natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Applying the principles laid down in the cases concerning the‘reinforcing bars’cartel (12), the Court recalled in ArcelorMittal Luxembourg and Others v Commission and ThyssenKrupp Stainless v Commission and in Case T-122/04 Outokumpu and Luvata v Commission (judgment of 6 May 2009) that, although the succession of the legal framework of the EC Treaty to that of the ECSC Treaty had led, since 24 July 2002, to a change of legal bases, procedures and applicable substantive rules, that succession was part of the unity and continuity of the Community legal order and its objectives.
Splošno sodišče je v zvezi s pojmom akta z zavezujočimi pravnimi učinki v sodbi z dne 11.¥marca¥2009 v zadevi TF1 proti Komisiji (T-354/05, še neobjavljena) zavrnilo trditve Komisije, da ne sprejme nobene odločbe v primeru, ko se postopek preverjanja obstoječe pomoči konča tako, da država članica predlagane ustrezne ukrepe sprejme, ali pa se ta postopek omeji na kvazipogodbeni postopek.
In addition, the meaning of agreement and concerted practices under Article 65(1) ECSC corresponded to that of agreement and concerted practices for the purposes of Article 81 EC and those two provisions have been interpreted in the same way by the Community judicature.
Komisija in država članica seveda lahko razpravljata o predlaganih ustreznih ukrepih, vendar se postopek preverjanja obstoječe pomoči konča z odločbo, zoper katero je mogoče vložiti pravno sredstvo, šele ko se Komisija odloči, da bo za zaveze države štela, da odpravljajo njene pomisleke.
Thus the continuity of the Community legal order and the objectives governing its functioning required that, in so far as it succeeded the European Coal and Steel Community and in its own procedural framework, the European Community ensured, in respect of situations which came into being under the ECSC Treaty, compliance with the rights and obligations which applied eo tempore to both Member States and individuals under the ECSC Treaty and the rules adopted for its application.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 9.¥junija¥2009 v zadevi NDSHT proti Komisiji (T-152/06, še neobjavljena, v pritožbenem postopku) razsodilo, da se dolžnost Komisije, da v odgovor na pritožbo sprejme odločbo, nanaša le na predpostavko, določeno v členu¥13 Uredbe št.¥659/199916.
That requirement applied all the more in so far as the distortion of competition resulting from non-compliance with the rules in the ¤eld of cartels was liable, under the EC Treaty, to expand its e¥ects over time after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty.
Člen¥20(2), drugi stavek, iste uredbe določa, da se Komisija lahko omeji na to, da pritožnika pisno obvesti, da ni zadostnih razlogov, da bi zavzela stališče o zadevi.
Regulation No 1/2003 had therefore to be interpreted as enabling the Commission, after 23 July 2002, to identify, and to impose penalties in respect of, cartels in the ¤elds falling within the scope of the ECSC Treaty ratione materiae and ratione temporis.
To velja zlasti, kadar člena¥13 te uredbe ni mogoče uporabiti, ker se pritožba ne nanaša na nezakonito pomoč, ampak na obstoječo pomoč.
The applicants in Case T-450/05 Peugeot and Peugeot Nederland v Commission (judgment of 9 July 2009) challenged, inter alia, the Commission’s assessment of the gravity of the infringement.
Iz izključne pobude Komisije na področju že obstoječih pomoči izhaja, da pritožnik s pritožbo Komisije ne more prisiliti, da presodi o združljivosti že obstoječe pomoči.
On the one hand, the infringement had been categorised as ‘very serious’ within the meaning of Point 1 A of the 1998 Guidelines (13), as the aim of the bonus system put in place by Peugeot in the Netherlands between 1997 and 2003 had been to encourage dealers to restrict parallel imports.
Če Komisija po predhodni oceni meni, da se pritožba ne nanaša na nezakonito, ampak na že obstoječo pomoč, na zadevno državo članico ni dolžna nasloviti odločbe v smislu člena¥4 Uredbe št.¥659/1999 in ne more biti prisiljena začeti postopek v skladu s členom¥88(1)¥ES.
To reach its conclusion that the Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, had not erred in characterising the infringement as very serious, the Court stated, inter alia, that the infringement was, by nature, especially serious, in view of the particularly deceitful methods used to perpetuate the remuneration system until 2003, in a context in which the Commission’s previous practice and the consistent case-law on parallel imports, in particular in the motor vehicle sector, gave clear
Tako dopis, ki pomoč, navedeno v pritožbi, opredeljuje kot že obstoječo pomoč, nima značilnosti odločbe z zavezujočimi pravnimi učinki, ki bi lahko vplivali na interes tožeče stranke.
) Guidelines on the method of setting ¤nes imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Art- icle 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).
Uredba Sveta (ES) 659/1999 z dne 22.¥marca¥1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena¥[88¥ES] (UL L¥83, str.¥1).
Proceedings warnings as to the unlawfulness of such a system.
Dejavnost
It also pointed out that the applicants were members of a large industrial group with an important position on the relevant markets and that they had legal departments perfectly capable of gauging the anti-competitive nature of the conduct in question.
Splošno sodišče je glede procesnega upravičenja v zgoraj navedeni sodbi TF1 proti Komisiji razsodilo, da ni mogoče šteti, da tožeča stranka nima pravnega procesnega upravičenja, ker je izpodbijana odločba s tem, da določa pogoje glede pomoči, ki jih je prejelo konkurenčno podjetje, zanjo ugodna.
On the other hand, so far as the actual impact of the infringement on the market was concerned, the Court found that the Commission had not paid sucient attention to the role played by the change in price di¥erentials in the decline in exports.
To razlogovanje namreč temelji na predpostavki, da so ugovori v zvezi s¥temeljem odločbe – natančneje, v zvezi z očitno neprimernostjo zavez za zagotovitev združljivosti sistema pomoči s skupnim trgom – napačni.
Thus, the Court, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, considered it appropriate to reduce by 10% the amount of the ¤ne determined for the gravity of the infringement.
Vendar razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane odločbe, ki bi temeljila na tem, da je Komisija storila očitno napako pri določitvi ustreznih ukrepov za izvedbo ali da ustreznost teh ukrepov za opredeljene težave ni zadostno obrazložena, tožeče stranke ne bi postavila v manj ugoden položaj, kot je tisti, ki izhaja iz izpodbijane odločbe.
The Commission was therefore held to be justi¤ed in referring to that criterion for the purposes of the di¥erential treatment applied when establishing the basic amounts of the ¤nes.
Taka razglasitev ničnosti bi torej pomenila, da so za izpodbijano odločbo značilne ali bi lahko bile značilne neustrezne zaveze, zato za tožečo stranko ni ugodna.
In the same judgment, the Court, considering whether the Commission had erred in determining the deterrent e¥ect of the ¤ne, made clear that the position of manufacturer of the products may, in the case of vertical infringements, also be a factor which is representative of its actual capacity to cause signi¤cant damage to competition.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 10.¥februarja¥2009 v zadevi Deutsche Post in DHL International proti Komisiji (T-388/03, še neobjavljena, v pritožbenem postopku) pojasnilo, da imata zadevni stranki v smislu člena¥88(2)¥ES interes za to, da se odločba Komisije, sprejeta v postopku predhodnega preverjanja, razglasi za nično, ker bi taka razglasitev ničnosti nalagala začetek postopka uradne preiskave, njima pa omogočila, da podata svoje navedbe in vplivata na novo odločbo.
The manufacturer of the relevant products, which occupies a central position in the distribution system of those products, must display special vigilance and ensure that it observes the competition rules when concluding distribution agreements.
V tem smislu ni naloga Splošnega sodišča, da primerja navedene tožbene razloge s trditvami, ki sta jih tožeči stranki podali v obrambi v drugem sporu.
Further clari¤cation concerning the question of the deterrent e¥ect of ¤nes was given in one of the judgments dealing with the monochloroacetic acid cartel.
Splošno sodišče se je v sodbi z dne 11.¥februarja¥2009 v zadevi Iride in Irede Energia proti Komisiji (T-25/07, še neobjavljena, v pritožbenem postopku) izreklo o vprašanju, ali je liberizacija trga del razvoja, ki bi ga morali gospodarski subjekti pričakovati, oziroma, nasprotno, ali običajne tržne razmere zajemajo stabilnost pravnega okvira.
In Case T-168/05 Arkema v Commission (judgment of 20 September 2009, not published, under appeal), the Court pointed out that, although the Commission had applied a multiplier for deterrence in earlier cases involving the applicant, that could not call into question the use of the multiplier in later cases in which a penalty was imposed on the applicant for its participation in a cartel operating in the same period.
Opozorilo je, da so v demokratični državi vedno mogoče spremembe pravnega okvira, in to še toliko bolj velja, če predhodni pravni okvir predvideva nacionalno ali regijsko delitev trga in s tem ustvarja monopolne položaje.
As each infringement was di¥erent and was the subject of a di¥erent decision, the Commission could take into account the size of the undertakings concerned and apply a multiplier to the starting amount of the ¤ne.
Iz tega izhaja, da odpiranje prej razdeljenega trga ne more biti opredeljeno kot anomalija, kar zadeva običajne tržne razmere.
Following an examination of the extent to which the applicants had cooperated, the Court also varied one of the decisions concerning anti-competitive practices on the market for Nintendo game cartridges and consoles.
Gospodarski subjekti imajo v zvezi s tem pravico do varstva legitimnih pričakovanj.
In its judgment in Nintendo and Nintendo of Europe v Commission, it compared Nintendo’s cooperation, on the one hand, with that of its exclusive distributor for Ireland and the United Kingdom, on the other, and did so ¤rst of all from a chronological point of view.
Toda če so dejansko uživali tako varstvo, jim ne more biti dovoljeno, da bi zahtevali izvajanje tega varstva na natančno določen način, namreč raje v smeri izključitve pomoči za nadomestitev izgube, nastale zaradi spremembe okvira, iz pojma državne pomoči v smislu člena¥87(1)¥ES, kot z razglasitvijo združljivosti tega ukrepa s skupnim trgom na podlagi člena¥87(3)¥ES.
On that basis it found that Nintendo and its distributor had provided relevant documents at the same stage of the procedure and the fact that Nintendo had begun to cooperate a few days later than the distributor was not decisive in that respect. Next, the Court compared the degree of cooperation from a qualitative point of view, taking into account both the circumstances in which those undertakings had cooperated and the intrinsic value of the information provided.
Splošno sodišče je uporabilo tudi načelo iz sodbe Sodišča z dne 15.¥maja¥1997 v zadevi TWD proti Komisiji17, v skladu s katerim Komisija ne prekorači diskrecijske pravice, ki jo ima, kadar glede načrta državne pomoči, ki jo namerava država članica dodeliti nekemu podjetju, sprejme odločitev, s katero to pomoč razglasi za združljivo s skupnim trgom, vendar s pridržkom predhodnega vračila neke starejše nezakonite pomoči, in sicer zaradi kumulativnega učinka zadevnih pomoči.
In that connection, the Court noted that both undertakings had submitted information spontaneously and that the information provided by them was equally helpful to the Commission. The Court therefore concluded that, in accordance with the principle of equal treatment, Nintendo’s cooperation had to be regarded as comparable to that of its distributor.
To, da starejša nezakonita pomoč ni bila dodeljena kot posamična pomoč, temveč v okviru sistema pomoči, in da Komisija zaradi pomanjkanja sodelovanja zadevne države članice ni mogla ugotoviti natančne koristi za upravičena podjetja, ne upravičuje neuporabe navedenega načela, saj bi vsaka
Outokumpu and Luvata v Commission a¥orded the Court an opportunity to explain its earlier decisions concerning aggravating circumstances, particularly repeated infringement.
Splošno sodišče drugačna rešitev pripeljala do nagrajevanja nespoštovanja dolžnosti lojalnega sodelovanja in bi tako odvzela učinkovitost sistemu nadzora državnih pomoči.
The taking into account of a previous infringement was also speci¤cally addressed in Case T-161/05 Hoechst v Commission (judgment of 30 September 2009, not published). Here, the applicant had maintained that the Commission was not able to take into account an earlier decision because the latter had become ¤nal only after the end of the infringement at issue.
Glede tega se obveznost, ki bremeni države članice in podjetje, ki bo morda upravičeno do novih pomoči, da Komisiji predložijo podatke, na podlagi katerih je mogoče dokazati, da so te pomoči združljive s skupnim trgom, nanaša tudi na potrebo ugotovitve neobstoja kumulativnega učinka novih in starejših nezakonitih pomoči.
The Court pointed out, however, that, for it to be possible to take such a decision into account, it is sucient that an undertaking has been found previously to be a perpetrator of an infringement of the same type, even if the decision is still subject to judicial review.
Če Komisija zato, ker država članica in podjetje, ki je potencialni upravičenec do pomoči, nista upoštevala navedene obveznosti, ni mogla presoditi vpliva na konkurenco, ki izvira iz tega kumulativnega učinka, ji ni mogoče očitati, da ni razmejila ali analizirala zadevnega trga.
Imputability of the infringement
Storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena
In its judgments concerning the cartel in the market for monochloroacetic acid, the Court made some interesting points on the imputability to the parent company of the unlawful conduct of its subsidiaries.
Tako je dejstvo, da Komisija v okviru postopka predhodnega preverjanja iz člena¥88(2)¥ES ni mogla opraviti popolnega preizkusa v zvezi s presojo primernosti ravni nadomestila, prejetega za storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, kazalnik obstoja resnih težav za presojo, ali je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom.
In particular, in Hoechst v Commission, the Court held that the applicant could not claim that its liability was transferred by a contract with one of its subsidiaries whereby its area of business was transferred.
Splošno sodišče je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi TF1 proti Komisiji potrdilo, da se pogoji, postavljeni v¥sodbi Altmark, katerih namen je ugotoviti obstoj državne pomoči v smislu člena¥87(1)¥ES, ne smejo zamešati s preizkusom iz člena¥86(2)¥ES, s katerim se ugotavlja, ali se za ukrep, ki pomeni državno pomoč, lahko šteje, da je združljiv s skupnim trgom.
First, such a contract could not be relied upon against the Commission in order to escape the penalties incurred under competition law inasmuch as it sought to apportion liability between the companies for participating in a cartel.
Splošno sodišče tudi poudarja, da ker preverjanje obstoječe pomoči omogoča zgolj sprejetje ukrepov za naprej, čeprav je morebitno čezmerno nadomestilo za nazaj morda lahko pomembno za presojo združljivosti obstoječe pomoči s skupnim trgom, to ne spreminja tega, da tako ugotavljanje ni vedno nujno za pravilno presojo nujnosti predlaganja ustreznih ukrepov za naprej in za določitev teh ukrepov.
Second, the alleged transfer of liability e¥ected in the case in point under the terms of the contract of transfer had no bearing on the determination of the applicant’s liability, since that contract was concluded between the applicant and one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, whose unlawful conduct could therefore be imputed to it in its capacity as parent company.
Tveganje ali neobstoj tveganja za čezmerno nadomestilo za naprej je nazadnje odvisno predvsem od dejanskih značilnosti sistema nanciranja, in ne od okoliščine, da je ta sistem v preteklosti v praksi povzročil čezmerno nadomestilo.
Likewise, in Arkema v Commission, the applicant denied that it was possible for the Commission to attribute the infringement of the subsidiary to the parent company, since the latter was only a nonoperational holding company, playing very little role in the management of the subsidiary.
Vendar na podlagi načela enakega obravnavanja javnih in zasebnih podjetij ni tako, kadar je kapital, ki ga država neposredno ali posredno da na razpolago podjetju, dan v okoliščinah, ki ustrezajo običajnim tržnim razmeram.
The Court made clear that that fact was not sucient to prevent the parent company from exercising decisive inªuence over the conduct of its subsidiary by coordinating ¤nancial investments within the group concerned.
V položajih, v katerih intervencija ni oblastveni akt, se torej uporabi merilo zasebnega vlagatelja, da bi se ugotovilo, ali bi lahko to intervencijo s pridobitnim namenom opravil zasebni subjekt.
Indeed, in a group of companies, a holding company which coordinates, amongst other things, ¤nancial investments within the group is a company which seeks to regroup shareholdings in various companies and whose function is to ensure that they are run as one, in particular by means of budgetary control.
V zvezi s tem Splošno sodišče poudarja, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso za presojo, ali ukrepi, ki jih sprejme država, spadajo na področje posebnih pravic, ki jih ima kot javna oblast, ali pa izhajajo iz obveznosti, ki jih mora prevzeti kot delničarka, teh ukrepov ni treba presojati glede na njihovo obliko, ampak glede na njihovo naravo, predmet in pravila, ki veljajo zanje, ob upoštevanju cilja, ki se poskuša doseči z¥zadevnimi ukrepi.
In addition, the Court stated that no conclusion could be drawn from the fact that the two companies were operating on separate markets and had no supplier–customer relationship.
Letno poročilo 2009
In Case T-301/04 Clearstream v Commission (judgment of 9 September 2009), the Court ruled on the lawfulness of a Commission decision ¤nding that the applicants had infringed Article 82 EC, ¤rst, by refusing to supply their services and, second, by applying discriminatory prices.
V obravnavanem primeru Splošno sodišče ugotavlja, da Komisija ni proučila, ali je povečanje kapitala družbe Électricité de France (v nadaljevanju: EDF), ki ga je Francoska republika izvedla z odpisom davčne terjatve, zakonit ukrep glede na merilo zasebnega vlagatelja.
The Court stated that the Commission was correct in ¤nding those abuses of a dominant position.
Komisija meni, da tega merila ni mogoče uporabiti za to davčno ugodnost, saj je tak odpis posledica tega, da je država izvajala svoje zakonodajne pristojnosti ali celo posebne pravice javne oblasti.
In particular, the Court con¤rmed that the refusal to grant access and the unjusti¤ed discrimination in that regard were not two separate infringements but two manifestations of the same behaviour, as the unjusti¤ed discrimination stemmed from the refusal to provide comparable customers with the same or similar services.
Splošno sodišče zavrača to razlago in poudarja, da uporabe merila zasebnega vlagatelja ni mogoče zavrniti samo zato, ker je povečanje kapitala družbe EDF posledica tega, da se je država odpovedala davčni terjatvi, ki jo je imela do družbe EDF.
In that connection, since the period of time required to obtain access considerably exceeded that which could be considered reasonable and justi¤ed and thus amounted to an abusive refusal to provide the service in question, that period of time was capable of causing a competitive disadvantage on the relevant market.
Komisija mora namreč v takih okoliščinah preveriti, ali bi zasebni vlagatelj opravil po znesku primerljivo naložbo v podobnih okoliščinah ne glede na obliko intervencije države za povečanje kapitala družbe EDF in morebitno uporabo davčnih sredstev za ta namen, in to zato, da bi preverila ekonomsko racionalnost te naložbe in naložbo primerjala z¥ravnanjem, ki bi ga tak vlagatelj izkazal do istega podjetja v enakih okoliščinah.
The Court also con¤rmed that the application to a trading partner of di¥erent prices for equivalent services, continuously over a period of ¤ve years and by an undertaking having a de facto monopoly on the upstream market, could not fail to cause that partner a competitive disadvantage.
Poleg tega Splošnosodišče poudarja, da taka obveznost Komisije, da preveri, ali je država vložila kapital v¥okoliščinah, ki ustrezajo običajnim tržnim razmeram, obstaja ne glede na obliko, v kateri je država vložila kapital, pa naj je podobna obliki, ki bi jo uporabil zasebni vlagatelj, ali ne.
In Case T-57/01 Solvay v Commission (judgment of 17 December 2009), the Court found that documents seized solely for the purpose of verifying whether undertakings had participated in cartels and/or concerted practices under Article 81 EC could be used in support of allegations of infringements of Article 82 EC, since the practices which the Commission had considered to be at the root of the abuse of a dominant position and those which it had authorised its ocials to investigate were substantially the same.
Splošno sodišče nazadnje opozarja, da je namen merila zasebnega vlagatelja prav preveriti, ali bi zasebni vlagatelj, čeprav ima država sredstva, ki jih on nima, v enakih okoliščinah sprejel odločitev o naložbi, primerljivo z odločitvijo države.
The Court held inter alia that a system of discounts was an abuse where, amongst other conditions, di¥erentiated discounts were granted as soon as the customer ordered additional quantities from the applicant as compared with those agreed contractually, irrespective of the volumes, in absolute terms, of the latter.
Narava terjatve, spremenjene v kapital, in posledično dejstvo, da zasebni vlagatelj ne more imeti davčne terjatve, zato nista pomembna za vprašanje, ali je treba merilo zasebnega vlagatelja uporabiti ali ne.
On that account, the unit price for those quantities was markedly lower than the average price paid by the customer for the basic quantities agreed contractually and was thus an incentive to the customer also to buy volumes in excess of the contractual quantities, since other suppliers would have had diculty in o¥ering, in respect of those volumes, prices which competed with the applicant’s.
Splošno sodišče zato ugotavlja, da je Komisija s tem, da je zavrnila preučitev spornega ukrepa v njegovem kontekstu in uporabo merila zasebnega vlagatelja, nepravilno uporabila pravo. Zato je Splošno sodišče razglasilo izpodbijano odločbo za delno nično.
Although the diligent and impartial examination which the Commission is obliged to carry out in the context of that procedure does not permit it to take as its basis facts or information which cannot be regarded as accurate, the need for rapid action presupposes that it cannot itself verify down to the last detail the authenticity and reliability of all the information it receives, since the procedure for the control of concentrations is based, of necessity and to a certain extent, on trust.
Poleg tega Splošno sodišče potrjuje sodno prakso, v skladu s katero mora biti znesek pomoči, ki jo je treba vrniti, brez pretiranih težav mogoče izračunati na podlagi podatkov iz odločbe Komisije. Splošno sodišče ob upoštevanju razlage izpodbijane odločbe, ki jo je podalo Sodišče19, meni, da je znesek pomoči, ki jo je treba v obravnavanem primeru vrniti, mogoče izračunati brez pretiranih težav in da ustreza vsaj spodnji meji razpona, ki ga je uporabila Komisija.
Requests for information
Formalni postopek preiskave
In Case T-145/06 Omya v Commission (judgment of 4 February 2009), the Court de¤ned the scope of the Commission’s power in relation to requests for information.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 18.¥novembra¥2009 v zadevi Scheucher-Fleisch in drugi proti Komisiji (T-375/04, še neobjavljena) poudarilo, da mora Komisija uvesti formalni postopek preiskave, zlasti če se v okviru informacij, pridobljenih v predhodnem postopku preverjanja, še naprej sooča z¥resnimi težavami pri presoji preiskovanega ukrepa.