natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο τ η ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ς Ο ζ ο Η ν ν ΐ η ά , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι δ ε ν α ν τ ί κ ε ι ν τ α ισ τ η Σ υ ν θ ή κ η π ρ ο ϋ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς π ο υ έ θ ε τ ε π ρ ο ς τ ο ύ τ ο ο Γ ε ρ μ α ν ό ς ν ο μ ο θ έ τ η ς , ήτοιτουλάχιστοντο90 % τ ο υ ε ξ η μ ε δ α π ή ς κ α ι α λ λ ο δ α π ή ς π η γ ή ς ε ισ ο δ ή μ α τ ο ς τ ο υ ς ν α φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ε ί τ α ισ τ η Γ ε ρ μ α ν ία ή , σ ε π ε ρ ί π τ ω σ η μ η σ υ γ κ ε ν τ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς τ ο υ π ο σ ο σ τ ο ύ α υ τ ο ύ , τοεξαλλοδαπήςπηγής, μ η φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ο ύ μ ε ν ο ε ν τ ό ς α υ τ ο ύ τ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς , ε ισ ό δ η μ α τ ο υ ς ν α μ η ν υ π ε ρ β α ί ν ε ι ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ο α ν ώ τ α τ ο ό ρ ι ο .
Fourth, the Court held that although a situation of necessitymight allow conduct which would otherwise infringe Article 85 of the Treaty tobe considered justified, such a situation can never result from the mererequirement to avoid financial loss. Fifth, the Court accepted that thepresumption of innocence appliesto the procedures relating to infringements ofthe competition rules applicable to undertakings that may result in the impositionof fines or periodic penalty payments.
Συγκεκριμένα, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο θ ε ώ ρ η σ ε ό τ ι , ό τ α ν ο ι π ρ ο ϋ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς α υ τ έ ς δ ε ν π λ η ρ ο ύ ν τ α ι , τ ο κ ρ ά τ ο ς τ η ς δ ι α μ ο ν ή ς έ χ ε ι τ η δ υ ν α τ ό τ η τ α ν α λ α μ β ά ν ε ι υ π ό ψ η τ ο υ τ η ν π ρ ο σ ω π ικ ή κ α ι ο ικ ο γ ε ν ε ι α κ ή κ α τ ά σ τ α σ η τ ω ν φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ο υ μ έ ν ω ν , ε φ ό σ ο ν η ε κ ε ί φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ η τ έ α β ά σ η ε π ι τ ρ έ π ε ικ ά τ ι τ έ τ ο ι ο (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 14η ς
However, where it is established that anundertaking has taken part in meetings between undertakings of a manifestlyanti-competitive nature, the view may be taken that it is for the undertaking toprovide another explanation of the tenor of those meetings, without that
ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η
amounting to an undue reversal of the burden of proof or to the setting aside ofthe presumption of innocence.
Ε π ε ι δ ή τ α δ ύ ο τ ε λ ε υ τ α ία κ ε ί μ ε ν α δ ε ν ε ίχ α ν ά μ ε σ η ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η , τ ο ε θ ν ικ ό δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο δ ι ε ρ ω τ ή θ η κ ε μ ή π ω ς τ α ά ρ θ ρ α 48 και51 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς (ν υ ν , κατόπιντροποποιήσεως, άρθρα39 ΕΚκαι42 ΕΚ) τ ο υ π ο χ ρ έ ω ν α ν π α ρ ά τ α ύ τ α ν α τ α ε φ α ρ μ ό σ ε ικ α τ ' α ν α λ ο γ ία ν π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ο υ ν α χ ο ρ η γ η θ ε ί π α ρ ο χ ή α ν α π η ρ ία ς σ ε ε ρ γ α ζ ό μ ε ν ο π ο υ ε ίχ ε κ α τ α σ τ ε ία ν ί κ α ν ο ς π ρ ο ς ε ρ γ α σ ία ε ν τ ό ς ά λ λ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς .
The Court stated that, although the concept of a continuousinfringement has different meaningsin the legal orders of the Member States, itin any event comprises a pattern of unlawful conduct implementing a singleinfringement, united by a common subjectiveelement.
Πράγματι, σεπερίπτωσημηκατ' αναλογίανεφαρμογής, ο Η .
On that basis it held thatthe Court of First Instance had been right in holding that the activities whichformed part of schemesand pursued a single purpose constituted a continuous infringement of the provisions of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, so that the five-yearlimitation period laid down by the legislation could not begin to run until the dayon which the infringement ceased.
Ν ΐ ]Ί ι υ ί δ θ α β ρ ισ κ ό τ α ν σ ε δ υ σ μ ε ν έ σ τ ε ρ η θ έ σ η α π ό τ η θ έ σ η π ο υ θ α β ρ ισ κ ό τ α ν ε ά ν δ ε ν ε ίχ ε κ ά ν ε ιχ ρ ή σ η τ ο υ δ ικ α ιώ μ α τ ο ς τ η ς ε λ ε ύ θ ε ρ η ς κ υ κ λ ο φ ο ρ ία ς τ ω ν ε ρ γ α ζ ο μ έ ν ω ν κ α ι ε ίχ ε ε ρ γ α σ τ ε ί μ ό ν ο σ τ ι ς Κ ά τ ω Χ ώ ρ ε ς .
Finally, with regard to the administrativeproceedings, one appellant complained that the Court of First Instance had notdrawn any consequences from the Commission's refusal to grant it access to the replies of the other producers to the statements of objections(Hercules Chemicalsv Commission).
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο α π ο φ ά ν θ η κ ε ό τ ι , ε ν ό ψ ε ι τ η ς ε υ ρ ε ία ς ε ξ ο υ σ ία ς ε κ τ ι μ ή σ ε ω ς π ο υ δ ι α θ έ τ ε ι τ ο Σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ι ο , αυτήηκατ' α ν α λ ο γ ία ν ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α κ α τ α σ τ ε ί υ π ο χ ρ ε ω τ ικ ή μ ό ν ο ν α ν ή τ α ν δ υ ν α τ ό , χ ω ρ ί ς π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή σ ε κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ά μ έ τ ρ α σ υ ν τ ο ν ισ μ ο ύ , να
The Court of Justice approved the approach followed by the Court of First Instance, which had not ruled on the lawfulness of such a refusalbut had established that, even in the absence of the refusal,the proceedings wouldnot have had a different outcome.
της 21η ς Μ αρτίου 1972 (ΕΕ ειδ. έκδ. 05/001,
Other important points may be found in the judgment in Commission v Anic Partecipazioni , cited above.
α ν τ ι μ ε τ ω π ισ τ ο ύ ν ο ι δ υ σ μ ε ν ε ί ς σ υ ν έ π ε ι ε ς μ ι α ς ε θ ν ικ ή ς ν ο μ ο θ ε σ ία ς .
Third, the Courtheld that patternsof conduct by several undertakings may be a manifestation ofa single infringement, corresponding partly to an agreement and partly to aconcerted practice.
Ε π ε ι δ ή τ έ τ ο ι α μ έ τ ρ α φ α ί ν ο ν τ α ν α π α ρ α ί τ η τ α σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η α υ τ ή , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ δ ω σ ε α ρ ν η τ ικ ή α π ά ν τ η σ η σ τ ο υ π ο β λ η θ έ ν ε ρ ώ τ η μ α (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 20ή ς Α π ρ ι λ ί ο υ 1999, Ο-360/97, Συλλογή 1999, σ. 1-1919).
Finally, the Court allowed the Commission's appeal in thiscase after observing that the Court of First Instance could not, withoutcontradicting itself, on the one hand accept the view that there was a singleinfringement, responsibility for which could be attributed globally to everyundertaking, and, on the other hand, partially annul the decision on the groundthat it had not been proved that the undertaking had participated in some of theactivities forming part of that single infringement.
Η ε λ ε ύ θ ε ρ η π α ρ ο χ ή υ π η ρ ε σ ιώ ν σ τ ο ε σ ω τ ε ρ ικ ό τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς ε π ί σ η ς α π ο τ έ λ ε σ ε τ ο α ν τ ικ ε ί μ ε ν ο σ η μ α ν τ ικ ώ ν α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ν κ α τ ά τ η ν ε ξ ε τ α ζ ό μ ε ν η π ε ρ ί ο δ ο .
In Case C-l L9l 97 P Ufex and Othersv Commission [1999] ECR I-I34I,the Court was given the opportunity to clarify the extent to which the Commission may reject complaints relating to Article 86 of the Treaty (now Article 82 EC) forlack of a sufficient Community interest.
Ό. 0 & 1ί & , Ι τ α λ ί δ α ν π Ύ \κ ο ο ς , η ο π ο ία χ ρ ή σ η α π α γ ο ρ ε υ μ έ ν ω ν ν α ρ κ ω τ ικ ώ ν τ η κ α ι τ η ς ω ς τ ο υ ρ ί σ τ ρ ι α ς
The appellants challenged the statementsof the Court of First Instance according to which the Commission was entitled,when assessing the Community interest, to take into account relevant factors otherthan those listed by the Court of First Instance in the case of Automec II.
12.1 κ α τ ο χ ή δ ι α μ ο ν ή Π ά γ ο υ α ν α ί ρ ε σ η κ α τ ά τ η ς α π ό ισ ό β ι α ς α π ε λ ά σ ε ω ς τ η ς σ τ η ν Κ ρ ή τ η , ά σ κ η σ ε ε ν ώ π ι ο ν τ ο υ Α ρ ε ί ο υ α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς τ ο υ π λ η μ μ ε λ ε ι ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ π ε ρ ί τ η ν ε λ λ η ν ικ ή ε π ικ ρ ά τ ε ι α .
The Court rejected that plea, after stating that, in view of the fact that the assessment of the Community interest raised by a complaint dependedon the circumstancesof each case, the number of criteria of assessment the Commission could refer to should not be limited and, conversely,it should not be required to have recourseexclusively to certain criteria.
Ε ρ ω τ η θ έ ν α π ό Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ξ έ τ α σ ε κ α τ ά π ό σ ο ν τ ο ε θ ν ικ ό δικαστήριο, το σ υ μ β ι β ά ζ ε τ α ι η π ο ι ν ή α υ τ ή μ ε τ ο υ ς κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ο ύ ς κ α ν ό ν ε ς π ε ρ ί τ η ς ε λ ε ύ θ ε ρ η ς π α ρ ο χ ή ς υ π η ρ ε σ ιώ ν , κ α θ ό σ ο ν η Ό . Ο & Ιΐο. θ ε ω ρ ή θ η κ ε ω ς α π ο δ έ κ τ ρ ι α τ ο υ ρ ισ τ ικ ώ ν υ π η ρ ε σ ιώ ν .
On the other hand, the Court found fault with thestatements of the Court of First Instance to the effect that establishing thatinfringements had taken place in the past was not covered by the functionsconferred on the Commission by the Treaty and that the Commission mighttherefore lawfully decide that it was not appropriate to pursue a complaintregarding practices which had since ceased.
Στηναπόφασητου, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο κ α τ έ λ η ξ ε ό τ ι ε π ρ ό κ ε ι τ ο π ρ ο φ α ν ώ ς γ ι α ε μ π ό δ ι ο σ τ η ν ε λ ε ύ θ ε ρ η π α ρ ο χ ή υ π η ρ ε σ ιώ ν , τοοποίο, επιπλέον, δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α δ ικ α ι ο λ ο γ η θ ε ί β ά σ ε ι τ η ς ε ξ α ι ρ έ σ ε ω ς π ε ρ ί δ η μ ο σ ία ς τ ά ξ ε ω ς , τ η ν ο π ο ία ε π ικ α λ έ σ θ η κ ε τ ο ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ό μ ε ν ο κ ρ ά τ ο ς μ έ λ ο ς .
The Court of Justice acknowledgedthat, in order to perform effectively its task of implementing competition policy,the Commission was entitled to give differing degrees of priority to thecomplaints brought before it, but the discretion which it had for that purpose wasnot unlimited.
Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ της 25η ς Φ ε β ρ ο υ α ρ ί ο υ 1964 (ΕΕ ειδ. έκδ. 05/001,
In deciding to discontinueconsideration of a complaint against such practices on the ground of lack of
Ο ι α π ο φ ά σ ε ι ς π ο υ ε κ δ ό θ η κ α ν σ τ ι ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς υ ά ά γ 'ά κ α ι Ζ β η α ί ύ α κ ο λ ο υ θ ο ύ ν σ ε μ ε γ ά λ ο β α θ μ ό τ η ν ο μ ο λ ο γ ία 8Μ η ά Ι β Γ (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 24η ς Μ α ρ τ ί ο υ 1994, 0-275/92, Συλλογή 1994, σ.
On 2L September L999 the Court gave judgment in three casesconcerning the application of the competition rules to conditions governing theaffiliation of undertakings to sectoral pension funds (Case C-67196 At b any International v Stichting Bedrffipensioenfonds Textielindustrie,, Joined Cases C-I15197, C-1 16197 and C-l 17 197 Brentjens' Handelsonderneming v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Handel in Bouwmaterialen and Case C-219197Maatschappij Drijvende Bokken v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer- en Havenbedrijven, all not yet reported in the ECR).
Ειδικότερα, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι τ ο γ ε γ ο ν ό ς ό τ ι τ α ε π ί μ α χ α π α ί γ ν ι α ή σ τ ο ιχ ή μ α τ α δ ε ν α π α γ ο ρ ε ύ ο ν τ α ν π λ ή ρ ω ς δ ε ν α ρ κ ο ύ σ ε γ ι α ν α α π ο δ ε ίξ ε ι ό τ ι η ε θ ν ικ ή ν ο μ ο θ ε σ ία δ ε ν σ κ ο π ο ύ σ ε π ρ ά γ μ α τ ι ν α ε π ι τ ύ χ ε ι τ ο υ ς σ κ ο π ο ύ ς γ ε ν ικ ο ύ σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν τ ο ς τ ο υ ς ο π ο ί ο υ ς φ ε ρ ό τ α ν ό τ ι ε π ι δ ί ω κ ε .
The Court ruled, first, that a decision taken by organisations representingemployersand workers in a given sector, in the context of a collective agreement,to set up in that sector a single pension fund responsible for managing asupplementary pension scheme and to request the public authorities to makeaffiliation to that fund compulsory for all workers in that sector did not fall withinthe scope of Article 85 of the Treaty.
Σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η Ι ^ά ά τ ά , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο α π ο φ ά ν θ η κ ε ε υ θ έ ω ς , δηλώνονταςότι, ε ν ό ψ ε ι τ η ς μ ε γ α λ ύ τ ε ρ η ς α π ο τ ε λ ε σ μ α τ ικ ό τ η τ α ς τ η ς π ρ ο ς ε π ί τ ε υ ξ η τ ω ν ε π ι δ ι ω κ ο μ έ ν ω ν σ κ ο π ώ ν γ ε ν ικ ο ύ σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν τ ο ς , η ε π ι λ ο γ ή τ η ς χ ο ρ η γ ή σ ε ω ς α π ο κ λ ε ισ τ ικ ο ύ δ ικ α ιώ μ α τ ο ς ε κ μ ε τ α λ λ ε ύ σ ε ω ς σ τ ο ν ε γ κ ε κ ρ ι μ έ ν ο δ η μ ό σ ι ο ο ρ γ α ν ισ μ ό α ν τ ί τ η ς ρ υ θ μ ί σ ε ω ς τ η ς δ ρ α σ τ η ρ ι ό τ η τ α ς τ ω ν δ ι α φ ό ρ ω ν ε π ιχ ε ι ρ η μ α τ ιώ ν π ο υ θ α ε ίχ α ν ά δ ε ι α ε κ μ ε τ α λ λ ε ύ σ ε ω ς τ έ τ ο ι ω ν π α ι γ ν ί ω ν σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο ρ υ θ μ ί σ ε ω ς μ η α π ο κ λ ε ισ τ ικ ο ύ χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α δ ε ν φ α ι ν ό τ α ν δ υ σ α ν ά λ ο γ η σ ε σ χ έ σ η μ ε τ ο ν ε π ι δ ι ω κ ό μ ε ν ο σ κ ο π ό .
In reaching that conclusion, the Courtrelied in particular on the social provisions of the EC Treaty and stated that whileit was beyond question that certain restrictions of competition were inherent incollective agreements between organisations representing employersand workers,the social policy objectives pursued by such agreements would be seriouslyundermined if management and labour were subject to Article 85(1) of the Treatywhen seeking jointly to adopt measures to improve conditions of work andemployment.
Αντιθέτως, σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η Ζ β η α ί ύ έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ισ τ ο η εθνικήνομοθεσία, εφαρμογήςτης, μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ α ν ν α τ η ε π έ β α λ λ ε φ α ί ν ο ν τ α ν ε θ ν ικ ό δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ν α π έ κ ε ι τ ο ν α ε λ έ γ ξ ε ι α ν ε ν ό ψ ε ι τ ω ν σ υ γ κ ε κ ρ ι μ έ ν ω ν λ ε π τ ο μ ε ρ ε ιώ ν α ν τ α π ο κ ρ ι ν ό τ α ν ό ν τ ω ς σ τ ο υ ς σ τ ό χ ο υ ς π ο υ δ ικ α ι ο λ ο γ ή σ ο υ ν κ α ι μ ή π ω ς ο ι π ε ρ ι ο ρ ισ μ ο ί π ο υ δ υ ν α ν ά λ ο γ ο ι υ π ό τ ο φ ω ς τ ω ν σ τ ό χ ω ν α υ τ ώ ν .
According to the Court, it therefore followed from an interpretationof the provisions of the Treaty as a whole which was both effective and consistentthat agreements concluded in the context of collective negotiations betweenmanagement and labour in pursuit of such objectives had to be regarded, becauseof their nature and purpose, as falling outside the scope of Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
π ε ρ ί υ π ό θ ε σ η Ε ι ι τ ο ν ?ϊ η %3 α φ ο ρ ο ύ σ ε τ η γ ε ρ μ α ν ικ ή ν ο μ ο θ ε σ ία ε π ι τ η δ ε ύ μ α τ ο ς κ α ικ έ ρ δ ο υ ς ε κ μ ε τ α λ λ ε ύ σ ε ω ς κ α ι έ θ ε τ ε γ ι α
That was so in the case of agreements which were concluded in the formof collective agreements, following collective negotiations between organisationsrepresenting employersand workers, and sought generally to guarantee a certainlevel of pension for all workers in the sector, thus contributing directly toimproving one of their working conditions, namely their remuneration.
μ ι α α κ ό μ α φ ο ρ ά τ ο ζ ή τ η μ α τ ο υ π ε ρ ι θ ω ρ ί ο υ ε λ ι γ μ ο ύ π ο υ δ ι α θ έ τ ο υ ν τ α κ ρ ά τ η σ τ ο ν φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ικ ό τ ο μ έ α ε λ λ ε ίψ ε ικ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ή ς ε ν α ρ μ ο ν ί σ ε ω ς .
followed from that conclusion that a decision by the public authorities to makeaffiliation to such sectoral pension funds compulsory at the request of organisations representing employersand workers in a given sector likewise couldnot be regarded as requiring or favouring the adoption of agreements, decisionsor concerted practices contrary to Article 85 or reinforcing their effects.
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο υ π ε ν θ ύ μ ισ ε , καταρχάς, ότιομισθωτήςμπορούσε, ω ς α π ο δ έ κ τ η ς υ π η ρ ε σ ιώ ν χ ρ η μ α τ ο δ ο τ ικ ή ς μ ισ θ ώ σ ε ω ς , ν α ε π ικ α λ ε σ τ ε ί τ α δ ικ α ιώ μ α τ α π ο υ τ ο υ π α ρ ε ίχ ε τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 59 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς (ν υ ν , κατόπιντροποποιήσεως, άρθρο49 ΕΚ).
On the other hand, the Court held that such pension funds were undertakingswithin the meaning of Article 85 et seq.of the Treaty inasmuch as they engagedin an economic activity in competition with insurancecompanies.
Σ τ η σ υ ν έ χ ε ι α έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι η ε π ί δ ικ η ρ ύ θ μ ισ η σ υ ν ε π α γ ό τ α ν δ ι α φ ο ρ ε τ ικ ή μ ε τ α χ ε ί ρ ισ η σ τ η ρ ι ζ ό μ ε ν η σ τ ο ν τ ό π ο ε γ κ α τ α σ τ ά σ ε ω ς τ ο υ π α ρ έ χ ο ν τ ο ς υ π η ρ ε σ ί ε ς , η ο π ο ία α π α γ ο ρ ε ύ ε τ α ι α π ό τ η ν ί δ ι α α υ τ ή δ ι ά τ α ξ η .
The fundsthemselves determined the amount of the contributions and benefits and operatedin accordance with the principle of capitalisation, the amount of the benefits provided dependedon the financial results of the investments made by them, andin certain circumstances they could or had to grant exemption from affiliation toundertakings insured by other means.
Ωστόσο, η Γ ε ρ μ α ν ία ε π ικ α λ ε ί τ ο τ η ν α ρ χ ή τ η ς σ υ ν ο χ ή ς τ ο υ φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ικ ο ύ σ υ σ τ ή μ α τ ο ς , υποστηρίζονταςκατ' ο υ σ ία ν ό τ ι τ ο φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ικ ό π λ ε ο ν έ κ τ η μ α τ ο υ μ ισ θ ω τ ή π ο υ α π ε υ θ ύ ν ε τ α ισ ε ε κ μ ισ θ ω τ ή ε γ κ α τ ε σ τ η μ έ ν ο σ τ η Γ ε ρ μ α ν ία α ν τ ισ τ α θ μ ι ζ ό τ α ν α π ό τ ο γ ε γ ο ν ό ς ό τ ι ε κ ε ί ο ε ν λ ό γ ω ε κ μ ισ θ ω τ ή ς υ π έ κ ε ι τ ο σ τ ο ν ε π ί μ α χ ο φ ό ρ ο .
Finally, the Court ruled that such a fund could be regarded as occupying adominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty (now Article 82EC), but that its exclusive right to manage supplementary pensions in a givensector and the resultant restriction of competition could be justified underArticle 90(2) of the Treaty (now Article 86(2) EC) as necessary for theperformance of the particular social task of general interest with which it had beencharged.
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο α π έ ρ ρ ιψ ε τ η ν ε π ιχ ε ι ρ η μ α τ ο λ ο γ ία α υ τ ή , κ α θ ό σ ο ν ο ε ν λ ό γ ω σ ύ ν δ ε σ μ ο ς ή τ α ν α π λ ώ ς έ μ μ ε σ ο ς .
The Member States could not be precluded, when determining whatservices of general economic interest to entrust to certain undertakings, fromtaking account of objectives pertaining to their national policy, and the Netherlands supplementary pension scheme fulfilled an essential social functionin the pensions system of that State.
Πράγματι, σ τ η ν π ε ρ ί π τ ω σ η γ ε ρ μ α ν ικ ή ς χ ρ η μ α τ ο δ ο τ ικ ή ς μ ισ θ ώ σ ε ω ς , ο μ ισ θ ω τ ή ς α π α λ λ ά σ σ ε τ α ι , κατάκανόνα, γ ι α τ ο ν λ ό γ ο κ α ι μ ό ν ο ν ό τ ι ο ε κ μ ισ θ ω τ ή ς υ π ό κ ε ι τ α ισ τ ο ν ε π ί δ ικ ο φ ό ρ ο , α κ ό μ η κ ι α ν ο ε κ μ ισ θ ω τ ή ς έ χ ε ισ τ η δ ι ά θ ε σ η τ ο υ π λ ε ί ο ν α μ έ σ α μ ε ιώ σ ε ω ς τ ο υ π ρ ά γ μ α τ ικ α τ α β α λ λ ο μ έ ν ο υ φ ό ρ ο υ .
The Court also established that the removalof the exclusive right conferred on such funds might make it impossible for themto perform the tasks of general economic interest entrusted to them undereconomically acceptable conditions and threatentheir financial equilibrium.
Σ ε μ ι α τ ε λ ε υ τ α ία υ π ό θ ε σ η , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ρ ω τ ή θ η κ ε ω ς π ρ ο ς τ α ό ρ ι α π ο υ θ έ τ ε ι τ ο κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ό δ ί κ α ι ο σ τ η ν ε λ ε υ θ ε ρ ία τ ω ν κ ρ α τ ώ ν μ ε λ ώ ν ν α ρ υ θ μ ίζ ο υ ν τ η ν κ ο ι ν ω ν ικ ή π ρ ο σ τ α σ ία τ ω ν ε ρ γ α ζ ο μ έ ν ω ν π ο υ α σ κ ο ύ ν δ ρ α σ τ η ρ ι ό τ η τ α σ τ ο έ δ α φ ο ς τ ο υ ς .
In Joined Cases C-215196 and C-216196 Bagnascoand Others v BPN and Carige [1999] ECR I-135, the Court was asked to consider the compatibilitywith Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty of standard bank conditions which the
Σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο τ η ς κ ύ ρ ι α ς δ ί κ η ς , έ π ρ ε π ε ν α κ α θ ο ρ ισ τ ε ία ν ο ι υ π ο χ ρ ε ώ σ ε ι ς π ο υ π ρ ο β λ έ π ο ν τ α ν α π ό τ η
A particular feature of thiscase is that the Commission had already examined those standard bank conditionsin the light of Artic,le 85 and had found that they were not capable of appreciablyaffecting trade between Member States.
Ε ν ό ψ ε ι τ η ς κ α τ α φ α τ ικ ή ς α π α ν τ ή σ ε ω ς , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ξ έ τ α σ ε μ ή π ω ς α υ τ ό τ ο α π ο τ έ λ ε σ μ α μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α ε π ι τ ε υ χ θ ε ί μ ε λ ι γ ό τ ε ρ ο δ ε σ μ ε υ τ ικ ο ύ ς κ α ν ό ν ε ς .
The Court did not accept that line of argument.It pointed out first of all that the costs arose from collective agreements concludedbetween employersand tradeunions which undertakings were bound to observe,and were included, by their nature, in the budgetsof undertakings.
Ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ ι ς υ π ο χ ρ ε ώ σ ε ι ς τ η ς κ α τ α ρ τ ί σ ε ω ς ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ω ν
While the Court's judgments in the field of indirect taxation aregenerally technical in nature and relatively limited in their scope, two cases concluded in 1999 are worth noting.
Ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ ο δ ικ α ί ω μ α ε γ κ α τ α σ τ ά σ ε ω ς , ε π ί κ ε ν τ ρ ο τ ω ν σ η μ α ν τ ικ ό τ ε ρ ω ν υ π ο θ έ σ ε ω ν π ο υ π ε ρ α τ ώ θ η κ α ν τ ο 1999 ή τ α ν τ α ζ η τ ή μ α τ α τ η ς φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ία ς .
13 In a dispute before the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo(Supreme Administrative Court) of Portugal, the issue was raised as to whether Portuguese legislation relating to a charge for the notarial certification of deedsrecording an increase in a company's share capital and a change in its name andregistered office was compatible with the directive.
θ ε ω ρ η θ ο ύ ν π ε ρ ισ τ ά σ ε ι ς ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά ο ι δ ύ ο κ α τ η γ ο ρ ί ε ς ε τ α ι ρ ιώ ν , ό τ α ν ό λ ε ς ο ι ά λ λ ε ς ε ί ν α ι ο ι ί δ ι ε ς , ω ς τ ε λ ο ύ σ ε ς σ ε π α ρ ε μ φ ε ρ ε ί ς κ α τ α σ τ ά σ ε ι ς τ ο ν τ ρ ό π ο κ α θ ο ρ ισ μ ο ύ τ η ς φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ η τ έ α ς β ά σ ε ω ς .
proceedings before their nationalcourts. Finally, the charge at issue could notfall within the derogation for duties paid by way of fees or dues since its amountincreased in direct proportion to the capital raised and without any upper limit fiudgment of 29 September 1999 in Case C-56/98 Modelo v Director-Geral dos Registos e lt'lotariado, not yet reported in the ECR).
Σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η 8α ί η ί-Ο ο Ι ) α ί η , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ξ έ τ α σ ε τ ο φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ικ ό κ α θ ε σ τ ώ ς μ ό ν ι μ η ς ε γ κ α τ α σ τ ά σ ε ω ς σ τ η Γ ε ρ μ α ν ία , τ η ς ο π ο ία ς τ η ν ε κ μ ε τ ά λ λ ε υ σ η ε ίχ ε κ ε φ α λ α ι ο υ χ ικ ή ε τ α ι ρ ία η ο π ο ία ε ίχ ε τ η ν έ δ ρ α τ η ς σ ε ά λ λ ο - κ ρ ά τ ο ς μ έ λ ο ς κ α ι μ ε τ ε ίχ ε σ τ ο κ ε φ ά λ α ι ο ε τ α ι ρ ιώ ν ε γ κ α τ ε σ τ η μ έ ν ω ν σ ε ά λ λ α κ ρ ά τ η (απόφασητης 21η ς Σ ε π τ ε μ β ρ ί ο υ 1999, Ο-307/97, 5αίηΐ-Οοί > αίη, η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ).
The Court delivered 10 judgments in 1999 in the field of publicprocurement, most in response to questions posed by national courts concerningthe interpretation of Community directives.
Τέλος, η ί δ ι α π ρ ο σ έ γ γ ισ η ο δ ή γ η σ ε τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ν α κ ρ ί ν ε ι α ν τ ί θ ε τ η π ρ ο ς τ η Σ υ ν θ ή κ η τ η σ ο υ η δ ικ ή ν ο μ ο θ ε σ ία π ο υ κ α θ ι έ ρ ω ν ε δ ι α φ ο ρ ε τ ικ ή μ ε τ α χ ε ί ρ ισ η μ ε τ α ξ ύ δ ι α φ ό ρ ω ν ε ι δ ώ ν μ ε τ α β ι β ά σ ε ω ν ε ν τ ό ς ε ν ό ς ο μ ί λ ο υ , σ τ η ρ ι ζ ό μ ε ν η σ τ ο κ ρ ι τ ή ρ ι ο τ η ς έ δ ρ α ς τ ω ν θ υ γ α τ ρ ικ ώ ν ε τ α ι ρ ιώ ν , καιηοποία, ωςεκτούτου, σ υ ν ισ τ ο ύ σ ε ε μ π ό δ ι ο γ ι α τ ι ς σ ο υ η δ ικ έ ς ε τ α ι ρ ί ε ς π ο υ ε π ι θ υ μ ο ύ σ α ν ν α σ υ σ τ ή σ ο υ ν θ υ γ α τ ρ ικ έ ς ε τ α ι ρ ί ε ς σ ε ά λ λ α κ ρ ά τ η μ έ λ η (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 18η ς Ν ο ε μ β ρ ί ο υ 1999, Ο-200/98, Χ κ α ι Υ , η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ).
In the case of AlcatelAustria. the national court was uncertain whether Austrian legislation was compatible with Directive 89l6651EEC, which regulatesprocedures for reviewing the award of public supply and public works contracts 1a and, if it was not, whether that directive could directly overcome the inadequacies of national law fiudgment of 28 October L999 in Case C-81/98
Π ά ν τ ο τ ε σ τ ο ν φ ο ρ ο λ ο γ ικ ό τ ο μ έ α , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι τ α 52 (νυν, κατόπιντροποποιήσεως, άρθρο 43 ΕΚ) και58 (νυν48 ΕΚ) τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς , ό τ α ν ε φ α ρ μ ό ζ ο ν τ α ν σ ε κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ έ ς
Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of rhe laws, regulationsand administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1g8gL 395, p. 33).
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι η η π ρ α κ τ ικ ή α υ τ ή α π ο τ ε λ ο ύ σ ε ε μ π ό δ ι ο σ τ η ν ε λ ε υ θ ε ρ ία ε γ κ α τ α σ τ ά σ ε ω ς κ α ι ό τ ι τ ο γ ε γ ο ν ό ς ό τ ι υ π ή κ ο ο ς κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς π ο υ ε π ι θ υ μ ε ί ν α σ υ σ τ ή σ ε ι ε τ α ι ρ ία ε π ι λ έ γ ε ι ν α τ η σ υ σ τ ή σ ε ι ε ν τ ό ς τ ο υ κ ρ ά τ ο υ ς μ έ λ ο υ ς
The directive can beinapplicable only in the case where the local authority exercisesover the personconcerned a control which is similar to that which it exercisesover its owndepartments and, at the same time, that person carries out the essential part of itsactivities with the controlling local authority or authorities (udgment of 18November 1999 in Case C-107198 Teckal v Comune di Viano and Another, notyet reported in the ECR).
Τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε , εξάλλου, ό τ ι τ ο ε μ π ό δ ι ο α υ τ ό δ ε ν π λ η ρ ο ύ σ ε τ ι ς α π α ι τ ο ύ μ ε ν ε ς π ρ ο ϋ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς π ρ ο κ ε ι μ έ ν ο υ ν α δ ικ α ι ο λ ο γ η θ ε ία π ό ε π ι τ α κ τ ικ ό λ ό γ ο γ ε ν ικ ο ύ σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν τ ο ς α π τ ο μ έ ν ο υ τ η ς π ρ ο σ τ α σ ία ς τ ω ν π ισ τ ω τ ώ ν .
In Joined Cases C-108197 and C- 109197 Windsuffing Chiemsee v Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and Another fi9991 ECR l-2779, the Courtprovided substantial clarification as to the circumstances in which Article 3(lXc) of the directive precludes registration of a trade mark consisting exclusively of ageographical name.