natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If an examination of the risks leads to the conclusion that there is an agreement between undertakings within the meaning of Article 81 EC, as regards the sale of goods to third parties, the fixing of the retail price of those goods constitutes a restriction of competition expressly provided for in Article 81(1)(a) EC which brings that agreement within the scope of the prohibition laid down in that provision to the extent to which all the other conditions for the application of that provision are satisfied, namely that that agreement has as its object or effect to restrict appreciably competition within the common market and is capable of affecting trade between Member States (see, to that effect, Case C-230/96 Cabour [1998] ECR I-2055, paragraph 48).
Če preučitev tveganj privede do ugotovitve, da obstaja sporazum med podjetji v smislu člena 81 ES, potem določanje maloprodajnih cen, kar zadeva prodajo blaga tretjim osebam, pomeni omejitev konkurence, ki je izrecno predvidena v odstavku 1(a) navedenega člena in zaradi katere ta sporazum spada med prepovedi, določene v tej določbi, če so vsi preostali pogoji uporabe izpolnjeni, torej da je lahko cilj oziroma posledica tega sporazuma znatna omejitev konkurence na notranjem trgu in da bi vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 30. aprila 1998 v zadevi Cabour, C-230/96, Recueil, str. I-2055, točka 48).
Moreover, as regards in particular exclusive purchasing agreements, the caselaw of the Court of Justice should be recalled, according to which, even if those agreements do not have as their object the restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC, it is nevertheless necessary to ascertain whether they have the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition.
Poleg tega je treba, zlasti kar zadeva sporazume o izključni nabavi, spomniti na sodno prakso Sodi�ča, v skladu s katero je treba – čeprav cilj teh sporazumov ni omejitev konkurence v smislu člena 81 ES – vendarle preveriti, ali ni posledica teh sporazumov preprečevanje, omejevanje ali izkrivljanje konkurence.
The effects of an exclusive purchasing agreement have to be assessed in the economic and legal context in which the agreement occurs and where it may combine with other agreements to have a cumulative effect on competition.
Presoja posledic sporazuma o izključni nabavi vključuje nujnost upo�tevanja gospodarskih in pravnih okoli�čin, v katerih je ta sporazum in v katerih bi lahko skupaj z drugimi sporazumi prispeval k zbirnemu učinku na konkurenco.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to Question 1(a) and 2(a) must be that an exclusive supply contract for petroleum products is capable of falling within the scope of Article 81(1) EC where the servicestation operator assumes, in
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve je treba na prvo in drugo vpra�anje, pod a), odgovoriti, da lahko pogodba o izključni dobavi naftnih proizvodov spada na področje uporabe
CEPSA a nonnegligible proportion, one or more financial and commercial risks linked to the sale of those products to third parties and where that contract contains clauses capable of infringing competition, such as that relating to the fixing of the retail price.
CEPSA člena 81(1) ES, kadar imetnik bencinske postaje v nezanemarljivem delu prevzame enega ali več finančnih in poslovnih tveganj, povezanih s prodajo teh proizvodov tretjim osebam, in kadar pogodba vsebuje klavzule, zaradi katerih so lahko kr�ena pravila konkurence, kakr�na je ta o določanju maloprodajnih cen.
If the servicestation operator does not assume such risks or assumes only a negligible share of them, only the obligations imposed on the operator in the context of services as an intermediary offered by the operator to the principal, such as the exclusivity and non-competition clauses, are capable of falling within the scope of that provision.
Kadar imetnik bencinske postaje ne prevzame tak�nih tveganj ali prevzame le njihov zanemarljivi del, lahko spadajo na področje uporabe tega člena samo obveznosti, kakr�ne so klavzule o izključnosti in prepovedi konkurence, ki so naložene imetniku v okviru storitev posrednika, ki jih nudi naročitelju.
It is for the referring court to ascertain, moreover, whether the contract at issue in the main proceedings has the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.
Predložitveno sodi�če med drugim preveri, ali je posledica zadevne pogodbe v postopku v glavni stvari preprečevanje, omejevanje ali izkrivljanje konkurence v smislu člena 81 ES.
The maximum duration of the agreement provided for in Regulation No 1984/83
Najdaljše trajanje sporazuma iz Uredbe št. 1984/83
By its Question 1(b) and (c), and by its Question 2(b), the referring court essentially asks whether an exclusive supply agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is capable, in the event that if falls within the scope of Article 81 EC, of benefiting from a block exemption such as provided for in Regulation No 1984/83, subject to its compliance with the conditions laid down by that regulation and, in particular, the maximum duration of the agreement and the granting of commercial and financial advantages.
S prvim vpra�anjem, pod b) in c), ter drugim vpra�anjem, pod b), predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali bi lahko za sporazum o izključni dobavi, kakr�en je ta v v postopku v glavni stvari, in sicer če spada na področje uporabe člena 81 ES, veljala skupinska izjema, kot je določena v uredbi �t. 1984/83, če se spo�tujejo v njej določeni pogoji, in sicer zlasti najdalj�e trajanje sporazuma in dodelitev gospodarskih in finančnih prednosti.
That court raises the question, in particular, first, whether, in order to comply with the maximum duration condition, Article 10 of Regulation No 1984/83 must be interpreted as meaning that it requires, for the application of the exemption to servicestation agreements, that the advantages granted to the servicestation operator by the supplier are substantial or whether it is enough that they are not insignificant and, second, whether the advantages granted by the contract at issue in the main proceedings are sufficient in this respect.
Navedeno sodi�če po eni strani zlasti spra�uje, ali je treba zaradi spo�tovanja pogoja o najdalj�em trajanju člen 10 Uredbe �t. 1984/83 razlagati tako, da se za uporabo izjeme za sporazume o bencinskih postajah zahteva, da dobavitelj imetniku bencinske postaje dodeli prednosti, ki so bistvene, ali zadostuje, da niso nepomembne, in po drugi strani, ali so prednosti, dodeljene z zadevno pogodbo v postopku v glavni stvari, v tem pogledu zadostne.
As stated at paragraph 41 of this judgment, in the case of a genuine agency relationship, only the exclusivity and non-competition clauses concerning the relationship between the agent and the principal as independent economic operators are capable of falling within Article 81 EC.
Kot je pojasnjeno v točki 41 te sodbe, lahko v primeru pristnega razmerja v okviru agencijske pogodbe spadajo pod člen 81 ES samo klavzule o izključnosti in prepovedi konkurence, ki se nana�ajo na razmerja med zastopnikom in naročiteljem kot neodvisnima gospodarskima subjektoma.
By contrast, the obligations concerning the sale of goods to third parties on behalf of the principal, although capable, at least as regards some of them, of infringing the competition rules if they were concluded between two independent undertakings, must not be taken into account when examining the applicability of that regulation.
Obveznosti glede prodaje blaga tretjim osebam na račun naročitelja – čeprav bi lahko vsaj nekatere med njimi kr�ile pravila konkurence, če bi bile dogovorjene med neodvisnima podjetjema – pa, nasprotno, ni treba upo�tevati med preučevanjem uporabe navedene uredbe.
In the case of a distribution contract between two independent undertakings, it is necessary to examine the contract in its entirety in order to decide whether the block exemption is applicable.
Pri distribucijski pogodbi med neodvisnima podjetjema je treba za odločitev o uporabi skupinske izjeme preučiti celotno pogodbo.
Article 12(1)(c) of Regulation No 1984/83 provided that, by derogation from the maximum duration of five years, which is generally applicable to exclusive purchasing agreements of short and medium duration in all sectors of the economy, the maximum duration applicable to servicestation agreements was ten years.
Člen 12(1)(c) Uredbe �t. 1984/83 je določal, da je kot odstopanje od najdalj�ega trajanja 5 let, ki velja na splo�no za sporazume o izključni nabavi za kratek ali srednji čas, kot obstajajo v vseh vejah gospodarstva, najdalj�i čas, ki velja za sporazume o bencinskih postajah, deset let.
As regards the special conditions applicable to those agreements, Article 10 of that regulation provided that the reseller was to agree with the supplier to purchase only from the supplier, such an exclusive purchasing obligation being concluded ‘in consideration for the according of special commercial or financial advantages’.
Glede posebnih pogojev, ki se uporabljajo za te sporazume, je člen 10 iste uredbe določal, da se preprodajalec do dobavitelja zaveže, da bo nabavljal samo pri njem, pri čemer je bila tak�na obveznost izključne nabave dogovorjena „v zameno za dodelitev posebnih gospodarskih ali finančnih prednosti“.
It should be noted that the Spanish version of that article 10 did not specify the nature of those commercial or financial advantages, unlike all the other language versions, which used the term ‘specific’ or ‘special’ to describe those advantages.
Ugotoviti je treba, da v �panski različici člena 10 ni natančno določeno, kak�ne so navedene gospodarske ali finančne prednosti, v nasprotju z vsemi preostalimi jezikovnimi različicami, v katerih je za opredelitev teh prednosti uporabljen izraz „posebne“ ali „izredne“.
However, according to settled caselaw, the different language versions of a provision of Community law must be uniformly interpreted and, in the case of divergence between those versions, the relevant provision must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (see Case C-1/02 Borgmann [2004] ECR I-3219, paragraph 25; Case C-227/01 Commission v Spain
Vendar je treba na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse različne jezikovne različice besedila Skupnosti razlagati enotno in ob razhajanju med temi različicami je treba upo�tevno določbo razlagati glede na splo�ni smisel in namen ureditve, katere del je (glej sodbe z dne 1. aprila 2004 v zadevi Borgmann, C-1/02, Recueil, str. I-3219, točka 25; z dne 16. septembra 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, C-227/01,
As regards the scheme and purpose of the Community rules at issue, it was apparent from recital 13 in the preamble to Regulation No 1984/83 that servicestation agreements are generally distinguished by the fact that the supplier confers on the reseller special commercial or financial advantages by contributing to his financing, granting him or obtaining for him a loan on favourable terms, equipping him with a site or premises for conducting his business, providing him with equipment or fittings, or undertaking other investments for his benefit.
Iz trinajste uvodne izjave Uredbe �t. 1984/83 glede smisla in namena zadevne ureditve Skupnosti izhaja, da je za sporazume o bencinskih postajah na splo�no značilno dejstvo, da dobavitelj preprodajalcu nakloni �e posebej pomembne gospodarske in finančne prednosti, in sicer s tem, da mu izplača denarne zneske za izgubljena sredstva, mu nudi oziroma ga oskrbuje s posojili pod ugodnimi pogoji, mu da na voljo zemlji�če oziroma prostore za obratovanje bencinske postaje, s tem, da lahko preprodajalec uporablja tehnične naprave oziroma drugo opremo oziroma uresničuje druge naložbe v korist preprodajalca.
Moreover, recital 15 in the preamble to that regulation stated that the commercial and financial advantages conferred by the supplier on the reseller make it significantly easier to establish, modernise, maintain and operate premises used for service stations.
Poleg tega je bilo v petnajsti uvodni izjavi iste uredbe pojasnjeno, da gospodarske in finančne prednosti, ki jih dobavitelj dodeli preprodajalcu, občutno pospe�ujejo namestitev ali modernizacijo bencinskih postaj ter njihovo vzdrževanje in obratovanje.
Recital 17 in the preamble stated, by way of example, that an exclusive purchasing obligation for lubricants and related petroleumbased products can be accepted only on condition that the supplier provides for the reseller or finances the procurement of specific equipment for the carrying out of lubrication work.
V sedemnajsti uvodni izjavi je bilo primeroma navedeno, da se obveznost izključne nabave maziv in povezanih naftnih proizvodov lahko sprejme le, če je dobavitelj dal preprodajalcu na voljo posebne tehnične naprave za oljenje ali če jih je financiral.
The purpose of the exemption from the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC is also apparent from the third indent of Article 81(3) EC, according to which the provisions of that paragraph 1 are inapplicable to any agreement ‘which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit’.
Namen izjeme od prepovedi, določene v odstavku 1 člena 81 ES, izhaja tudi iz odstavka 3, tretja alinea, tega člena, v skladu s katerim odstavek 1 ne velja za sporazume, „ki prispevajo k izbolj�anju proizvodnje ali distribucije blaga oziroma k pospe�evanju tehničnega ali gospodarskega napredka, pri čemer zagotavljajo potro�nikom pravičen delež doseženih koristi“.
Recitals 5 and 6 in the preamble to Regulation No 1984/83 stated, furthermore, as regards in particular exclusive purchasing agreements, that such agreements lower distribution costs, limit the risk of variations in market conditions, facilitate the promotion of the sales of a product, improve the structure of the distribution network and the quality of the sales service and are the most effective way, and sometimes the only way, to penetrate a market.
V peti in �esti uvodni izjavi Uredbe �t. 1984/83 je bilo zlasti glede sporazumov o izključni nabavi med drugim pojasnjeno, da ti sporazumi znižujejo stro�ke distribucije, omejujejo tveganja glede tržnih nihanj, pospe�ujejo prodajo proizvoda, izbolj�ujejo strukturo distribucijskega omrežja in kakovost ogla�evanja ter pomenijo najučinkovitej�i način, ali celo edini način, prodora na trg.
It follows that the concept of ‘special commercial or financial advantages’, referred to in Article 10 of Regulation No 1984/83, must be interpreted as meaning that those advantages are indeed specific to the contractual relationship, but that they must also be substantial in order to justify an exclusivity of supply of 10 years.
Iz tega sledi, da je treba opredelitev „posebnih gospodarskih ali finančnih prednosti“ iz člena 10 Uredbe �t. 1984/83 razlagati tako, da so te prednosti nedvomno posebne za pogodbeno razmerje, vendar pa morajo biti ravno tako pomembne, da bi se utemeljila izključnost dobave v obdobju desetih let.
Those advantages must be such as to lead to an improvement in distribution, to facilitate the establishment or modernisation of the service station and to lower the distribution costs.
Te prednosti morajo izbolj�evati distribucijo, pospe�evati namestitev ali modernizacijo bencinske postaje in zniževati stro�ke distribucije.
As regards the question whether the commercial or financial advantages, such as those granted to Tobar in the case in the main proceedings, are capable of justifying the duration of the exclusivity of supply of 10 years, it is necessary to recall the caselaw referred to in paragraph 30 of this judgment, according to which any assessment of the facts is within the province of the national court.
Glede vpra�anja, ali gospodarske ali finančne prednosti, kakr�ne so te, dodeljene družbi Tobar v zadevi v postopku v glavni stvari, upravičujejo trajanje izključne dobave desetih let, je treba spomniti na sodno prakso, omenjeno v točki 30 te sodbe, v skladu s katero je vsaka presoja dejstev v pristojnosti nacionalnega sodi�ča.
It is therefore for the referring court to appraise the significance of the investments made by CEPSA, taking account of the guidance set out in paragraphs 51 to 54 of this judgment.
Torej predložitveno sodi�če ob upo�tevanju poudarkov od točke 51 do 54 te sodbe oceni pomembnost naložb, ki jih je uresničila družba CEPSA.
It must, however, be pointed out that it is apparent from the order for reference that the scope ratione temporis of Regulation No 1984/83 does not entirely cover the period of performance of the contract at issue in the main proceedings, since that contract was concluded on 7 February 1996 for a duration of 10 years and it was only in the course of 2003 that Tobar ceased to perform its contractual obligations.
Treba pa je vendarle pojasniti, da iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da ratione temporis uporaba Uredbe �t. 1984/83 ne zajema celotnega obdobja izvr�evanja zadevne pogodbe v postopku v glavni stvari, saj je bila zadnja sklenjena 7. februarja 1996 za 10 let, in da je družba Tobar �ele med letom 2003 prenehala izpolnjevati svoje pogodbene obveznosti.
Regulation No 1984/83 expired on 31 December 1999, but the exemption provided for in that regulation continued to apply until 31 May 2000 pursuant to Regulation No 2790/1999, which provided, furthermore, for a transitional period until 31 December 2001, during which the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC did not apply in respect of agreements in force on 31 May 2000 which did not satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in that regulation but which did satisfy those provided for in Regulation No 1984/83.
Navedena uredba je prenehala veljati 31. decembra 1999, vendar je v njej predvidena izjema veljala do 31. maja 2000 na podlagi Uredbe �t. 2790/1999, ki je med drugim predvidela prehodno obdobje do 31. decembra 2001, v katerem prepoved iz člena 81(1) ES ni veljala za sporazume, ki so veljali 31. maja 2000 in ki niso izpolnjevali pogojev za izjemo iz te zadnje uredbe, vendar so izpolnjevali pogoje za izjemo iz Uredbe �t. 1984/83.
Regulation No 2790/1999, which is applicable to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, does not contain any special provisions relating to servicestation agreements.
Zadnja uredba, ki velja za skupine vertikalnih sporazumov in usklajenih ravnanj, ne vsebuje posebnih določb v zvezi s sporazumi o bencinskih postajah.
CEPSA or services. Unlike Regulation No 1984/83, Regulation No 2790/1999 provides, in Article 5(a), that the exemption provided for in Article 2 is not to apply to any of the direct or indirect noncompete obligations, ‘the duration of which is indefinite or exceeds five years’ and that ‘a noncompete obligation which is tacitly renewable beyond a period of five years is to be deemed to have been concluded for an indefinite duration’.
CEPSA določa, da izjema, predvidena v členu 2,ne velja za nobeno neposredno ali posredno prepoved konkurence, „katere trajanje je nedoločeno ali dalj�e od petih let“, in da „se �teje, da je bila prepoved konkurence, ki se molče podalj�uje, po preteku petih let dogovorjena za nedoločen čas“.
In this respect, it is important to determine whether the exclusivity agreement satisfied the conditions for exemption provided for in Regulation No 2790/1999 from 1 June 2000 onwards, the date on which that regulation became applicable.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, ali je sporazum o izključnosti od 1. junija 2000 –ko je začela veljati Uredbo �t. 2790/1999 – izpolnjeval pogoje, predvidene s slednjo uredbo.
If it were necessary to reply in the negative, a transitional period until 31 December 2001 would be applicable to that agreement only if it satisfied the conditions for exemption provided for in Regulation No 1984/83.
V primeru, ko bi bilo treba odgovoriti nikalno, bi prehodno obdobje do 31. decembra 2001 veljalo samo, če bi bili izpolnjeni pogoji iz Uredbe �t. 1984/83.
It follows from the provisions of Regulation No 2790/1999 that the exemption provided for in that regulation is applicable from 1 June 2000 to agreements the duration of which does not exceed five years.
Iz določb Uredbe �t. 2790/1999 izhaja, da v njej predvidena izjema velja od 1. junija 2000 za sporazume, katerih trajanje ni dalj�e od petih let.
However, Article 12(2) of Regulation No 2790/1999 provides for a transitional period until 31 December 2001 in respect of agreements in force on 31 May 2000 which do not satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in that regulation but which do satisfy the conditions for exemption provided for in Regulation No 1984/83.
Vendar je v členu 12(2) iste uredbe predvideno prehodno obdobje do 31. decembra 2001 za sporazume, ki so veljali 31. maja 2000 in niso izpolnjevali pogojev za izjemo iz te uredbe, ampak so izpolnjevali pogoje iz Uredbe �t. 1984/83.
Further, it is for that court to assess whether the clause of the contract at issue in the main proceedings providing for the extension of the contact for successive fiveyear
Poleg tega mora navedeno sodi�če presoditi, ali ni klavzule zadevne pogodbe v postopku v glavni stvari, ki določa podalj�anje te pogodbe za zaporedna obdobja
2008 — CASE C-279/06 periods by express agreement in writing on notice of at least six months cannot, under Article 5(a) of Regulation No 2790/1999, be regarded as providing that that contract was concluded for an indefinite duration, which would mean that it would be excluded from the benefit of the block exemption.
2008 – ZADEVA C-279/06 petih let z izrecnim pisnim soglasjem in predhodnim obvestilom najmanj �estih mesecev, ob upo�tevanju člena 5(a) Uredbe �t. 2790/1999 mogoče obravnavati tako, kot da določa, da je bila ta pogodba sklenjena za nedoločen čas, kar bi povzročilo, da za pogodbo ne velja skupinska izjema.
On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the answer to Questions 1(b) and (c) and 2(b) must be that an exclusive supply contract, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is capable of benefiting from a block exemption provided for in Regulation No 1984/83 if it complies with the maximum duration of 10 years referred to in Article 12(1)(c) of that regulation and if the supplier grants the servicestation operator, in return for exclusivity, substantial commercial advantages which contribute to an improvement in distribution, facilitate the establishment or modernisation of the service station and lower the distribution costs.
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve je treba na prvo vpra�anje, pod b) in c), ter drugo vpra�anje, pod b), odgovoriti, da lahko za pogodbo o izključni dobavi, kakr�na je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, velja skupinska izjema, kot je določena v Uredbi �t. 1984/83, če spo�tuje najdalj�e trajanje desetih let iz člena 12(1)(c) iste uredbe in če dobavitelj imetniku bencinske postaje v zameno za izključnost dodeli pomembne gospodarske prednosti, ki prispevajo k izbolj�anju distribucije, pospe�evanju namestitve ali modernizacije bencinske postaje in zniževanju stro�kov distribucije.
It is for the referring court to assess whether those conditions are satisfied in the case in the main proceedings.
Predložitveno sodi�če presodi, ali so pogoji v postopku v glavni stvari izpolnjeni.
The fixing of the retail price
Določitev maloprodajnih cen
By its Question 2(c), the referring court essentially asks whether Articles 10 to 13 of Regulation No 1984/83 must be interpreted as precluding the application of the block exemption to an exclusive supply contract by reason of the fact that that contract provides for the fixing of the retail price by the supplier.
Z drugim vpra�anjem, pod c), predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člene od 10 do 13 Uredbe �t. 1984/83 razlagati tako, da izključujejo uporabo skupinske izjeme za pogodbo o izključni dobavi zaradi tega, ker je v njej predvideno, da dobavitelj določa maloprodajno ceno.
If so, it wishes to know whether the authorisation to lower that sale price without affecting the supplier’s receipts renders the exemption applicable again.
Če je odgovor pritrdilen, želi vedeti, ali dovoljenje za znižanje maloprodajne cene, kar pa ne vpliva na dohodke dobavitelja, znova povzroči veljavnost izjeme.