natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the light of those criteria, the Court considered that an inference made by the Commission on the basis of a range of evidence such as the objective conduct of the undertaking concerned towards the Commission during the administrative procedure and its no-contest statements taken from a wide generality did not constitute such an acknowledgement (ibid., paragraph 109).
Iz tega je zmeraj izhajalo, da ima Komisija za ohranitev koristnega učinka člena 11 Uredbe št. 17 pravico zahtevati od podjetij, da predložijo vse potrebne informacije o dejstvih, ki so jim morda znana, in da ji po potrebi posredujejo k tem ustrezne dokumente, ki ji h imajo, čeprav je mogoče, da bo na njihovi podlagi mogoče ugotoviti obstoj protikonkurenčnega vedenja.
In reaching that decision, the Court made specific reference to the finding made in 2003 in the ‘lysine’ cases that the elements of fact on which the Commission relied in determining the amount of the fine could no longer be called in question before the Court if the applicant expressly acknowledged them during the administrative procedure (Case T-224/00 Archer Daniels Midland and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients v Commission [2003] ECR II-2597 (under appeal, Case C-397/03 P), commented on in the Annual Report 2003).
Iz istih odločitev izhaja, da pooblastilo Komisije, da zahteva informacije, ni v nasprotju s členom 6(1) in (2) Konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin.
Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87).
Uredba Sveta št. 17 z dne 6. februarja 1962, Prva uredba o izvajanju členov 85 ES in 86 ES (UL 1962, 13, str. 204).
Funke v France judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A No 256-A, § 44a; Saunders v United Kingdom judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports of judgments and decisions, 1996-VI, p.
Sodba Funke z dne 25. februarja 1993 (serija A št. 256/A, § 44a), sodba Saunders proti Združenemu kraljestvu z dne 17 decembra 1996 (Recueil des arrêts et décisions, 1996-VI, str. 2044) in sodba J.B. proti Švici z dne 3. maja 2001 (še neobjavljena v Recueil des arrêts et décisions).
The need to act within a reasonable time in conducting administrative proceedings relating to competition policy is a general principle of Community law whose observance is ensured by the Community judicature (Joined Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96 SCK and FNK v Commission [1997] ECR II-1739).
Spoštovanje razumnega roka v upravnih postopkih na področju politike konkurence je splošno načelo prava Skupnosti, katerega spoštovanje zagotavljajo sodišča Skupnosti (sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 22. oktobra 1997 v zadevi SCK in FNK proti Komisiji, T-213/95 in T-18/96, Recueil, str. II-1739).
In its judgment of 13 January 2004 in Case T-67/01 JCB Service v Commission, not yet published in the ECR (under appeal, Case C-167/04 P), the Court of First Instance had occasion to recall that infringement of that principle is capable of vitiating the decision adopted by the Commission at the close of the administrative procedure only if it is shown that it also entails infringement of the rights of defence of the undertaking concerned.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v sodbi z dne 13. januarja 2004 v zadevi JCB Service proti Komisiji (T-67/01, še neobjavljena v Recueil; pritožba (zadeva C-167/04 P)) spomnilo, da lahko kršitev tega načela povzroči nezakonitost odločbe, ki jo je po končanem upravnem postopku sprejela Komisija samo, če se dokaže, da ima za posledico tudi kršitev pravic do obrambe zadevnega podjetja.
In that case, although the Commission flagrantly breached its obligation to comply with such a timelimit when examining an application for exemption under Article 81(3) EC when it rejected an application for exemption 27 years after an agreement was notified to it in 1973, the Court of First Instance held that that breach had not affected the lawfulness of the rejection of the application for exemption.
Čeprav naj bi Komisija v tem primeru pri preizkusu zahteve za izjemo na podlagi člena 81(3) ES očitno kršila obveznost spoštovanja takega roka, ker je zahtevo za izjemo zavrnila 27 let po priglasitvi sporazuma, opravljeni v letu 1973, Sodišče prve stopnje sodi, da taka kršitev ni imela nobenega vpliva na zakonitost zavrnitve zahteve za izjemo.
As regards the period of more than four years taken to investigate the complaint lodged by a competitor of the party which notified the agreements in issue, the Court of First Instance did not find it excessive, given the complexity of the case, which involved several Member States and covered five heads of infringement, and the need to draw up a second statement of objections.
Sodišče prve stopnje roka, daljšega od štirih let, za vložitev pritožbe konkurenta stranke, ki je priglasila zadevne sporazume, ne ocenjuje za pretiranega, upoštevajoč zapletenost zadeve, ki se je nanašala na več držav članic in je temeljila na petih kršitvah, pa tudi potrebo po drugem obvestilu o ugotovitvi kršitve.
Proof of the infringement of Article 81 EC
Dokazovanje kršitve člena 81 ES
It is for the Commission to demonstrate the circumstances constituting an infringement of Article 81 EC (Case C-49/92 P Commission v Anic Partecipazioni [1999] ECR I-4125, paragraph 86).
Konstitutivna dejstva kršitve člena 81 ES mora dokazati Komisija (sodba Sodišča z dne 8. julija 1999 v zadevi Komisija proti Anic Partecipazioni, C-49/92 P, Recueil, str.
The Commission must, in particular, demonstrate the duration of the infringement in respect of which it is imposing a sanction.
I-4125, točka 86). Dokazati mora predvsem trajanje kršitve, ki jo kaznuje.
The challenges mounted by the applicants in the ‘seamless steel tubes and pipes’ cases helped to clarify a number of aspects relating to the level of proof required and also to the burden of proof before the Court of First Instance when the evidence adduced by the Commission is disputed by the undertakings concerned.
Ugovori tožečih strank v zadevah „nevarjene jeklene cevi“ so pripomogli k razjasnitvi nekaterih vidikov, ki se nanašajo na stopnjo zahtevanega dokaza in na dokazno breme pred Sodiščem prve stopnje, kadar kaznovana podjetja ugovarjajo dokaznim sredstvom, ki jih navaja Komisija.
In those cases, the Commission had not adduced evidence of the entire duration of the infringement.
V teh zadevah Komisija ni v celoti dokazala trajanja kršitve.
In order to determine the duration of the infringement, the Commission took the view that, although the Europe-Japan club had first met in 1977, 1990 should be taken as the starting date of the infringement because, between 1977 and 1990, agreements on the voluntary restraint of exports had been concluded between the European Community and Japan.
V zvezi z določitvijo trajanja kršitve je menila, da čeprav se je Evropsko-japonski klub sestajal od leta 1977, naj bi se kršitev začela v začetku leta 1990, ker naj bi bili v letih od 1977 do 1990 med Evropsko skupnostjo in Japonsko sklenjeni sporazumi o samoomejitvi izvozov.
The Court noted that none of the parties had challenged the Commission’s position, consisting in not setting the starting date of the infringement as 1977 because of the existence of the voluntary restraint agreements.
Sodišče prve stopnje ugotavlja, da nobena stranka ni ugovarjala stališču Komisije, da se zaradi sporazumov samoomejitve ne šteje, da kršitve obstajajo od leta 1977.
When the applicants disputed the starting date of the infringement, however, the Court observed that the alleged cessation of the voluntary restraint agreements constituted the decisive criterion for the purpose of
Nasprotno Sodišče prve stopnje poudarja, ker so mu bili predloženi ugovori v zvezi z začetkom kršitve, da je domnevano prenehanje sporazumov samoomejitve odločilno merilo za presojo, ali bi se moralo šteti, da je kršitev obstajala v letu 1990.
In the absence of evidence adduced by the Commission, and faced with evidence adduced by the Japanese undertakings that the international agreements had been extended until 31 December 1990, at least at the Japanese level, the Court considered that those agreements had remained in force until the end of 1990.
Ker Komisija ni navedla dokazov, japonska podjetja pa so predložila dokazna sredstva, ki potrjujejo obnovitev teh mednarodnih sporazumov do decembra leta 1990, vsaj kar zadeva Japonsko, Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da so ti sporazumi ostali v veljavi do konca leta 1990.
The contested decision was annulled in part on that point and the amount of the fines reduced accordingly.
Izpodbijana odločba je v tem delu delno razglašena za nično in znesek glob znižan zaradi upoštevanja te okoliščine.
The Japanese undertakings also disputed the date on which the infringement in which they were found to have participated came to an end.
Japonska podjetja so nasprotovala tudi časovnemu trenutku prenehanja kršitve, ki jim je bila očitana.
The Court held that, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Commission, the existence of the infringement had not been established, so far as the Japanese undertakings were concerned, after 1 July 1994 and that, accordingly, the duration of the infringement must be reduced by six months in addition to the reduction of one year indicated above.
Sodišče prve stopnje sodi, da na podlagi dokaznih elementov, ki jih je navedla Komisija, ta kršitev, kar zadeva japonska podjetja, ni bila dokazana za čas po 1. juliju 1994 in da je treba zgoraj navedeno skrajšanje trajanja kršitve za eno leto skrajšati za dodatnih šest mesecev.
Consequently, the Court annulled the contested decision in so far as it established the existence of the infringement before 1 January 1991 and, so far as the Japanese undertakings were concerned, beyond 30 June 1994, and the fines imposed on the undertakings were reduced accordingly (Joined Cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 JFE Engineering and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; under appeal, Cases C-403/04 P and C-405/04 P).
Posledično je Sodišče prve stopnje razglasilo ničnost izpodbijane odločbe, kolikor je potrdila, da je kršitev obstajala v času pred 1. januarjem 1991, in kar zadeva japonska podjetja, po 30. juniju 1994, globe, naložene podjetjem, so bile znižane zaradi upoštevanja te okoliščine (sodba z dne 8. julija 2004 v zadevi JFE Engineering in drugi proti Komisiji, T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 in T-78/00, še neobjavljena v Recueil; pritožba (zadevi C-403/04 P in C-405/04 P)).
Under Article 15 of Regulation No 17, 18 where the Commission finds an infringement of Article 81 EC or Article 82 EC, it may, by decision, not only require the undertakings to bring the infringement to an end, but also impose fines on them.
Na podlagi člena 15 Uredbe št. 1718 lahko Komisija, če ugotovi kršitev določb člena 81 ES ali člena 82 ES, z odločbo ne le naloži podjetjem, naj prenehajo ugotovljeno kršenje, ampak jim naloži tudi globe.
The amount of the fine, which may be up to 10% of the worldwide turnover in the business year preceding the adoption of the decision making a finding of infringement of each of the undertakings participating in the infringement, is determined in the light of the gravity and the duration of the infringement.
Znesek globe, ki lahko znaša do 10 % svetovnega prometa v poslovnem letu pred sprejemom odločbe, s katero se ugotovi kršitev vsakega od podjetij, sodelujočih pri tej kršitvi, se določi ob upoštevanju teže in trajanja navedene kršitve.
Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p.
Člen 23 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1/2003 z dne 16. decembra 2002 o izvajanju pravil konkurence iz členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe ES (UL 2003, L 1, str.
1) is identical to Article 15 of Regulation No 17.
1), ki nadomešča Uredbo št. 17, je enak členu 15 te uredbe.
In particular, the judgment of 9 July 2003 in Case T-224/00 Archer Daniels Midland and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients v Commission (under appeal, Case C-397/03 P); the judgments delivered in the ‘Lysine’ cases were commented on in the Annual Report 2003.
Zlasti sodba z dne 9. julija 2003 v zadevi Archer Daniels Midland in Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients proti Komisiji, T-224/00 (pritožba, zadeva C-397/03 P); sodbe, izdane v zadevah „Lysin“ so pojasnjene v Letnem poročilu za leto 2003.
Judgment of 19 March 2003 in Case T-213/00 CMA CGM and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II-913, concerning the FETTSCA agreement; this judgment was commented on in the Annual Report 2003.
Sodba z dne 19. marca 2003 v zadevi CMA CGM in drugi proti Komisiji, T-213/00, Recueil, str. II-913, v zvezi s sporazumom FETTSCA; ta sodba je pojasnjena v Letnem poročilu za leto 2003.
Point 1 A of the Guidelines states that ‘[i]n assessing the gravity of the infringement, account must be taken of its nature, its actual impact on the market, where this can be measured, and the size of the relevant geographic market’.
Točka 1 A Smernic določa, da „mora ocena teže kršitve upoštevati samo naravo kršitve, njen stvarni učinek na trgu, kadar se da izmeriti, in velikost zadevnega geografskega trga“.
It also follows from point 1 that it is possible to ‘apply weightings to the amounts determined within each of the three categories [of gravity] in order to take account of the specific weight and, therefore, the real impact of the offending conduct of each undertaking on competition’.
Iz te točke ravno tako izhaja, da je možno „v določenih primerih izravnati zneske, določene v notranjosti vsake od treh kategorij [teže kršitve], da bi se upoštevala posebna teža in s tem dejanski vpliv kaznivega vedenja vsakega podjetja na konkurenco“.
In the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the Court therefore decided to dismantle the category in question and to make its own classification.
Dejavnost enakosti obravnavanja, je pri izvrševanju svoje neomejene pristojnosti za to podjetje uporabljeni koeficientznižalo na 1,5.
Last, in regard to the two undertakings considered the most important, the Commission had applied multipliers for gravity to the starting amount.
Če lahko Komisija pri uporabi koeficientaglobele-tegasvobodnozviša, ima nasprotno tudi možnost znižati začetni znesek, ki bi izhajal iz stroge uporabe smernic.
The Court confirmed that, in the seamless steel tubes and pipes decision, the Commission was entitled, in spite of what was recognised as the ‘very serious’ nature of the infringement, to take a starting amount (EUR 10 million) corresponding to 50% of the minimum amount mentioned in the Guidelines for infringements in that category (EUR 20 million), in order to take account of the fact that the actual impact of the infringement on the market had been limited.
V odločitvi, ki je vodila do zadev o nevarjenih jeklenih ceveh, je Sodišče prve stopnje potrdilo, da bi Komisija lahko bila, ne glede na naravo kršitve, ki je bila ocenjena kot „zelo težka“, sprejela začetni znesek (10 milijonov evrov), ki bi pomenil 50 % najnižjega zneska, ki ga smernice določajo za to kategorijo kršitve (20 milijonov evrov), s čimer bi upoštevala dejstvo, da je bil dejanski učinek kršitve na trgu omejen.
On the other hand, the Court considered that the Commission had failed to take into consideration the second infringement by the European producers (the contracts relating to the United Kingdom market) when setting the amount of the fine.
Sodišče prve stopnje je menilo, da Komisija pri določitvi zneska globe ni upoštevala druge kršitve, ki so jo storili evropski proizvajalci (pogodbe, ki se nanašajo na britanski trg).
By that omission, the Commission therefore infringed the principle of equal treatment, since different situations were treated in the same way.
S to opustitvijo je Komisija kršila načelo enakega obravnavanja, različni položaji namreč niso bili obravnavani različno.
In order to remedy that unequal treatment of the European producers and the Japanese producers, the Court reduced the fine imposed on each of the Japanese producers by 10%.
Da bi to neenakost obravnavanja med evropskimi in japonskimi proizvajalci popravilo, je Sodišče prve stopnje globo, naloženo vsakemu izmed japonskih proizvajalcev, znižalo za 10 %.
As the Commission had not requested it to do so, the Court did not increase the fines imposed on the European producers.
Zaradi pomanjkanja predlogov Komisije v tem smislu Sodišče prve stopnje ni zvišalo glob, naloženih evropskim proizvajalcem.
Court of First Instance
Trajanje kršitve
In its judgment in Tokai Carbon and Others v Commission, cited above, the Court of First Instance rejected all the complaints relating to the basic amounts applied in the decision in order to take account of duration.
Z zgoraj navedeno sodbo v zadevi Tokai Carbon in drugi proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje zavrnilo vse ugovore v zvezi z osnovnimi zneski, ki jih je določila odločba glede na trajanje kršitve.
SGL Carbon maintained that the Guidelines were unlawful in that they envisaged the duration of an infringement in the same way, irrespective of its nature.
SGL Carbon je trdil, da so bile smernice nezakonite, ker so trajanje kršitve obravnavale neodvisno od narave kršitve.
It maintained that a cartel is by definition long-lasting and that it cannot be treated in the same way for the purpose of duration as other infringements.
SGL Carbon je navajal, da je kartel po definicijitrajeningatorej ni mogoče kaznovati na enak način kot druge kršitve.
The Court rejected that argument, observing that certain cartels, being of short duration, are less harmful than they would have been had they been in operation for a long period.
Sodišče prve stopnje je to dokazovanje zavrnilo in poudarilo, da določeni kratkotrajni karteli povzročajo manjšo škodo kot v primeru, ko bi bilo njihovo dejansko delovanje daljše.
Aggravating circumstances
Obtoževalne okoliščine
In Tokai Carbon and Others v Commission the Court of First Instance confirmed that the Commission could increase the basic amounts for: (i) continuing the infringement after the Commission had begun its investigations (ABB Asea Brown Boveri v Commission, paragraphs 211 to 213); (ii) acting as ringleader (Archer Daniels Midland and Archer Daniels Midlands Ingredients v Commission, paragraph 239); and (iii) attempting to impede the procedure by warning other undertakings that dawn raids were imminent (Case T-334/94 Sarrió v Commission [1998] ECR II-1439, paragraph 320).
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi Tokai Carbon in drugi proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje potrdilo, da bi Komisija lahko povišala osnovne zneske zaradi, prvič, nadaljevanja kršitve, potem ko je Komisija izvedla preverjanja (zgoraj navedena sodba v zadevi ABB Asea Brown Boveri proti Komisiji, točke od 211 do 213); drugič, vodilne vloge (zgoraj navedena sodba v zadevi Archer Daniels Midlands in Archer Daniels Midlands Ingredients proti Komisiji, točka 239) in, tretjič, poskusa oviranja postopka z opozarjanjem drugih podjetij o bližnji nevarnosti preverjanj na mestu samem (sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 14. maja 1998 v zadevi Sarrió proti Komsiji, T-334/94, Recueil, str. II-1439, točka 320).
None of the attenuating circumstances which the Commission was alleged to have failed to take into account was recognised by the Court of First Instance.
Sodišče prve stopnje ni priznalo nobene olajševalne okoliščine, ki naj je Komisija domnevno ne bi upoštevala.
The Leniency Notice
Sporočilo o sodelovanju
Generally, cooperation which allows the Commission to establish the existence of an infringement with less difficulty and, where appropriate, to put an end to it may be rewarded by a reduction in the fine.
Na splošno je lahko sodelovanje, ki Komisiji omogoča, da na lažji način ugotovi obstoj kršitve in jo odpravi, nagrajeno z znižanjem globe.
The 1996 Leniency Notice defines the conditions in which the benefit of its provisions may be granted.
Sporočilo o sodelovanju iz leta 1996 določa pogoje, v katerih se priznajo koristi njegovih določb.
The findings of the Court of First Instance on the application of that notice by the Commission show that the fact of voluntarily sending the Commission, in answer to a request for information under Regulation No 17, documents and information constituting an admission of having participated in an infringement of the Community competition rules must be regarded as voluntary collaboration on the part of the undertaking of such a kind as to warrant a reduction in the fine.
Iz presojanj Sodišča prve stopnje o tem, kako je Komisija uporabila ta sporočila, je treba skleniti, da se posredovanje dokumentov in informacij, iz katerih je razvidno sodelovanje pri kršitvi pravil konkurence Skupnosti, kot odgovor na zahtevo po informacijah na podlagi Uredbe št. 17, šteje kot prostovoljno tisto sodelovanje podjetja, ki lahko upraviči znižanje globe.
In concluding that that was not the case, the Commission, according to the Court of First Instance, failed to appreciate the importance of the cooperation provided by certain applicants (Tokai Carbon and Others v Commission, cited above).
Ker je Komisija menila, da ni šlo za tak primer, je po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje napačno ocenila pomen sodelovanja nekaterih tožečih strank (zgoraj navedena sodba v zadevi Tokai Carbon in drugi proti Komisiji).
Proceedings such as the names of other undertakings which were members of the cartel, the names of a number of representatives of those members or code names used to conceal contacts, not in documentary form but orally.
Ravno tako je treba poudariti, da je Sodišče prve stopnje grajalo Komisijo, ker je napačno ocenila pomen sodelovanja družbe UCAR, ki je priskrbela podatke, kot so imena drugih udeleženih podjetij, imena predstavnikov teh podjetij ali skrivna imena, ki so se uporabljala za prikrivanje stikov, čeprav v ustni obliki in ne v obliki dokumentov.
Last, while the notice provides, in point A.3, only for a reduction ‘in the fine which would have been imposed upon [the undertakings cooperating with the Commission]’, it does not require that each individual item of information must relate to an infringement of competition law in respect of which a separate sanction may be imposed.
Končno, če sporočilo v točki A(3) ne določa, da naj bi se znižanje „globe [ker podjetja sodelujejo s Komisijo] drugače poravnalo“, to besedilo ne zahteva, da bi se moral vsak posamezen podatek držati kršitve v pravu Skupnosti, ki se lahko kaznuje posebej.
In order to be able to benefit from that notice, it is sufficient, therefore, that, by revealing its involvement in an infringement, the undertaking minded to cooperate exposes itself to sanctions, while whether the various items of information may be taken into consideration for the purposes of a possible reduction in the fine depends on how useful they are to the Commission in its task of establishing the existence of the infringement and putting an end to it.
Za uporabo navedenega sporočila torej zadostuje, da podjetje, ki je pripravljeno sodelovati, odkrije, da je vpleteno v kršitev, in se izpostavi kaznim, medtem ko je upoštevanje različnih podatkov, za namen možnega znižanja globe, odvisno od njihove koristnosti pri nalogi Komisije, da kršitev dokaže in jo odpravi.