natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
40 In those circumstances, it is sufficient for the Commission to prove that the subsidiary is wholly owned by the parent company in order to assume that the parent exercises a decisive influence over the commercial policy of the subsidiary.
40 U tim je okolnostima za ispunjenje pretpostavke da [matično društvo] izvršava odlučujući utjecaj na poslovnu politiku društva kćeri, dovoljno da Komisija dokaže da je [matično društvo] u cijelosti vlasnik kapitala društva kćeri.
The Commission will then be able to regard the parent company as jointly and severally liable for the payment of the fine imposed on its subsidiary, unless the parent company, which has the burden of rebutting that presumption, adduces sufficient evidence to show that its subsidiary acts independently on the market (see Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission, paragraph 29, and Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraph 61).
Komisija slijedom toga može [matično društvo] smatrati solidarno odgovornim za plaćanje novčane kazne izrečene njezinom društvu kćeri, osim ako to [matično društvo], na kojem je teret obaranja te pretpostavke, ne podnese dokaze koji su dostatni za dokazivanje da njezino društvo kći djeluje na tržištu samostalno (vidjeti gore navedene presude Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags/Komisija, t. 29. i Akzo Nobel i dr./Komisija, t. 61.).
41 Thus, contrary to the appellants' claims, the General Court rightly held in paragraph 60 of the judgment under appeal that, whilst it is true that at paragraphs 28 and 29 of Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission the Court of Justice referred, not only to the fact that the parent company owned 100% of the capital of the subsidiary, but also to other circumstances, such as the fact that it was not disputed that the parent company exercised influence over the commercial policy of its subsidiary or that both companies were jointly represented during the administrative procedure, the fact remains that those circumstances were mentioned by the Court of Justice for the sole purpose of identifying all the information on which the General Court had based its reasoning in that case and not to make the application of the presumption mentioned above subject to the production of additional indicia relating to the actual exercise of influence by the parent company over its subsidiary (see, to that effect, Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraph 62).
41 Dakle, suprotno navodima žalitelja, Opći sud je u točki 60. pobijane presude ispravno smatrao da, iako stoji da se u točkama 28. i 29. gore navedene presude Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags/Komisija Sud pozvao ne samo na činjenicu kako matično društvo posjeduje 100 % kapitala društva kćeri, već i na druge okolnosti, kao što je činjenica da nije osporavano izvršavanje utjecaja matičnog društva nad poslovnom politikom svojeg društva kćeri odnosno da su oba društva zajednički zastupana tijekom upravnog postupka, ostaje činjenica da je te okolnosti Sud spomenuo s ciljem utvrđivanja svih elemenata na kojima je Opći sud temeljio svoje obrazloženje u tom predmetu, a ne kako bi primjenu gore navedene pretpostavke podvrgao iznošenju dodatnih indicija vezanih uz stvarno izvršavanje utjecaja matičnog društva nad njegovim društvom kćeri (u tom smislu vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Akzo Nobel i dr./Komisija, t. 62.).
42 It is apparent from all of those considerations that the General Court did not commit any error of law in finding, in paragraphs 59 to 63 of the judgment under appeal, that, where a parent company holds 100% of the capital of its subsidiary, there is a rebuttable presumption that that parent company exercises decisive influence over its subsidiary's conduct.
42 Iz svih ovih razmatranja proizlazi kako Opći sud nije počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava kad je u točkama 59. do 63. pobijane presude utvrdio da, ako matično društvo drži 100 % kapitala svojeg društva kćeri, postoji oboriva pretpostavka da to matično društvo izvršava odlučujući utjecaj nad postupanjem svojeg društva kćeri.
43 The first part of the first ground of appeal must therefore be dismissed as unfounded.
43 Prvi dio prvog žalbenog razloga stoga treba odbiti kao neosnovan.
The second part of the first ground of appeal, claiming errors in the assessment of the existence of a decisive influence of the parent company over the conduct of its wholly-owned subsidiary
Drugi dio prvog žalbenog razloga koji se temelji na pogreškama u ocjeni postojanja odlučujućeg utjecaja matičnog društva nad postupanjem svojeg društva kćeri u kojem ima 100 % udjela
44 The appellants submit, first of all, that, even if the Commission was able to assume the parent company actually exercised decisive influence over the conduct of a subsidiary of which it owns 100% of the capital, the General Court none the less committed an error of law in relation to the rules applicable to evidence by excessively restricting the possibilities of rebutting that presumption, thereby introducing a system of automatic responsibility which is contrary to the principle of personal responsibility.
44 Kao prvo, žalitelji tvrde da, čak i da je Komisija mogla pretpostaviti kako je matično društvo stvarno izvršavalo odlučujući utjecaj nad postupanjem društva kćeri u kojem posjeduje 100 % kapitala, Opći sud je ipak počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava u odnosu na pravila dokazivanja, prekomjerno ograničavajući mogućnosti obaranja te pretpostavke i tako uvodeći sustav automatske odgovornosti koji je protivan načelu osobne odgovornosti.
45 Secondly, as regards the assessment of the evidence produced with a view to rebutting that presumption, the appellants claim that the information analysed by the General Court in paragraph 66 of the judgment under appeal does not enable the conclusion that there is a single economic entity.
45 Kao drugo, u odnosu na ocjenu dokaza predočenih s ciljem obaranja te pretpostavke, žalitelji tvrde da informacije koje je analizirao Opći sud u točki 66. pobijane presude ne omogućuju donošenje zaključka o postojanju jedinstvenog gospodarskog subjekta.
46 Thirdly, they submit that, in paragraphs 68 and 69 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court misinterpreted the order given by RQ, following the inspection carried out by the Commission, to all of the companies in its group, including GQ, to cease any practice which might constitute an infringement, in so far as such an order did not establish that RQ was aware of the conduct alleged against GQ.
46 Kao treće, oni tvrde da je u točkama 68. i 69. pobijane presude Opći sud pogrešno protumačio nalog koji je RQ, slijedom inspekcije koju je provela Komisija, dao svim društvima u svojoj grupi pa i GQ-u, da prestanu sa svakim postupanjem koje bi moglo predstavljati povredu, jer takav nalog nije značio da je RQ svjestan postupanja koje se GQ-u stavlja na teret.
47 Fourthly, the same paragraphs of the judgment under appeal are also vitiated by an error of legal classification and of reasoning, in so far as that order was not sufficient to show that RQ and GQ constituted an economic unit.
47 Kao četvrto, iste su točke pobijane presude također sadržavale pogrešnu pravnu ocjenu i obrazloženje, jer taj nalog nije bio dovoljan dokaz da RQ i GQ čine gospodarsku jedinicu.
48 For its part, the Commission contends that, as regards the rebuttal by the parent company of the presumption of the exercise of a decisive influence over its subsidiary, Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission provided a certain number of indications confirming the legitimacy of the General Court's reasoning.
48 Komisija sa svoje strane tvrdi, u vezi s tim da je matično društvo osporavalo pretpostavku izvršavanja odlučujućeg utjecaja nad svojim društvom kćeri, kako je gore navedena presuda Akzo Nobel i dr./Komisija pružila određene naznake koje potvrđuju zakonitost obrazloženja Općeg suda.
In that judgment, the Court of Justice held that, in order to ascertain whether a subsidiary determines its conduct on the market independently, all the relevant factors relating to economic, organisational and legal links which tie the subsidiary to the parent company must be examined.
U toj je presudi Sud smatrao da je, kako bi se utvrdilo određuje li društvo kći svoje postupanje na tržištu neovisno, potrebno ispitati sve relevantne elemente u vezi s gospodarskim, organizacijskim i pravnim vezama koje društvo kćer povezuju s matičnim društvom.
49 In the Commission's view, the appellants have not shown that the General Court erroneously assessed those factors.
49 Prema mišljenju Komisije, žalitelji nisu dokazali da je Opći sud pogrešno ocijenio te čimbenike.
50 As regards the first complaint that the General Court committed an error of law by reducing the possibilities, for a parent company, of rebutting the presumption of decisive influence over the conduct of a subsidiary of which it holds 100% of the capital, it should be noted that, in paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court correctly found that it is for the parent company to put before it any evidence relating to the economic and legal organisational links between its subsidiary and itself which in its view is apt to demonstrate that they do not constitute a single economic entity.
50 U odnosu na prvi prigovor da je Opći sud počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava smanjivanjem mogućnosti matičnog društva da obori pretpostavku odlučujućeg utjecaja nad postupanjem društva kćeri u kojem drži 100 % kapitala, valja napomenuti kako je u točki 65. pobijane presude Opći sud ispravno utvrdio da je na matičnom društvu da mu dostavi svaki dokaz vezan uz organizacijske, gospodarske i pravne veze između društva kćeri i sebe, kojim se može dokazati da oni ne čine jedinstveni gospodarski subjekt.
51 It is apparent from the Court's case-law that, in order to rebut the presumption that a parent company which holds 100% of the capital of its subsidiary actually exercises a decisive influence over that subsidiary, it is for the parent company to put before the EU judicature any evidence relating to the organisational, economic and legal links between its subsidiary and itself which are apt to demonstrate that they do not constitute a single economic entity (see Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraph 65).
51 Kako bi se oborila pretpostavka da matično društvo koje drži 100 % kapitala svojeg društva kćeri stvarno izvršava odlučujući utjecaj nad tim društvom kćeri, iz prakse Suda proizlazi da je na matičnom društvu da sudovima EU-a dostavi svaki dokaz vezan uz organizacijske, gospodarske i pravne veze između svojeg društva kćeri i sebe, kojim se može dokazati da oni ne čine jedinstveni gospodarski subjekt (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Akzo Nobel i dr./Komisija, t. 65.).
52 It should also be pointed out that, contrary to what the appellants claim, given its rebuttable nature, that presumption, which may be rebutted in an individual case by relying on the series of factors referred to by the General Court, does not lead to the automatic attribution of liability to the parent company holding 100% of the capital of its subsidiary, which would be contrary to the principle of personal responsibility on which EU competition law is based.
52 Također valja napomenuti da, suprotno tvrdnjama žalitelja, ta pretpostavka koju je, budući da je po prirodi oboriva, u svakom pojedinom predmetu moguće oboriti pozivajući se na sve elemente koje navodi Opći sud, ne dovodi do automatskog pripisivanja odgovornosti matičnom društvu koje drži 100 % kapitala svojeg društva kćeri, što bi bilo protivno načelu osobne odgovornosti koji je temelj pravu EU-a u području tržišnog natjecanja.
53 Consequently, that complaint must be dismissed.
53 Slijedom toga, ovaj prigovor treba odbiti.
54 As regards the second and third complaints, based, respectively, on an error on the part of the General Court in that the factors analysed in paragraph 66 of the judgment under appeal do not enable the conclusion to be drawn that there is a single economic entity and on a misinterpretation, in paragraphs 68 and 69 of that judgment, of the order which RQ gave to GQ, in so far as that order does not establish that RQ was aware of the conduct alleged against GQ, this court finds that those complaints result from a misreading of the relevant passages of that judgment.
54 U odnosu na drugi i treći prigovor, koji se temelje na pogreški Općeg suda u dijelu u kojem čimbenici analizirani u točki 66. pobijane presude ne omogućuju donošenje zaključka o postojanju jednog gospodarskog subjekta te na iskrivljenom tumačenju naloga koji je RQ dao GQ-u u točkama 68. i 69. te presude jer se tim nalogom ne utvrđuje da je RQ znao za postupanje koje se GQ-u stavlja na teret, ovaj sud smatra kako ti navodi proizlaze iz pogrešnog tumačenja odgovarajućih dijelova te presude.
55 First, contrary to what the appellants claim, the General Court concluded that there was an economic entity by taking account of the factors analysed in paragraph 66 of the judgment under appeal.
55 Kao prvo, suprotno tvrdnjama žalitelja, postojanje gospodarskog subjekta Opći sud nije utvrdio uzimajući u obzir elemente analizirane u točki 66. pobijane presude.
It merely limited itself to noting that those factors, which were already taken into account by the Commission in recital 262 in the preamble to the contested decision, pointed to the existence of a single entity and, therefore, did not enable the presumption weighing on RQ to be rebutted.
On se tek ograničio na primjedbu da ti elementi koje je Komisija već uzela u obzir u uvodnoj izjavi 262. sporne odluke ukazuju na postojanje jedinstvenog subjekta i prema tome ne omogućuju obaranje pretpostavke na teret RQ-a.
56 Second, in paragraphs 68 and 69 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court did not infer from the order given by RQ to GQ that RQ knew for certain of the unlawful conduct alleged against GQ, but considered that the appellants' statement, confirming that such an order was given to GQ, was sufficient in itself to prove that RQ exercised a decisive influence over GQ's policy.
56 Kao drugo, u točkama 68. i 69. pobijane presude Opći sud iz naloga koji je RQ dao GQ-u nije zaključio da je RQ sigurno znao za nezakonito postupanje koje se GQ-u stavlja na teret, već je smatrao kako je izjava žalitelja kojom potvrđuju da je takav nalog dan GQ-u sama po sebi dostatan dokaz da je RQ izvršavao odlučujući utjecaj nad politikom GQ-a.
57 In those circumstances, the second and third complaints must also be dismissed as unfounded.
57 U tim okolnostima, drugi i treći prigovor također treba odbiti kao neosnovane.
58 By their fourth complaint, the appellants essentially accuse the General Court of failing to give reasons in that it did not sufficiently set out the reasons why, in paragraph 69 of the judgment under appeal, it considered that that statement by the appellants concerning the order given by RQ to GQ was sufficient, in itself, to prove that RQ exercised a decisive influence over GQ's policy.
58 U četvrtom prigovoru žalitelji u bitnome optužuju Opći sud za propuste u obrazloženju jer nije dovoljno detaljno iznio razloge zbog kojih je u točki 69. pobijane presude smatrao kako ta izjava žalitelja o nalogu koji je RQ dao GQ-u sama po sebi dokazuje da je RQ izvršavao odlučujući utjecaj nad politikom GQ-a.
59 It should be noted in that regard that, according to settled case-law, the statement of the reasons on which a judgment is based must clearly and unequivocally disclose the General Court's thinking, so that the persons concerned can be apprised of the justification for the decision taken and the Court of Justice can exercise its power of review (see Case C-202/07 P France Télécom v Commission [2009] ECR I-2369, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
59 U tom smislu valja podsjetiti da, prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, iz obrazloženja presude mora jasno i nedvosmisleno slijediti ocjena Općeg suda, tako da zainteresirane osobe mogu utvrditi razloge za donesenu odluku i tako da Sud može izvršavati sudski nadzor (vidjeti osobito presudu od 2. travnja 2009., France Télécom/Komisija, C-202/07 P, Zb., str. I-2369., t. 29. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
60 In the present case, the General Court simply found, in paragraph 69 of the judgment under appeal, that RQ's order to GQ to cease any practice which might constitute an infringement of the competition rules, following the inspection which had taken place at GQ's place of business on 27 September 2002, was sufficient in itself to prove that RQ exercised a decisive influence over GQ's policy, not only on the market but also as regards the unlawful conduct at issue in the contested decision.
60 U ovom predmetu Opći sud je u točki 69. pobijane presude samo utvrdio kako je nalog RQ-a GQ-u da prestane sa svakim postupanjem koje bi moglo predstavljati povredu pravila o tržišnom natjecanju, slijedom inspekcije koja je 27. rujna 2002. provedena u prostorijama GQ-a, bio sam po sebi dostatan dokaz da je RQ izvršavao odlučujući utjecaj nad politikom GQ-a, i to ne samo na tržištu nego i u pogledu nezakonitog postupanja kojim se bavi sporna odluka.
61 In doing that, the General Court limited itself to merely asserting a principle, without setting out in a clear and unequivocal manner the grounds which led it to that conclusion.
61 Time se Opći sud ograničio tek na potvrdu načela, a da nije na jasan i nedvosmislen način iznio razloge koji su ga naveli na taj zaključak.
62 It follows that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a lack of reasoning in so far as the General Court did not set out the reasons on which that conclusion was based.
62 Proizlazi da obrazloženje pobijane presude ima nedostataka u dijelu u kojem Opći sud nije naveo razloge na kojima se temelji taj zaključak.
63 Consequently, that complaint is well founded, while the second part of the first ground of appeal must be dismissed as to the remainder.
63 Slijedom toga, taj je prigovor osnovan, dok u preostalom dijelu drugi dio prvog žalbenog razloga treba odbiti.
The third part of the first ground of appeal, claiming errors of law and of reasoning in the examination of the evidence submitted by the appellants with a view to rebutting the presumption of RQ's decisive influence over GQ's conduct
Treći dio prvog žalbenog razloga koji se temelji na pogreški koja se tiče prava i pogreški u obrazloženju pri ispitivanju dokaza koje su žalitelji istaknuli kako bi oborili pretpostavku odlučujućeg utjecaja RQ-a nad postupanjem GQ-a
64 The appellants raise several complaints against the findings made by the General Court for the sake of completeness in paragraphs 71 to 75 of the judgment under appeal.
64 Žalitelji ističu nekoliko prigovora na ocjenu koju je Opći sud u svrhu potpunosti iznio u točkama 71. do 75. pobijane presude.
65 First, the General Court misinterpreted, in paragraph 71 of that judgment, the fact that GQ carried out different activities from those of RQ, and wrongly gave no importance to the various attempts on the part of RQ to sell off GQ to third parties between 1993 and 2004.
65 Kao prvo, Opći sud je u točki 71. te presude iskrivio činjenicu da je GQ obavljao djelatnosti različite od djelatnosti RQ-a te je pogriješio kad nije pridao nikakvo značenje raznim pokušajima RQ-a da GQ proda trećim stranama između 1993. i 2004. godine.
Those factors constitute clear evidence of RQ's lack of interest in GQ's activities.
Ti su elementi jasan dokaz manjka zanimanja RQ-a za djelatnosti GQ-a.
66 Second, contrary to the assessments of the General Court in paragraph 72 of the judgment under appeal, the fact that the minutes of the meetings of RQ's board of directors mentioned GQ on only two occasions, over an eight-year period between 1998 and 2005, shows the complete lack of influence and intervention of RQ in GQ's activities.
66 Kao drugo, protivno ocjeni Općeg suda u točki 72. pobijane presude, činjenica da je u zapisnicima sa sastanaka upravnog odbora RQ-a GQ spomenut samo dva puta tijekom osmogodišnjeg razdoblja, između 1998. i 2005. godine, pokazuje potpuni nedostatak utjecaja i intervencije RQ-a u djelatnosti GQ-a.
67 Third, according to the appellants, the overlap between the administrative organs of RQ and GQ, noted by the General Court in paragraph 73 of the judgment under appeal, concerned only one person and was thus purely marginal in nature.
67 Kao treće, prema tvrdnjama žalitelja, preklapanje između upravnih tijela RQ-a i GQ-a, koje je Opći sud spomenuo u točki 73. pobijane presude, odnosilo se na samo jednu osobu te je prema tome sasvim zanemarivo.
68 Fourth, in paragraph 74 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court wrongly rejected without analysis, first, the evidence showing that only the executives of GQ determined and implemented that company's commercial policy and, second, the claims that the information which GQ provided to RQ concerned only GQ's financial results.
68 Kao četvrto, u točki 74. pobijane presude, Opći sud je pogrešno i bez analize odbio s jedne strane, dokaz da su samo rukovoditelji GQ-a određivali i provodili komercijalnu politiku toga društva i, s druge strane, navode da su se informacije koje je GQ dostavljao RQ-u odnosile samo na financijske rezultate GQ-a.
69 Fifth, as regards the relationship between GQ and Repsol Italia, the General Court also committed an error of law by considering, in paragraph 75 of the judgment under appeal, that the consolidation of accounts by RYPF at group level supported the Commission's argument, whereas the non-exclusive agency relationship between GQ and that company proves that GQ is commercially independent.
69 Kao peto, što se tiče odnosa između društava GQ i Repsol Italia, Opći sud je također pogriješio smatrajući u točki 75. pobijane presude kako činjenica da je RYPF konsolidirao izvješća na razini grupe podupire argument Komisije, dok zapravo neekskluzivni zastupnički odnos između GQ-a i toga društva dokazuje GQ-ovu komercijalnu neovisnost.
70 The Commission contends that the appellants have not shown the existence of exceptional circumstances capable of rebutting the presumption of a decisive influence of the parent company over its subsidiary, circumstances which the General Court either wrongly failed to analyse or misinterpreted.
70 Komisija smatra da žalitelji nisu dokazali postojanje izvanrednih okolnosti koje bi mogle oboriti pretpostavku odlučujućeg utjecaja matičnog društva nad svojim društvom kćeri, tj. okolnosti koje je Opći sud ili propustio analizirati ili ih je pogrešno protumačio.
The arguments raised by the appellants in that regard are of a very general nature and are unfounded.
Argumenti koje su žalitelji istaknuli u tom smislu vrlo su općenite prirode te su neosnovani.
71 It should be noted at the outset that, according to settled case-law, it is clear from Article 225 EC and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that the General Court has exclusive jurisdiction, first to find the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts.
71 Najprije valja napomenuti da je prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, iz članka 225. UEZ-a i prvog stavka članka 58.
When the General Court has found or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 225 EC to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the General Court and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them (see, inter alia, Case C-551/03 P General Motors v Commission [2006] ECR I-3173, paragraph 51; judgment of 22 May 2008 in Case C-266/06 P Evonik Degussa v Commission, paragraph 72; and Case C-535/06 P Moser Baer India v Council [2009] ECR I-7051, paragraph 31).
Statuta Suda razvidno da je Opći sud isključivo nadležan, s jedne strane, za utvrđivanje činjenica, osim u slučaju kada materijalna netočnost njegovih utvrđenja proizlazi iz dijelova spisa koji su mu podneseni, i s druge strane, za ocjenjivanje tih činjenica. Kada je Opći sud utvrdio i ocijenio činjenice, Sud je nadležan na temelju članka 256. UFEU-a prekontrolirati pravnu kvalifikaciju tih činjenica koje je iz njih izveo Opći sud (vidjeti osobito presude od 6. travnja 2006., General Motors/Komisija, C-551/03 P, Zb., str. I-3173., t. 51.; od 22. svibnja 2008., Evonik Degussa/Komisija, C-266/06 P, t. 72. i od 3. rujna 2009., Moser Baer India/Vijeće, C-535/06 P, Zb., str. I-7051., t. 31.).