natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this case, the rules applicable in Spain for accounts for the 2004 business year were the generally accepted national accounting principles and not international accounting principles, which, in accordance with the regulation on the application of international accounting standards, did not become applicable until the 2005 business year.
Poleg tega Komisija ne more biti zavezana, da se v vsakem primeru po uradni dolžnosti prepriča, da revidirani računovodski izkazi, ki so ji bili predloženi, točno odražajo dejansko stanje, in da izvede preizkus vseh nameravanih prilagoditev. Komisija jih mora preizkusiti le, če je opozorjena na posebne težave.
The Court of First Instance also rejected Endesa’s arguments that the Commission ought to have carried out two adjustments, one relating to Endesa’s distribution operations and the other in respect of gas exchanges.
V tej zadevi je družba Endesa zatrjevala zlasti, da bi moral preizkus Komisije glede njenega prometa temeljiti na mednarodnih računovodskih standardih in ne na veljavnih španskih standardih.
In that context, the Court of First Instance stated, in particular, that for reasons of legal security, the turnover to take into consideration for the purpose of determining the authority competent to examine a concentration must, in principle, be dened on the basis of the published annual accounts.
Sodišče prve stopnje pa Uredbo št. 139/2004 razlaga v tem smislu, da Komisiji nalaga, da se opre na računovodske izkaze podjetij v prejšnjem poslovnem letu, ki so bili pripravljeni in revidirani v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo.
It is only exceptionally, where particular circumstances so warrant, that it is necessary to make certain adjustments intended to better reect the economic reality of the undertakings concerned. The Court of First Instance therefore finally dismissed Endesa’s action.
Pravila, ki so se v obravnavani zadevi uporabljala v Španiji za računovodske izkaze za poslovno leto 2004, pa so bila splošno sprejeta nacionalna računovodska načela in ne mednarodna računovodska načela, ki so se v skladu z Uredbo o uporabi mednarodnih računovodskih standardov začela uporabljati šele v začetku poslovnega leta 2005.
In the second place, the judgment in Cementbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission is particularly informative as regards the Commission’s assessment of the unitary nature of a concentration brought about by means of a number of legal transactions. The action was brought against a decision whereby the Commission had retroactively authorised the acquisition of the Netherlands joint undertaking CVK by the German group Haniel and by Cementbouw Handel & Industrie (both of which dealt in construction materials) following the commitment given by those two undertakings to put an end to their pre-existing joint undertaking. The case involved a complex transaction, based essentially on two separate legal transactions, one of which had been notied to and then approved by the Netherlands competition authority. In its action, Cementbouw Handel & Industrie contested, in particular, the possibility that the Commission could characterise a number of separate transactions as a single transaction. The Court of First Instance, however, adopted a purposive interpretation of the concept of concentration, which must correspond to the economic logic followed by the parties.
Sodišče prve stopnje je prav tako zavrnilo trditve družbe Endesa, da bi morala Komisija izvesti dve prilagoditvi, od katerih naj bi se ena nanašala na storitve distribucije družbe Endesa in druga na trgovanje s plinom.V tem smislu je Sodišče prve stopnje glede vprašanj o pravni varnosti navedlo, da je treba promet, ki ga je treba upoštevati z namenom ugotovitve organa, pristojnega za odločanje o postopku koncentracije, načeloma opredeliti na podlagi objavljenih letnih računovodskih izkazov. Samo izjemoma, če to utemeljujejo posebne okoliščine, je torej treba izvesti določene prilagoditve, namenjene boljšemu prikazu dejanskega ekonomskega stanja zadevnih podjetij.
Thus, it held that a such a transaction, within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89,
Sodišče prve stopnje je s tem pritožbo Endese dokončno zavrnilo.
Annual Report 2006
Drugič, zgoraj navedena sodba Cementbouw Handel & Industrie proti Komisiji prinaša številna pojasnila glede presoje Komisije v zvezi z enotnostjo koncentracij, ki so bile izvedene na podlagi številnih pravnih transakcij. Tožba je bila vložena zoper odločbo, s katero je Komisija retroaktivno odobrila prevzem skupnega nizozemskega podjetja CVK s Letno poročilo 2006
Proceedings may be deemed to arise even in the case of a number of formally distinct legal transactions, provided that those transactions — the result of which is to confer on one or more undertakings direct or indirect economic control of the activity of one or more other undertakings — are interdependent, insofar as none of them would be carried out without the others.
Dejavnost strani nemške skupine Haniel in podjetja Cementbouw Handel & Industrie (oba sta prisotna v trgovini z gradbenim materialom) po zavezi teh dveh podjetij, da prekineta njun pred tem sklenjeni sporazum o skupnem podjetju. Zadeva se je nanašala na kompleksen posel, ki je v bistvu temeljil na dveh skupinah pravno ločenih transakcij, od katerih je bila ena priglašena nizozemskemu organu, pristojnemu za konkurenco, ki jo je nato odobril.V svoji tožbi je družba Cementbouw Handel & Industrie izpodbijala predvsem možnosti, da Komisija več ločenih transakcij opredeli kot en sam posel. Vendar pa Sodišče prve stopnje sprejema teleološko razlago pojma koncentracije, ki mora ustrezati gospodarski logiki, ki jo zasledujejo stranke.
In this case, the Commission had not erred in taking the view that the transactions in issue were indeed interdependent.
Tako ugotavlja, da se lahko taka koncentracija v smislu Uredbe št. 4064/89 izvede tudi z več formalno ločenimi pravnimi transakcijami, če so te transakcije – zaradi njih eno ali več podjetij prevzame neposreden ali posreden gospodarski nadzor nad dejavnostjo enega ali več drugih podjetij – med seboj tako odvisne, da ene brez drugih ne bi bile izvedene.V tej zadevi je Komisija pravilno ugotovila, da so bile zadevne transakcije medsebojno odvisne.
Nor does the Commission misconstrue the allocation of powers between national and Community competition authorities eected by Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 where it examines, together with a subsequent transaction from which it cannot be dissociated, another transaction which, taken on its own, does not full the ‘Community dimension’ criteria and was approved by a national competition authority.
Poleg tega Komisija ne krši delitve pristojnosti med nacionalnimi organi in organi Skupnosti, pristojnimi za konkurenco, ki jo določa Uredba št. 4064/89, ko preučuje celoto, ki jo skupaj s poznejšo transakcijo predstavlja druga transakcija, ki samostojno ne izpolnjuje meril za koncentracijo z razsežnostjo Skupnosti in jo je odobril nacionalni organ, pristojen za konkurenco.
In fact, in that case it is articial to consider that the approved transaction is economically autonomous.
V tem primeru je namreč z gospodarskega vidika umetno obravnavati odobreno transakcijo kot samostojno.
Commitments given in order to amend the initial proposed concentration
Zaveze, sprejete z namenom spremembe prvotnega načrta koncentracije
Article 8(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 provides, in substance, that the Commission is to approve a proposed concentration, following modication of the initial proposal by the undertakings concerned if necessary, provided that it is compatible with the common market.
Člen 8(2) Uredbe št. 4064/89 v bistvu določa, da mora Komisija glede na okoliščine primera odobriti načrt koncentracije po spremembi prvotnega načrta, ki jo opravijo udeležena podjetja, če je koncentracija združljiva s skupnim trgom.
The Commission may therefore attach to its decision conditions intended to ensure that the undertakings comply with the commitments they have entered into vis-à-vis the Commission with a view to rendering the concentration compatible.
Komisija lahko torej v odločbi določi pogoje, s katerimi se zagotovi, da podjetja spoštujejo zaveze, ki so jih prevzela zato, da bi bila koncentracija združljiva.
In Cementbouw v Commission, to which reference has just been made, the Court of First Instance examined the delicate interconnection between the principle of proportionality and the parties’ freedom to propose commitments to resolve in full the competition problems identied by the Commission.
V zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana prej omenjena sodba Cementbouw proti Komisiji, Sodišče prve stopnje obravnava občutljivo zvezo med načelom sorazmernosti in svobodo strank, da predlagajo zaveze za celovito reševanje problemov konkurence, ki jih je ugotovila Komisija.
During the procedure involving the examination of the concentration in question, the parties, including the applicant, had proposed in turn draft commitments, which had been refused by the Commission, and then final commitments, which had been accepted.
Med postopkom preizkusa zadevne koncentracije so stranke, tudi tožeča stranka, predlagale načrt zavez, ki ga je Komisija zavrnila, in nato dokončne zaveze, ki so bile sprejete.
The Court of First Instance concluded, first, that the draft commitments did not enable the competition problem identied by the Commission to be resolved in full.
Sodišče prve stopnje je najprej odločilo, da načrt zavez ne omogoča celovite odprave problema konkurence, ki ga je ugotovila Komisija.
As to the final commitments, since they went beyond the objective of restoring the competitive situation existing before the transaction, the Court of First Instance held that the Commission was required to take formal notice and to declare the transaction compatible with the common market.
Glede dokončnih zavez je Sodišče prve stopnje razsodilo, da jih mora Komisija, ker so šle preko cilja vzpostavitve konkurenčnega stanja pred koncentracijo, upoštevati in koncentracijo razglasiti za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
It could not therefore either declare the concentration incompatible with the common market or adopt a decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market and imposing conditions aimed at strictly restoring the competitive situation existing before the concentration other than those proposed by the parties.
Tako Komisija ni imela možnosti, da bi bodisi koncentracijo razglasila za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom bodisi sprejela odločbo o razglasitvi koncentracije za združljivo s skupnim trgom ob določitvi pogojev, katerih namen je ponovna vzpostavitev konkurenčnega stanja, kakršno je bilo pred koncentracijo, in ki se razlikujejo od tistih, ki so jih predlagale stranke.
In particular, Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 makes no provision for the Commission to make its declaration that a concentration is compatible with the common market subject to conditions which it has imposed unilaterally, independently of the commitments given by the notifying parties.
Zlasti Uredba št. 4064/89 pa ne določa, da bi Komisija svojo razglasitev združljivosti
Assessment of the creation of a collective dominant position
Presoja nastanka skupnega prevladujočega položaja
According to the caselaw 32, three conditions are necessary in order for a collective dominant position which signicantly impedes eective competition in the common market or a substantial part thereof to be capable of being created following a concentration.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso32so potrebni trije pogoji, da lahko kot posledica koncentracije nastopi skupni prevladujoči položaj, ki lahko bistveno ovira učinkovito konkurenco na skupnem trgu ali na njegovem znatnem delu.
First, the market must be suciently transparent, so that the undertakings which coordinate their conduct may be in a position to monitor to a sucient extent whether the rules of coordination are being observed.
Prvič, trg mora biti dovolj pregleden, da lahko podjetja, ki usklajujejo svoje ravnanje, zadostno nadzirajo, ali se usklajeni ukrepi spoštujejo.
Second, there must be a form of deterrent mechanism in the event of deviating conduct. Third, the reactions of undertakings which do not participate in the coordination, such as present or future competitors, and also the reactions of customers, must not be capable of jeopardising the results expected from coordination.
Drugič, obstajati mora oblika mehanizma odvračanja v primeru odstopanja.Tretjič, odzivi podjetij, ki so sedanji ali bodoči konkurenti in pri usklajevanju ne sodelujejo, in odzivi kupcev ne smejo ogrožati pričakovanih rezultatov usklajevanja.
The judgment in Impala v Commission denes the obligations borne by the Commission, as regards the risk of the creation of a collective dominant position, when it declares a concentration compatible with the common market.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Impala proti Komisiji so navedene obveznosti Komisije v primeru tveganja nastanka skupnega prevladujočega položaja, ko razglasi koncentracijo za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
In that case, Bertelsmann and Sony, two companies active in the media, had notied the Commission of a proposed concentration intended to combine their worldwide recorded music businesses under the name Sony BMG.
V tej zadevi sta Bertelsmann in Sony, družbi, ki poslujeta na medijskem področju, Komisiji priglasili načrt koncentracije z namenom konsolidacije njunih svetovnih dejavnosti na področju glasbenih posnetkov pod imenom Sony BMG.
The Commission had initially informed the parties that it had reached the provisional conclusion that the concentration was incompatible with the common market, since, in particular, it would reinforce a collective dominant position on the recorded music market.
Komisija je stranki najprej obvestila, da je začasno ugotovila nezdružljivost koncentracije s skupnim trgom, saj naj bi ta okrepila skupni prevladujoči položaj na trgu glasbenih posnetkov.
After hearing the parties, however, the Commission authorised the transaction.
Vendar je po zaslišanju strank koncentracijo odobrila.
Impala, an international association of independent music production companies, then requested the Court of First Instance to annul that decision.
Impala, mednarodno združenje neodvisnih družb glasbene produkcije, je nato zahtevalo, da Sodišče prve stopnje to odločbo razglasi za nično.
In its judgment, the Court of First Instance, relying on the caselaw deriving from Airtours v Commission, recalled that, in the context of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89, as regards the risk that a collective dominant position maybe created, the Commission is required to base its assessment on a prospective analysis of the reference market, which calls for a delicate prognosis as regards the probable development of the market and of the conditions of competition.
Sodišče prve stopnje v svoji sodbi, opirajoč se na sodno prakso iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Airtours proti Komisiji, navaja, da je v okviru Uredbe št. 4064/89 glede tveganja nastanka skupnega prevladujočega položaja Komisija dolžna utemeljiti svojo presojo s prospektivno analizo referenčnega trga, ki zahteva občutljivo napoved o verjetnem razvoju trga in pogojih konkurence.
Conversely, the finding not of a risk of a collective dominant position but of the existence of a collective dominant position is supported by a concrete analysis of the situation existing at the time of adoption of the decision.
V nasprotju z ugotovitvijo, da ne obstaja tveganje nastanka skupnega prevladujočega položaja, ugotovitev obstoja takega položaja temelji na konkretni analizi stanja v trenutku sprejetja odločbe.
Accordingly, although the three conditions identied by the Court of First Instance in Airtours v Commission are indeed also necessary for the assessment of the existence of a collective dominant position, they may be established indirectly on the basis of a very mixed series of indicia and items of evidence relating to the signs, manifestations and phenomena inherent in the presence of a collective dominant position.
Čeprav je res, da so za presojo obstoja skupnega prevladujočega položaja dejansko potrebni tudi trije pogoji, ki jih je določilo Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi Airtours proti Komisiji, pa se jih lahko neposredno ugotovi na podlagi vseh kazalcev in dokazov o znakih, odražanju in pojavih, ki so značilni za obstoj skupnega prevladujočega položaja.
In particular, close alignment of prices over a long period, especially if they are above the prices normally applied in a competitive situation, together with other factors typical of a collective dominant position, might, in the absence of an alternative reasonable explanation, suce to demonstrate the existence of a collective dominant position, even where there is no rm direct evidence of strong market transparency, which may be presumed in such circumstances.
Zlasti tesno usklajevanje cen v daljšem obdobju, predvsem če so te višje od cen, ki so običajne v konkurenčnem položaju, bi lahko skupaj z drugimi značilnimi dejavniki skupnega prevladujočega položaja ob neobstoju druge razumne razlage zadostovalo za dokaz obstoja takega položaja, čeprav ne bi bilo neposrednih trdnih dokazov o veliki preglednosti trga, saj se ta v takih okoliščinah lahko domneva.
Nonetheless, since the applicant had in this case relied solely on the conditions dened in Airtours v Commission, the Court of First Instance conned itself to ascertaining that those conditions had been observed.
Ker pa se je stranka v tej zadevi omejila na zatrjevanje kršitev pogojev, določenih v sodbi Airtours proti Komisiji, se je Sodišče prve stopnje omejilo na obravnavo, ali so bili spoštovani ti pogoji.
Judgment of 6 June 2002 in Case T-342/99 Airtours v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585, paragraph 62.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. junija 2002 v zadevi Airtours proti Komisiji,T-342/99, Recueil, str. II-2585, točka 62.
In this case, as regards the reinforcement of a pre-existing collective dominant position on the recorded music market, the Court of First Instance found that, according to the decision, the absence of a collective dominant position on that market may be inferred from the heterogeneity of the relevant product, from the lack of market transparency and from the absence of retaliation between the five largest companies operating on the market.
Sodišče prve stopnje v obravnavani zadevi glede krepitve prej obstoječega skupnega prevladujočega položaja na trgu glasbenih posnetkov ugotavlja, da se v skladu z odločbo o neobstoju skupnega prevladujočega položaja na tem trgu lahko sklepa na podlagi heterogenosti zadevnega proizvoda, pomanjkljive preglednosti trga in neobstoju povračilnih ukrepov med petimi največjimi družbami, ki so prisotne na trgu.
The Court of First Instance held, however, that the argument that the markets for recorded music are not suciently transparent to permit a collective dominant position was not supported by a statement of reasons of the requisite legal standard and was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that the elements on which it was based were incomplete and did not include all the relevant data that ought to have been taken into consideration by the Commission and were not capable of supporting the conclusions drawn from them.
Vendar Sodišče prve stopnje ugotavlja, da trditev, da trgi glasbenih posnetkov niso dovolj pregledni, da bi omogočili skupni prevladujoči položaj, po eni strani ni dovolj pravno utemeljena in po drugi strani vsebuje očitno napako v presoji, saj so dokazi, na katerih temelji, nepopolni, in ne obsegajo vseh upoštevnih podatkov, ki bi jih morala Komisija upoštevati, ter ne podprejo sklepov, ki iz njih izhajajo.
The Court of First Instance further observed that the Commission had relied on the absence of proof that retaliatory measures had been used in the past when, according to the case-law, the mere existence of eective deterrent mechanisms is sucient.
Sodišče prve stopnje poleg tega navaja, da se je Komisija oprla na neobstoj dokaza o izvrševanju povračilnih ukrepov v preteklosti, medtem ko v skladu s sodno prakso zadostuje že obstoj učinkovitih mehanizmov odvračanja.
If the companies conform to the common policy, there is no need to resort to the exercise of sanctions.
Če se družbe uskladijo glede skupne politike, se namreč ni treba zateči k izvrševanju sankcij.
In that context, the Court of First Instance stated that credible and eective deterrent measures did appear to exist in the present case, in particular the possibility of sanctioning a deviating major record company by excluding it from compilations.
V zvezi s tem Sodišče prve stopnje navaja, da kaže, da v tej zadevi obstajajo verodostojna in učinkovita sredstva odvračanja, predvsem možnost kaznovati glasbeno založbo, ki krši dogovore, z izključitvijo kompilacij.
Furthermore, even on the assumption that the appropriate test in that regard consists in whether such retaliatory means had been used in the past, the examination carried out by the Commission was insucient.
Poleg tega je bil preizkus, ki ga je opravila Komisija, nezadosten, tudi če domnevamo, da je v zvezi s tem ustrezen test ugotovitev, ali so se taka sredstva odvračanja v preteklosti uporabljala.
In addition, as regards the possible creation after the merger of a collective dominant position on the markets for recorded music, the Court of First Instance criticised the Commission for having carried out an extremely brief examination and for having presented in the decision only a few supercial and formal observations on that point.
Poleg tega je Sodišče prve stopnje glede morebitnega nastanka skupnega prevladujočega položaja po združitvi na trgih glasbenih posnetkov očitalo Komisiji, da je opravila izredno omejen preizkus in da je v svoji odločbi predstavila le nekaj površnih in formalnih stališč o tem.
The Court of First Instance further considered that the Commission could not, without making an error, rely on the fact that there was no market transparency and no evidence that retaliatory measures had been used in the past to conclude that the concentration was not likely to give rise to the creation of a collective dominant position.
Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da se Komisija pri ugotovitvi, da se s koncentracijo ni tvegalo, da bi nastal skupni prevladujoči položaj, ni mogla opreti na neobstoj preglednosti trga ali na neobstoj dokaza o izvrševanju povračilnih ukrepov v preteklosti, ne da bi storila napako.
In eect, examination of the creation of a collective dominant position rests on a prospective assessment which ought to have induced the Commission not to rely solely on the existing situation.
Preizkus nastanka skupnega prevladujočega položaja namreč temelji na prospektivni analizi, zaradi česar se ne bi smel opirati le na obstoječe stanje.
The Court of First Instance therefore annulled the contested decision.
Zato je Sodišče prve stopnje izpodbijano odločbo razglasilo za nično.
Article 87(1) EC provides that, save as otherwise provided in the Treaty, any aid granted through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is to be incompatible with the common market.
Člen 87(1) ES določa:„razen če ta pogodba ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, če prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.“
As the Court of First Instance conrmed in Le Levant 001 and Others v Commission 33, classication as aid, in the sense of State aid incompatible with the common market,
Kot je potrdilo Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi Le Levant 001 in drugi proti Komisiji33, morajo biti zato, da je nek ukrep opredeljen kot državna pomoč, izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz navedene določbe, pri čemer ima Komisija tudi obveznost obrazložitve za vsakega izmed teh pogojev.
Judgment of 22 February 2006 in Case T-34/02 Le Levant 001 and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 22. februarja 2006 v zadevi Le Levant 001 in drugi proti Komisiji, T-34/02, ZOdl., str. II-267.