natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ensuring the effective and consistent application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by the Commission and the national competition authorities necessitates a common approach across the Union on the effect of national competition authorities' final infringement decisions on subsequent actions for damages.
V ta namen bi morala Komisija zagotoviti dosledno uporabo konkurenčnega prava Unije, tako da bi na dvostranski ravni in v okviru Evropske mreže za konkurenco zagotovila smernice nacionalnim organom, pristojnim za konkurenco.
Such decisions are adopted only after the Commission has been informed of the decision envisaged or, in the absence thereof, of any other document indicating the proposed course of action pursuant to Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, and if the Commission has not relieved the national competition authority of its competence by initiating proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of that Regulation.
Zaradi krepitve pravne varnosti, izogibanja nedoslednosti pri uporabi členov 101 in 102 PDEU, povečanja uspešnosti in procesne učinkovitosti odškodninskih tožb ter krepitve delovanja notranjega trga za podjetja in potrošnike ugotovitve o kršitvi člena 101 ali 102 PDEU iz pravnomočne odločbe nacionalnega organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, ali pritožbenega sodišča ne bi smelo biti mogoče znova izpodbijati v poznejših odškodninskih tožbah.
The Commission should ensure the consistent application of Union competition law by providing, bilaterally and within the framework of the European Competition Network, guidance to the national competition authorities.
Takšna ugotovitev bi zato morala veljati za neovrgljivo dokazano v odškodninskih tožbah, vloženih v državi članici nacionalnega organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, ali pritožbenega sodišča, ki obravnava to kršitev.
To enhance legal certainty, to avoid inconsistency in the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, to increase the effectiveness and procedural efficiency of actions for damages and to foster the functioning of the internal market for undertakings and consumers, the finding of an infringement of Article 101 or 102 TFEU in a final decision by a national competition authority or a review court should not be relitigated in subsequent actions for damages.
Vendar bi moral učinek ugotovitve zajemati le naravo kršitve ter njen vsebinski, osebni, časovni in geografski obseg, kot ga je ugotovil organ, pristojen za konkurenco, ali pritožbeno sodišče pri izvajanju sodne pristojnosti.
Therefore, such a finding should be deemed to be irrefutably established in actions for damages brought in the Member State of the national competition authority or review court relating to that infringement.
Kadar je bilo v odločbi ugotovljeno, da so bile kršene določbe nacionalnega konkurenčnega prava, kadar se konkurenčno pravo Unije in nacionalno konkurenčno pravo vzporedno uporabljata v isti zadevi, bi moralo veljati, da je ta kršitev tudi neovrgljivo dokazana.
The effect of the finding should, however, cover only the nature of the infringement and its material, personal, temporal and territorial scope as determined by the competition authority or review court in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
Kadar je odškodninska tožba vložena v državi članici, ki ni država članica nacionalnega organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, ali pritožbenega sodišča, ki je ugotovilo kršitev člena 101 ali 102 PDEU, na katero se tožba nanaša, bi bilo treba dovoliti, da se takšna ugotovitev v pravnomočni odločbi nacionalnega organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, ali pritožbenega sodišča, predloži nacionalnemu sodišču vsaj kot dokaz prima facie, da je bilo kršeno konkurenčno pravo.
Where a decision has found that provisions of national competition law are infringed in cases where Union and national competition law are applied in the same case and in parallel, that infringement should also be deemed to be irrefutably established.
Po potrebi se ugotovitev lahko oceni skupaj z drugim gradivom, ki ga stranki predložita.
Where an action for damages is brought in a Member State other than the Member State of a national competition authority or a review court that found the infringement of Article 101 or 102 TFEU to which the action relates, it should be possible to present that finding in a final decision by the national competition authority or the review court to a national court as at least prima facie evidence of the fact that an infringement of competition law has occurred.
Učinek odločb nacionalnih organov, pristojnih za konkurenco, in pritožbenih sodišč, s katerimi se ugotovi kršitev pravil konkurence, ne posega v pravice in obveznosti nacionalnih sodišč iz člena 267 PDEU.
The finding can be assessed as appropriate, along with any other evidence adduced by the parties.
Nacionalna pravila o nastopu, teku, pretrganju ali prekinitvi zastaranja ne bi smela neupravičeno ovirati vlaganja odškodninskih tožb.
The effects of decisions by national competition authorities and review courts finding an infringement of the competition rules are without prejudice to the rights and obligations of national courts under Article 267 TFEU.
To je zlasti pomembno v primeru tožb, vloženih na podlagi ugotovitve organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, ali pritožbenega sodišča o kršitvi.
National rules on the beginning, duration, suspension or interruption of limitation periods should not unduly hamper the bringing of actions for damages.
Zato bi moralo biti še vedno mogoče vložiti odškodninsko tožbo po koncu postopka organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, zaradi izvajanja nacionalnega konkurenčnega prava ali konkurenčnega prava Unije.
This is particularly important in respect of actions that build upon a finding by a competition authority or a review court of an infringement.
Zastaranje ne bi smelo začeti teči pred prenehanjem kršitve in pred tem, ko se tožnik seznani ali pa se lahko razumno pričakuje, da je seznanjen z ravnanjem, ki pomeni kršitev, dejstvom, da je kršitev tožniku povzročila škodo in identiteto kršitelja.
To that end, it should be possible to bring an action for damages after proceedings by a competition authority, with a view to enforcing national and Union competition law.
Države članice bi morale imeti možnost, da ohranijo ali uvedejo absolutno zastaranje, ki je splošno veljavno, če tek takšnih absolutnih zastaranj dejansko ne onemogoči uveljavljanja pravice do popolne odškodnine ali ga pretirano oteži.
The limitation period should not begin to run before the infringement ceases and before a claimant knows, or can reasonably be expected to know, the behaviour constituting the infringement, the fact that the infringement caused the claimant harm and the identity of the infringer.
Kadar več podjetij skupaj krši pravila o konkurenci, kot v primeru kartela, je primerno, da se določi solidarna odgovornost teh sokršiteljev za vso škodo, ki jo je povzročila kršitev.
Member States should be able to maintain or introduce absolute limitation periods that are of general application, provided that the duration of such absolute limitation periods does not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the right to full compensation.
Sokršitelj, ki plača več, kot znaša njegov delež v škodi, bi moral imeti pravico zahtevati, da mu drugi sokršitelji povrnejo presežek prispevka.
Where several undertakings infringe the competition rules jointly, as in the case of a cartel, it is appropriate to make provision for those co-infringers to be held jointly and severally liable for the entire harm caused by the infringement.
Določitev takšnega deleža kot relativne odgovornosti zadevnega kršitelja in relevantnih meril, kot so prihodki, tržni delež ali vloga v kartelu, ureja veljavno nacionalno pravo, ob upoštevanju načel učinkovitosti in enakovrednosti.
A co-infringer should have the right to obtain a contribution from other co-infringers if it has paid more compensation than its share.
Podjetja, ki sodelujejo z organi, pristojnimi za konkurenco, v okviru programa prizanesljivosti, imajo ključno vlogo pri odkrivanju kršitev skrivnih kartelov in pri zaustavljanju takšnih kršitev, s čimer se pogosto ublaži škoda, ki bi jo lahko povzročilo nadaljnje izvajanje kršitve.
The determination of that share as the relative responsibility of a given infringer, and the relevant criteria such as turnover, market share, or role in the cartel, is a matter for the applicable national law, while respecting the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.
Zato je primerno uvesti določbo za podjetja, ki jim je organ, pristojen za konkurenco, v okviru programa prizanesljivosti priznal imuniteto pred globami, da se zaščitijo pred neupravičeno izpostavljenostjo odškodninskim zahtevkom, pri tem pa se upošteva, da odločba organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, o obstoju kršitve lahko postane pravnomočna za osebo z imuniteto, preden postane pravnomočna za druga podjetja, ki jim imuniteta ni bila priznana, kar pomeni, da je oseba z imuniteto lahko prednostno obravnavana v pravdnem postopku.
Undertakings which cooperate with competition authorities under a leniency programme play a key role in exposing secret cartel infringements and in bringing them to an end, thereby often mitigating the harm which could have been caused had the infringement continued.
Zato je primerno, da je oseba z imuniteto načeloma oproščena solidarne odgovornosti za celotno škodo in da prispevek z ozirom na prispevke sokršiteljev ne preseže zneska škode, ki jo je povzročila svojim neposrednim ali posrednim kupcem oziroma, v primeru nakupnega kartela, svojim neposrednim ali posrednim dobaviteljem.
It is therefore appropriate to make provision for undertakings which have received immunity from fines from a competition authority under a leniency programme to be protected from undue exposure to damages claims, bearing in mind that the decision of the competition authority finding the infringement may become final for the immunity recipient before it becomes final for other undertakings which have not received immunity, thus potentially making the immunity recipient the preferential target of litigation.
Če je kartel povzročil škodo le tretjim osebam, ki niso stranke oziroma dobavitelji kršitelja, prispevek osebe z imuniteto ne bi smel preseči njene relativne odgovornosti za škodo, ki jo je povzročil kartel.
It is therefore appropriate that the immunity recipient be relieved in principle from joint and several liability for the entire harm and that any contribution it must make vis-à-vis co-infringers not exceed the amount of harm caused to its own direct or indirect purchasers or, in the case of a buying cartel, its direct or indirect providers.
Ta delež bi bilo treba določiti v skladu z istimi pravili, kot se uporabljajo za določitev prispevkov kršiteljev.
To the extent that a cartel has caused harm to those other than the customers or providers of the infringers, the contribution of the immunity recipient should not exceed its relative responsibility for the harm caused by the cartel.
Oseba z imuniteto bi morala ostati v celoti odgovorna za škodo oškodovancem, ki niso njeni neposredni ali posredni kupci ali dobavitelji, le, kadar ti ne morejo pridobiti popolne odškodnine od drugih kršiteljev.
That share should be determined in accordance with the same rules used to determine the contributions between infringers.
Škoda v obliki dejanske izgube je lahko posledica razlike med dejansko plačano ceno in ceno, ki bi bila plačana, če kršitve ne bi bilo.
The immunity recipient should remain fully liable to the injured parties other than its direct or indirect purchasers or providers only where they are unable to obtain full compensation from the other infringers.
Če je oškodovanec zmanjšal svojo dejansko izgubo tako, da jo je delno ali v celoti prenesel naprej na lastne kupce, nadalje prenesena izguba ne pomeni več škode, za katero je stranka, ki jo je prenesla naprej, upravičena do odškodnine.
Harm in the form of actual loss can result from the price difference between what was actually paid and what would otherwise have been paid in the absence of the infringement.
Zato je načeloma primerno, da se kršitelju dovoli uveljavljanje nadaljnjega prenosa dejanske izgube kot ugovora zoper odškodninski zahtevek.
When an injured party has reduced its actual loss by passing it on, entirely or in part, to its own purchasers, the loss which has been passed on no longer constitutes harm for which the party that passed it on needs to be compensated.
Primerno je določiti obveznost kršitelja, da pri uveljavljanju ugovora nadaljnjega prenosa izkaže obstoj in obseg povečanih stroškov, ki so bili preneseni naprej.
It is therefore in principle appropriate to allow an infringer to invoke the passing-on of actual loss as a defence against a claim for damages.
To dokazno breme ne bi smelo vplivati na možnost kršitelja, da uporabi dokaze, ki niso dokazi, s katerimi razpolaga, tj. na primer dokaze, že pridobljene v okviru postopka, ali dokaze, s katerimi razpolagajo druge stranke ali tretje osebe.
It is appropriate to provide that the infringer, in so far as it invokes the passing-on defence, must prove the existence and extent of pass-on of the overcharge.
Kadar nadaljnji prenos povzroči manjšo prodajo in s tem škodo v obliki izgubljenega dobička, to ne bi smelo vplivati na pravico do zahteve za odškodnino zaradi takšne izgube dobička.
This burden of proof should not affect the possibility for the infringer to use evidence other than that in its possession, such as evidence already acquired in the proceedings or evidence held by other parties or third parties.
Glede na pogoje poslovanja podjetij je lahko trgovinska praksa taka, da se povečanja cene prenašajo po dobavni verigi naprej.
In situations where the passing-on resulted in reduced sales and thus harm in the form of a loss of profit, the right to claim compensation for such loss of profit should remain unaffected.
Potrošniki ali podjetja, na katere je bila na ta način prenesena dejanska izguba, so utrpeli škodo, ki je bila povzročena s kršitvijo konkurenčnega prava Unije ali nacionalnega konkurenčnega prava.
Depending on the conditions under which undertakings are operating, it may be commercial practice to pass on price increases down the supply chain.
Čeprav bi navedeno škodo moral povrniti kršitelj, pa je lahko potrošnikom ali podjetjem, ki od kršitelja niso kupili ničesar, še zlasti težko dokazati obseg takšne škode.
Consumers or undertakings to whom actual loss has thus been passed on have suffered harm caused by an infringement of Union or national competition law.
Zato je primerno zagotoviti, da v primeru, ko je obstoj odškodninskega zahtevka ali zneska za škodo, ki se dodeli, odvisen od tega, ali in v kakšnem obsegu so se povečani stroški, ki jih je plačal neposredni kupec kršitelja, prenesli na posrednega kupca, velja, da je posredni kupec predložil dokaz, v skladu s katerim so bili povečani stroški, ki jih je plačal navedeni neposredni kupec, preneseni na posrednega kupca, če lahko ta prima facie dokaže, da je bil takšen nadaljnji prenos opravljen.
While such harm should be compensated for by the infringer, it may be particularly difficult for consumers or undertakings that did not themselves make any purchase from the infringer to prove the extent of that harm.
Ta izpodbojna domneva velja, razen če lahko kršitelj na sodišču prepričljivo dokaže, da dejanska izguba ni bila ali ni bila v celoti prenesena na posrednega kupca.
It is therefore appropriate to provide that, where the existence of a claim for damages or the amount of damages to be awarded depends on whether or to what degree an overcharge paid by a direct purchaser from the infringer has been passed on to an indirect purchaser, the latter is regarded as having proven that an overcharge paid by that direct purchaser has been passed on to its level where it is able to show prima facie that such passing-on has occurred.
Poleg tega je primerno določiti, pod katerimi pogoji velja, da je posredni kupec predložil tak prima facie dokaz.
This rebuttable presumption applies unless the infringer can credibly demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that the actual loss has not or not entirely been passed on to the indirect purchaser.
Kar zadeva ocenjevanje obsega nadaljnjega prenosa, bi moralo biti nacionalno sodišče pristojno oceniti, kateri del povečanih stroškov se je v sporu, ki teče pred njim, prenesel naprej na raven posrednih kupcev.
It is furthermore appropriate to define under what conditions the indirect purchaser is to be regarded as having established such prima facie proof.
Komisija bi morala izdati jasne, preproste in izčrpne smernice za nacionalna sodišča o tem, kako oceniti delež povečanih stroškov, ki so bili preneseni naprej na posredne kupce.
As regards the quantification of passing-on, national courts should have the power to estimate which share of the overcharge has been passed on to the level of indirect purchasers in disputes pending before them.
Kršitve konkurenčnega prava so pogosto povezane s pogoji in ceno, po katerih se blago ali storitve prodajajo, ter vodijo do povečanih stroškov in druge škode za stranke kršiteljev.
The Commission should issue clear, simple and comprehensive guidelines for national courts on how to estimate the share of the overcharge passed on to indirect purchasers.
Kršitev se lahko nanaša tudi na dobavo kršitelju (na primer pri nakupnem kartelu).
Infringements of competition law often concern the conditions and the price under which goods or services are sold, and lead to an overcharge and other harm for the customers of the infringers.
V takšnih primerih bi dejanska izguba lahko nastala zaradi nižje cene, ki jo kršitelji plačajo svojim dobaviteljem.
The infringement may also concern supplies to the infringer (for example in the case of a buyers' cartel).
To direktivo in zlasti določbe o nadaljnjem prenosu bi bilo treba ustrezno uporabljati v teh primerih.
In such cases, the actual loss could result from a lower price paid by infringers to their suppliers.
Odškodninske tožbe lahko vložijo osebe, ki so kupile blago ali storitve od kršitelja, ter kupci z nižjih stopenj dobavne verige.
This Directive and in particular the rules on passing-on should apply accordingly to those cases.
Da bi bile sodbe v takšnih povezanih postopkih dosledne in da bi se s tem izognili škodi, ker za kršitev nacionalnega konkurenčnega prava ali konkurenčnega prava Unije ni bila izplačana popolna odškodnina, ali da bi se izognili zahtevi, da kršitelj plača odškodnino za škodo, ki je oškodovanci niso utrpeli, bi morala biti nacionalna sodišča pristojna oceniti odstotek povečanih stroškov, ki je bil v sporu, ki teče pred tem sodiščem, naložen neposrednim ali posrednim kupcem.
Actions for damages can be brought both by those who purchased goods or services from the infringer and by purchasers further down the supply chain.
V tem smislu bi morala imeti nacionalna sodišča možnost s postopkovnimi ali materialnimi sredstvi, ki so na voljo v skladu s pravom Unije in nacionalnim pravom, ustrezno upoštevati vse povezane sodne postopke in sodbe v njih, zlasti tiste, v katerih je sodišče ugotovilo, da je bil dokazan nadaljnji prenos.
In the interest of consistency between judgments resulting from related proceedings and hence to avoid the harm caused by the infringement of Union or national competition law not being fully compensated or the infringer being required to pay damages to compensate for harm that has not been suffered, national courts should have the power to estimate the proportion of any overcharge which was suffered by the direct or indirect purchasers in disputes pending before them.
Nacionalnim sodiščem bi morala biti na voljo ustrezna procesna sredstva, kot je združitev zahtevkov, s katerimi bi zagotovila, da odškodnina za dejansko izgubo, plačano na kateri koli stopnji dobavne verige, ne presega povečanih stroškov zaradi škode, povzročene na tej stopnji.
In this context, national courts should be able to take due account, by procedural or substantive means available under Union and national law, of any related action and of the resulting judgment, particularly where it finds that passing-on has been proven.
Takšna sredstva bi morala biti na voljo tudi v čezmejnih zadevah.
National courts should have at their disposal appropriate procedural means, such as joinder of claims, to ensure that compensation for actual loss paid at any level of the supply chain does not exceed the overcharge harm caused at that level.
Možnost, da se ustrezno upoštevajo sodbe, ne bi smela posegati v temeljne pravice do obrambe in pravice do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva in poštenega sojenja tistih oseb, ki niso stranke v teh sodnih postopkih, ter v pravila o dokazni vrednosti sodb, sprejetih v zvezi s tem.
Such means should also be available in cross-border cases.
Možno je, da se tožbe, ki tečejo pred sodišči različnih držav članic, štejejo za povezane postopke v smislu člena 30 Uredbe (EU) št. 1215/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [6].
This possibility to take due account of judgments should be without prejudice to the fundamental rights of the defence and the rights to an effective remedy and a fair trial of those who were not parties to the judicial proceedings, and without prejudice to the rules on the evidenciary value of judgments rendered in that context.
Na podlagi navedenega člena lahko nacionalna sodišča, razen tistega, ki je prvo začelo postopek, prekinejo postopek ali pa se v določenih okoliščinah izrečejo za nepristojna.
It is possible for actions pending before the courts of different Member States to be considered as related within the meaning of Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council [6].
Ta direktiva ne posega v pravice in obveznosti nacionalnih sodišč iz navedene uredbe.
Under that Article, national courts other than that first seized may stay proceedings or, under certain circumstances, may decline jurisdiction.
Oškodovanec, ki je dokazal, da je utrpel škodo kot posledico kršitve konkurenčnega prava, mora še vedno izkazati višino škode, da bi prejel odškodnino.
This Directive is without prejudice to the rights and obligations of national courts under that Regulation.
Ocenjevanje škode v zadevah iz področja konkurenčnega prava je vsebinsko zelo zahtevno in lahko zahteva uporabo zapletenih ekonomskih modelov.
An injured party who has proven having suffered harm as a result of a competition law infringement still needs to prove the extent of the harm in order to obtain damages.
To je pogosto zelo drago in tožniki se soočijo s težavami pri pridobivanju podatkov, potrebnih za utemeljitev njihovih zahtevkov.
Quantifying harm in competition law cases is a very fact-intensive process and may require the application of complex economic models.
Ocenjevanje škode v zadevah iz področja konkurenčnega prava lahko pomeni precejšnjo oviro za učinkovito reševanje zahtevkov za odškodnino.
This is often very costly, and claimants have difficulties in obtaining the data necessary to substantiate their claims.
Kadar ne obstajajo pravila Unije o ocenjevanju višine škode, povzročene s kršitvijo konkurenčnega prava, nacionalni pravni sistemi držav članic določijo svoja pravila za oceno višine škode, na ravni držav članic in nacionalnih sodišč pa se določi, katere zahteve mora izpolniti tožnik pri dokazovanju višine škode, ki jo je utrpel, načine, ki jih lahko uporabi pri ocenjevanju višine škode, in posledice, če predpisanih zahtev ne more izpolniti v celoti.
The quantification of harm in competition law cases can thus constitute a substantial barrier preventing effective claims for compensation.
Vendar pa zahteve iz nacionalnega prava v zvezi z ocenjevanjem višine škode ne bi smele biti niti manj ugodne od zahtev v zvezi s podobnimi postopki po nacionalnem pravu (načelo enakovrednosti) niti povzročiti, da bi bilo uveljavljanje pravice do odškodnine iz prava Unije dejansko nemogoče ali pretirano oteženo (načelo učinkovitosti).