natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Irrespective of whether or not the contractual relationship at issue in the main proceedings is a genuine agency relationship, the question of the compatibility of the exclusive supply clause with Article 85 of the Treaty would arise in any event and in terms, at the very least, similar to those set out in points 65 to 80 of this Opinion and, consequently, the unilateral amendment of the additional restriction relating to the fixing of the retail price by the supplier could not, ipso facto, result in the validity of the original contract.
Pravzaprav bi se neodvisno od vpra�anja, ali je pogodbeni odnos v zadevi v glavni stvari pristni odnos zastopanja ali ne, v vsakem primeru postavilo vpra�anje skladnosti določbe o izključnosti nabave, v najmanj enaki obliki kot pri presoji iz točk od 65 do 80 teh sklepnih predlogov, ne da bi posledično enostranska sprememba dodatne omejitve, ki se nana�a na določitev končne prodajne cene dobavitelja, ipso facto povzročila veljavnost izvorne pogodbe.
That being the case, if the duration, not exceeding 10 years, of the exclusive supply obligation is regarded as justified in the case in the main proceedings, the referring court would be required, in the light of the matters
Če bi bilo treba v zadevi v glavni stvari trajanje izključne nabave, ki ni dalj�e od desetih let, �teti za upravičeno, bi moralo predložitveno sodi�če ob upo�tevanju dejstev in prava v sporu v glavni stvari odgovoriti na
46 — In the light of the principle laid down in Article 85(2) of the Treaty that agreements prohibited by Article 85 of the Treaty are automatically void.
46 – Glede na načelo člena 85(2) Pogodbe, v skladu s katerim so prepovedani sporazumi iz člena 85 Pogodbe nični po samem pravu.
See, on this question, points 94 to 98 of this Opinion.
Glej v smislu tega vpra�anja točke od 93 do 97 teh sklepnih predlogov.
The fact nevertheless remains that, contrary to what CEPSA has claimed, a maximum sale price or one recommended by a supplier to its distributor, in so far as that is the case in the situation here at issue in the main proceedings following CEPSA’s decision in question, does not automatically qualify for the derogation from the prohibition laid down in Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
V nasprotju s tem, kar je zatrjevala CEPSA, iz tega ne sledi, da bi bila najvi�ja ali priporočena cena dobavitelja imetniku, če bi bilo v zadevi v glavni stvari po zgoraj navedeni odločitvi CEPSE tako, samodejno upravičena do izjeme od prepovedi iz člena 85(1) Pogodbe. Pravzaprav je mogoče skupinsko izjemo, kot določa besedilo člena 4(a) Uredbe �t.
As the wording of Article 4(a) of Regulation No 2790/1999 implies, the block exemption applicable to the vertical agreements governed by it may indeed apply in a situation where a supplier imposes a maximum sale price or recommends a sale price, but ‘provided that they do not amount to a fixed or minimum sale price as a result of pressure
2790/1999, nedvomno uporabiti za vertikalne sporazume, ki jih ureja, če dobavitelj določi maksimalno prodajno ceno ali priporoči prodajno ceno, „pod pogojem, da to ne vodi k fiksnim ali minimalnim prodajnim cenam zaradi pritiska ali spodbud katere koli pogodbene stranke“. Zdi se, da ta pogoj ni izpolnjen, ker distributer kljub maksimalni oziroma priporočeni ceni določi distribu-
If that is the case — and I come now to the second question referred to in point 86 of this Opinion — the price clause, as amended, and the agreement as a whole will not qualify for a block exemption under Regulation No 2790/1999.
Če bi bilo tako – in s tem prehajam na drugo vpra�anje, navedeno v točki 85 teh sklepnih predlogov –, določba o ceni, kot je bila spremenjena, in celotni sporazum ne bi mogla biti upravičena do skupinske izjeme, določene v Uredbi �t. 2790/1999.
from, or incentives offered by, any of the parties’. However, such a condition does not seem to be satisfied where, despite the indication of a maximum or recommended price, the distributor’s margin is fixed by the supplier, 47 with the result that the distributor is, in practice, unable to grant discounts to his customers with the aid of that margin and, what is more, where that distributor is obliged, at the same time, to provide the supplier with a constant level of income.
terjevo maržo 47, in sicer tako, da distributer s to maržo v praksi ne more ponuditi popustov svojim strankam, in ker mora ta distributer dobavitelju poleg tega istočasno zagotoviti ustaljene prihodke.
In such a case, a fixed or minimum resale price would in reality be indirectly imposed on the distributor.
V tem primeru bi bila distributerju dejansko posredno vsiljena fiksna oziroma minimalna prodajna cena.
Furthermore, it is conceivable that a maximum price or one recommended by the supplier could, having regard to the latter’s market position and/or the incentives or penalties available to that supplier where such a price is not observed, lead to a uniform application of that price by the operators, so that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to deviate from it in practice. 48
Poleg tega ne bi bilo mogoče izključiti, da bi lahko maksimalna oziroma priporočena cena dobavitelja, upo�tevaje njegov tržni položaj oziroma sredstva vzpodbud oziroma sankcij, ki jih ima na voljo ta dobavitelj, če ta cena ni spo�tovana, povzročila, da bi imetniki enotno uskladili to ceno, od katere bi bilo v praksi težko, če ne nemogoče, odstopiti 48.
If, on the other hand, the unilateral amendment results in the compliance of the contractual price clause with Article 85 of the Treaty, and if the referring court also considers that the duration of the exclusive supply obligation qualifies for exemption under Regulation No 2790/1999, such compliance will not be able to result, in my opinion, in the retroactive validity of the agreement from the point of view of the block exemption under Regulation No 1984/83.
Če bi, nasprotno, enostranska sprememba pogodbeno določilo o ceni uskladila s členom 85 Pogodbe in bi predložitveno sodi�če hkrati �telo, da za trajanje izključne nabave velja izjema iz Uredbe �t. 2790/1999, ta po mojem mnenju za sporazum ne bi mogla veljati za nazaj, upo�tevaje skupinsko izjemo, določeno v Uredbi �t. 1984/83.
51 However, as I have already stated in point 83 of this Opinion, the fixing of the retail price of the fuels by the
Sicer pa, kot sem že navedel v točki 83 teh sklepnih predlogov, določanje končne maloprodajne cene goriva dobavitelja ne dopu�ča, da bi bil sporazum o izključnosti, sklenjen med dobaviteljem in imetnikom, ob uporabi upo�tevnih določb Uredbe �t. 1984/83, upravičen do izjeme, tako da bi bilo treba tak
Consequently, should the referring court find that the contractual relationship at issue in the main proceedings should be classified as a distribution relationship between two independent undertakings, it would be for that court to examine all the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings in order to determine whether, following CEPSA’s decision of November 2001, that undertaking imposed on Tobar, at the very least indirectly, observance of a fixed or minimum resale price.
Če bi predložitveno sodi�če ugotovilo, da je treba pogodbeni odnos v zadevi v glavni stvari opredeliti kot odnos med neodvisnima podjetjema, bo moralo presoditi vse okoli�čine v zadevi v glavni stvari, da bi določilo, ali je po odločitvi CEPSE novembra 2001 to podjetje Tobarju najmanj posredno naložilo spo�tovanje določene oziroma najnižje prodajne cene.
49 — The parties to such an agreement could also (theoretically in this case) request the Commission to adopt an individual decision declaring Article 85(1) of the Treaty inapplicable or contend that the conditions laid down in another regulation providing exemption in respect of other categories of agreements are satisfied, or even establish that the agreement in question is, on some other ground, not incompatible with Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
49 – Pravzaprav bi imeli pogodbeni stranki takega sporazuma (v obravnavanem primeru teoretično) možnost Komisijo zaprositi za posamezno odločbo o neuporabi člena 85(1) Pogodbe oziroma bi lahko zatrjevali, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za uporabo druge ureditve drugih vrst sporazumov, ali dokazali, da sporazum iz drugih razlogov ni bil v nasprotju s členom 85(1) Pogodbe. Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 18. decembra 1986 v zadevi VAG France (10/86, Recueil, str.
See, in that regard, Case 10/86 VAG France [1986] ECR 4071, paragraphs 12 and 13, and Delimitis, paragraph 41.
4071, točki 12 in 13) in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Delimitis (točka 41).
50 — The possibilities mentioned in the previous footnote have neither been considered by the referring court nor invoked by the parties to the main proceedings.
50 – Primerov, na�tetih v prej�nji opombi, ni opredelilo niti predložitveno sodi�če niti se nanje nista sklicevali stranki v glavni stvari.
47 — See, to that effect, the Guidelines, point 47.
47 – Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedene smernice (točka 47).
It should be noted that, in its written observations, Tobar states that CEPSA fixes servicestation operators’ profit margin.
Dodati je treba, da je Tobar v pisnih stali�čih navedel, da je CEPSA določala tržno maržo imetnikov bencinskih postaj.
51 — See, in that regard, Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 Manfredi and Others [2006] ECR I-6619, paragraph 57 and the caselaw cited.
51 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 13. julija 2006 v zadevi Manfredi (od C-295/04 do C-298/04, ZOdl., str. I-6619, točka 57 in navedena sodna praksa).
48 — See, to that effect, the Guidelines, points 47 and 227.
48 – Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedene smernice (točki 47 in 227).
CEPSA to the permissible duration of the exclusive supply obligation.
CEPSA uredbah, �e posebej ne pogoju dopustnega trajanja izključnosti nabave.
C — The consequences of possible nullity of the contract (Question 1(d)) supplier does not serve to render the exclusive dealing agreement concluded between the supplier and the operator eligible for application of the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1984/83, with the result that, unless other grounds justify application of the conditions for exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty, that agreement should be regarded as void and could not regain a sudden ‘validity’ due to the occurrence of a possible unilateral amendment of the clause governing the fixing of that price.
sporazum, razen če bi drugi razlogi dopu�čali uporabo pogojev za izjemo na podlagi člena 85(3) Pogodbe, �teti kot ničnega, in ne bi mogel postati „veljaven“ z morebitno enostransko spremembo določbe, ki ureja določitev zadevne cene.
In the case of a genuine commercialagency relationship, and should the exclusive supply clause not qualify for a block exemption under Regulation No 1984/83, the referring court asks whether the automatic nullity provided for in Article 85(2) of the Treaty affects only that clause or the whole of the contract.
Če bi �lo za primer pristnega odnosa trgovskega zastopanja in če določba o izključni nabavi ne bi mogla biti upravičena do skupinske izjeme, določene v Uredbi �t. 1984/83, predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali ničnost, določena v členu 85(2) Pogodbe, zajame le to določbo ali celotno pogodbo.
As a preliminary point, it is important to note that the nullity provided for in Article 85(2) of the Treaty can be relied on by anyone, and the courts are bound by it once the conditions for the application of Article 85(1) of the Treaty are met and so long as the agreement concerned does not justify the grant of an exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty.
Uvodoma je treba opozoriti, da iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da mora sodi�če to ničnost določeno v členu 85(2) ES, na katero se lahko sklicujejo vsi, upo�tevati, če so izpolnjeni pogoji za uporabo člena 85(1) Pogodbe in zadevni sporazum ne more upravičiti odobritve oprostitve na podlagi člena 85(3) Pogodbe.
Since that nullity is absolute, an agreement which is void by virtue of that provision has no effect as between the contracting parties and cannot be invoked against third parties.
Ker ima ta ničnost absolutni značaj, sporazum, ki je na podlagi te določbe ničen, med strankami sporazuma nima učinka, proti tretjim pa je ni mogoče uveljavljati.
Moreover, it is capable of having a bearing on all the effects, either past or future, of the agreement or decision concerned. 52
Še več, ta ničnost lahko vpliva na vse učinke, v preteklosti ali v prihodnosti, sporazuma ali zadevnega sklepa 52.
Articles 10 to 13 of Regulation No 1984/83 must be interpreted as meaning that such a contract is not covered by that regulation in so far as it requires that operator to charge the retail price fixed by the supplier.
1984/83 je treba razlagati tako, da se za tako pogodbo ta uredba ne uporablja, če je v njej določena obveznost, da mora navedeni imetnik spo�tovati končno maloprodajno ceno, ki jo določi dobavitelj.
The bringing of a contractual clause relating to the fixing, by the supplier, of the retail price into line with Article 85 of the Treaty does not have the effect of correcting retroactively the nullity of the provisions of the contract which were contrary to that article before the date on which that clause was brought into line.
Uskladitev pogodbenega določila o določanju končne maloprodajne cene s členom 85 Pogodbe ne more za nazaj odpraviti ničnosti pogodbenih določil, ki so bila pred datumom te uskladitve v nasprotju s tem členom.
However, the automatic nullity referred to in Article 85(2) of the Treaty does not automatically affect the whole of the agreement concerned.
Kljub temu ničnost iz člena 85(2) Pogodbe ne zajame samodejno celotnega sporazuma, ki se presoja.
That nullity applies only to those parts of the agreement that are affected by the prohibition laid down in Article 85(1) of the Treaty or to the agreement as a whole if it appears that those parts are not severable from the agreement itself. 53
Pravzaprav ta ničnost prizadene le tiste elemente sporazuma, na katere se nana�a prepoved iz člena 85(1) Pogodbe oziroma celotni sporazum, če teh elementov ni mogoče ločiti od samega sporazuma 53.
If the contractual clauses which are incompatible with Article 85(1) of the Treaty are severable from the agreement itself, the consequences of the fact that those clauses are automatically void for all other parts of the agreement or for other obligations flowing from it are not a matter for Community law, but must be determined in the light of national law.
Če je mogoče pogodbena določila, ki niso v skladu s členom 85(1) Pogodbe, ločiti od samega sporazuma, posledice ničnosti teh določb za vse druge dele sporazuma ali za druge obveznosti, ki iz njega izhajajo, vseeno ne sodijo v pravo Skupnosti, ampak jih je treba presoditi glede na nacionalno pravo 54.
54 It is therefore for the national court to determine, in accordance
Zato predložitveno sodi�če v skladu
Consequently, I propose that Question 1(d) be answered to the effect that the automatic nullity referred to in Article 85(2) of the Treaty affects the clauses of an agreement which infringe the prohibition referred to in Article 85(1) of the Treaty, without any exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty being applicable, unless the prohibited parts are not severable from that agreement, in which case the nullity would affect the agreement as a whole.
Zato predlagam odgovor na prvo vpra�anje pod d), da ničnost, določena v členu 85(2) Pogodbe, zajame določbe sporazuma, ki so v nasprotju s prepovedjo iz člena 85(1) Pogodbe, ne da bi bilo mogoče uporabiti izjeme iz člena 85(3) Pogodbe, razen če prepovedanih elementov ni mogoče ločiti od navedenega sporazuma, ko ničnost zajame celotni sporazum.
Where the prohibited parts are severable from the other parts of the agreement, Community law does not govern the consequences, for the other parts of that agreement, of the fact that the prohibited clauses are void.
Če je mogoče prepovedane elemente ločiti od drugih elementov sporazuma, pravo Skupnosti ne ureja posledic ničnosti prepovedanih določb za druge elemente navedenega sporazuma.
53 — Case 56/65 LTM [1966] ECR 235 and Delimitis, paragraph 40.
53 – Sodba z dne 30. junija 1966 v zadevi LTM (56/65, Recueil, str.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court reply as follows to the questions submitted to it for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid:
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega Sodi�ču predlagam, naj v zvezi z vpra�anjema za predhodno odločanje, ki jih je postavilo Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, odgovori:
CEPSA between a supplier of fuel and the operator of a service station, pursuant to which the latter assumes, at the very most, only a negligible share of the financial and commercial risks linked to the sale of those goods, do not constitute agreements between undertakings within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC), even if that contract also contains a non-competition or exclusivity clause by which the operator undertakes to purchase supplies exclusively from the supplier.
CEPSA in imetnika bencinske postaje, na podlagi katerih zadnjenavedeni prevzema največ zanemarljivo finančno in poslovno tveganje za prodajo navedenega blaga, ne pomenijo sporazuma med podjetji v smislu člena 85(1) Pogodbe ES (postal člen 81(1) ES), tudi če je v tej pogodbi klavzula o prepovedi konkurence oziroma o izključnosti, s katero se imetnik zaveže, da bo nabavljal izključno pri dobavitelju.
The non-competition or exclusivity clause present in such a contract, by which the operator undertakes to purchase supplies exclusively from the supplier and which relates to the market for agency services, constitutes an agreement between undertakings within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
Sporazum med podjetji v smislu člena 85(1) Pogodbe pa pomeni klavzula o prepovedi konkurence oziroma o izključnosti, določena v taki pogodbi, s katero se imetnik zaveže izključno nabavljati pri dobavitelju, in se nana�a na trg posrednikovih storitev.
In order to determine whether Article 85(1) of the Treaty is applicable in the case in the main proceedings, it is for the national court to assess, in the light of the clauses of the contract at issue, the actual allocation of the financial and commercial risks between the servicestation operator and the supplier, taking into account the risks linked to the sale of the goods and those linked to the marketspecific investments.
Da bi bilo mogoče določiti uporabo člena 85(1) Pogodbe v zadevi v glavni stvari, mora nacionalno sodi�če, upo�tevaje določbe sporne pogodbe, presoditi dejansko porazdelitev finančnega in poslovnega tveganja med imetnikom bencinske postaje in dobaviteljem, tveganje, povezano s prodajo blaga, in tveganje, povezano z določenimi tržnimi naložbami.
Against that background, the duration not exceeding 10 years of that clause, referred to in Article 12(1)(c) of Regulation No 1984/83, is justified if the financial and commercial advantages conferred by the supplier are of a significance such that, in their absence, it is highly unlikely that the operator could have gained access to the market for the services of an intermediary entrusted with the marketing of fuel.
V tem okviru je obdobje največ desetih let, določeno v členu 12(c) Uredbe �t. 1984/83 za tako določbo, upravičeno s finančnimi in tržnimi prednostmi, ki jih je podelil dobavitelj in so takega pomena, da bi bilo brez njih malo verjetno, da bi lahko imetnik vstopil na trg storitev posrednika za trženje goriva.
It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the situation in the case in the main proceedings, in the light, in particular, of the actual duration of the exclusive purchasing clause stipulated by the parties to the contract at issue, of the amount of the investments made by the supplier and the operator, and of their depreciation.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora presoditi, ali je v zadevi v glavni stvari tako, upo�tevaje med drugim dejansko trajanje določbe o izključni nabavi, dogovorjeni med strankama sporne pogodbe, znesek naložb dobavitelja in imetnika ter njihovo amortizacijo.
Articles 10 to 13 of Regulation No 1984/83 must be interpreted as meaning that such a contract is not covered by that regulation in so far as it requires that operator to charge the retail price fixed by the supplier.
Člene od 10 do 13 Uredbe �t. 1984/83 je treba razlagati tako, da se za tako pogodbo ta uredba ne uporablja, če je v njej določena obveznost, da mora navedeni imetnik spo�tovati končno maloprodajno ceno, ki jo določi dobavitelj.
The bringing of a contractual clause relating to the fixing, by the supplier, of the retail price into line with Article 85 of the Treaty does not have the effect of correcting retroactively the nullity of the provisions of the contract which were contrary to that article before the date on which that clause was brought into line.
Uskladitev pogodbenega določila o določanju končne maloprodajne cene dobavitelja s členom 85 Pogodbe ne more za nazaj odpraviti ničnosti pogodbenih določil, ki so bila pred datumom te uskladitve v nasprotju s tem členom.
Nor does that bringing into line exempt such a contract, in order to qualify for a block
Zgoraj navedena uskladitev take pogodbe se prav tako ne more, s tem da bi bila upravičena do skupinske izjeme, ki jo določajo določbe Uredbe �t. 1984/83 oziroma
CEPSA exemption under the provisions of Regulation No 1984/83 or, subsequently, under those of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, from complying with the conditions laid down in those regulations, in particular that relating to the permissible duration of the exclusive supply obligation.
CEPSA za naprej določbe Uredbe Komisije (ES) �t. 2790/1999 z dne 22. decembra 1999 o uporabi člena 85(3) Pogodbe za skupine vertikalnih sporazumov in usklajenih ravnanj, izogniti spo�tovanju pogojev, določenih v teh uredbah, �e posebej ne pogoju dopustnega trajanja izključnosti nabave.
2008 — CASE C-279/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-279/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 11. septembra 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid (Spain), made by decision of 16 June 2006, received at the Court on 27 June 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-279/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Audiencia Provincial de Madrid (Španija) z odločbo z dne 16. junija 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 27. junija 2006, v postopku
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi, Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 7 June 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Strömholm, administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 7. junija 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, so jih predložili:
2008 — CASE C-279/06 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-279/06 izreka naslednjo
5), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1582/97 of 30 July 1997 (OJ 1997 L 214, p.
38), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) �t. 1582/97 z dne 30. julija 1997 (UL L 214, str.
27) (‘Regulation No 1984/83’).
27, v nadaljevanju: Uredba �t. 1984/83).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between CEPSA Estaciones de Servicio SA (‘CEPSA’), appellant in the main proceedings, and LV Tobar e Hijos SL (‘Tobar’), respondent in the main proceedings, regarding the non-perform-ance by Tobar of the exclusive purchasing agreement concluded between those two companies.
Predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med CEPSA Estaciones de Servicio SA (v nadaljevanju: CEPSA), tožečo stranko v postopku v glavni stvari, in LV Tobar e Hijos SL (v nadaljevanju: Tobar), toženo stranko v postopku v glavni stvari zaradi neizpolnitve pogodbe o izključni nabavi, sklenjene med tema podjetjema.