natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Conversely, to the extent that the public has a right of access to documents containing certain information, that information cannot be considered to be of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.
Po drugi strani pa, če ima javnost pravico dostopa do dokumentov, ki vsebujejo določene informacije, ni mogoče šteti, da za te informacije zaradi njihove narave velja zavezanost k poklicni tajnosti.
In 2006, the Court of First Instance again delivered a large number of judgments dealing with the lawfulness of the appropriateness of fines imposed for infringement of Article 81 EC.
Leta 2006 je Sodišče prve stopnje izdalo deset sodb, v katerih je bila obravnavana zakonitost ali primernost glob, naloženih zaradi kršitev člena 81 ES.
The most signicant developments this year concerned the principle that penalties must be in accordance with the law, the application of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines, the ceiling of 10 % of turnover and the Court of First Instance’s unlimited jurisdiction in relation to fines.
Najpomembnejši prispevki tega leta se nanašajo na načelo zakonitosti kazni, uporabo smernic o načinu določanja glob, zgornjo mejo 10 % prometa in neomejeno pristojnost Sodišča prve stopnje na področju glob.
Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p.
Po mnenju tožečih strank, ki sta bili udeleženi v kartelu, ki je pokrival trga citronske kisline in metionina, ta določba Komisiji nezakonito dopušča diskrecijsko pravico, da odloči o primernosti in višini globe.
1) and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43).
1) ter Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 1049/2001 z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (UL L 145, str. 43).
Principle that penalties must be provided for by law
Sodišče prve stopnje predvidljive z absolutno gotovostjo.
In Jungbunzlauer v Commission and Degussa v Commission, the Court of First Instance rejected an objection of illegality in respect of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 28, whereby it was alleged that that provision was incompatible with the principle that penalties must be provided for by law. According to the applicants, which had been parties to the cartels covering the markets for citric acid and methionine, that provision unlawfully confers on the Commission the discretion to decide on the appropriateness and the amount of the fine.
Poleg tega pooblastilo Komisije za odločanje po prostem preudarku glede sankcioniranja – čeprav je široko – ni absolutno, saj je Komisija omejena z zgornjo mejo 10 % prometa, s presojo teže in trajanja kršitev, z načeloma enakega obravnavanja in sorazmernosti, s svojo predhodno upravno prakso, razlagano ob upoštevanju načela enakega obravnavanja, in nazadnje s samoomejevanjem, ki si ga je Komisija sama naložila s sprejetjem Obvestila o ugodni obravnavi in Smernic o načinu določanja glob.
The Court of First Instance therefore rejected the objection of illegality raised.
Sodišče prve stopnje je zato zavrnilo ugovor zatrjevane nezakonitosti.
Although the Commission adopted new Guidelines on the method of setting fines on 1 September 2006, the judgments delivered, and, moreover, the newly lodged cases, in 2006 concerned only the Guidelines adopted in 1998 29.
Čeprav je Komisija 1. septembra 2006 izdala nove smernice o načinu določanja glob, so se izdane sodbe – tako kot na novo vložene zadeve – v tem letu nanašale samo na smernice, sprejete v letu 199829.
From a general point of view, it is now accepted that the Guidelines bind the Commission.
Na splošno je zdaj potrjeno, da smernice zavezujejo Komisijo.
However, in Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance held that the fact that the Commission had thus bound itself was not incompatible with its retention of a substantial discretion.
Vendar je Sodišče prve stopnje v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich in drugi proti Komisiji podrobneje pojasnilo, da tako samoomejevanje ni bilo nezdružljivo z ohranitvijo znatnega pooblastila za odločanje po prostem preudarku, ki ga ima Komisija.
The adoption of the Guidelines thus did not render irrelevant the previous caselaw according to which the Commission has a discretion which allows it to take into consideration, or not to do so, certain elements when it fixes the amount of the fines which it proposes to impose, depending in particular on the circumstances of the case.
Sprejetje novih smernic tako ni odvzelo upoštevnosti prejšnji sodni praksi, na podlagi katere ima Komisija pooblastilo za odločanje po prostem preudarku, ki ji omogoča, da pri določitvi zneska globe, ki jo namerava naložiti, upošteva določene dejavnike ali jih ne upošteva, in sicer predvsem glede na okoliščine zadeve.
Where the Commission has departed from the method set out
Če ravnanje Komisije odstopa od postopka, navedenega v smernicah, mora Sodišče prve stopnje preveriti, ali je ta odmik zakonito upravičen in pravno zadostno obrazložen.
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).
Smernice o načinu določanja glob, naloženih v skladu s členom 15(2) Uredbe št. 17 in člena 65(5) Pogodbe ESPJ (UL 1998, C 9, str. 3).
Those guidelines have now been replaced by the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ C 210, 5.9.2003, p. 2).
Te smernice so zdaj nadomeščene s Smernicami o načinu določanja glob, naloženih v skladu s členom 23(2)(a) Uredbe št. 1/2003 (UL 2006, C 210, str. 2).
The new guidelines are to apply in cases where a statement of objections is notied after 1 September 2006.
Nove smernice veljajo za zadeve, v katerih je bilo obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kršitvah vročeno po 1. septembru 2006.
10 % ceiling
Zgornja meja 10 %
Regulation No 17 provided, as Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 now provides, that for each undertaking and association of undertakings participating in an infringement of Article 81 EC or Article 82 EC, the fine is not to exceed 10 % of its total turnover in the preceding business year.
Uredba št. 17 je določala, kot po novem določa člen 23(2) Uredbe št. 1/2003, da lahko Komisija podjetjem in podjetniškim združenjem, ki so udeležena pri kršitvi členov 81 ES in 82 ES, naloži globo, ki ne presega 10 % njihovega celotnega prometa v predhodnem poslovnem letu.
In FNCBV and Others v Commission, to which reference has already been made in connection with the application of the competition rules to the agricultural sector, the contested decision was vitiated by a failure to state reasons owing to the fact that the Commission had not dedicated any passage in the decision to compliance with the 10 % limit and the turnover to be taken into account when calculating that limit.
V zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana sodba FNCBV in drugi proti Komisiji, ki je bila že navedena v zvezi z uporabo konkurenčnih pravil na področju kmetijstva, je bila izpodbijana odločba nezakonita zaradi pomanjkljive obrazložitve, ker Komisija ni nikjer v odločbi obravnavala spoštovanja zgornje meje 10 % in prometa, ki ga je treba upoštevati pri izračunu te zgornje meje.
Nonetheless, the Court of First Instance further held that the possibility for the Commission to rely not on the federations’ own turnover but on that of their members is not limited to the circumstance, already identied in the case-law, in which an association may render its members liable.
Vseeno je Sodišče prve stopnje med drugim presodilo, da možnost Komisije, da se ne opre na promet združenj, ampak na promet njihovih članov, ni omejena na primer – do katerega se je sodna praksa že opredelila –, ko združenje lahko zavezuje svoje člane.
It must be possible to apprehend the real economic power of an association. Other specic circumstances may therefore justify the turnovers of the members of an association being taken into account, such as, for example, that fact that the infringement committed by an association relates to the activities of its members and that the practices are implemented by the association directly for the benet of its members and in cooperation with them, the association having no autonomous objective interests by reference to its members’ interests.
Odločilna je namreč dejanska gospodarska moč združenja.Tudi druge posebne okoliščine lahko torej upravičijo upoštevanje prometa članov združenja, kot na primer dejstvo, da se kršitev združenja nanaša na dejavnosti njegovih članov ter da so dejanja združenja opravljena neposredno v korist teh članov in z njihovim sodelovanjem, pri čemer združenje nima objektivnih interesov, ki bi bili neodvisni od objektivnih interesov njegovih članov.
That was indeed the situation in this case.
V obravnavani zadevi pa je šlo prav za tak primer.
The penalised federations’ essential task was to defend their members and to represent their members’ interests.
Naloga sankcioniranih združenj je bila v bistvu zavarovati njihove člane in zastopati njihove interese.
The agreement in issue concerned those members’ activities and had been concluded directly for their benet.
Sporni sporazum se je poleg tega nanašal na dejavnosti teh članov in je bil sklenjen neposredno v njihovo korist.
Last, it had been implemented, in particular, by the conclusion of local agreements
Nazadnje, izveden je bil predvsem s sklenitvijo lokalnih sporazumov med združenji na ravni departmajev in med lokalnimi kmetijskimi sindikati, člani nacionalnih združenj, ki so bila sankcionirana v obravnavani zadevi.
Annual Report 2006
V letu 2006 je Sodišče prve stopnje večkrat in različno izvajalo to pristojnost.
Proceedings between departmental federations and local agricultural trade associations which were members of the national federations penalised in this case.
Sodišče prve stopnje svoji tožbi –, in sicer z namenom omilitve posledic te nezakonitosti na določitev zneska naložene globe, po potrebi z odpravo ali spremembo te globe.
Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction
Tako je Sodišče prve stopnje večkrat – po zavrnitvi tožbenega razloga tožečih strank – uveljavilo svojo neomejeno pristojnost, da je potrdilo ustreznost naložene globe.
Under Article 17 of Regulation No 17, and also under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Court of First Instance, when hearing an action against a decision imposing a fine, is to have unlimited jurisdiction, within the meaning of Article 229 EC, which allows it to reduce or increase fines imposed by the Commission.
Sodišče prve stopnje je nazadnje v že omenjeni sodbi FNCBV in drugi proti Komisiji ugotovilo, da je Komisija kot olajševalne okoliščine upoštevala po eni strani dejstvo, da je prvič sankcionirala omejevalni sporazum, sklenjen izključno med sindikalnimi združenji glede osnovnih kmetijskih proizvodov, ki je zajemal dva člena v produkcijski verigi, in po drugi strani posebni gospodarski okvir zadeve, in sicer veliko krizo govejega sektorja od leta 2000 naprej, po odkritju novih primerov bolezni norih krav.
During 2006 the Court of First Instance exercised that jurisdiction on numerous occasions and in various ways.
Zaradi tega je Komisija za 60 % znižala znesek glob, naloženih tožečim strankam.
Thus, in the vitamins cartels cases, the Court of First Instance exercised its unlimited jurisdiction solely in order to draw the consequences from defects aecting the legality of the decision.
Sodišče prve stopnje ob izvajanju svoje neomejene pristojnosti meni, da to znižanje – čeprav je znatno – ne upošteva dovolj izjemnosti okoliščin obravnavane zadeve.
In BASF v Commission, the Court of First Instance considered that the finding of the illegality of the Commission’s assessment in regard to the aggravating circumstances which had led to an increase in the fine by reference to its basic amount gave the opportunity for the Community judicature to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction in order to conrm, cancel or amend that increase in the fine in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case.
Zato je presodilo, da je primerno globe, naložene tožečim strankam, znižati za 70 % in torej globo znižati še za dodatnih 10 %.
Conversely, in Hoek Loos v Commission, which concerned the industrial gases cartel, the Court of First Instance considered the applicant’s argument from the aspect of the request to cancel or reduce its fine.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v dveh zadevah preučilo tudi možnost zvišanja globe, ki jo je naložila Komisija.
In that context, it observed that the assessment of the proportionate nature of the fine by reference to the gravity and duration of the infringement fell within the unlimited jurisdiction conferred on the Court of First Instance 30.
Tako je Komisija v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich in drugi proti Komisiji Sodišču prve stopnje predlagala, naj zviša globo, naloženo tej banki, ker je ta banka pred Sodiščem prve stopnje prvič izpodbijala obstoj določenega dela sankcioniranih sporazumov.
Having finally rejected all of those complaints, the Court of First Instance concluded that‘since the final amount of the fine imposed on the applicant appear[ed] to be wholly appropriate, no points raised by the latter justif[ied] any reduction thereof’. Likewise, in Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance held that, in addition to reviewing the legality of a decision, it must appraise whether it is appropriate to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction in regard to the fine imposed on the various members of the cartel.
Sodišče prve stopnje je presodilo, da je v zvezi s tem treba ugotoviti, ali je bila Komisija zaradi ravnanja tožeče stranke – proti vsem pričakovanjem, ki bi jih lahko razumno imela na podlagi sodelovanja tožeče stranke v upravnem postopku – dolžna svojo obrambo pred Sodiščem prve stopnje pripraviti in predstaviti tako, da bo osredotočena na izpodbijanje kršitev, glede katerih je v dobri veri menila, da jih tožeča stranka ne bo več prerekala.
Thus, on a number of occasions, the Court of First Instance, after rejecting a plea put forward by the applicants, has exercised its unlimited jurisdiction and conrmed that the fine imposed was appropriate.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v obravnavani zadevi odločilo, da zvišanje sankcije ni primerno, in sicer zaradi neznatnega pomena izpodbijanih vprašanj tako z vidika zasnove izpodbijane odločbe kot z vidika priprave Komisijine obrambe, ki ni bila zaradi ravnanja tožeče stranke skoraj nič otežena.
See also Westfalen Gassen Nederland v Commission and Case T-329/01 Archer Daniels Midland v Commission, paragraph 380.
Glej tudi zgoraj navedeni sodbi Westfalen Gassen Nederland proti Komisiji in Archer Daniels Midland proti Komisiji, T-329/01, točka 380.
In Roquette Frères v Commission, on the other hand, the Court of First Instance increased the contested fine after reducing it.
Nasprotno pa je Sodišče prve stopnje v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Roquette Frères proti Komisiji zvišalo izpodbijano globo, ki jo je predhodno znižalo.
It found, initially, that the fine imposed on the applicant did not correspond with its position on the sodium gluconate market.
Sodišče prve stopnje je najprej ugotovilo, da globa, naložena tožeči stranki, ne odseva ustrezno njenega položaja na trgu natrijevega glukonata.
Even though no criticism could be levelled against the Commission, since it had calculated the amount of the fine on the basis of unclear and equivocal information originating with the applicant, the Court of First Instance nonetheless decided to correct that defect in the decision and therefore to reduce the fine. It then increased the fine by EUR 5 000 to take account of the fact that the applicant, which was aware that the Commission might be confused, had communicated its turnover incorrectly following a request for information.
Čeprav Komisiji ni bilo mogoče ničesar očitati, saj je znesek globe izračunala na podlagi ne dovolj jasnih in ne dovolj nedvoumnih podatkov, ki jih je predložila tožeča stranka, je Sodišče prve stopnje odločilo, da popravi to napako odločbe in torej zniža globo.V nadaljevanju pa je Sodišče prve stopnje globo zvišalo za 5 000 evrov, da bi upoštevalo dejstvo, da je tožeča stranka, ki se je zavedala možnosti, da bi si Komisija ustvarila napačno predstavo, v odgovoru na zahtevo za informacije nepravilno sporočila podatke o svojem prometu.
As Regulation No 17 provides that the Commission may impose a fine of between EUR 100 and EUR 5 000 if the undertaking supplies incorrect information in response to a request for information, the Court of First Instance decided to take the applicant’s serious negligence into account and to increase the fine by the maximum amount provided for in that provision.
Ker namreč Uredba št. 17 določa možnost, da Komisija naloži globo v znesku med 100 in 5 000 evrov, če to podjetje v odgovoru na zahtevo za informacije predloži napačne informacije, se je Sodišče prve stopnje odločilo upoštevati hudo malomarnost tožeče stranke ter globo zvišalo do najvišjega zneska, določenega s to določbo.
Proceedings take into consideration additional information which was not mentioned in the contested decision when assessing the amount of the fine in the light of the complaint raised by the applicant, an assessment which was conrmed in Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission.
Nazadnje se je Sodišče prve stopnje v isti sodbi izreklo glede načinov izvajanja svoje neomejene pristojnosti: na podlagi te pristojnosti lahko Sodišče prve stopnje pri presoji zneska globe v zvezi z očitki, ki jih navaja tožeča stranka, upošteva dodatne informacije, ki niso bile navedene v izpodbijani odločbi; to presojo je potrdila zgoraj navedena sodba Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich in drugi proti Komisiji.
However, the Court of First Instance made clear in Roquette Frères v Commission that, in the light of the principle of legal certainty, that possibility must in principle be limited to taking into account items of information preceding the contested decision and of which the Commission might have been aware at the time of adopting its decision.
Vendar se mora – kot je Sodišče prve stopnje navedlo v sodbi Roquette Frères proti Komisiji – ta možnost glede na načelo pravne varnosti omejiti na upoštevanje informacij iz obdobja pred sprejetjem izpodbijane odločbe, ki bi jih Komisija lahko poznala, ko je sprejela odločbo.
A dierent approach would lead the Court of First Instance to substitute itself for the administration in order to assess a question which the Commission has not yet been called upon to examine, which would be tantamount to interfering with the system of the allocation of functions and the institutional balance between the judiciary and the administration.
Drugačen pristop bi namreč povzročil to, da bi Sodišče prve stopnje nadomestilo upravo pri presoji vprašanja, za katero uprava še ni bila pozvana, naj ga preuči, kar bi kršilo sistem delitve pristojnosti in institucionalnega ravnovesja med sodno in upravno vejo oblasti.
Points raised in connection with the control of concentrations
Prispevki na področju nadzora koncentracij
Three judgments concerning the application of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89, now replaced by Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, were delivered during 2006, as was a fourth judgment concerning the application of the latter regulation 31.
V letu 2006 so bile razglašene tri sodbe, ki se nanašajo na uporabo Uredbe št. 4064/89, ki jo je zdaj nadomestila Uredba št. 139/2004, in še četrta sodba, ki se nanaša na uporabo slednje uredbe31.
The Commission’s competence in relation to the control of concentrations
Pristojnost Komisije na področju nadzora koncentracij
Regulations (EEC) No 4064/89 and (EC) No 139/2004 apply solely to concentrations having a Community dimension, which is dened, inter alia, by reference to a number of turnover thresholds applicable to the parties to the transaction.
Uredbi št. 4064/89 in št. 139/2004 se uporabljata le za koncentracije z razsežnostjo Skupnosti, ki je opredeljena na podlagi več pragov prometa, ki zadeva udeležence koncentracije.
Two judgments delivered in 2006 dene the Commission’s competence in that regard.
Dve sodbi, izdani leta 2006, v zvezi s tem podrobno opredeljujeta pristojnost Komisije.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p.
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 4064/89 z dne 21. decembra 1989 o nadzoru koncentracij podjetij (UL L 395, str. 1; popravki v UL 1990, L 257, str.
13), repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).
13), razveljavljena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 139/2004 z dne 20. januarja 2004 o nadzoru koncentracij podjetij (UL L 24, str. 1).
Court of First Instance complaint by an undertaking which considers that a concentration which has not been notied to the Commission is of a Community dimension, the Commission is required to take a decision on the principle of its competence.
Prvič, v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Endesa proti Komisiji so bila navedena merila, na podlagi katerih je treba izračunati promet udeležencev koncentracije, da se preveri njena razsežnost Skupnosti.
Consequently, it is in principle for the complainant to demonstrate the merits of its complaint, whereas it is for the Commission to carry out a diligent and impartial examination of the complaints submitted it and to provide a properly reasoned response to the arguments put forward by the complainant.
V tej zadevi je Gas Natural, španska družba, ki posluje v energetskem sektorju, španski organ, pristojen za konkurenco, obvestila o svoji nameri, da bo objavila javno ponudbo za odkup vseh kapitalskih deležev Endese, španske družbe, ki v glavnem deluje v sektorju električne energije.
Furthermore, the Commission cannot be required to satisfy itself of its own motion in each case that the audited accounts submitted to it faithfully reect reality and to examine all the adjustments envisageable.
Ker je družba Endesa menila, da je imela koncentracija v skladu z Uredbo št. 139/2004 razsežnost Skupnosti, zaradi česar bi morala biti priglašena Komisiji, je pri Komisiji vložila pritožbo, ki pa je bila zavrnjena.
It is only when its attention is drawn to specic problems that the Commission must examine those adjustments.
Družba Endesa je to odločbo izpodbijala pred Sodiščem prve stopnje, pri čemer je med drugim trdila, da je Komisija njen promet ocenila nepravilno.
In this case, Endesa maintained, in particular, that the Commission’s examination of its turnover ought to have been based on international accounting standards and not on the Spanish standards then in force.
Sodišče prve stopnje v svoji sodbi predvsem ugotavlja, da uredba o nadzoru koncentracij izrecno ne določa obveznosti Komisije, da se po uradni dolžnosti prepriča, da vsaka koncentracija, ki ji ni bila priglašena, dejansko nima razsežnosti Skupnosti.
However, the Court of First Instance interpreted Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 as meaning that it requires that the Commission refer to the undertakings’ accounts for the previous year, drawn up and audited in accordance with the applicable legislation.
Vendar iz sodne prakse izhaja, da mora Komisija, če prejme pritožbo podjetja, ki meni, da ima Komisiji nepriglašena koncentracija tako razsežnost, o tem načeloma odločiti na podlagi svoje pristojnosti.