natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, despite its approximate nature, turnover is currently considered, by the Community legislature, the Commission and the Court, as an adequate criterion, in the context of competition law, for assessing the size and economic power of the undertakings concerned (see, in particular, [Musique Diffusion française and Others v Commission], at paragraph 121; Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17; recital 10 and Articles 14 and 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1)). 
Ipak, unatoč tome što je prihod po svojoj prirodi tek okvirni iznos, njega u ovom trenutku zakonodavac Zajednice, Komisija i Sud smatraju odgovarajućim kriterijem u kontekstu prava tržišnog natjecanja, za ocjenu veličine i ekonomske snage predmetnih poduzetnika [vidjeti osobito (gore navedenu) presudu Musique Diffusion française i dr./Komisija, t. 121.; članak 15. stavak 2. Uredbe br. 17; uvodnu izjavu 10. i članke 14. i 15. Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 139/2004 od 20. siječnja 2004. o kontroli koncentracija između poduzetnika (SL L 24, str. 1.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 8., svezak 5., str. 73.)].
94 Having regard to all of the above, the Court finds that the Commission was right to take the copper price into account for the purposes of determining the size of the market concerned.' 
94 Uzimajući u obzir sve gore navedeno, valja zaključiti da je Komisija bila u pravu kada je za potrebe utvrđivanja veličine predmetnog tržišta uzela u obzir cijenu bakra ."
41 In the appellants' submission, the General Court infringed Community law and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the judgment under appeal by approving the Commission's reference - in order to assess the size of the market affected by the infringement for the purpose of establishing the gravity element of the fine - to a market value that wrongly included the revenue from sales made in an upstream market separate from the `cartel' market, despite the fact that the cartel members were not vertically integrated in that upstream market. 
41 Prema mišljenju žalitelja, Opći je sud prekršio pravo Zajednice i neprimjereno obrazložio pobijanu presudu time što je odobrio to što se Komisija, kako bi procijenila veličinu tržišta pogođenog povredom za potrebe utvrđivanja težine kao sastavnice u iznosu kazne, pozivala na vrijednost tržišta koja je pogrešno uključivala prihod od prodaje na tržištu uzlazno pozicioniranom u prodajnom lancu i odvojenom od „karteliziranog" tržišta, iako članovi kartela nisu bili vertikalno integrirani na tom uzlaznom tržištu.
42 They explain that the copper transformation industry has specific features. 
42 Oni pojašnjavaju da industrija obrade bakra ima posebna obilježja.
In particular, it is the customer who decides when the metal will be purchased on the London Metal Exchange and hence its price. 
Konkretno, kupac je taj koji odlučuje kada će metal biti kupljen na londonskoj Burzi metala, pa tako i o njegovoj cijeni.
Even though that price invoiced by the tubes manufacturer to the customer includes the processing margin, to take it into consideration when calculating the undertaking's turnover would be to ignore the economic reality of the market, which is characterised in particular by the important part represented by the raw material in the cost of the product and the very significant fluctuations in the price of that raw material. 
Iako ta cijena, koju proizvođač cijevi zaračunava kupcu, uključuje maržu za obradu bakra, uzeti je u obzir pri izračunavanju prihoda poduzetnika znači zanemariti ekonomsku stvarnost tržišta koje je naročito obilježeno velikim udjelom sirovine u cijeni proizvoda i vrlo osjetnim oscilacijama cijene te sirovine.
Those facts were established by the General Court. 
Te je činjenice utvrdio Opći sud.
43 According to the appellants, the General Court erred in law by failing to hold that the Commission should have taken account of the case-law of the General Court and the Commission's own previous practice in taking decisions, whereby, when the Commission calculates the starting amount of the fine and/or applies the 10% turnover cap, it is required to take into consideration the specific features of the relevant market. 
43 Prema mišljenju žalitelja, Opći sud učinio je pogrešku koja se tiče prava time što nije smatrao da je Komisija trebala uzeti u obzir praksu Općeg suda i vlastitu prethodnu praksu, prema kojoj je Komisija u izračunu početnog iznosa kazne i/ili primjeni gornje granice prihoda od 10 % dužna uzeti u obzir posebna obilježja predmetnog tržišta.
44 They also claim that, by failing to distinguish the appellants from other undertakings whose turnover is not so greatly influenced by the price of the raw material, the General Court infringed the principle of non-discrimination, which requires that different situations be treated differently. 
44 Oni također tvrde da je Opći sud, nerazlikovanjem tužitelja od drugih poduzetnika čiji prihod nije pod tolikim utjecajem cijene sirovine, prekršio načelo nediskriminacije koje nalaže da se u različitim situacijama postupa različito.
45 Lastly, the appellants challenge the case-law on which the General Court relied, which is based on the Commission's discretion. 
45 Konačno, žalitelji osporavaju praksu na koju se oslanjao Opći sud, a koja se temelji na margini prosudbe Komisije.
They take the view that the General Court failed to examine whether the criteria used by the Commission to establish the gravity of the cartel were pertinent and adequate. 
Oni su mišljenja da je Opći sud propustio ispitati jesu li kriteriji, koje je Komisija koristila radi utvrđivanja težine kartela, mjerodavni i prikladni.
46 The Commission contends that, in so far as the appellants invite the Court of Justice to make a different appraisal from that of the General Court of whether the industrial tubes industry is unique, the ground of appeal is inadmissible. 
46 Komisija tvrdi da je žalbeni razlog nedopušten, u mjeri u kojoj žalitelji pozivaju Sud da ocijeni, drugačije nego što je to učinio Opći sud, je li sektor industrijskih cijevi jedinstven.
It also challenges the facts as described by the KME group, namely that tubes manufacturers often act as if they are agents for their customers in the purchasing of copper, and denies that the General Court gave a ruling on that matter. 
Ona također osporava činjenice kako ih je opisala grupa KME, odnosno da proizvođači cijevi pri kupnji bakra često nastupaju kao da su zastupnici svojih kupaca, te osporava to da je Opći sud presudio o tom pitanju.
47 In any event, the Commission submits that the General Court was correct in stating, in paragraph 91 of the judgment under appeal, that there are in all industries costs inherent in the final product which the manufacturer cannot control but which nevertheless constitute an essential element of its business as a whole and which therefore cannot be excluded from its turnover when fixing the starting amount of the fine. 
47 U svakom slučaju, Komisija tvrdi da je Opći sud s pravom u točki 91. pobijane presude naveo da u svim djelatnostima postoje troškovi svojstveni krajnjem proizvodu koje proizvođač ne može kontrolirati, ali koji ipak čine bitnu sastavnicu poslovanja u cjelini i koji, prema tome, ne mogu biti isključeni iz prihoda prilikom utvrđivanja početnog iznosa kazne.
48 Likewise, the General Court was right to find in paragraph 93 of the judgment under appeal that, despite its approximate nature, turnover is currently considered, by the Community legislature, the Commission and the Court, as an adequate criterion, in the context of competition law, for assessing the size and economic power of the undertakings concerned. 
48 Jednako tako, Opći sud s pravom je u točki 93. pobijane presude utvrdio da unatoč tome što je prihod po svojoj prirodi tek okvirni iznos, njega u ovom trenutku zakonodavac Zajednice, Komisija i Sud smatraju odgovarajućim kriterijem, u kontekstu prava tržišnog natjecanja, za ocjenu veličine i ekonomske snage predmetnih poduzetnika.
49 It has consistently been held that, in assessing the gravity of an infringement, regard must be had to a large number of factors, the nature and importance of which vary according to the type of infringement in question and the particular circumstances of the case. 
49 Ustaljena je praksa da se prilikom ocjene težine povrede vodi računa o velikom broju elemenata, čija se priroda i važnost razlikuju ovisno o vrsti predmetne povrede i posebnim okolnostima predmeta.
Those factors may, depending on the circumstances, include the volume and value of the goods in respect of which the infringement was committed and the size and economic power of the undertaking and, consequently, the influence which the undertaking was able to exert on the market (see, to that effect, Musique Diffusion française and Others v Commission, paragraph 120). 
Ti elementi mogu, ovisno o okolnostima, uključivati opseg i vrijednost proizvoda u odnosu na koje je počinjena povreda, veličinu i ekonomsku snagu poduzetnika i, slijedom toga, utjecaj koji je poduzetnik mogao izvršavati na tržištu (u tom smislu vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Musique Diffusion française i dr./Komisija, t. 120.).
50 While the Court of Justice has concluded from this that it is permissible, for the determination of the fine, to take into account both the undertaking's overall turnover, which is an indication of the size of the undertaking and its economic strength, and that part of the turnover which derives from the goods which are the subject of the infringement and which therefore is capable of giving an indication of the scale of the infringement, it has nevertheless recognised that the overall turnover of an undertaking gives only an approximate and imperfect indication of the size of that undertaking (Musique Diffusion française and Others v Commission, paragraph 121; Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417, paragraph 139; Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission [2005] ECR I-5425, paragraph 243; Case C-397/03 P Archer Daniels Midland and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients v Commission [2006] ECR I-4429, paragraph 100; and Case C-510/06 P Archer Daniels Midland v Commission [2009] ECR I-1843, paragraph 74). 
50 Iako je Sud iz ovoga zaključio da je pri utvrđivanju kazne dopušteno uzeti u obzir kako ukupni prihod poduzetnika, koji ukazuje na veličinu poduzetnika i njegovu ekonomsku snagu, tako i dio prihoda koji proizlazi iz dobara obuhvaćenih povredom i koji, prema tome, može ukazivati na razmjere povrede, on je ipak prepoznao da ukupni prihod poduzetnika daje samo okvirnu i nepotpunu naznaku veličine toga poduzetnika (gore navedena presuda Musique Diffusion française i dr./Komisija, t. 121.; presude od 17. prosinca 1998., Baustahlgewebe/Komisija, C-185/95 P, Zb., str. I.-8417., t. 139.; od 28. lipnja 2005., Dansk Rørindustri i dr./Komisija, C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P do C-208/02 P i C-213/02 P, Zb., str. I.-5425., t. 243.; od 18. svibnja 2006., Archer Daniels Midland i Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients/Komisija, C-397/03 P, Zb., str. I.-4429., t. 100. i od 19. ožujka 2009., Archer Daniels Midland/Komisija, C-510/06 P, Zb., str. I.-1843., t. 74.).
51 It has also pointed out on a number of occasions that it is important not to confer on one or the other of those figures an importance which is disproportionate in relation to the other factors to be assessed in relation to the gravity of the infringement (Musique Diffusion française and Others v Commission, paragraph 121; Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission, paragraph 243; Case C-397/03 P Archer Daniels Midland and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients v Commission, paragraph 100; and Case C-510/06 P Archer Daniels Midland v Commission, paragraph 74). 
51 On je također u više navrata istaknuo da je bitno ne pridavati ovom ili onom iznosu važnost koja je nerazmjerna u odnosu na druge elemente ocjene težine povrede (gore navedene presude Musique Diffusion française i dr./Komisija, t. 121.; Dansk Rørindustri i dr./Komisija, t. 243.; od 18. svibnja 2006., Archer Daniels Midland i Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients/Komisija, t. 100. i od 19. ožujka 2009., Archer Daniels Midland/Komisija, t. 74.).
52 The General Court did not, therefore, err in law when it observed in paragraph 93 of the judgment under appeal that turnover, although vague and imperfect, is an adequate criterion for assessing the size and economic power of the undertakings concerned. 
52 Prema tome, Opći sud nije pogriješio što se tiče prava kada je u točki 93. pobijane presude utvrdio da unatoč tome što je prihod okvirni i nepotpuni iznos, on je i dalje odgovarajući kriterij za ocjenu veličine i ekonomske snage predmetnih poduzetnika.
53 Nor, moreover, did the General Court err in law when it held, in paragraph 91 of the judgment under appeal, that there is no valid reason to require that the turnover of a relevant market be calculated excluding certain production costs. 
53 Jednako tako, on nije pogriješio što se tiče prava kada je u točki 91. pobijane presude smatrao da nema valjanog razloga zahtijevati da prihod mjerodavnog tržišta bude izračunan bez određenih proizvodnih troškova.
As the Advocate General noted in point 141 of her Opinion, not to take gross turnover into account in some cases but to do so in others would require a threshold to be established, in the form of a ratio between net and gross turnover, which would be difficult to apply and would give scope for endless and insoluble disputes, including allegations of unequal treatment. 
Kao što je nezavisna odvjetnica primijetila u točki 141. svojeg mišljenja, ne uzeti u obzir bruto prihod u nekim slučajevima, a uzeti ga u obzir u drugima, zahtijevalo bi uspostavu praga u obliku omjera neto i bruto prihoda, što bi bilo teško primjenjivo te bi dalo prostora stalnim i nerješivim sporovima, uključujući navode o diskriminaciji.
54 Lastly, the General Court provided adequate reasons for the judgment under appeal and carried out the review in the manner required of it. 
54 Konačno, Opći sud primjereno je obrazložio pobijanu presudu i proveo nadzor na način koji se od njega zahtijeva.
Thus, the appellants having challenged the use of the turnover in the assessment of the size of the relevant market, the General Court, in paragraph 88 of the judgment under appeal, rejected the Commission's argument that the starting amount of the fine imposed on the appellants would not necessarily have been less than EUR 35 million if the copper price had been deducted from the market turnover. 
Dakle, s obzirom da su tužitelji osporavali korištenje prihoda u ocjeni veličine predmetnog tržišta, Opći sud je u točki 88. pobijane presude odbio argument Komisije da početni iznos kazne izrečene tužiteljima ne bi nužno bio niži od 35 milijuna eura da je od prihoda tržišta oduzeta cijena bakra.
It went on to determine, in paragraphs 90 and 91 of the judgment under appeal, whether the Commission was wrong to take the copper price into account when determining the size of the market. 
On je zatim u točkama 90. i 91. pobijane presude ispitao je li Komisija bila u krivu kada je cijenu bakra uzela u obzir prilikom utvrđivanja veličine tržišta.
55 It follows from those considerations that the General Court carried out its review in the manner required of it, that it responded to the plea in law put forward by the appellants and that it did not err in law in concluding, in paragraph 94 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission was right to take the copper price into account for the purposes of determining the size of the market concerned. 
55 Iz ovih razmatranja proizlazi da je Opći sud proveo nadzor na način koji se od njega zahtijeva, da je odgovorio na tužbeni zahtjev koji su istaknuli tužitelji, te da nije pogriješio što se tiče prava zaključivši u točki 94. pobijane presude da je Komisija s pravom uzela u obzir cijenu bakra za potrebe utvrđivanja veličine predmetnog tržišta.
56 As regards the allegation that the General Court failed to examine whether the criteria used by the Commission to establish the gravity of the cartel were pertinent and adequate, it should be borne in mind that, in an action on a decision relating to a competition matter, it is for the applicant to formulate his pleas in law and not for the General Court to review of its own motion the weighting of the factors taken into account by the Commission in order to determine the amount of the fine. 
56 Što se tiče prigovora da Opći sud nije ispitao jesu li kriteriji koje je Komisija koristila radi utvrđivanja težine kartela mjerodavni i prikladni, valja imati na umu kako je u tužbi na odluku vezanu uz pitanje tržišnog natjecanja na tužitelju da oblikuje svoje tužbene zahtjeve u tom pogledu, a ne na Općem sudu da po službenoj dužnosti preispituje odvagivanje elemenata koje je Komisija uzela u obzir radi utvrđivanja iznosa kazne.
57 The second ground of appeal is therefore unfounded. 
57 Drugi žalbeni razlog stoga je neosnovan.
Third ground of appeal: various errors of law relating to the account taken of the duration of the infringement 
Treći žalbeni razlog: razne pogreške koje se tiču prava, a odnose se na razmatranje trajanja povrede
58 The appellants state that their third ground of appeal relates to paragraphs 100 to 105 of the judgment under appeal. 
58 Žalitelji navode da se njihov treći žalbeni razlog odnosi na točke 100. do 105. pobijane presude.
They claim that the General Court infringed Community law and provided an obscure, illogical and inadequate statement of reasons for that judgment by upholding the part of the decision at issue in which the Commission misapplied the Guidelines, and infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by imposing the maximum percentage increase on the starting amount of the fine on account of the duration of the infringement. 
Oni tvrde da je Opći sud prekršio pravo Zajednice i iznio nejasne, nelogične i neprimjerene razloge za tu presudu potvrđujući dio sporne odluke u kojem je Komisija pogrešno primijenila Smjernice i prekršila načela proporcionalnosti i jednakog postupanja dodavanjem najvišeg postotnog povećanja na početni iznos kazne na temelju trajanja povrede.
59 According to the appellants, it is apparent from Section 1 B of the Guidelines that the purpose of a fine increase on account of duration of an infringement is to `[impose] effective sanctions on restrictions which have had a harmful impact on consumers over a long period'. 
59 Prema mišljenju žalitelja, iz točke 1.B. Smjernica proizlazi da je svrha povećanja kazne na temelju trajanja povrede „izricanje učinkovitih kazni za ograničenja koja za posljedicu imaju štetu za potrošače tijekom dugog vremenskog razdoblja".
The requirement of a link between the infringement's duration and its harmful effect is also clear from the case-law. 
Uvjet postojanja veze između trajanja povrede i njezine štetne posljedice također proizlazi iz sudske prakse.
The General Court, however, failed to enquire whether the Commission, in its assessment of the infringement's gravity, really did give proper weight to the circumstance that the cartel's intensity and effectiveness varied over time. 
Međutim, Opći sud propustio je ispitati je li Komisija u svojoj ocjeni težine povrede uistinu ispravno odvagnula okolnost da su se intenzitet kartela i njegova djelotvornost s vremenom mijenjali.
The General Court was therefore wrong in holding, in paragraph 104 of the judgment under appeal, that the 125% increase in the starting amount of the fine is not manifestly disproportionate. 
Opći sud stoga je u točki 104. pobijane presude pogrešno smatrao da povećanje početnog iznosa kazne za 125 % nije očito neproporcionalno.
60 The Commission contends that the Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction to substitute its own appraisal of the amount of the fine for that of the General Court. 
60 Komisija smatra da nije u nadležnosti Suda da svojom vlastitom ocjenom iznosa kazne zamijeni ocjenu Općeg suda.
This ground of appeal is therefore inadmissible. 
Ovaj žalbeni razlog je stoga nedopušten.
61 In any event, the General Court provided a clear and logical explanation for its appraisal, which responded to all the legal arguments made by the KME group. 
61 U svakom slučaju, Opći sud dao je jasno i logično objašnjenje svoje procjene kojim je odgovorio na sve pravne argumente grupe KME.
62 By their third ground of appeal, the appellants challenge both the principle of an increase in the fine to take account of the duration of the infringement and the result of the application of that principle in their particular case, namely the increase in the starting amount of the fine, set at EUR 35 million, by 125% to take account of an infringement period of 12 years and 10 months, each year of participation corresponding to a 10% increase. 
62 U svojem trećem žalbenom razlogu žalitelji osporavaju kako načelo povećanja kazne radi uzimanja u obzir trajanja povrede, tako i rezultat primjene toga načela u njihovom slučaju, odnosno, konkretno, povećanje početnog iznosa kazne od 35 milijuna eura za 125 % ne bi li se uzelo u obzir razdoblje povrede od 12 godina i 10 mjeseci, pri čemu svaka godina sudjelovanja u povredi odgovara povećanju od 10 %.
The basic amount was thus increased to EUR 56.88 million. 
Osnovni iznos je tako povećan na 56,88 milijuna eura.
63 As the Advocate General noted in point 162 of her Opinion, the objection to the result is based on the erroneous assumption that the rate of increase was 125%, whereas in fact it was only 62.51% (56.88/35 = 1.6251). 
63 Kao što je nezavisna odvjetnica napomenula u točki 162. svojeg mišljenja, prigovor na rezultat temelji se na pogrešnoj pretpostavci da je stopa povećanja bila 125 %, dok je zapravo bila samo 62,51 % (56,88/35 = 1,6251).
64 As regards the principle of an increase in the fine to take account of the duration of the infringement, it is not necessary to establish in practical terms a direct relation between that duration and increased damage to the Community objectives pursued by the competition rules. 
64 Što se tiče načela povećanja kazne radi uzimanja u obzir trajanje povrede, nije nužno u praktičnom smislu utvrditi izravnu vezu između toga trajanja i povećane štete za ciljeve Zajednice koje se želi postići pravilima o tržišnom natjecanju.
65 For the purpose of applying Article 81(1) EC, there is no need to take account of the concrete effects of an agreement once it appears that it has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 56/64 and 58/64 Consten and Grundig v Commission [1966] ECR 299). 
65 U svrhu primjene članka 81. stavka 1. UEZ-a nije potrebno uzimati u obzir konkretne posljedice nekog sporazuma kada taj sporazum ima za cilj sprečavanje, ograničavanje ili narušavanje tržišnog natjecanja (u tom smislu vidjeti presudu od 13. srpnja 1966., Consten i Grundig protiv Komisije, 56/64 i 58/84, Zb., str. 429.).
That applies in particular in the case, as in this instance, of obvious restrictions of competition such as price-fixing and market-sharing. 
Ovo naročito vrijedi za očita ograničenja tržišnog natjecanja, kao što je slučaj u ovom predmetu, poput utvrđivanja cijena i podjele tržišta.
If a cartel determines the state of the market at the moment it is agreed, its lengthy duration can make the structures of that market more rigid, reducing cartel participants' incentive for innovation and development. 
Dok kartel određuje situaciju na tržištu u trenutku kada je dogovoren, njegovo dugo trajanje može, smanjujući motivaciju sudionika kartela za inovacije i razvoj, dovesti do rigidnijih tržišnih struktura.
A return to free competition will be all the more difficult and protracted, the longer the cartel continues. 
Što kartel dulje traje, to će povratak slobodnog tržišnog natjecanja biti teži i dugotrajniji.
66 Even if the cartel's intensity and effectiveness varies over time, the fact remains that that cartel continues to exist and, therefore, to make the structures of the market all the more rigid. 
66 Čak i ako se intenzitet i djelotvornost kartela s vremenom mijenja, ostaje činjenica da kartel nastavlja postojati i tako činiti tržišne strukture rigidnijima.