natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Regulation No 1984/83 excluded from the scope of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) certain categories of exclusive purchasing agreements and concerted practices regarded as normally satisfying the conditions laid down in paragraph 3 of that article, on the ground that they led in general to an improvement in distribution.
Uredba �t. 1984/83 je s področja uporabe člena 85(1) Pogodbe ES (postal člen 81(1) ES) izključila določene skupine sporazumov o izključni nabavi in usklajenih ravnanjih, ki so praviloma izpolnjevale pogoje, predvidene v odstavku 3 navedenega člena, ker so na splo�no povzročale izbolj�anje distribucije proizvodov.
Recitals 5, 6, 13, 15 and 17 in the preamble to that regulation were worded as follows:
Peta, �esta, trinajsta, petnajsta in sedemnajsta uvodna izjava navedene uredbe so določale:
‘(5) … the exclusive purchasing agreements defined in this Regulation lead in general to an improvement in distribution; … they enable the supplier to plan the sales of his goods with greater precision and for a longer period and ensure that the reseller’s requirements will be met on a regular basis for the duration of the agreement; … this allows the parties to limit the risk to them of variations in market conditions and to lower distribution costs;
„(5) ker sporazumi o izključni nabavi, določeni v tej uredbi, na splo�no povzročajo izbolj�anje distribucije; ker dobavitelju omogočajo načrtovanje prodaje svojih proizvodov, ki je natančnej�e in za dalj�e obdobje, in ker zagotavljajo preprodajalcu redno dobavo v obdobju sporazuma; ker imajo udeležena podjetja tako možnost omejiti tveganja glede tržnih nihanj in znižati stro�ke distribucije;
(6) … such agreements also facilitate the promotion of the sales of a product and lead to intensive marketing because the supplier, in consideration for the exclusive purchasing obligation, is as a rule under an obligation to contribute to the improvement of the structure of the distribution network, the quality of the promotional effort or the sales success; … at the same time, they stimulate competition between the products of different manufacturers; … the appointment of several resellers, who are bound to purchase exclusively from the manufacturer and who take over sales promotion, customer services and carrying of stock, is often the most effective way, and sometimes the only way, for the manufacturer to penetrate a market and compete with other manufacturers already present; …;
(6) ker taki sporazumi pospe�ujejo prodajo proizvoda in omogočajo intenzivno delovanje na trgu, saj se dobavitelj v zameno za izključno nabavo, ki jo sklene preprodajalec, praviloma zaveže k izbolj�anju strukture distribucijskega omrežja, kakovostnemu ogla�evanju ali uspehu prodaje; ker spodbujajo tudi konkurenco med proizvodi različnih proizvajalcev; ker je lahko določitev več preprodajalcev, ki so zavezani k izključni dobavi od dobavitelja in ki prevzamejo stro�ke pospe�evanja prodaje, stro�ke storitev za stranke in skladi�čenja, za proizvajalca pogosto najučinkovitej�i način ali celo edini način prodora na trg in soočanja s konkurenco drugih proizvajalcev; […]
(13) … [beer supply contracts and servicestation contracts] are generally distinguished by the fact that, on the one hand, the supplier confers on the reseller special commercial or financial advantages by contributing to his financing, granting him or obtaining for him a loan on favourable terms, equipping him with a site or premises for conducting his business, providing him with equipment or fittings, or undertaking other investments for his benefit and that, on the other hand, the reseller enters into a longterm exclusive purchasing
(13) ker je za [pogodbe o dobavi piva in pogodbe o bencinskih postajah] na splo�no značilno dejstvo, da po eni strani dobavitelj preprodajalcu nakloni �e posebej pomembne gospodarske in finančne prednosti, in sicer s tem, da mu izplača denarne zneske za izgubljena sredstva, mu nudi oziroma ga oskrbuje s posojili pod ugodnimi pogoji, mu da na voljo zemlji�če oziroma prostore za obratovanje točilnice ali bencinske postaje, s tem da lahko preprodajalec uporablja tehnične naprave oziroma drugo opremo oziroma uresničuje druge naložbe v korist
2008 — CASE C-279/06 obligation which in most cases is accompanied by a ban on dealing in competing products;
2008 – ZADEVA C-279/06 preprodajalca, in da po drugi strani preprodajalec sprejme dolgoročno zavezo o izključni nabavi od dobavitelja, na splo�no skupaj s prepovedjo konkurence;
(15) … the commercial and financial advantages conferred by the supplier on the reseller make it significantly easier to establish, modernise, maintain and operate premises used for the sale and consumption of drinks and service stations; …;
(15) ker gospodarske in finančne prednosti, ki jih dobavitelj dodeli preprodajalcu, občutno pospe�ujejo namestitev ali modernizacijo točilnic ali bencinskih postaj ter njihovo vzdrževanje in obratovanje; […]
(17) … the exclusive purchasing obligation for lubricants and related petroleumbased products can be accepted only on condition that the supplier provides for the reseller or finances the procurement of specific equipment for the carrying out of lubrication work; …’
(17) ker se […] obveznost izključne nabave maziv in povezanih naftnih proizvodov lahko sprejme le, če je dobavitelj dal preprodajalcu na voljo posebne tehnične naprave za oljenje ali če jih je financiral; […]“
The special provisions in respect of agreements concluded with servicestation operators (‘service-station agreements’) were laid down in Articles 10 to 13 of Regulation No 1984/83.
Posebne določbe za sporazume, sklenjene z imetnikom bencinske postaje (v nadaljevanju: sporazumi o bencinskih postajah), so bile predvidene v členih od 10 do 13 Uredbe �t. 1984/83.
Under Article 10 of that regulation:
Člen 10 te iste uredbe je določal:
‘Pursuant to Article 85(3) of the Treaty and subject to Articles 11 to 13 of this Regulation, it is hereby declared that Article 85(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to agreements to which only two undertakings are party and whereby one party, the reseller, agrees with the other, the supplier, in consideration for the according of special commercial or financial advantages, to purchase only from the supplier, an undertaking connected with the supplier or another undertaking entrusted by the supplier with the distribution of his goods, certain petroleumbased motorvehicle fuels or certain petroleumbased motorvehicle and other fuels specified in the agreement for resale in a service station designated in the agreement.’
„V skladu s členom 85(3) Pogodbe in s pogoji iz členov od 11 do 13 te uredbe člen 85(1) navedene pogodbe ne velja za sporazume, v katerih sta udeleženi le dve podjetji in v katerih se eno, preprodajalec, do drugega, dobavitelja, v zameno za dodelitev posebnih gospodarskih ali finančnih prednosti zaveže, da bo nabavljal samo pri njem, pri podjetju, ki je z njim povezano, ali pri tretjem podjetju, ki ga je zadolžil za distribucijo njegovih proizvodov, z namenom nadaljnje prodaje na bencinski postaji, določeni v sporazumu, nekaterih goriv za motorna vozila in drugih goriv na osnovi naftnih proizvodov, ki so določeni v sporazumu.“
Article 11 of that regulation provided:
Člen 11 navedene uredbe je določal:
(b) the obligation not to use lubricants or related petroleumbased products which are supplied by other undertakings within the service station designated in the agreement where the supplier or a connected undertaking has made available to the reseller, or financed, a lubrication bay or other motorvehicle lubrication equipment;
„Razen obveznosti iz člena 10 preprodajalcu ni mogoče naložiti nobene druge omejitve konkurence kot: a) obveznost, da na bencinski postaji, določeni v sporazumu, ne preprodaja goriv za motorna vozila ali drugih goriv, ki jih dobavljajo tretja podjetja; b) obveznost, da na bencinski postaji, določeni v sporazumu, ne uporablja maziv ali povezanih naftnih proizvodov, ki jih ponujajo tretja podjetja, če je dobavitelj ali z njim povezano podjetje dalo preprodajalcu na voljo ali je financiralo opremo za spu�čanje olj ali druge naprave za oljenje motornih vozil;
(c) the obligation to advertise goods supplied by other undertakings within or outside the service station designated in the agreement only in proportion to the share of these goods in the total turnover realised in the service station;
2008 – ZADEVA C-279/06 c) obveznost, da proizvode, ki jih dobavljajo tretja podjetja, ogla�uje na bencinski postaji in zunaj nje samo sorazmerno z deležem, ki ga ti proizvodi predstavljajo v skupnem prometu bencinske postaje; d) obveznost, da skladi�čne naprave ali naprave za distribucijo naftnih proizvodov, ki so njegova last ali jih financira dobavitelj ali z njim povezano podjetje, nadzira le dobavitelj ali podjetje, ki ga ta določi.“
Article 12 of Regulation No 1984/83 set out the clauses and contractual obligations which precluded the application of Article 10, including the fact that the agreement had been concluded for an indefinite duration or for a period of more than 10 years.
V členu 12 Uredbe �t. 1984/83 so bile na�tete klavzule in pogodbene zaveze, ki preprečujejo uporabo člena 10, med njimi tudi to, da je sporazum sklenjen za nedoločen čas oziroma za več kot deset let.
Article 13 of that regulation provided that Articles 2(1) and (3), 3(a) and (b), 4 and 5 were to apply mutatis mutandis to servicestation agreements.
Člen 13 te uredbe je po analogiji predvideval uporabo členov 2(1) in (3), 3(a) in (b), 4 in 5 te uredbe za sporazume o bencinskih postajah.
On 1 January 2000 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p.
2790/1999 z dne 22. decembra 1999 o uporabi člena 81(3) Pogodbe za skupine vertikalnih sporazumov in usklajenih ravnanj (UL L 336, str.
21) entered into force.
21) je začela veljati 1. januarja 2000.
Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2790/1999 provides:
Člen 3(1) Uredbe �t. 2790/1999 določa:
‘Subject to paragraph 2 of this Article, the exemption provided for in Article 2 shall apply on condition that the market share held by the supplier does not exceed 30% of the relevant market on which it sells the contract goods or services.’
„Ob upo�tevanju odstavka 2 tega člena izjema, predvidena v členu 2, velja pod pogojem, da tržni delež, ki ga ima dobavitelj, ne presega 30 % upo�tevnega trga, na katerem prodaja pogodbeno blago ali storitve.“
Article 4 of that regulation provides that the exemption from the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC ‘shall not apply to vertical agreements which, directly or indirectly, in isolation or in combination with other factors under the control of the parties, have as their object:
Člen 4 te uredbe določa, da izjema od prepovedi v členu 81(1) ES „ne velja za vertikalne sporazume, katerih namen je, neposredno ali posredno, samostojno ali v kombinaciji z drugimi dejavniki pod nadzorom pogodbenih strank: a) omejitev možnosti kupca, da določi svojo prodajno ceno, brez poseganja v možnost dobavitelja, da določi maksimalno prodajno ceno ali priporoči prodajno ceno, pod pogojem, da to ne vodi k fiksnim ali minimalnim prodajnim cenam zaradi pritiska ali spodbud katere koli pogodbene stranke;
Under Article 5(a) of that regulation, the exemption provided for in Article 2 thereof does not apply to any direct or indirect noncompete obligation, the duration of which is indefinite or exceeds five years.
V skladu s členom 5(a) te uredbe izjema, predvidena v členu 2, ne velja za nobeno obveznost o neposredni ali posredni prepovedi konkurence, katere trajanje je nedoločeno ali dalj�e od petih let.
On 7 February 1996, the parties to the main proceedings concluded a ‘contract with a service station for use of brand name and image, technical and commercial assistance and supply on a commission-agent basis’ (‘the contract at issue in the main proceedings’).
Stranki v postopku v glavni stvari sta 7. februarja 1996 sklenili „pogodbo o pravici do uporabe blagovne znamke, tehnični in trgovinski podpori ter dobavi po sistemu imetnik komisionar bencinske postaje“ (v nadaljevanju: zadevna pogodba v postopku v glavni stvari).
Pursuant to that contract, Tobar undertook to purchase exclusively from CEPSA motorvehicle and other fuels, as well as lubricants and other related products (‘petroleum products’), for resale in its service station in accordance with the retail prices, conditions and sales and business methods stipulated by that supplier.
Na podlagi te pogodbe se družba Tobar zavezuje, da bo izključno od družbe CEPSA kupovala gorivo za motorna vozila in drugo gorivo ter maziva in druge sorodne proizvode (v nadaljevanju: naftni proizvodi), in sicer za njihovo prodajo na bencinski postaji po maloprodajni ceni in pod tehničnimi pogoji prodaje in uporabe, ki jih določi navedeni dobavitelj.
The contract was concluded for a period of 10 years, which could be extended for successive fiveyear periods by express agreement in writing on notice of at least six months.
Pogodba se sklene za deset let, z možnostjo podalj�anja za zaporedna obdobja petih let z izrecnim pisnim soglasjem in predhodnim obvestilom najmanj �estih mesecev.
The exclusive purchasing obligation in respect of those products was accompanied by a non-competition clause which prohibited Tobar from selling or promoting competing products or from participating in such campaigns, both inside its service station and in the surrounding area.
Obveznost izključne nabave navedenih proizvodov spremlja klavzula o prepovedi konkurence, ki družbi Tobar prepoveduje prodajo ali ogla�evanje konkurenčnih proizvodov ali sodelovanje pri tak�nih dejavnostih, na bencinski postaji in v njeni okolici.
Tobar was required to pay CEPSA the price of the petroleum products within nine days from the date of their delivery to the service station.
Družba Tobar mora plačati ceno naftnih proizvodov družbi CEPSA v roku devetih dni od vključno dneva dostave na bencinsko postajo.
Tobar was also required to take out and present, on the date of the first delivery, a bank guarantee for a total amount equivalent to 15 days’ supply, which could be enforced by CEPSA if Tobar should fail to pay on time.
Družba Tobar je tudi zavezana na dan prve dostave skleniti in predložiti bančno garancijo za skupni znesek, enak znesku za petnajstdnevno dobavo, ki jo družba CEPSA lahko unovči, če ni pravočasnega plačila.
If enforcement of that guarantee were necessary, Tobar would then be required to pay for supplies in advance.
Če bi bilo unovčenje te garancije nujno, bi bila torej družba Tobar prisiljena plačati dobave vnaprej.
Tobar received, by way of remuneration, the market commission in force for each service station.
Družba Tobar kot plačilo pobira tržno provizijo, ki velja za vsako bencinsko postajo.
The payments to CEPSA, determined on the basis of the number of litres delivered to the service station, were made by deducting from the retail price fixed by CEPSA, including value added tax (‘VAT’), the amount of the commission, including VAT.
Plačilo družbi CEPSA, določeno glede na �tevilo litrov, dobavljenih bencinski postaji, je opravljeno tako, da se od maloprodajne cene, ki jo določi družba CEPSA, vključno z davkom na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV), od�teje znesek provizije, vključno s tem davkom.
As regards the clauses relating to the allocation of costs and risks, it is apparent from the order for reference that Tobar was obliged to assume the risks associated with the petroleum products as soon as they were received from the supplier in the storage
Glede določil o porazdelitvi stro�kov in tveganja iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je družba Tobar dolžna prevzeti tveganje, povezano z naftnimi proizvodi od takrat, ko jih prejme od dobavitelja v rezervoarje za skladi�čenje, vključno s tveganjem,
CEPSA tanks, including the risk of discrepancies in volume, and to keep them in the conditions necessary to ensure that they underwent no loss or deterioration.
CEPSA povezanim s prostornino, in jih je dolžna hraniti v zahtevanih razmerah, da se izključita vsakr�na izguba oziroma njihovo poslab�anje.
Tobar was liable, both to the supplier and to third parties, for any loss, contamination or adulteration which might affect the quality of those products and for any damage caused by them.
Ta družba je do dobavitelja in tretjih oseb odgovorna za vsako izgubo, onesnaženje, pome�anje, ki bi lahko vplivali na kakovost navedenih proizvodov, ter za vsako �kodo, ki bi jo lahko ti proizvodi povzročili.
Moreover, Tobar guaranteed and was responsible for customers who had signed up, through Tobar, for the use of the CEPSA CARD credit card or who had been allowed direct credit.
Poleg tega družba Tobar jamči in odgovarja za stranke, ki so z njenim posredovanjem začele uporabljati kreditno kartico CEPSA CARD oziroma ki jim je neposredno odobrila posojilo.
It also contributed to the financing of a small proportion of the costs relating to use of the CEPSA loyalty card.
Družba Tobar sodeluje tudi pri financiranju majhnega dela stro�kov, povezanih z uporabo kartice zvestobe družbe CEPSA.
For its part, CEPSA bore the cost of transporting the petroleum products and the cost of installing and maintaining its brand image in the service station.
Po drugi strani družba CEPSA nosi stro�ke prevoza naftnih proizvodov ter stro�ke namestitve in vzdrževanja, povezane s podobo svoje znamke na bencinski postaji.
It transferred to Tobar the fuel tanks and pumps which Tobar was obliged to use only to sell CEPSA’s products and which it had to hand back to CEPSA at the end of the contract.
Na družbo Tobar prenese rezervoarje in črpalke za gorivo, ki jih mora zadnja uporabljati samo za prodajo proizvodov, ki jih je dobavila družba CEPSA, in jih vrniti ob prenehanju pogodbe.
However, Tobar was required to provide a ‘guarantee on first demand’ in favour of CEPSA to cover the value of the technical installations.
Vendar pa mora družba Tobar skleniti „garancijo na prvi poziv“ v korist družbe CEPSA za znesek vrednosti tehničnih naprav.
On 2 November 2001 CEPSA sent a letter to Tobar authorising it, henceforth, to lower the sale prices of the petroleum products but without reducing CEPSA’s receipts.
Družba CEPSA je 2. novembra 2001 na družbo Tobar naslovila dopis, v katerem ji je v bodoče odobrila znižanje prodajnih cen naftnih proizvodov, vendar brez znižanja prihodkov družbe CEPSA.
In the course of 2003, after sending several letters to CEPSA, Tobar ceased obtaining supplies from CEPSA and concealed CEPSA’s logo on the servicestation installations.
Leta 2003 je družba Tobar, potem ko je na družbo CEPSA naslovila več dopisov, prenehala dobavljati od družbe CEPSA in je zakrila njen znak na napravah na bencinski postaji.
During the course of 2004, Tobar brought an action against CEPSA for annulment of the contract at issue in the main proceedings, claiming that it was incompatible with Article 81 EC, and that its purpose was unlawful by reason of the fact that the determination of the sale price of the petroleum products was left to the sole discretion of CEPSA.
V letu 2004 je družba Tobar proti družbi CEPSA vložila tožbo za razveljavitev zadevne pogodbe v postopku v glavni stvari, v kateri je zatrjevala, da je ta nezdruž -ljiva s členom 81 ES in da je njen predmet nezakonit, ker je določitev prodajne cene naftnih proizvodov prepu�čena le presoji družbe CEPSA.
Tobar also applied for damages.
Družba Tobar je zahtevala tudi od�kodnino.
CEPSA contested the merits of that action and counterclaimed, demanding performance of that contract or its rescission if its performance was impossible, whilst demanding compensation for the loss suffered.
Družba CEPSA je izpodbijala utemeljenost tožbe in vložila nasprotno tožbo, s katero je zahtevala izvr�itev te pogodbe ali njeno razvezo, če bi se izvr�itev izkazala za nemogočo, in hkrati zahtevala od�kodnino.
On 29 July 2005, the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 3 de Madrid (Court of First Instance No 3, Madrid) (Spain) annulled that contract on the ground that it was not compatible with Article 81(1) EC or with Regulations No 1984/83 and No 2790/1999.
Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 3 de Madrid je razveljavilo navedeno pogodbo, ker ni združljiva niti s členom 81(1) ES niti z uredbo �t.
CEPSA appealed against that judgment to the referring court.
1984/83 in uredbo �t. 2790/1999.
In those circumstances, the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid (Provincial Court, Madrid) (Spain) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Glede na to je Audiencia Provincial de Madrid prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
‘(1) (a) Is Article 81(1) EC to be construed as meaning that an exclusive supply contract under a brand name concluded in 1996 by a distributor of petroleum products and the operator of a service station requiring the latter to sell exclusively the supplier’s motorvehicle and other fuels for a fixed period, and to undertake not to sell such products supplied by other distributors, falls within the ambit of that provision in so far as that obligation involves a no-competition agreement, even though that contract might, given its commercial significance, be regarded as an agency contract?
„1. a) Ali je treba člen 81(1) ES razlagati tako, da ta velja za pogodbo o izključni dobavi pod blagovno znamko dobavitelja, sklenjeno leta 1996 med distributerjem naftnih proizvodov in podjetjem, imetnikom bencinske postaje, s katero se ta zaveže, da bo za določen čas prodajal izključno dobaviteljevo gorivo za motorna vozila in drugo gorivo in da ne bo prodajal proizvodov drugih dobaviteljev, glede na to, da navedena obveznost vsebuje dogovor o prepovedi konkurence, čeprav je navedeno pogodbo v gospodarskem smislu mogoče �teti za agencijsko pogodbo?
(b) If the contract does fall within the ambit of Article 81(1), is it possible to claim the benefit of exemption from the prohibition if it satisfies the requirements of Regulation No 1984/83, especially those relating to duration?
b) Če bi se zanjo dejansko uporabljala ta določba, ali bi lahko za pogodbo veljala izjema od prepovedi, če izpolnjuje zahteve iz Uredbe �t. 1984/1983, zlasti glede trajanja?
(c) If that should be the case, does the fact that Articles 10 and 12 of that regulation permit the duration of the no-competition agreement to exceed five years as consideration for the granting of commercial or financial
c) Če je tako, ali člena 10 in 12 navedene uredbe, ki dopu�čata klavzulo o prepovedi konkurence, dogovorjeno za več kot pet let, če gre za nasprotno dajatev v obliki gospodarskih in finančnih prednosti, zahtevata, da morajo
CEPSA advantages by the supplier to the servicestation operator, require those commercial or financial advantages to be substantial or is it enough that they are not insignificant?
CEPSA biti navedene gospodarske in finančne prednosti bistvene, ali zadostuje, da niso nepomembne?