natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In 2005, the Commission provided information in reply to three requests from national judges and issued six opinions: three in reply to requests from Belgian courts, one to a Lithuanian court and two to Spanish courts (see below summaries of these opinions). ree requests received in 2005 were pending at the end of the year.
Komisija je v letu 2005 zagotovila informacije v odgovor na tri prošnje nacionalnih sodnikov in izdala šest mnenj; tri v odgovor na prošnje belgijskih sodišč, eno litvanskemu sodišču in dve španskima sodiščema (spodaj glej povzetke teh mnenj). Tri prošnje, ki so prispele v letu 2005, so bile na koncu leta še v obravnavi.
In order to enhance the consistent application of EU competition law and to avoid conicting opinions from the Commission and NCAs, it was agreed that, as soon as a national court turns to the Commission or to an NCA for an opinion on the applica-
Da bi povečali usklajeno uporabo konkurenčnega prava EU in se izognili nasprotujočim si mnenjem Komisije in nacionalnih organov za konkurenco, je bilo dogovorjeno da bosta Komisija in nacionalni organ za konkurenco nemudoma obvestila eden drugega, ko se bodo nacionalna sodišča obrnila na enega od njiju.
Furthermore, in order to increase transparency, it has been decided to make publicly available opinions which the Commission has given on the application of the EU competition rules at the request of a national court pursuant to Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
Poleg tega je bilo zaradi povečanja preglednosti odločeno, da bodo mnenja o uporabi pravil konkurence EU, ki jih je Komisija dala na prošnjo nacionalnega sodišča v skladu s členom 15(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003, javno dostopna.
Opinions will be posted on the Competition DG’s website once the judgment in the case in which the opinion was requested has been notied to the Commission pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
Mnenja bodo objavljena na spletni strani GD za konkurenco, ko bo Komisija v skladu s členom 15(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003 obveščena o sodbi v zadevi, v kateri je bila zaprošena za mnenje.
Only 10 judgments were given by appeal courts reviewing NCA administrative decisions.
Drugostopenjska sodišča, ki so pregledovala upravne odločbe nacionalnega organa za konkurenco, so izrekla samo 10 sodb.
Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 allows the Commission and NCAs to submit observations to national courts on issues relating to the application of EU competition rules. e Commission did not have recourse to this device in 2005.
Člen 15(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003 Komisiji in nacionalnim organom za konkurenco omogoča, da nacionalnim sodiščem predložijo pripombe o vprašanjih glede uporabe pravil konkurence EU. Komisija v letu 2005 te možnosti ni uporabila.
Continuing training and education of national judges in EU competition law is very important so as to ensure both eective and coherent application of those rules.
Stalno usposabljanje in izobraževanje nacionalnih sodnikov na področju konkurenčnega prava EU je zelo pomembno za zagotavljanje učinkovite in enotne uporabe teh pravil.
In 2005, the Commission co-nanced 12 training projects, committing almost EUR 600 000 for the training of national judges from all 25 EU Member States.
Komisija je v letu 2005 sonancirala 12 projektov usposabljanja in namenila skoraj 600 000 EUR za usposabljanje nacionalnih sodnikov iz vseh 25 držav članic EU.
Belgium e following three requests for opinions were received from the Court of Appeal in Brussels:
Naslednje tri prošnje za mnenja je poslalo drugostopenjsko sodišče v Bruslju:
Firstly, the Court of Appeal asked whether it was compatible with Article 81 EC for a brewery to conclude a five-year exclusive purchasing agreement for beverages
Prvič, drugostopenjsko sodišče je vprašalo, ali je v skladu s členom 81 ES, da je pivovarna v letu 1997 sklenila petletni sporazum o izključni dobavi za pijače, ki niso pivo, potem ko je z istim kupcem sklenila desetletni sporazum o izključni dobavi za piva.
With regard to the issue of compatibility with Article 81 EC, the opinion referred to the Delimitis judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Commission’s de minimis notices. e opinion drew attention to the relevant Commission block exemption regulations (namely Regulation (EC) No 1984/83 (until 31 May 2000) and its successor Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999).
Kar zadeva vprašanje skladnosti s členom 81 ES, se je mnenje sklicevalo na sodbo v primeru Delimitis Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in na obvestila Komisije de minimis. Mnenje je opozorilo na ustrezni uredbi Komisije o skupinski izjemi (in sicer Uredbo (ES) št. 1984/83 (do 31. maja 2000) in njeno naslednico Uredbo (ES) št. 2790/1999).
Finally, with regard to the scope of Article 81(2) EC, the opinion recalled the relevant case-law of the ECJ, in particular the Courage judgment.
Kar zadeva področje uporabe člena 81(2) ES, se je mnenje poleg tega sklicevalo na ustrezno sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti, zlasti sodbe v primeru Courage.
Secondly, the Court of Appeal asked whether under Article 81 and 82 EC an agreement between the organiser of a truck exhibition and the importers and distributors showing their trucks at the exhibition could include a prohibition on participation in any similar event in Belgium for the six-month period prior to the exhibition.
Drugič, drugostopenjsko sodišče je vprašalo, ali lahko v skladu s členoma 81 in 82 ES sporazum med organizatorjem sejma tovornjakov ter uvozniki in distributerji, ki na njem razstavljajo svoje tovornjake, vključuje prepoved sodelovanja na vseh podobnih dogodkih v Belgiji šest mesecev pred sejmom.
It underlined the need to dene the relevant geographic market to assess whether the non-compete clause was capable of foreclosing competitors. e opinion also claried the relationship between Article 81 EC and Article 82 EC and pointed out that eciencies can be taken into account in assessments under Article 82 EC.
Poudarjena je bila potreba po opredelitvi ustreznega geografskega območja, da bi lahko ocenili, ali je mogoče s klavzulo o nekonkurenci izključiti tekmece. Mnenje je tudi razjasnilo odnos med členom 81 ES in členom 82 ES ter poudarilo, da je v skladu s členom 82 ES v ocenah mogoče upoštevati učinkovitost.
Finally, the Court of Appeal asked whether the criteria set by a collecting society for giving the status of ‘grand organisateur’ to certain commercial users and the rebate of 50 % granted to such users are compatible with Article 82 EC or whether this amounts to illegal discrimination within the meaning of that provision.
Končno, drugostopenjsko sodišče je vprašalo, ali so merila, ki jih je kolektivna organizacija postavila za dodelitev položaja „grand organisateur“ za določene komercialne uporabnike in rabat v višini 50 %, ki je zagotovljen takšnim uporabnikom, skladna s členom 82 ES ali pa to pomeni že nezakonito diskriminacijo v smislu te določbe.
A request for an opinion arose in the context of litigation between a supplier on the Spanish wholesale market for petroleum products and a service station operator. e Spanish court asked whether the type and size of the network of the supplier in Spain could aect interstate trade and lead to a restriction of competition and whether the contractual relationship between the parties could benet from an exemption further to Article 81(3).
Prošnja za mnenje se je pojavila v okviru spora med dobaviteljem na španskem trgu na debelo nanih derivatov in upravljavcem bencinskega servisa. Špansko sodišče je vprašalo, ali vrsta in velikost dobaviteljevega omrežja v Španiji lahko vplivata na trgovanje med državami in povzročita omejevanje konkurence in ali bi bil pogodbeni odnos med strankama lahko predmet izjeme v smislu člena 81(3).
It highlighted that a network of exclusive supply contracts can lead to problems of fore-
Opozorilo je, da lahko mreža pogodb o izključni dobavi povzroči izključitev, in razložilo, kako pristopati k morebitnemu zaprtju trga s sklicevanjem na sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti (Delimitis), smernice in obvestila Komisije ter tudi na obvestilo o členu 27(4), ki je bilo objavljeno v okviru zadeve COMP/38.348 (Repsol).
Report on Competition Policy 2005 closure and explained how to assess possible foreclosure of the market by reference to the ECJ’s case-law (Delimitis), the Commission’s guidelines and notices, as well as an Article 27(4) notice that was published in the context of Case COMP/38.348 (Repsol). e opinion referred to the Commission’s guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) for an assessment of whether the contract meets the conditions of Article 81(3).
Mnenje se je sklicevalo na smernice Komisije za uporabo člena 81(3) za oceno, ali pogodba ustreza pogojem člena 81(3).
In a similar case, a Spanish court asked whether an agreement between a wholesale supplier of petroleum products and a service station operator was compatible with Article 81 EC.
V podobnem primeru je špansko sodišče vprašalo, ali je sporazum med veleprodajnim dobaviteljem nanih derivatov in upravljavcem bencinskega servisa skladen s členom 81 ES.
In particular, it requested clarication as to whether a non-compete clause and a resale price maintenance clause (RPM) were compatible with Article 81 EC, whether the agreement at stake could benet from the block exemption regulations, and whether the service station operator could be considered an agent.
Prosilo je zlasti za pojasnilo, ali sta klavzula o nekonkurenci in klavzula o ohranjanju cen pri nadaljnji prodaji skladni s členom 81 ES, ali se za zadevni sporazum lahko uporabita uredbi o skupinski izjemi in ali je mogoče upravljavca bencinskega servisa obravnavati kot zastopnika.
Article 86(1), in conjunction with Article 82 EC, namely that an abuse by the successful concession holder would have to be the inevitable, or at least the likely, result of the tender conditions.
Mnenje prikazuje pogoje, ki jih je treba izpolniti za ugotovitev kršitve člena 86(1), v povezavi s členom 82 ES, in sicer, da mora biti zloraba uspešnega imetnika koncesije nujna ali verjetna posledica razpisnih pogojev.
Finally, the opinion indicates that a violation of the competition rules may be justied under Article 86(2) EC, with reference to the Københavns judgment.
Mnenje na koncu s sklicevanjem na sodbo iz primera Københavns navaja, da je kršitev pravil konkurence lahko upravičena po členu 86(2) ES.
ECN working group on information and communication about the ECN
Delovna skupina ECN za informacije in sporočanje o ECN
Five meetings of the ECN working group on abuse of dominant position were held between February and April.
Med februarjem in aprilom je potekalo pet sestankov delovne skupine ECN za zlorabo prevladujočega položaja.
In these meetings, particular types of abuse were discussed — predation, refusal to deal and margin squeeze, rebates, tying, excessive pricing and discrimination — with the help of some cases presented by the NCAs.
Na teh sestankih so razpravljali o posebnih vrstah zlorab – prenizke (predatorske) cene, zavračanje dobav in pritisk na marže, rabati, vezani posli, pretirane cene in diskriminacija – kot ponazoritev so uporabili nekaj primerov, ki so jih predstavili nacionalni organi za konkurenco.
In general, the discussions showed that the dierent enforcement practices have much in common and that the same or similar issues arise.
Razprave so na splošno pokazale, da imajo različni načini izvrševanja veliko skupnega in da se porajajo enaka ali podobna vprašanja.
As a next step, in March 2006 an ad hoc meeting will discuss working methods for economists in competition authorities.
Kot naslednji korak nameravajo marca 2006 pripraviti priložnostni sestanek, na katerem bodo razpravljali o delovnih metodah za ekonomiste v organih za konkurenco.
During 2005 the NCAs engaged in a high level of activity within the telecommunications and postal sector, submitting a large number of new cases as well as envisaged decisions to the ECN.
V letu 2005 so se nacionalni organi za konkurenco udeleževali številnih dejavnosti v telekomunikacijskem in poštnem sektorju ter Evropski mreži za konkurenco posredovali veliko novih primerov in predvidenih odločb.
Only exceptionally did the cases concern Article 81 EC. e large majority of the cases, as expected, concerned the incumbent’s attempts to abuse its market dominance, oen by leveraging of market power from the upstream (access) markets to the downstream (services) markets such as broadband or voice telephony. It
Primeri so se le izjemoma nanašali na člen 81 ES. Po pričakovanju je velika večina primerov obravnavala poskuse prvotnih operaterjev, da bi zlorabili svoj prevladujoči položaj na trgu, pogosto s preusmerjanjem tržne moči z nabavnih trgov (dostop) na prodajne trge (storitve), kot so širokopasovne povezave ali govorna telefonija.
Report on Competition Policy 2005 is interesting to note that almost 50 % of all the Article 82 cases in the ECN concerning the telecommunications sector related to margin squeeze, which was also the topic of the first ECN telecommunications subgroup meeting.
Zanimivo je, da se je skoraj 50 % primerov v zvezi s členom 82 v Evropski mreži za konkurenco glede telekomunikacij nanašalo na pritisk na marže, kar je bilo obravnavano tudi na sestanku podskupine ECN za telekomunikacije.
In the postal sector, most of the cases also concerned various abuses aimed at leveraging market power or tying monopoly markets with liberalised markets. e large number of ongoing national cases shows that there is ample scope for the application of antitrust rules in addition to the sector-specic regulation.
Tudi v sektorju poštnih storitev se je večina primerov nanašala na različne zlorabe, katerih cilj je bil preusmerjanje tržne moči ali povezovanje monopolnih trgov z liberaliziranimi trgi. Izredno veliko odprtih nacionalnih primerov kaže, da poleg ureditve za posamezen sektor obstaja precej prostora za uporabo protimonopolnih pravil.
At the meeting in November, the heads of the NCAs and energy regulators strongly supported the Competition DG’s initial findings in the sector inquiry as set out in the issues paper. e subgroup also discussed market denitions in electricity wholesale markets.
Vodje nacionalnih organov za konkurenco in zakonodajalci s področja energetike so na novembrskem sestanku močno podprli začetne ugotovitve GD za konkurenco v sektorski preiskavi, ki jih je navedel v dokumentu o aktualnih vpra- šanjih. Podskupina je razpravljala tudi o tržnih opredelitvah na trgih električne energije na debelo.
A number of very prominent cases in the energy sector dealt with at national level were submitted to the Commission, relating to highly important issues such as the compatibility of long-term exclusive gas supply contracts with EU competition law or excessive pricing in the electricity sector.
Komisiji je bila predložena vrsta izredno pomembnih primerov v energetiki, ki so bili obravnavni na nacionalni ravni in so se nanašali na zelo pomembna vprašanja, kot je združljivost dolgoročnih pogodb o izključni dobavi plina s konkurenčnim pravom EU ali določanje previsokih cen v sektorju električne energije.
ECN subgroup on railways — Rail Transport Competition Network (RTCN)
Podskupina ECN za železnice – Mreža za konkurenco v železniškem prometu (RTCN)
Cooperation within the RTCN and with RB has already proved to be very fruitful. e challenge is to continue to explore avenues and decide on concrete actions that would signicantly facilitate the entrance of newcomers and improve competition in the sector.
Sodelovanje v okviru RTCN in z železniškimi regulativnimi organi se je že izkazalo za zelo plodno. Izziv je še naprej v raziskovanju različnih smeri in v odločanju za konkretne ukrepe, ki bi pomembno olajšali vstop novim tekmecem in izboljšali konkurenco v sektorju.
In 2005, the ECN subgroup on environment discussed the Competition DG paper concerning issues of competition in waste management systems which was published on the Competition DG’s website in September. e paper examines antitrust issues that may arise with respect to waste management systems in particular as regards packaging waste, car wrecks and electronic waste.
Podskupina ECN za okolje je v letu 2005 razpravljala o dokumentu GD za konkurenco o vprašanjih konkurence v sistemih ravnanja z odpadki, ki je bil septembra objavljen na spletni strani GD za konkurenco.
A third annual meeting of the ECN subgroup of experts in securities issues took place in September.
Tretji letni sestanek podskupine ECN strokovnjakov za varnostna vprašanja je potekal septembra.
As a new initiative, some preliminary theoretical modelling of the welfare eects of consolidation in the settlement sector was presented.
Kot nova pobuda je bilo predstavljenih nekaj predhodnih teoretičnih oblikovanj pozitivnih učinkov združevanja v sektorju poravnav.
D SELECTED COURT CASES max.mobil (108
D IZBRANE SODNE ZADEVE max.mobil(108
By judgment of the 22nd February, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI) in Case T-54/99 max.mobil v Commission, which acknowledged a general right of the complainants to challenge the Commission’s refusal to act under Article 86(3) EC.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je s sodbo z dne 22. februarja razveljavilo sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T-54/99 max.mobil proti Komisiji, ki je priznala splošno pravico pritožnikov, da izpodbijajo zavrnitev Komisije za delovanje v skladu s členom 86(3) ES.
In its judgment the ECJ held that complainants under Article 86(3) cannot challenge decisions of the Commission not to open a procedure against a Member State because such acts cannot be regarded as producing binding legal eects.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v svoji sodbi izrazilo stališče, da pritožniki po členu 86(3) ne morejo izpodbijati odločb Komisije, da ne uvede postopka proti državi članici, saj za tako dejanje ne more veljati, da ima zavezujoče pravne učinke.
In doing so, the ECJ conrmed the practice of the Commission of handling Article 86(3) EC complaints in a way similar to the approach taken under Article 226 EC.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je s tem potrdilo ravnanje Komisije pri obravnavi pritožb po členu 86(3) ES na način, ki je podoben pristopu, sprejetemu v skladu s členom 226 ES.
With regard to attenuating circumstances, the CFI conrmed that the Commission is under no obligation to reduce a ne for the termination of a manifest infringement, whether that termination occurred before or aer its investigation.
Sodišče prve stopnje je glede olajševalnih okoliščin potrdilo, da Komisiji ni treba znižati glob zaradi prekinitve očitne kršitve, ne glede na to, ali je ta prekinitev nastopila pred njeno preiskavo ali po njej.
Reductions of fines have, however, been granted on three grounds.
Vseeno pa so se globe znižale na podlagi treh razlogov.
First, if the CFI found a factual error concerning the turnover of one of the addressees.
Prvič, Sodišče prve stopnje je odkrilo napake pri dejstvih o prometu enega od naslovljencev.
By judgment of the 28th June, the ECJ dismissed all appeals against the judgments of the CFI of 20 March 2002(113) concerning the Commission decision in the pre-insulated pipes case.
Sodišče prve stopnje je s sodbo z dne 28. junija zavrnilo vse pritožbe proti sodbam Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 20. marca 2002(113) o odločbi Komisije v prime-
Page 81
Poročilo o politiki konkurence za leto 2005 ru predizoliranih cevi.
114) was conrmed by the setting fines as described in the 1998 guidelines on nes(ECJ.
Sodišče prve stopnje je tako prvič potrdilo zakonitost metode, ki jo uporablja Komisija za določanje glob in ki je opisana v smernicah o globah iz leta 1998(114).
It underlined that the Commission enjoys a wide discretion in the field of competition policy, in particular as regards the determination of the amount of fines. e proper application of the EU competition rules requires that the Commission may at any time adjust the level of fines to the needs of that policy.
Poudarjeno je, da Komisija uživa veliko diskrecijo na področju politike konkurence, zlasti kar zadeva določanje zneska glob. Pravilna uporaba pravil konkurence EU zahteva, da lahko Komisija kadar koli prilagodi višino glob potrebam te politike.
Undertakings involved in an administrative procedure in which fines may be imposed cannot acquire legitimate expectations that the Commission will not exceed the level of fines previously imposed or that a particular method of calculating the fines will be used.
Podjetja, udeležena v upravnem postopku, v katerem se lahko izrečejo globe, ne morejo imeti pravno upravičenih pričakovanj, da Komisija ne bo presegla višine do tedaj izrečenih glob ali da bo uporabila določeno metodo za izračun glob.
Furthermore, the ECJ found that the new method of calculating fines contained in the guidelines was reasonably foreseeable for undertakings, such as the appellants, at the time when the infringements concerned were committed. e principle of non-retroactivity was therefore not violated.
Poleg tega je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da lahko podjetja, kot so pritožniki, v času kršitve razumno predvidijo novo metodo izračunavanja glob, ki je vsebovana v smernicah. Tako načelo retroaktivnosti ni bilo kršeno.
Moreover, the ECJ stated that in setting out in the guidelines the method which it proposed to apply when calculating fines, the Commission remained within its legal framework and did not exceed the discretion conferred on it by the legislator.
Poleg tega je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da Komisija pri določanju metode v smernicah, ki jo je predlagala za uporabo pri izračunavanju glob, ni presegla pravnega okvira in diskrecije, ki ji jo je zaupal zakonodajalec.
Stainless steel (alloy surcharge)(115
Nerjavno jeklo (dodatek za legiranje)(115
By judgments of the 14th July, the ECJ rejected the appeals lodged against the judgments of the CFI of the 13th December 2001(116) that had largely upheld the Commis- s t
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je s sodbama z dne 14. julija zavrnilo pritožbi, vloženi proti sodbama Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 13. decembra 2001(116), ki sta večino- ma podprli odločbo Komisije z dne 21. januarja 1998(117) o izreku globe šestim proizvajalcem ploščatih izdelkov iz nerjavnega jekla, ki pokrivajo več kot 80 % evropske proizvodnje, za kršitev člena 65 Pogodbe ESPJ.
) ning six producers of stainless steel at prod- ucts, accounting for more than 80 % of European production, for an infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. e infringement consisted of a concerted increase in stainless steel prices achieved by changing the method for calculating the ‘alloy surcharge’.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je potrdilo, da Komisija ne more predvidevati, da se matično podjetje, ki je kupilo hčerinsko podjetje drugega podjetja in izrecno prevzema odgovornost za dejanja tega hčerinskega podjetja, odpoveduje pravici do uresničevanja svoje pravice do obrambe glede preteklega ravnanja tega hčerinskega podjetja pred prenosom lastništva slednjega.
257. e ECJ conrmed that the Commission cannot presume that a parent company that has acquired a subsidiary of another party and expressly assumes liability for the acts of this subsidiary has waived its right to exercise its rights of defence in respect of the subsidiary’s earlier conduct, before the transfer of the latter’s business. e ECJ also reiterated that an express admission of the infringement, on top of merely admitting the nature of the facts, may give rise to an additional reduction of the ne under the 1996 leniency notice.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je tudi ponovilo, da izrecno priznanje kršitve, poleg zgolj priznanja narave dejstev, lahko dodatno zniža globo v skladu z obvestilom o prizanesljivosti iz leta 1996.