natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
9 Consequently, in Article 2(d) of the contested decision, the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 3.38 million on GQ, RQ and RYPF jointly and severally. 
9 Slijedom navedenog, Komisija je u članku 2. stavku (d) sporne odluke izrekla kaznu od 3,38 milijuna eura poduzetnicima GQ, RQ i RYPF za čije su plaćanje solidarno odgovorni.
The procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal 
Postupak pred Općim sudom i pobijana presuda
10 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 8 March 2006, the appellants brought an action under Article 230 EC for the partial annulment of the contested decision. 
10 U tužbi koju su 8. ožujka 2006. predali tajništvu Općeg suda žalitelji su istaknuli tužbeni zahtjev na temelju članka 230. UEZ-a, zahtijevajući djelomično poništenje sporne odluke.
11 They raised three pleas in law in support of that action. 
11 U prilog svojoj tužbi istaknuli su tri tužbena razloga.
The first was based on a manifest error of assessment and a lack of reasoning in relation to the joint and several liability of the appellants. 
Prvi se temeljio na očitoj pogreški u ocjeni i nedostatku obrazloženja solidarne odgovornosti žalitelja.
The second and third pleas, which will not be discussed subsequently since the appeal does not relate to them, were based respectively on several errors of law which they claimed the Commission committed in calculating the fine and an error of assessment, a lack of reasoning and an infringement of the principle of equal treatment in applying the Leniency Notice. 
Drugi i treći tužbeni razlog, koji se ne razmatraju u nastavku jer se žalba na njih ne odnosi, temeljili su se na nekoliko pogrešaka koje se tiču prava, koje je prema njihovim navodima Komisija počinila pri izračunu kazne, kao i na pogreški u ocjeni, nedostatku obrazloženja i povredi načela jednakog postupanja pri primjeni obavijesti o suradnji.
12 As regards the first plea, the General Court noted, first of all, in paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal, the case-law of the Court of Justice in Case 107/82 AEG-Telefunken v Commission [1983] ECR 3151, paragraph 49, and Case C-286/98 P Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission [2000] ECR I-9925, paragraph 26, according to which the fact that a subsidiary has separate legal personality is not sufficient to exclude the possibility of imputing its conduct to the parent company, in particular where the subsidiary does not decide independently upon its own conduct on the market, but carries out, in all material respects, the instructions given to it by the parent company. 
12 U odnosu na prvi tužbeni zahtjev, Opći sud je prvo u točki 58. pobijane presude ukazao na sudsku praksu u presudama od 25. listopada 1983., AEG - Telefunken/Komisija (107/82, Zb., str. 3151., t. 49.) i od 16. studenoga 2000., Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags/Komisija (C-286/98 P, Zb., str. I-9925., t. 26.), prema kojoj činjenica kako društvo kći ima zasebnu pravnu osobnost nije dostatna za isključivanje mogućnosti da se njegovo postupanje pripiše matičnom društvu, naročito ako društvo kći nije neovisno u odlučivanju o svojem postupanju na tržištu, već u svim ključnim pitanjima izvršava naputke koje mu je dalo njegovo matično društvo.
13 Next, in paragraph 59 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court noted that, according to settled case-law, in the specific case where a parent company holds 100% of the shares in a subsidiary which has been found guilty of unlawful conduct, there is a rebuttable presumption that the parent company actually exerted a decisive influence over its subsidiary's conduct (by reference to Case T-314/01 Avebe v Commission [2006] ECR II-3085, paragraph 136 and the case-law cited), and that the two companies constitute a single undertaking for the purposes of Article 81 EC (by reference to the judgment of 15 June 2005 in Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03 Tokai Carbon and Others v Commission, `Tokai II', paragraph 59). 
13 Nadalje, u točki 59. pobijane presude, Opći sud istaknuo je da prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, u posebnom slučaju kad matično društvo drži 100 % udjela u društvu kćeri koje je odgovorno za protupravno ponašanje, postoji oboriva pretpostavka da je matično društvo stvarno izvršavalo odlučujući utjecaj nad postupanjem svojeg društva kćeri (u skladu s presudom od 27. rujna 2006., Avebe/Komisija, T-314/01, Zb, str. II-3085., t. 136. i navedenom sudskom praksom), tako da dva društva čine jedinstvenog poduzetnika u smislu članka 81. UEZ-a (u skladu s presudom od 15. lipnja 2005., Tokai Carbon i dr./Komisija, "Tokai II", T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 i T-91/03, t. 59.).
It is thus for a parent company which disputes before the EU courts a Commission decision fining it for the conduct of its subsidiary to rebut that presumption by adducing evidence to establish that its subsidiary was independent (in that regard, the General Court referred, inter alia, to Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission, paragraph 29). 
Prema tome, na matičnom je društvu, koje pred sudovima EU-a osporava odluku Komisije kojom ga ona novčano kažnjava zbog postupanja njegovog društva kćeri, da obori tu pretpostavku iznošenjem dokaza koji pokazuju kako je njegovo društvo kći bilo neovisno (u tom se smislu Opći sud, među ostalim, pozvao na gore navedenu presudu Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags/Komisija, t.
14 In addition, the General Court stated, in paragraph 60 of the judgment under appeal, that although the Court of Justice referred, in Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission, to circumstances other than the holding by the parent company of 100% of the capital of the subsidiary, it did so for the sole purpose of identifying all the factors on which the General Court had based its reasoning in the judgment under appeal in that case, and not to make that presumption subject to the existence of additional factors. 
29.). 14 Osim toga, Opći sud je u točki 60. pobijane presude naveo kako je Sud, iako se u gore navedenoj presudi Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags/Komisija pozvao na druge okolnosti, a ne na okolnost da matično društvo drži 100 % kapitala društva kćeri, to učinio s isključivom svrhom utvrđivanja svih elemenata na kojima je Opći sud temeljio svoje obrazloženje pobijane presude u tom predmetu, a ne da bi ta pretpostavka ovisila o postojanju dodatnih indicija.
15 The General Court therefore concluded, in paragraph 62 of the judgment under appeal, that it is sufficient for the Commission to prove that the entire capital of a subsidiary is held by its parent company for the presumption that the parent company exercises decisive influence over the conduct of the subsidiary on the market to be established. 
15 Opći je sud stoga u točki 62. pobijane presude zaključio kako je dovoljno da Komisija dokaže da kapital društva kćeri u cijelosti drži njegovo matično društvo kako bi se potvrdila pretpostavka da matično društvo izvršava odlučujući utjecaj nad postupanjem društva kćeri na tržištu.
The Commission will then be able to hold the parent company jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine imposed on its subsidiary, even where it is found that the parent company did not participate directly in the agreements, unless the parent company proves that its subsidiary acts independently on the market. 
Komisija tada može matično društvo smatrati solidarno odgovornim za plaćanje kazne koja je izrečena njegovom društvu kćeri, čak i ako je utvrđeno da matično društvo nije izravno sudjelovalo u sporazumima, osim ako matično društvo dokaže da njegovo društvo kći nastupa neovisno na tržištu
16 The General Court therefore found, in paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal, that, in that case, `the Commission did not fail to have regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice and the [General Court] by merely referring to the fact that 100% of the capital of GQ was owned by its parent companies ... in order to attribute to those companies the anti-competitive actions of GQ'. 
16 Opći sud je stoga u točki 63. pobijane presude utvrdio da u tom predmetu „Komisija nije propustila uzeti u obzir praksu Suda i Općeg suda navođenjem činjenice da je 100 % kapitala GQ-a u vlasništvu njegovih matičnih društava [...] kako bi tim društvima pripisala protutržišna postupanja GQ-a"
17 The General Court then noted, in paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal, that RYPF and RQ had not submitted, in its view, any evidence relating to the economic and legal organisational links between those undertakings and GQ capable of demonstrating the commercial and operational independence of that subsidiary. 
17 Opći je sud zatim u točki 65. pobijane presude primijetio da prema njegovom mišljenju RYPF i RQ nisu dostavili nikakav dokaz o gospodarskim i pravnim organizacijskim vezama između tih poduzetnika i GQ-a kojim bi se mogla dokazati komercijalna i operativna neovisnost toga društva kćeri.
18 On the contrary, the General Court found, in paragraph 66 of the judgment under appeal, that the fact that the sole director of GQ still acted as a `link' between GQ and RQ, that RYPF consolidated GQ's and RQ's accounts at group level and, finally, that RQ and RYPF had replied jointly to the statement of objections, militated in favour of the existence of a single entity, as highlighted by the Commission in recital 262 in the preamble to the contested decision. 
18 Naprotiv, Opći sud je u točki 66. pobijane presude utvrdio da činjenica kako je jedini direktor GQ-a ipak djelovao kao „veza" između GQ-a i RQ-a, da je RYPF konsolidirao izvješća GQ-a i RQ-a na razini grupe te da su naposljetku RQ i RYPF zajednički odgovorili na obavijest o preliminarno utvrđenim činjenicama, ide u prilog postojanju jedinstvenog subjekta, kao što je Komisija naglasila u točki 262. sporne odluke.
19 In addition, in paragraphs 68 and 69 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that the fact that, on 22 October 2002, RQ had ordered GQ to cease any practice which might constitute an infringement of competition rules following the inspection which took place at GQ's place of business on 27 September 2002, was sufficient in itself to prove that RYPF and RQ exercised decisive influence over GQ's policy, not only on the market but also as regards the unlawful conduct at issue in the contested decision. 
19 Osim toga, Opći sud je u točkama 68. i 69. pobijane presude utvrdio kako je činjenica da je 22. listopada 2002. RQ naložio GQ-u prestanak svakog postupanja koje bi moglo predstavljati povredu pravila o tržišnom natjecanju, slijedom inspekcije koja je 27. rujna 2002. provedena u prostorijama GQ-a, samo po sebi dostatan dokaz da su RYPF i RQ izvršavali odlučujući utjecaj nad politikom GQ-a, i to ne samo na tržištu nego i u pogledu nezakonitog postupanja kojim se bavi sporna odluka.
20 For the sake of completeness, the General Court examined in paragraphs 71 to 76 of the judgment under appeal whether, in the contested decision, the Commission had committed an error of assessment in relation to the evidence submitted by the appellants or whether it had failed to take account of that evidence, in the following terms: 
20 U svrhu potpunosti, Opći sud je u točkama 71. do 76. pobijane presude ispitao je li u spornoj odluci Komisija pogriješila u ocjeni u vezi s dokazima koje su podnijeli žalitelji ili je propustila te dokaze uzeti u obzir, i to kako slijedi:
`71 In that regard, it must be held that the fact that the activities of the subsidiary differ, even completely, from the activities of the group or even the fact that the parent company has tried, without success moreover, to resell its subsidiary, is not capable of rebutting the presumption that RQ and RYPF are liable. 
„71 U tom smislu, valja utvrditi da činjenica kako se djelatnosti društva kćeri razlikuju, pa i u potpunosti, od djelatnosti grupe, odnosno čak i činjenica da je matično društvo pokušalo i da, štoviše, nije uspjelo prodati svoje društvo kćer, ne može oboriti pretpostavku odgovornosti RQ-a i RYPF-a.
Even though groups of undertakings and holding companies frequently have different business activities and sometimes sell some of their subsidiaries, they have already been regarded as constituting a single undertaking for the purpose of Article 81 EC (see, to that effect, Case T-330/01 Akzo Nobel v Commission [2006] ECR II-3389, paragraphs 78 and 82). 
Iako grupe poduzetnika i holding društva često imaju različite poslovne djelatnosti i ponekad prodaju neka svoja društva kćeri, već su bili smatrani jedinstvenim poduzetnikom u smislu članka 81. UEZ-a (u tom smislu vidjeti presudu Općeg suda od 27. rujna 2006., Akzo Nobel/Komisija, T-330/01, Zb., str. II-3389., t. 78. i 82.).
72 Furthermore, the Commission, in reply to the request for documents made by the [appellants], submitted to the Court a document which included the minutes of RQ's board of directors of 1998 to 2000 and which set out GQ's financial results and a resolution relating to the sale of GQ's holding in Silquímica, SA and to the sale of GQ's real property. 
72 Nadalje, kao odgovor na zahtjev tužitelja za dokumentacijom, Komisija je Općem sudu dostavila dokument koji je uključivao zapisnik sa sastanaka upravnog odbora RQ-a 1998. i 2000. godine u kojem su se navodili financijski rezultati GQ-a i odluka o prodaji udjela GQ-a u poduzetniku Silquímica, SA te o prodaji nekretnina GQ-a.
That document substantiates in all material respects the Commission's findings in the contested decision. 
Taj dokument u materijalnom smislu u cijelosti podupire ocjenu Komisije u spornoj odluci.
If RQ's board of directors plays a significant role in several essential aspects of GQ's strategy, such as the sale of real property or the sale of a holding, and reserves the power of final decision in that regard, it follows that it exerts a decisive influence on GQ's conduct. 
Ako upravni odbor RQ-a igra bitnu ulogu u više ključnih aspekata strategije GQ-a, kao što je prodaja nekretnina ili prodaja udjela, zadržavajući ovlast donošenja konačne odluke u vezi s time, iz toga proizlazi da izvršava odlučujući utjecaj nad postupanjem GQ-a.
73 As regards the argument relating to the lack of overlap in the membership of the organs of the applicant companies, it must be held that it is apparent from the letter of 5 April 2004 sent by GQ to the Commission and submitted by the [appellants] during the pre-litigation procedure that Mr [confidential] was both chairman of GQ's board of directors from 1996 to 2000 and a member of RQ's board of directors from 1998 to 1999. 
73 U odnosu na argument da nema preklapanja članstva u tijelima društava-tužitelja, valja utvrditi da iz pisma koje je GQ 5. travnja 2004. uputio Komisiji, a koje su tužitelji podnijeli tijekom predsudskog postupka, proizlazi da je g. [povjerljivo] bio predsjednik upravnog odbora GQ-a od 1996. do 2000. godine i član upravnog odbora RQ-a od 1998. do 1999. godine.
Moreover, it must be pointed out that, when questioned on that point at the hearing, the [appellants] conceded, at least implicitly, that there had been such an overlap. 
Nadalje, valja istaknuti da su tužitelji, upitani o tome na raspravi, barem posredno priznali postojanje takvog preklapanja.
74 Similarly, the arguments alleging that the Commission did not, in the contested decision, examine the factual evidence which showed that only GQ's executives decided on and implemented the company's commercial policy, without RQ's being informed beforehand or giving its authorisation, cannot succeed in the light of the case-law cited above. 
74 Jednako tako, argumenti da Komisija u spornoj odluci nije ispitala materijalne dokaze koji pokazuju kako su samo rukovoditelji GQ-a odlučivali i provodili komercijalnu politiku toga društva a da RQ nije bio o tome prethodno obaviješten niti je dao svoje odobrenje, ne mogu biti prihvaćeni s obzirom na gore navedenu sudsku praksu.
The same is true of the claims that the information given to RQ by GQ did not concern the commercial policy but the financial results of the subsidiary. 
Isto vrijedi i za navode da se informacije koje je GQ dao RQ-u nisu ticale komercijalne politike nego financijskih rezultata društva kćeri.
75 As regards the relationship between GQ and Repsol Italia, it must be held that the Commission, in the contested decision, is right to rebut the [appellants'] argument relating to an alleged conflict of interests between GQ and its parent companies by stating that RYPF consolidates the accounts of the group, which is made up of a number of subsidiaries, including GQ and Repsol Italia. 
75 U pogledu odnosa između GQ-a i Repsol Italia, valja utvrditi da Komisija u [spornoj] odluci, time što navodi da RYPF konsolidira izvješća grupe koju čini niz društava kćeri, uključujući GQ i Repsol Italia, s pravom osporava argument tužiteljâ o navodnom sukobu interesa između GQ-a i njegovih matičnih društava.
Furthermore, the Commission is also right to find that that relationship is such as to strengthen the presumption that there is a single undertaking. 
Nadalje, Komisija s pravom utvrđuje da je taj odnos takav da osnažuje pretpostavku postojanja jedinstvenog poduzetnika.
76 In those circumstances, it must be concluded, as did the Commission at recital 264 [in the preamble] to the contested decision, that the [appellants] have not managed to rebut the presumption that the parent companies are liable.' 
76 U tim okolnostima valja zaključiti, kao što je i Komisija zaključila u [točki] 264. sporne odluke, da tužitelji nisu uspjeli oboriti pretpostavku odgovornosti matičnih društava."
21 Lastly, in paragraph 77 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court stated that none of the arguments put forward in the alternative by the appellants was capable of undermining the contested decision. 
21 Konačno, u točki 77. pobijane presude Opći sud je naveo kako nijedan argument koji su žalitelji podredno iznijeli ne može dovesti u pitanje spornu odluku.
22 In particular, in paragraphs 78 to 83 of that judgment, the General Court held that, as can be inferred from the relevant case-law in this area, the presumption of liability deriving from the ownership of capital applies not only in cases where there is a direct relationship between the parent company and its subsidiary, but also in cases, such as the present one, where that relationship is indirect, by way of an interposed subsidiary. 
22 Naročito u točkama 78. do 83. te presude, Opći sud je smatrao da se, kao što se može iščitati iz odgovarajuće sudske prakse u tom području, pretpostavka odgovornosti izvedena iz vlasništva nad kapitalom primjenjuje ne samo u slučajevima izravne veze između matičnog društva i njegovih društava kćeri, nego i u slučajevima kao što je ovaj, u kojem je ta veza neizravna zbog postojanja umetnutog društva kćeri.
23 On the basis of all of those considerations, the General Court rejected, in paragraph 84 of the judgment under appeal, the first plea raised in support of the action for annulment. 
23 Na temelju svih ovih razmatranja, Opći sud je u točki 84. pobijane presude odbio prvi tužbeni razlog iznesen u prilog tužbi za poništenje.
24 Since it also judged the other pleas to be unfounded, the General Court dismissed that action in its entirety, in paragraph 157 of the judgment under appeal. 
24 S obzirom da je presudio da su i ostali tužbeni razlozi neosnovani, Opći sud je u točki 157. pobijane presude u cijelosti odbio tužbu.
Grounds of appeal of the parties 
Zahtjevi stranaka
25 By their appeal, the appellants claim that the Court should: 
25 Žalitelji u svojoj žalbi od Suda zahtijevaju da:
set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it rejects the plea in law based on a manifest error of assessment and a failure to state sufficient reasons for the finding that the appellants were jointly and severally liable; 
ukine pobijanu presudu u dijelu u kojem ona odbija tužbeni razlog, na temelju očite pogreške u ocjeni i nepostojanja obrazloženja u vezi solidarne odgovornosti žalitelja;
annul Article 1(g) and (h) and Article 2(d) of the contested decision in so far as that decision finds RYPF and RQ jointly and severally liable for an infringement by GQ of Article 81(1) EC and, in the alternative, in so far as that decision concerns RYPF; and 
poništi članak 1.(g) i (h) i članak 2.(d) sporne odluke u dijelu u kojem ta odluka utvrđuje da su RYPF i RQ solidarno odgovorni za GQ-ovu povredu članka 81. stavka 1.UEZ-a i podredno, u dijelu u kojem se ta odluka odnosi na RYPF; i
in both cases, reduce the penalty imposed as appropriate. 
u oba slučaja, na odgovarajući način umanji iznos izrečene kazne.
26 The Commission contends that the Court should: 
26 Komisija zahtijeva od Suda da:
dismiss the appeal; and 
odbije žalbu; i
order the appellants to pay the costs. 
naloži žaliteljima snošenje troškova.
The appeal 
O žalbi
27 The appellants raise two grounds in support of their appeal, based on errors of law concerning the attribution to RQ and RYPF respectively of liability for an infringement by GQ of Article 81(1) EC. 
27 Žalitelji ističu dva razloga u prilog svojoj žalbi, na temelju pogreške koja se tiče prava u vezi s pripisivanjem odgovornosti RQ-u i RYPF-u za GQ-ovu povredu članka 81. stavka 1. UEZ-a.
The first ground of appeal, based on errors of law concerning the attribution to RQ of liability for an infringement by GQ of Article 81(1) EC 
Prvi žalbeni razlog koji se temelji na pogreški koja se tiče prava u vezi s pripisivanjem odgovornosti RQ-u i RYPF-u za GQ-ovu povredu članka 81. stavka 1.
28 The first ground of appeal raised by the appellants is essentially divided into three parts. 
UEZ-a 28 Prvi žalbeni razlog koji su žalitelji istaknuli u bitnome se sastoji od tri dijela.
The first part, based on a wrongful application by the General Court of the presumption of a decisive influence of a parent company over the conduct of a wholly-owned subsidiary 
Prvi dio koji se temelji na tome da je Opći sud pogrešno primijenio pretpostavku odlučujućeg utjecaja matičnog društva nad postupanjem društva kćeri u kojemu ima 100 % udjela
29 According to the appellants, the General Court committed an error of law in so far as it wrongly considered that, in order to attribute to a parent company liability for the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary which it wholly owns, the Commission could rely on a criterion which bears no relation to the infringement committed by that subsidiary. 
29 Sukladno navodima žalitelja, Opći sud je počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava jer je pogrešno smatrao da se, kako bi matičnom društvu pripisala odgovornost za nezakonito postupanje društva kćeri u kojemu ima 100 % udjela, Komisija mogla oslanjati na kriterij koji nije ni u kakvoj vezi s povredom koju je počinilo to društvo kći.
30 It is true that Case C-97/08 P Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission [2009] ECR I-8237 confirms the legitimacy of applying a presumption in that regard. 
30 Presuda od 10. rujna 2009., Akzo Nobel i dr./Komisija (C-97/08 P, Zb., str. I-8237.), doista potvrđuje zakonitost primjene pretpostavke u tom smislu.
However, the Commission is also required to provide additional factors in order to be able to impute to such a parent company the conduct of its subsidiary. 
Međutim, Komisija je također obvezna predočiti dodatne indicije kako bi takvom matičnom društvu mogla pripisati postupanje njegovog društva kćeri.