natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Can those provisions be interpreted as meaning that such commercial or financial advantages have been conferred in exclusive supply contracts under a brand name in which the supplier of petroleum products bears the costs of installing and maintaining its brand image in the service station, or transfers fuel-tanks and -pumps which the servicestation operator may not use without the authorisation in writing of the sole supplier for products not supplied by the latter and which it must hand back when it ceases to use them as authorised, and the value of which is covered by the guarantee on first demand that the servicestation operator has provided in favour of the supplier?
Ali je mogoče ti določbi razlagati tako, da so bile te gospodarske in finančne prednosti podeljene s pogodbami o izključni dobavi pod blagovno znamko, v skladu s katerimi dobavitelj naftnih proizvodov nosi stro�ke namestitve in vzdrževanja podobe svoje blagovne znamke na bencinski postaji oziroma prenese rezervoarje in črpalke za gorivo, ki jih imetnik bencinske postaje brez pisnega dovoljenja izključnega dobavitelja ne sme uporabljati za prodajo proizvodov, ki mu jih ni dobavil navedeni dobavitelj, in ki jih mora vrniti, ko jih preneha uporabljati v skladu z dovoljeno uporabo, in katerih vrednost je zavarovana z bančno garancijo na prvi poziv, ki jo je moral imetnik bencinske postaje skleniti v korist dobavitelja?
(d) If that exemption should not be applicable, does the automatic nullity provided for by Article 81(2) EC affect the contract in its entirety?
d) Če navedena izjema ne velja, ali ničnost, ki jo določa člen 81(2) Pogodbe ES, vpliva na celotno pogodbo?
(a) Is Article 81(1) EC to be interpreted as meaning that an exclusive supply contract under a brand name, such as that in the present case, in so far as it provides that the servicestation operator must sell motorvehicle and other fuels supplied by the exclusive supplier at the retail price fixed by the supplier, is in theory caught by the prohibition of restriction of competition because it fixes sale prices, taking account of its economic significance and in particular of the risks assumed by the servicestation operator and its contribution to the costs connected with the supply of goods under the contract or of the sales promotion of those goods, given the following relevant points:
2. a) Ali je treba člen 81(1) ES razlagati tako, da gre pri pogodbi o izključni dobavi pod blagovno znamko, kot je ta v obravnavani zadevi, če določa, da mora podjetje, ki je lastnik bencinske postaje, prodajati izključno dobaviteljevo gorivo za motorna vozila in drugo gorivo po maloprodajnih cenah, ki mu jih ta določi, načeloma za prepovedano omejevanje konkurence zaradi pogodbenega določanja prodajnih cen ob upo�tevanju njenega gospodarskega pomena in �e posebej zaradi tega, ker imetnik bencinske postaje prevzema tveganje in prispeva k stro�kom, povezanimi z dobavo blaga, ki je predmet pogodbe, in s spodbujanjem njegove prodaje, ob upo�tevanju teh dejavnikov: i) Imetnik bencinske postaje se zaveže, da bo prodajal izključno dobaviteljeva maziva, druge sorodne proizvode za motorna vozila ter gorivo za motorna vozila in drugo gorivo po maloprodajnih cenah in pod tehničnimi pogoji prodaje in uporabe, ki jih določi dobavitelj, in sicer za obdobje desetih let, z možnostjo podalj�anja za nadaljnja zaporedna
(ii) The servicestation operator assumes the risk associated with the motorvehicle and other fuels as soon as they are received from the supplier in the storage tanks, including the risk of discrepancies in volume.
ii) Imetnik bencinske postaje prevzame tveganje, povezano z gorivom za motorna vozila in drugim gorivom od trenutka, ko jih prejme od dobavitelja v rezervoarje za skladi�čenje, vključno s tveganjem, povezanim s prostornino.
From the moment of receipt the operator assumes the obligation to keep the products in the conditions necessary to ensure that they undergo no loss or deterioration and is liable, where applicable, to the supplier and to third parties for any loss, contamination or adulteration which may affect the products and for any damage arising as a result thereof.
Potem ko ta imetnik sprejme proizvode, prevzame obveznost, da jih bo hranil v zahtevanih razmerah, da se izključita vsaka izguba oziroma njihovo poslab�anje, in, odvisno od primera, nasproti dobavitelju in tretjim osebam odgovarja za vsako izgubo, onesnaženje ali pome�anje, ki bi lahko vplivali na kakovost navedenih proizvodov, ter za vsako �kodo, ki bi jo lahko ti proizvodi povzročili.
(iii) The servicestation operator is required to pay the supplier the cost of the motorvehicle and other fuels nine days after the date of their delivery to the service station, on presentation on the date of the first supply of a bank guarantee for the total price of the supply, equivalent to 15 days.
iii) Imetnik bencinske postaje mora dobavitelju plačati znesek za gorivo za motorna vozila in drugo gorivo v devetih dneh od vključno dneva dostave na bencinsko postajo, pred prvo dostavo pa mora skleniti bančno garancijo v vi�ini celotnega zneska dobave, ki ustreza petnajstdnevni dobavi, in jo predložiti na dan prve dobave.
If it should fail to pay, apart from the possibility that the supplier might enforce the guarantee presented by the servicestation operator, the latter would be required to pay for supplies before they were delivered to the service station.
V primeru neplačila razen dejstva, da dobavitelj unovči bančno garancijo, ki jo je sklenil imetnik bencinske postaje, bi bil lahko zadnji dolžan plačati proizvode �e pred njihovo dostavo na bencinsko postajo.
Payment is made by the servicestation operator to the supplier by deducting from the retail price fixed by the distributor, including VAT, the amount of “commission” due to the servicestation operator, plus the corresponding VAT.
Imetnik bencinske postaje distributerju plačilo izvr�i tako, da od maloprodajne cene, ki jo določi distributer, vključno z DDV, od�teje znesek ‚provizije‘, do katere je upravičen, skupaj s pripadajočim zneskom DDV.
The distributor debits or credits the service station monthly, depending on the upward or downward variation in the prices fixed for the fuel delivered.
Distributer je mesečno dolžnik ali upnik imetnika bencinske postaje, odvisno od razlik v cenah, določenih za dobavljeno gorivo, navzgor ali navzdol. Stro�ke prevoza proizvodov nosi dobavitelj.
(iv) The operator of the service station guarantees and is responsible for those customers who have signed up for the use of the credit
iv) Imetnik bencinske postaje jamči in odgovarja za stranke, ki so z njegovim posredovanjem začele uporabljati kreditno kartico, ki jo je ustvarila in z
CEPSA card created and managed by the group of companies to which the supplier belongs, charges the sales made by means of the card one month after they are made, finances a small part of the cost of customers’ use of the fuel distributor’s loyalty card and assumes the risk of non-payment by those customers who have been allowed direct credit.
CEPSA njo upravlja skupina družb, v kateri je tudi dobavitelj; imetnik bencinske postaje prihodek od nakupov, opravljenih z navedeno kreditno kartico, obračuna naslednji mesec po opravljeni prodaji, imetnik bencinske postaje sodeluje pri majhnem deležu stro�kov za uporabo distributerjeve kartice zvestobe za naftne proizvode in prevzema tveganje neplačila tistih strank, ki jim neposredno odobri posojilo.
The supplier of the petroleum products bears the costs of installing and maintaining its brand image in the service station, and also transfers the fuel-tanks and pumps which the operator of the service station may not use, without the supplier’s authorisation in writing, to sell products not supplied by that supplier, and which are valued precisely at the amount of the bank guarantee that the servicestation operator has presented in favour of the supplier?
v) Podjetje, dobavitelj naftnih proizvodov, nosi stro�ke namestitve in vzdrževanja svoje blagovne znamke na bencinski postaji in na imetnika postaje prenese rezervoarje in črpalke za gorivo, ki jih ta brez pisnega dovoljenja dobavitelja ne sme uporabljati za prodajo proizvodov, ki mu jih dobavitelj ni dobavil, ter ki so ocenjeni ravno na vrednost, za katero je imetnik bencinske postaje sklenil garancijo na prvi poziv v korist dobavitelja.
(b) If so, on a proper construction of Regulation [No 1984/83], and in particular of Articles 10 to 13 thereof, do those provisions catch within their scope a contract of that kind with the result that the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC is not applicable if the contract satisfies the requirements for exemption contained in those articles of the regulation?
b) Če je tako, ali je treba Uredbo [�t. 1984/83], zlasti člene od 10 do 13, razlagati tako, da taka pogodba spada na področje uporabe teh členov na način, da prepoved, vsebovana v členu 81(1) ES, ne velja, če pogodba izpolnjuje pogoje za izjemo, vsebovane v navedenih členih uredbe?
(c) In that case, is Article 11 of that regulation to be construed as meaning that, if the contract at issue imposes more than one restriction on competition, and, moreover, if it stipulates no competition by providing for exclusive supply by one supplying undertaking, sale prices are fixed by the supplier?
c) Ali je treba v takem primeru člen 11 te uredbe razlagati tako, da je v zadevni pogodbi določena več kot ena omejitev konkurence, če ob klavzuli o izključni dobavi, ki izloča konkurenco, druga pogodbena klavzula določa, da prodajno ceno določi dobavitelj?
Does the authorisation given by the [supplier] to the servicestation [operator] to lower its sale price without affecting [that supplier’s] receipts, which took place in November 2001, make it possible to regard the contract as valid?’
Ali dovoljenje [dobavitelja], dano [imetniku] bencinske postaje novembra 2001, da lahko [ta imetnik] zniža maloprodajne cene, kar ne vpliva na dohodke [zadevnega dobavitelja], pomeni, da je mogoče pogodbo �teti za veljavno?“
By its reference for a preliminary ruling, the referring court submits two questions to the Court, each one of those questions being subdivided into several parts, which envisage different hypotheses according to how the contract at issue in the main proceedings is categorised.
S predhodnim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če postavlja dve vpra�anji, vsako pa je razdeljeno na več delov, s katerimi se glede na opredelitev zadevne pogodbe v postopku v glavni stvari upo�tevajo različni primeri.
The first question is submitted in the event that that contract is to be categorised as an agency contract, whilst the second question is based on the premiss that that contract is concluded between two autonomous undertakings.
Prvo vpra�anje je za primer, ko naj bi se ta pogodba opredelila kot agencijska pogodba, drugo pa izhaja iz primera, ko naj bi bila ta pogodba sklenjena med samostojnima podjetjema.
The referring court essentially asks whether the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC and, possibly, the block exemption established by Regulation No 1984/83 are applicable in the light of the facts of the case in the main proceedings.
Predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali glede na dejstva v zadevi v postopku v glavni stvari veljata prepoved iz člena 81(1) ES in morebiti skupinska izjema, določena v Uredbi �t. 1984/83.
However, by its Questions 1(a) and 2(a), that court does not seek to obtain from the Court of Justice an interpretation of the concept of agreements between undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC in order to be able to assess, subsequently, whether the contract at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of that provision, but requests the Court to carry out that assessment itself.
Vendar pa to sodi�če s prvim in drugim vpra�anjem, pod a), od Sodi�ča ne želi razlage pojma sporazuma med podjetji v smislu navedene določbe, da bi lahko nato presodilo, ali zadevna pogodba v postopku v glavni stvari spada na področje uporabe te določbe, ampak poziva Sodi�če, naj samo opravi to presojo.
It must be recalled that under Article 234 EC, which is based on a clear separation of functions between national courts and tribunals and the Court of Justice, the latter is empowered to rule on the interpretation or validity of Community provisions only on the basis of the facts which the national court or tribunal puts before it, and that it is, however, for the national court or tribunal to apply the rules of Community law to a specific case.
Treba je spomniti, da je Sodi�če v skladu s členom 234 ES, ki temelji na jasni delitvi nalog med nacionalnimi sodi�či in Sodi�čem, pristojno za odločanje o razlagi ali veljavnosti akta Skupnosti na podlagi dejstev, ki jih navede nacionalno sodi�če, in da zadnje za konkretni primer uporabi pravila prava Skupnosti.
It is apparent from the order for reference that the request for interpretation submitted to the Court is based on the claims of the parties to the main proceedings, the merits of which have not yet been established by the national court.
Iz predložitvene odločbe pa izhaja, da zahteva o razlagi, predložena Sodi�ču, temelji na trditvah strank v postopku v glavni stvari, katerih utemeljenost nacionalno sodi�če �e ni preverilo.
Similarly, in their written and oral submissions made to the Court, the parties to the main proceedings expressed significant disagreement as to the facts of the dispute before the referring court.
Stranke v postopku v glavni stvari so v pisnih in ustnih stali�čih pred Sodi�čem ravno tako izrazile veliko nestrinjanje glede dejstev v sporu, o katerem odloča predložitveno sodi�če.
In this respect, it must also be recalled that, within the framework of proceedings under Article 234 EC, the Court cannot resolve a dispute concerning the facts.
V tem pogledu je ravno tako treba spomniti, da Sodi�če v okviru postopka iz člena 234 ES ne more odločiti o nesoglasju glede dejanskega stanja.
However, it is for the Court to provide the referring court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it (see, inter alia, Case C-98/06 Freeport [2007] ECR I-8319, paragraph 31).
Vendar pa mora Sodi�če predložitvenemu sodi�ču podati uporaben odgovor, ki mu omogoča re�itev spora, o katerem odloča (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 11. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Freeport, C-98/06, ZOdl., str. I-8319, točka 31).
Since the categorisation of the contract at issue in the main proceedings in the light of the rules on competition is essential for the purpose of deciding the case before the referring court, it is for the Court to recall, first, the criteria relevant for such a categorisation (Questions 1(a) and 2(a)).
Ker je opredelitev zadevne pogodbe v postopku v glavni stvari ob upo�tevanju pravil konkurence bistvena za re�itev spora, o katerem odloča predložitveno sodi�če, bo Sodi�če najprej opozorilo na upo�tevna merila za tak�no opredelitev (prvo in drugo vpra�anje, pod a)).
Second, it is necessary to analyse whether the block exemption is capable of applying to that contract, in the light of the contract’s clauses relating to the duration of its performance (Questions 1(b) and (c) and Question 2(b)) and the fixing of the retail price (Question 2(c)).
Nato pa je treba preučiti, ali lahko za navedeno pogodbo ob upo�tevanju njene klavzule o trajanju izvr�itve (prvo vpra�anje, pod b) in c), in drugo vpra�anje, pod b)) in določanju maloprodajne cene (drugo vpra�anje, pod c)) velja skupinska izjema.
Third, the question arises as to possible nullity of the contract pursuant to Article 81(2) EC (Question 1(d)).
Nazadnje sledi vpra�anje o morebitni ničnosti pogodbe na podlagi člena 81(2) ES (prvo vpra�anje, pod d)).
The existence of an agreement between undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC
Obstoj sporazuma med podjetji v smislu člena 81(1) ES
By its Questions 1(a) and 2(a), the referring court asks whether Article 81(1) EC must be interpreted as applying to an exclusive supply contract for petroleum products having the characteristics of that at issue in the main proceedings, first, in the event that that contract is regarded as having been concluded between two independent undertakings, by reason of the fact that the retail price of those products is fixed by the supplier, and, second, in the event that that contract is to be regarded as a genuine agency contract, by reason of the fact that it provides for an exclusive supply clause.
S prvim in drugim vpra�anjem, pod a), predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali je treba člen 81(1) ES razlagati tako, da velja za pogodbo o izključni dobavi naftnih proizvodov z značilnostmi zadevne pogodbe v postopku v glavni stvari, prvič, kadar naj bi se ta pogodba obravnavala kot sklenjena med neodvisnima podjetjema zaradi tega, ker dobavitelj določa maloprodajno ceno navedenih proizvodov, in, drugič, kadar naj bi se ta pogodba obravnavala kot pristna agencijska pogodba zaradi tega, ker je v njej klavzula o izključni dobavi.
In that case, just as in the case which has given rise to the present reference for a preliminary ruling, the contractual relationship between servicestation operators and their supplier, namely CEPSA, was at issue.
I-11987, v nadaljevanju: sodba CEEES). V zadnji zadevi kot v zadevi tega predhodnega vpra�anja so predmet obravnave pogodbena razmerja med imetniki bencinskih postaj in njihovim dobaviteljem, torej družbo CEPSA.
According to the actual wording of the order for reference, the contract at issue in the main proceedings is identical to those which were the subject of the referred question examined by the Court in CEEES.
Celo glede na predložitveno odločbo je zadevna pogodba v postopku v glavni stvari enaka tistim, ki so bile predmet predhodnega vpra�anja, ki ga je Sodi�če preučilo v sodbi CEEES.
The Court held, at paragraph 38 of CEEES, that vertical agreements such as the agreements between CEPSA and servicestation operators were covered by Article 85 of the Treaty only where the operator is regarded as an independent economic operator and there is, consequently, an agreement between two undertakings.
Sodi�če je v točki 38 sodbe CEEES ugotovilo, da vertikalni sporazumi, kakr�ne so pogodbe med družbo CEPSA in imetniki bencinskih postaj, spadajo pod člen 85 Pogodbe le, če se imetnika �teje za samostojni gospodarski subjekt in torej obstaja sporazum med dvema podjetjema.
The decisive factor for the purposes of determining whether a servicestation operator is an independent economic operator is to be found in the agreement concluded with the principal and, in particular, in the clauses of that agreement, implied or express, relating to the assumption of the financial and commercial risks linked to sales of goods to third parties.
Odločilen dejavnik za določitev, ali je imetnik bencinske postaje samostojen gospodarski subjekt, je pogodba, sklenjena z naročiteljem, in �e zlasti tihe ali izrecne klavzule te pogodbe v zvezi s prevzemom finančnih in poslovnih tveganj, povezanih s prodajo blaga tretjim osebam.
The question of risk must be analysed on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the real economic situation rather than the legal categorisation of the contractual relationship in national law (CEEES, paragraph 46).
Vpra�anje tveganja je treba preučiti glede na posamezen primer in bolj ob upo�tevanju dejanskega gospodarskega položaja kot pa pravne opredelitve pogodbenega razmerja v notranjem pravu (sodba CEEES, točka 46).
The Court also set out the criteria to enable the national court to assess, in the light of the factual circumstances of the case before it, the actual allocation of the financial and commercial risks between the servicestation operators and the fuel supplier.
Sodi�če je med drugim pojasnilo merila, ki nacionalnemu sodi�ču omogočajo, da ob upo�tevanju dejanskih okoli�čin zadeve, o kateri odloča, presodi o dejanski porazdelitvi finančnih in poslovnih tveganj med imetniki bencinskih postaj in dobaviteljem goriva.
As regards, first, the risks linked to the sale of the goods, the servicestation operator is presumed to bear them when he takes possession of the goods, at the time he receives them from the supplier, when he assumes directly or indirectly the costs linked to the distribution of the goods, particularly the transport costs, when he maintains stocks at his own expense, when he assumes responsibility for any damage caused to the goods, such as loss or deterioration, and for damage caused by the goods sold to third parties, or when he bears the financial risk linked to the goods in the event that he is required to pay the supplier the amount corresponding to the quantity of fuel delivered instead of that actually sold (see CEEES, paragraphs 51 to 58).
V zvezi s tveganji, povezanimi s prodajo blaga, je treba navesti, da jih imetnik bencinske postaje domnevno prevzame, ko postane lastnik blaga – od takrat, ko jih prejme od dobavitelja – ko neposredno ali posredno nosi stro�ke, povezane z distribucijo blaga, zlasti stro�ke prevoza, ko vzdržuje zaloge na lastne stro�ke, ko prevzame odgovornost za morebitno �kodo, povzročeno blagu, kakr�na sta njegova izguba ali poslab�anje, in za �kodo, ki jo povzroči prodano blago tretjim osebam, ali ko prevzame finančno tveganje, povezano z blagom, in sicer v primeru, ko je zavezan dobavitelju nakazati znesek, ki ustreza dobavljeni količini goriva in ne dejansko prodani količini (glej sodbo CEEES, točke od 51 do 58).
Second, as regards the risks linked to investments specific to the market, namely those required to enable the servicestation operator to negotiate or conclude contracts with third parties, it is necessary to establish whether that operator makes investments in premises or equipment, such as a fuel tank, or in advertising campaigns.
V zvezi s tveganji, povezanimi s posebnimi tržnimi naložbami, in sicer tistimi, ki so potrebne, da lahko imetnik bencinske postaje s pogajanji doseže ali sklene pogodbe s tretjimi osebami, je treba preveriti, ali zadnji uresničuje naložbe glede na prostore ali opremo, kot je rezervoar za gorivo, ali promocijsko delovanje.
If so, such risks are transferred to the operator (CEEES, paragraphs 51 and 59).
Če je odgovor pritrdilen, se navedena tveganja prenesejo na imetnika (sodba CEEES, točki 51 in 59).
It must, however, be pointed out that the fact that the operator bears only a negligible share of the risks does not render Article 81 EC applicable (see, to that effect, CEEES, paragraph 61), since such an operator does not become an independent economic operator when selling fuel to third parties.
Vendar pa je treba poudariti, da če imetnik nosi le zanemarljiv del tveganj, to ne povzroči uporabe člena 81 ES (glej v tem smislu sodbo CEEES, točka 61) in tak imetnik ni samostojen gospodarski subjekt pri prodaji goriva tretjim osebam.
In that case, the relationship between the operator and the supplier is identical to that between an agent and his principal.
V tem primeru je razmerje med imetnikom in dobaviteljem enako razmerju, ki obstaja med zastopnikom in njegovim naročiteljem.
It also follows from paragraphs 62 and 63 of CEEES that, even in the case of an agency contract, only the obligations imposed on the intermediary concerning the
Iz točk 62 in 63 sodbe CEEES ravno tako izhaja, da celo v primeru agencijske pogodbe le obveznosti, ki so naložene posredniku v okviru prodaje tretjim osebam
2008 — CASE C-279/06 sale of the goods to third parties on behalf of the principal, including the fixing of the retail price, fall outside the scope of Article 81 EC.
2008 – ZADEVA C-279/06 na račun naročitelja in med katerimi je določanje maloprodajne cene, ne spadajo pod člen 81 ES.
By contrast, exclusivity and non-competition clauses which concern the relationship between the agent and the principal as independent economic operators are capable of infringing the competition rules in so far as they entail locking up the market concerned.
Nasprotno pa so klavzule o izključnosti in prepovedi konkurence, ki se nana�ajo na razmerja med zastopnikom in naročiteljem kot samostojnima gospodarskima subjektoma, take, da se zaradi njih kr�ijo pravila konkurence, ker povzročajo zaporo zadevnega trga.
The prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC is therefore applicable to those clauses.
Prepoved iz člena 81(1) ES zato velja za navedene klavzule.