natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Αντιθέτω, οι piεριορισοί piου ενδεχοένω συνεpiάγεται ένα τέτοιο σύστηα ω piρο την ελεύθερη κυκλοφορία των κεφαλαίων αpiοτελεί αναpiόδραστη συνέpiεια του piεριορισού piου εpiιβλήθηκε στην piαροχή υpiηρεσιών.
The Court rejected the various arguments relied upon by the European Parliament, taking care to establish that, given the manner in which they are laid down, the derogations permitted by the contested provisions cannot be regarded as running counter to the fundamental right to respect for family life, to the obligation to have regard to the best interests of children or to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, either in themselves or in that they expressly or impliedly authorise the Member States to act in such a way.
Όσον αφορά την ελεύθερη piαροχή υpiηρεσιών, το ικαστήριο αpiοφάνθηκε ότι το άρθρο 49 ΕΚ έχει εφαρογή σε piερίpiτωση κατά την οpiοία ένα piρόσωpiο του οpiοίου η κατάσταση τη υγεία αpiαιτεί την piαροχή νοσοκοειακή piερίθαλψη εταβαίνει σε άλλο κράτο έλο για να του piαρασχεθούν οι σχετικέ υpiηρεσίε έναντι αοιβή, χωρί να χρειάζεται να εξεταστεί ο τρόpiο λειτουργία του εθνικού συστήατο στο οpiοίο υpiάγεται το piρόσωpiο αυτό και αpiό το οpiοίο εν συνεχεία ζητεί την κάλυψη του κόστου των υpiηρεσιών αυτών.
In Case C-205/03 P FENIN v Commission (judgment of 11 July 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court, after recalling that ‘undertaking’covers, in the context of Community competition law, any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of that entity and the way in which it is financed, stated that, in that regard, it is the activity consisting in oering goods and services on a given market that is the characteristic feature of an economic activity, so that, for the purposes of assessing the nature of such an activity, there is no need to dissociate the activity of purchasing goods from the subsequent use to which they are put and that the nature of the purchasing activity must be determined according to the subsequent use of the purchased goods.
Ακολούθω, εpiισήανε ότι εθνικό σύστηα υγεία, όpiω το NHS, το οpiοίο εξαρτά την κάλυψη του κόστου τη νοσοκοειακή piερίθαλψη σε άλλο κράτο έλο αpiό piροηγούενη έγκριση, ενώ η δωρεάν piαροχή των υpiηρεσιών στο piλαίσιο του συστήατο αυτού δεν εξαρτάται αpiό τέτοια έγκριση, συνιστά κώλυα στην ελεύθερη piαροχή υpiηρεσιών.
In Case C-551/03 General Motors [2006] ECR I-3173, an appeal by the eponymous car manufacturer against the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-368/00 General Motors Nederland and Opel Nederland v Commission [2003] ECR II-4491, the Court observed that an agreement may be regarded as having a restrictive object even if it does not have the restriction of competition as its sole aim but also pursues other legitimate objectives, and that for the purpose of determining whether it pursues an object of that type account must be taken not only of the terms of the agreement but also of other factors, such as the aims pursued by the agreement as such, in the light of the economic and legal context.
Ο piεριορισό αυτό piορεί, βεβαίω, να δικαιολογηθεί για λόγου piρογραατισού διασφαλίζοντο εpiαρκή και διαρκή piρόσβαση σε ένα ισόρροpiο φάσα piοιοτική νοσοκοειακή piερίθαλψη, και διασφαλίζοντο, εpiίση, τη συγκράτηση των εξόδων και την αpiοτροpiή τη σpiατάλη, οικονοικών, τεχνικών και ανθρωpiίνων piόρων.
It thus held that an agreement concerning distribution has a restrictive object for the purposes of Article 81 EC if it clearly manifests the will to treat export sales less favourably than national sales and thus leads to a partitioning of the market in question, and pointed out that such an objective can be achieved not only by direct restrictions on exports but also through indirect measures, such as the implementation by a supplier of motor vehicles, in the context of dealer agreements, of a measure excluding export sales from the system of bonuses paid to dealers, since they inuence the economic conditions of such transactions.
Αpiαιτείται εpiίση, υpiογράισε το ικαστήριο, οι piροϋpiοθέσει χορηγήσεω τέτοια εγκρίσεω να δικαιολογούνται αpiό του εpiιτακτικού αυτού λόγου και να ανταpiοκρίνονται στην αρχή τη αναλογικότητα.
The Court also recalled that, while proof that the parties to an agreement intended to restrict competition is not a necessary factor in determining whether an agreement has such a restriction as its object, there is nothing to prohibit the Commission or the Community Courts from taking that intention into account.
Το ικαστήριο αpiοφάνθηκε, σχετικώ, ότι, αν η piερίθαλψη δεν piορεί να piαρασχεθεί εντό ευλόγου αpiό ιατρική αpiόψεω piροθεσία, οι εθνικέ αρχέ piρέpiει να piροβλέpiουν ηχανισού καλύψεω του κόστου τη νοσοκοειακή piερίθαλψη piου piαρέχεται εντό άλλων κρατών ελών.
Last, the Court also held, in accordance with consistent case-law, that in order to determine whether an agreement is to be considered to be prohibited by reason of the distortion of competition which is its eect, the competition in question should be assessed within the actual context in which it would occur in the absence of the agreement in dispute and that, accordingly, in a situation such as that involving the implementation by a supplier of motor vehicles, in the context of dealer agreements, of a measure excluding export sales from the system of bonuses paid to dealers, it is necessary to examine what the conduct of those dealers and the competitive situation on the market in question would have been if export sales had not been excluded from the bonus policy.
εύτερον, στην αpiόφασή του εpiί τη υpiοθέσεω Acereda Herrera (αpiόφαση τη 15η Ιουνίου 2006, C-466/04, piου δεν έχει δηοσιευθεί ακόη στη Συλλογή), το ικαστήριο αpiοφάνθηκε, piροκειένου piερί τη αναλήψεω ορισένων εξόδων στα οpiοία υpiοβλήθηκε ασφαλισένο του συστήατο κοινωνική ασφαλίσεω κράτου έλου, λόγω νοσοκοειακή piεριθάλψεώ του σε άλλο κράτο έλο, για την οpiοία είχε piροηγουένω λάβει άδεια αpiό τον ασφαλιστικό του φορέα, ότι το άρθρο 22, piαράγραφοι 1, στοιχείο γ΄,
In Case C-74/04 P Commission v Volkswagen (judgment of 13 July 2006, not yet published in the ECR), an appeal by the Commission against the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-208/01 Volkswagen v Commission [2003] ECR II-5141, the Court held, moreover, that in order to constitute an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC, it is sucient that an act or conduct which is apparently unilateral be the expression of the concurrence of wills of at least two
Εξέλιξη και δραστηριότητα και 2, καθώ και το άρθρο 36 του κανονισού 1408/71, όpiω τροpiοpiοιήθηκε, δεν piαρέχουν στον ασφαλισένο δικαίωα αpiοδόσεω αpiό τον ασφαλιστικό του φορέα των εξόδων ετακίνηση, διαονή και διατροφή στα οpiοία υpiοβλήθηκε στο έδαφο του άλλου κράτου έλου ο ίδιο και το piρόσωpiο piου τον συνόδευσε, piλην των εξόδων διαονή και διατροφή του ασφαλισένου στο νοσηλευτικό ίδρυα.
Proceedings parties and that the form in which that concurrence is expressed is not by itself decisive. It stated, more specically, in that regard that while a call by a motor vehicle manufacturer to its authorised dealers does not constitute a unilateral act but an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC, provided that it forms part of a set of continuous business relations governed by a general agreement drawn up in advance, that does not, however, imply that any call by a motor vehicle manufacturer to dealers constitutes an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC and does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to prove that there was a concurrence of wills on the part of the parties to the dealership agreement in each specic case.
Εντούτοι, το άρθρο 39 ΕΚ αpiαγορεύει να λαβάνεται υpiόψη το piοσό των συντάξεων piου καταβλήθηκαν αpiό φορεί άλλου κράτου έλου αν έχουν καταβληθεί στο άλλο αυτό κράτο έλο εισφορέ ασφαλίσεω εpiί εισοδηάτων piροερχοένων αpiό δραστηριότητα ασκηθείσα στο τελευταίο αυτό κράτο έλο.
In another area, in Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission (judgment of 18 July 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court held, last, after emphasising that the mere fact that a rule is purely sporting in nature does not have the eect of removing from the scope of the Treaty, and in particular from the scope of the competition rules, a person engaging in the activity governed by that rule or the body which has laid it down, that, while anti-doping rules may be regarded as a decision of an association of undertakings limiting the freedom of action of the persons to whom they are addressed, they do not, for all that, necessarily constitute a restriction of competition incompatible with the common market, within the meaning of Article 81 EC, since they are justied by a legitimate objective. According to the Court, such a limitation is inherent in the organisation and proper conduct of competitive sport and its very purpose is to ensure healthy rivalry between athletes.
Στου ενδιαφερόενου εναpiόκειται να αpiοδείξουν το ότι όντω καταβλήθηκαν οι piρογενέστερε εισφορέ ασφαλίσεω.
Acknowledging, however, that the penal nature of such anti-doping rules and the magnitude of the penalties applicable if they are breached are capable of producing adverse eects on competition because they could, if penalties were ultimately to prove unjustied, result in an athlete’s unwarranted exclusion from sporting events, and thus in impairment of the conditions under which the activity at issue is engaged in, the Court made clear that, in order not to be covered by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, the restrictions thus imposed by such rules must be limited to what is necessary to ensure the proper conduct of competitive sport.
Θεωρήσει, άσυλο και ετανάστευση
Three further judgments deserve special mention in regard to the substantive application of the competition rules by the Court.
Κατόpiιν piροσφυγή κατά piαραβάσεω piου άσκησε η Εpiιτροpiή κατά του Βασιλείου τη Ισpiανία, λόγω τη piρακτική piου ακολουθούσαν οι αρχέ του κράτου έλου αυτού αρνούενε την είσοδο και τη χορήγηση θεωρήσεω σε υpiηκόου τρίτων κρατών, συζύγου υpiηκόου κράτου έλου, αpiλώ και όνον εpiειδή piεριλαβάνονται στον κατάλογο ανεpiιθύητων piροσώpiων του συστήατο piληροφοριών Σένγκεν (ΣΠΣ), το ικαστήριο, ε την αpiόφασή του εpiί τη υpiοθέσεω Εpiιτροpiή κατά Ισpiανία (αpiόφαση τη 31η Ιανουαρίου 2006, C-503/03, Συλλογή 2006, σ.
In Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04 Cipolla and Others (judgment of 5 December 2006, not yet published in the ECR), on references for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Torino (Italy) and the Tribunale di Roma (Italy), respectively, the Court held that Articles 10 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC do not preclude a Member State from adopting a legislative measure which approves, on the basis of a draft produced by a professional body of lawyers, a scale fixing a minimum fee for members of the legal profession from which there can generally be no derogation in respect of either services reserved to those members or those, such as out-of-court services, which may also be provided by any other economic operator not subject to that scale.
I-1097), διευκρίνισε τι σχέσει εταξύ τη Συβάσεω Εφαρογή τη Συφωνία Σένγκεν (στο εξή: ΣΕΣΣ) και των διατάξεων του κοινοτικού δικαίου piερί ελεύθερη κυκλοφορία των piροσώpiων. Αpiοφάνθηκε, εpiίση, ω piρο τη συpiεριφορά piου piρέpiει να εpiιδεικνύουν τα κράτη έλη κατά την εφαρογή του ΣΠΣ.
The Court considered, however, that such legislation containing an absolute prohibition of derogation, by agreement, from the minimum fees set by a scale of lawyers’ fees for services which are (a) court services and (b) reserved to lawyers constitutes a restriction on freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 EC and that it is for the national court to determine whether such legislation, in the light of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the objectives of protection of consumers and the proper administration of justice which
Εξέλιξη και δραστηριότητα ικα σ τή ρ ιο την ελεύθερη κυκλοφορία των piροσώpiων.
Court of Justice might justify it and whether the restrictions it imposes do not appear disproportionate having regard to those objectives.
Σχετικώ, το ικαστήριο υpiογράισε ότι είναι σύφωνη piρο τη ΣΕΣΣ η εκ έρου των κρατών ελών αpiαγόρευση, άνευ ετέρου, τη εισόδου και τη χορηγήσεω θεωρήσεω σε αλλοδαpiό ο οpiοίο piεριλαβάνεται στον κατάλογο ανεpiιθύητων του Σένγκεν.
Last, in Case C-125/05 Vulcan Silkeborg (judgment of 7 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR) and in Joined Cases C-376/05 and C-377/05 A. Brünsteiner (judgment of 5 December 2006, not yet published in the ECR), also references for a preliminary ruling, the Court had for the first time the opportunity to adjudicate on a number of questions inherent in the entry into force of the last regulation on exemption by category applicable to the motor vehicle sector, Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 20, and also to provide its first interpretations of that regulation.
Εντούτοι, στο έτρο piου ο αυτοατισό αυτό τη αρνήσεω piου piροβλέpiει η ΣΕΣΣ δεν διακρίνει ανάλογα ε το αν ο ενδιαφερόενο αλλοδαpiό είναι ή δεν είναι σύζυγο υpiηκόου κράτου έλου, έpiρεpiε να εξεταστεί αν η συpiεριφορά των ισpiανικών αρχών ήταν σύφωνη ε του κανόνε piερί ελεύθερη κυκλοφορία των piροσώpiων, ιδίω ε του κανόνε τη οδηγία 64/221 (16).
In those cases the Court, in particular, held that, while the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 did not, of itself, require the reorganisation of the distribution network of a supplier within the meaning of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 21, that entry into force might, however, in the light of the particular nature of the distribution network of each supplier, have required changes that were so signicant that they must be truly considered as representing a reorganisation within the meaning of that provision and that in that regard it is for the national courts or arbitrators to determine, in the light of all the evidence in the case before them, whether that is the position.
Ειδικότερα, το ικαστήριο έκρινε ότι η αναγραφή στον κατάλογο ανεpiιθύητων του ΣΠΣ συνιστά ασφαλώ ένδειξη piερί τη υpiάρξεω λόγου piου δικαιολογεί την αpiαγόρευση εισόδου στον χώρο του Σένγκεν.
In A. Brünsteiner, the Court further held that, on a proper construction of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002, once the transitional period provided for by Article 10 of that regulation had expired, the block exemption under that regulation did not apply to contracts satisfying the conditions for block exemption under Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 which had as their object at least one of the hardcore restrictions listed in Article 4, with the result that all the contractual terms restrictive of competition contained in such contracts were liable to be caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, if the conditions for exemption under Article 81(3) EC were not satised.
Εντούτοι, η ένδειξη αυτή piρέpiει να ενισχύεται αpiό piληροφορίε piου να εpiιβεβαιώνουν, εκ των piροτέρων, ότι η piαρουσία του ενδιαφεροένου στον χώρο Σένγκεν συνιστά piραγατική, ενεστώσα και εpiαρκώ σοβαρή αpiειλή, θίγουσα θεελιώδε συφέρον τη κοινωνία.
The Court made clear, in that regard, that the consequences, for all other parts of the agreement or for other obligations owing from it, of the prohibition of contractual terms incompatible with Article 81 EC are not, however, a matter for Community law and that it is therefore for the national court to determine, in accordance with the national law applicable, the extent and consequences, for the contractual relation as a whole, of the prohibition of certain terms under Article 81 EC.
Το ικαστήριο αpiοφάνθηκε ότι το άρθρο 20, piαράγραφο 1, τη ΣΕΣΣ έχει την έννοια ότι ο όρο «piρώτη είσοδο» τη διατάξεω αυτή αφορά, εκτό αpiό την piρώτη είσοδο στο έδαφο χωρών συβαλλοένων στη συφωνία Σένγκεν, την piρώτη εταγενέστερη είσοδο στον χώρο αυτό ετά την piάροδο εξαήνου piου ξεκινά αpiό την piρώτη γενικά είσοδο, καθώ και οpiοιαδήpiοτε εταγενέστερη είσοδο ετά την piάροδο κάθε νέου εξαήνου piου ξεκινά αpiό την ηεροηνία τη piροηγούενη piρώτη εισόδου.
The contribution made by two of those judgments lies essentially in questions of procedure and questions relating to the production of evidence. In Case C-105/04 P Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied v Commission (judgment of 21 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR) and Case C-113/04 P Technische Unie v Commission (judgment of 21 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court, while rearming that compliance with the reasonable time requirement in the conduct of administrative procedures relating to competition policy constitutes a general principle of Community law whose observance the Community judicature ensures,
Οδηγία 64/221/ΕΟΚ του Συβουλίου, τη 25η Φεβρουαρίου 1964, piερί του συντονισού των ειδικών έτρων για τη διακίνηση και τη διαονή αλλοδαpiών, τα οpiοία δικαιολογούνται για λόγου δηοσία τάξεω, δηοσία ασφαλεία ή δηοσία υγεία (ΕΕ 1964, 56, σ. 850).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 30).
Σύβαση εφαρογή τη συφωνία του Σένγκεν, τη 14η Ιουνίου 1985, εταξύ των κυβερνήσεων των κρατών τη Οικονοική Ένωση Μpiενελούξ, τη Οοσpiονδιακή ηοκρατία τη Γερανία και τη Γαλλική ηοκρατία, σχετικά ε τη σταδιακή κατάργηση των ελέγχων στα κοινά σύνορα (ΕΕ 2000, L 239, σ. 19).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article [81](1) [EC] to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 25).
Στην υpiόθεση Κοινοβούλιο κατά Συβουλίου (αpiόφαση τη 27η Ιουνίου 2006, C-540/03, piου δεν έχει δηοσιευθεί ακόη στη Συλλογή), το ικαστήριο αpiέρριψε piροσφυγή ακυρώσεω ασκηθείσα αpiό το Ευρωpiαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και στρεφόενη κατά του άρθρου 4, piαράγραφοι 1, τελευταίο εδάφιο, 6 και 8 τη οδηγία 2003/86, piερί οικογενειακή συνένωση (18).
Proceedings held that a finding that the duration of the procedure was excessive, and could not be imputed to the undertakings concerned, can entail annulment, on the ground of a breach of that principle, of a decision finding an infringement only if that duration, by adversely aecting the undertakings’ rights of defence, was able to inuence the outcome of the proceedings.
Προκειένου να καταλήξει στο συpiέρασα αυτό, το ικαστήριο εξέτασε τι piροσβαλλόενε διατάξει σε σχέση ε την αρχή του σεβασού τη οικογενειακή ζωή, την οpiοία θέτει η Ευρωpiαϊκή Σύβαση για την Προάσpiιση των ικαιωάτων των Ανθρώpiου, η Σύβαση για τα ικαιώατα του Παιδιού και ο Χάρτη Θεελιωδών ικαιωάτων η piροκήρυξη του οpiοίου έγινε εpiισήω στη Νίκαια το έτο 2000 (19), υpiογραίζοντα ότι τα νοοθετικά αυτά κείενα δεν γεννούν υpiέρ των ελών τη οικογένεια δικαίωα εισόδου και διαονή στο έδαφο κράτου και δεν δύνανται να ερηνευθούν υpiό την έννοια ότι piεριορίζουν την εξουσία εκτιήσεω piου διαθέτουν τα κράτη κατά την εξέταση των αιτήσεων οικογενειακή εpiανενώσεω.
The Court further observed that examination of any interference with the exercise of the rights of the defence owing to the excessive duration of the administrative procedure cannot be limited solely to the second phase of that procedure, but must also cover the phase preceding notication of the statement of objections and, especially, determine whether that excessive duration was capable of aecting the ability of the undertakings concerned to defend their rights in future.
Το ικαστήριο αpiέρριψε τα εpiιχειρήατα piου είχε διατυpiώσει το Ευρωpiαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, εpiιβεβαιώνοντα, κατόpiιν εξετάσεω, ότι, ε τον τρόpiο piου είναι διατυpiωένε, οι piαρεκκλίσει piου piροβλέpiουν οι piροσβαλλόενε διατάξει δεν piορούν να θεωρηθούν αντίθετε piρο το θεελιώδε δικαίωα σεβασού τη οικογενειακή ζωή, piρο την υpiοχρέωση συνεκτιήσεω του υpiέρτατου συφέροντο του piαιδιού ή piρο την αρχή τη αpiαγορεύσεω των διακρίσεων λόγω ηλικία, ούτε αυτέ καθεαυτέ ούτε καθόσον εpiιτρέpiουν ρητώ ή σιωpiηρώ στα κράτη έλη να ενεργούν κατ’ αυτόν τον τρόpiο.
In the same two cases, the Court further held, on the basis of its caselaw according to which the existence of an anticompetitive practice or agreement must in most cases be inferred from a number of coincidences and indicia which, taken together, may, in the absence of another plausible explanation, constitute evidence of an infringement of the competition rules, that the fact that evidence of the existence of a continuous infringement had not been produced for certain specic periods did not preclude the infringement from being regarded as established during a longer overall period than those periods provided that such a finding was supported by objective and consistent indicia.
Η σχετική ε τον τοέα αυτό νοολογία θα εκτεθεί διακρινόενη σε εκείνη piου αφορά του εφαροστέου εpiί των εpiιχειρήσεων κανόνε και σε εκείνη piου αφορά τι κρατικέ ενισχύσει.
Last, the Court also recalled in those judgments that, for the purposes of the application of Article 81(1) EC, where the various actions form part of an ‘overall plan’, owing to their identical object, which distorts competition within the common market, the Commission is entitled to impute liability for those actions according to participation in the infringement considered as a whole and that there is no need to take account of the actual eects of those actions where it appears that their object is to prevent, restrict or distort competition within the common market.
Όσον αφορά του εφαροστέου εpiί των εpiιχειρήσεων κανόνε, 13 αpiοφάσει piαρουσιάζουν ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον.
In Technische Unie v Commission, the Court also referred to its consistent case-law, according to which it is sucient for the Commission to demonstrate that an undertaking concerned in meetings during which agreements of an anticompetitive nature were concluded, without having manifestly opposed them, in order to prove to the requisite legal standard that the undertaking participated in a cartel and that, where it is established that an undertaking took part in such meetings, that undertaking must put forward indicia of such a kind as to establish that its participation was without any anticompetitive intention by demonstrating that it had indicated to its competitors that it was participating in those meetings in a spirit that was dierent from theirs.
Στην υpiόθεση FENIN κατά Εpiιτροpiή (αpiόφαση τη 11η Ιουλίου
In two of them, the Court for the first time settled the question of the scope of the principle non bis in idem in relation to situations in which the authorities of a non-member State have intervened under their power to impose penalties in the sphere of competition law applicable on the territory of that State.
Οδηγία 2003/86/ΕΚ του Συβουλίου, τη 22α Σεpiτεβρίου 2003, σχετικά ε το δικαίωα οικογενειακή εpiανένωση (ΕΕ L 251, σ. 12).
In Case C-289/04 P Showa Denko v Commission (judgment of 29 June 2006, not yet published in the ECR) and Case C-308/04 SGL Carbon v Commission (judgment of 29 June 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court held, after rearming that the principle non bis in idem, also enshrined in Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights, constitutes a fundamental principle of Community law the observance of which is guaranteed by the judicature, that that principle does not apply to situations in which the legal systems and competition authorities of non-member States intervene within their own jurisdiction.
Χάρτη Θεελιωδών ικαιωάτων τη Ευρωpiαϊκή Ένωση (ΕΕ 2000, C 364, σ. 1).
The Court considers that when the Commission imposes sanctions on the unlawful conduct of an undertaking, even conduct originating in an international cartel, it seeks to safeguard the free competition