natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In another area, in Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission (judgment of 18 July 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court held, last, after emphasising that the mere fact that a rule is purely sporting in nature does not have the eect of removing from the scope of the Treaty, and in particular from the scope of the competition rules, a person engaging in the activity governed by that rule or the body which has laid it down, that, while anti-doping rules may be regarded as a decision of an association of undertakings limiting the freedom of action of the persons to whom they are addressed, they do not, for all that, necessarily constitute a restriction of competition incompatible with the common market, within the meaning of Article 81 EC, since they are justied by a legitimate objective.
V obeh zadevah je Sodišče, izhajajoč iz svoje sodne prakse, po kateri je na obstoj protikonkurenčnega ravnanja ali sporazuma treba v večini primerov sklepati iz določenega števila sočasnih dogodkov in indicov, ki upoštevani skupaj, kadar ni druge dosledne razlage, sestavljajo dokaz o kršitvi pravil o konkurenci, razsodilo, da dejstvo, da dokaz o obstoju nadaljevane kršitve ni bil predložen za določena opredeljena obdobja, ne preprečuje, da bi se kršitev štela za podano v širšem časovnem okviru, kot je ta, če ta ugotovitev temelji na skladnih in objektivnih indicih.
According to the Court, such a limitation is inherent in the organisation and proper conduct of competitive sport and its very purpose is to ensure healthy rivalry between athletes.
Sodišče je v teh sodbah na koncu tudi opozorilo, da lahko Komisija za namene uporabe člena 81(1) ES, ko se različna dejanja zaradi istega cilja, ki je izkrivljanje konkurence na skupnem trgu, umeščajo v „enoten načrt“, odgovornost za ta dejanja pripiše glede na sodelovanje pri kršitvi kot celoti, in da je upoštevanje konkretnih učinkov takih dejanj v tem smislu odveč, če se izkaže, da je njihov cilj omejevanje ali izkrivljanje konkurence na skupnem trgu.
Acknowledging, however, that the penal nature of such anti-doping rules and the magnitude of the penalties applicable if they are breached are capable of producing adverse eects on competition because they could, if penalties were ultimately to prove unjustied, result in an athlete’s unwarranted exclusion from sporting events, and thus in impairment of the conditions under which the activity at issue is engaged in, the Court made clear that, in order not to be covered by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, the restrictions thus imposed by such rules must be limited to what is necessary to ensure the proper conduct of competitive sport.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi Technische Unie proti Komisiji je Sodišče poleg tega opozorilo na svojo ustaljeno sodno prakso, v skladu s katero zadošča, da Komisija za to, da pravno zadostno dokaže sodelovanje podjetja pri omejevalnem sporazumu, dokaže, da je podjetje sodelovalo na sestankih, na katerih so bili sklenjeni protikonkurenčni sporazumi, ne da bi tem očitno nasprotovalo, in da mora podjetje, ko se ugotovi, da je sodelovalo na takih sestankih, predložiti indice, ki izkazujejo, da je bilo to sodelovanje brez kakršnega koli protikonkurenčnega namena, s tem da dokaže, da je svojim konkurentom dalo vedeti, da sodeluje na teh sestankih z drugačnim namenom kot oni.
Three further judgments deserve special mention in regard to the substantive application of the competition rules by the Court.
Preostale tri sodbe so prav tako vredne pozornosti, ker dopolnjujejo sodno prakso Sodišča na področju glob.
In Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04 Cipolla and Others (judgment of 5 December 2006, not yet published in the ECR), on references for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Torino (Italy) and the Tribunale di Roma (Italy), respectively, the Court held that Articles 10 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC do not preclude a Member State from adopting a legislative measure which approves, on the basis of a draft produced by a professional body of lawyers, a scale fixing a minimum fee for members of the legal profession from which there can generally be no derogation in respect of either services reserved to those members or those, such as out-of-court services, which may also be provided by any other economic operator not subject to that scale.
V dveh izmed njih se je Sodišče prvič ukvarjalo z vprašanjem področja uporabe načela ne bis in idem v primerih, ko so organi tretje države na podlagi svoje pristojnosti za sankcioniranje na področju prava konkurence, ki velja na ozemlju te države, sprejeli ukrepe.V zadevah Showa Denko proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 29. junija 2006, C-289/04 P, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) in SGL Carbon proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 29. junija 2006, C-308/04 P, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče, potem ko je ponovno potrdilo, da je načelo ne bis in idem, vsebovano tudi v členu 4 Protokola št. 7 Evropske Konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin, temeljno načelo prava Skupnosti, ki ga mora spoštovati sodišče Skupnosti, razsodilo, da to načelo ne velja za dejanska stanja, v katera so posegli pravni redi in organi za varstvo konkurence tretjih držav v okviru svojih pristojnosti.
Court of Justice might justify it and whether the restrictions it imposes do not appear disproportionate having regard to those objectives.
Še vedno v okviru obravnave teh dveh sodb in sodbe v zadevi Komisija proti SGL Carbon AG (sodba z dne 29. junija 2006, C-301/04 P, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče natančneje izoblikovalo nekatera načela svoje sodne prakse glede glob.
Last, in Case C-125/05 Vulcan Silkeborg (judgment of 7 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR) and in Joined Cases C-376/05 and C-377/05 A. Brünsteiner (judgment of 5 December 2006, not yet published in the ECR), also references for a preliminary ruling, the Court had for the first time the opportunity to adjudicate on a number of questions inherent in the entry into force of the last regulation on exemption by category applicable to the motor vehicle sector, Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 20, and also to provide its first interpretations of that regulation.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi SGL Carbon proti Komisiji je Sodišče uvodoma poudarilo, da lahko Komisija pri izvajanju smernic o načinu določanja glob, naloženih zaradi kršitev pravil o konkurenci22, uporabi metodo izračuna, ki upošteva različne elemente fleksibilnosti ob upoštevanju zgornje meje prometa, ki je določena v členu 15(2) Uredbe št. 1723. Med drugim je izpostavilo ustaljeno sodno prakso, v skladu s katero je upoštevanje oteževalnih okoliščin pri določitvi zneska globe v skladu s pristojnostjo Komisije, da zagotovi skladnost ravnanja podjetij s pravili konkurence.
In those cases the Court, in particular, held that, while the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 did not, of itself, require the reorganisation of the distribution network of a supplier within the meaning of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 21, that entry into force might, however, in the light of the particular nature of the distribution network of each supplier, have required changes that were so signicant that they must be truly considered as representing a reorganisation within the meaning of that provision and that in that regard it is for the national courts or arbitrators to determine, in the light of all the evidence in the case before them, whether that is the position.
Po drugi strani pa Komisija pri določanju zneska globe, ki ga naloži podjetju, ni dolžna upoštevati njegovega finančnega primanjkljaja, saj bi priznanje take obveznosti vodilo h konkurenčno nepravičnemu preferiranju podjetij, ki so najmanj prilagojena razmeram trga. Sodišče je v tej zadevi poleg tega potrdilo, da navedena zgornja meja 10 % iz člena 15(2) Uredbe št. 17 velja le za končni znesek globe, ki je naložena zaradi kršitve pravil konkurence, in da ta člen zato ne prepoveduje Komisiji, da na različnih stopnjah izračuna pride do vmesnega zneska, ki je nad to mejo, če je končni znesek globe ne presega.
In A. Brünsteiner, the Court further held that, on a proper construction of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002, once the transitional period provided for by Article 10 of that regulation had expired, the block exemption under that regulation did not apply to contracts satisfying the conditions for block exemption under Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 which had as their object at least one of the hardcore restrictions listed in Article 4, with the result that all the contractual terms restrictive of competition contained in such contracts were liable to be caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, if the conditions for exemption under Article 81(3) EC were not satised.
Na koncu je Sodišče na podlagi svoje sodne prakse, v skladu s katero pristojnosti Komisije na podlagi člena 15(2) Uredbe št. 17 vključujejo določitev datuma za plačilo globe in datuma, ko začnejo teči zamudne obresti in določitev njihove stopnje ter nazadnje podrobnosti za izvedbo odločbe, podrobneje določilo, da je Komisija upravičena, da izbere izhodiščno obrestno mero, ki je višja od običajne povprečne tržne obrestne mere, kot jo ponuja povprečni posojilodajalec, kjer je to potrebno, da se prepreči zavlačevanje pri plačilu globe.
The Court made clear, in that regard, that the consequences, for all other parts of the agreement or for other obligations owing from it, of the prohibition of contractual terms incompatible with Article 81 EC are not, however, a matter for Community law and that it is therefore for the national court to determine, in accordance with the national law applicable, the extent and consequences, for the contractual relation as a whole, of the prohibition of certain terms under Article 81 EC.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi Komisija proti SGL Carbon AG je Sodišče uporabilo svojo sodno prakso, v skladu s katero je zmanjšanje globe na podlagi obvestila o ugodni obravnavi24 mogoče utemeljiti le, kadar se lahko posredovane informacije in, splošneje, ravnanje zadevnega podjetja v tej zvezi šteje kot dokaz resničnega duha njegovega sodelovanja, in razsodilo, da kot izraz tega duha sodelovanja ni mogoče šteti ravnanja podjetja, ki je na vprašanje Komisije odgovorilo pomanjkljivo in neresnično, čeprav k temu ni bilo zavezano.
The other judgments which merit attention owing to the Court’s application of the competition rules are more concerned with the questions relating to the implementation of those rules.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi Showa Denko proti Komisiji je Sodišče tudi opozorilo, da se globa za kršitev pravil konkurence lahko izračuna z vključitvijo dejavnika
The contribution made by two of those judgments lies essentially in questions of procedure and questions relating to the production of evidence.
Obvestilo Komisije z naslovom„Smernice o načinu določanja glob, naloženih v skladu s členom 15(2) Uredbe št. 17 in členom 65(5) Pogodbe ESPJ“ (UL 1998, C 9, str. 3).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 30).
Uredba Sveta št. 17 z dne 6. februarja 1962, Prva Uredba o izvajanju členov [81] in [82] Pogodbe (UL 1962, 13, str. 204).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article [81](1) [EC] to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 25).
Obvestilo o nenalaganju ali zmanjševanju glob v primerih kartelov (UL 1996, C 207, str. 4).
Proceedings held that a finding that the duration of the procedure was excessive, and could not be imputed to the undertakings concerned, can entail annulment, on the ground of a breach of that principle, of a decision finding an infringement only if that duration, by adversely aecting the undertakings’ rights of defence, was able to inuence the outcome of the proceedings.
Razvoj in dejavnost odvračilnosti in da se pri ovrednotenju tega dejavnika upošteva veliko število dejavnikov in ne zgolj poseben položaj zadevnega podjetja.
The Court further observed that examination of any interference with the exercise of the rights of the defence owing to the excessive duration of the administrative procedure cannot be limited solely to the second phase of that procedure, but must also cover the phase preceding notication of the statement of objections and, especially, determine whether that excessive duration was capable of aecting the ability of the undertakings concerned to defend their rights in future.
Na tem področju je treba na koncu opozoriti še na eno sodbo, predvsem zato, ker potrjuje odločitev Sodišča v zadevi Courage (sodba z dne 20. septembra 2001 v zadevi Courage in Crehan, C-453/99, Recueil, str. I-6297).
Last, the Court also recalled in those judgments that, for the purposes of the application of Article 81(1) EC, where the various actions form part of an ‘overall plan’, owing to their identical object, which distorts competition within the common market, the Commission is entitled to impute liability for those actions according to participation in the infringement considered as a whole and that there is no need to take account of the actual eects of those actions where it appears that their object is to prevent, restrict or distort competition within the common market.
V zvezi s tem je tudi opozorilo, da mora v primeru neobstoja pravil Skupnosti s tega področja notranji pravni sistem vsake države članice določiti podrobna pravila glede izvrševanja te pravice, vključno s tistimi glede uporabe pojma „vzročne zveze“, pod pogojem, da ta pravila niso manj ugodna od tistih, ki se nanašajo na podobne tožbe na podlagi nacionalnega prava (načelo enakovrednosti), in da v praksi ne onemogočijo ali močno otežijo izvrševanje pravic, ki jih daje pravni red Skupnosti (načelo učinkovitosti).
Three other judgments also merit attention in that they supplement the Court’s caselaw on fines.
V zadevi Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze in drugi (sodba z dne 10. januarja 2006, C-222/04, ZOdl., str.
In two of them, the Court for the first time settled the question of the scope of the principle non bis in idem in relation to situations in which the authorities of a non-member State have intervened under their power to impose penalties in the sphere of competition law applicable on the territory of that State.
Sodišče je v odgovor na prvi vprašanji in na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse glede pojma „podjetje“ v okviru konkurenčnega prava in pojma„gospodarska dejavnost“ presodilo, da je subjekt, ki z nadzornim deležem v družbi dejansko izvaja ta nadzor tako, da neposredno ali posredno sodeluje pri njenem upravljanju, treba šteti, kot da sodeluje pri gospodarski dejavnosti, ki jo opravlja odvisno podjetje, in ga je zato v tem smislu treba opredeliti kot „podjetje“ v smislu člena 87(1) ES.
In Case C-289/04 P Showa Denko v Commission (judgment of 29 June 2006, not yet published in the ECR) and Case C-308/04 SGL Carbon v Commission (judgment of 29 June 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court held, after rearming that the principle non bis in idem, also enshrined in Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights, constitutes a fundamental principle of Community law the observance of which is guaranteed by the judicature, that that principle does not apply to situations in which the legal systems and competition authorities of non-member States intervene within their own jurisdiction.
Iz tega je sklepalo, da je kot „podjetje“ v smislu te določbe in torej subjekt, za katerega veljajo pravila Skupnosti o državnih pomočeh, treba opredeliti tudi bančni sklad, ki ima nadzor nad kapitalom bančne družbe, katerega ureditev zajema pravila, ki kažejo na nalogo, ki presega zgolj vlaganje kapitala s strani vlagatelja, in omogočajo uresničevanje nadzornih funkcij, kot sta spodbujanje in finančna podpora, ter tako ponazarjajo obstoj institucionalne in funkcionalne zveze med bančnimi skladi in bančnimi družbami. Ob upoštevanju vloge, ki jo je nacionalni zakonodajalec zaupal bančnim skladom na področjih, ki so v javnem interesu in so družbeno koristna, je Sodišče kljub temu skrbno razlikovalo med enostavnim plačilom prispevkov v nepridobitne subjekte in dejavnostjo, ki se neposredno opravlja na teh področjih.
The Court considers that when the Commission imposes sanctions on the unlawful conduct of an undertaking, even conduct originating in an international cartel, it seeks to safeguard the free competition
Sodišče je pravila Skupnosti o državnih pomočeh uporabilo le v drugem primeru in hkrati poudarilo, da kadar bančni sklad, ki je sam dejaven na področjih, ki so v javnem interesu in so družbeno koristna, izkorišča pooblastilo, ki mu ga je podelil nacionalni zakonodajalec za izvrševanje finančnih, nepremičninskih in premičninskih poslov, da bi uresničil cilje, ki so mu določeni, sme ponujati blago ali storitve na trgu v konkurenci z
Court of Justice within the common market which constitutes a fundamental objective of the Community under Article 3(1)(g) EC and that thus, on account of the specic nature of the legal interests protected at Community level, the Commission’s assessments pursuant to its relevant powers may diverge considerably from those by authorities of non-member States.
Sodišče drugimi izvajalci in ga je zato treba šteti za podjetje in morajo tako zanj veljati pravila Skupnosti o državnih pomočeh.
In an extension of that solution, the Court also held that any consideration concerning the existence of fines imposed by the authorities of a non-member State can be taken into account only under the Commission’s discretion in setting fines for infringements of Community competition law and that, although it cannot be ruled out that the Commission may, on grounds of proportionality or fairness, take into account fines imposed previously by the authorities of non-member States, it cannot be required to do so.
V odgovoru na tretje vprašanje je Sodišče, potem ko je poudarilo, da je pojem pomoči splošnejši od pojma subvencije in da ukrep, s katerim javni organi določenim podjetjem priznajo davčno oprostitev, ki, čeprav ne zajema prenosa državnih sredstev, upravičence postavlja v ugodnejši finančni položaj kot druge davčne zavezance, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) ES, prav tako razsodilo, da lahko oprostitev odtegljaja na dividende, ki pripadejo bančnim skladom, ki so imetniki deležev bančnih družb in ki zasledujejo izključno dobrodelne, vzgojne, izobraževalne, študijske in znanstveno raziskovalne namene, ustreza taki opredelitvi.
Still in the context of its examination of those two cases, and of Case C-301/04 Commission v SGL Carbon AG (judgment of 29 June 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court also explained a number of principles of its caselaw on fines.
V združenih zadevah Belgija in Forum 187 proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 22. junija 2006, C182/03 in C-217/03, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) sta Kraljevina Belgija in asbl Forum 187, organ, ki zastopa centre za usklajevanje v Belgiji, predlagala razglasitev ničnosti Odločbe 2003/757/ES25, zlasti ker Kraljevini Belgiji ni dovolila niti začasne odobritve podaljšanja statusa centra za usklajevanje tistim centrom, ki so ta status imeli 31. decembra 2000.
In SGL Carbon v Commission, the Court first of all observed that the Commission, in applying the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed for infringement of the competition rules 22, may use a calculation method which adopts a flexible approach while complying with the turnover ceiling laid down in Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 23.
Glede utemeljenosti enega od tožbenih razlogov, ki sta jih navajali tožeči stranki, in sicer kršitev načela varstva upravičenih pričakovanj, je Sodišče opozorilo, da je Komisija, če ni prevladujočega javnega interesa, s tem ko ni hkrati z razveljavitvijo ureditve predvidela začasnih ukrepov, ki naj bi varovali upravičena pričakovanja gospodarskega subjekta v pravu Skupnosti, kršila hierarhično višjo pravno normo.
The Court proceeded to refer to the consistent caselaw according to which the fact of taking aggravating circumstances into account when setting the fine is consistent with the Commission’s task of ensuring that undertakings’ conduct complies with the competition rules. Conversely, the Commission is not required, when determining the amount of the fine which it imposes on an undertaking, to take its poor financial situation into account, since recognition of such an obligation would be tantamount to giving unjustied competitive advantages to undertakings least well adapted to the market conditions.
Poleg tega je presodilo, da sta načeli varstva upravičenih pričakovanj in enakosti hkrati kršeni z odločbo Komisije, s katero se v nasprotju s prej navedenimi presojami nalaga odprava posebne davčne sheme iz razloga, ker gre za državno pomoč, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom, ne da bi bili določeni prehodni ukrepi v korist subjektov, katerih potrditev, ki je brez težav obnovljiva in nujna za koriščenje te sheme, se je iztekla sočasno ali kmalu po njeni vročitvi, vendar pa se ne nasprotuje temu, da potrditve, ki so na ta dan še nerešene, veljajo še več let, saj lahko zgoraj omenjeni subjekti, ki se v kratkem roku ne morejo prilagoditi spremembam zadevne sheme, v vsakem primeru počakajo na to, da jim Komisija z odločbo, s katero spremeni prejšnje presoje, odobri potreben čas, da dejansko upoštevajo to spremenjeno presojo, in da nikakršen neovrgljiv javni interes ne nasprotuje temu, da se jim odobri potreben čas.
The Court, moreover, rearmed in that case that it is only the final amount of the fine imposed for an infringement of the competition rules that must comply with the 10 % limit referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and that, consequently, that article does not prohibit the Commission from arriving, during the various stages of calculation, at an intermediate amount higher than that limit, provided that the final amount of the fine imposed does not exceed it.
V zadevi Portugalska proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 6. septembra 2006, C-88/03, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče obravnavalo predlog Portugalske republike za razglasitev ničnosti Odločbe 2003/442/ES26.
Last, continuing its caselaw according to which the powers conferred on the Commission under Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 include the power to determine the date on which the fines are payable and that on which default interest begins to accrue, and the power to set the rate of such interest and to determine the detailed arrangements for implementing its decision, the Court stated that the Commission is entitled to adopt a point of reference higher than the applicable market rate oered to the average borrower, to an extent necessary to discourage dilatory behaviour in relation to payment of the fine. In Commission v SGL Carbon AG the Court applied its caselaw according to which a reduction under the Leniency Notice 24can be justied only where the information provided and, more generally, the conduct of the undertaking concerned might be considered to demonstrate a genuine spirit of cooperation on its part, holding that the conduct of an undertaking
Sklicujoč se na ustaljeno sodno prakso, v skladu s katero pojem državne pomoči ne vključuje državnih ukrepov, ki uvajajo razlikovanje med podjetji, kadar to razlikovanje izhaja iz narave ali ureditve davčnega sistema, v katerega sodijo, je Sodišče najprej odločilo, da je ukrep, ki ustvarja izjemo od uporabe splošnega davčnega sistema, mogoče upravičiti le v primeru, ko lahko zadevna država članica dokaže, da ta ukrep neposredno izhaja iz temeljnih ali usmerjevalnih načel davčnega sistema, in v tej zvezi natančneje določilo, da je treba razlikovati med cilji, določenimi za posebni davčni režim, ki so zunaj sistema, in mehanizmi, ki so lastni samemu davčnemu sistemu in so potrebni za uresničitev teh ciljev.
Commission Notice entitled‘Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty’(OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3).
Potem ko je Sodišče opozorilo, da je določitev referenčnega okvira