natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Although similar circumstances were taken into account to declare the action in Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v Commission (‘Sony’) (10) admissible, they could not have been the decisive factor.
V zvezi z metodo, ki jo je Komisija uporabila za ugotovitev učinka pritiska na cene, je Sodišče prve stopnje poudarilo, da je zloraba družbe Deutsche Telekom povezana z razliko med njenimi cenami posredniških storitev in maloprodajnimi cenami.
It was only in the light of the exceptional circumstances of that case that the applicant was, in that case, held to be individually concerned.
Komisija torej ni bila dolžna dokazati, da so bile maloprodajne cene kot take zloraba.
Similarly, the Court stated that, while that judgment makes it clear that the fact that the applicant is the sole authorised importer of the product concerned constitutes a relevant factor, it is not sufficient, in itself, to establish that the applicant is individually concerned.
Komisija je prav tako pravilno utemeljila svojo analizo, ali je praksa oblikovanja cen zloraba, zgolj s sklicevanjem na cene in stroške družbe Deutsche Telekom, pri čemer ni upoštevala posebnega položaja konkurentov na trgu.
Last, because the rather general description in the contested regulation of the goods concerned as well as the absence of any visual or textual factor clearly referring to a specific economic operator excluded any individual effect, the Court concluded that there were no grounds for considering that the exceptional circumstances, within the meaning of Sony, giving rise to locus standi for the applicant, existed in the instant case (11).
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče prve stopnje poudarilo, da če bi bila zakonitost prakse oblikovanja cen prevladujočega podjetja odvisna od posebnega položaja konkurenčnih podjetij in zlasti strukture njihovih stroškov, kar so podatki, ki jih prevladujoče podjetje običajno ne pozna, slednje ne bi moglo samo presoditi zakonitosti svojega ravnanja.
According to settled case-law, in order to be of direct concern to an individual within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, the contested Community measure must directly affect the applicant’s legal situation and its implementation must be purely automatic and result from Community rules alone without the application of other intermediate rules (12).
Nazadnje je Sodišče prve stopnje opozorilo, da pooblastila nacionalnih organov na podlagi prava Skupnosti o telekomunikacijah ne vplivajo na pristojnost Komisije, da ugotavlja kršitve konkurenčnega prava.
TheCourtofFirstInstance held in Joined Cases T 383/06 and T 71/07 Icuna.com v Parliament (order of 14 May 2008) that a decision of the Parliament annulling a tendering procedure for the award of a public contract directly affects the legal situation of a tendering undertaking where, as regards the annulment of that tendering procedure in its entirety, the decision results in the annulment of an earlier decision rejecting its tender, but also that of a decision annulling a decision awarding that undertaking the contract, and that of a decision awarding it the contract.
Torej ni mogoče očitati, da je odločba Komisije vodila do dvojnega uravnavanja cen družbe Deutsche Telekom s tem, da je bila ta družba sankcionirana, ker ni uporabila svojega manevrskega prostora za odpravo učinka pritiska na cene.
P re flight :
Državne pomoči
Mention is also to be made of Case T-227/06 RSA Security Ireland v Commission (order of 3 December 2008, paragraph 87), in which the Court held that the applicant had not established the existence of exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Sony, observing that the existence of a photograph of the product on which the Sony games station logowas clearly visible, had carried significant importance in the assessment of the admissibility of the action.
V sodbi z dne 28. novembra 2008 v združenih zadevah Hotel Cipriani in drugi proti Komisiji (T-254/00,T-270/00 inT-277/00, še neobjavljena) je Sodišče prve stopnje razglasilo za dopustne tožbe, ki so jih vložili nekateri prejemniki iz naslova zmanjšanj in/ali oprostitev plačila socialnih prispevkov, odobrenih podjetjem na otoškem območju Benetk in Chioggie, zoper odločbo Komisije, ker je slednja te ukrepe štela za program pomoči, ki ni združljiv s skupnim trgom, in naložila Italijanski republiki, da od prejemnikov zahteva vračilo izplačanih pomoči.
Case C 386/96 P Dreyfus v Commission [1998] ECR I 2309, paragraph 43.
Če bi bilo procesno upravičenje prejemnika iz programa pomoči, kot je trdila Komisija, pogojeno s preučitvijo njegovega
Competition rules applicable to undertakings
Ta rešitev bi povzročila pravno negotovost, ker je seznanjenost Komisije s konkretnimi posamičnimi položaji pogosto odvisna od naključij.
In Case T-276/04 Compagnie maritime belge v Commission (judgment of 1 July 2008), the Court held that where, because of a procedural defect, the Community judicature has annulled in part a Commission decision finding an infringement of the competition rules and imposing a fine, the Commission is entitled to adopt a new decision aimed at correcting the procedural defects identified by the Community judicature and to impose a new fine on the basis of the parts of the first decision that were not annulled.
V zvezi s pojmom akta z zavezujočimi pravnimi učinki je Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi z dne 10. aprila 2008 v zadevi Nizozemska proti Komisiji (T-233/04, še neobjavljena, v pritožbenem postopku) – ki se nanaša na odločbo Komisije, s katero je bil sistem za trgovanje s pravicami do emisije za dušikove okside, ki ga je priglasila Kraljevina Nizozemska, razglašen za državno pomoč, združljivo s skupnim trgom – presodilo, da je dopustno, da država članica, ki je zahtevala, da Komisija razglasi, da navedeni sistem ni pomoč, izpodbija sporno odločbo. Kot privilegirani tožeči stranki ji ni treba utemeljiti pravnega interesa, ampak leto, da ima izpodbijana odločba pravne učinke.
In addition, after all rights of appeal have been exhausted or expiry of the time limits prescribed in that connection, the parts of the first Commission decision which were not annulled acquire res judicata so that, in an action for annulment of the new decision, the undertaking penalised cannot challenge whether the infringement did in fact take place, since that infringement was definitively established in the first decision.
To velja v obravnavanem primeru, ker je na eni strani zaradi opredelitve navedenega sistema za državno pomoč Komisija lahko preučila združljivost zadevnega ukrepa s skupnim trgom in poleg tega uporabila postopek, predviden za veljavne programe pomoči, in ker lahko na drugi strani navedena opredelitev vpliva tudi na dodelitev nove pomoči na podlagi pravilo prekrivanju pomoči iz različnih virov, ki so med drugim določena v Smernicah Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja16.
In that same judgment, the Court, recalling that Regulation No 2988/74 (13) established a complete system of rules covering in detail the periods within which the Commission is entitled, without undermining the fundamental requirement of legal certainty, to impose fines, held that there is no room for consideration of the Commission’s duty to exercise its power to impose fines within a reasonable period.
V zvezi s pravnim interesom je Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi z dne 9. julija 2008 v zadevi Alitalia proti Komisiji (T-301/01, še neobjavljena) pojasnilo, da Alitalia – podjetje, ki je prejelo kapitalsko injekcijo, ki jo je Komisija opredelila kot državno pomoč, združljivo s skupnim trgom, če so spoštovani določeni pogoji – ohrani osebni interes za razglasitev ničnosti te odločbe tudi po tem, ko ji je bila na podlagi druge odločbe Komisije izplačana celotna pomoč.
That conclusion cannot be challenged by reliance on an alleged breach of the rights of the defence since, so long as the limitation period laid down in that regulation has not expired, any undertaking which is the subject of an investigation under Regulation No 17 (14) remains uncertain as to the outcome of the procedure and as to whether sanctions or fines will be imposed. Thus, the prolongation of that uncertainty is inherent in proceedings implementing Regulation No 17 and does not in itself constitute a breach of the rights of the defence.
Ker je bila izpodbijana odločba pravna podlaga za odločbo, s katero je bilo odobreno izplačilo zadnjega obroka pomoči, bi druga odločba ostala brez pravne podlage, če bi Sodišče prve stopnje izpodbijano odločbo razglasilo za nično v delu, v katerem je sporni ukrep opredeljen kot državna pomoč.
As regards the application of the competition rules, a failure to act within a reasonable time can constitute a ground for annulment only in the case of a decision finding infringements where it has been proved that that infringement affected the ability of the undertakings concerned to defend themselves.
Poleg tega je Sodišče prve stopnje v tej sodbi presodilo, da čeprav je bila izpodbijana odločba sprejeta s pridržkom spoštovanja določenih pogojev, k čemur so se italijanski organi zavezali, je zoper te pogoje dopusten tožbeni razlog družbe Alitalia, ker jih je mogoče pripisati Komisiji, ki je izključno pristojna za ugotovitev morebitne nezdružljivosti pomoči s skupnim trgom.
Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of the Council of 26 November 1974 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions under the rules of the European Economic Community relating to transport and competition (OJ 1974 L 319, p. 1).
V zvezi s pravnim interesom prejemnika pomoči, ki jo je Komisija razglasila za delno združljivo s skupnim trgom, je Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi z dne 22. oktobra 2008 v združenih zadevah TV 2/Danmark in drugi proti Komisiji (T-309/04, T-317/04, T-329/04 in T-336/04, še neobjavljena) presodilo, da okoliščine, v katerih je Komisija ugotavljala združljivost zadevnih pomoči, prepovedujejo preizkus dopustnosti tožbe z razdelitvijo izpodbijane odločbe na dva dela, in sicer na del, v katerem so sporne državne pomoči opredeljene za delno nezdružljive s skupnim trgom, in na del, v katerem so opredeljene za delno združljive. Komisija je namreč preverila, ali zadevni državni ê na nč ni ukrepi kot celota presegajo neto stroške storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Application of Article 81(1) EC
Materialnopravne določbe
Rights of the defence and right to a fair hearing
(a) Dajanje gospodarske prednosti
In that same judgment, the Court held that, when the first investigation measure is taken in respect of an undertaking, such as a request for information, the Commission is required to inform that undertaking of the putative infringements concerned by the investigation and of the fact that the Commission might have to impute to that undertaking unlawful conduct. In this instance, however, the Court held that the Commission’s omission in this respect could not lead to the annulment of the contested decision, since that irregularity did not adversely affect the efficiency of the applicant’s defence.
V zadevi SIC proti Komisiji (sodba Sodiščaprvestopnje z dne 26. junija 2008, T-442/03, še neobjavljena), ki se nanaša na tožbo zoper odločbo Komisije, s katero je bilo razglašeno, da nekateri ukrepi, ki jih je sprejela Portugalska republika v razmerju do Radiotelevisão Portuguesa (v nadaljevanju: RTP), ki je družba, ki opravlja storitev portugalske javne televizije, niso državne pomoči in da so drugi ukrepi združljivi s skupnim trgom, je tožeča stranka med drugim trdila, da je imela družba RTP ob izdaji obveznic implicitno jamstvo države, zato je lahko kljub težkemu ê na nč nemu položaju na trgu izvedla to izdajo.
In Case T-410/03 Hoechst v Commission (judgment of 18 June 2008), the Court applied its unlimited jurisdiction in two respects. First, it held that the Commission had failed to have regard to the principles of sound administration and equal treatment.
Po ugotovitvi, na eni strani, da je RTP delniška družba, za vračilo dolgov katere Portugalska republika, ki je stoodstotni delničar, ni bila neomejeno odgovorna, in, na drugi strani, da v prospektu izdaje obveznic ni bilo določeno jamstvo države, je Sodišče prve stopnje presodilo, da dejstvo, da je bil vpis obveznic iz leta 1994 na trgu uspešen, ker se je predvidevalo, da bo država de facto jamčila za izplačilo, ne omogoča ugotovitve, da gre za državno pomoč.
Although the Commission had clearly displayed its intention not to disclose to the cooperating undertakings, in particular to Hoechst, the fact that other undertakings had taken steps to obtain immunity from a fine, at the same it assured another undertaking that ‘fair warning’would begiven to it if another company looked like overtaking it in relation to cooperation.
Sklep o obstoju državnega jamstva bi omogočile le objektivne ugotovitve, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče sklepati, da je bila država pravno zavezana izplačati to izdajo v primeru neizpolnitve družbe RTP.
Second, the Court held that the Commission erred in applying the aggravating circumstance of leader of the cartel against Hoechst, without however characterising sufficiently clearly and precisely in the statement of objections the facts alleged against it.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Hotel Cipriani in drugi proti Komisiji so podjetja, ki jim je bila odobrena oprostitev plačila prispevkov za socialno varnost, trdila, da se jim s temi oprostitvami ne podeljuje nobena gospodarska prednost, ker naj bi ta oprostitev nadomestila dodatne stroške, ki jih imajo zaradi strukturnih ovir na območju lagune, kjer delujejo.
Moreover, certain facts identified by the Commission did not make it possible to conclude with sufficient precision that the objection of leader would be found as against Hoechst.
Sodišče prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da podjetja niso dokazala neposredne zveze med dodatnimi stroški, ki jih dejansko imajo, in prejetim zneskom pomoči.
The Court concluded from this that Hoechst was not in a position to defend itself properly.
Le na podlagi dejstva, da imajo podjetja v laguni višje stroške, kot bi jih imela na celini, ni mogoče sklepati, da zaradi programa pomoči nimajo nobene prednosti in da z njim ni uvedena diskriminacija glede na njihove konkurente v Italiji ali drugih državah članicah.
In Case T-53/03 BPB v Commission (judgment of 8 July 2008), the Court held that the reduction of the fine granted by the Commission in respect of BPB’s cooperation was not sufficient since BPB had been the first participant in the anti-competitive practice to send,
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Nizozemska proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da sistem za trgovanje s pravicami do emisije za dušikove okside (NOx), ki ga je določila
Court ofFirstInstance following a request for information, but going beyondwhat the Commission requested, additional information confirming the existence of the cartel.
Kraljevina Nizozemska, ni državna pomoč.
Consequently, that information was able to strengthen substantially the Commission’s arguments concerning the existence of an overall plan and thus made it possible to increase substantially the amount of the fines in respect of the gravity of the infringement.
Na eni strani namreč za vse industrijske obrate na Nizozemskem, katerih celotna termična kapaciteta presega določen prag, brez geograf- ske ali sektorske omejitve, velja zgornja meja emisije NO
In order to assess the gravity of the infringement, the decisive point is whether the cartel members did all they could to give concrete effect to their intentions.
, predpisana z zadevnim ukrepom, x in ti lahko izkoristijo ugodnost, ki izhaja iz trgovanja s pravicami do emisije, predvidenega s tem ukrepom.
What then happened at the level of the market prices actually obtained was liable to be influenced by other factors outside the control of the members of the cartel.
V spornem sistemu, ki je namenjen podjetjem, ki so največji onesnaževalci, je uporabljeno objektivno merilo, ki je v skladu s ciljem varstva okolja.
They cannot therefore benefit from external factors which counteracted their own efforts by turning them into factors justifying a reduction of the fine.
Na drugi strani se le za podjetja, za katera velja ta ureditev, določi emisijski standard ali stroga standardna stopnja izkoristka, ob neupoštevanju pa globa.
In addition, the Court found that, even though, in the application, Schunk disputed for the first time before it facts which had been raised against it in the statement of objections and on which the finding of an infringement of Article 81 EC was based, there were no grounds for cancelling the minimum reduction of 10 % allowed to Schunk on the basis of the leniency notice (15), as the Commission requested.
, ni mogoče primerjati s položajem podjetij, jetij, za katera velja ta zgornja meja emisij NOx za katera se ta zgornja meja ne uporablja.
The Court observed that the challenges at issue were rejected pursuant to the case-law under which facts which an undertaking has expressly acknowledged during the administrative procedure are to be regarded as established, that undertaking being barred from putting forward pleas disputing those facts in proceedings before the Court.
V vsakem primeru, celo pod predpostavko, da sporni ukrep uvaja razlikovanje med podjetji in je zato a priori selektiven, bi to razlikovanje izhajalo iz lastnosti ali ureditve sistema, v katerega spada, in torej ne bi izpolnjevalo pogoja selektivnosti.
Concept of group and setting of the 10 % ceiling on the amount of the fine
Ekološki vidiki namreč upravičijo razlikovanje med podjetji, katerih emisije so velike, in drugimi podjetji.
In Case T-52/03 Knauf Gips v Commission (judgment of 8 July 2008, not published), the Court stated that, when calculating the 10 % ceiling on the amount of the fine, referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, the Commission may take into account the turnover of all the entities which make up an economic unit within the meaning of competition law.
Na eni strani Komisija namreč ni preučila vprašanja, ali uporaba zakonodajnega instrumenta, ki ima za posledico oprostitev plačila notarskih stroškov, ni bila izbrana zato, da bi se javnim podjetjem omogočilo, da bi se izognila stroškom, ampak je zgolj del logike portugalskega pravnega sistema.
In particular, the Court decided that, although it is true that the mere fact that the share v 2
Na drugi strani bi Komisija morala ugotoviti, ali je v skladu s portugalskim pravnim sistemom, da preoblikovanje RTP v delniško družbo ni bilo izvedeno po običajnem postopku za zasebne družbe, torej na podlagi notarskega zapisa (z vsemi pravnimi posledicami splošnih predpisov, ki iz tega izhajajo glede formalnosti registracije in objave), ampak na podlagi zakona.
Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 1996 C 207, p. 4).
V združenih zadevah Government of Gibraltar in Združenokraljestvo proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 18. decembra 2008, T-211/04 in T-215/04, še neobjavljena) je lahko Sodišče prve stopnje dodatno pojasnilo pogoj selektivnosti.
During 2008, the Court inter alia applied its case-law on the imputability of the unlawful conduct in Knauf Gips v Commission. It recalled in this respect that it is possible to impute to a company all of the acts of a group if that company has been identified as the legal person at the head of that group with responsibility for its coordination.
Ob uporabi pogojev, navedenih v sodni praksi v zvezi s pomočmi, ki jih dodelijo enote na poddržavni ravni17, je Sodišče prve stopnje presodilo, da referenčni okvir za presojo regio- nalne selektivnosti sporne davčne reforme velja izključno za ozemlje Gibraltarja in da zato ni mogoče opraviti primerjave z ureditvijo, ki velja v Združenem kraljestvu.
In Case T-271/03 Deutsche Telekom v Commission (judgment of 10 April 2008, under appeal), the Court ruled on the legality of a Commission decision punishing an abuse by Deutsche Telekom of its dominant position on the basis of its charging competitors prices for access to the network (‘wholesale services’) that were higher than Deutsche Telekom’s prices for retail access to the local network.
V zvezi z materialno selektivnostjo je Sodišče prve stopnje navedlo, da je za opredelitev selektivnega davčnega ukrepa potrebna analiza v treh fazah.
That pricing, in the form of a‘margin squeeze’, forced competitors to charge their end-users prices higher than the prices Deutsche Telekom charged its own end-users.
Prvič, Komisija mora določiti in preučiti „običajno“ ureditev davčnega sistema, ki se uporablja na geografskem območju, ki je upošteven referenčni okvir.
The Commission had therefore imposed a fine of EUR 12.6 million on Deutsche Telekom.
Drugič, glede na to„običajno“ davčno ureditev mora Komisija nato ugotoviti morebitno selektivnost prednosti, dodeljene z zadevnim davčnim ukrepom.
The Court observed that the Commission was correct to find that whilst Deutsche Telekom had observed the price cap imposed by the German regulatory authority for telecommunications and post (‘the RegTP’) it had sufficient discretion, from the beginning of 1998 to the end of 2001 and from 2002 until the date of adoption of the decision, to end or reduce themargin squeeze.
Če Komisija dokaže odstopanja od „običajne“ davčne ureditve, ki povzročajo razlikovanje med podjetji, lahko država članica dokaže, da je to razlikovanje utemeljeno z lastnostmi ali ureditvijo njenega davčnega sistema.
The Court also stated that the fact that Deutsche Telekom’s charges had to be approved by the RegTP did not absolve it from responsibility under competition law.
Tretjič, v tem primeru mora Komisija preveriti, ali to drži.
As an undertaking in a dominant position, Deutsche Telekom was obliged to submit applications for adjustment of its charges at a time when those charges had the effect of impairing genuine undistorted competition on the common market.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče prve stopnje dodalo, da če Komisija ne opravi navedene prve in druge faze nadzora, nemore začeti tretje faze, ne da bi presegla meje svojega nadzora.Tak pristop bi namreč lahko, po eni strani, Komisiji omogočil, da prevzame vlogo države članice v zvezi z določitvijo davčnega sistema te države in njegove „običajne“ ureditve, ter, po drugi strani, tako državi članici onemogočil, da zadevna razlikovanja utemelji z lastnostmi in ureditvijo priglašenega davčnega sistema.
As regards themethod used by the Commission to establish themargin squeeze, the Court observed that the abusive nature of Deutsche Telekom’s conduct was connected with the spread between its prices for wholesale access and its retail prices.
V sodbi z dne 17. decembra 2008 v zadevi Ryanair proti Komisiji (T-196/04, še neobjavljena) je Sodišče prve stopnje razglasilo za nično odločbo, s katero je Komisija ločeno preučila dva sporazuma, ki ju je sklenila letalska družba Ryanair z regijo Valonijo, lastnikom letališča v Charleroiju, in z družbo Brussels South Charleroi Airport (v nadaljevanju: BSCA), javnim podjetjem pod nadzorom regije Valonije, ki upravlja in vodi to letališče.
The Commission was not therefore required to demonstrate that the retail prices were, as such, abusive.
Sodišče prve stopnje je najprej poudarilo, da ker je družba BSCA subjekt, ki je gospodarsko odvisen od regije Valonije, bi ju Komisija morala obravnavati kot en subjekt.
The Commission was also correct to analyse the abusive nature of the pricing practices solely on the basis of Deutsche Telekom’s charges and costs, disregarding the particular situation of competitors on the market.
Nato je ugotovilo, da je regija Valonija s sklenitvijo sporazuma z družbo Ryanair opravljala gospodarsko dejavnost.
In that connection, the Court observed that, if the
Samo dejstvo, da se ta dejavnost opravlja v javnem sektorju, namreč ne pomeni, da gre za
Court ofFirstInstance lawfulness of the pricing practices of a dominant undertaking depended on the particular situation of competing undertakings, and particularly their cost structure — information which is generally not known to the dominant undertaking— the latter would not be in a position to assess the lawfulness of its own activities.
Sodišče prve stopnje izvajanje javnih pooblastil. Poleg tega dejstvo, da ima regija Valonija regulativne pristojnosti na področju določanja letaliških taks, ne pomeni, da sistema popustov na navedene takse ni treba preizkusiti z vidika zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.