natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Its finding that the Commission committed errors of assessment and of reasoning because it did not undertake any new investigations is accordingly without foundation.
Zato naj njegova ugotovitev, da je Komisija storila očitno napako pri presoji in obrazložitvi, ker ni izvedla novih preverjanj, ne bi bila utemeljena.
By the first part of the third ground, which should be considered together with the second ground, the appellants maintain that the Court of First Instance in effect suggested in paragraph 414 of the judgment under appeal that the exculpatory evidence submitted by the notifying parties in response to the statement of objections is subject to a higher standard of proof than that applied to the evidence cited by the Commission in the statement of objections.
Pritožnici v okviru prvega dela tretjega pritožbenega razloga, ki ga je treba obravnavati skupaj z drugim pritožbenim razlogom, navajata, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 414 izpodbijane sodbe dejansko navedlo, da velja za razbremenilne dokaze, ki so jih predložile stranke koncentracije v odgovor na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, vi�ji dokazni standard kot tisti, ki velja za dokaze, ki jih je navedla Komisija v obvestilu o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah za utemeljitev teh kr�itev.
In support of the appellants, the Commission argues, first, that in view of the tight deadlines that it faces under the Regulation it must be able to rely on the evidence submitted by the appellants in the reply to the statement of objections, since that reply forms part of the formal proceedings.
Komisija, ki podpira pritožnici, navaja, prvič, da mora imeti ob upo�tevanju kratkih rokov, ki jih mora upo�tevati na podlagi Uredbe, možnost, da se opre na dokaze, ki sta jih predložili pritožnici v odgovor na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, saj navedeni odgovor spada v okvir formalnega postopka.
Like the appellants, it observes that the Regulation provides for the imposition of fines or periodic penalty payments where incorrect or misleading information is submitted and gives the Commission the power to revoke a decision based on incorrect information for which one of the undertakings is responsible or which has been obtained by deceit.
Enako kot pritožnici opozarja, da Uredba določa naložitev glob ali periodičnih denarnih kazni, če so Komisiji sporočeni nepravilni in zavajajoči podatki, in omogoča Komisiji, da razveljavi odločbo, ki temelji na nepravilnih podatkih, za katere je odgovorno eno od podjetij, ali je bila pridobljena s prevaro.
Secondly, the Commission considers that paragraph 414 of the judgment under appeal, which sets out the approach followed by the Court of First Instance in paragraphs 415 to 457 of the judgment to a large body of evidence, reveals a number of related errors of law concerning, among other things, the probative value of the evidence submitted in response to the statement of objections.
Drugič, Komisija meni, da je v točki 414 izpodbijane sodbe, ki govori o pristopu, ki mu je sledilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 415 do 457 te sodbe, do vseh dokazov, večkrat napačno uporabljeno pravo, zlasti glede dokazne vrednosti dokazov, predloženih v odgovoru na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah.
Impala submits that the Court of First Instance took into account the strict timetables laid down by the Regulation.
Impala meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje upo�tevalo stroge roke, ki jih določa Uredba.
It merely found as a fact that the Commission had failed to carry out any market investigations whatsoever, without stating whether, after the hearing, market investigations should have been carried out.
Preprosto naj bi ugotovilo, da Komisija ni izvedla nobenih dodatnih raziskav trga, ne da bi po zasli�anju pojasnila, ali je treba izvesti raziskave trga.
According to Impala, the Commission should have investigated the problem of transparency and discounts before issuing the statement of objections.
Impala meni, da bi Komisija morala raziskati problematiko preglednosti in popustov pred izdajo obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah.
As regards the first part of the third ground of appeal, Impala submits that it is clear from paragraph 414 of the judgment under appeal that the Court of First Instance referred to a hypothetical situation in which the parties to a concentration provide evidence at the very last minute, giving the Commission no opportunity to carry out the necessary investigations.
Impala glede prvega dela tretjega pritožbenega razloga meni, da iz točke 414 izpodbijane sodbe izhaja, da se Sodi�če prve stopnje sklicuje na teoretični primer, v katerem stranke koncentracije sporočijo dokaze zadnjo minuto in s tem Komisiji odvzamejo možnost, da opravi potrebna preverjanja.
It is also clear, according to Impala, from that paragraph of the judgment under appeal that it must be inferred that the Court of First Instance considered, not that the Commission should have investigated those matters after the hearing, but that it should have done so earlier in the formal proceedings.
Po mnenju Impale iz iste točke izpodbijane sodbe prav tako izhaja, da je treba sklepati, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni menilo, da bi morala Komisija raziskati navedeno problematiko po zasli�anju, ampak da bi morala tako ravnati v fazi formalnega postopka pred tem.
It is necessary at the outset to reject Impala’s argument set out in paragraph 86 of this judgment that paragraph 414 of the judgment under appeal refers to a hypothetical situation.
Najprej je treba zavrniti tezo Impale iz točke 86 te sodbe, da se točka 414 izpodbijane sodbe nana�a na hipotetičen primer.
Such an interpretation of that paragraph is refuted by its very wording, which makes it clear that the observations of the Court of First Instance that are criticised in the first part of the third ground of appeal referred to the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision.
Taka razlaga navedene točke 414 je namreč ovržena s samim besedilom te točke, iz katerega izhaja, da so se ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje, izpodbijane v okviru prvega dela tretjega pritožbenega razloga, nana�ale na postopek, ki je privedel do sprejetja sporne odločbe.
Next, as is clear from paragraphs 61 and 62 of this judgment, compliance with the rights of the defence prior to the adoption of any decision which may impact adversely on the undertakings concerned is imperative in procedures for the control of concentrations.
Dalje, opozoriti je treba, kot izhaja iz točk 61 in 62 te sodbe, da je spo�tovanje pravic do obrambe pred sprejetjem kakr�nekoli odločbe, ki lahko posega v položaj zadevnih podjetij, zavezujoče v postopkih nadzora koncentracij.
Accordingly, the notifying parties cannot, as a rule, be criticised for putting forward certain — potentially decisive — arguments, facts or evidence only in their arguments
Zato se načeloma priglasiteljem ne bi smelo očitati, da so določene trditve, dejstva ali dokaze, morda odločilne, podali �ele v svojem odgovoru na obvestilo o ugotovitvah
It is only with that statement that the parties to the concentration can obtain detailed indications as to the reservations of the Commission in relation to their proposed concentration and as to the arguments and evidence on which it relies in that regard.
Stranke koncentracije lahko namreč �ele s tem obvestilom pridobijo podrobnej�e pokazatelje glede zadržkov Komisije v zvezi z načrtom koncentracije in dokazi, na katere se v zvezi s tem opira.
As is apparent from paragraph 62 of this judgment, it flows from the notifying undertakings’ rights of defence laid down in the second sentence of Article 18(3) of the Regulation and in Article 13(2) of the Implementing Regulation that those undertakings have the right to submit in their written and oral hearing following receipt of the statement of objections all material which they consider capable of refuting the Commission’s objections and of leading it to approve their proposed concentration.
Tako kot izhaja iz točke 62 te sodbe, pravica priglasiteljev do obrambe, določena v členu 18(3), druga poved, Uredbe in členu 13(2) izvedbene uredbe, pomeni, da imajo ti pravico v okviru svojega pisnega in ustnega zasli�anja po prejemu obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah predložiti vse, za kar menijo, da bi lahko ovrglo očitke Komisije in bi jo privedlo do odobritve njihove prigla�ene koncentracije.
Contrary to what the Court of First Instance suggests, in particular in paragraph 414 of the judgment under appeal, a line of argument put forward in reply to the statement of objections forms part of the investigation to be undertaken in the formal proceedings.
V nasprotju z mnenjem Sodi�ča prve stopnje, zlasti v točki 414 izpodbijane sodbe, spada utemeljitev, podana v odgovoru na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, v okvir preiskave, ki jo je treba izvesti v okviru formalnega postopka.
Such a line of argument is not submitted out of time, but at the time laid down for that purpose in the procedure for the control of concentrations.
Taka utemeljitev ni prepozna, ampak je podana v roku, določenem za ta namen v postopku nadzora koncentracij.
Furthermore, as is apparent from paragraph 49 of this judgment, the need for speed which characterises the general scheme of the Regulation requires the Commission to comply with strict timelimits for the adoption of the final decision.
Poleg tega je treba prav tako opozoriti, da, kot izhaja iz točke 49 te sodbe, zahteva po hitrosti, ki je značilna za splo�no sistematiko Uredbe, nalaga Komisiji, da spo�tuje stroge roke za sprejetje končne odločbe.
In those circumstances, having regard in particular to the time constraints which arise by virtue of the procedural timelimits laid down by the Regulation, the Commission cannot, in principle, be required, in every individual case, to send, following communication of the objections and after hearing the undertakings concerned, requests for extensive information to numerous economic operators shortly before transmitting its draft decision to the Advisory Committee on concentrations, pursuant to Article 19 of the Regulation.
V teh okoli�činah, zlasti ob upo�tevanju časovnih omejitev, ki izhajajo iz procesnih rokov, določenih v Uredbi, Komisiji načeloma ni treba v vsakem primeru posebej, po po�iljanju obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah in po zasli�anju zadevnih podjetij, po�iljati večim gospodarskim subjektom zahteve po ob�irnej�ih podatkih tik pred posredovanjem svojega osnutka odločbe svetovalnemu odboru za nadzor koncentracij podjetij na podlagi člena 19 Uredbe.
In addition, as the Commission observes, the reply to the statement of objections may concentrate on the elements which the notifying parties consider to be crucial to the outcome of the formal proceedings.
Poleg tega, kot poudarja Komisija, je lahko v odgovoru na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah posebej opozorjeno na dokaze, ki jih priglasitelji �tejejo za odločilne za izid formalnega postopka.
Such elements may not have been regarded as crucial in the statement of objections.
Ti dokazi pa se v obvestilu o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah mogoče niso �teli za odločilne.
A failure to take those elements into account may be a component of the parties’ criticisms of the Commission’s preliminary assessment.
Neupo�tevanje teh dokazov je lahko predmet očitkov podjetij, ki prigla�ujejo, proti predhodni presoji Komisije.
Having regard to the requirements of the rights of the defence, the arguments of the notifying parties submitted in reply to the statement of objections
Ob upo�tevanju zahtev pravice do obrambe, za trditve priglasiteljev, podane v odgovoru na obvestilo
2008 — CASE C-413/06 P cannot be subject to more demanding standards as to their probative value and their cogency than those imposed in relation to the arguments of competitors, customers and other third parties questioned by the Commission in the course of the administrative procedure or in the light of information provided by the notifying undertakings at a previous stage of the Commission’s investigation.
2008 – ZADEVA C-413/06 P o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, ne morejo veljati večje zahteve glede njihove dokazne vrednosti in prepričljivosti kot tiste, ki veljajo za trditve konkurentov, kupcev in drugih tretjih oseb, ki jih zasli�i Komisija med upravnim postopkom, ali dokaze, ki jih predložijo podjetja, ki prigla�ujejo, v fazi pred preiskavo Komisije.
Furthermore, when the Commission examines in its decision the arguments in defence submitted by the notifying undertakings and takes the opportunity to reconsider its provisional findings in the statement of objections, with a view to possibly departing from them, it does not ‘delegate’ the investigation to those undertakings.
Poleg tega, kadar Komisija v odločbi preučuje trditve v korist podjetij, ki prigla�ujejo, in izkoristi priložnost, da ponovno preuči svoje začasne ugotovitve iz obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, da bi morda odstopila od njih, ne „prenese“ izvedbe preiskave na navedena podjetja.
It should be pointed out in that regard that Articles 14 and 15 of the Regulation provide for the imposition of fines or periodic penalty payments where incorrect or misleading information is submitted and that Article 8(5)(a) of the Regulation gives the Commission the power to revoke a decision which is based on incorrect information for which one of the undertakings concerned is responsible or which has been obtained by deceit.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da člena 14 in 15 Uredbe določata naložitev glob ali periodičnih denarnih kazni, kadar so posredovani nepravilni in zavajajoči podatki, in da je s členom 8(5)(a) iste uredbe Komisija poobla�čena, da prekliče odločbo, ki temelji na nepravilnih podatkih, za katere je odgovorno eno od podjetij, ali je bila pridobljena s prevaro.
It is true that the Commission is required to examine carefully the arguments of the parties to the concentration as regards their exactitude, completeness and cogency and to disregard them where justified doubts arise.
Res je, da mora Komisija natančno preučiti trditve strank koncentracije glede njihove pravilnosti, popolnosti in prepričljivosti in jih ne upo�tevati ob upravičenih dvomih.
It is also true that, under Article 3(1) of the Implementing Regulation, the notification of the proposed concentration must contain information that is correct and complete and that, in accordance with Article 11 of the Regulation, the notifying parties are bound to provide a response to any requests for information by the Commission which is complete, correct and submitted within the periods laid down, failing which, where the information in question was requested by decision, the Commission may, by virtue of Articles 14 and 15 of the Regulation, impose fines and periodic penalty payments.
Res je tudi, da mora na podlagi člena 3(1) izvedbene uredbe priglasitev nameravane koncentracije vsebovati pravilne in popolne podatke in da morajo stranke, ki prigla�ujejo, v skladu s členom 11 Uredbe odgovoriti popolno in pravilno ter v rokih, določenih v morebitni zahtevi Komisije za predložitev podatkov, sicer lahko Komisija, kadar so bili zadevni podatki zahtevani z odločbo, na podlagi členov 14 in 15 Uredbe naloži globe ali periodične denarne kazni.
None the less, it remains the case that the Commission must, at the stage of the reply to the statement of objections, if it is not to undermine the rights of the defence of the notifying parties, apply the same criteria as those applied for the purposes of the examination of the arguments of third parties or those adopted at an earlier stage of its investigation, while being entitled to draw the appropriate consequences in the event that it should transpire at a very advanced stage of the procedure that the notification concerned does not comply with the requirements of Article 3(1) of the Implementing Regulation.
Vendar pa ostaja dejstvo, da mora Komisija v fazi odgovora na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, da ne bi razvrednotila pravic do obrambe strank, ki prigla�ujejo, uporabiti enaka merila, kot so tista pri obravnavanju trditev tretjih strank oziroma merila, uporabljena v začetni fazi preiskave, pri čemer lahko ustrezno ukrepa, če se pozneje v postopku izkaže, da zadevna priglasitev ne izpolnjuje zahtev iz člena 3(1) izvedbene uredbe.
It follows that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law, first, in requiring, in essence, that the Commission apply particularly demanding requirements as
Iz tega izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, ker je na eni strani Komisiji naložilo, da mora biti posebej zahtevna pri dokazni vrednosti dokazov in
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA regards the probative character of the evidence and arguments put forward by the notifying parties in reply to the statement of objections and, secondly, in finding that the lack of additional market investigations after communication of the statement of objections and the adoption by the Commission of the appellants’ arguments in defence amounted to an unlawful delegation of the investigation to the parties to the concentration.
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALI trditvah priglasiteljev v odgovoru na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, in na drugi strani sklepalo, da neobstoj dodatnih raziskav trga po izdaji obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah in povzemanje trditev, ki sta jih v obrambo navajali pritožnici, s strani Komisije pomeni nezakonit prenos preiskave na stranke koncentracije.
Nevertheless, that error of law does not vitiate the whole of the judgment under appeal, in particular that part of it which relates to the inadequacies of reasoning in the contested decision and the finding of the Court of First Instance in paragraph 377 of the judgment under appeal that ‘the evidence, as mentioned in the [contested decision], does not support the conclusions drawn from it’.
Vendar ta napačna uporaba prava ne velja za celo izpodbijano sodbo, zlasti tisti njen del, ki se nana�a na nezadostno obrazložitev sporne odločbe in presojo Sodi�ča prve stopnje v točki 377 izpodbijane sodbe, da „dokazi, kot so navedeni v [sporni] odločbi, ne omogočajo utemeljitve ugotovitev, ki iz nje izhajajo“.
Further grounds of appeal thus fall to be examined.
Zato je treba preučiti preostale pritožbene razloge.
The seventh ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the Court of First Instance relied on evidence that was not disclosed to the parties to the concentration
Sedmi pritožbeni razlog: napačna uporaba prava, ker se je Sodi�če prve stopnje oprlo na dokaze, ki niso bili razkriti strankam koncentracije
In paragraph 352 of the judgment under appeal, when examining price transparency and, in particular, the possibility that the retail market was monitored by the majors through weekly reports drawn up by their sales representatives, the Court of First Instance referred to a finding of the Commission in the contested decision that the appellants had set up a system of weekly reports which also included information on competitors.
Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 352 izpodbijane sodbe v okviru preizkusa preglednosti cen in zlasti o možnosti podrobnej�ega spremljanja maloprodajnega trga s strani velikih s tedenskimi poročili o nadzoru, ki jih pripravljajo njihovi trgovski zastopniki, opozarja na ugotovitev Komisije iz sporne odločbe, da sta pritožnici vzpostavili sistem tedenskih poročil, ki zajemajo tudi podatke o konkurentih.
In paragraphs 356 to 360 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance referred additionally in that regard to a number of documents submitted by Impala, which were classified as confidential.
Sodi�če prve stopnje se v zvezi s tem v točkah od 356 do 360 izpodbijane sodbe dodatno sklicuje na določene dokumente, ki jih je predložila Impala in so opredeljeni kot zaupni.
Accordingly, paragraphs 356 to 360 of the version of the judgment under appeal published in the European Court Reports are simply marked ‘[confidential]’.
Zato so točke od 356 do 360 različice izpodbijane sodbe, objavljene v Zbirki odločb, preprosto označene z „[zaupno]“.
Reference is also made to the weekly monitoring reports in paragraphs 389 and 451 of the judgment under appeal, with paragraph 389 containing a section marked ‘[confidential]’ in the version published in the European Court Reports.
Prav tako se v nadaljevanju, v točkah 389 in 451 te sodbe, sklicuje na tedenska poročila, pri čemer točka 389 vsebuje del, označen z „[zaupno]“ v različici, objavljeni v Zbirki odločb.
The appellants maintain that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in relying, in paragraphs 356 to 360 of the judgment under appeal, on evidence that was not before the Commission when the contested decision was adopted and which had never been disclosed to them.
Pritožnici zatrjujeta, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, ker se je v točkah od 356 do 360 izpodbijane sodbe oprlo na dokaze, ki jih Komisija med sprejetjem sporne odločne ni imela na voljo in ki njima nikoli niso bili razkriti.
According to the appellants, it is hard to imagine why the Court of First Instance would have discussed those documents over five paragraphs of its judgment and referred to them on two other occasions, in paragraphs 389 and 451 of the judgment under appeal, if it did not consider them relevant to the outcome of its review.
V zvezi s tem bi si bilo težko zamisliti, zakaj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje te dokumente navajalo v petih točkah svoje sodbe in se na njih sklicevalo �e dvakrat v točkah 389 in 451 izpodbijane sodbe, če jih ni �telo za upo�tevne za ugotovitve pri njegovem nadzoru.
Impala submits that the information in question was mentioned during the hearing of 14 and 15 June 2004 in the presence of the parties and was provided to the Commission on a confidential basis after the hearing.
Impala meni, da so bili zadevni dokazi omenjeni na zasli�anju 14. in 15. junija 2004 v prisotnosti strank in so bili po tem zasli�anju kot zaupni posredovani Komisiji.
According to Impala, the appellants were accordingly aware, as a result of the hearing, that that information concerned their own price monitoring practices in France and they gave ample comments on that aspect of the pricing system during both the administrative procedure and the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Impala meni, da sta bili pritožnici na teh zasli�anjih seznanjeni s tem, da je �lo za njuno nadzorovanje cen v Franciji, in obe sta v upravnem postopku in v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje predložili več pripomb glede tega sistema določanja cen.
In any event, according to Impala, even if the appellants’ complaint underlying this ground of appeal were correct, it cannot be taken into account since that evidence did not influence the outcome of the judgment under appeal.
Impala meni, da tega – čeprav bi bili očitki pritožnic v okviru tega pritožbenega razloga utemeljeni – v nobenem primeru ni mogoče upo�tevati, ker navedeni elementi niso vplivali na rezultat izpodbijane sodbe.
It is necessary, first of all, to reject Impala’s argument set out in paragraph 99 of this judgment that the appellants were adequately informed of the content of the documents forming the subjectmatter of paragraphs 356 to 360 of the judgment under appeal at the hearing before the Commission.
Najprej je treba zavrniti trditev Impale, navedeno v točki 99 te sodbe, da sta bili pritožnici na zasli�anju pred Komisijo zadostno obve�čeni o vsebini dokumentov, ki so predmet točk od 356 do 360 izpodbijane sodbe.
Impala’s written response to the appeal states that ‘the information was mentioned during the … hearing … and was then provided to the Commission on a confidential basis post the hearing’.
Iz odgovora Impale pred Sodi�čem namreč izhaja, da „[je] bil ta podatek omenjen med zasli�anjem […] in je bil nato po zasli�anju posredovan Komisiji kot zaupen“.