natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
29 — Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417, paragraph 23, Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied (cited above, footnote 27), paragraph 69, Sumitomo Metal Industries (cited above, footnote 28), paragraph 39, and SGL Carbon (cited above, footnote 27), paragraph 41.
29 – Sodbe z dne 17. decembra 1998 v zadevi Baustahlgewebe proti Komisiji (C-185/95 P, Recueil, str. I-8417, točka 23); Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 27, točka 69); Sumitomo Metal Industries proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 28, točka 39) in SGL Carbon proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 27, točka 41).
The position is different as regards the remaining detailed points of criticism which are made in the context of the fifth ground of appeal and which may be summarised as follows. The Court of First Instance failed to take into account net wholesale prices and the importance of price discounts, which are decisive on the issue of market transparency, and instead satisfied itself with considering only list prices and retail prices.
Drugače velja za preostale podrobne točke kritike, ki se uveljavljajo v okviru petega pritožbenega razloga in ki jih je mogoče strniti takole: Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi zanemarilo neto cene trgovine na debelo ter pomen popustov, kar je oboje odločilno za preglednost trga, in se namesto tega zadovoljijo zgolj s preučevanjem cen po ceniku in maloprodajnih cen.
Moreover, the Court of First Instance erroneously inferred transparency of discounts from the impact of such discounts on average net prices.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi poleg tega preglednost popustov neustrezno izpeljevalo iz učinkov teh popustov na povprečne neto cene.
In addition, in assessing transparency the Court of First Instance wrongly dismissed the relevance of complex pricing structures.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi tudi nepravilno menilo, da je zapletena sestava cen nepomembna za presojo preglednosti.
Finally, the Court of First Instance erroneously dismissed price variance and volatility of prices as irrelevant to the question of transparency.
Končno, Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi napačno menilo, da za vpra�anje preglednosti niso pomembne razlike v cenah in nihanja cen.
33 — See point 25 above, and the judgment in Airtours (cited above, footnote 17), paragraph 62.
33 – K temu glej točko 25 teh sklepnih predlogov in sodbo Airtours proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 17, točka 62).
31 — Paragraphs 65 to 69 of the appeal.32 — Paragraphs 70 to 80 of the appeal.
31 – Točke od 65 do 69 pritožbe.32 – Točke od 70 do 80 pritožbe.
On that basis, it is only the introductory part of the fifth ground of appeal which is admissible, and not the detailed points of criticism in it.
Glede na navedeno je dopusten le uvodni del petega pritožbenega razloga, ne pa njegove podrobne točke kritike.
In reality, these detailed points of criticism do not seek a review of questions of law but instead call in question the actual appraisal of the facts and the evidence by the Court of First Instance in the present case.
Te podrobne točke kritike v resnici ne merijo na presojo pravnih vpra�anj, ampak nasprotno na to, da se v obravnavanem primeru podvomi o konkretni presoji dejstev in dokazov Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
This is because the relevance of list prices, retail prices, net wholesale prices, average net prices, price discounts, the complexity of price structures, as well as price variance and volatility of prices to the assessment of transparency of a particular market cannot be authoritatively determined in general terms, but depends on the actual analysis of the circumstances of the individual case, and specifically on the particular circumstances of the market concerned.
Kajti na to, kako cene po ceniku, maloprodajne cene, neto cene trgovine na debelo, povprečne neto cene, popusti, zapletenost sestave cen ter določene razlike v cenah in nihanja cen vplivajo na presojo preglednosti določenega trga, ni mogoče splo�no obvezujoče odgovoriti, saj je odgovor odvisen od konkretne presoje vseh okoli�čin posamičnega primera, zlasti od posebnih danosti prizadetega trga.
By contrast, I regard the remaining grounds of appeal as admissible in their entirety, because their subjectmatter is not the appraisal of facts and evidence as such by the Court of First Instance.
Za preostale pritožbene razloge menim, da so brez omejitev dopustni, saj njihov predmet ni presoja dejstev in dokazov Sodi�ča prve stopnje kot tak�nih.
Instead, these grounds of appeal relate to the criteria which the Court of First Instance has applied in assessing the legality of the first clearance decision.
Ti pritožbeni razlogi se nasprotno nana�ajo na merila, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje uporabilo pri presoji zakonitosti prve odločbe o odobritvi.
Moreover, they concern the evidential requirements to which the Commission is subject in clearing concentrations.
Poleg tega gre za dokazni standard, ki mu je Komisija podvržena pri odobritvi koncentracij.
All of these are questions of law which are capable of being the subjectmatter of an appeal.
Vse to so pravna vpra�anja, ki so na dopusten način lahko predmet pritožbenega postopka.
In other words, the Court is being asked to substitute its own appraisal of the facts and of the evidence in this particular case for that of the Court of First Instance.
Z drugimi besedami naj bi tu Sodi�če v konkretnem posamičnem primeru z lastno presojo dejstev in dokazov nadomestilo presojo Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
However, this is not permissible in an appeal.
To pa v pritožbenem postopku ni dopustno.
At most, the plea that may be raised before the Court is that the Court of First Instance has distorted facts or evidence, or has offended against rules of logic in its assessment of the facts or the evidence.
Pred Sodi�čem bi se kvečjemu lahko izpodbijalo, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje izkrivljalo dejstva ali dokaze ali da je v okviru presoje dejstev in dokazov kr�ilo zakone mi�ljenja.
Here, however, neither of those is alleged, and apart from these exceptions it is not the Court’s task, when sitting as an appellate court, to decide for itself what relevance factors such as list prices, retail prices, net wholesale prices, average net prices, price discounts, the complexity of price structures, as well as price variance and volatility of prices have to the assessment of market transparency in a case such as the present.
Ne eno ne drugo pa se tu ni uveljavljalo, in razen teh izjem tudi ne more biti naloga Sodi�ča kot pritožbenega organa, da samo oceni, kak�en pomen imajo za presojo preglednosti trga v tak�nem primeru dejavniki, kot so cene po ceniku, maloprodajne cene, neto cene trgovine na debelo, povprečne neto cene, popusti, zapletenost sestave cen ter določene razlike v cenah in nihanja cen.
B — Whether the appeal is capable of achieving the result sought paragraph 528 of the judgment under appeal as regards the possible creation of a collective dominant position.
B – Primernost pritožbe za dosego zastavljenega cilja kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja.
Thus, even if the appeal were wholly successful, according to Impala it could not result in the judgment under appeal being set aside, because the findings of the Court of First Instance contained in paragraph 528 of the judgment as regards further errors of law in the first clearance decision would still stand.
Četudi bi torej pritožba v celoti uspela, to ne bi – po mnenju družbe Impala – moglo pripeljati do razveljavitve izpodbijane sodbe, saj bi potem �e vedno veljale ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje v točki 528 glede nadaljnje napačne uporabe prava v prvi odločbi o odobritvi.
I do not find this submission convincing.
Te trditve me ne prepričajo.
Apart from the question discussed above as to the admissibility of the individual grounds of appeal, the present case raises the additional question of whether the appeal is in any event capable of achieving the result the appellants seek, namely that the judgment under appeal is set aside.
Če odmislimo pravkar preučeno vpra�anje dopustnosti posameznih pritožbenih razlogov, se v obravnavanem primeru zastavlja dodatno vpra�anje, ali je pritožba sploh primerna za dosego cilja, ki ga zasledujeta pritožnika, to pomeni, za razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe.
First, the appellants may have failed to challenge a decisive passage in the judgment under appeal (see below, section 1) and, second, it may be that their appeal is directed against parts of the reasons for the judgment which are not the grounds on which the operative part of the judgment under appeal is founded (see below, section 2).
Po eni strani sta morda pritožnika izpustila priložnost, da bi izpodbijala odločilni del izpodbijane sodbe (glej spodaj pod 1), po drugi strani pa se pritožba morda nana�a na dele obrazložitve sodbe, ki ne vsebujejo glavnih razlogov za izrek izpodbijane sodbe (glej spodaj pod 2).
Admittedly, the appellants must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which they seek to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.
Pritožnika morata sicer jasno navesti izpodbijane elemente sodbe, katere razveljavitev je predlagana, ter pravne trditve, ki na poseben način utemeljujejo ta predlog.
34However, this does not mean that the drafting of their appeal must correspond in every detail to the structure of the judgment under appeal, and must challenge each section of this judgment by a specific ground of appeal.
34To pa ne pomeni, da bi se morala pri sestavi pritožbe v vseh podrobnostih držati razčlenitve izpodbijane sodbe in vsak del te sodbe izpodbijati s posebnim pritožbenim razlogom.
The alleged failure of the appellants to challenge a decisive passage of the judgment under appeal
Zatrjevana zamujena priložnost pritožnikov, da izpodbijata odločilni del izpodbijane sodbe
First, Impala submits that the appeal as a whole cannot result in the judgment under appeal being set aside, because in their appeal the appellants have failed to challenge a decisive passage in the judgment.
Impala najprej navaja, da pritožba skupno ni primerna za razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe, saj naj bi pritožnika zamudila priložnost, da bi s pritožbo izpodbijala odločilni del sodbe.
In the present case, the appellants have by no means restricted their appeal to only the first of the sections in the judgment called into question, that is to the reasoning of the Court of First Instance as regards the strengthening of an existing collective dominant position on the recorded music market.
Pritožnika v obravnavanem primeru svoje pritožbe z nobeno besedo nista omejila na zgolj prvega od tu spornih delov te sodbe, to pomeni na ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede krepitve že obstoječega kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja na trgu nosilcev zvoka.
35 Moreover, such a restriction would not correspond to the result they have stated they wish to achieve by the appeal, namely
35Tak�na omejitev tudi ne bi ustrezala njunemu izraženemu cilju, da želita s pritožbo spodnesti izpodbijano sodbo v celoti.
Specifically, Impala is of the view that the appeal is restricted to challenges to the reasoning of the Court of First Instance as regards the question of strengthening an existing collective dominant position, and by contrast is not directed against the reasoning of the Court of First Instance in
Impala meni, da se pritožba namreč omejuje na izpodbijanje ugotovitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede vpra�anja krepitve že obstoječega kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, nasprotno pa ne izpodbija ugotovitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje v točki 528 izpodbijane sodbe glede možnega nastanka
35 — Paragraphs 44 to 481 of the judgment under appeal.
35 – Točke od 44 do 481 izpodbijane sodbe.
This is because this result can be achieved only if the appeal is to be understood as challenging both sections of the judgment in question, 36that is both the section concerning the strengthening of an existing collective dominant position and the section concerning the creation of such a dominant position.
Razlogi izpodbijane sodbe, ki ne podpirajo njenega izreka o krepitvi že obstoječega prevladujočega položaja kot tudi na del o nastanku takega položaja.
The position is different as regards the introductory part of the fifth ground of appeal which, as already mentioned, 39is the only admissible part of that ground of appeal.
Nekaj drugega pa nasprotno velja za uvodni del petega pritožbenega razloga, ki je, kot je bilo že omenjeno, 39 edini dopustni del tega pritožbenega razloga.
In essence it raises the question whether the criteria developed by the Court of First Instance itself in Airtours 40for establishing the existence of a collective dominant position are to be applied with different degrees of strictness depending on whether what must be established is a collective dominant position which already exists or a prognosis for the future as to the risk that such a col -lective dominant position might arise in consequence of the concentration.
V bistvu se tu zastavlja vpra�anje, ali se lahko merila, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje samo razvilo v sodbi Airtours, 40različno strogo uporabijo pri ugotavljanju kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, vsakič glede na to, ali je treba dokazati obstoj že obstoječega kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja ali pa je treba za prihodnost podati napoved glede nevarnosti nastanka takega kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja zaradi koncentracije.
In the former case the Court of First Instance favours a less strict application of the Airtours criteria than in the latter. 41
Sodi�če prve stopnje se je v prvem primeru izreklo za manj strogo uporabo meril Airtours kot v drugem primeru. 41
37In addition, at a number of points in their appeal the appellants expressly incorporate into their reasoning the overall conclusion of the judgment under appeal as formulated by the Court of First Instance in paragraphs 542 and 543. 38
Ob upo�tevanju teh okoli�čin ni mogoče trditi, da je pritožba omejena zgolj na ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede vpra�anja krepitve že obstoječega kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja in da jo je treba zato v celoti zavrniti kot brezpredmetno (francosko: „inopérant“).
In this regard the appellants’ main point of challenge is paragraph 251 of the judgment under appeal.
Pri tem je poglavitna točka kritike pritožnikov točka 251 izpodbijane sodbe.
There the Court of First Instance states that an (already existing) collective dominant position ‘may, however, in the appropriate circumstances, be established indirectly on the basis of what may be a very mixed series of indicia and items of evidence relating to the signs, manifestations
Sodi�če prve stopnje v njej ugotavlja, da je mogoče obstoj (že obstoječega) kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja „po potrebi dokazati posredno z vrsto glede na okoli�čine celo zelo heterogenih pokazateljev in dokazov, ki se nana�ajo na znake, izjave in pojave, ki so
36 — Both paragraphs 44 to 481 and paragraphs 482 to 541 of the judgment under appeal.
36 – Tako točke od 44 do 481 kot tudi točke od 482 do 541 izpodbijane sodbe.
40 — See above, point 25, and Airtours (cited above, footnote 17), paragraph 62.
40 – K temu glej točko 25 teh sklepnih predlogov ter sodbo Airtours proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 17, točka 62).
37 — Paragraph 17 of the appeal.
37 – Točka 17 pritožbe.
Similar references may be found in paragraphs 26 and 94 and in footnote 6 of the appeal.
Podobna sklicevanja so tudi zlasti v točkah 26 in 94 ter v opombi 6 pritožbe.
41 — To this effect see paragraphs 249 to 253 of the judgment under appeal.
41 – V tem smislu točke od 249 do 253 izpodbijane sodbe.
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA and phenomena inherent in the presence of a collective dominant position’.
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALA neločljivo povezani z obstojem kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja.“
Thus, because the introductory part of the fifth ground of appeal does not refer to the ratio decidendi of the judgment but merely to additional considerations mentioned by the Court of First Instance, it cannot result in the judgment under appeal being set aside.
Ker se torej uvodni del petega pritožbenega razloga ne nana�a na temeljne razloge sodbe, ampak zgolj na dodatne preudarke Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ne more utemeljiti razveljavitve izpodbijane sodbe.
In accordance with the consistent caselaw of the Court this part of the appeal is to be dismissed as ineffective (inopérant). 43
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je treba ta del pritožbe zavrniti kot brezpredmeten („inopérant“). 43
However, as the appellants themselves correctly pointed out, 42 the disputed passage,
Kot pa sta pritožnika sama ustrezno pripomnila, 42gre pri spornem delu bese-
Interim conclusion and also the legal reasoning of the Court of First Instance connected to it, are obiter dicta.
Vmesni sklep dila, kot tudi pri pravnih navedbah Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki so z njim povezane, za obiter dicta.
In the whole of the section of the judgment under appeal, from paragraph 245 to 253, the Court of First Instance is not considering one of the grounds of invalidity raised by Impala at first instance, but is merely stating obiter dicta on the application of the criteria for establishing whether a collective dominant position exists.
V celotnem delu od točke 245 do točke 253 izpodbijane sodbe Sodi�če prve stopnje namreč ne preverja recimo nekega ničnostnega razloga, ki ga je Impala uveljavljal na prvi stopnji, ampak daje obiter dicta glede uporabe meril za ugotavljanje kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja.
Thus, only the fifth ground of appeal, so far as it is at all admissible, is to be dismissed as ineffective.
Zato je treba le peti pritožbeni razlog, kolikor je sploh dopusten, zavrniti kot brezpredmeten.
By contrast, all the other grounds of appeal are capable of achieving the result sought by the appellants.
Vsi drugi pritožbeni razlogi so nasprotno primerni za dosego cilja pritožnikov.
C — Continuing existence of interest in pursuing the appeal
C – Nadaljnji obstoj pravnega interesa
As regards the grounds of appeal which are admissible and not ineffective it remains to be considered whether the appellants have in the meantime ceased to have an interest in pursuing the appeal.
V zvezi s pritožbenimi razlogi, ki so dopustni in ne brezpredmetni, je treba �e preučiti, ali ni medtem prenehal interes pritožnikov za nadaljevanje pritožbenega postopka.
This becomes particularly clear if one reads the disputed passage of the judgment with paragraph 254 of the judgment under appeal, in which the Court of First Instance expressly restricts its consideration of the first clearance decision to the question whether the Airtours criteria are fulfilled: ‘[T]he Court will confine itself, in its examination of the pleas in law put forward, to ascertaining that the Decision properly applied the conditions defined in Airtours v Commission. …’.
To postane zlasti jasno, če se sporni del sodbe bere v povezavi s točko 254 izpodbijane sodbe, kjer Sodi�če prve stopnje preizkus prve odločbe o odobritvi izrecno omejuje na vpra�anje, ali so izpolnjena merila Airtours: „[…] Sodi�če prve stopnje bo pri preizkusu tožbenih razlogov le raziskalo, ali so bili v odločbi pravilno uporabljeni pogoji iz sodbe Airtours […]“.
By contrast, in its judgment the Court of First Instance expressly rules out considering the question whether the existence of a dominant position can be found to be established, ‘without its being necessary positively to establish market transparency’.
Nasprotno pa Sodi�če prve stopnje v sodbi izrecno ne preuči vpra�anja, ali se lahko obstoj prevladujočega položaja tudi predpostavlja, „ne da bi bilo treba pozitivno dokazati preglednost trga“.
In the proceedings at first instance this question had, ‘not been discussed’.
To vpra�anje naj v prvostopenjskem postopku „ne bi bilo raziskano“.
42 — Paragraph 67 of the appeal.
42 – Točka 67 pritožbe.
The requirement for such an interest ensures at a procedural level that the courts are not asked to give expert opinions on purely hypothetical questions of law.
Zahteva po obstoju pravnega interesa na postopkovni ravni zagotavlja, da se sodi�ča ne ukvarjajo z dajanjem izvedenskih mnenj na zgolj hipotetična pravna vpra�anja.
Accordingly, the existence of an interest is a mandatory requirement of admissibility, which must be considered ex proprio motu and which can be relevant at various stages of the proceedings.
Pravni interes je zato nujni pogoj za dopustnost, ki se ugotavlja po uradni dolžnosti in ki lahko postane pomemben v različnih fazah postopka.
Thus, there is no doubt that an interest must exist at the time an action is brought or an appeal lodged; however, it must also continue to exist beyond that time and up to the Court’s decision in the case. 44
Tako mora pravni interes nedvomno obstajati že v trenutku vložitve tožbe ali pritožbe, obstajati pa mora tudi po tem trenutku, vse do odločitve sodi�ča v zadevi. 44
An interest exists so long as the appeal is likely, if successful, to procure an advantage to the party bringing it. 45
Pravni interes obstaja, dokler lahko stranka s pritožbo, ki jo je vložila, na koncu pridobi neko ugodnost. 45
It is not disputed that at the time they lodged their appeal the appellants had an interest in it.
Pritožnika sta v trenutku vložitve pritožbe nedvomno imela pravni interes.
This is because, from the time the first clearance decision was annulled by the Court of First Instance, Bertelsmann and Sony did not have the necessary approval retrospectively for their concentration under the Merger Regulation.
Kajti Bertelsmann in Sony od razglasitve ničnosti prve odločbe o odobritvi s strani Sodi�ča prve stopnje nista razpolagala za nazaj z zahtevano odobritvijo za svojo koncentracijo, v skladu z Uredbo o združitvah.
If the judgment under appeal were set aside, as the appeal seeks, this approval could have been revived.
Z razveljavitvijo izpodbijane sodbe, ki jo zahtevata s pritožbo, bi ta odobritev spet lahko začela veljati.
The appeal could thus have procured them this advantage.
S pritožbo bi torej lahko pridobila to ugodnost.
All this does not necessarily mean that the present appeal is devoid of purpose.
Vse navedeno pa ne pomeni nujno, da bi bila obravnavana pritožba brezpredmetna.
This is because the appeal is not aimed directly at the Commission’s first clearance decision, but against the judgment of the Court of First Instance under appeal, which continues to have effect.
Kajti ta pritožba ni neposredno usmerjena proti prvi odločbi Komisije o odobritvi, ampak proti izpodbijani sodbi Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki �e naprej velja.
Accordingly, the possibility of declaring that there is no need to adjudicate on the action (Article 92(2) of the Rules of Procedure) is not applicable in appeal
Temu primerno tudi možnosti odločitve, da je treba postopek ustaviti (člen 92(2) Poslovnika), ni mogoče
46 — Given that the disputed concentration was implemented at a time when the first clearance decision was still in force, Article 7(5) of the Merger Regulation is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
45 – Sodbe Rendo in drugi proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 44, točka 13); z dne 13. julija 2000 v zadevi Parlament proti Richard (C-174/99 P, Recueil, str. I-6189, točka 33) in z dne 3. aprila 2003 v zadevi Parlament proti Samper (C-277/01 P, Recueil, str.
45 — Rendo and Others (cited above, footnote 44), paragraph 13; Case C-174/99 P Parliament v Richard [2000] ECR I-6189, paragraph 33; and Case C-277/01 P Parliament v Samper [2003] ECR I-3019, paragraph 28.
46 – Ker je bila koncentracija, ki je predmet spora, izvedena v času, ko je bila prva odločba o odobritvi �e veljavna, dejanskega stana člena 7(5) Uredbe o združitvah ni mogoče uporabiti v obravnavanem primeru.
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA proceedings (see Article 118 of the Rules of Procedure).
48Prav tako v skladu s smislom in namenom uporabiti v pritožbenem postopku (glej člen 118 Poslovnika).