natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
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.
101 In that regard, concerning, first, the order given by RQ to GQ, it should be noted that, as is apparent from the file, that order was of a general nature, was not given exclusively to GQ, but to all the companies in the group, and that it was given two and a half years after the anti-competitive conduct alleged against GQ had been brought to an end. 
101 Kao prvo, u odnosu na nalog koji je RQ dao GQ-u, valja istaknuti, kao što to proizlazi iz spisa, da je taj nalog bio opće prirode jer nije izdan isključivo GQ-u nego svim društvima u grupi te da je bio izdan dvije i pol godine nakon prestanka protutržišnog postupanja koje se GQ-u stavlja na teret.
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. 
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.
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). 
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. 
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.
Such a fact is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that RQ actually exercised decisive influence over GQ's conduct. 
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. 
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.
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. 
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. 
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.
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. 
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.
106 Next, in the present case, as noted by the Commission in recital 262 in the preamble to the contested decision without actually being contradicted on that point by the appellants, GQ's sole director designated by RQ constituted, as a result of his consistent pattern of behaviour, a link between those two companies, by which the information concerning sales, production and financial results were communicated to RQ. 
106 Nadalje, valja utvrditi da je u ovom predmetu, kao što je Komisija napomenula u uvodnoj izjavi 262. sporne odluke, a što žalitelji nisu osporili, jedini direktor GQ-a kojeg je imenovao RQ bio, zbog njegovog stalnog djelovanja, veza između tih dvaju društava kojom su informacije o prodaji, proizvodnji i financijskim rezultatima priopćavane RQ-u.
107 Finally, again in relation to the exchanges between GQ's executives and those of RQ, the fact, confirmed by the appellants themselves, of providing information on the implementation stage of strategic and commercial plans constitutes an additional indication that RQ exercised control over the decisions drawn up and executed by GQ's executives. 
107 Naposljetku, u vezi s razmjenom informacija između rukovoditelja GQ-a i RQ-a, činjenica da su se pružale informacije o provedbenoj fazi strateških i komercijalnih planova, što su potvrdili sami žalitelji, predstavlja dodatne indicije da je RQ izvršavao kontrolu nad odlukama koje su sastavljali i izvršavali rukovoditelji GQ-a.
108 In that context, it is, on the other hand, irrelevant that some of that information concerned the financial results in respect of GQ's annual budgets since every parent company is required to consolidate the accounts of its group. 
108 U tom kontekstu, s druge je strane nebitno da su se neke od tih informacija odnosile na financijske rezultate u vezi s godišnjim proračunima GQ-a, jer svako je matično društvo obvezno konsolidirati izvješća svoje grupe.
109 In the light of those considerations, it must be concluded that the Commission did not commit an error of assessment in considering that the evidence submitted by the appellants concerning, first, the fact that RQ was not aware of the infringement at issue and did not participate in that infringement or encourage its subsidiary to commit it, and, secondly, the detailed rules for determining and implementing GQ's commercial policy, taken together with the other relevant evidence in the file, does not show that GQ determined its conduct on the market independently and, therefore, does not make it possible to rebut the presumption that RQ exercised decisive influence over GQ's conduct. 
109 S obzirom na ova razmatranja, valja zaključiti kako Komisija nije pogriješila u ocjeni smatrajući da dokazi koje su žalitelji dostavili u vezi s, prvo, činjenicom da RQ nije bio svjestan predmetne povrede, nije sudjelovao u toj povredi, niti je svoje društvo kćer poticao da je počini i drugo, detaljnim pravilima utvrđivanja i provedbe komercijalne politike GQ-a, promatrani zajedno s ostalim relevantnim dokazima u spisu, ne pokazuju da je GQ neovisno određivao svoje postupanje na tržištu te stoga nije moguće oboriti pretpostavku da je RQ izvršavao odlučujući utjecaj nad postupanjem GQ-a.
110 Consequently, the complaints raised in that regard by the appellants in support of the action for annulment must be dismissed. 
110 Slijedom toga, treba odbiti prigovore koje su u tom smislu istaknuli žalitelji u prilog tužbi za poništenje.
111 The action for annulment must therefore be dismissed. 
111 Tužbu za poništenje stoga treba odbiti.
112 Under the first paragraph of Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is well founded and the Court itself gives final judgment in the case, it is to make a decision as to costs. 
112 Na temelju članka 122. stavku 1. Poslovnika, kad je žalba osnovana i Sud sâm konačno odluči u sporu, Sud odlučuje o troškovima.
113 Under Article 69(2) of those rules which, under Article 118 thereof, applies to appeals, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. 
113 U skladu s člankom 69. stavkom 2. istog poslovnika koji se na temelju članka 118., tog poslovnika primjenjuje na žalbeni postupak, stranka koja ne uspije u postupku dužna je, na zahtjev protivne stranke, snositi troškove.
However, under the first subparagraph of Article 69(3) of those rules, the Court may, where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads of claim, order that each party shall bear its own costs. 
Međutim, sukladno članku 69. stavku 3., prvom podstavku istog poslovnika, Sud može, ako stranke djelomično uspiju u svojim zahtjevima, odlučiti da svaka stranka snosi svoje troškove.
114 In this case, since the appellants have been largely successful in their appeal, but have been unsuccessful in their form of order sought in their action for annulment, it is appropriate to decide that each of the parties shall bear its own costs relating to the appeal, and that the appellants shall bear all the costs relating to the proceedings at first instance. 
114 U ovom predmetu, s obzirom da su žalitelji u bitnome uspjeli u svojoj žalbi, no nisu uspjeli u tužbi za poništenje, treba odlučiti da svaka stranka snosi svoje troškove žalbenog postupka, te da žalitelji snose sve troškove prvostupanjskog postupka.
1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 18 December 2008 in Case T-85/06 General Químicaand Others v Commission, in so far as it dismisses the action brought by General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2006/902/EC of 21 December 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Flexsys NV, Bayer AG, Crompton Manufacturing Company Inc. (formerly Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc.), Crompton Europe Ltd, Chemtura Corporation (formerly Crompton Corporation), General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA (Case No COMP/F/C.38.443 - Rubber chemicals), in so far as, first, the Court of First Instance did not set out the reasons behind its conclusion that the order given by Repsol Qímica SA to General Química SA to cease any practice which might constitute an infringement of the competition rules was sufficient, in itself, to prove that Repsol Química SA exercised a decisive influence over General Química SA's policy not only on the market but also as regards the unlawful conduct at issue in Decision 2006/902 and, second, the Court of First Instance failed to conduct a concrete examination of the evidence submitted by General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA to demonstrate General Química SA's independence in determining and implementing its commercial policy; 
1. Ukida se presuda Prvostupanjskog suda Europskih zajednica od 18. prosinca 2008. u predmetu T-85/06 General Química i dr./Komisija, u dijelu u kojem ona odbija tužbu koju su podnijeli General Química SA, Repsol Química SA i Repsol YPF SA zahtijevajući poništenje Odluke Komisije 2006/902/EZ od 21. prosinca 2005. u vezi s postupkom prema članku 81. Ugovora o EZ-u i članku 53. Sporazuma o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru protiv Flexsys NV, Bayer AG, Crompton Manufacturing Company Inc. - (prethodno Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc.), Crompton Europe Ltd, Chemtura Corporation (prethodno Crompton Corporation), General Química SA, Repsol Química SA i Repsol YPF SA (predmet br. COMP/F/C.38.443 - Kemikalije za obradu kaučuka), s obzirom na to da, prvo, Prvostupanjski sud nije iznio razloge da se može zaključiti da nalog koji je Repsol Qímica SA dao društvu General Química SA da prestane sa svakim postupanjem koje bi moglo predstavljati povredu pravila o tržišnom natjecanju sam po sebi dostatno dokazuje da je Repsol Qímica SA izvršavao odlučujući utjecaj nad politikom društva General Química SA, ne samo na tržištu, nego i u pogledu nezakonitog postupanja koje je predmet Odluke 2006/902 i drugo, Prvostupanjski sud nije konkretno ispitao dokaze koje su dostavili General Química SA, Repsol Química SA i Repsol YPF SA kako bi dokazali neovisnost društva General Química SA pri određivanju i provedbi njegove komercijalne politike;
2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; 
2. U preostalom dijelu žalba se odbija;
3. Dismisses the action brought by General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities; 
3. Odbija se tužba koju su General Química SA, Repsol Química SA i Repsol YPF SA podnijeli Prvostupanjskom sudu Europskih zajednica;