natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
22 The applicants went on to bring appeals before the Court of Justice, seeking to have those judgments set aside.
22 Slijedom toga tužitelji su Sudu podnijeli žalbe radi ukidanja tih presuda.
The appeals were registered under case numbers C-493/11 P, C-494/11 P, C-501/11 P, C-503/11 P to 506/11 P, C-510/11 P, C-516/11 P and C-519/11 P. By orders of 24 April and 8 May 2012, the President of the Court ordered Cases C-503/11 P to 506/11 P, C-516/11 P and C-519/11 P to be removed from the register of the Court. By orders of 15 June 2012 in United Technologies v Commission and Otis Luxembourg and Others v Commission, the Court dismissed the appeals in Cases C-493/11 P and C-494/11 P. Cases C-501/11 P and C-510/11 P are pending before the Court.
Žalbe su uvedene u upisnik pod brojevima C-493/11 P, C-494/11 P, C-501/11 P, C-503/11 P do 506/11 P, C-510/11 P, C-516/11 P i C-519/11 P. Rješenjima od 24. travnja i 8. svibnja 2012. predsjednik Suda izbrisao je iz upisnika Suda predmete C-503/11 P do 506/11 P, C-516/11 P i C-519/11 P. Rješenjima od 15. lipnja 2012., United Technologies/Komisija i Otis Luxembourg i dr./Komisija, odbijene su žalbe u predmetima C-493/11 P i C-494/11 P. Predmeti C-501/11 P i C-510/11 P u tijeku su pred Sudom.
Proceedings before the referring court
Postupak pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev
23 By an originating summons dated 20 June 2008, the European Community, now the European Union (`the EU'), represented by the Commission, brought proceedings before the referring court, seeking, primarily, an order that the defendants in the main proceedings pay the EU the provisional sum of EUR 7 061 688 (exclusive of interest and costs) in respect of the loss sustained by it as a result of the anti-competitive practices established in the decision of 21 February 2007.
23 Uvodnim pozivom od 20. lipnja 2008. Europska zajednica, sada Europska unija, koju zastupa Komisija, podnijela je tužbu pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev tražeći u prvom redu da se izda nalog da tuženici u glavnom postupku Uniji plate privremeni iznos od 7 061 688 eura (bez kamata i troškova postupka) za gubitak koji je Unija imala zbog protutržišne prakse utvrđene odlukom od 21. veljače 2007.
The EU had concluded with the defendants in the main proceedings several contracts for the installation, maintenance and renewal of elevators and escalators in various buildings, located in Belgium and Luxembourg, of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions of the European Union and the Publications Office of the European Union.
Unija je ustvari s tuženicima u glavnom postupku sklopila nekoliko ugovora za ugradnju, održavanje i obnovu liftova i pokretnih stepenica u raznim zgradama Vijeća Europske unije, Europskog parlamenta, Komisije, Europskoga gospodarskog i socijalnog odbora, Odbora regija Europske unije i Ureda za publikacije Europske unije, smještenim u Belgiji i Luksemburgu.
In the alternative, the EU requested that an expert be appointed in order to determine, inter alia, the entirety of the loss sustained.
Podredno, Unija je zahtijevala da se odredi stručnjak koji će utvrditi osobito sveukupnost pretrpljene štete.
24 The defendants in the main proceedings dispute the Commission's capacity to act as the EU's representative in the absence of express authorisation to that effect from the other EU institutions that have allegedly suffered harm as a result of the infringement in question.
24 Tuženici u glavnom postupku osporavaju ovlast Komisije da postupa kao zastupnik Unije bez izričitog odobrenja drugih institucija Unije koje su navodno oštećene zbog dotične povrede.
They have also maintained that there is an infringement of the principles of judicial independence and equality of arms on account of the special role played by the Commission in proceedings relating to infringements of Article 81(1) EC.
Osim toga istaknuli su i povredu načela neovisnosti suda i jednakosti oružja zbog posebne uloge koju Komisija ima u postupku u okviru postupka primjene članka 81. stavka 1. UEZ-a. Uzimajući u obzir činjenicu da je, u skladu s člankom 16.
They submit that, if account is taken of the fact that, under Article 16 of Regulation No 1/2003, the decision of 21 February 2007 is binding on the referring court, there is also an infringement of the principle that no one can be a judge in his own cause (nemo judex in sua causa).
Uredbe br. 1/2003, odluka od 21. veljače 2007. ograničavajuća za sud koji je uputio zahtjev, povrijeđeno je i načelo prema kojem nitko ne može biti sudac u vlastitoj stvari (nemo judex in sua causa).
25 The referring court has declared that it does not have jurisdiction with regard to the loss caused by the defendants in the main proceedings which are established in Luxembourg.
25 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev proglasio se nenadležnim za štetu koju su uzrokovali tuženici u glavnom postupku s poslovnim nastanom u Luxembourgu.
26 In those circumstances, the Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel (Brussels Commercial Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
26 U tim je uvjetima Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel (Trgovački sud u Bruxellesu) odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`(1) (a) The Treaty states in Article 282, now Article [3]35 [TFEU], that the [EU] is to be represented by the Commission.
„1. (a) Na temelju članka 282. UEZ-a, koji je postao članak 335. UFEU-a, Uniju zastupa Komisija;
Article 335 TFEU, on the one hand, and Articles 103 and 104 of the Financial Regulation, on the other, state that, in administrative matters relating to their operation, the institutions concerned are to represent the [EU], with the possible result that [it] is the institutions, whether or not exclusively, ... which may be parties to legal proceedings.
članak 335. UFEU-a, s jedne strane, i članci 103. i 104. Financijske uredbe, s druge strane, određuju da u administrativnim pitanjima povezanima s funkcioniranjem tih institucija dotične institucije zastupaju Uniju, a to može podrazumijevati da su te institucije ovlaštene, bez obzira na to imaju li izričito ovlaštenje ili ne, same se zastupati pred sudom;
There is no doubt that receipt by, amongst others, contractors of payment of inflated prices as a result of collusive practices comes within the concept of fraud.
nema sumnje, osobito za poduzetnike, da je stvaranje kartela kojim su postigli pretjerano visoke cijene obuhvaćeno pojmom prijevare;
In Belgian national law there is the principle of `Lex specialis generalibus derogat'. To the extent to which that principle of law also finds acceptance in [EU] law, is it then not the case that the initiative for bringing the claims (except where the Commission itself was the contracting authority) was vested in the institutions concerned?
u belgijskom nacionalnom pravu postoji načelo ‚lex specialis generalibus derogat'; budući da to načelo vrijedi i u europskom pravu, ne bi li trebalo smatrati da (osim u slučaju kada je sama Komisija naručitelj) inicijativa pokretanja postupka pripada dotičnim institucijama?
(b) (Subsidiary question) Ought the Commission not at least to have been conferred with authorisation by the institutions to represent them for the purpose of safeguarding their interests before the courts?
(b) (podredno pitanje) Ne bi li Komisija u najmanju ruku trebala imati ovlaštenje institucija da ih zastupa u svrhu obrane njihovih interesa na sudu?
(2) (a) Article 47 of the [Charter] and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human [Rights] and Fundamental Freedoms [signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (the `ECHR')] guarantee every person's right to a fair trial as well as the related principle that no one can be a judge in his own cause.
2. (a) Članak 47. [Povelje] i članak 6. stavak 1. Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava [i temeljnih sloboda, potpisane 4. studenoga 1950. u Rimu (dalje u tekstu: EKLJP)] jamče pravo svake osobe na pošteno suđenje kao i na s tim povezano načelo da nitko ne može biti sudac u vlastitoj stvari;
Is it reconcilable with that principle if the Commission, in an initial phase, acts as the competition authority and penalises the conduct complained of - namely, the formation of a cartel - as a breach of Article 81 [EC], now Article 101 [TFEU] after it has itself conducted the investigation in that regard, and subsequently, in a second phase, prepares the proceedings for seeking compensation before the national court and takes the decision to bring those proceedings, while the same Member of the Commission is responsible for both matters, which are connected, a fortiori as the national court seised of the matter cannot depart from the decision imposing penalties?
je li u skladu s tim načelom da, ako Komisija u početnoj fazi, nakon što je sama provela istragu u tom pogledu, postupa kao tijelo nadležno za tržišno natjecanje i kažnjava sporno ponašanje, odnosno stvaranje kartela, kao povredu članka 81. UEZ-a, koji je postao članak 101. UFEU-a, a naknadno, u drugoj fazi, priprema postupak u kojem pred nacionalnim sudom traži naknadu štete i donosi odluku da pokrene taj postupak, pri čemu je isti član Komisije odgovoran za obje stvari, koje su međusobno povezane, tim više što a fortiori nacionalni sud pred kojim se predmet vodi ne može odstupiti od odluke o kažnjavanju?
(b) (Subsidiary question) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the [negative], (there is irreconcilability), how then must the victim (the Commission and/or the institutions and/or the [EU]) of an unlawful act (the formation of the cartel) assert its entitlement to compensation under [EU] law, which is likewise a fundamental right?'
(b) (podredno pitanje) Ako je odgovor na pitanje iz točke 2.(a) [negativan] (u smislu da nespojivost postoji), kako je moguće da stranka (Komisija, institucije ili Unija) oštećena nezakonitim činom (stvaranjem kartela) sama mora isticati u pravu Unije svoje pravo na odštetu, koje je jedno od temeljnih prava?"
First question
Prvo pitanje
27 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 282 EC and 335 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the Commission is empowered to represent the EU before a national court in a civil action for damages in respect of loss caused to the EU by an agreement or practice prohibited by Articles 81 EC and 101 TFEU which may have affected certain public contracts awarded by various EU institutions and bodies, although it does not have authorisation from the other institutions or bodies concerned to represent them.
27 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev svojim prvim pitanjem u biti pita treba li članke 282. UEZ-a i 335. UFEU-a tumačiti na način da Komisija ima ovlasti zastupati Uniju pred nacionalnim sudom u parničnom postupku za naknadu štete koja je Uniji prouzročena sporazumom ili praksom koji su zabranjeni člancima 81. UEZ-a i 101. UFEU-a, a mogli su utjecati na određene ugovore o javnoj nabavi koje su sklopile razne institucije i razna tijela Unije, iako za zastupanje dotičnih drugih institucija ili tijela nema ovlaštenje.
28 Until 1 December 2009, the date on which the FEU Treaty entered into force, Community representation before the courts of the Member States was governed by Article 282 EC.
28 Do 1. prosinca 2009., dana stupanja na snagu UFEU-a, zastupanje Zajednice pred sudovima država članica bilo je uređeno člankom 282. UEZ-a.
29 Since the action before the referring court was brought prior to that date, consideration should be given to whether that article enabled the Commission to represent the Community in such an action.
29 Budući da je tužba iz glavnog postupka podnesena prije toga datuma, prvo valja ispitati je li tim člankom Komisija bila ovlaštena zastupati Zajednicu u okviru takve tužbe.
30 It is clear from the wording of Article 282 EC that the Community may be a party to legal proceedings in each of the Member States and that, for that purpose, it is to be represented by the Commission.
30 Iz odredaba članka 282. UEZ-a proizlazi da Zajednica može biti stranka u sudskom postupku u svakoj državi članici i da je u tu svrhu zastupa Komisija.
31 The defendants in the main proceedings contend, however, that Article 282 EC is only a general rule, from which Articles 274 EC and 279 EC derogate.
31 Međutim, tuženici u glavnom postupku ističu da je članak 282. UEZ-a tek opće pravilo od kojeg se odstupa u člancima 274. UEZ-a i 279. UEZ-a.
They argue that the latter provisions have been implemented by the Financial Regulation, Articles 59 and 60 of which authorise each EU institution to implement its own budgetary items.
Odredbe ta dva članka provedene su Financijskom uredbom, čiji članci 59. i 60. svakoj instituciji Unije dodjeljuju ovlasti za izvršenje vlastitih proračunskih stavaka.
They also maintain that it follows from Articles 103 and 104 of the Financial Regulation that it falls to each of those institutions - if they consider themselves to have suffered harm as a result of the infringement in question - to bring an action for damages, given that most of the contracts were awarded in their own name and on their own behalf.
Nadalje, iz članaka 103. i 104. Financijske uredbe proizlazi da je na svakoj od tih institucija, ako se smatra oštećenom zbog dotične povrede, da pokrene tužbu za naknadu štete, budući da većinu ugovora dodjeljuju u svoje ime i za svoj račun.
32 It is to be noted in that regard that Articles 274 EC and 279 EC, and also the provisions of the Financial Regulation, determine, inter alia, the powers of the institutions to establish and implement the budget.
32 U tom pogledu valja utvrditi da članci 274. UEZ-a i 279. UEZ-a i odredbe Financijske uredbe određuju osobito ovlast institucija za utvrđivanje i izvršenje proračuna.
By contrast, Article 282 EC confers legal capacity on the Community and governs the way it is represented, inter alia, before the courts of the Member States.
Suprotno tome, članak 282. UEZ-a povjerava Zajednici pravnu sposobnost i uređuje način zastupanja Zajednice osobito pred sudovima država članica.
The question of Community representation before those courts is distinct from the question concerning measures for budgetary implementation adopted by a Community institution.
Pitanje zastupanja Zajednice pred tim sudovima nije isto što i pitanje o mjerama koje za izvršenje proračuna donosi institucija Zajednice.
For that reason, the principle lex specialis generalibus derogat is of no relevance here.
Zbog toga načelo „lex specialis generalibus derogat" u ovom predmetu nije relevantno.
33 With regard, in particular, to Articles 103 and 104 of the Financial Regulation, to which the referring court alludes when formulating its first question, it must be stated that those provisions contain rules relating to the award and enforcement of public contracts and not to the representation of the EU before the courts of the Member States.
33 U pogledu osobito članaka 103. i 104. Financijske uredbe na koje se sud koji je uputio zahtjev poziva kada navodi svoje prvo pitanje, valja utvrditi da te odredbe sadržavaju pravila o sklapanju i izvršavanju ugovora o javnoj nabavi, a ne o zastupanju Unije pred sudovima država članica.
34 It follows that the Commission had authority, under Article 282 EC, to represent the Community before the referring court.
34 Iz toga proizlazi da je na temelju članka 282. UEZ-a Komisija bila ovlaštena zastupati Zajednicu pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev.
35 So far as Article 335 TFEU is concerned, it is to be noted that the FEU Treaty contains no transitional provisions concerning the representation of the EU in proceedings which were brought before the courts of the Member States prior to that Treaty's entry into force but which were still pending thereafter.
35 Što se tiče članka 335. UFEU-a, valja utvrditi da Ugovor o funkcioniranju Europske unije ne sadržava prijelaznu odredbu u pogledu zastupanja Unije u postupcima koji su pred sudovima država članica pokrenuti prije stupanja toga Ugovora na snagu, nego koji su nakon što je Ugovor stupio na snagu još uvijek u tijeku.
In those circumstances, the relevant provision governing that representation is Article 282 EC, since the main proceedings were commenced before the entry into force of the FEU Treaty.
U tim uvjetima relevantna odredba kojom se uređuje to zastupanje je članak 282. UEZ-a, budući da je spor u glavnom postupku započet prije stupanja na snagu Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije.
36 In view of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the Commission is not precluded from representing the EU before a national court hearing a civil action for damages in respect of loss caused to the EU by an agreement or practice prohibited by Articles 81 EC and 101 TFEU which may have affected certain public contracts awarded by various institutions and bodies of the EU, there being no need for the Commission to have authorisation for that purpose from those institutions and bodies.
36 S obzirom na prethodna razmatranja, na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da pravo Unije treba tumačiti na način da mu u okolnostima kao što su one u glavnom postupku nije protivno da Komisija zastupa Uniju pred nacionalnim sudom u parničnom postupku za naknadu štete koja je Uniji prouzročena sporazumom ili praksom koji su zabranjeni člancima 81. UEZ-a i 101. UFEU-a, a mogli su utjecati na određene ugovore o javnoj nabavi koje su sklopile razne institucije i razna tijela Unije, a da pri tome Komisija ne mora imati njihovo ovlaštenje u tom smislu.
Second question
Drugo pitanje
37 By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 47 of the Charter precludes the Commission from bringing an action, on behalf of the EU, before a national court for damages in respect of loss sustained by the EU as a result of an agreement or practice which has been found by a decision of the Commission to infringe Article 81 EC.
37 Svojim drugim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita je li članku 47. Povelje protivno da Komisija u ime Unije pred nacionalnim sudom podnese tužbu za naknadu štete nanesene Uniji zbog sporazuma za koji ili prakse za koju je odlukom te institucije utvrđeno da su protivni članku 81. UEZ-a.
38 In particular, the referring court entertains doubts, in the first place, as to whether, in such an action, the right to a fair hearing, laid down in Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR, is infringed on account of the fact that, under Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, a Commission decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC is binding on that court. The referring court states that a decision adopted by one of the parties to the dispute requires it to accept the finding of an infringement of Article 81 EC, which thus prevents the national court from considering in its absolute discretion one of the elements conferring entitlement to compensation, namely the occurrence of an event giving rise to damage (a `harmful event').
38 Konkretno, Sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita se, kao prvo, je li u takvoj tužbi pravo na pošteno suđenje, utvrđeno u članku 47. Povelje i članku 6. EKLJP-a, povrijeđeno zbog toga što je na temelju članka 16. stavka 1. Uredbe br. 1/2003 odluka Komisije o postupku primjene članka 81. UEZ-a obvezujuća za taj sud. Ustvari, nametnuto mu je utvrđenje povrede članka 81. UEZ-a, i to odlukom jedne od stranaka u sporu, čime je nacionalni sud spriječen da suvereno ispita jedan od elemenata na temelju kojih nastaje pravo na naknadu štete, tj. nastanak štetnog događaja.
39 The referring court also wishes to ascertain whether, in the context of such an action, the Commission is not both judge and party in its own cause in breach of the nemo judex in sua causa principle.
39 Osim toga, sud koji je uputio zahtjev želi znati nije li Komisija u okviru takve tužbe i sudac i stranka u vlastitoj stvari, čime se povređuje načelo da nitko ne može biti sudac u vlastitoj stvari (nemo judex in sua causa).
40 The Court has already had occasion to state that any person can rely on a breach of Article 81 EC before a national court and therefore rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohibited under that article (see Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 Manfredi and Others [2006] ECR I-6619 [HYPERLINK: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/query.html?DN=62004C?0295&locale=EN], paragraph 59).
40 Sud je već imao priliku naglasiti da svaka osoba ima pravo pozivati se pred sudom na povredu članka 81. UEZ-a i time isticati nevaljanost sporazuma ili prakse koje taj članak zabranjuje (presuda od 13. srpnja 2006., Manfredi i dr., od C-295/04 do C-298/04, Zb., str. I-6619., t. 59.).
41 As regards, in particular, the possibility of seeking compensation for loss caused by a contract or conduct liable to restrict or distort competition, it should be recalled that the full effectiveness of Article 81 EC and, in particular, the practical effect of the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC would be put at risk if it were not open to any person to claim damages for loss caused to him by a contract or conduct liable to restrict or distort competition (see Case C-453/99 Courage and Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297 [HYPERLINK: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/query.html?DN=61999C?0453&locale=EN], paragraph 26, and Manfredi and Others, paragraph 60).
41 Osobito što se tiče mogućnosti da se zahtijeva naknada štete uzrokovane ugovorom ili ponašanjem koji bi mogli ograničiti ili narušiti tržišno natjecanje, valja podsjetiti da se puna djelotvornost članka 81. UEZ-a i, osobito, korisni učinak zabrane utvrđene u članku 81. stavku 1. UEZ-a dovode u pitanje ako nema svaka osoba mogućnost tražiti naknadu štete uzrokovane ugovorom ili ponašanjem koji bi mogli ograničiti ili narušiti tržišno natjecanje (presude od 20. rujna 2001., Courage i Crehan, C-453/99, Zb., str. I-6297., t. 26. i prethodno navedena, Manfredi i dr., t. 60.).
42 Such a right in fact strengthens the working of the EU competition rules and discourages agreements or practices, frequently covert, which are liable to restrict or distort competition.
42 To pravo zapravo jača funkcioniranje pravila Unije o tržišnom natjecanju i destimulira često prikrivene sporazume ili praksu koji bi mogli ograničiti ili narušiti tržišno natjecanje.
From that point of view, actions for damages before national courts can make a significant contribution to the maintenance of effective competition in the EU (Courage and Crehan, paragraph 27).
S tog stajališta tužbe za naknadu štete pred nacionalnim sudovima mogu značajno doprinijeti održavanju učinkovitog tržišnog natjecanja u Uniji. (presuda Courage i Crehan, prethodno navedena, t. 27.).
43 It follows that any person can claim compensation for the harm suffered where there is a causal relationship between that harm and an agreement or practice prohibited under Article 81(1) EC (see Manfredi and Others, paragraph 61).
43 Iz toga proizlazi da svaka osoba ima pravo tražiti naknadu za pretrpljenu štetu u slučaju kada između te štete i sporazuma ili prakse koji su zabranjeni na temelju članka 81. stavka 1. UEZ-a postoji uzročna veza (presuda Manfredi i dr., prethodno navedena, t. 61.).
44 The EU, therefore, also enjoys that right.
44 Stoga to pravo pripada i Uniji.
45 When that right is exercised, however, the fundamental rights of the defendants, as safeguarded, inter alia, by the Charter, must be observed.
45 Međutim, to se pravo ostvaruje uz poštovanje temeljnih prava tuženika kako su zajamčena, između ostalog, Poveljom.
The provisions of the Charter are addressed, pursuant to Article 51(1) thereof, both to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the EU and to the Member States when they are implementing EU law.
Na temelju članka 51. stavka 1. Povelje, odredbe te Povelje odnose se na institucije, tijela, urede i agencije Unije, te na države članice kada provode pravo Unije.