natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That provision, which constitutes an exception to the general scheme of the regulation, which is laid down in particular in Articles 6(1) and 8(1) thereof, according to which the Commission is to rule expressly on the concentrations which are notified to it, whether its decision be a negative or a positive one, must be interpreted and applied in the light of Articles 230 EC and 253 EC.
To določbo, ki je izjema od splo�ne sistematike navedene uredbe, ki izhaja zlasti iz členov 6(1) in 8(1) in na podlagi katere Komisija izrecno odloči o koncentracijah, ki so ji prigla�ene, in to ne glede na to, ali gre za pozitivno ali negativno odločbo, je namreč treba razlagati in uporabljati glede na člena 230 ES in 253 ES.
An inadequate statement of reasons in breach of Article 253 EC constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements for the purposes of Article 230 EC and is, moreover, a plea which may, and even must, be raised by the Community judicature of its own motion.
Nezadostnost obrazložitve, ki pomeni kr�itev člena 253 ES, pa je bistvena kr�itev postopka v smislu člena 230 ES in je zato razlog, na katerega lahko oziroma mora paziti sodi�če Skupnosti po uradni dolžnosti.
(see paras 167-169)
(Glej točke od 167 do 169.)
(see paras 172, 174, 175)
(Glej točke 172, 174 in 175.)
II — Legal framework ...........................................................
– Pravni okvir ................................................................
III — Background to the dispute and the course of the procedure ......................
III – Dejansko stanje in potek postopka ............................................
— The problem of collective market dominance ...........................
B – Problem kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C — Administrative procedure and the Commission’s first clearance decision ..
C – Upravni postopek in prva odločba Komisije o odobritvi ....................
D — The proceedings at first instance ......................................
D – Postopek na prvi stopnji ...............................................
— Appeal proceedings .................................................
E – Pritožbeni postopek ...................................................
— New administrative proceedings and the Commission’s second clearance decision ............................................................
F – Ponovni upravni postopek in druga odločba Komisije o odobritvi ...........
IV — Preliminary questions to analysis of the appeal .................................
IV – Predhodna vpra�anja v zvezi s presojo pritožbe .................................
A — Admissibility of the individual grounds of appeal ........................
A – Dopustnost posameznih pritožbenih razlogov ............................
Admissibility of the fifth ground of appeal ..........................
Dopustnost petega pritožbenega razloga ..............................
Admissibility of the remaining grounds of appeal ....................
Dopustnost preostalih pritožbenih razlogov ...........................
— Whether the appeal is capable of achieving the result sought .............
B – Primernost pritožbe za dosego zastavljenega cilja .........................
The alleged failure of the appellants to challenge a decisive passage of the judgment under appeal .......................................
Zatrjevana zamujena priložnost pritožnikov, da izpodbijata odločilni del izpodbijane sodbe ..................................................
The grounds of the judgment under appeal which do not support its operative part ...................................................
Razlogi izpodbijane sodbe, ki ne podpirajo njenega izreka ...............
C — Continuing existence of interest in pursuing the appeal ..................
C – Nadaljnji obstoj pravnega interesa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Whether the appeal is well founded ...........................................
– Utemeljenost pritožbe .......................................................
A — Extent of investigation and justification required of the Commission in relation to clearance decisions (first, second, third and sixth grounds of appeal)
A – Obseg preiskave in obveznosti obrazložitve, ki se zahteva za odločbe Komisije o odobritvi (prvi, drugi, tretji in �esti pritožbeni razlog) ....................
Standard of reasoning for merger clearance decisions (first and third part of the sixth ground of appeal) .................................
Obrazložitev odločb o odobritvi v okviru nadzora koncentracij (prvi in tretji del �estega pritožbenega razloga) ................................
I - 4982
I - 4982 a) Izpodbojnost odločb o odobritvi zaradi pomanjkljive obrazložitve .....
I - 4983
I - 4983 b) Obseg obveznosti obrazložitve ....................................
— The judgment under appeal ...............................
– Izpodbijana sodba ............................................
I - 4987
I - 4987 c) Preostalo .......................................................
The Court of First Instance’s references to the statement of objections (first ground of appeal and second part of the sixth ground of appeal) ..
Sklicevanje Sodi�ča prve stopnje na izjavo o ugovorih (prvi pritožbeni razlog in drugi del �estega pritožbenega razloga) .......................
I - 4993
I - 4993 a) Razmerje med odločbo o odobritvi in izjavo o ugovorih, kot ga na splo�no razume Sodi�če prve stopnje ..............................
I - 4994
I - 4994 b) Konkretni sklici Sodi�ča prve stopnje na izjavo o ugovorih ...........
The evidential value of factual assertions in the response to the objections (second ground of appeal; first part of the third ground of appeal)
Dokazna vrednost dejstev, predstavljenih v odgovoru na ugovore (drugi pritožbeni razlog; prvi del tretjega pritožbenega razloga) ................
I - 5002
I - 5002 a) Izpodbijana sodba ...............................................
Standard of proof for clearance of concentrations (second part of the third ground of appeal) ...........................................
Dokazni standard za odobritev koncentracij (drugi del tretjega pritožbenega razloga) ......................................................
(a) The alleged asymmetry between the requirements for clearance decisions and prohibition decisions in the Merger Regulation .....
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-413/06 P a) Zatrjevana nesorazmernost zahtev za odločbe o odobritvi in o prepovedi v Uredbi o združitvah ........................................
— Merger control decisions are based on prognoses . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Odločbe s področja nadzora koncentracij so odločbe o napovedi ...
— Symmetry of the requirements for clearances and prohibitions .
– Sorazmernost zahtev za odobritve in prepovedi ..................
— No general presumption of compatibility with the common market ..................................................
– Neobstoj splo�ne domneve o združljivosti s skupnim trgom .......
I - 5013
I - 5013 b) Dokazni standard, ki ga je v obravnavanem primeru uporabilo Sodi�če prve stopnje ....................................................
— Limitations on the Court of First Instance’s power to analyse the facts and the evidence (fourth ground of appeal) .................................
B – Meje proste presoje dejstev in dokazov Sodi�ča prve stopnje (četrti pritožbeni razlog) ...............................................................
The Commission’s discretion and judicial review thereof .............
Diskrecijska pravica Komisije in njen sodni nadzor .....................
I - 5015
I - 5015 a) Izpodbijana sodba ...............................................
(a) Paragraph 425 of the judgment under appeal ....................
I - 5018 a) Točka 425 izpodbijane sodbe .....................................
(b) Paragraph 427 of the judgment under appeal ....................
I - 5019 b) Točka 427 izpodbijane sodbe .....................................
(c) Paragraph 434 of the judgment under appeal ....................
I - 5020 c) Točka 434 izpodbijane sodbe .....................................
C — The use of undisclosed evidence in the judgment under appeal (seventh ground of appeal) ...................................................
C – Uporaba zaupnih podatkov v izpodbijani sodbi (sedmi pritožbeni razlog) ....
VI — The supposed cross appeal ..................................................
VI – Domnevna nasprotna pritožba ...............................................
On its application, by judgment dated 13 July 2006 3(‘the judgment under appeal’) the Court of First Instance annulled the first clearance decision.
13. julija 2006 3(v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba) za nično razglasilo prvo odločbo o odobritvi.
The present case presents an opportunity to develop the Court’s caselaw in the area of EC merger control.
Obravnavani primer je priložnost za nadaljnji razvoj sodne prakse Sodi�ča na področju nadzora koncentracij na ravni Skupnosti.
In essence it concerns the question — a most important one in practice — of the extent of the investigation and reasoning which may be required of the Commission where it authorises a concentration between undertakings.
V bistvu gre pri tem za dejansko zelo pomembno vpra�anje, kako obsežna preiskava in kako obsežna obrazložitev se lahko zahtevata od Komisije, kadar odobri koncentracijo podjetij.
An appeal by Bertelsmann and Sony against the judgment under appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice.
Bertelsmann in Sony sta se s pritožbo zoper izpodbijano sodbo obrnila na Sodi�če.
In essence, the appellants argue that the Court of First Instance applied excessive legal requirements for a Commission clearance decision and for the judicial review of that decision.
Pritožnika v glavnem menita, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje prekoračilo zahteve, ki jih pravo določa za odločbo Komisije o odobritvi in za njen sodni nadzor.
However, there is a preliminary question as to whether the appellants still have any legal interest in pursuing their appeal given that in the meantime, on 3 October 2007, their concentration was cleared once more by the Commission.
Predhodno pa je treba raziskati vpra�anje, ali pritožnika sploh �e imata pravni interes, saj je Komisija medtem 3. oktobra 2007 njuno koncentracijo ponovno odobrila.
The background to this case is a merger control procedure concerning the markets for recorded music, online music and music publishing.
Ozadje tega primera je postopek nadzora koncentracij, ki se nana�a na trge posnetih nosilcev zvoka, spletne glasbe in glasbenega založni�tva.
At the end of 2003, Bertelsmann and Sony agreed that they would integrate their global recorded music businesses.
Skupini družb Bertelsmann in Sony sta se konec leta 2003 dogovorili, da bosta združili globalni dejavnosti na področju nosilcev zvoka.
Following initial doubts, by Decision dated 19 July 2004 2(‘the first clearance decision’) the Commission approved this proposed concentration.
Komisija je ta načrt koncentracije po začetnih dvomih odobrila z odločbo z dne 19. julija 2004 2(v nadaljevanju: prva odločba o odobritvi).
The Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (‘Impala’), an international association governed by Belgian law to which 2 500 independent music production undertakings belong, complained
Tej koncentraciji je nasprotoval Independent Music Publishers and Labels Associa -tion (Impala), mednarodno združenje belgijskega prava, ki mu pripada 2500 neodvisnih podjetij, ki se ukvarjajo z glasbeno produkcijo.
The legal framework in the present case consists of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the Merger Regulation’) 4
Pravni okvir tega primera je Uredba Sveta (EGS) �t. 4064/89 z dne 21. decembra 1989 o nadzoru koncentracij podjetij (v nadaljevanju: Uredba o združitvah), 4
3 — Case T-464/04 Impala v Commission [2006] ECR II-2289.
3 – Sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 13. julija 2006 v zadevi Impala proti Komisiji (T-464/04, ZOdl., str. II-2289).
2 — Commission Decision 2005/188/EC of 19 July 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.3333 — SONY/BMG) (notified under document number C(2004) 2815) (OJ 2005 L 62, p. 30).
2 – Odločba Komisije 2005/188/ES z dne 19. julija 2004 o razglasitvi koncentracije za združljivo s skupnim trgom in delovanjem Sporazuma EGP (zadeva �t. COMP/M.3333 – SONY/BMG), notificirana pod dokumentarno �tevilko C(2004) 2815 (UL 2005, L 62, str. 30).
Concentrations with a Community dimension within the meaning of the Merger Regulation are subject to a prohibition on implementation and must be notified to the Commission (Articles 4 and 7 of the Merger Regulation).
Za koncentracije na ravni Skupnosti v smislu Uredbe o združitvah velja prepoved izvajanja in priglasiti jih je treba Komisiji (člena 4 in 7 Uredbe o združitvah).
The Commission appraises them as to their compatibility with the common market (Article 2(1) of the Merger Regulation).
Ta presodi, ali so združljive s skupnim trgom (člen 2(1) Uredbe o združitvah).
The merger control procedure consists of two phases. The first phase is simply a preliminary examination of the proposed concentration.
Postopek nadzora koncentracij sestavljata dve fazi: prva faza vsebuje le predhodni preizkus načrta koncentracije.
If this raises serious doubts as to the concentration’s compatibility with the common market, there follows in a second phase a formal procedure which the Commission is required to initiate in terms of Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. 6
Če ta predhodni preizkus pokaže, da obstaja resen dvom glede združljivosti koncentracije s skupnim trgom, potem v drugi fazi sledi uradni postopek preizkusa, ki ga uvede Komisija v skladu s členom 6(1)(c) Uredbe o združitvah. 6
The Commission’s powers of decision in the formal procedure are laid down in Article 8 of the Merger Regulation as follows:
Odobritev ali prepoved koncentracije je odvisna od tega, ali ustvari ali krepi prevladujoči položaj, katerega posledica bi bila resno oviranje učinkovite konkurence na skupnem trgu ali na njegovem znatnem delu.
On that point Article 2(2) and (3) of the Merger Regulation provide as follows:
„1. […] [V]sak postopek, ki se začne na podlagi člena 6(1)(c), [se] konča z odločbo, v skladu z odstavki od 2 do 5 tega člena.
‘(2) A concentration which does not create or strengthen a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be declared compatible with the common market.
6 – Če pri neki koncentraciji, kot je to pogosto v praksi, ne obstaja noben resen dvom glede njene združljivosti s skupnim trgom, potem pride do odobritve brez uvedbe uradnega postopka nadzora koncentracij že na podlagi predhodnega preizkusa. Komisija v takih primerih v skladu s členom 6(1)(b) Uredbe o združitvah odloči, da koncentraciji ne bo nasprotovala, in jo razglasi za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
5 — Regulation of 30 June 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1997 L 180, p.
1310/97 z dne 30. junija 1997 o spremembi Uredbe (EGS) �t. 4064/89 o nadzoru koncentracij podjetij (UL L 180, str. 1, s popravki v UL 1998, L 3, str. 16, in UL 1998, L 40, str. 17).
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA and associations of undertakings concerned the opportunity, at every stage of the pro -cedure up to the consultation of the Advisory Committee, of making known their views on the objections against them.
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALA in podjetni�kim združenjem možnost, da na vsaki fazi postopka vse do posvetovanja s Svetovalnim odborom predstavijo svoje poglede na očitke, ki jih zadevajo.
(3) The Commission shall base its decision only on objections on which the parties have been able to submit their observations.
Odločba Komisije temelji le na ugovorih, o katerih so lahko stranke predstavile svoja stali�ča.
The rights of the defence shall be fully respected in the proceedings. …’
Pravice do obrambe se v postopku povsem spo�tujejo. […]“
Before a prohibition decision may be taken under Article 8(3) of the Merger Regulation, the parties to the concentration are given a hearing.
Pred morebitno izdajo odločbe o prepovedi v skladu s členom 8(3) Uredbe o združitvah se zasli�ijo podjetja, udeležena pri koncentraciji.
For this purpose the Commission sends them a written statement of objections, to which they may respond in writing and, as the case may be, orally.
V ta namen jim Komisija posreduje pisno izjavo o ugovorih, h kateri lahko podajo pisne in po potrebi tudi ustne pripombe.
On this matter Article 18 of the Merger Regulation provides as follows: 7‘
Glede tega člen 18 Uredbe o združitvah določa: 7
The whole merger control proced- ure is characterised by a requirement for speed, which is realised by a finely balanced, comparatively strict system of timelimits and which seeks to limit the length of merger control proceedings.
Celotni postopek nadzora koncentracij zaznamuje zahteva po pospešitvi, ki se uresničuje predvsem z dobro uravnoteženim, sorazmerno strogim režimom rokov in je namenjena omejitvi trajanja postopka nadzora koncentracij.
8If the Commission does not make a decision as to compatibility with the common market within the specified time-limit, there is a deemed clearance in respect of which Article 10(6) of the Merger Regulation provides as follows:
8 Če Komisija o združljivosti koncentracije s skupnim trgom ne odloči v predpisanem roku, nastane fikcija odobritve, ki je v členu 10(6) Uredbe o združitvah opisana tako:
Regulation 10applies only from 1 May 2004 and is therefore not relevant to the present case; Article 26(2) provides that the previous law remains applicable to cases such as the present.
„Če Komisija ne sprejme odločbe v skladu s členom 6(1)(b) ali (c) ali členom 8(2) ali (3) v rokih, […] se […] razume, da je koncentracija razgla�ena za združljivo s skupnim trgom.“
‘Where the Commission has not taken a decision in accordance with Article 6 (1) (b) or (c) or Article 8 (2) or (3) within the deadlines set …, the concentration shall be deemed to have been declared compatible with the common market …’
Uredba ES o združitvah 10pa se v skladu z njenim členom 26(1) uporablja �ele od 1. maja 2004 in zato za obravnavani primer ni pomembna; v primerih, kot je obravnavani, se v skladu z drugim odstavkom te določbe �e naprej uporabljajo dotedanji pravni predpisi.
As regards the consequences where a Decision by the Commission is annulled by a Community Court, Article 10(5) of the Merger Regulation provides as follows:
Glede posledic razglasitve ničnosti odločbe Komisije s strani sodi�ča Skupnosti člen 10(5) Uredbe o združitvah določa:
III — Background to the dispute and the course of the procedure
III – Dejansko stanje in potek postopka
‘Where the Court of Justice gives a judgment which annuls the whole or part of a Commission decision taken under this Regulation, the periods laid down in this Regulation shall start again from the date of the judgment.’
„Če se na podlagi sodbe Sodi�ča Evropskih skupnosti odločba Komisije, sprejeta v skladu s to uredbo, v celoti ali delno razveljavi, začnejo roki, določeni v tej uredbi, ponovno teči od dneva izdaje sodbe.“
In most merger control proceedings the Commission acts also as merger control authority for the European Economic Area 9 and decides also as to whether concentrations are compatible with the EEA Agreement.
Komisija v večini postopkov nadzora koncentracij deluje tudi kot organ Evropskega gospodarskega prostora za nadzor koncentracij 9in odloča o združljivosti koncentracij s Sporazumom EGP.
Bertelsmann AG 11is an international media company, having worldwide activities in music recording and publishing, television, radio, book and magazine publishing, printing and media services, and book and music clubs.
Bertelsmann AG 11je mednarodno dejavno medijsko podjetje z dejavnostmi po vsem svetu na področjih nosilcev zvoka in glasbenega založni�tva, televizije, radia, knjižnega in časopisnega založni�tva, tiskarskih in medijskih storitev ter knjižnih in glasbenih klubov.
In the area of music recording Bertelsmann operates through its whollyowned subsidiary Bertelsmann Music Group (‘BMG’). 12
Bertelsmann na področju nosilcev zvoka deluje prek svoje 100-odstotno odvisne družbe Bertelsmann Music Group (BMG). 12
In 2004 the Merger Regulation was substantially amended.
Uredba o združitvah je bila v bistvenih točkah spremenjena leta 2004. Novelirana
9 — Article 57(1) and (2)(a) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA Agreement’, OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3).
9 – Člen 57(1) in (2)(a) Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru („Sporazum EGP“, UL 1994, L 1, str. 3).
12 — On this and the following, see paragraphs 3 to 6 of the judgment under appeal.
12 – V zvezi s tem in nadaljnjim besedilom glej točke od 3 do 6 izpodbijane sodbe.
B — The problem of collective market dominance
B – Problem kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja
Sony Corporation of America 13is part of the Sony Group and operates worldwide in the areas of music recording, music publishing, industrial and consumer electronics and entertainment.
Sony Corporation of America 13spada k skupini Sony in po vsem svetu deluje na področjih nosilcev zvoka, glasbenega založni�tva, industrijske in potro�ni�ke elektronike ter zabave.
In the recorded music sector Sony acts through Sony Music Entertainment.
Sony na glasbenem področju deluje prek podjetja Sony Music Entertainment.
As with all concentrations having a Community dimension, under Article 2 of the Merger Regulation the proposed concentration of Bertelsmann and Sony required to be appraised as to whether it was likely to create or strengthen a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the common market or in a substantial part of it.
Kot vse koncentracije na ravni Skupnosti je bilo treba načrt družb Bertelsmann in Sony v skladu s členom 2 Uredbe o združitvah preizkusiti glede tega, ali bi lahko ustvaril ali krepil prevladujoči položaj, katerega posledica bi bila resno oviranje učinkovite konkurence na skupnem trgu ali na njegovem znatnem delu.
Under a Business Contribution Agreement dated 11 December 2003 Bertelsmann and Sony agreed to combine their global recorded music businesses (with the sole exception of Sony’s business in Japan) and to transfer it into at least three new undertakings.
Bertelsmann in Sony sta se z Business Contribution Agreement (sporazum o udeležbi podjetij) z dne 11. decembra 2003 dogovorila, da bosta globalno dejavnost na področju nosilcev zvoka (razen dejavnosti družbe Sony na Japonskem) združila in jo prenesla na vsaj tri nova podjetja.
It was intended that these joint venture undertakings should operate under the name ‘Sony BMG’.
Ta podjetja v okviru skupnega podjetja naj bi delovala pod imenom „Sony BMG“.
Under the agreement, Sony BMG was to discover and develop artists, 14 and deal with
Konkretno pri tem ni �lo morda za prevladujoči položaj Sony BMG na enem trgu, ampak za nevarnost nastanka ali krepitve kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja petih proizvajalcev posnetih nosilcev zvoka, ki delujejo po vsem svetu, 15tako imenovanih „top skupin družb“ („Majors“) s področja svetovne glasbene industrije, katerih �tevilo se je zaradi koncentracije znižalo s pet na �tiri.
In particular, the issue was not whether Sony BMG would achieve an individual dominant position in a given market, but the risk of the creation or strengthening of a collective dominant position between five global recorded music publishers, 15the so-called ‘majors’ of the worldwide music industry, the number of which would, by virtue of the concentration, be reduced from five to four.
Sony BMG naj bi v skladu s sporazumom skrbel za odkrivanje in spodbujanje izvajalcev 14ter za trženje in prodajo posnetih nosilcev zvoka.
On the other hand, its business activities were not to include related activities such as publishing, manufacturing and distribution of recorded music.
Nasprotno pa naj k njegovim dejavnostim ne bi spadale sorodne dejavnosti, kot so izdaja, produkcija in dobava nosilcev zvoka.