge dem til salg af CEPSA’s produkter, og som skal tilbagelevere dem til CEPSA, når den autoriserede
Moreover, CEPSA also transferred to Tobar the fuel tanks and pumps which the servicestation operator could use only to sell
4 — Når den forelæggende ret ikke skelner mellem disse to udtryk, skyldes det, at en eksklusiv købskontrakt vedrørende motorbrændstof og andet brændstof adskiller sig fra eksklusive købskontrakter vedrørende andre varer, som f.eks. øl, i det omfang der ud fra et rent materielt synspunkt alene sælges ét mærke på disse bestemte tankstationer (mærkeeksklusivitet).
4 — The undifferentiated use of those two expressions by the referring court seems to be understandable in the light of the fact that, unlike exclusive purchasing contracts for other products, such as beer, an exclusive purchasing contract for motorvehicle and other fuels is characterised, as a matter of fact, by the sale of only one brand in a particular service station (single branding).
Jf. i denne retning dom af 7.12.2000, sag C-214/99, Neste, Sml. I, s. 11121, præmis 31.
See, in that regard, Case C-214/99 Neste [2000] ECR I-11121, paragraph 31.
5 — Denne risiko indbefatter ikke bare tab ved force majeure, men også forskelle i den solgte mængde og den leverede mængde, som skyldes ændringer i brændstoffernes temperatur eller andre årsager.
5 — Including the risk of losses due both to cases of force majeure and to discrepancies in volume between the product supplied and that sold, on account of changes in fuel temperature or for other reasons.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-279/06 brug ophører.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-279/06
I 2004 anlagde Tobar sag mod CEPSA med påstand om annullation af kontrakten med den begrundelse, at kontrakten var i strid med traktatens artikel 85, og at den var uden genstand eller ulovlig, fordi prisen kun kunne fastsættes af CEPSA.
In 2004, Tobar brought an action against CEPSA for annulment of the contract, claiming that it was incompatible with Article 85 of the Treaty, and that its purpose was non-existent or unlawful on the ground that the determination of the price was left to the sole discretion of CEPSA.
Tobar rejste ligeledes krav om erstatning.
Tobar also applied for damages.
CEPSA bestred denne påstand, nedlagde modpåstand om opfyldelse af kontrakten eller ophævelse af den, hvis den ikke ville kunne opfyldes, og fremsatte krav om erstatning i begge tilfælde.
CEPSA, for its part, defended the action and counterclaimed, demanding performance of the contract or its rescission if its performance was impossible and, in both cases, compensation.
Den 29. juli 2005 erklærede Juzgado de Primera Instancia i Madrid den omtvistede kontrakt for ugyldig, fordi den var uforenelig med traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, og med forordning nr. 1984/83 og nr. 2790/1999.
On 29 July 2005, the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Madrid (Court of First Instance, Madrid) annulled the contract at issue on the ground that it was incompatible with Article 85(1) of the Treaty and with
Hvad angår klausulerne om betaling for motorbrændstoffer og andre brændstoffer er Tobar forpligtet til at betale for disse brændstoffer inden for ni dage fra datoen for deres levering til tankstationen og til på datoen for den første levering at stille en bankgaranti for et samlet beløb, der svarer til 15 dages leverancer.
As regards the clauses relating to payment for the motorvehicle and other fuels, Tobar was required to pay the price of the motorvehicle or other fuels within nine days from the date of their delivery to the service station, and to take out and present, on the date of the first delivery, a bank guarantee for a total amount equivalent to 15 days’ supply.
I tilfælde af manglende betaling kan CEPSA iværksætte garantien, hvorefter tankstationsejeren skal betale for leverancerne på forhånd. Tobar oppebærer som vederlag den markedsprovision, der gælder for hver enkelt tankstation.
If Tobar were to fail to pay, CEPSA was entitled to enforce the guarantee, with the consequence that the servicestation operator would be required to pay for supplies in advance.
Det oprindelige beløb er fastsat i kontrakten, hvorefter provisionen ikke må være lavere end gennemsnittet af den provision, som andre operatører med væsentlige markedsandele betaler tankstationer for de samme produkter og i det samme geografiske område.
The initial amount was stipulated in the contract, which provided that the commission to be received would be not less than the average amount of the commissions paid to service stations by other market operators having a significant market share and for the same products in the same geographical area.
CEPSA’s betaling, der beregnes ud fra det antal liter, der leveres til tankstationen, fremkommer som den detailsalgspris, inkl. merværdiafgift (herefter »moms«), som CEPSA har fastsat, fratrukket provisionen til tankstationsejeren, plus moms.
The payments to CEPSA, determined on the basis of the number of litres delivered to the service station, were made by deducting from the retail price fixed by CEPSA, including value added tax (‘VAT’), the amount of the servicestation operator’s commission, including VAT.
CEPSA har appelleret denne dom til den forelæggende ret.
CEPSA appealed against that judgment to the referring court.
Såfremt kontrakten falder ind under artiklens anvendelsesområde, kan den da være omfattet af fritagelsen fra artiklens forbud, hvis den opfylder betingelserne i forordning nr. 1984/83, ikke mindst vedrørende varighed?
If the contract does fall within the ambit of Article [85](1) [of the Treaty], is it possible to claim the benefit of exemption from the prohibition if it satisfies the requirements of Regulation No 1984/83, especially those relating to duration?
Audiencia Provincial de Madrid mener, at der er behov for en fortolkning af traktatens artikel 85 og af forordning nr. 1984/83, for at der kan tages stilling til påstanden om, at kontrakten annulleres, og retten har derfor besluttet at udsætte sagen og stille Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
Having established the need for an interpretation of Article 85 of the Treaty and Regulation No 1984/83 in order to give judgment on the action for annulment of the contract, the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid decided to stay the proceedings and to submit to the Court the following questions for a preliminary ruling:
Hvis det forholder sig sådan, kræves det da i henhold til artikel 10 og 12 i forordning nr. 1984/83 — for så vidt angår muligheden for, at varigheden af konkurrenceforbuddet overskrider fem år mod leverandørens indrømmelse af økonomiske eller finansielle fordele til servicestationsejeren — at de økonomiske eller finansielle fordele er væsentlige, eller er det tilstrækkeligt, at de ikke er ubetydelige?
Is Article [85](1) [of the Treaty] to be construed as meaning that an exclusive supply contract under a brand name concluded in 1996 by a distributor of petroleum products and the operator of a service station requiring the latter to sell exclusively the supplier’s motorvehicle and other fuels for a fixed period, and to undertake not to sell such products supplied by other distributors, falls within the ambit of that provision in so far as that obligation involves a no-competi-tion agreement, even though that contract might, given its commercial significance, be regarded as an agency contract?
Skal [traktatens] artikel [85], stk. 1, fortolkes således, at en eneforhandlerkontrakt indgået i 1996 mellem en distributør af olieprodukter og en virksomhed, der er ejer af en servicestation, hvorved sidstnævnte forpligter sig til eksklusivt at sælge motorbrændstoffer og andre brændstoffer fremstillet af olie fra leverandøren i et bestemt tidsrum, og til ikke at sælge sådanne produkter leveret af andre distributører, falder inden for artiklens anvendelsesområde, for så vidt som den nævnte forpligtelse indebærer et konkurrenceforbud, selv om en sådan kontrakt på grund af dens økonomiske betydning kunne anses for en agenturkontrakt?
Can those provisions be interpreted as meaning that such commercial or financial advantages have been conferred in exclusive supply contracts under a brand name in which the supplier of petroleum products bears the costs of installing and maintaining its brand image in the service station, or transfers fuel-tanks and -pumps which the servicestation operator may not use without the authorisation in writing of the sole supplier for products not supplied by the latter and which it must hand back when it ceases to use them as authorised, and the value of which is covered by the guarantee on first demand that the servicestation operator has provided in favour of the supplier?
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-279/06 d)
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-279/06
Hvis der ikke er grundlag for en sådan undtagelse, vil den manglende retsvirkning som omhandlet i [traktatens] artikel [85], stk. 2, da påvirke hele kontrakten?
If that exemption should not be applicable, does the automatic nullity provided for by Article [85](2) [of the Treaty] affect the contract in its entirety?
motorbrændstoffer og andre brændstoffer fremstillet af olie i overensstemmelse med de af CEPSA fastsatte udsalgspriser, salgs- og driftsbetingelser og salgs- og driftsteknikker i ti år, med mulighed for forlængelse i på hinanden følgende femårige perioder, ved udtrykkelig og skriftlig aftale med et varsel på mindst seks måneder.
fuels, in accordance with the retail prices, conditions and sales and business methods stipulated by the supplier for a period of 10 years, which may be extended for successive periods each of five years by express agreement in writing on notice of at least six months.
Servicestationsejeren bærer risikoen for motorbrændstofferne og de andre brændstoffer fremstillet af olie fra det tidspunkt, hvor de modtages fra leverandøren i servicestationens oplagringstanke, herunder også den volumetriske risiko.
(ii) The servicestation operator assumes the risk associated with the motorvehicle and other fuels as soon as they are received from the supplier in the storage tanks, including the risk of discrepancies in volume.
Fra tidspunktet for modtagelsen af produkterne bærer servicestationsejeren forpligtelsen til at opbevare produkterne på de vilkår, der er nødvendige for at undgå tab eller beskadigelse af dem, og er i givet fald ansvarlig over for leverandøren og tredjemand for ethvert tab, forurening eller blanding, som de måtte blive udsat for, og de skader, der hermed kan forvoldes.
From the moment of receipt the operator assumes the obligation to keep the products in the conditions necessary to ensure that they undergo no loss or deterioration and is liable, where applicable, to the supplier and to third parties for any loss, contamination or adulteration which may affect the products and for any damage arising as a result thereof.
Servicestationsejeren skal betale leverandøren beløbet for motorbrændstofferne og de andre brændstoffer fremstillet af olie 9 dage efter datoen for deres levering på servicestationen, efter at han
(iii) The servicestation operator is required to pay the supplier the cost of the motorvehicle and other fuels nine days after the date of their delivery to the service station, on presentation on the date of the first supply of a bank guarantee for the total price … equivalent to 15 days’ [supply]. If it should fail to pay, apart from the possibility that the
Servicestationsejeren forpligter sig til udelukkende at sælge leverandørens smøremidler og andre hjælpemidler til motorkøretøjer,
(i) The servicestation operator undertakes to sell exclusively the supplier’s lubricants, vehicle products and motorvehicle and other
CEPSA alle de salg, der er foretaget ved kreditkortet, i måneden efter salgene, bærer en lille del af de omkostninger, som kundernes anvendelse af oliedistributørens bonuskort indebærer, og bærer risikoen for manglende betaling fra de kunder, som han har ydet direkte kredit.
CEPSA risk of non-payment by those customers who have been allowed direct credit.
Leverandøren af olieprodukterne bærer udgifterne til installation og vedligeholdelse af sit mærke i servicestationen og overdrager tanke og brændstofstandere, som servicestationsejeren uden skriftlig tilladelse fra leverandøren ikke må bruge til produkter, der ikke er leveret af denne, og som vurderes netop til det beløb, for hvilket servicestationsejeren har stillet garanti til fordel for leverandøren.
(v) The supplier of the petroleum products bears the costs of installing and maintaining its brand image in the service station, and also transfers the fuel-tanks and -pumps which the operator of the service station may not use, without the supplier’s authorisation in writing, to sell products not supplied by that supplier, and which are valued precisely at the amount of the bank guarantee that the servicestation operator has presented in favour of the supplier?
I tilfælde af manglende betaling er servicestationsejeren, bortset fra muligheden for at leverandøren iværksætter den af servicestationsejeren stillede garanti, forpligtet til at betale leverancerne forud for deres levering på servicestationen.
(b) supplier might enforce the guarantee presented by the servicestation operator, the latter would be required to pay for supplies before they were delivered to the service station.
Servicestationsejerens betaling til distributøren foretages ved fra den af distributionsselskabet fastsatte udsalgspris, inkl. moms, at fradrage beløbet for »provisionen« til servicestationsejeren, plus den tilsvarende moms.
Payment is made by the servicestation operator to the supplier by deducting from the retail price fixed by the distributor, including VAT, the amount of “commission” due to the servicestation operator, plus the corresponding VAT.
Det leverede motorbrændstof sælges i gennemsnit inden for en frist fra dets levering, der er meget lavere end de 9 dage, der er fastsat for sagsøgerens betaling til sagsøgte.
The fuel supplied is sold on average in a period of much less than the nine days provided for payment by the applicant (respondent in these proceedings) to the defendant (appellant in these proceedings).
Distributøren debiterer eller krediterer hver måned servicestationen, alt efter om der er ændringer i opadgående eller nedadgående retning, for svingningerne i de for de leverede motorbrændstoffer fastsatte priser.
The distributor debits or credits the service station monthly, depending on the upward or downward variation in the prices fixed for the fuel delivered.
Transportomkostningerne bæres af leverandøren.
The cost of transport is borne by the supplier.
Hvis det forholder sig sådan, skal Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1984/83 af 22. juni 1983, navnlig artikel 10-13, fortolkes således, at disse bestemmelser inden for deres anvendelsesområde omfatter en sådan kontrakt, således at forbuddet i [traktatens] artikel [85], stk. 1, ikke er anvendeligt, hvis kontrakten opfylder betingelserne for undtagelse, som er indeholdt i forordningens nævnte artikler?
If so, on a proper construction of Regulation [No 1984/83], and in particular of Articles 10 to 13 thereof, do those provisions catch within their scope a contract of that kind with the result that the prohibition laid down in Article [85](1) [of the Treaty] is not applicable if the contract satisfies the requirements for exemption contained in those articles of the regulation?
Servicestationsejeren stiller garanti og er ansvarlig for de kunder, som på grundlag af hans formidling er brugere af det kreditkort, der er oprettet og drives af den gruppe selskaber, som leverandøren tilhører; endvidere oppebærer han beløbene vedrørende
In that case, is Article 11 of that regulation to be construed as meaning that, if the contract at issue imposes more than one restriction on competition, and,
Skal artikel 11 i forordning nr. 1984/83 i så fald fortolkes således, at der i kontrakten pålægges andre konkurrencebegrænsninger, da leverandøren — ud
(iv) The operator of the service station guarantees and is responsible for those customers who have signed up for the use of the credit card created and managed by the group of companies to which the supplier belongs, charges the sales made by means of the card one month after they are made, finances a small part of the cost of customers’ use of the fuel distributor’s loyalty card and assumes the
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-279/06 over fastsættelsen af konkurrenceforbuddet med bestemmelsen om eneleverance fra en forsyningsvirksomhed — fastsætter salgsprisen?
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-279/06 moreover, if it stipulates no competition by providing for exclusive supply by one supplying undertaking, sale prices are fixed by the supplier?
Gør den tilladelse, som distributionsvirksomheden i november 2001 gav [ejeren af] servicestationen til at nedsætte salgsprisen uden at påvirke distributionsvirksomhedens indtægter, det muligt at anse kontrakten for gyldig?« der er delt i fire led [litra a)-d)], er stillet i tilfælde af, at det kontraktforhold, der er tale om i hovedsagen, anses for et agenturforhold mellem en agenturgiver og dennes mellemmand 6.
Does the authorisation given by [the supplier] to the servicestation [operator] to lower its sale price without affecting [that supplier’s] receipts, which took place in November 2001, make it possible to regard the contract as valid?’ four parts ((a) to (d)), is raised to cover the case in which the contractual relationship at issue in the main proceedings is classifiable as an agency relationship between the principal and his intermediary.
Det andet spørgsmål, der er delt i tre led [litra a)-c)], er stillet i tilfælde af, at kontraktforholdet anses for at være et forhold mellem to uafhængige virksomheder, og sigter i det væsentlige mod at klarlægge, hvordan traktatens artikel 85 og forordning nr. 1984/83 skal fortolkes i forhold til omstændighederne i hovedsagen 7.
6 The second, which subdivides into three parts ((a) to (c)), is submitted to cover the case in which that contractual relationship is to be regarded as a relationship between two independent undertakings and consists, in essence, in ascertaining the interpretation of Article 85 of the Treaty and of Regulation No 1984/83 in the light of the facts of the case in the main proceedings. 7
CEPSA, Tobar og Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber har indgivet skriftlige indlæg i henhold til artikel 23 i Domstolens statut.
CEPSA, Tobar and the Commission of the European Communities submitted written observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
De har ligeledes afgivet mundtlige indlæg under retsmødet den 7. juni 2007.
They also presented oral argument at the hearing on 7 June 2007.
Man kunne godt besvare de to spørgsmål og deres respektive led i den rækkefølge, hvori de er anført, men jeg vil dog foreslå en anden løsning, hvor de behandles ud fra de problemstillinger, de rejser.
Although it would be possible to contemplate answering the two questions and their respective subdivisions in turn, I propose to adopt a different approach which consists in examining them according to the issues which they raise.
Jeg vil derfor først se på problemet med kvalificeringen af en kontrakt som den i hovedsagen omhandlede som en »aftale mellem virksomheder« i henhold til traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, [første spørgsmål, litra a), og andet spørgsmål, litra a)], dernæst i de to tilfælde, den forelæggende ret opererer med, vurdere, om gruppefritagelsen i henhold til forordning nr. 1984/83 (og senere i henhold til forordning nr. 2790/1999) kan finde anvendelse [første spørgsmål, litra b) og c), og andet spørgsmål, litra b) og c)], og til sidst, hvis gruppefritagelsen ikke finder anvendelse, undersøge, hvilke virkninger det har, hvis
It is therefore necessary, firstly, to analyse the problem of classifying a contract such as that at issue in the main proceedings as an ‘agreement between undertakings’ within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty (Question 1(a) and Question 2(a)), secondly, to assess, according to the two possible situations contemplated by the referring court, whether the block exemption provided for by Regulation No 1984/83 (and subsequently by Regulation No 2790/1999) is applicable (Question 1(b) and (c) and Question 2(b) and (c)) and, thirdly, to examine, in the event that the abovementioned block exemption is not
6 — Jf. ud over det første spørgsmål, litra a), den første sætning i forelæggelsesafgørelsens syvende afsnit (s. 13 i den oprindelige affattelse).
6 — See, in addition to the wording of Question 1(a), the first sentence of point 7 of the order for reference (p. 13 of the original version).
7 — Jeg vil i den forbindelse påpege, at selv om den forelæggende ret i sine to spørgsmål kun henviser til bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 1984/83, har den i forelæggelsesafgørelsens begrundelse også nævnt forordning nr. 2790/1999, der ligeledes er relevant for omstændighederne i hovedsagen.
7 — I note in this regard that, although the two questions submitted by the referring court refer only to the provisions of Regulation No 1984/83, the grounds of the order for reference also mention those of Regulation No 2790/1999, which is also relevant in the light of the facts of the case in the main proceedings.