natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
72 The Court of Justice thus has no jurisdiction to establish the facts or, in principle, to examine the evidence which the General Court accepted in support of those facts.
72 Dakle, Sud nije nadležan ni za utvrđivanje činjenica niti, u načelu, za ispitivanje dokaza koje je Opći sud prihvatio u prilog tim činjenicama.
Provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the General Court alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced to it.
Uz uvjet da su dokazi pravilno pribavljeni te da se postupalo u skladu s općim načelima prava i postupovnim pravilima koja se primjenjuju na teret dokazivanja i izvođenje dokaza, jedino Opći sud može odlučivati o vrijednosti koju valja pridati dokazima koji su mu podneseni.
Save where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, that appraisal does not therefore constitute a point of law which is subject as such to review by the Court of Justice (General Motors v Commission, paragraph 52; Case C-113/04 P Technische Unie v Commission [2006] ECR I-8831, paragraph 83; and judgment of 31 January 2008 in Case C-103/07 P Angelidis v Parliament, paragraph 46).
Osim u slučaju iskrivljavanja dokaza, takvo ocjenjivanje stoga ne predstavlja pravno pitanje koje je podložno, kao takvo, nadzoru Suda (gore navedena presuda General Motors/Komisija, t. 52.; presude od 21. rujna 2006., Technische Unie/Komisija, C-113/04 P, Zb., str. I-8831., t. 83. i od 31. siječnja 2008., Angelidis/Parlament, C-103/07 P, t. 46.).
73 In the present case, as regards, first of all, the complaints alleging a misinterpretation, in paragraph 71 of the judgment under appeal, of the carrying out by GQ, already prior to joining the RQ group, of activities different from those of RQ and attempts on the part of RQ to sell GQ between 1993 and 2004, on the one hand, and alleged errors of legal classification of the facts analysed in paragraphs 72, 73 and 75 of that judgment, on the other, it should be noted that, by those complaints, the appellants seek solely to call into question the assessment of the evidence made by the General Court by challenging the value which that court attributed to the factors which it took into account in its analysis.
73 U ovom predmetu, prvenstveno u odnosu na prigovore s jedne strane, o navodnom iskrivljavanju dokaza u točki 71. pobijane presude, činjenice da je GQ i prije pridruživanja RQ grupi obavljao djelatnosti drugačije od djelatnosti RQ-a kao i pokušaja RQ-a da između 1993. i 2004. godine proda GQ i, s druge strane, o navodnoj pogreški u pravnoj ocjeni činjenica analiziranih u točkama 72., 73. i 75., valja utvrditi da tim prigovorima žalitelji isključivo nastoje dovesti u pitanje ocjenu dokaza koju je izvršio Opći sud, osporavajući vrijednost koju je taj sud pridao dokazima koje je uzeo u obzir u svojoj presudi.
74 In those circumstances, since the appellants are not really claiming a distortion of the facts on which the General Court relied in reaching its conclusions or an erroneous legal classification of those facts, in the light of the case-law cited in paragraphs 71 and 72 above, those complaints must be rejected as inadmissible.
74 U tim okolnostima, s obzirom da se žalitelji zapravo ne pozivaju na iskrivljavanje činjenica na koje se Opći sud oslanjao u donošenju svojih zaključaka niti na pogrešnu pravnu ocjenu tih činjenica, ove prigovore s obzirom na sudsku praksu navedenu u gore navedenim točkama 71. i 72., treba odbiti kao nedopuštene.
75 Next, in respect of the complaint by which the appellants seek to demonstrate the insufficient or contradictory nature of the General Court's reasoning and the error of law which that court is accused of having committed in the grounds of the judgment under appeal in relation to the rejection of the evidence submitted by the appellants to demonstrate the commercial and operational independence of GQ in relation to RQ, it should be noted that, in paragraph 74 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court did not examine that evidence in detail, but rejected the arguments of those companies by mere reference to the aforecited case-law in the judgment under appeal.
75 Nadalje, u odnosu na prigovor kojim žalitelji nastoje dokazati manjkavo i proturječno zaključivanje Općeg suda, kao i pogrešku koja se tiče prava za koju tvrde da ju je počinio u obrazloženju pobijane presude u vezi s odbijanjem dokaza koje su žalitelji dostavili kako bi pokazali komercijalnu i operativnu neovisnost GQ-a od RQ-a, treba istaknuti da Opći sud u točki 74. pobijane presude nije detaljno ispitao te dokaze, nego je argumente tih društava odbio pozivajući se na sudsku praksu prethodno navedenu u pobijanoj presudi.
76 It must be noted, however, that, far from providing factors capable of dismissing such arguments without proceeding to analyse those arguments specifically, the case-law referred to in paragraphs 58 to 60 of the judgment under appeal, in reality, required the General Court, as it pointed out itself in paragraph 65 of that judgment, to assess any evidence relating to the economic and legal organisational links between RQ and GQ apt to demonstrate that GQ operated independently of its parent company and that those two companies thus did not constitute a single economic entity.
76 Potrebno je utvrditi kako je sudska praksa spomenuta u točkama 58. do 60. pobijane presude, iako nije pružila dokaze kojima bi se takvi argumenti mogli odbiti a da ih se posebno ne analizira, zapravo Općem sudu nalagala da, kao što je istaknuto u točki 65. te presude, ocijeni svaki dokaz vezan uz organizacijske, gospodarske i pravne veze između RQ-a i GQ-a kojima bi se moglo dokazati da je GQ poslovao neovisno o svojem matičnom društvu i da ta dva društva nisu činila jedinstveni gospodarski subjekt.
77 Such verification is required all the more since GQ's independence in implementing its commercial policy forms part, as is apparent from the Court's case-law, of the set of relevant factors enabling the appellants to rebut the presumption of RQ's decisive influence over GQ's conduct, factors whose character and importance may vary depending on the specific characteristics of each individual case (see, to that effect, Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraphs 73 and 74).
77 Takva je provjera bila tim više potrebna što neovisnost GQ-a u provedbi svoje komercijalne politike, kao što proizlazi iz prakse Suda, čini dio skupa relevantnih elemenata koji žaliteljima omogućuju obaranje pretpostavke odlučujućeg utjecaja RQ-a nad postupanjem GQ-a, to jest elemenata čija se narav i značenje mogu mijenjati ovisno o značajkama svakog pojedinog slučaja (u tom smislu vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Akzo Nobel i dr./Komisija, t. 73. i 74.).
78 The General Court was therefore required to take account of and to conduct a concrete examination of the factors which were raised by the appellants to show that GQ implemented its commercial policy independently, in order to ascertain whether the Commission had made a manifest error of assessment in regarding that evidence as insufficient to demonstrate that, in this case, that subsidiary did not constitute a single economic entity with RQ.
78 Stoga je elemente koje su žalitelji istaknuli radi dokazivanja autonomije GQ-a u provedbi svoje komercijalne politike, Opći sud trebao uzeti u obzir i ispitati kako bi provjerio je li Komisija pogriješila u ocjeni smatrajući kako se tim dokazima nije moglo dokazati da u tom predmetu društvo kći ne čini jedinstveni gospodarski subjekt s društvom RQ.
79 It is apparent from the above that, as pointed out by the Advocate General in point 51 of his Opinion, the General Court committed an error of law in affirming, in paragraph 74 of the judgment under appeal, that the arguments raised in order to establish such independence could not succeed `in the light of the case-law cited', without carrying out a concrete examination of the factors raised by the appellants.
79 Iz prethodno navedenoga proizlazi, kao što je nezavisni odvjetnik istaknuo u točki 51. svojeg mišljenja, da je Opći sud počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava potvrđujući u točki 74. pobijane presude da razlozi izneseni kako bi se utvrdila takva neovisnost ne mogu biti prihvaćeni „s obzirom na navedenu sudsku praksu", a da nisu ispitani dokazi koje su istaknuli žalitelji.
80 It is therefore necessary to uphold this complaint and reject the third part of the first ground of appeal as to the remainder.
80 Stoga valja prihvatiti ovaj prigovor i u preostalom dijelu odbiti treći dio prvog žalbenog razloga.
The second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law concerning the attribution to RYPF of liability for an infringement of Article 81(1) EC committed by GQ
Drugi žalbeni razlog koji se temelji na pogreški koja se tiče prava u vezi s pripisivanjem RYPF-u odgovornosti za povredu članka 81. stavka 1. UEZ-a koju je počinio GQ
81 By their second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court committed an error of law by automatically extending the liability of the subsidiary which committed the infringement to the company at the head of the group to which that subsidiary belongs.
81 U svojem drugom žalbenom razlogu žalitelji tvrde da je Opći sud počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava automatski proširujući odgovornost društva kćeri, koje je počinilo povredu, na društvo na čelu grupe kojoj to društvo kći pripada.
82 By taking the view of the matter which it did, the General Court made RYPF responsible for RQ's inability to disclaim liability for GQ's conduct.
82 Zauzimajući takvo stajalište, Opći sud je društvo RYPF učinio odgovornim za nemogućnost RQ-a da opovrgne svoju odgovornost za postupanje GQ-a.
The result is that liability for infringements committed by a subsidiary are systematically imputed to the parent company at the head of the group to which that subsidiary belongs, without taking account of the individual circumstances of each case, in particular of the number of interposed companies, the nature or activities of those companies and their legal and economic links.
Iz toga proizlazi da se odgovornost za povrede koje je počinilo društvo kći sustavno pripisuje matičnom društvu na čelu grupe kojoj to društvo kći pripada, a da se ne uzimaju u obzir okolnosti svakog slučaja, naročito broj umetnutih društava, priroda i djelatnosti tih društava i njihovih pravnih i gospodarskih veza.
83 In the Commission's view, the recent case-law of the General Court confirms that the presumption of the exercise of decisive influence over the subsidiary is applicable to the company at the head of the group, even if the nature of its control over that subsidiary is `remote' and `indirect'.
83 Prema stajalištu Komisije, nedavna praksa Općeg suda potvrđuje da je pretpostavka izvršavanja odlučujućeg utjecaja nad društvom kćeri primjenjiva na društvo na čelu grupe, čak i ako je njegova kontrola nad tim društvom kćeri „udaljena" i „neizravna".
84 The answer to this ground of appeal requires it to be determined whether, and possibly in what circumstances, the Commission may impute to the company at the head of a group (`a holding company'), in this case RYPF, joint and several liability for an infringement of EU competition law committed by a company, in this case GQ, whose entire capital is held by an intermediary company of the same group, in this case RQ, which is in turn wholly controlled by the holding company.
84 Odgovor na ovaj žalbeni razlog zahtijeva utvrđivanje može li, i po mogućnosti u kojim okolnostima, Komisija pripisati društvu na čelu grupe (u daljnjem tekstu: holding društvo), u ovom predmetu RYPF, solidarnu odgovornost za povredu prava EU-a u području tržišnog natjecanja koju je počinilo društvo, u ovom predmetu GQ, čiji kapital u cijelosti drži posredničko društvo iste grupe, u ovom predmetu RQ, koje je u cijelosti pod kontrolom holding društva.
85 In that regard, it should be noted that, in accordance with the settled case-law noted in paragraphs 34 to 38 above, the Commission may, in certain circumstances, adopt a decision imposing a fine for an infringement of EU competition law on a company without its being necessary to establish direct involvement in that infringement, in particular where a subsidiary, although having distinct legal personality, does not determine its conduct on the market independently, but essentially acts in accordance with the instructions given to it by its parent company.
85 U tom smislu treba istaknuti kako, u skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom prethodno spomenutom u točkama 34. do 38., Komisija u određenim okolnostima može donijeti odluku kojom poduzetniku izriče novčanu kaznu za povredu prava EU-a u području tržišnog natjecanja, a da pritom ne mora utvrditi njegovu izravnu uključenost u tu povredu, naročito ako društvo kći, iako ima zasebnu pravnu osobnost, ne određuje neovisno svoje postupanje na tržištu, nego u bitnome postupa u skladu s naputcima koje mu daje njegovo matično društvo.
86 In the light of those considerations, it cannot therefore be excluded that a holding company may be held jointly and severally liable for the infringements of EU competition law committed by a subsidiary of its group whose capital it does not hold directly, in so far as that holding company exercises decisive influence over that subsidiary, even indirectly via an interposed company.
86 Prema tome, u svjetlu ovih razmatranja, nemoguće je isključiti da holding društvo može biti solidarno odgovorno za povrede prava EU-a u području tržišnog natjecanja koje je počinilo društvo kći njegove grupe čiji kapital ono ne drži izravno, ako to holding društvo izvršava odlučujući utjecaj nad tim društvom kćeri, pa i neizravno putem umetnutog društva.
That is the case, in particular, where the subsidiary does not determine its conduct independently on the market in relation to that interposed company, which does not operate autonomously on the market either, but essentially acts in accordance with the instructions given to it by the holding company.
To je naročito slučaj kad društvo kći svoje postupanje na tržištu ne određuje neovisno u odnosu na to umetnuto društvo, koje ni samo ne posluje neovisno na tržištu nego u bitnome djeluje u skladu s naputcima koje mu daje holding društvo.
87 In such a situation, the holding company, the interposed company and the last subsidiary in the group form part of the same economic unit and, therefore, constitute a single undertaking for the purposes of EU competition law.
87 U takvoj situaciji holding društvo, umetnuto društvo i posljednje društvo kći u grupi čine dio iste gospodarske jedinice i na taj način predstavljaju jedinstvenog poduzetnika u smislu prava EU-a u području tržišnog natjecanja.
88 It follows that, as pointed out by the Advocate General in points 62 and 63 of his Opinion, in the specific case where a holding company holds 100% of the capital of an interposed company which, in turn, holds the entire capital of a subsidiary of its group which has committed an infringement of EU competition law, there is a rebuttable presumption that that holding company exercises decisive influence over the conduct of the interposed company and also indirectly, via that company, over the conduct of that subsidiary.
88 Iz toga proizlazi da, kao što je nezavisni odvjetnik istaknuo u točkama 62. i 63. svojeg mišljenja, u posebnom slučaju kad holding društvo drži 100 % kapitala umetnutog društva koje u cijelosti drži kapital društva kćeri njegove grupe, a to je društvo kći počinilo povredu prava EU-a u području tržišnog natjecanja, postoji oboriva pretpostavka da to holding društvo izvršava odlučujući utjecaj nad postupanjem umetnutog društva i, neizravno kroz to društvo, također nad postupanjem tog društva kćeri.
89 Consequently, in that specific situation, the Commission is entitled to require the holding company to pay the fine imposed on the last subsidiary of the group jointly and severally, unless the holding company can rebut that presumption by demonstrating that either the interposed company or the subsidiary operate independently on the market (see, by analogy, Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission, paragraph 29, and Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraph 61).
89 Zato u toj posebnoj situaciji Komisija može smatrati holding društvo solidarno odgovornim za plaćanje novčane kazne izrečene posljednjem društvu kćeri grupe, osim ako holding društvo ne obori tu pretpostavku dokazujući da ili umetnuto društvo ili društvo kći djeluje na tržištu samostalno (za usporedbu vidjeti gore navedene presude Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags/Komisija, t. 29. i Akzo Nobel i dr./Komisija, t. 61.).
90 It follows from the above that the General Court did not commit an error of law in finding, in paragraph 81 of the judgment under appeal, that the presumption of liability based on the holding, by a company, of the entire share capital of another company, applies not only in the case where there is a direct relationship between the parent company and its subsidiary, but also in the case where, as in the present case, that relationship is indirect due to the interposition of another company.
90 Iz prethodno navedenog slijedi da Opći sud nije počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava kad je u točki 81. pobijane presude presudio da se pretpostavka odgovornosti koja se temelji na tome što društvo u cijelosti drži temeljni kapital drugog društva primjenjuje ne samo u slučaju izravnog odnosa između matičnog društva i njegovog društva kćeri, nego i u slučaju, kao što je to u ovom predmetu, neizravnog odnosa zbog umetanja drugog društva.
The General Court was therefore right to find in essence, in paragraphs 64 and 80 of that judgment, that the appellants could be held jointly and severally liable by the Commission, in particular as a result of RQ's 100% shareholding in GQ and RYPF's 100% shareholding in RQ.
Opći sud je stoga imao pravo kad je u bitnome, u točkama 64. i 80. te presude, presudio da Komisija može žalitelje smatrati solidarno odgovornima, naročito kao rezultat toga što RQ drži 100 % udjela u GQ-u, a RYPF drži 100 % udjela u RQ-u.
91 The second ground of appeal must therefore be dismissed as unfounded.
91 Drugi žalbeni razlog stoga treba odbiti kao neosnovan.
92 It follows from all of the above that the judgment under appeal must be set aside in so far as it dismisses the action brought by the appellants seeking the annulment of the contested decision, since, first, the General Court did not set out the reasons behind its conclusion that RQ's order to GQ to cease any practice which might constitute an infringement of the competition rules 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 and, second, the General Court failed to conduct a concrete examination of the evidence submitted by the appellants to demonstrate GQ's independence in determining and implementing its commercial policy.
92 Iz svega prethodno navedenoga slijedi da pobijana presuda mora biti ukinuta u dijelu u kojem odbija tužbu kojom su žalitelji zahtijevali poništenje sporne odluke jer, prvo, Opći sud nije naveo razloge svojeg zaključka kako je nalog RQ-a GQ-u da prestane sa svakim postupanjem koje bi moglo predstavljati povredu pravila o tržišnom natjecanju, sam po sebi dostatan dokaz da je RQ izvršavao odlučujući utjecaj nad politikom GQ-a, ne samo na tržištu nego i u pogledu nezakonitog postupanja kojim se bavi sporna odluka i drugo, Opći je sud propustio ispitati elemente koje su žalitelji dostavili kako bi dokazali neovisnost GQ-a u određivanju i provedbi svoje komercijalne politike.
93 The remainder of the appeal must be dismissed.
93 Ostatak žalbe treba odbiti.
The action before the General Court
O tužbi pred Općim sudom
94 In accordance with the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, if the decision of the General Court is quashed the Court of Justice may give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits.
94 U skladu s člankom 61. stavkom 1. drugom rečenicom Statuta Suda Europske unije, Sud, u slučaju ukidanja pobijane presude, može konačno odlučiti o sporu ako stanje postupka to dopušta.
That is the case here.
Sud drži da je navedeno primjenjivo u ovom predmetu.
95 First, the appellants submit that, following the inspection of 27 September 2002 of GQ's place of business, on 22 October 2002, RQ ordered all the companies in its group, including GQ, to cease any practice which might constitute an infringement of the EU competition rules.
95 Kao prvo, žalitelji tvrde da je, slijedom inspekcije GQ-ovih prostorija 27. rujna 2002., RQ 22. listopada 2002. naložio svim društvima u svojoj grupi, uključujući GQ, da prestanu sa svakim postupanjem koje bi moglo predstavljati povredu pravila EU-a u području tržišnog natjecanja.
96 Such a fact shows that RQ and RYPF did not participate in the infringements which are alleged against GQ, were not in contact with any of the undertakings involved in the concerted practice at issue, did not participate in the elaboration of GQ's decisions, nor in their application, nor the supervision of their implementation, were not informed by other undertakings of the facts at issue and, finally, were also not informed by GQ of such conduct.
96 Takva činjenica pokazuje da RQ i RYPF nisu sudjelovali u povredama koje se GQ-u stavljaju na teret, nisu bili u doticaju ni sa kojim od poduzetnika uključenih u predmetno usklađeno djelovanje, nisu sudjelovali u razradi GQ-ovih odluka i u njihovoj primjeni, niti u nadzoru njihove primjene, nisu putem drugih poduzetnika bili obaviješteni o predmetnim činjenicama te, konačno, o takvom postupanju ih nije obavijestio ni GQ-a.
97 Second, the appellants submit that RYPF and RQ had provided the Commission, during the pre-litigation procedure, with a set of documents with a view to rebutting the presumption of liability on them in respect of that conduct by providing evidence of GQ's commercial and operational independence.
97 Kao drugo, žalitelji tvrde da su RYPF i RQ tijekom predsudskog postupka dostavili Komisiji sve dokumente kako bi oborili pretpostavku njihove odgovornosti za to postupanje, pružajući dokaze o komercijalnoj i operativnoj neovisnosti GQ-a.
However, that evidence was wrongly examined, or not taken account of, by the Commission.
Međutim, Komisija je te dokaze pogrešno ocijenila, odnosno nije ih uzela u obzir.
98 In particular, the Commission committed a manifest error in assessing the material evidence that GQ enjoyed total independence operating on the market, since the executives of that company benefited from full delegation of powers and full authority to exercise all the functions of management and administration.
98 Konkretno, Komisija je očito pogriješila u ocjeni materijalnih dokaza da je GQ imao potpunu neovisnost u poslovanju na tržištu, s obzirom da su rukovoditelji toga društva imali potpuno delegirane ovlasti i puno ovlaštenje izvršavati sve funkcije vođenja, rukovođenja i upravljanja.
Furthermore, the Commission also did not state that the provision of information by GQ to RQ was limited to informing it of its budgetary results and the strategic or commercial plans decided on by GQ's executives.
Nadalje, Komisija također nije navela da su informacije koje je GQ pružao RQ-u bile ograničene na obavještavanje RQ-a o proračunskim rezultatima i strateškim ili komercijalnih planovima o kojima su odlučivali rukovoditelji GQ-a.
99 For its part, the Commission contends that the appellants have not succeeded in rebutting the presumption of liability on RQ.
99 Komisija sa svoje strane tvrdi da žalitelji nisu uspjeli oboriti pretpostavku odgovornosti RQ-a.