natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
47 other grounds succeeds. 48Having regard to the wording and purpose of Article 58(2) of the Statute, nor can an interest in setting aside the decision at first instance on costs justify continuing an appeal.
47 člena 58(2) Statuta samo interes glede odprave prvostopenjske odločitve o stro�kih ne more upravičiti nadaljevanja pritožbenega postopka.
Accordingly, in order to pursue appeal proceedings, it is necessary for the appellant to have an interest beyond that relating to the costs at first instance.
Za nadaljevanje pritožbenega postopka je torej potreben pravni interes pritožnikov, ki je �ir�i od interesa glede stro�kov na prvi stopnji.
Nevertheless, the existence of the second clearance decision raises the question as to whether the appeal can procure any advantage for the appellants, that is whether they continue to have an interest in maintaining the appeal.
Ne glede na to pa obstoj druge odločbe o odobritvi odpira vpra�anje, ali lahko pritožnika s pritožbo �e pridobita kak�no ugodnost, ali imata torej �e naprej interes za nadaljevanje pritožbenega postopka.
In the present case, however, the appellants have an obvious interest in obtaining as quickly as possible not only clearance but also a definitive clearance of their concentration.
V obravnavanem primeru pa imata pritožnika očiten interes glede tega, da čimprej pridobita ne le odobritev, ampak tudi dokončno odobritev koncentracije.
Only then will the participating undertakings, and indeed the market generally, have legal certainty as to whether the concentration was lawfully effected.
Šele tedaj namreč za udeleženi podjetji, kot tudi za trge na splo�no, nastopi dokončna pravna varnost glede tega, ali je bila koncentracija izvedena zakonito.
The sole fact that in the judgment under appeal the appellants were ordered to bear their own costs from the proceedings at first instance does not in any event establish that they have an interest.
Samo okoli�čina, da je bilo pritožnikoma z izpodbijano sodbo naloženo plačilo njunih stro�kov v prvostopenjskem postopku, vsekakor �e ne utemeljuje nikakr�nega pravnega interesa.
This is because Article 58(2) of the Statute of the Court provides that an appeal directed solely against a decision on costs is inadmissible.
Kajti v skladu s členom 58(2) Statuta Sodi�ča pritožba ni dovoljena glede stro�kov.
For the same reason, the Court dismisses an appeal against a decision at first instance on costs if this is the only one remaining of a number of grounds of appeal and it has already been established that none of the
Iz istega razloga Sodi�če kot nedopustnega zavrže pritožbeni razlog glede prvostopenjske odločitve o stro�kih, če je to edini preostali pritožbeni razlog izmed več pritožbenih razlogov in če je že jasno, da
The second clearance decision cannot provide this certainty at this time, because it may not become definitive for the foreseeable future.
Druga odločba o odobritvi trenutno take pravne varnosti ne daje, ker v doglednem času verjetno ne bo postala dokončna.
This is because it must, in addition to being notified to its addressees (Article 254(3) EC), be published in the
Odločbo je namreč treba – poleg tega, da je o njej treba obvestiti tiste, na katere je naslovljena (člen 254(3) ES) – objaviti v Uradnem
47 — Notwithstanding this, the Court has from time to time declared that there is no need to adjudicate on an appeal, where it is found that the appellant has already achieved its aim (orders of 23 October 2001 in Case C-281/00 P Una Film ‘City Revue’ v Parliament and Council, paragraphs 4 and 5, and Case C-313/00 P Davidoff v Parliament and Council, paragraphs 4 and 5), or where it is clear that it can no longer achieve its aim (Case C-13/03 P Commission v Tetra Laval [2005] ECR I-1113, paragraphs 21 to 23; orders in Case C-477/01 P(R) Reisebank v Commission [2002] ECR I-2117, paragraphs 24 to 28, and Case C-480/01 P(R) Commerzbank v Commission [2002] ECR I-2129, paragraphs 23 to 27).
47 – Sodi�če ne glede na to včasih razglasi, da se pritožbeni postopek ustavi, če je jasno, da je pritožnik cilj že dosegel (sklepa z dne 23. oktobra 2001 v zadevi Una Film „City Revue“ proti Parlamentu in Svetu, C-281/00 P, neobjavljen v Recueil, točki 4 in 5, ter Davidoff proti Parlamentu in Svetu, C-313/00 P, točki 4 in 5), ali če je jasno, da cilja ne more več doseči (sodba z dne 15. februarja 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Tetra Laval, C-13/03 P, ZOdl., str. I-1113, točke od 21 do 23; sklepa z dne 27. februarja 2002 v zadevi Reisebank proti Komisiji, C-477/01 P(R), Recueil, str. I-2117, točke od 24 do 28, in Commerzbank proti Komisiji, C-480/01 P(R), Recueil, str. I-2129, točke od 23 do 27).
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-413/06 P for bringing a challenge 52 and thus the time at which the decision can become final. 53
Šele po taki objavi, 49 ki je do roka za vložitev tožbe, 52 in s tem na trenutek, ko odločba morebiti postane dokončna.
50 The beginning of the period for third parties to bring a challenge could be brought forward generally only if the complete second clearance decision had otherwise become known to the public at an earlier time, for example via the internet, and an appropriate reference had been made in the Official Journal of the European Union.
50Splo�na prestavitev začetka teka roka za vložitev tožbe za tretje osebe na zgodnej�i čas bi pri�la v po�tev le, če bi bila druga odločba o odobritvi javnosti v celoti dostopna že prej na drugačen način, denimo na svetovnem spletu, in če bi bilo v Uradnem listu Evropske unije na to primerno opozorjeno.
51 By contrast, the mere fact that the wording of the decision may have been brought to the knowledge of individual third parties, specifically Impala, in advance in the form of a non-confidential version, does not affect the beginning of the period
51 Nasprotno pa sama okoli�čina, da je bilo besedilo odločbe posameznim tretjim osebam, to je družbi Impala, morebiti vnaprej posredovano v obliki nezaupne različice, nima nobenega vpliva na začetek teka
Should the Court of First Instance annul the second clearance decision too, following the application of a third party, a state of uncertainty would again arise, in which the participating undertakings would not have any clearance for their concentration under the Merger Regulation.
Če bi Sodi�če prve stopnje tudi drugo odločbo o odobritvi na podlagi tožbe neke tretje osebe razglasilo za nično, bi zopet nastalo stanje negotovosti, v katerem udeleženi podjetji ne bi imeli nikakr�ne odobritve za koncentracijo v skladu z Uredbo o združitvah.
Such a situation of uncertainty lasting a number of months or even years could have negative effects on the participating undertakings and on the markets generally.
Tak�no stanje negotovosti, ki bi trajalo več mesecev ali celo let, bi lahko negativno vplivalo na udeleženi podjetji in na trge na splo�no.
In order, so far as possible, to avoid another such state of uncertainty and its negative effects, it is of particular importance to the appellants to continue with the present appeal and to obtain a final decision from the Community Courts on the legality of the first clearance decision as quickly as possible.
Za pritožnika je zaradi izognitve ponovnemu stanju negotovosti z njegovimi negativnimi učinki posebnega pomena, da se ta pritožbeni postopek nadaljuje in da sodi�če Skupnosti čim hitreje sprejme dokončno odločitev o zakonitosti prve odločbe o odobritvi.
Even if, should the Court allow the appeal, the state of the proceedings does not
Četudi Sodi�če v primeru, da bo pritožba uspela, ne bo samo dokončno odločilo o tem sporu, ker stanje postopka tega ne bo dovoljevalo, ampak bo zadevo vrnilo
49 — To be precise, Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that the period for challenges laid down by Article 230(5) EC begins with the expiry of the 14th day after publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union.
49 – Natančneje začne rok za vložitev tožbe iz člena 230(5) ES v skladu s členom 102(1) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje teči z iztekom 14. dne po objavi akta v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
Admittedly, this presupposes that the non-confidential version of the grounds for the decision is published in full in the Official Journal, or at least is made available to the public at the same time via the internet.
To seveda predpostavlja, da je bila različica razlogov za odločitev, ki ni zaupna, v polnem besedilu objavljena v Uradnem listu ali pa je vsaj sočasno postala dostopna za javnost na svetovnem spletu.
If this is not the case, the period for bringing a challenge begins to run only when the potential claimant receives a complete version, so far as he has not received it already (to this effect see Case 236/86 Dillinger Hüttenwerke v Commission [1988] ECR 3761, paragraph 14.
Če se to ni zgodilo, potem začne rok za vložitev tožbe teči �ele, ko je bila mogoči tožeči stranki – če do tega že tako ali tako ni pri�lo – taka popolna različica vročena (v tem smislu sodba z dne 6. julija 1988 v zadevi Dillinger Hüttenwerke proti Komisiji, 236/86, Recueil, str. 3761, točka 14).
52 — Case T-17/02 Olsen (cited above, footnote 51), paragraph 81.
52 – Sodba Olsen proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 51, točka 81).
53 — For the sake of completeness only, it may be mentioned that a formal notification (notice) of the decision to a third party by virtue of which the time period for it to bring a challenge might start to run is not relevant.
53 – Le zaradi celovitosti je treba �e omeniti, da uradno obvestilo (sporočilo) o odločbi tretji osebi, s katerim bi lahko začel teči zanjo veljavni rok za vložitev tožbe, ne pride v po�tev.
Article 254(3) EC provides that decisions shall be notified only ‘to those to whom they are addressed’.
V skladu s členom 254(3) ES se namreč o odločbah uradno obvesti le „tiste, na katere so naslovljene“.
In merger control, those are the undertakings concerned and the competent authorities of the Member States; see, for future cases, Article 8(8) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.
To so v okviru nadzora koncentracij podjetja, udeležena pri koncentraciji, in pristojni organi držav članic; v istem smislu – za priho -dnje primere – sedaj člen 8(8) Uredbe �t. 139/2004.
permit it to give a final decision itself on the present dispute, and it must instead refer the case back to the Court of First Instance (Article 61(1) of the Statute of the Court), it would be highly probable that the final judicial decision on the lawfulness of the first clearance decision would be given before that on the lawfulness of the second.
v razsojanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje (člen 61(1) Statuta Sodi�ča), je zelo verjetno, da bo dokončna sodna odločba o zakonitosti prve odločbe o odobritvi sprejeta prej kot tista o zakonitosti druge.
In these circumstances the requirement for speed which characterises merger control at the Community level 54equally favours continuing the present appeal.
V teh okoli�činah tudi zahteva po pospešitvi, ki je značilna za nadzor koncentracij na ravni Skupnosti, 54govori v prid nadaljevanja tega pritožbenega postopka.
By this means it is also possible to prevent annulment actions raised by third parties from delaying certainty for the undertakings participating in the concentration for any longer than is necessary.
Na ta način je poleg tega mogoče preprečiti, da bi ničnostne tožbe tretjih oseb, dlje kot je to potrebno, zavlačevale nastop pravne varnosti za podjetja, udeležena pri koncentraciji.
In any event, I do not find convincing the idea cursorily mentioned at the oral hearing that the present proceedings could be pursued solely on the ground that the Commission supports some of the individual grounds of appeal relied upon by Bertelsmann and Sony.
Vsekakor pa se mi ne zdi prepričljiva ideja, ki je bila povr�no omenjena na obravnavi, naj se ta postopek nadaljuje samo zato, ker Komisija v tem primeru podpira posamezne pritožbene razloge družb Bertelsmann in Sony.
Community organs have a privileged status as regards appeals they have raised themselves (Article 56(2) and (3) of the Statute of the Court), and in particular need not prove an interest in such appeals.
Institucije Skupnosti so sicer v primeru pritožb, ki jih same vložijo, v privilegiranem položaju (člen 56(2) in (3) Statuta Sodi�ča), zlasti jim za take pritožbe ni treba izkazati pravnega interesa.
55However, where such an organ is not itself the appellant but only one of the other parties to the proceedings, its mere interest in the outcome of the appeal and in the clarification of certain questions of law by the Court cannot compensate for the appellants’ lack of interest.
55 Če pa, nasprotno, institucija ni sama pritožnica, ampak le druga stranka v postopku, potem samo njen interes glede izida pritožbenega postopka in glede razjasnitve določenih pravnih vpra�anj s strani Sodi�ča ne more nadomestiti morebitnega manjkajočega pravnega interesa pritožnikov.
In all, I am therefore of the opinion that at the moment the decision of the Court can certainly procure the appellants an advantage and it follows that they have a sufficient interest in maintaining the present appeal.
Skupno zato menim, da trenutno odločitev Sodi�ča lahko pritožnikoma vsekakor �e prinese ugodnost, kar pomeni, da imata zadostni pravni interes za nadaljevanje tega pritožbenega postopka.
V — Whether the appeal is well founded
V – Utemeljenost pritožbe
The appellants challenge the judgment under appeal with a total of seven grounds of appeal.
Pritožnika izpodbijano sodbo izpodbijata s skupno sedmimi pritožbenimi razlogi.
They raise legal questions of fundamental importance for the system of merger control at Community level.
Z njimi načenjata pravna vpra�anja, ki so temeljnega pomena za sistem nadzora koncentracij na ravni Skupnosti.
Admittedly, these questions of law arise in
Ta pravna vpra�anja se sicer zastavljajo �e glede „stare“
By contrast, if the second clearance decision becomes final after the close of the oral proceedings but before the decision of the Court of Justice in the present case, on the information available to me at the moment this would result in the appellants ceasing to have an interest.
Če pa bo, nasprotno, druga odločba o odobritvi postala dokončna po koncu ustnega postopka, vendar pred odločitvijo Sodi�ča v tej zadevi, bo to verjetno glede na podatke, s katerimi trenutno razpolagam, povzročilo, da pritožnika ne bosta več imela pravnega interesa.
However, I would then
V tem primeru pa menim,
54 — See above, point 12.
54 – K temu glej točko 12 teh sklepnih predlogov.
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-413/06 P relation to the ‘old’ Merger Regulation, but the answers to them are still decisive for the recast EC Merger Regulation (Regulation No 139/2004), because there is no significant difference between the two regulations as regards the points in dispute in the present case.
Uredbe o združitvah, kljub temu pa je njihova re�itev pomembna tudi za novelirano različico Uredbe ES o združitvah (Uredba �t. 139/2004), saj se uredbi glede tu spornih točk bistveno ne razlikujeta.
In essence, the appellants are of the view that the Court of First Instance applied excessive legal requirements relating to a clearance decision by the Commission and to judicial review thereof.
Pritožnika v bistvu menita, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje prekoračilo pravne zahteve za odločbo Komisije o odobritvi in za njen sodni nadzor.
In that regard they are supported in part by the Commission.
Pri tem ju delno podpira Komisija.
57Impala, on the other hand, defends the judgment under appeal in its entirety.
57Impala nasprotno v celoti podpira izpodbijano sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
Standard of reasoning for merger clearance decisions (first and third part of the sixth ground of appeal)
Obrazložitev odločb o odobritvi v okviru nadzora koncentracij (prvi in tretji del �estega pritožbenega razloga)
Given that the individual grounds of appeal overlap in part, it is appropriate to group them according to the substantive points to which they relate, and accordingly to consider them in a different order.
Ker se posamezni pritožbeni razlogi delno prekrivajo, je smiselno, da se glede na vsebinske stične točke razdelijo v skupine in skladno s tem obravnavajo v spremenjenem vrstnem redu.
Only the fifth ground of appeal needs no further consideration, because, as already mentioned, it is in part inadmissible and in part ineffective (‘inopérant’). 56
Le petega pritožbenega razloga v nadaljevanju ni treba več obravnavati, ker je, kot je bilo že omenjeno, delno nedopusten in delno brezpredmeten („inopérant“). 56
I start my consideration with the first and third parts of the sixth ground of appeal. 58
Preizkus začenjam s prvim in tretjim delom �estega pritožbenega razloga.
There the appellants claim that the Court of First Instance applied erroneous and excessive standards of reasoning for Commission merger clearance decisions.
58 Prito- žnika z njima uveljavljata, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje postavilo napačne in pretirano visoke zahteve za obrazložitev odločb Komisije o odobritvi v okviru nadzora koncentracij.
A — Extent of investigation and justification required of the Commission in relation to clearance decisions (first, second, third and sixth grounds of appeal)
A – Obseg preiskave in obveznosti obrazložitve, ki se zahteva za odločbe Komisije o odobritvi (prvi, drugi, tretji in šesti pritožbeni razlog)
It must first be clarified whether Commission clearance decisions can at all
Najprej je treba razjasniti, ali je mogoče odločbe Komisije o odobritvi sploh razgla-
57 — According to its reply to the appeal the Commission supports the first and second grounds of appeal, and the first part of the third ground of appeal.
57 – Komisija v odgovoru na pritožbo podpira prvi in drugi pritožbeni razlog ter prvi del tretjega pritožbenega razloga.
The first, second, third and sixth grounds of appeal concern in particular the pains the Commission must take by way of investigation and giving reasons where it grants clearance for a concentration of undertakings.
Prvi, drugi, tretji in �esti pritožbeni razlog se nana�ajo na konkretni obseg preiskave in obveznosti obrazložitve, ki ga mora zagotoviti Komisija pri odobritvi koncentracije podjetij.
58 — So far as the sixth ground of appeal complains about the Court of First Instance’s references to the statement of objections as errors in law (the second part of the sixth ground of appeal), I consider it below in conjunction with the first ground of appeal (see points 145 to 183).
58 – Kolikor se s �estim pritožbenim razlogom izpodbija, da je bilo pri sklicevanju Sodi�ča prve stopnje na izjavo o ugovorih napačno uporabljeno pravo (drugi del �estega pritožbenega razloga), ga bom preučila pozneje v povezavi s prvim pritožbenim razlogom (glej točke od 145 do 183 teh sklepnih predlogov).
So far as the sixth ground of appeal concerns the substantive requirements of a clearance decision (fourth part of the sixth ground of appeal) it overlaps with the second part of the third ground of appeal and with the fourth ground of appeal and shall be considered in conjunction with them (points 201 to 232, and points 233 to 268).
Šesti pritožbeni razlog se, kolikor zadeva vsebinske zahteve za odločbo o odobritvi (četrti del �estega pritožbenega razloga), prekriva z drugim delom tretjega pritožbenega razloga in s četrtim pritožbenim razlogom in ga bom preučila v povezavi z njima (točke od 201 do 232 oziroma od 233 do 268 teh sklepnih predlogov).
56 — See above, points 50 to 55 and 66 to 71.
56 – Glej zgoraj točke od 50 do 55 in od 66 do 71 teh sklepnih predlogov.
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA be annulled on account of insufficiency of reasons.
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALA siti za nične zaradi nezadostne obrazložitve.
If so, we must consider the extent of the duty to state reasons and whether the Court of First Instance made any errors of law in this regard in the present case.
Če je odgovor pritrdilen, je treba preučiti, kak�en obseg ima obveznost obrazložitve in ali je Sodi�če prve stopnje v zvezi s tem v obravnavanem primeru napačno uporabilo pravo.
not only to enable acts of the institutions to be subject to independent review by the Community Courts, but also to encourage the institutions to exercise self-control and to guard against ill-considered or ill-thought through measures.
tovitev zunanjega nadzora nad ravnanjem institucij prek sodi�č Skupnosti, ampak tudi spodbuditev institucij k lastnemu nadzoru in varstvo pred nepremi�ljenimi ali premalo pretehtanimi ukrepi.
The statement of reasons for decisions also contributes to ensuring transparency of administrative action. 60
Obrazložitev odločb poleg tega prispeva k preglednosti upravnega delovanja.
The appellants are of the view that a merger clearance decision by the Commission cannot in any event be annulled for insufficient reasoning.
Pritožnika menita, da odločbe Komisije o odobritvi v okviru nadzora koncentracij sploh ni mogoče razglasiti za nično zaradi pomanjkljive obrazložitve.
The obligation to state reasons is by no means restricted to decisions which negatively affect their addressees.
Obveznost obrazložitve se nikakor ne omejuje na odločbe, ki naslovnike bremenijo.
The principles of the rule of law and of proper administration instead require reasons to be given also for decisions which benefit their addressees.
Načeli pravne države in dobrega upravljanja namreč zahtevata tudi obrazložitev odločb, ki so ugodne za naslovnike.
This applies a fortiori where such decisions may negatively affect the rights and interests of third parties, not least in the field of competition law.
To �e toliko bolj velja, kolikor take odločbe lahko negativno vplivajo na pravice in interese tretjih oseb, nenazadnje na področju prava konkurence.
Accordingly, neither Article 253 EC nor the third indent of Article 41(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights distinguishes between decisions which benefit their respective addressees and those which are disadvantageous for them.
Temu primerno niti člen 253 ES niti tretja alinea člena 41(2) Listine o temeljnih pravicah ne razlikujeta med odločbami, ki so za naslovnike ugodne, in tistimi, ki nanje negativno vplivajo.
In relation to merger control in particular, this means that reasons must be given for Commission clearance decisions just as much as for prohibition decisions.
Posebej za nadzor koncentracij to pomeni, da mora Komisija odločbe o odobritvi prav tako obrazložiti kot odločbe o prepovedi.
Article 253 EC provides that decisions by the Commission shall state the reasons on which they are based.
V skladu s členom 253 ES se v odločbah Komisije navedejo razlogi za njihovo sprejetje.
This duty to state reasons is a consequence of the rule of law and, in conjunction with the right to proper administration, finds expression also in Article 41(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union.
Ta obveznost obrazložitve je izraz načela pravne države, ki je v povezavi s pravico do dobrega upravljanja zapisana tudi v členu 41(2) Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije.
59 It is intended
59 Njen namen ni zgolj zago-
As it infringes an essential procedural requirement, a breach of the duty to state reasons may be complained of inter alia by means of an annulment action before the Community Courts subject to the conditions in Article 230 EC.
Pred sodi�čem Skupnosti se lahko kr�itev obveznosti obrazložitve kot bistvena kr�itev postopka med drugim uveljavlja z ničnostno tožbo v skladu s pogoji iz člena 230 ES.
On the contrary, the provision contains a remedy should the Commission in a given case not comply with this obligation within the applicable time-limit.
64Ravno nasprotno, določba predvideva pomoč za primer, da Komisija v kak�nem primeru ne bi pravočasno izpolnila te obveznosti.
Article 10(6) of the Merger Regulation, on which the appellants rely in the present case, does not provide for any exception to the liability of decisions to challenge on the ground of breach of the duty to state reasons.
Člen 10(6) Uredbe o združitvah, na katerega se sklicujeta pritožnika v obravnavanem primeru, ne določa nobene izjeme od izpodbojnosti odločb zaradi kr�itve obveznosti obrazložitve.