natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1) Άρθρα 177 τη Συνθήκη ΕΚ (νυν άρθρο 234 ΕΚ), 35, piαράγραφο 1, ΕΕ, 41 ΑΧ, 150 ΕΑ, Πρωτόκολλο του 1971.
Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC), Article 35 (1) EU, Article 41 CS, Article 150 EA, 1971 Protocol.
2) Υpiόθεση C-265/00, Campina Melkunie.
Case C-265/00 Campina Melkunie.
Γενική εξέλιξη τη δικαιοδοτική δραστηριότητα (1952–2006) — Υpiοβληθείσε αιτήσει για την έκδοση piροδικαστική αpiοφάσεω (ανά κράτο έλο και ανά δικαιοδοτικό όργανο)
General trend in the work of the Court (1952–2006) — New references for a preliminary ruling (by Member State and by court or tribunal)
288 > > > Έκθεση piεpiραγένων 2006
288 > > > Annual Report 2006
) Υpiόθεση C-265/00, Campina Melkunie.
Case C–265/00 Campina Melkunie.
Γενική εξέλιξη τη δικαιοδοτική δραστηριότητα (1952–2006) — Ασκηθείσε piροσφυγέ λόγω piαραβάσεω κράτου (1) τικά σ ε p i ρ α γέ το ιχεία
General trend in the work of the Court (1952–2006) — New actions for failure of a Member State to full its obligations1 t is ti cs ort 2006
Σύνολο1932 860
Total1932 860
Μεταξύ των υpiοθέσεων piου εισήχθησαν κατά τη Ισpiανία piεριλαβάνεται ία piροσφυγή βάσει του άρθρου 170 τη Συνθήκη ΕΚ (νυν άρθρου 227 ΕΚ), ασκηθείσα αpiό το Βέλγιο.
In this case the Member of the Commission responsible for transport had informed the applicant in writing that his complaint seeking the opening of the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC would not be upheld.The letter included a clear and detailed statement of the reasons why the national measure should not be considered to be aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Μεταξύ των υpiοθέσεων piου εισήχθησαν κατά τη Γαλλία piεριλαβάνεται ία piροσφυγή βάσει του άρθρου 170 τη Συνθήκη ΕΚ (νυν άρθρου 227 ΕΚ), ασκηθείσα αpiό την Ιρλανδία.
The Commission is therefore not entitled to exclude that decision from review by the Community court by declaring that it did not take such a decision, attempting to withdraw it or deciding not to send the decision to the Member State concerned, in breach of Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. In that connection it is irrelevant that the
ικα σ
Page 110
Μεταξύ των υpiοθέσεων piου εισήχθησαν κατά του Ηνωένου Βασιλείου piεριλαβάνονται τρει piροσφυγέ βάσει του άρθρου 170 τη Συνθήκη ΕΚ (νυν άρθρου 227 ΕΚ), εκ των οpiοίων ία ασκήθηκε αpiό τη Γαλλία και δύο αpiό την Ισpiανία.
In its judgment in Commission v Aktiongemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, delivered in 2005, the Court of Justice held, first, that an action for the annulment of a decision taken on conclusion of the preliminary phase of examination of aid under Article 88(3) EC brought by a person who is concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, where he seeks to safeguard the procedural rights available to him under the latter provision, is admissible and, second, that where an applicant calls in question the merits of the decision appraising the aid as such or a decision taken at the end of the formal investigation procedure, an action for annulment of such a decision is admissible only if he succeeds in establishing that he has a particular status within the meaning of the judgment in Plaumann v Commission 14.
τή ρ ιο
Proceedings
1) Άρθρα 93, 169, 170, 171, 225 τη Συνθήκη ΕΚ (νυν άρθρα 88 EK, 226 ΕΚ, 227 ΕΚ, 228 ΕΚ και 298 ΕΚ), άρθρα 141 EA, 142 EA, 143 ΕΑ και άρθρο 88 ΑΧ.
Two judgments delivered in 2006 enabled the Court of First Instance to clarify the application of that distinction where the Commission took a decision without initiating the formal review procedure 15.
Πρωτοδικείο
The fact that an activity may be exercised by a private undertaking is a further indication that the activity in question may be described as an economic activity.
A — ραστηριότητα του Πρωτοδικείου κατά το έτο 2006
The Court of First Instance concluded that the Commission had therefore been wrong to take the view that the activities in issue could not be described as economic activities.
Αpiό τον Πρόεδρο Bo Vesterdorf
Application of competition law in the agricultural sector
Κατά το έτο 2006, για δεύτερο κατά σειρά έτο, το Πρωτοδικείο piεράτωσε piερισσότερε υpiοθέσει αpiό όσε εισήχθησαν (436 piερατωθείσε υpiοθέσει έναντι 432 εισαχθεισών υpiοθέσεων).
By decision of 2 April 2003 24, the Commission imposed fines amounting to EUR 16.68 million on the main French federations in the beef sector.
Συνολικώ, ο αριθό των εισαχθεισών υpiοθέσεων ειώθηκε (432 έναντι 469 κατά το 2005).
Those federations, which represent farmers and slaughterers, were penalised for having taken part in a cartel contrary to Community law.
Ο αριθό των piερατωθεισών υpiοθέσεων ειώθηκε (436 έναντι 610), αλλά θα piρέpiει σχετικώ να ληφθεί υpiόψη ότι, κατά το έτο 2005, 117 υpiοθέσει piερατώθηκαν λόγω εταφορά του στο ικαστήριο ηόσια ιοίκηση.
The agreement in question continued orally beyond the end of November 2001, the date on which it was supposed to come to an end, in spite of a warning from the Commission, which drew the federations’ attention to the unlawful nature of the agreement.
Αν δεν ληφθούν υpiόψη οι υpiοθέσει αυτέ, διαpiιστώνεται ασφαλώ είωση των piερατωθεισών κατά το έτο 2006 υpiοθέσεων, όω η είωση αυτή δεν είναι τόσο σηαντική (436 έναντι 493).
The agreement had been concluded in an economic context marked by the serious crisis in the beef sector from 2000, following the discovery of new cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, known as‘mad cow disease’.
Τελικώ, ο αριθό των εκκρεουσών υpiοθέσεων piαραένει σταθερό σε σχέση ε το piροηγούενο έτο, δηλαδή λίγο piερισσότερε αpiό 1 000 (1 029 έναντι 1 033 κατά το έτο 2005). Εpiισηαίνεται, σχετικώ, ότι, κατά την 1η Ιανουαρίου 2007, οι υpiοθέσει piνευατική ιδιοκτησία αντιpiροσώpiευαν το 25 % του συνολικού αριθού των εκκρεουσών υpiοθέσεων.
In FNCBV and Others v Commission, on an action against that decision, the Court of First Instance, after rejecting, in particular, the applicants’ arguments that the Commission had infringed their freedom to form associations, considered that the agreement in question could not benet from the exemption provided for in Regulation No 26 in favour of certain activities connected with the production and marketing of agricultural products 25.
Κατά συνέpiεια, ολονότι, αφενό, 82 υpiαλληλικέ υpiοθέσει εξακολουθούν να εκκρεούν ενώpiιον του Πρωτοδικείου και, αφετέρου, άρχισαν ήδη οι piρώτε αναιρέσει κατά των αpiοφάσεων του ικαστηρίου ηόσια ιοίκηση (ανερχόενε σε 10 την 31η εκεβρίου 2006), το είδο των διαφορών piου άγονται ενώpiιον του Πρωτοδικείου εταβάλλεται βαθηδόν εpiικεντρωνόενο στι διαφορέ οικονοική φύσεω.
Whereas such an exemption is applicable only where an agreement favours all the objectives of Article 33 EC and is also necessary for the attainment of those objectives, that was not the position in this case: although the agreement might well be considered to be necessary for the objective of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, it could, on the other hand, be prejudicial to ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices and did not concern the stabilisation of the markets.
Την ίδια ηέρα αντικαταστάθηκαν, αντιστοίχω, αpiό του κκ. Nils Wahl, Enzo Moavero Milanesi και Miro Prek.
Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 — French beef) (OJ L 209, 19.8.2003, p. 12).
Πάντω, κατά το έτο 2006, το ικαστήριο ηόσια ιοίκηση piαρέpiεψε ία υpiόθεση ενώpiιον του Πρωτοδικείου.
Regulation No 26 of 4 April 1962 applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural products (OJ, English Special Edition 1959–62, p. 129).
Έλεγχο νοιότητα
Points raised on the scope of Article 81 EC
Κατά το έτο 2006, οι σηαντικότερε νοολογιακέ εξελίξει αφορούν piρωτίστω την έννοια τη δεκτική piροσφυγή piράξεω και, ακολούθω, την έννοια του εννόου συφέροντο.
Article 81(1) EC provides that all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may aect trade between Member States and which have as their object or eect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market are to be prohibited as incompatible with the common market.
Πράξει δεκτικέ piροσφυγή
Anticompetitive object or eect of agreements
Πρώτον, ε τρει αpiοφάσει διευκρινίστηκαν τα όρια των piροσφυγών ακυρώσεω των στρεφοένων κατά των piράξεων τη Ευρωpiαϊκή Υpiηρεσία Καταpiολέηση τη Αpiάτη (OLAF) (4).
The judgment in GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission, which concerns the connections between the restriction of parallel trade and the protection of competition, contains some signicant developments concerning the concept of an agreement having as its object the restriction of competition in the European pharmaceutical sector.
Αρχικώ, στην υpiόθεση Camós Grau κατά Εpiιτροpiή, το Πρωτοδικείο έκρινε ότι η έκθεση έρευνα τη OLAF piου ενέpiλεκε τον piροσφεύγοντα δεν ετέβαλλε σαφώ τη νοική του θέση, καθώ δεν συνεpiαγόταν καία υpiοχρέωση, έστω διαδικαστική φύσεω, των αρχών στι οpiοίε αpiευθυνόταν.
Glaxo Wellcome, a Spanish subsidiary of the GlaxoSmithKline group, one of the main world producers of pharmaceutical products, had adopted new general sales conditions concerning wholesalers of pharmaceutical products, under which its medicines were to be sold to Spanish wholesalers at prices dierentiated according to the national health insurance scheme which would reimburse them and the marketing of those medicines, depending on whether they would be marketed in Spain or in another Member State.
Ακολούθω, ακολουθώντα την ίδια έθοδο, το Πρωτοδικείο διευκρίνισε, στην υpiόθεση Tillack κατά Εpiιτροpiή, ότι η διαβίβαση εκ έρου τη OLAF piληροφοριακών στοιχείων στι εθνικέ δικαστικέ αρχέ δεν συνιστά, εpiίση, piράξη δεκτική piροσφυγή ακυρώσεω.
In practice, medicines intended to be reimbursed in other Member States of the Community were to be sold at a higher price than those intended to be reimbursed in Spain, where the administration sets maximum prices.
Πράγατι, η εκ έρου τη OLAF διαβίβαση piληροφοριών, ολονότι οι εθνικέ αρχέ οφείλουν να λαβάνουν σοβαρά υpiόψη του τι piληροφορίε αυτέ, δεν δηιουργεί καία δεσευτική έννοη συνέpiεια, καθόσον οι εθνικέ αρχέ piαραένουν ελεύθερε να αpiοφασίσουν ω piρο τη συνέχεια piου θα
GlaxoSmithKline notied those general sales conditions to the Commission and, in response to a number of complaints, the Commission found that the sales conditions in question had the object and the eect of restricting competition.
Για piαράδειγα, δεν θα αναφερθούν οι αpiοφάσει piου αφορούν το αντιντάpiινγκ, όpiου, piάντω, η νοολογία υpiήρξε σηαντική, ιδίω ε την αpiόφαση του Πρωτοδικείου τη 24η Οκτωβρίου 2006,T-274/02, Ritek και Prodisc Technology κατά Συβουλίου, piου δεν έχει δηοσιευθεί ακόα στη Συλλογή, καθώ και η νοολογία η σχετική ε τι υpiαλληλικέ υpiοθέσει.
In its judgment, the Court of First Instance nonetheless considered that an agreement intended to limit parallel trade must not be considered by its nature, that is to say, independently of any competitive analysis, to have as its object the restriction of competition. In eect, while it is accepted that parallel trade must be given a certain protection, it is not as such but insofar as it favours the development of trade, on the one hand, and the strengthening of competition, on the other hand, that is to say, in this second respect, insofar as it gives final consumers the advantages of eective competition in terms of supply or price.
Αpiοφάσει του ικαστηρίου τη 11η Νοεβρίου 1981, 60/81, IBM κατά Εpiιτροpiή, Συλλογή 1981, σ.
Consequently, while it is accepted that an agreement intended to limit parallel trade must in principle be considered to have as its object the restriction of competition, that applies insofar as the agreement may be presumed to deprive final consumers of those advantages.
2639, σκέψη 9, και τη 14η Φεβρουαρίου 1989, 346/87, Bossi κατά Εpiιτροpiή, Συλλογή 1987, σ. 303, σκέψη 23.
In this, in view of the legal and economic context in which GlaxoSmithKline’s General Sales Conditions were applied, it could not be presumed that those conditions deprive the final consumers of medicines of such advantages.
Βλέpiε, αντιστοίχω, αpiοφάσει του Πρωτοδικείου τη 6η Αpiριλίου 2006, T-309/03, Camós Grau κατά Εpiιτροpiή, τη 4η Οκτωβρίου 2006, T-193/04, Tillack κατά Εpiιτροpiή, και διάταξη του Πρωτοδικείου τη 22α Μαρτίου 2006, T-4/05, Strack κατά Εpiιτροpiή (εκκρεεί η εκδίκαση αναιρέσεω, υpiόθεση C-237/06 P), piου δεν έχουν δηοσιευθεί ακόη στη Συλλογή.
First, the wholesalers, whose function is to ensure that the retail trade receives supplies with the benet of competition between producers, are economic agents operating at an intermediate stage of the value chain and may keep the advantage in terms of price which parallel trade may entail, in which case that advantage will not be passed on to the final consumers. Second, as the prices of the medicines concerned are to a large extent shielded
Τέλο, ε τη διάταξη Strack κατά Εpiιτροpiή, το Πρωτοδικείο αpiοφάνθηκε ότι υpiάλληλο ο οpiοίο ενηέρωσε την OLAF σχετικά ε ενέργειε piου θα piορούσαν να εpiισύρουν κυρώσει δεν piορεί να piροσβάλει ε piροσφυγή ακυρώσεω την αpiόφαση piερί piερατώσεω έρευνα piου διενεργήθηκε κατόpiιν τη piαροχή αυτών των piληροφοριών.
In those circumstances, according to the Court of First Instance, it cannot be inferred merely from a reading of the terms of the agreement, even in its context, that the agreement is restrictive of competition, and it is therefore necessary to consider the eects of the agreement.
εύτερον, δύο αpiοφάσει piου εκδόθηκαν κατά το έτο 2006, στο piλαίσιο τη υpiοθέσεω piου είναι γνωστή ω «Αυστριακέ τράpiεζε —“Λέσχη Lombard”», έκριναν piαραδεκτέ τι piροσφυγέ piου ασκήθηκαν κατά αpiοφάσεων του συβούλου ακροάσεων τη Εpiιτροpiή (5).
The Court of First Instance therefore examined the eects of the agreement on competition and rejected certain of the analyses carried out by the Commission on that point in its decision, but nonetheless found that the agreement constituted an obstacle to the pressure which in its absence would have existed on the unit price of the medicines in question, to the detriment of the final consumer, taken to mean both the patient and the national sickness insurance scheme acting on behalf of claimants.
Τρίτον, στην υpiόθεση Deutsche Bahn κατά Εpiιτροpiή (7), το Πρωτοδικείο διευκρίνισε το piεριεχόενο τη έννοια τη δεκτική piροσφυγή piράξεω όσον αφορά τι αpiοφάσει piου εκδίδει η Εpiιτροpiή στον τοέα των κρατικών ενισχύσεων, βάσει του άρθρου 4, piαράγραφο 2, του κανονισού 659/1999 (8).
In Dresdner Bank and Others v Commission the Court of First Instance observed that, in the light of the principle of the presumption of innocence, any doubt in the mind of the Court must operate to the advantage of the undertaking to which the decision finding an infringement was addressed.
Στην υpiόθεση αυτή ο αρόδιο για τι
The Commission must therefore show precise and consistent evidence in order to establish the existence of the infringement.
Αpiοφάσει του Πρωτοδικείου τη 30ή Μαΐου 2006, T-198/03, Bank Austria Creditanstalt κατά Εpiιτροpiή, καθώ και τη 7η Ιουνίου 2006, T-213/01 και T-214/01, Österreichische Postsparkasse και Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft κατά Εpiιτροpiή, piου δεν έχουν δηοσιευθεί ακόη στη Συλλογή.
Nonetheless, it is not necessary for every item of evidence produced by the Commission to satisfy those criteria in relation to every aspect of the infringement: it is sucient if the body of evidence relied on by the institution, viewed as a whole, meets that requirement.
Αpiόφαση 2004/138/ΕΚ τη Εpiιτροpiή, τη 11η Ιουνίου 2002, σχετικά ε διαδικασία βάσει του άρθρου 81 τη Συνθήκη ΕΚ (υpiόθεση COMP/36.571/D-1 — Αυστριακέ τράpiεζε — «Lombard Club») (EE 2004, L 56, σ. 1).
In the present case, the five applicant banks maintained that no agreement had been concluded by them, at a meeting held on 15 October 1997, on the level and structure of exchange commissions on currencies constituting subdivisions of the euro during the transitional stage between the introduction of the scriptural euro and the introduction of the fiduciary euro.
Αpiόφαση 2001/462/ΕΚ, ΕΚΑΧ τη Εpiιτροpiή, τη 23η Μαΐου 2001, σχετικά ε τα καθήκοντα του συβούλου ακροάσεων σε ορισένε διαδικασίε ανταγωνισού (ΕΕ L 162, σ. 21).
The Court of First Instance examined both the evidence relating to the context of the meeting of 15 October 1997 and the direct evidence concerning that meeting and held that the evidence did not have sucient force for it to be considered, without any reasonable doubt remaining on that point, that the banks present concluded the impugned agreement.
Αpiόφαση του Πρωτοδικείου τη 5η Αpiριλίου 2006, T-351/02, Deutsche Bahn κατά Εpiιτροpiή, piου δεν έχει δηοσιευθεί ακόη στη Συλλογή.
In O2 (Germany) v Commission, the Court of First Instance recalled that, in order to assess whether an agreement is compatible with the common market in the light of the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, it is necessary to examine the economic and legal context in which the agreement was concluded, its object, its eects, and its impact on intraCommunity trade, taking into account in particular the economic context in which the undertakings operate, the products or services covered by the agreement, and the structure of the market concerned and the actual conditions in which it functions.
Κανονισό (ΕΚ) 659/1999 του Συβουλίου, τη 22α Μαρτίου 1999, για τη θέσpiιση λεpiτοερών κανόνων εφαρογή του άρθρου 93 τη Συνθήκη ΕΚ (ΕΕ L 83, σ. 1).
Furthermore, in a case such as this, where it is accepted that the agreement does not have an anticompetitive object, the eects of the agreement should be considered and in order for the agreement to be caught by the prohibition it is necessary to find that those factors are present which show that competition has in fact been prevented or restricted
εταφορέ εpiίτροpiο είχε γραpiτώ ενηερώσει την piροσφεύγουσα ότι δεν θα γίνει δεκτή η καταγγελία τη ε την οpiοία ζητούσε να κινηθεί η διαδικασία του άρθρου 88, piαράγραφο 2, ΕΚ.
Proceedings or distorted to an appreciable extent. The competition in question must be understood within the actual context in which it would occur in the absence of the agreement in dispute; the interference with competition may in particular be doubted if the agreement seems really necessary for the penetration of a new area by an undertaking.
Πράγατι, ενεργώντα κατά τον τρόpiο αυτό, η Εpiιτροpiή λαβάνει αpiόφαση δυνάει του άρθρου 4, piαράγραφο 2, του ω άνω κανονισού.
Such an approach is not, according to the Court of First Instance, tantamount to applying a‘rule of reason’to Article 81(1) EC, which would consist in carrying out an assessment of the pro- and anticompetitive eects of the agreement, but to taking account of the impact of the agreement on existing and potential competition and also the competitive situation in the absence of the agreement, those two factors being intrinsically linked.
Εpiοένω, η Εpiιτροpiή δεν piορεί να αpiοκλείσει την αpiόφαση αυτή αpiό τον έλεγχο του κοινοτικού δικαστή δηλώνοντα ότι δεν έλαβε τέτοια αpiόφαση, εpiιχειρώντα να την ανακαλέσει ή αpiοφασίζοντα να ην αpiευθύνει την αpiόφαση στο οικείο κράτο έλο, κατά piαράβαση του άρθρου 25 του κανονισού 659/1999. εν έχει σχετικώ σηασία το ότι το εpiίαχο έγγραφο δεν piροκύpiτει αpiό τη λήψη οριστική αpiοφάσεω εpiί τη καταγγελία εκ έρου του Σώατο των Μελών τη Εpiιτροpiή ή το ότι δεν δηοσιεύθηκε ια τέτοια αpiόφαση.
The Court of First Instance further stated that such an examination is particularly necessary in respect of markets undergoing liberalisation or emerging markets, as in the case of the thirdgeneration mobile communications market here at issue, where eective competition may be problematic owing, for example, to the presence of a dominant operator, the concentrated nature of the market structure or the existence of signicant barriers to entry.
Εpiίση, ε τη διάταξη Schneider Electric κατά Εpiιτροpiή (9), το Πρωτοδικείο αpiοφάνθηκε, για piρώτη φορά, εpiί του piαραδεκτού piροσφυγή στρεφοένη κατά τη αpiοφάσεω τη Εpiιτροpiή να κινήσει τη διαδικασία λεpiτοερού εξετάσεω ια piράξεω συγκεντρώσεω.
In this case, the Court of First Instance considered that the contested decision was aected by a number of errors of analysis. First, it contained no objective discussion of what the competition situation would have been in the absence of the agreement, which distorted the assessment of the actual and potential eects of the agreement on competition.
Η Εpiιτροpiή είχε λάβει ια τέτοια αpiόφαση στο piλαίσιο διοικητική διαδικασία piου εpiαναλήφθηκε κατόpiιν δύο αpiοφάσεων ε τι οpiοίε ακυρώθηκε η αpiόφαση piου έκρινε ασυβίβαστη τη συγκέντρωση εταξύ Schneider Electric και Legrand, δύο εpiιχειρήσει piαραγωγή ηλεκτρικών συσκευών χαηλή τάσεω, καθώ και η αpiόφαση διαχωρισού των δύο αυτών εpiιχειρηατικών ονάδων (10).
In order to be able to make a proper assessment of the extent to which the agreement was necessary for O2(Germany) to penetrate the thirdgeneration mobile communications market, the Commission ought to have examined more closely whether, in the absence of the agreement, the applicant would have been present on that market.
Η piροσφεύγουσα στρεφόταν κατά των αpiοφάσεων τη Εpiιτροpiή, αφενό, piερί κινήσεω διαδικασία λεpiτοερού εξετάσεω και, αφετέρου, τυpiική piερατώσεω τη διαδικασία.
Second, the decision did not demonstrate, in concrete terms, in the context of the relevant emerging market, that the provisions of the agreement on roaming had restrictive eects on competition, but was conned, in this respect, to a petitio principii and to broad and general statements.
Αpiοφάσει του Πρωτοδικείου τη 22α Οκτωβρίου 2002, T-310/01 και T-77/02, Schneider Electric κατά Εpiιτροpiή, Συλλογή 2002, σ.
In GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission, to which reference has already been made, the applicant put forward, in particular, evidence intended to establish that parallel trade would lead to a loss in eciency by reducing the applicant’s capacity to innovate.
Το Πρωτοδικείο δεν δέχθηκε την piροταθείσα αpiό την εpiιχείρηση αυτή αναλογική εφαρογή του κοινοτικού συστήατο piερί κρατικών ενισχύσεων.
The Commission could not neglect to consider whether the agreement in issue could enable the applicant’s capacity for innovation to be reinstated and could thus give rise to a gain in eciency for interbrand competition insofar as in the medicines sector the eect of parallel trade on competition is ambiguous.
Ενεργητική νοιοpiοίηση α)
Points raised on the scope of Article 82 EC
Έννοια του ατοικώ θιγοένου
In 2006 the Court of First Instance adjudicated on the conditions of Article 82 EC in only two judgments, both relating to the rejection of a complaint.
Κατά piάγια νοολογία, τα φυσικά ή νοικά piρόσωpiα, piλην των αpiοδεκτών ια αpiοφάσεω, δεν piορούν να ισχυριστούν ότι η αpiόφαση τα αφορά ατοικά, piαρά όνον αν τα θίγει λόγω ορισένων ξεχωριστών ιδιοτήτων ή ια piραγατική καταστάσεω piου τα χαρακτηρίζει σε σχέση ε κάθε άλλο piρόσωpiο και έτσι τα εξατοικεύει κατά τρόpiο ανάλογο piρο αυτόν του αpiοδέκτη (12).
First, in SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission, to which reference has already been made in connection with the concept of ‘undertaking’, the Court of First Instance found that the applicant had not shown in its complaint that Eurocontrol’s conduct, in the context of its activity of advising national administrations, satised the criteria for the application of Article 82 EC, and, moreover, no competitive relationship appeared to exist between Eurocontrol and the applicant or any other undertaking active in the sector concerned.