natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
"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. 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)." 
"71 Najprije valja napomenuti da je prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, iz članka 225. UEZ-a i prvog stavka članka 58. 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.)."
"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. 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. 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)." 
"72 Dakle, Sud nije nadležan ni za utvrđivanje činjenica niti, u načelu, za ispitivanje dokaza koje je Opći sud prihvatio u prilog tim činjenicama. 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. 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.)."
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.
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.).
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.
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. 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. 
82 Zauzimajući takvo stajalište, Opći sud je društvo RYPF učinio odgovornim za nemogućnost RQ-a da opovrgne svoju odgovornost za postupanje GQ-a. 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.
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. 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. 
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. 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.
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 umetnutnog društva i, neizravno kroz to društvo, također nad postupanjem tog društva kćeri.
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. 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. 
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. 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.
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.
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. That is the case here. 
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. 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. However, that evidence was wrongly examined, or not taken account of, by the Commission. 
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. 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. 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. 
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. 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.
100 In order to examine the present complaints, it needs to be determined whether the Commission committed an error of assessment by not considering, first, that the order given by RQ to GQ shows that RQ had no knowledge of the infringement at issue and did not participate in that infringement or encourage its subsidiary to commit it and, second, that the evidence provided concerning the independence of GQ’s executives in determining and implementing the commercial policy of that company show that it determined its conduct on the market independently. 
100 S ciljem ispitivanja ovih prigovora, potrebno je utvrditi je li Komisija pogriješila u ocjeni time što nije smatrala, prvo, da nalog koji je RQ dao GQ-u pokazuje da RQ nije imao saznanja o predmetnoj povredi te nije sudjelovao u toj povredi niti je svoje društvo kćer poticao da je počini i, drugo, da dokazi dostavljeni u vezi s neovisnošću rukovoditelja GQ-a pri utvrđivanju i provedbi komercijalne politike toga društva pokazuju da je o svojem postupanje na tržištu odlučivao neovisno.
102 It is true that such factors militate in favour of a lack of knowledge of the infringement alleged against GQ, an absence of participation in that infringement and non-instigation to commit that infringement. However, contrary to what the appellants submit, what counts is not whether the parent company encouraged its subsidiary to commit an infringement of the EU competition rules, or whether it was directly involved in the infringement committed by its subsidiary, but the fact that those two companies constitute a single economic unit and thus a single undertaking for the purposes of Article 81 EC which enables the Commission to impose a fine on the parent company (see, to that effect, Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission, paragraphs 59 and 77). 
102 Takvi dokazi idu u prilog tome da društvo GQ nije znalo za povredu koja mu se GQ-u stavlja na teret, da nije sudjelovalo u toj povredi i nije poticalo na počinjenje te povrede. Međutim, suprotno tvrdnjama žalitelja, ono što je bitno nije pitanje je li matično društvo poticalo svoje društvo kćer da počini povredu pravila EU-a u području tržišnog natjecanja ili je izravno bilo uključeno u povredu koju je počinilo njegovo društvo kći, nego činjenica da ta dva društva predstavljaju jedinstvenu gospodarsku jedinicu, pa tako i jednog poduzetnika u smislu članka 81. UEZ-a, što Komisiji omogućuje izricanje kazne matičnom društvu (u tom smislu vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Akzo Nobel i dr./Komisija, t. 59. i 77.).
103 It must therefore be noted that, in the present case, the mere fact, first, that RQ was made aware of the infringement only after the inspection on 27 September 2002 of the place of business of GQ and, second, that it did not participate directly in that infringement or encourage it to be committed is not such as to show that those two companies do not constitute a single economic unit. Such a fact is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that RQ actually exercised decisive influence over GQ’s conduct. 
103 Stoga valja utvrditi da u ovom predmetu sama činjenica, prvo, da je RQ postao svjestan povrede tek nakon inspekcije GQ-ovih prostorija 27. rujna 2002. i drugo, da on nije izravno sudjelovao u toj povredi niti je poticao GQ-a da je počini, ne dokazuje da ta dva društva ne čine jedinstvenu gospodarsku jedinicu. Takva činjenica nije dostatna da obori pretpostavku da je RQ stvarno izvršavao odlučujući utjecaj nad postupanjem GQ-a.
104 Second, as regards the arguments relating to the alleged independence of GQ’s executives in determining and implementing the commercial policy of that company, it should be noted that the factors raised in that regard by the appellants do not show that GQ determined its conduct on the market independently, and therefore, that it did not constitute an economic unit with RQ. Although it is true that certain documents submitted by the appellants show that many of GQ’s management and administrative competencies had been delegated to the executives of that company, other evidence in the file shows, by contrast, the existence of significant interference on the part of RQ in several aspects of GQ’s strategy and commercial policy. 
104 Kao drugo, u odnosu na argumente vezane uz navodnu neovisnost rukovoditelja GQ-a pri utvrđivanju i provedbi komercijalne politike toga društva, valja istaknuti da dokazi koje su žalitelji istaknuli s tim u vezi ne pokazuju da je GQ neovisno određivao svoje postupanje na tržištu te tako nije činio gospodarsku jedinicu s RQ-om. Iako stoji da određeni dokumenti koje su dostavili žalitelji pokazuju da su mnoge nadležnosti u vođenju, rukovođenju i upravljanju GQ-om bile delegirane rukovoditeljima toga društva, drugi dokazi u spisu pokazuju postojanje znatnog uplitanja RQ-a u više vidova strategije i komercijalne politike GQ-a.
105 In that regard, reference should be made, first of all, to the declaration of the secretary of RQ’s board of directors of 7 June 2005 containing extracts of minutes of the board of directors of that company taken from 1998 to 2005. It is apparent from that document that RQ’s board of directors intervened significantly, between 1998 and 2000, in certain essential aspects of GQ’s policy, in particular in order to authorise, on 17 April 1998, the sale of GQ’s shareholding in Silquímica SA and, on 28 January 1999, the sale of GQ’s real property. 
105 U tom smislu valja ponajprije spomenuti izjavu tajnika upravnog odbora RQ-a od 7. lipnja 2005. koja sadrži izvatke iz zapisnika sa sastanaka upravnog odbora toga društva sastavljenih od 1998. do 2005. godine. Iz tog je dokumenta razvidno da je upravni odbor RQ-a između 1998. i 2000. godine u znatnoj mjeri intervenirao u određene ključne vidove GQ-ove politike, naročito kako bi 17. travnja 1998. odobrio prodaju GQ-ovog udjela u društvu Silquímica SA i 28. siječnja 1999. prodaju GQ-ovih nekretnina.