natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.).
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.