natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ΡΙΕΟΤΠΜ & 55ΠΓ10, δικαστής(1952-1958), Πρόεδροςαπότο 1952 έωςτο1958 δ Ε Κ Κ Α Κ Ε Ν δ Ρ ε ΐ π ΐ δ , .Γοδερίιυδ, δ ε ί Ύ ίΐι ΐ υ δ , δικαστής(1952-1958) Κ Ι Ε δ Ε Ο ΐΐο , δικαστής(1952-1963) ϋ Ε Ε ν Α υ Χ Ε ο υ ί δ , δικαστής(1952-1967) Κ υ Ε Ρ Ρ Ι & ο φ ΐ 68, δικαστής(1952-1959 και1960-1962) α π ό τ ο Η Α Μ Μ Ε δ Ο Ι ι & Γ ί ε δ Ε έ ο η , δικαστής(1952-1967), Πρόεδρος1964 έωςτο 1967 ν Α Ν Κ Ε Ε Ρ Ρ Ε Ν δ Α ά π & η υ δ , δικαστής(1952-1958) ΕΑΟΚΑΝΟΕΜ & υποε, γ ε ν ικ ό ς ε ισ α γ γ ε λ έ α ς (1952-1964) (1953-1973)
The pleas on the substance put forward by the applicants were also rejected, sothat the findings made by the Commission were confirmed, with the exception,however, of the allegations that Sociötö Artösienne de Vinyle ("SAV") hadparticipatedin the infringement after the first half of 1981. e
Κ.ΟΕΜΕΚΚ & ΓΙ, γ ε ν ικ ό ς ε ισ α γ γ ε λ έ α ς Κ Ο δ δ ΙΚ ΐ η ο , δικαστής(1958-1964) ϋ Ο Ν Ν Ε Κ Α π α τ ε Β δ Μ & Ι ΐ Μ & δ , δικαστής (1958-1979), Πρόεδρος α π ό κ α ι γ ε ν ικ ό ς α π ό τ ο
The applicants put forward a series of pleas on the matter of evidence. In thisconnection, the Court considered whether the evidence used by the Commissionagainst the undertakings was admissible.
1967 το1958 έωςτο 1964 Ο Α Τ Α Ε Α Ν Ο Ν ΐ ο ο ί Β , δικαστής(1958-1962) Τ Κ Α Β υ Ο Ο Η Ι Α 1ΐ 36Γ ΐ ο , δικαστής(1962-1972) ε ισ α γ γ ε λ έ α ς (1973-1976) Ι , Ε Ο Ο υ Κ Τ Κ ο β ε η , δικαστής(1962-1976), Πρόεδροςέωςτο1976
In particular, it had to decide on theadmissibility and the merits of the plea relied on by certain applicants that, incarrying out its investigations,the Commission had infringed the principle ofinviolability of the home.
Πρόεδροςαπότο1984 έ ω ς τ ο \ν Α Κ Ν Ε Κ Ι ε & η - Ρ ΐ ε ι τ ε , γενικός 1988 εισαγγελέας
Th" fine imposed on SAV was accordingly reduced by the Court.
Η Α Μ Μ Ε δ Ο ι & Γ ΐ β β Ε έ ο η (1964-1967) Ε Ε Ο Ο υ Κ Τ Κ ο & β Π (1967-1976) Κ υ Τ δ Ο Η Ε Κ Η & η δ (1976-1980) Μ Ε Κ Τ Ε Ν δ Ό Ε \Υ Ι Ε Μ Α Κ δ Ι ο δ δ ε Ι . (1980-1984) Μ Α Ο Κ Ε Ν Ζ Ι Ε δ Τ Ι Ι Α Κ Τ Α ΐ ε χ & η ά ε ι Ι ο Ι ι η (1984-1988) ΌΌΕΟίε(1988-1994) - Γραμματείς
It was true that, in order to ensure the effectiveness of Article It(Z) and (5) of Regulation No17 , the Commission was entitled to compel an undertaking to provide all necessary information concerning such facts as might be known to it and todisclose to the Commission, if necessary, such documents relating thereto as werein its possession, even if the latter could be used to establish, against it or anotherundertaking, the existence of anti-competitive conduct.
Ο υ Τ Τ Ε Α 1ϊ )6Γ ΐ (1953-1982) Ρ & υΐ(1982-1988) υ ϋ Ι ε α η - Ο υ γ (1988-1994) ν Α Ν Η Ε Ι Μ Ο ΙΚ
Next, the Court confirmed that, under Article 85 of the EC Treaty, the Commission could classify conduct alleged against undertakings as an agreement
Α
The
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο τ ω ν Ε υ ρ ω π α ϊκ ώ ν Κ ο ι ν ο τ ή τ ω ν
In Joined Cases T-185/96, T-189/96 and T-L90196Riviera Auto Service and
Πράγματι, στις25 Σεπτεμβρίου1989 ο ρ κ ί σ τ η κ α ν ε ν ώ π ι ο ν τ ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ τ ω ν Ε υ ρ ω π α ϊκ ώ ν Κ ο ι ν ο τ ή τ ω ν τ α π ρ ώ τ α μ έ λ η τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ , η δ ε π ρ ώ τ η α π ό φ α σ η τ ο υ ε κ δ ό θ η κ ε τ ρ ε ι ς μ ή ν ε ς α ρ γ ό τ ε ρ α , τ ο ν Δ ε κ έ μ β ρ ι ο τ ο υ 1989.
The Court agreed with the Commission that, unless one supposes thereto be a lacuna in the application of Article 86 of the EC Treaty, it cannot beaccepted that undertakings in a vertical relationship, without however being integratedto the extent of constitutingone and the same undertaking, should beable abusivelyto exploit a joint dominant position.
Προςτονσκοπόαυτόν, η π ρ ο ο δ ε υ τ ικ ή δ ι ε ύ ρ υ ν σ η τ ω ν α ρ μ ο δ ι ο τ ή τ ω ν τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ θ ε ω ρ ή θ η κ ε ω ς α π τ ό δ ε ί γ μ α τ η ς ε π ι τ υ χ ία ς τ ο υ σ τ η ν α π ο σ τ ο λ ή π ο υ τ ο υ ε ίχ ε α ρ χ ικ ά α ν α τ ε θ ε ί .
Whilst the existence of a joint dominantposition may be deducedfrom the position which the economic entities concernedtogether hold on the market in question, the abuse does not necessarily have tobe the action of all the undertakings.
Τ ο γ ε γ ο ν ό ς α υ τ ό έ δ ω σ ε σ τ ο ν Π ρ ό ε δ ρ ο τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ τ η ν ε υ κ α ι ρ ία ν α υ π ο γ ρ α μ μ ί σ ε ισ υ μ β ο λ ικ ά ό τ ι , μέσασεμίαδεκαετία, π ε ρ α τ ώ θ η κ α ν π ε ρ ί π ο υ 2000 υποθέσεις.
The Court also confirmed that the applicant had a dominant position in theindustrial sugar market simply by virtue of holding a market share of over 5A%.
α π ό ε ξ έ χ ο ν τ ε ς ε ν δ ι α φ έ ρ ο υ σ ε ς π ρ ο σ τ α σ ία τ ω ν τ η ς α υ ξ α ν ό μ ε ν η ς σ τ α έ γ γ ρ α φ α τ ω ν
The Commission's findings concerning abuses by the applicant of its dominantposition in the Irish industrial and retail sugar markets were also reviewedby the Court, which confirmed almost all of those findings.
Τ ο π ρ ώ τ ο θ έ μ α α φ ο ρ ο ύ σ ε τ η δ ικ α σ τ ικ ή π ο λ ι τ ώ ν .
Ody one of the unlawful acts alleged was held to be unfounded.
κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ώ ν ο ρ γ ά ν ω ν κ α ι λ ό γ ω τ η ς δ ι α μ ο ρ φ ώ σ ε ω ς ν έ ω ν κ α ν ό ν ω ν γ ι α τ η ν ά σ κ η σ η τ ο υ δ ικ α ιώ μ α τ ο ς π ρ ο σ β ά σ ε ω ς π ο υ π ρ ο β λ έ π ε ι τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 255 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ (π ο υ π ρ ο σ τ έ θ η κ ε μ ε τ η Σ υ ν θ ή κ η τ ο υ Ά μ σ τ ε ρ ν τ α μ ), α φ ο ρ ο ύ σ ε έ ν α ε π ί κ α ι ρ ο κ α ι α μ φ ι λ ε γ ό μ ε ν ο ζ ή τ η μ α , τ ο ζ ή τ η μ α τ η ς δ ι α φ ά ν ε ι α ς .
of supply, to bar competitors from access to the market, to apply dissimilarconditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties or to strengthen thedominant position by distortingcompetition. competition.
Μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ ω ν υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ν π ο υ ε ισ ή χ θ η σ α ν τ ο 1999 π ε ρ ι λ α μ β ά ν ε τ α ι μ ία σ ε ι ρ ά 71 π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ώ ν π ο υ ά σ κ η σ α ν Ο λ λ α ν δ ο ί ι δ ι ο κ τ ή τ ε ς π ρ α τ η ρ ί ω ν β ε ν ζ ί ν η ς ζ η τ ώ ν τ α ς τ η ν α κ ύ ρ ω σ η α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς μ ε τ η ν ο π ο ία δ ι α τ ά χ θ η κ ε η α ν ά κ τ η σ η κ ρ α τ ικ ώ ν ε ν ισ χ ύ σ ε ω ν π ο υ τ ο υ ς ε ίχ α ν κ α τ α β λ η θ ε ί .
The parties to the case differedas to whether or not special rebates to customersfacing competition constitute areaction that is compatible with the particular responsibility owed by anundertaking holding a dominant position, in so far as the prices in question arenot predatorywithin the meaning of the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case
Ο σ υ ν ο λ ικ ό ς α ρ ι θ μ ό ς τ ω ν ε κ δ ικ α σ θ ε ισ ώ ν υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ν α ν έ ρ χ ε τ α ισ ε 634 (ήτοι 308 λ α μ β α ν ο μ έ ν η ς υ π ό ψ η τ η ς σ υ ν ε κ δ ικ ά σ ε ω ς ).
The applicant's argument that it was lawful to grantthe special rebates having regard, in particular, to the defensive nature of itsconduct was therefore not accepted.
Ο α ρ ι θ μ ό ς α υ τ ό ς π ε ρ ι λ α μ β ά ν ε ικ α ι τ ι ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς σ τ ι ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς π ο υ ε ίχ α ν ε ισ α χ θ ε ί τ ο 1994 κ α τ ά τ ω ν α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ν τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς μ ε τ ι ς ο π ο ί ε ς ε ίχ α ν δ ι α π ισ τ ω θ ε ί π α ρ α β ά σ ε ι ς σ τ ο υ ς κ α ν ό ν ε ς τ ο υ α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ σ τ ο ν τ ο μ έ α τ ω ν δ ο κ ώ ν χ ά λ υ β α (11 υποθέσεις), κ α θ ώ ς κ α ισ τ ο ν τ ο μ έ α τ ο υ χ λ ω ρ ι ο ύ χ ο υ π ο λ υ β ι ν υ λ ί ο υ (12 υποθέσεις).
The Court held in relation to this argument that, even though the existence of a dominant position does not deprive anundertaking placed in that position of the right to protect its own commercialinterests when they are threatened, the protection of the commercial position ofan undertaking in a dominant position with the characteristics of that of theapplicant at the time in question must, at the very least, in order to be lawful, be based on criteria of economic fficiency and be consistent with the interests ofconsumers. In the case before the Court, the applicant had not shown that those conditions were fulfilled.
Π ε ρ ι λ α μ β ά ν ε ι ε π ί σ η ς τ η ν π ε ρ ά τ ω σ η μ ι α ς μ ε γ ά λ η ς σ ε ι ρ ά ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ν π ο υ ή τ α ν ε γ γ ε γ ρ α μ μ έ ν ε ς σ τ ο π ρ ω τ ό κ ο λ λ ο τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ : π ο λ λ ο ί π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο ν τ ε ς π α ρ α ι τ ή θ η κ α ν α π ό τ ι ς π ρ ο σ φ υ γ έ ς τ ο υ ς κ α τ ό π ι ν τ η ς α π ο ρ ρ ίψ ε ω ς α π ό τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο τ η ς α ν α ι ρ έ σ ε ω ς π ο υ ε ίχ ε α σ κ η θ ε ί κ α τ ά τ η ν α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς α ν α φ έ ρ ο ν τ α ισ τ η σ υ ν έ χ ε ι α δ ε ν π ε ρ ι λ α μ β ά ν ο υ ν τ ι ς ε ι δ ικ έ ς α φ ο ρ ο ύ ν , μεταξύάλλων, τ η ν π α ρ ο χ ή τ ο υ ε υ ε ρ γ ε τ ή μ α τ ο ς ε κ κ α θ ά ρ ισ η τ ω ν δ ικ α σ τ ικ ώ ν ε ξ ό δ ω ν .
Finally, the Court considered, in connection with the claim seeking a reductionof the fine, whether the Commissionhad, in the procedure prior to the adoptionof the contested decision, failed to comply with the general principle of Community law that it must act within a reasonable time, in accordance with thecriteria laid down in SCI( and FNK v Commission, cited above. Having regardto the particular circumstances of the case, the total duration of the administrativeproceedings - approximately 80 months - was not held to be unreasonable.
Ο ι α ρ ι θ μ ο ί π ο υ δ ι α δ ικ α σ ί ε ς π ο υ π ε ν ία ς κ α ι τ η ν
By judgment of 16 December 1999 in Case T-198/98 Micro Leader Business v Commission, not yet reported in the ECR, the Court annulled a decision by the
ε ίχ ε α π ο ρ ρ ί φ θ η κ ε η π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή π ο υ Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ κ α ι τ η ς Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς .
which it had alleged that actions of Microsoft Franeeand Microsoft Corporationwere contrary to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty.
τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ μ ε α σ κ ή σ ε ι ε κ τ ε λ ω ν ισ τ ή ς τ η ν κ α τ ά ο π ο ία τ ο υ
The Court considered thatthe Commission had not erred in law or manifestly erred in its assessment whenit found that the matters brought to its attention by the complainant contained noevidence of the existence of an agreement or concerted practice within themeaningof Article 85(1).
Ωστόσο, παραμένουνεκκρεμείς88 υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς α φ ο ρ ώ σ ε ς γ α λ α κ τ ο κ ο μ ικ έ ς π ο σ ο σ τ ώ σ ε ι ς κ α ι 59 υ π α λ λ η λ ικ έ ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς π ο υ α φ ο ρ ο ύ ν δ ι α φ ο ρ έ ς σ χ ε τ ικ ά μ ε τ η ν ε π α ν ε ξ έ τ α σ η τ η ς β α θ μ ο λ ο γ ικ ή ς κ α τ α τ ά ξ ε ω ς τ ω ν ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ο μ έ ν ω ν .
The Court stated that the Commission could not argue, withoutundertaking further investigation into the complaint, that the information in itspossession did not constitute evidence of abusive conduct by Microsoft - in the Court's view that information contained an indication that Microsoft applieddissimilar conditions in the Canadian and Community markets to equivalenttransactions and that the Community prices were excessive.
Ο σ υ ν ο λ ικ ό ς α ρ ι θ μ ό ς τ ω ν ε κ κ ρ ε μ ώ ν υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ν σ τ α τ έ λ η τ ο υ έ τ ο υ ς α ν ε ρ χ ό τ α ν σ ε 724 υποθέσεις(έναντι1002 το 1998).
The Court pointed out that while, as a rule, the enforcement of copyright by its holder, as in the case of the prohibition on importing certain products from outside the Community intoa Member State of the Community, was not in itself a breach of Article 86 of the
Σ τ η δ ι ά ρ κ ε ι α α υ τ ο ύ τ ο υ έ τ ο υ ς , κ α μ ία υ π ό θ ε σ η δ ε ν ή χ θ η ε ν ώ π ι ο ν τ η ς ο λ ο μ έ λ ε ι α ς τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ κ α ισ ε κ α μ ία υ π ό θ ε σ η δ ε ν ο ρ ί σ τ η κ ε γ ε ν ικ ό ς ε ισ α γ γ ε λ έ α ς .
EC Treary, such enforcement could, in exceptional circumstances, involve abusiveconduct (Joined Cases C-24Il9l P and C-242191P RTE and ITP v Commission[1ee5] ECR r-743).
Ο α ρ ι θ μ ό ς τ ω ν α ι τ ή σ ε ω ν α σ φ α λ ισ τ ικ ώ ν μ έ τ ρ ω ν π ο υ υ π ο β λ ή θ η κ α ν σ τ η δ ι ά ρ κ ε ι α τ ο υ 1999 ε π ι β ε β α ιώ ν ε ι ό τ ι η ε ι δ ικ ή α υ τ ή δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία χ ρ η σ ι μ ο π ο ι ε ί τ α ι ό λ ο κ α ι π ε ρ ισ σ ό τ ε ρ ο (38 αιτήσειςτο 1999 έναντι 26 αιτήσεωντο1998 και19 αιτήσεωντο1997).
In an action brought under Article I75 of the EC Treaty (now Article 232 EC) the Court found that the Commission had unlawfully failed to act (iudgment of9 September 1999 in Case T-I27198 UPS Europe v Commission, not yet reported in the ECR).
Κατά61 α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ν τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ (ε π ί 177 δ υ ν α μ έ ν ω ν ν α π ρ ο σ β λ η θ ο ύ ν ) ασκήθηκεαναίρεση. Συνολικά, ε ν ώ π ι ο ν τ ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ α σ κ ή θ η κ α ν 72 αναιρέσεις3.
Automec v Commission [1990] ECR ll-367), the Commission is required eitherto initiate a procedure against the subject of the complaint or to adopt a definitivedecision rejecting the complaint, against which proceedings for annulment may be brought before the Community judicature (Case C-282195 P Guörin
α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ν υ π ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ω ν σ ε α ν α ί ρ ε σ η * 35 α ι τ ή σ ε ι ς α ν α ι ρ έ σ ε ω ς τ ο 1997 επί 139 α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ν υ π ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ω ν σ ε α ν α ί ρ ε σ η ), κ α θ ό σ ο ν η σ χ έ σ η α υ τ ή ή τ α ν τ η ς τ ά ξ ε ω ς τ ο υ 40,6 % στις 31 Δεκεμβρίου 1999, ενώήταντηςτάξεωςτου 32,7 % καιτου 25,1 % στατέλητου 1998 καιτου 1997.
reasonable time after receipt by the Commission of the complainant'sobservations. The Court held that the issue as to whether the period between thesubmission of the applicant's observations in response to the notification underArticle 6 of Regulation No 99/63 and the formal requestasking the Commissionto take a position on the complaint is acceptablemust be assessed having regardto the years already spent on the investigation, the present state of theinvestigation of the case and the attitudesof the parties considered as a whole.The Court granted the application before it since the Commission had not justifiedits failure to take action within the periods concerned and had not denied its failure to act.
Ο α ρ ι θ μ ό ς τ ω ν π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ώ ν π ο υ α σ κ ο ύ ν τ α ικ α τ ά τ ω ν α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ν τ ω ν τ μ η μ ά τ ω ν π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ώ ν τ ο υ Γ ρ α φ ε ί ο υ ε ν α ρ μ ο ν ί σ ε ω ς σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο τ η ς ε σ ω τ ε ρ ικ ή ς α γ ο ρ ά ς , π ο υ ι δ ρ ύ θ η κ ε μ ε τ ο ν κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ό
The Court delivered four judgments relating to the control of concentrations andmergers (udgments of 4 March 1999 in CaseT-87196 Assicuraztoni Generali and Unicredito v Commission, of 25 March L999 in Case T-rc2196 Gencor v Commission, of 28 April 1999 in Case T-221195 Endemol v Commission, and of
(ΕΚ) 40/94 τ ο υ Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ , τ η ς 20ή ς Δ ε κ ε μ β ρ ί ο υ 1993, γιατοκοινοτικόσήμα (ΕΕ1994, Ε 11, σ.
15 December 1999 in Case T-22197 Kesko v Commission, all not yet reported inthe ECR).
Εξάλλου, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ χ ε ι δ ι α β ι β ά σ ε ισ τ ο Σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ι ο π ρ ο τ ά σ ε ι ς γ ι α τ η ν τ ρ ο π ο π ο ί η σ η τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς 88/591 κ α ι τ ο υ Κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ Δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ .
It follows from the wording of Article 3 (in the version applicable at ttre time when the contested decisionwas adopted, before the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No I3I0l97 of 30 June 1997 amending
Η π ρ ό τ α σ η αυτή, η ο π ο ία
Regulation No 4064/89 (OJ 1989 L 180, p.
Οιπροτάσειςαυτές, μ ε τ ι ς ο π ο ί ε ς π ρ ο τ ε ί ν ε τ α ικ υ ρ ί ω ς η α ύ ξ η σ η τ ο υ α ρ ι θ μ ο ύ τ ω ν δ ικ α σ τ ώ ν τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ σ ε 21, δυνάμειτουάρθρου225 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ (π α λ α ι ο ύ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 168 Α), δ ι α β ι β ά σ τ η κ α ν σ τ ο Σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ι ο σ τ ι ς 27 Απριλίου 1999.
characteristics of the market in question and determined the extent to which thejoint venture carried out the functionsnormally performed by other undertakingsoperating on that market.
αυτού, ε ν τ ά θ η κ α ν δ ικ α ι ο δ ο τ ικ ο ύ τ η ς π ρ ο σ ε χ ο ύ ς ο ισ υ ζ η τ ή σ ε ι ς σ υ σ τ ή μ α τ ο ς τ η ς δ ι α κ υ β ε ρ ν η τ ικ ή ς
It then held that, where the joint venture is dependenton its parent companies for the provision of a body of services beyond an initialrunning-in period during which such assistance may be deemedto be justified inorder to enable it to gain access to the market, it has no operational autonomy andtherefore cannot be regarded as being in the nature of a concentration.
Τ ο έ γ γ ρ α φ ο α υ τ ό π α ρ ο υ σ ι ά σ τ η κ ε α π ό τ ο ν Π ρ ό ε δ ρ ο τ ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ σ τ ο Σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ι ο τ ω ν Υ π ο υ ρ γ ώ ν Δ ικ α ι ο σ ύ ν η ς , π ο υ σ υ γ κ λ ή θ η κ ε σ τ ι ς Β ρ υ ξ έ λ λ ε ς σ τ ι ς 27 και28 Μαΐου 1999.
The basis for the Commission's decision was that the concentration would have led to the creationof a dominant duopoly position between the entity resulting from theconcentration and another company (Amplats) in the world platinum and rhodiummarket as a result of which effective competition would have been significantlyimpeded in the common market.
Π ρ ο σ α ν α τ ο λ ισ μ ό ς τ η ς ν ο μ ο λ ο γ ία ς κατάτο 1999 ε κ τ ί θ ε ν τ α ιχ ω ρ ισ τ ά δ ι α φ ο ρ ώ ν τ ι ς ο π ο ί ε ς κ λ ή θ η κ ε ν α
The Court observed that Regulation No4064189 does not require that, in order for a concentration to be regardedashaving a Community dimensionwithin the meaning of Article 1 of the regulation,the undertakings party to the concentration must be established in the Communityor that the mining and/or production activities covered by the concentration mustbe carried out within Community territory.
Ο ικ ύ ρ ι ε ς ε ξ ε λ ίξ ε ι ς τ η ς ν ο μ ο λ ο γ ία ς γ ι α τ ο υ ς δ ι α φ ό ρ ο υ ς κ ύ ρ ι ο υ ς τ ο μ ε ί ς ε κ δ ικ ά σ ε ι τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο .
Since the objective of the regulationis to ensure that competition is not distorted in the conrmon market,concentrations which, while relating to mining and/or production activitiesconducted outside the Community, create or strengthen a dominant positionsignificantly impeding effective competition in the common market fall within theregulation's field of application.
Κ α ν ό ν ε ς α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ ε φ α ρ μ ο ζ ό μ ε ν ο ισ τ ι ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ι ς
Moreover, the regulation adopts as a criterionsales operations within the common market rather than production operations.
Η ν ο μ ο λ ο γ ία σ τ ο ν τ ο μ έ α τ ω ν κ α ν ό ν ω ν α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ π ο υ ε φ α ρ μ ό ζ ο ν τ α ισ τ ι ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ι ς ε μ π λ ο υ τ ί σ τ η κ ε μ ε α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς π ο υ ε κ δ ό θ η κ α ν κ α τ ' ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή ν τ ω ν κ α ν ό ν ω ν τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ Α Χ , της
The Court also held that the contested decision was compatible with the rules ofpublic international law given that it wasforeseeablethat the concentration, whileproposed by undertakings established outside the Community, would have an immediateand substantialffict in the Communiry.
κανονισμού4064/89 τ ο υ Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ , τ η ς 21η ς τ ο ν έ λ ε γ χ ο τ ω ν σ υ γ κ ε ν τ ρ ώ σ ε ω ν μ ε τ α ξ ύ
Second, the Court confirmed, on the basis of the legislative objective, that Regulation No 4064189applies to cases of collective dominant positions (see
Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ κ α ι τ ο υ Δ ε κ ε μ β ρ ί ο υ 1989, γιαεπιχειρήσεων.
Joined Cases C-68194 and C-30195 France and Others v Commission [1998] ECR r-1375).
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο ε ξ έ δ ω σ ε α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς σ ε μ ι α σ ε ι ρ ά έ ν δ ε κ α υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ν π ο υ ε ίχ α ν ε ισ α χ θ ε ί τ ο 1994.
Third, the Court held that the Commission had been fully entitled to find that theconcentration would have created a collective dominant position.
Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ Α Χ , απαγορεύονται
Nevertheless,particularly in the case of a duopoly, a large market share is, in the absence ofevidence to the contrary, likewise a strong indication of the existence of acollective dominant position.
Κ α τ ά «ό λ ε ς τ ο ο ι σ υ μ φ ω ν ί ε ς ο ι α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς μεταξύεπιχειρήσεων, ό λ ε ς κ ά θ ε ε ν α ρ μ ο ν ισ μ έ ν η π ρ α κ τ ικ ή ε ν ώ σ ε ω ν ε ν τ ό ς τ η ς ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ν κ α ι
The Court also held that links of a structural nature do not have to exist in order for it to be found that two or more independent economic entities hold a collectivedominant position; rather, the entities must be linked economically, in a more general manner.
· π · ο υ τ ε ί ν ο υ ν ή ή ν α έμμεσα, ναλειτουργία π α ρ ε μ π ο δ ίζ ο υ χ π ε ρ ι ο ρ ίζ ο υ ν τ ο υ α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ ».
Finally, the Court held that, under Regulation No 4064/89, the Commission haspower to accept from the undertakings concerned only such commitments as are capable of enabling it to conclude that the concentration at issue would not createor strengthen a dominant position within the meaning of Article 2(2) and, (3) ofthe regulation, it being unimportant whether a commitment is categorised asbehavioural or structural.
Μ ε τ ι ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς π ο υ ε ξ έ δ ω σ ε σ τ ι ς 11 Μαρτίου1999 , τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο θ ε ώ ρ η σ ε ό τ ι η η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ε ίχ ε α π ο δ ε ίξ ε ι ε π α ρ κ ώ ς κ α τ ά ν ό μ ο ν τ ι ς π ε ρ ισ σ ό τ ε ρ ε ς θ ί γ ο υ σ ε ς τ ο ν α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ό σ υ μ π ε ρ ι φ ο ρ έ ς π ο υ κ α τ ή γ γ ε ι λ ε μ ε τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς .
In Endemol v Commission, the applicant sought the annulment of the Commissiondecision of 2O September 1995 which had declared the agreementcreating the joint venture Holland Media Groep to be incompatible with the common market.The Court was required to determine the extent of the Commission's powers inrelation to concentrations without a Community dimensionwhen a Member Staterequests it under Article 22(3) of Regulation No 4064189 to examine whether sucha concentration is compatible with that regulation.
Ε κ τ ό ς τ η ς α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς Τ Η γ 8Ξ ε η 8ί α Η δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ ο σ ύ ν ο λ ο τ η ς , α π ό τ ι ς ά λ λ ε ς σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή μ ό ν ο ν ο ισ κ έ ψ ε ι ς τ ω ν ο π ο ί ω ν η α π ό τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο .
It also noted that the shareholders'committee, which took decisions by unanimous vote, had to give its priorapproval to certain decisions of the managing board which went beyond what was necessary to protect the interests of a minority shareholder.
Η κ ύ ρ ι α ό μ ω ς σ υ μ β ο λ ή σ υ ν ί σ τ α τ α ι α ν α μ φ ισ β ή τ η τ α κ α ν ό ν ω ν α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ μ ο ύ τ η ς γ ε γ ο ν ό ς ό τ ι τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 65 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 85 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ
Article 22(3) was not limited to requests from a government or ministry but alsoencompassed requestsfrom national authorities such as tlte Finnish Office of Free
Α π ό α υ τ ό π ρ ο κ ύ π τ ε ι ό τ ι η α ρ χ ή σ ύ μ φ ω ν α μ ε τ η ν ο π ο ία κ ά θ ε ε π ιχ ε ί ρ η σ η π ρ έ π ε ι ν α κ α θ ο ρ ίζ ε ι α υ τ ο τ ε λ ώ ς τ η ν π ο λ ι τ ικ ή π ο υ σ κ ο π ε ύ ε ι ν α α κ ο λ ο υ θ ή σ ε ισ τ η ν α γ ο ρ ά , χ ω ρ ί ς σ υ μ π α ι γ ν ία μ ε τ ο υ ς α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ τ έ ς τ η ς , ε ί ν α ισ ύ μ φ υ τ η π ρ ο ς τ η Σ υ ν θ ή κ η Ε Κ Α Χ κ α ι ι δ ί ω ς π ρ ο ς τ α ά ρ θ ρ α τ η ς 4, στοιχείοδ', και65, παράγραφος 1.
Competition and, second, that the Commission had had good grounds forconsidering that the Finnish Office for Free Competition was competent to submitthe request, having regard to the information available to it at the time of theadoption of the contested decision.
Έ ν α ά λ λ ο ε π ιχ ε ί ρ η μ α σ υ ν ί σ τ α τ ο σ τ ο ό τ ι η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή π α ρ α ν ό η σ ε τ ο π ε ρ ι ε χ ό μ ε ν ο τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 60 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ Α Χ .
EC Treaty that the Commission had failed to act fiudgment of 3 June 1999 in Case T-17196 TFI v Commission, not yet reported in the ECR; under appeal,