natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court of First Instance rightly points out 111that at other places in its first clearance decision the Commission indeed provided information, including figures, on the pricing policy of individual market participants. 112
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa ustrezno opozarja na to 111, da je Komisija na drugih mestih v prvi odločbi o odobritvi navedla �tevilčne podatke o cenovni politiki posameznih tržnih subjektov. 112
110 — Joined Cases 296/82 and 318/82 Netherlands and Others v Commission [1985] ECR 809, paragraph 27.
110 – Sodba z dne 13. marca 1985 v združenih zadevah Nizozemska in drugi proti Komisiji (296/82 in 318/82, Recueil, str. 809, točka 27).
111 — Paragraph 413 of the judgment under appeal.
111 – Točka 413 izpodbijane sodbe.
112 — On this point see for example recitals 74, 81, 88, 95 and 102 of the first clearance decision.
112 – K temu glej na primer 74., 81., 88., 95. in 102. uvodno izjavo prve odločbe o odobritvi.
It is not disputed that the judgment under appeal contains numerous references to the statement of objections.
Izpodbijana sodba se nesporno mno -gokrat sklicuje na izjavo o ugovorih.
In the following I shall consider, as a first step, the Court of First Instance’s approach in general to the relationship between the clearance decision and the statement of objections, and then, as a second step, I shall consider in
V nadaljevanju v prvem koraku na splo�no obravnavam razmerje med odločbo o odobritvi in izjavo o ugovorih, kot ga razume Sodi�če prve stopnje, preden v drugem koraku podrobneje preučim konkretne sklice
(a) The Court of First Instance’s approach in general to the relationship between the clearance decision and the statement of objections
Sodi�ča prve stopnje na posamezne dele izjave o ugovorih.
The ultimate clearance of the concentration was described by the Court of First Instance as a ‘fundamental U-turn in the Commission’s position’ which was ‘surprising, particularly in view of the late stage at which it was made’; 114in addition, reference was made to the requirement to comply with mandatory timelimits in merger control procedures, which, according to the Court of First Instance, ‘does not allow [the Commission] to extend its investigation, thus reducing the likelihood that the Commission will fundamentally alter its position as the administrative procedure advances’. 115
Sodi�če prve stopnje odobritev koncentracije, ki je na koncu sledila, označuje za „popoln preobrat v stali�ču Komisije“, ki je „[verjetno] presenetljiv, zlasti spričo njegove zamude“; 114poleg tega opozarja na zahtevo po upo�tevanju imperativnih rokov v postopku nadzora koncentracij, kar Komisiji po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje „preprečuje podalj�evanje njene preiskave in s tem naredi toliko manj verjetno popolno spremembo stali�ča, kolikor upravni postopek napreduje.“ 115 a) Razmerje med odločbo o odobritvi in izjavo o ugovorih, kot ga na splo�no razume Sodi�če prve stopnje
The appellants, supported by the Commission, object generally to the Court of First Instance’s discussion of the relationship between the clearance decision and the statement of objections.
Pritožnika, ki ju podpira Komisija, čisto na splo�no grajata navedbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede razmerja med odločbo o odobritvi in izjavo o ugovorih.
In their opinion the Court of First Instance misunderstood the nature and function of a statement of objections, and this ‘coloured’ the rest of the judgment.
Menita, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje narobe presodilo naravo in vlogo izjave o ugovorih, kar se izraža v preostalem delu sodbe.
— The judgment under appeal
– Izpodbijana sodba
As in antitrust proceedings, in merger control proceedings it is essential to observe the rights of the defence before making a decision which may adversely affect the undertakings concerned. 116
Tudi v postopku nadzora koncentracij je treba, tako kot v postopku v zvezi z omejevalnim sporazumom, nujno upo�tevati pravice obrambe pred sprejetjem vsake odločbe, ki bi lahko negativno vplivala na zadevna podjetja. 116
The rights of the defence include in particular the principle of the right to a hearing, which is a fundamental principle of
K tem pravicam obrambe spada zlasti načelo pravice biti sli�an, ki je temeljno
In considering the complaint of a failure to state reasons, the Court of First Instance, by way of preliminary observation, recalled ‘that the Commission had concluded emphatically in the statement of objections that the concentration was incompatible with the common market on the ground, in particular, that a collective dominant position existed before the proposed concentration and that the market for recorded music was transparent and particularly conducive to coordination’. 113
Sodi�če prve stopnje pri presoji očitka pomanjkljivosti v obrazložitvi v okviru predhodne opombe spomni na to, da je Komisija v izjavi o ugovorih „zelo jasno zaključila, da naj bi bila koncentracija nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, saj naj bi zlasti že pred načrtovano koncentracijo obstajal kolektivni prevladujoči položaj in trg nosilcev zvoka naj bi bil zelo pregleden in izredno primeren za usklajevanje“. 113
114 — Paragraphs 282 and 283 of the judgment under appeal.115 — Paragraph 285 of the judgment under appeal.
114 – Točki 282 in 283 izpodbijane sodbe.115 – Točka 285 izpodbijane sodbe.
113 — Paragraph 282 of the judgment under appeal.
113 – Točka 282 izpodbijane sodbe.
In addition, in relation to merger control proceedings this principle is laid down by statute in the second sentence of Article 18(3) of the Merger Regulation.
Poleg tega je to načelo za postopke nadzora koncentracij normirano v členu 18(3), drugi stavek, Uredbe o združitvah.
The fact that in antitrust proceedings and in merger control proceedings the undertakings concerned are issued with a written statement of objections 118is the result of their right to a hearing.
To, da je prizadetim podjetjem v postopku v zvezi z omejevalnim sporazumom in v postopku nadzora koncentracij vročena pisna tako imenovana izjava o ugovorih, 118je izraz njihove pravice biti sli�an.
The statement of objections allows them to acquaint themselves with the evidence which the Commission has at its disposal and to render the rights of the defence fully effective.
Ta izjava o ugovorih jim omogoča seznanitev z dokazi, s katerimi razpolaga Komisija, in učinkovito uveljavljanje njihovih pravic obrambe.
119They are given the opportunity to make submissions on the objections in writing and, on justified application, orally.
119Dobijo priložnost, da pisno, na obrazložen predlog tudi ustno, predstavijo svoja stali�ča glede ugovorov.
120In addition, the first sentence of Article 18(3) of the Merger Regulation makes it clear that the Commission may base its decisions only on objections on which those concerned have had the opportunity of making known their views.
120Člen 18(3), prvi stavek, Uredbe o združitvah poleg tega določa, da odločba Komisije lahko temelji le na ugovorih, o katerih so stranke lahko predstavile svoja stali�ča.
The fact that, in contrast to where Art -icles 81 EC and 82 EC apply, in merger control proceedings the Commission is subject to strict procedural timelimits does not change this provisional nature of the statement of objections in any way.
Glede te začasne narave izjave o ugovorih ničesar ne spremeni niti okoli�čina, da za Komisijo v okviru nadzora koncentracij, drugače kot na področju uporabe členov 81 ES in 82 ES, veljajo strogi procesni roki.
The requirement for speed in merger control proceedings naturally means that the affected undertakings too are subject to particularly short timelimits within which they can exercise their rights in defence.
V skladu z naravo stvari tudi zahteva po pospe�itvi za prizadeta podjetja vodi k zelo kratkim rokom, v okviru katerih lahko izvajajo pravice obrambe.
However, the comprehensive safeguarding of the rights of defence requires that submissions in defence by the persons affected in merger control proceedings may not be taken any the less into account than in antitrust proceedings.
Obsežno varstvo pravic obrambe pa zahteva, naj se navedbe prizadetih v njihovo obrambo v postopku nadzora koncentracij ne smejo upo�tevati manj kot v postopku v zvezi z omejevalnim sporazumom.
Accordingly, such a submission in the context of merger control can lead to a change in the Commission’s view just as much as it can in antitrust proceedings, even shortly before the expiry of the timelimit allowed for a clearance or a prohibition decision.
V skladu s tem lahko take navedbe v okviru nadzora koncentracij prav tako uspe�no kot v postopku v zvezi z omejevalnim sporazumom spremenijo stali�če Komisije, celo tik pred potekom roka za izdajo odločbe o odobritvi ali prepovedi.
It follows from its function in administrative proceedings that a statement of objections is a preparatory document containing assessments of fact and of law which are purely provisional in nature.
Iz vloge izjave o ugovorih v upravnem postopku izhaja, da gre pri njej za pripravljalni dokument, katerega dejanske in pravne presoje so zgolj začasne narave.
For that reason, the Commission may, and even must, take
Iz tega razloga Komisija lahko in mora
Against this background it was certainly unfortunate that in the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance regarded the ‘fundamental U-turn in the Commission’s position’ which occurred just prior
Glede na navedeno je bilo zanesljivo ponesrečeno, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi videlo „popoln preobrat v stali�ču Komisije“, do katerega je pri�lo pred izdajo prve odločbe o odobritvi, spričo
118 — Article 13(2) of Regulation No 447/98 provides that in merger control proceedings the Commission shall address its objections in writing to the notifying parties and to other involved parties, and shall set a timelimit within which they may inform the Commission of their views in writing.
118 – Komisija v skladu s členom 13(2) Uredbe �t. 447/98 v postopku nadzora koncentracij naslovi svoje pripombe strankam, ki prigla�ujejo, in drugim udeleženim strankam pisno in jim določi rok, v katerem ji lahko pisno sporočijo svoje mnenje.
119 — SGL Carbon v Commission (cited above, footnote 27), paragraph 55.
119 – Sodba SGL Carbon proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 27, točka 55).
120 — See Article 13(2) and Article 14 of Regulation No 447/98.
120 – Glej člen 13(2) in člen 14 Uredbe �t. 447/98.
Indeed, in the same breath as its statements as to the ‘surprising’ and ‘late’ character of the ‘U-turn in the Commission’s position’, the Court of First Instance expressly emphasised that preparatory character of the statement of objections in the context of merger control too; in addition it recognised that according to the caselaw on Articles 81 and 82 EC the Commission was not obliged to explain any deviations from the statement of objections. 125
Sodi�če prve stopnje namreč v isti sapi s svojimi izjavami o „presenetljivosti“ in „prepoznosti“ „preobrata v stali�ču Komisije“ izrecno poudarja pripravljalni značaj izjave o ugovorih, tudi pri nadzoru koncentracij; poleg tega priznava, da Komisija v skladu s sodno prakso v zvezi s členi 81 ES in 82 ES ni zavezana pojasniti morebitnih odstopanj od izjave o ugovorih. 125
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that in its general remarks on the relationship between the first clearance decision and the statement of objections the Court of First Instance ultimately did not misunderstand the nature and function of the statement.
Zato menim, da na koncu Sodi�če prve stopnje v svojih splo�nih navedbah glede razmerja med odločbo o odobritvi in izjavo o ugovorih ni napačno presodilo narave in vloge te izjave.
Nor is such an occurrence ‘surprising’ or ‘unlikely’, 124 but an expression of observance of the rights of the defence and proves that the hearing given to the undertakings concerned is not a farce.
Četudi bi želeli izhajati iz take napačne uporabe prava, ta ne bi upravičevala razveljavitve izpodbijane sodbe, ker se, kot bom prikazala v nadaljevanju, 126ni izra-
However, contrary to the appellants and the Commission, I am not of the view that the judgment under appeal was vitiated by an error of law on the basis that these rather unfortunate choices of expression by the Court of First Instance expressed a legally inaccurate basic understanding of the nature and function of a statement of objections.
Drugače kot pritožnika in Komisija pa sama ne menim, da bi bilo v izpodbijani sodbi zaradi te nekoliko ponesrečene opredelitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje napačno uporabljeno pravo, s čimer bi pri�lo do izraza pravno neustrezno temeljno razumevanje narave in vloge izjave o ugovorih.
122 — Paragraph 283 of the judgment under appeal.123 — Paragraph 285 of the judgment under appeal.
122 – Točka 283 izpodbijane sodbe.123 – Točka 285 izpodbijane sodbe.
125 — Paragraphs 284 and 285 of the judgment under appeal; to the same effect, see paragraphs 300, 335, 410 and 446 of the judgment under appeal.
125 – Točki 284 in 285 izpodbijane sodbe; v istem smislu točke 300, 335, 410 in 446 izpodbijane sodbe.
126 — Paragraphs 161 to 182 below.
126 – Točke od 161 do 182 teh sklepnih predlogov.
124 — In the history of European merger control there are numerous examples of clearance decisions which were preceded by a statement of objections.
124 – V zgodovini evropskega nadzora koncentracij obstajajo �tevilni primeri odločb o odobritvi, pred izdajo katerih je bila sprejeta izjava o ugovorih. Pritožnika v tej zvezi upravičeno primeroma opozarjata na naslednje primere: COMP/M.1940 – Framatome/Siemens/Cogema/JV, COMP/M.2499 – Norske Skog/Parenco/Walsum, COMP/M.2498 – UPM-Kymmene/Haindl, COMP/M.2314 – BASF/Pantochim/Eurodiol, COMP/M.2201 – MAN/Auwärter, COMP/M.2706 – Carnival Corporation/P & O Princess, COMP/M.3056 – Celanese/Degussa/European OXO Chemicals in COMP/M.3216 – Oracle/Peoplesoft.
127 — According to consistent caselaw, if the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance reveal an infringement of Community law but its operative part appears well founded on other legal grounds the appeal must be dismissed (see, for example, Case C-167/04 P JCB Service v Commission [2006] ECR I-8935, paragraph 186; similarly, see Commission v Tetra Laval, cited above, footnote 96, paragraph 89).
127 – V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je treba pritožbo zavr -niti, če obrazložitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje kaže na kr�itev prava Skupnosti, vendar je njen izrek utemeljen z drugimi pravnimi razlogi (glej na primer sodbo z dne 21. septembra 2006 v zadevi JCB Service proti Komisiji, C-167/04 P, ZOdl., str. I-8935, točka 186; podobno sodba Komisija proti Tetra Laval, navedena v opombi 96, točka 89).
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA b) The specific references by the Court of First Instance to the statement of objections in law in the first clearance decision on such mere divergences from the statement of objections.
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALA b) Konkretni sklici Sodi�ča prve stopnje na izjavo o ugovorih oprlo samo na tak�na razhajanja z izjavo o ugovorih.
On closer reading it becomes clear that the Court of First Instance derived its findings both of a lack of reasoning and of manifest errors of assessment from the first clearance decision itself.
Podrobnej�a obravnava namreč pokaže, da sta tako pomanjkljiva obrazložitev kot tudi očitna napaka pri presoji, ki ju je obe ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, izpeljani iz same odločbe o odobritvi.
There remains to be considered the criticism by the appellants and the Commission of a series of specific references by the Court of First Instance to the statement of objections in the context of its examin -ation of the lawfulness of the first clearance decision.
Preučiti je treba �e očitke pritožnikov in Komisije glede vrste konkretnih sklicev Sodi�ča prve stopnje na izjavo o ugovorih v okviru njegove presoje zakonitosti prve odločbe o odobritvi.
It is alleged that the Court of First Instance wrongly supported its finding that the first clearance decision was unlawful on a comparison of the decision and the statement of objections, instead of deciding solely by reference to the decision.
Sodi�ču prve stopnje očitajo, da se njegova domneva, da je prva odločba o odobritvi nezakonita, napačno opira na primerjavo med odločbo in izjavo o ugovorih, namesto da bi se ravnala zgolj po odločbi.
131 In the rest of the Court of First Instance’s discussion on failure to state reasons, 132references to the statement of objections are infrequent; they occur only in paragraphs 300, 302 and 308 of the judgment under appeal, and none of them is decisive for the Court of First Instance’s finding that the first clearance decision did not contain sufficient reasons as regards the lack of market transparency it claimed to exist:
sklici na izjavo o ugovorih redki; najdemo jih le v točkah 300, 302 in 308 izpodbijane sodbe, noben od njih pa ni odločilen za domnevo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da prva odločba o odobritvi glede tam zatrjevane nepreglednosti trga ni dovolj obrazložena:
Admittedly, the judgment under appeal refers a number of times to the statement of objections.
Sicer drži, da izpodbijana sodba večkrat napotuje na izjavo o ugovorih.
In particular, the Court of First Instance repeatedly emphasises that in the first clearance decision the Commission
Sodi�če prve stopnje zlasti večkrat poudari, da je Komisija v prvi odločbi o odobritvi svoje navedbe
129 subdued or changed its description and assessment of certain facts by comparison with the statement of objections.
129 z izjavo o ugovorih omilila ali spremenila.
However, it is only on a superficial reading that the Court of First Instance appears to have based its findings of errors
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa se je le na prvi pogled pri napačni uporabi prava v prvi odločbi o odobritvi, ki jo je ugotovilo,
128 — See, for example, paragraphs 300, 302 and 338 of the judgment under appeal.
128 – Glej na primer točke 300, 302 in 338 izpodbijane sodbe.
129 — See, for example, paragraphs 378, 379, 398 and 447 of the judgment under appeal.
129 – Glej na primer točke 378, 379, 398 in 447 izpodbijane sodbe.
130 — Recitals 111 to 113 of the first clearance decision.131 — Paragraphs 289 to 294 of the judgment under appeal.132 — Paragraphs 295 to 324 of the judgment under appeal.
130 – Od 111. do 113. uvodne izjave prve odločbe o odobritvi.131 – Točke od 289 do 294 izpodbijane sodbe.132 – Točke od 295 do 324 izpodbijane sodbe.
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-413/06 P documents; in that way the statement of objections is used by the Court of First Instance merely as an additional illustration of the information it derives from the decision itself.
Sodi�ču prve stopnje služi le za dodatni prikaz njegovih ugotovitev, pridobljenih iz odločbe same.
to the submissions of the appellants and the Commission, the statement of objections was not used by the Court of First Instance as a benchmark for its assessment of the first clearance decision.
o ugovorih niso imela nobene vloge. Nasprotno mnenju pritožnikov in Komisije torej izjava o ugovorih tu ni služila Sodi�ču prve stopnje kot merilo za presojo prve odločbe o odobritvi.
— In paragraph 302 of the judgment under appeal too, the reference to the statement of objections is purely by way of illustration, the Court of First Instance being of the view that even the subdued assessment of list prices in the first clearance decision is ‘a further element that favours the transparency of the market’.
Tudi v točki 302 izpodbijane sodbe ima sklicevanje na izjavo o ugovorih zgolj ilustrativni značaj, saj po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje celo iz omiljene ocene trgovskih cen po ceniku v prvi odločbi o odobritvi �e izhaja „nadaljnji dokaz za preglednost trga“.
As regards the Court of First Instance’s findings of manifest errors of assessment, the references in the judgment under appeal to the statement of objections are admittedly more numerous: they are to be found in paragraphs 335, 338, 339, 341, 362, 378, 379, 398, 402, 409, 419, 424, 446, 447, 451, 456, 467, 528, 532 and 538 of the judgment under appeal. 135
Kar zadeva očitno napako pri presoji, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, je treba priznati, da se izpodbijana sodba večkrat sklicuje na izjavo o ugovorih, in sicer v točkah 335, 338, 339, 341, 362, 378, 379, 398, 402, 409, 419, 424, 446, 447, 451, 456, 467, 528, 532 in 538 izpodbijane sodbe. 135
— Finally, the fact that the reference to the statement of objections in paragraph 300 of the judgment under appeal was not decisive for the line of argument taken by the Court of First Instance is expressly made clear by the Court of First Instance itself in the immediately following paragraph: ‘In any event, even considering only the observations set out in the Decision, the Commission concluded that list prices were rather aligned.’ 133
Da končno sklicevanje na izjavo o ugovorih v točki 300 izpodbijane sodbe ni bilo odločilno za ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje, to sodi�če celo samo izrecno pojasnjuje v naslednji točki: „Vsekakor je Komisija, četudi se upoštevajo le ugotovitve iz odločbe, zaključila, da so cene po ceniku bolj ali manj enake“. 133
The references in paragraphs 338, 339, 341, 362, 402, 456, 467, 532 and 538 of the judgment under appeal to the statement of objections serve without doubt as illustrations of, and supplements to, what the Court of First Instance has already taken directly from the first clearance decision.
Neproblematično sklici na izjavo o ugovorih v točkah 338, 339, 341, 362, 402, 456, 467, 532 in 538 izpodbijane sodbe služijo spet le prikazu in dopolnitvi tistega, kar je Sodi�če prve stopnje tako ali tako že neposredno razbralo iz prve odločbe o odobritvi.
The purely supplementary character of these references to the statement of objections is also made clear in the paragraphs of the judgment listed by additional words such as ‘moreover’ and ‘furthermore’.
Zgolj dopolnilno naravo teh sklicev na izjavo o ugovorih v navedenih točkah sodbe ponazarjajo tudi jezikovni dodatki, kot so „poleg tega“, „sicer“, „dalje“, „v preostalem“, „glej tudi“ in „[t]o toliko bolj velja, kolikor […]“.
At no time is any kind of contradiction between the first clearance decision and the statement of objections criticised.
Na nobenem mestu se ne graja kakr�no koli protislovje med odločbo o odobritvi in izjavo
It follows that any divergences between the first clearance decision and the statement of objections did not play any part in the finding by the Court of First Instance that insufficient reasons had been given for the decision, this being in itself enough to result in the decision’s being annulled. 134 Contrary
Za domnevo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da je obrazložitev pomanjkljiva, kar je že samo po sebi pripeljalo do razglasitve ničnosti prve odločbe o odobritvi, 134torej morebitna odstopanja med to odločbo in izjavo
135 — It is not disputed that the further passage criticised by the appellants and the Commission in paragraph 491 of the judgment under appeal likewise contains a reference to the statement of objections.
135 – Točka 491 izpodbijane sodbe, ki jo pritožnika in Komisija prav tako kritizirajo, sicer nesporno tudi vsebuje napotilo na izjavo o ugovorih.
However, it cannot in any event be regarded as containing an error of law, because it merely summarises Impala’s submissions.
Vendar pa pri njej že vnaprej ne more iti za napačno uporabo prava Sodi�ča prve stopnje, saj izključno povzema le navedbe družbe Impala.
For that reason this paragraph of the judgment under appeal is not considered in more detail hereafter.
Zato te točke izpodbijane sodbe v nadaljevanju podrobneje ne obravnavam.
134 — Paragraph 325 of the judgment under appeal.
133 – Točka 301 izpodbijane sodbe (moj poudarek).134 – Točka 325 izpodbijane sodbe.
because the statement is a preparatory document the analysis in which is merely provisional in nature.
za pripravljalni dokument, katerega presoje so zgolj začasne narave.