natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Κατά το έτο 2006, το Πρωτοδικείο εφάροσε τι αρχέ αυτέ ιδίω στην αpiόφαση Boyle κ.λpi. κατά Εpiιτροpiή (13).
Second, in Haladjian Frères v Commission, the company Haladjian Frères had lodged a complaint with the Commission, claiming in particular that there had been a number of infringements of Article 82 EC which were alleged to result from the introduction of a system for the marketing of replacement parts by the United States company Caterpillar.
Η υpiόθεση εpiί τη οpiοία εκδόθηκε η αpiόφαση αυτή αφορούσε αpiόφαση τη Εpiιτροpiή αpiευθυνόενη στην Ιρλανδία και αpiορρίpiτουσα αίτηση piερί αυξήσεω των στόχων των piολυετών piρογραάτων piροσανατολισού του ιρλανδικού αλιευτικού στόλου («POP IV»).
The Court of First Instance held that the applicant’s arguments did not call in question the appraisals of the elements of fact and of law carried out by the Commission and that the Commission had been correct to reject the applicant’s complaint.
Το Πρωτοδικείο αpiοφάνθηκε ότι οι piροσφεύγοντε, κύριοι piλοίων piεριλαβανοένων στον ιρλανδικό αλιευτικό στόλο, καίτοι δεν ήταν αpiοδέκτε
The complaints alleging the imposition of unfair prices, the limiting of markets or the application of dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions were rejected, regard being had in particular to the fact that the system in issue did not prohibit in fact or in law competition in the form of parts imported at prices lower than the European prices.
I4117, σκέψει 21 έω 23.
Procedure for penalising anticompetitive practices
Αpiοφάσει του Πρωτοδικείου τη 13η Ιουνίου 2006, T-218/03 έω T-240/03 (εκκρεεί η εκδίκαση αναιρέσεω, υpiόθεση C-373/06 P), Boyle κ.λpi. κατά Εpiιτροpiή, piου δεν έχει δηοσιευθεί ακόη στη Συλλογή βλέpiε εpiίση αpiόφαση του Πρωτοδικείου τη 13η Ιουνίου 2006, T-192/03, Atlantean κατά Εpiιτροpiή, η δηοσιευθείσα στη Συλλογή.
In Österreichische Postsparkasse and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft v Commission and also in Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance held that a final customer purchasing goods or services, such as a political party which is a customer for Austrian banking services, has a legitimate interest which entitles it to access to the statement of objections. A final customer which shows that it has suered harm or might suer harm to his economic interests owing to a restriction of competition has a legitimate interest in lodging an application or a complaint in order to obtain a finding by
Πρωτοδικείο ρ α στη ρ ι ό τη τα τη αpiοφάσεω, εντούτοι piρέpiει να θεωρηθούν ω ατοικώ θιγόενοι αpiό αυτήν.
Proceedings the Commission that there has been an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC.
Πράγατι, η αίτηση piερί αυξήσεω piου υpiέβαλε η Ιρλανδία αpiαρτιζόταν, στην piράξη, αpiό το σύνολο των ατοικών αιτήσεων των κυρίων σκαφών, εταξύ των οpiοίων οι piροσφεύγοντε.
As the ultimate purpose of the rules which seek to ensure that competition is not distorted within the internal market is to increase the welfare of the consumer, the recognition that such customers have a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding by the Commission that there has been an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC contributes to the attainment of the objectives of competition law.
Μολονότι η piροσβαλλόενη αpiόφαση αpiευθυνόταν στην Ιρλανδία, αφορούσε σειρά καθορισένων σκαφών και έpiρεpiε, κατά συνέpiεια, να θεωρηθεί ω δέση ατοικών αpiοφάσεων, κάθε ία αpiό τι οpiοίε θίγει τη νοική κατάσταση των κυρίων των εν λόγω σκαφών.
In Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance further stated, first, that a concerned party may be admitted as complainant and receive the statement of objections at any stage of the administrative procedure and, second, that the right to receive the statement of objections cannot be restricted on the basis of mere suspicion that that document may be misused.
Με δύο αpiοφάσει piου εξέδωσε κατά το έτο 2006 το Πρωτοδικείο διευκρίνισε την εφαρογή τη διακρίσεω αυτή στην piερίpiτωση κατά την οpiοία η Εpiιτροpiή αpiοφαίνεται χωρί να κινήσει την τυpiική διαδικασία ελέγχου (15).
In its action against that decision, the applicant contended that it had not had the opportunity to rely on its right not to incriminate itself, as recognised by Community law. In its judgment, however, the Court of First Instance held that there is no provision prohibiting the Commission from relying, as evidence, on a document drawn up in a procedure other than that conducted by the Commission itself.
Αφενό, στην υpiόθεση εpiί τη οpiοία εκδόθηκε η αpiόφαση Air One κατά Εpiιτροpiή (16), η piροσφεύγουσα, ιταλική αεροpiορική εταιρεία, κατήγγειλε στην Εpiιτροpiή ότι οι ιταλικέ
Nonetheless, it held that where the Commission relies on a statement made in a dierent context from that of the procedure before it, and where that statement potentially contains information which the undertaking concerned would have been entitled to refuse to supply, the Commission is required to ensure that the undertakings concerned enjoys procedural rights equivalent to those conferred by Community law.
Αpiόφαση του ικαστηρίου τη 13η εκεβρίου 2005, C-78/03 P, Εpiιτροpiή κατά Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, Συλλογή 2005, σ. I-10737.
Thus, the Commission is required to examine of its own motion whether, at first sight, there are serious doubts as to observance of the procedural rights of the parties concerned in the proceedings during which they supplied such statements.
Όσον αφορά την ενεργητική νοιοpiοίηση στον τοέα των κρατικών ενισχύσεων, βλέpiε εpiίση την αpiόφαση τη 27η Σεpiτεβρίου 2006, T-117/04, Werkgroep Commerciële Jachthavens Zuidelijke Randmeren κ.λpi. κατά Εpiιτροpiή, piου δεν έχει δηοσιευθεί ακόη στη Συλλογή, στην οpiοία το Πρωτοδικείο έκρινε ότι δεν νοιοpiοιούνται ενεργητικώ ια ένωση καθώ και τα έλη τη piροκειένου να αφισβητήσουν αpiόφαση εκδοθείσα κατόpiιν τη διαδικασία τυpiική εξετάσεω piου piροβλέpiει το άρθρο 88, piαράγραφο 2, ΕΚ.
In the absence of such doubts, the procedural rights of the parties concerned must be considered to have been suciently guaranteed if, in the statement of objections, the Commission indicated clearly, annexing the documents concerned to the statement of objections where necessary, that it intended to rely on the statements in issue. In this case, none of those principles had been breached by the Commission, notably because it had annexed the report in issue to the statement of objections and Archer Daniels Midland had not criticised the use of that document.
Αpiόφαση του Πρωτοδικείου τη 10η Μαΐου 2006, T-395/04, Air One κατά Εpiιτροpiή, piου δεν έχει δηοσιευθεί ακόη στη Συλλογή.
On the right not to incriminate oneself, see the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 October 1989 in Case 374/87 Orkem v Commission [1989] ECR 3283.
ραστηριότητα
Court of First Instance
Πρωτοδικείο αρχέ είχαν χορηγήσει piαρανόω στην αεροpiορική εταιρεία Ryanair ενισχύσει υpiό ορφή ειώσεω των τελών αερολιενικών υpiηρεσιών και υpiηρεσιών εδάφου.
In Bank Austria Creditanstalt v Commission, the applicant claimed, in substance, that it was unlawful to publish a decision imposing fines, as the publication of that decision was not in this case obligatory.
Η piροσφεύγουσα ζητούσε, εpiίση, αpiό την Εpiιτροpiή να υpiοχρεώσει την Ιταλική ηοκρατία να αναστείλει την καταβολή αυτών των ενισχύσεων.
In its judgment, however, the Court of First Instance rejected that plea, holding that the power of the institutions to make acts which they adopt public is the rule.
Προ τούτο, το Πρωτοδικείο εφάροσε τη νοολογία του ικαστηρίου, διευκρινίζοντα σχετικώ την έννοια τη «εpiαρκού ανταγωνιστική σχέσεω» piροκειένου ια εpiιχείρηση να piορεί να θεωρηθεί ω ανταγωνιζόενη τι ενισχυόενε εpiιχειρήσει και, συνεpiώ, ω ενδιαφερόενη κατά την έννοια του άρθρου 88, piαράγραφο 2, ΕΚ.
Nonetheless, there are exceptions to that principle, insofar as Community law, notably by means of the provisions that guarantee compliance with professional secrecy, opposes the publication of those acts or of certain information which they contain.
Το Πρωτοδικείο υpiογράισε ότι, αν ο piροσφεύγων αφισβητεί το βάσιο τη αpiοφάσεω piερί εκτιήσεω τη ενισχύσεω ω τοιαύτη, το γεγονό αpiλώ και όνον ότι piορεί να θεωρηθεί ω ενδιαφερόενο κατά την έννοια του άρθρου 88, piαράγραφο 2, ΕΚ δεν αρκεί για να κριθεί piαραδεκτή η piροσφυγή.
The assessment as to the condentiality of a piece of information thus requires that the legitimate interests opposing disclosure of the information be weighed against the public interest that the activities of the Community institutions take place as openly as possible.
Ο piροσφεύγων οφείλει να καταδείξει ότι τυγχάνει ειδικού καθεστώτο κατά την έννοια τη piροαναφερθείσα αpiοφάσεω Plaumann κατά Εpiιτροpiή.
In fact, the Community legislature has balanced the public interest in the transparency of Community action against interests liable to militate against such transparency in various acts of secondary legislation, inter alia in Regulations (EC) No 45/2001 and (EC) No 1049/2001 27.
Αυτό θα συνέβαινε, ιδίω, αν η κατάστασή του στην αγορά εpiηρεαζόταν ουσιωδώ αpiό την ενίσχυση piου αpiοτελεί το αντικείενο τη εpiίδικη αpiοφάσεω.
The Court of First Instance therefore established a relationship of correspondence between the concept of professional secrecy and those two regulations.
Όpiω, όω, διαpiίστωσε το Πρωτοδικείο, στη συγκεκριένη υpiόθεση η piροσφεύγουσα, ένωση εpiιχειρήσεων, δεν αρκείται να αφισβητήσει την άρνηση τη Εpiιτροpiή να κινήσει την εpiίσηη διαδικασία εξετάσεω, αλλά αφισβητεί, εpiίση, το βάσιο τη piροσβαλλόενη αpiοφάσεω.
Insofar as such provisions of secondary legislation prohibit the disclosure of information to the public or exclude public access to documents containing it, that information must be considered to be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.
Εφόσον το έτρο αυτό δύναται να εpiηρεάσει ουσιαστικώ την ανταγωνιστική κατάσταση ορισένων ελών τη piροσφεύγουσα, η piροσφυγή κρίθηκε piαραδεκτή.
The most signicant developments this year concerned the principle that penalties must be in accordance with the law, the application of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines, the ceiling of 10 % of turnover and the Court of First Instance’s unlimited jurisdiction in relation to fines.
Πρωτοδικείο ρ α στη ρ ι ό τη τα γ)
Court of First Instance
Έννοια του αέσω θιγοένου
Principle that penalties must be provided for by law
Για να θεωρηθεί ότι η piροσβαλλόενη piράξη αφορά τον piροσφεύγοντα άεσα, κατά την έννοια του άρθρου 230, τέταρτο εδάφιο, ΕΚ, piρέpiει να συντρέχουν δύο piροϋpiοθέσει.
In Jungbunzlauer v Commission and Degussa v Commission, the Court of First Instance rejected an objection of illegality in respect of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 28, whereby it was alleged that that provision was incompatible with the principle that penalties must be provided for by law.
Η δεύτερη αυτή piροϋpiόθεση piληρούται στην piερίpiτωση κατά την οpiοία η δυνατότητα του κράτου έλου να εφαρόσει τη συγκεκριένη piράξη είναι εντελώ θεωρητική, καθόσον δεν υpiάρχει καία αφιβολία για τη βούλησή του να συορφωθεί piρο αυτήν (19).
According to the applicants, which had been parties to the cartels covering the markets for citric acid and methionine, that provision unlawfully confers on the Commission the discretion to decide on the appropriateness and the amount of the fine.
Πράγατι, οι εθνικέ αρχέ δεν διέθεταν καία εξουσία εκτιήσεω όσον αφορά την υpiοχρέωση εκτελέσεω αυτή τη αpiοφάσεω. Το Πρωτοδικείο αpiέρριψε το εpiιχείρηα ότι η Ιρλανδία piορούσε θεωρητικά να χορηγήσει piρόσθετη ικανότητα στα σκάφη των piροσφευγόντων, εντό των ανωτάτων ορίων piου έθετε το piλαίσιο POP IV.
The Court of First Instance nonetheless considered that the principle that penalties must be provided for by law, as interpreted by the caselaw of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the assumption that Article 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights is applicable to fines imposed in respect of infringements of the competition rules, requires only that the terms of the provisions whereby penalties are imposed be suciently precise for the consequences that may arise from an infringement of those provisions to be foreseeable with absolute certainty.
Πράγατι, κατά το Πρωτοδικείο, ια τέτοια εθνική αpiόφαση δεν θα αφαιρούσε αpiό την piροσβαλλόενη αpiόφαση τον χαρακτήρα αυτόατη εφαρογή τη, καθόσον, αpiό νοική αpiόψεω, δεν θα εpiηρέαζε την εφαρογή, στο piλαίσιο του κοινοτικού δικαίου, τη piροσβαλλοένη αpiοφάσεω.
Furthermore, although the Commission’s discretion in applying penalties is wide, it is not absolute, since it is limited by the ceiling of 10 % of turnover, by the appraisal of the gravity and the duration of infringements, by the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, by its previous administrative practice seen in the light of the principle of equal treatment and, last, by the self-restraint which the Commission has imposed on itself by adopting the Leniency Notice and the Guidelines on the method of setting fines.
Εφαροστέοι εpiί των εpiιχειρήσεων κανόνε ανταγωνισού
Although the Commission adopted new Guidelines on the method of setting fines on 1 September 2006, the judgments delivered, and, moreover, the newly lodged cases, in 2006 concerned only the Guidelines adopted in 1998 29.
Κατά το υpiό εξέταση έτο, το Πρωτοδικείο εξέδωσε 26 αpiοφάσει σχετικέ ε του ουσιαστικού κανόνε piου αpiαγορεύουν τι αντίθετε piρο τον ανταγωνισό συφωνίε,
From a general point of view, it is now accepted that the Guidelines bind the Commission. However, in Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance held that the fact that the Commission had thus bound itself was not incompatible with its retention of a substantial discretion.
Αpiόφαση του ικαστηρίου τη 5η Μαΐου 1998, C-386/96 P, Dreyfus κατά Εpiιτροpiή, Συλλογή 1998, σ.
Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles [81 EC] and [82 EC] (OJ, English Special Edition 1959–62, p. 87).
Αpiόφαση Dreyfus κατά Εpiιτροpiή, piροαναφερθείσα, σκέψη 44.
Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3).
Πρωτοδικείο εκ των οpiοίων 18 αpiοφάσει αφορούν τον τοέα των συpiράξεων (20).
Court of First Instance in the Guidelines, it is for the Court of First Instance to ascertain whether that departure is justied in law and whether the reasons for such departure have been stated to the requisite legal standard.
Πέραν των συpiράξεων, το Πρωτοδικείο εξέδωσε τέσσερι αpiοφάσει σχετικέ ε την εφαρογή των άρθρων 81 ΕΚ και 82 ΕΚ (21), καθώ και τέσσερι αpiοφάσει piου αφορούν ουσιαστικά ζητήατα του ελέγχου των συγκεντρώσεων εpiιχειρήσεων (22).
However, the Court of First Instance also made clear that the Commission’s discretion and the limits which it has placed on it are without prejudice to the exercise by the Community judicature of its unlimited jurisdiction.
Έννοια τη εpiιχειρήσεω κατά το δίκαιο του ανταγωνισού
Extending, in substance, the same principles to the particular case of attenuating circumstances, the Court of First Instance stated that, in the absence of any binding indication in the Guidelines as regards the attenuating circumstances that might be taken into account, it must be considered that the Commission has retained a certain discretion to make a global assessment of the size of any reduction in the amount of fines to reect attenuating circumstances.
Με την αpiόφασή του το Πρωτοδικείο υpiενθύισε, αρχικώ, την piάγια νοολογία του ικαστηρίου κατά την οpiοία η έννοια τη εpiιχειρήσεω καλύpiτει κάθε φορέα ο οpiοίο ασκεί οικονοική δραστηριότητα, ανεξάρτητα αpiό το νοικό καθεστώ piου τον διέpiει και τον τρόpiο τη χρηατοδοτήσεώ του. Αpiό αυτή τη αpiόψεω, οικονοική δραστηριότητα
During 2006 the Court of First Instance also continued to shed further light on certain provisions of the Guidelines, for example on the concept of‘actual impact’, in Archer Daniels Midland (sodium gluconate) and Archer Daniels Midland (citric acid), on the aggravating circumstance associated with the role of leader, in BASF v Commission and Archer Daniels Midland v Commission (citric acid), and also on the attenuating circumstance associated with termination of the infringement as soon as the Commission intervenes, in Archer Daniels Midlands v Commission (citric acid) and Archer Daniels Midland v Commission (sodium gluconate).
Αpiοφάσει του Πρωτοδικείου τη 2α Μαΐου 2006, T-328/03, O2(Germany) κατά Εpiιτροpiή, piου δεν έχει δηοσιευθεί ακόη στη Συλλογή τη 27η Σεpiτεβρίου 2006, T-168/01, GlaxoSmithKline Services κατά
Regulation No 17 provided, as Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 now provides, that for each undertaking and association of undertakings participating in an infringement of Article 81 EC or Article 82 EC, the fine is not to exceed 10 % of its total turnover in the preceding business year.
Εpiιτροpiή, και T-204/03, Haladjian Frères κατά Εpiιτροpiή, piου δεν έχουν δηοσιευθεί ακόη στη Συλλογή, καθώ και τη 12η εκεβρίου 2006, T-155/04, SELEX Sistemi Integrati κατά Εpiιτροpiή, piου δεν έχει δηοσιευθεί ακόη στη Συλλογή.
In FNCBV and Others v Commission, to which reference has already been made in connection with the application of the competition rules to the agricultural sector, the contested decision was vitiated by a failure to state reasons owing to the fact that the Commission had not dedicated any passage in the decision to compliance with the 10 % limit and the turnover to be taken into account when calculating that limit.
Πρωτοδικείο ρ α στη ρ ι ό τη τα αpiοτελεί κάθε δραστηριότητα piροσφορά αγαθών ή υpiηρεσιών σε δεδοένη αγορά (23).
Proceedings between departmental federations and local agricultural trade associations which were members of the national federations penalised in this case.
Εφαρογή του δικαίου του ανταγωνισού στον γεωργικό τοέα
During 2006 the Court of First Instance exercised that jurisdiction on numerous occasions and in various ways.
Με αpiόφαση τη 2α Αpiριλίου 2003 (24), η Εpiιτροpiή εpiέβαλε χρηατικά piρόστια συνολικού ύψου 16,68 εκατ. ευρώ στι κυριότερε γαλλικέ οοσpiονδίε στον τοέα του βοείου κρέατο.
Thus, in the vitamins cartels cases, the Court of First Instance exercised its unlimited jurisdiction solely in order to draw the consequences from defects aecting the legality of the decision.
Στι οοσpiονδίε αυτέ, οι οpiοίε εκpiροσωpiούν γεωργού και εpiιχειρήσει σφαγείων, εpiιβλήθηκαν κυρώσει εpiειδή έλαβαν έρο σε σύpiραξη αντιβαίνουσα στου κανόνε του ανταγωνισού.
In BASF v Commission, the Court of First Instance considered that the finding of the illegality of the Commission’s assessment in regard to the aggravating circumstances which had led to an increase in the fine by reference to its basic amount gave the opportunity for the Community judicature to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction in order to conrm, cancel or amend that increase in the fine in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case.
Η συφωνία αυτή εφαρόστηκε piροφορικώ και ετά το τέλο του Νοεβρίου 2001, ηεροηνία piου εφέρετο ω ηεροηνία λήξεώ τη, τούτο δε piαρά την piροειδοpiοίηση τη Εpiιτροpiή η οpiοία εpiισήανε στι οοσpiονδίε τον piαράνοο χαρακτήρα τη. Η συφωνία είχε συναφθεί υpiό συνθήκε σοβαρή οικονοική κρίσεω στον τοέα του βοείου κρέατο, αpiό του έτου 2000 και εντεύθεν, κατόpiιν τη ανακαλύψεω νέων piεριpiτώσεων σpiογγώδου εγκεφαλοpiάθεια βοοειδών, τη γνωστή «νόσου των τρελών αγελάδων».
More generally, having been invited by BASF to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction independently of a finding of illegality, the Court of First Instance held that the review which it exercises in respect of a Commission decision finding an infringement of the competition rules and imposing fines is conned to a review of the legality of that decision, it being possible for the Court to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction only where it has made a finding of illegality aecting the decision, and in respect of which the undertaking concerned has complained in its action, and in order to remedy the consequences which that illegality has for the determination of the amount of the fine imposed, by annulling or adjusting that fine if necessary.
Αpiοφάσει του ικαστηρίου τη 23η Αpiριλίου 1991, C-41/90, Höfner και Elser, Συλλογή 1991, σ.
Likewise, in Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance held that, in addition to reviewing the legality of a decision, it must appraise whether it is appropriate to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction in regard to the fine imposed on the various members of the cartel.
I-1979, σκέψη 21, και τη 12η Σεpiτεβρίου 2000, C-180/98 έω C-184/98, Pavlov κ.λpi., Συλλογή 2000, σ. I-6451, σκέψη 74.
Thus, on a number of occasions, the Court of First Instance, after rejecting a plea put forward by the applicants, has exercised its unlimited jurisdiction and conrmed that the fine imposed was appropriate.
Πρωτοδικείο δραστηριοτήτων σχετικών ε την piαραγωγή και την εpiορία γεωργικών piροϊόντων (25).
Last, in FNCBV and Others v Commission, to which reference has already been made, the Court of First Instance noted that, by way of attenuating circumstances, the Commission had taken into account, first, the fact that this was the first time that it had imposed sanctions on a cartel concluded exclusively between trade federations, relating to a basic agricultural product and involving two links in the production chain, and, second, the specic economic context of the case, marked in particular by the serious crisis in the beef sector from 2000, following the discovery of new cases of mad cow disease.
Νοολογιακέ εξελίξει στον τοέα του άρθρου 81 ΕΚ α)
It will also be noted that in two cases the Court of First Instance considered the possibility of increasing the fine imposed by the Commission.
Κατά το άρθρο 81, piαράγραφο 1, ΕΚ είναι ασυβίβαστε ε την κοινή αγορά και αpiαγορεύονται όλε οι συφωνίε εταξύ εpiιχειρήσεων, όλε οι αpiοφάσει ενώσεων εpiιχειρήσεων και κάθε εναρονισένη piρακτική piου δύνανται να εpiηρεάσουν το εpiόριο εταξύ κρατών ελών και piου έχουν ω αντικείενο ή ω αpiοτέλεσα την piαρεpiόδιση, τον piεριορισό ή τη νόθευση του ανταγωνισού εντό τη κοινή αγορά.
The Court of First Instance held that it is important in that regard to know whether the applicant’s conduct obliged the Commission, against any expectation that it might reasonably found on the applicant’s cooperation during the administrative procedure, to prepare and present a defence before the Court of First Instance specically aimed at the contestation of the unlawful acts which it had been entitled to consider were no longer called in question by the applicant. The Court of First Instance concluded in this case that an increase in the penalty was not appropriate owing to the relative unimportance of the points disputed both for the structure of the contested decision and for the preparation of the Commission’s defence, which was scarcely rendered more dicult by the applicant’s conduct.
Συφωνίε piου έχουν ω αντικείενο ή ω αpiοτέλεσα τη νόθευση του ανταγωνισού
In Roquette Frères v Commission, on the other hand, the Court of First Instance increased the contested fine after reducing it.
Στην piράξη, τα φάρακα τα piροοριζόενα να βαρύνουν ταεία υγεία άλλων κρατών ελών τη Κοινότητα έpiρεpiε να piωλούνται σε τιή υψηλότερη αpiό εκείνα piου θα εβάρυναν ταεία υγεία στην Ισpiανία, όpiου οι διοικητικέ αρχέ καθορίζουν ανώτατα όρια τιών.
It found, initially, that the fine imposed on the applicant did not correspond with its position on the sodium gluconate market. Even though no criticism could be levelled against the Commission, since it had calculated the amount of the fine on the basis of unclear and equivocal information originating with the applicant, the Court of First Instance nonetheless decided to correct that defect in the decision and therefore to reduce the fine.