natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘Serious negligence’within the meaning of Article 4 of Directive 2005/35 must be understood as entailing an unintentional act or omission by which the person responsible commits a patent breach of the duty of care which he should have and could have complied within view of his attributes, knowledge, abilities and individual situation.
Poleg tega je Sodišče dodalo, da pogostost tehničnih napak, ugotovljenih pri letalskem prevozniku, sama po sebi ni dejavnik, na podlagi katerega bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti obstoj ali neobstoj„izrednih razmer“ v smislu člena 5(3) Uredbe št. 261/2004.
Lastly, in accordance with Article 249 EC, Directive 2005/35 must be transposed by each of the Member States into national law.
Nazadnje je Sodišče razsodilo, da dejstvo, da je letalski prevoznik upošteval minimalna pravila glede vzdrževanja letala, ne zadostuje zato, da bi se z njim dokazalo, dajeta prevoznik sprejel „vse ustrezne ukrepe“ v smislu tega člena in da je zato razbremenjen obveznosti plačila odškodnine iz členov 5(1)(c) in 7(1) te uredbe.
Thus, the actual definition of the infringements referred to in Article 4 of that directive and the applicable penalties are those which result from the rules laid down by the Member States.
Ker nimajo vse izredne razmere značilnosti, zaradi katere torej ne bi bilo treba plačati odškodnine, temveč le tiste razmere, ki se jim ne bi bilo mogoče izogniti, tudi če bi bili sprejeti vsi ustrezni ukrepi, mora tisti, ki se želi nato sklicevati, dokazati, da se razmeram ni bilo mogoče izogniti z ukrepi, ki bi bili prilagojeni okoliščinam, razen če bi privolil v nevzdržne žrtve glede na takratne zmogljivosti svoje družbe.
With regard to competition rules applicable to undertakings, there are four judgments to which particular attention should be given.
Sodišče je v zvezi s pomorskim prometom v zadevi The International Association of Independent Tanker Owners in drugi (sodba z dne 3. junija 2008, C-308/06) navedlo, da člen 4 Direktive 2005/35 o onesnaževanju morja z ladij28 v povezavi s členom 8 te direktive, s tem da obvezuje države članice k uvedbi kazni za izpuste onesnaževalnih snovi z ladij, če so bili ti povzročeni„naklepno, iz zavestne ali hude malomarnosti“, in pri tem ne opredeli teh pojmov, ne krši splošnega načela pravne varnosti, s tem da države članice obvezuje k uvedbi kazni za izpuste onesnaževalnih snovi z ladij, če so bili ti povzročeni iz„hudemalomarnosti“.
As regards the concepts of undertaking and economic activity, the Court held in Case C-49/07 MOTOE (judgment of 1 July 2008) that a legal person whose activities consist in organising sports competitions and in entering, in that connection, into sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts which are designed to exploit those competitions commercially and constitute a source of income for that entity must be classified as an undertaking for the purposes of Community competition law.
Ti različni pojmi, zlasti pojem„huda malomarnost“, namreč ustrezajo merilom, ki so podlaga odgovornosti, saj se lahko nanašajo na nedoločno število položajev, ki jih ni mogoče predvideti, ne pa na natančno določena ravnanja, ki bi jih bilo mogoče natančno opredeliti v normativnem aktu prava Skupnosti ali nacionalnega prava.
That classification is not affected by the fact that such an undertaking does not seek to make a profit.
Poleg tega so ti pojmi popolnoma vpeti v pravne sisteme držav članic in se v njih uporabljajo.
Nor is it affected by the fact that it has the power to give its consent to applications for authorisation to organise events submitted to the authorities, since the participation of that entity in the decision-making process of the authorities must be distinguished from the economic activities it engages in, such as the organisation and com- v 2
V zvezi s tem je treba pojem„hudamalomarnost“ v smislu navedenega člena 4 razumeti kot nenamerno dejanje ali opustitev, s katerim odgovorna oseba očitno opusti dolžnost skrbnosti, ki bi jo morala in mogla spoštovati glede na svoje lastnosti, znanja, zmožnosti in osebni položaj. Nazadnje morajo države članice v skladu s členom 249 ES Direktivo 2005/35 prenesti v določbe svojih pravnih redov.
Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 11).
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2005/35/ES z dne 7. septembra 2005 o onesnaževanju morja z ladij in uvedbi kazni za kršitve (UL L 255, str. 11).
Court of Justice mercial exploitation of events. The Court also pointed out that the fact that an economic activity has a connection with sport does not hinder the application of the rules of the Treaty.
V zvezi s pravili konkurence, ki veljajo za podjetja, je treba nameniti posebno pozornost štirim sodbam.
In Case C-279/06 CEPSA (judgment of 11 September 2008), the Court considered the conditions for exempting exclusive supply contracts for petroleum products (see Case C-217/05 Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio [2006] ECR I-11987).
Sodišče je v zvezi s pojmoma„podjetje“ in„gospodarska dejavnost“ v zadevi MOTOE (sodba z dne 1. julija 2008, C-49/07) razsodilo, da je treba pravno osebo, katere dejavnosti so organizacija športnih tekmovanj in v tem okviru sklepanje sponzorskih pogodb, pogodbo oglaševanju in zavarovalnih pogodb za namene tržnega izkoriščanja teh tekmovanj, ki zato osebo pomenijo vir dohodkov, opredeliti kot podjetje v smislu konkurenčnega prava Skupnosti.
Such a contract is capable of falling within the scope of Article 81(1) EC where a service-station operator assumes, in a non-negligible proportion, financial and commercial risks linked to the sale of petroleum products to third parties and where that contract contains clauses capable of infringing competition.
Te opredelitve ne izpodbija dejstvo, da ta pravna oseba nima pridobitnega namena, niti dejstvo, da ima pooblastilo za izdajo soglasja k vlogi za dovoljenje za organizacijo teh tekmovanj, predloženi javnim organom, saj je treba razlikovati med udeležbo pravne osebe v postopku odločanja javnih organov in gospodarskimi dejavnostmi, ki jih izvaja, kot sta organizacija ali gospodarsko izkoriščanje tekmovanj.
If the operator does not assume such risks, only the obligations imposed on the operator in the context of services as an intermediary offered by the operator to the principal, such as the exclusivity and non-competition clauses, are capable of falling within the scope of Article 81(1) EC.
Sodišče je ravno tako opozorilo, da okoliščina, da je gospodarska dejavnost povezana s športom, ni ovira za uporabo določb Pogodbe.
As regards the conditions for exemption, the Court held that such a contract is capable of benefiting from a block exemption under Regulation No 1984/83 (29) if it complies with the maximum duration of 10 years and if the supplier grants the service-station operator, in return for exclusivity, substantial commercial advantages which contribute to an improvement in distribution, facilitate the establishment or modernisation of the service station and lower the distribution costs. The Court also specified the rules applicable to agreements concluded under Regulation No 1984/83 where the performance of the contract extends beyond the date on which that regulation expired.
Nazadnje je Sodišče sto sodbo razsodilo, da člena 82 ES in 86 ES nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, ki podeljuje pravni osebi, ki organizira športna tekmovanja in v tem okviru sklepa sponzorske pogodbe, pogodbe o oglaševanju in zavarovalne pogodbe, pooblastilo za izdajo soglasja k vlogi za dovoljenje za organizacijo takih tekmovanj, ne da bi bili določeni meje, obveznosti in nadzor nad izvajanjem tega pooblastila.
Moreover, with regard to contracts covered by Regulation No 2790/1999 (30), since the exemption provided for in Article 2 there of was not to apply to vertical agreements which have as their object the restriction of the buyer’s ability to determine his sale price, the Court held that it was for the referring court to examine whether it was genuinely possible for the reseller to lower that sale price.
V zadevi CEPSA (sodba z dne 11. septembra 2008, C-279/06) se je Sodišče ukvarjalo s pogoji za izvzetje pogodbo izključni dobavi naftnih proizvodov (glej že sodbo z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio, C-217/05, ZOdl., str. I-11987).
Finally, the Court stated that the automatic nullity provided for in Article 81(2) EC affects a contract in its entirety only if the clauses which are incompatible with Article 81(1) EC are not severable from the contract.
Taka pogodba lahko spada na področje uporabe člena 81(1) ES, kadar imetnik bencinske postaje v nezanemarljivem delu prevzame ê na nč na in poslovna tveganja, povezana s prodajo naftnih proizvodov tretjim osebam, in kadar pogodba vsebuje klavzule, zaradi katerih so lahko kršena pravila konkurence.
Otherwise, the consequences of the nullity, in respect of all the other parts of the contract, are not a matter for Communitylaw .
Če imetnik ne prevzame takšnih tveganj, lahko spadajo pod člen 81(1) ES samo obveznosti, ki so naložene imetniku v okviru storitev posrednika, ki jih ponuja naročniku, kakršne so klavzule o izključnosti in prepovedi konkurence.
With regard to abuse of a dominant position, of particular note are Joined Cases C-468/06 to C-478/06 Sot. Lelos kai Sia (judgment of 16 September 2008), which followed on from Case C-53/03 Syfait andOthers [2005] ECR-4609.
Glede pogojev za izvzetje je Sodišče razsodilo, da lahko za tako pogodbo velja skupinska izjema na podlagi Uredbe št. 1984/8329, če spoštuje najdaljše trajanje desetih let in če dobavitelj imetniku bencinske postaje v zameno za izključnost dodeli pomembne gospodarske prednosti, ki prispevajo k izboljšanju distribucije, pospeševanju namestitve ali modernizacije bencinske postaje in zniževanju stroškov distribucije.
The Court held that the refusal by a pharmaceuticals company occupying a dominant position on the market for certain medicinal products to satisfy‘ordinary’orders placed by wholesalers in order to prevent the latter from exporting those medical products from one Member State to other Member States constitutes an abuse of a dominant position.
Sodišče je ravno tako pojasnilo pravila, ki veljajo za sporazume, sklenjene med veljavnostjo Uredbe št. 1984/83, ki se izvajajo še po datumu, ko je ta uredba prenehala veljati.
In order to arrive at that conclusion, the Court examined whether particular circumstances a represent in the pharmaceuticals sector as a result of which the refusal
Ker izjema iz člena 2 ne velja za vertikalne sporazume, katerih cilj je omejitev možnosti kupca, da določi svojo prodajno ceno, je Sodišče glede pogodb, za katere se uporablja Uredba št. 2790/199930, poleg tega razsodilo, da mora predložitveno sodišče preučiti, ali ima preprodajalec resnično možnost, da zniža prodajne cene.
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p.
Uredbe Komisije (EGS) št. 1984/83 z dne 22. junija 1983 o uporabi člena 85(3) Pogodbe za skupine sporazumov o izključni nabavi (UL L 173, str.
5), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1582/97 of 30 July 1997 (OJ 1997 L 214, p. 27).
5), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1582/97 z dne 30. julija 1997 (UL L 214, str. 27).
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. 21).
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 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).
Court of Justice
Lélos kai Sia (sodba z dne 16. septembra 2008, od C-468/06 do C-478/06), ki so sledile zadevi Syfait in drugi (sodba z dne 31. maja 2005, C-53/03).
Proceedings does not constitute an abuse.
Da bi Sodišče prišlo do te ugotovitve, je preučilo, ali v sektorju farmacevtskih proizvodov obstajajo posebne okoliščine, zaradi katerih zavrnitev ne bi pomenila zlorabe.
It considered, first of all, that a pharmaceuticals company occupying a dominant position cannot rely on the fact that parallel exports of medicinal products from a Member State where the prices are low to other Member States in which the prices are higher will be of only minimal benefit to the final consumer.
Najprej je presodilo, da se farmacevtsko podjetje s prevladujočim položajem nemore opreti na dejstvo, da bi vzporedni izvoz zdravili z države članice, v kateri so cene teh zdravil nizke, v druge države članice, v katerih so cene višje, pomenil le minimalno korist za končnega potrošnika.
In fact, such exports constitute an alternative source of supply, which necessarily brings some benefits to the final consumer.
Tak izvoz namreč pomeni alternativni vir oskrbe, kar gotovo pomeni prednost za končnega potrošnika.
The Court then stated that the fact that prices of medicinal products are subject to State regulation does not prevent the refusal being abusive either.
Nato je Sodišče razsodilo, da obstoj državne ureditve na področju cen zdravil nemore zagotoviti, da zavrnitev ne pomeni zlorabe.
It pointed out, however, that a company in a dominant position can take steps that are reasonable and in proportion to the needto protect its own commercial interests.
Vendar je opozorilo, da podjetje s prevladujočim položajem lahko sprejme ukrepe, ki so razumni in sorazmerni s potrebo po varstvu lastnih trgovskih interesov.
Consequently, in order to appraise whether the refusal by a pharmaceuticals company occupying a dominant position to supply wholesalers involved in parallel exports constitutes a reasonable and proportionate measure in relation to the threat that those exports represent to its legitimate commercial interests, it must be ascertained whether the orders of the wholesalers are out of the ordinary in the light of both the previous business relations between the company and the wholesalers concerned and the size of the orders in relation to the requirements of the market in the Member State concerned.
Zato je treba za presojo, ali zavrnitev dobave farmacevtskega podjetja s prevladujočim položajem trgovcem na debelo, ki so dejavni pri vzporednem izvozu, pomeni razumen in sorazmeren ukrep glede na grožnjo, ki jo pomeni ta izvoz za njegove legitimne trgovske interese, ugotoviti, ali so naročila teh trgovcev na debelo neobičajna glede na prejšnja trgovska razmerja med podjetjem in zadevnimi trgovci na debelo ter glede na obseg naročil v razmerju do potrebna trgu v zadevni državi članici.
The Court stated that it is for the national court to ascertain whether the orders are‘ordinary’in the light of both those criteria.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da mora nacionalno sodišče odločiti o„običajnosti“ teh naročil glede na ti merili.
Finally, worthy of particular note is Case C-413/06 P Bertelsmann and Sony Corporation of America v Impala (judgment of 10 July 2008), in which the Court set aside the judgment of theCourtofFirstInstance in Case T-464/04 Impala v Commission [2006] ECR II-2289 and examined in considerable detail standards of proof and the scope of judicial review in relation to concentrations.
Na koncu je treba nameniti pozornost še sodbi Bertelsmann in Sony Corporation of America proti Impala (sodba z dne 10. julija 2008, C-413/06 P), s katero je Sodišče razveljavilo sodbo Sodiščaprvestopnje v zadevi Impala proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 13. julija 2006, T-464/04, ZOdl., str.
Secondly, the Court pointed out that the Commission may, in its decision, depart from the provisional findings in the statement of objections.
II-2289) in natančneje pojasnilo dokazni standard in obseg sodnega nadzora na področju koncentracij.
While theCourtofFirstInstance may therefore verify the correctness, completeness and reliability of the factual material which underpinned the decision in the light of the statement of objections, it must not treat the conclusions set out in that statement as established.
Najprej je Sodišče razsodilo, da ni splošne domneve združljivosti priglašene koncentracije s skupnim trgom in da se dokazni standard za odločbe o odobritvi koncentracije ne razlikuje od dokaznega standarda za odločbe o prepovedi koncentracije.
Thirdly, the Court stated that the notifying parties cannot be criticised for not putting forward certain information until their reply to the statement of objections and that such information is not subject to more demanding standards of proof than those imposed in relation to the arguments of third parties or other information provided by the notifying undertakings.
Drugič, Sodišče je opozorilo, da lahko Komisija v svoji odločbi odstopi od začasnih ugotovitev iz obvestila o ugotovitvah omožnih kršitvah.
Moreover, the Court held that when the Commission examines in its decision the arguments submitted in response to the statement of objections, it may depart from the provisional findings in that statement without making a request for information or undertaking any additional market investigations.
Čeprav lahko torej Sodišče prve stopnje preveri pravilnost, popolnost in zanesljivost dejstev, ki so podlaga za sporno odločbo, upoštevajoč obvestilo o ugotovitvah omožnih kršitvah, pa ne sme šteti, da so ugotovitve v tem obvestilu dokazane.
Fourthly, the Court set out the legal criteria applying to a collective dominant position arising from tacit coordination and held that the assessment of those criteria, including the transparency of the market concerned, should not be undertaken in an isolated and abstract manner, but should be carried out using the mechanism of a hypothetical tacit coordination as a basis.
Tretjič, Sodišče je pojasnilo, da priglasiteljem ni mogoče očitati, da so dokaze podali šele v svojem odgovoru na obvestilo o ugotovitvah omožnih kršitvah in da za take dokaze ne velja višji dokazni standard od tistega, ki velja za trditve tretjih oseb, ali za druge dokaze, ki jih predložijo podjetja, ki priglašujejo.
Finally, the Court held that a Commission decision approving a concentration can be annulled on the basis that it is inadequately reasoned.
Poleg tega je Sodišče razsodilo, da lahko Komisija, kadar v odločbi preučuje trditve, podane v odgovorna obvestilo o ugotovitvah omožnih kršitvah, odstopi od začasnih ugotovitev iz tega obvestila, ne da bi zahtevala predložitev podatkov ali izvedla dodatne raziskave trga.
With regard to State aid, two judgments merit particular attention. One of these concerns the concept of State aid, in particular the condition that the measure be selective, and the other regards the problem of aid that is unlawful but compatible with the common market.
Četrtič, Sodišče je pojasnilo pravna merila, ki se uporabljajo v zadevah kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, ki je posledica tihega usklajevanja, in razsodilo, da se presoja teh meril, vključno s
In Joined Cases C-428/06 to C-434/06 Unión Trabajadores deL a Rioja (judgment of 11 September 2008), the Court was asked whether tax measures adopted by infra-State bodies providing for a rate of tax lower than the basic rate set in Spanish State legislation and for deductions from the amount of tax payable which do not exist in State tax legislation are to be considered State aid that is incompatible with the common market on the sole ground that they apply only in the territory of those bodies.
Tako je bilo Sodišču v združenih zadevah Unión General de Trabajadores deLa Rioja (sodba z dne 11. septembra 2008, od C-428/06 do C-434/06) predloženo vprašanje, ali je treba davčne ukrepe, ki so jih sprejele poddržavne enote in s katerimi je bila določena davčna stopnja, ki je nižja od splošne davčne stopnje, ki jo predvideva zakonodaja Španije, ter ki uvajajo davčni odbitek, ki ne obstaja v državnem davčnem pravu, obravnavati kot državne pomoči, ki niso združljive s skupnim trgom, zgolj zato, ker se nanašajo le na ozemlje teh enot.
The Court stated that it is for the national court, which alone has jurisdiction to identify the national law applicable and to interpret it, as well as to apply Communitylaw to the cases before it, to determine, in accordance with the judgment in Case C-88/03 Portugal v Commission [2006] ECR I-7115, whether the infra-State bodies concerned, which in this case were the Historical Territories and the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country, enjoy institutional, procedural and economic autonomy, which, if so, would have the result that the laws adopted within the limits of the areas of competence granted to those infra-State bodies by the Spanish Constitution of 1978 and the other provisions of Spanish law are not of a selective nature within the meaning of the concept of State aid as referred to in Article 87(1) EC.
Navedlo je, da mora predložitveno sodišče, ki je edino pristojno za opredelitev veljavnega nacionalnega prava, njegovo razlago in uporabo prava Skupnosti v sporih, o katerih odloča, v skladu s sodbo Sodišča z dne 6. septembra 2006 v zadevi Portugalska proti Komisiji (C-88/03, ZOdl., str.
The Court thus had the opportunity to state, in relation to the judgment in Case C-88/03, that such autonomy requires that infra-State bodies assume responsibility for the political and financial consequences of a tax reduction measure.
I-7115) preučiti, ali imajo zadevne poddržavne enote, v tej zadevi zgodovinska ozemlja in Baskovska avtonomna skupnost, institucionalno, procesno in ekonomsko avtonomijo, kar bi pomenilo, da predpisi, ki jih te poddržavne enote sprejmejo v okviru pristojnosti, ki jih imajo na podlagi španske ustave iz leta 1978 in drugih določb španskega prava, niso selektivni v smislu pojma državne pomoči, kot izhaja iz člena 87(1) ES.
That cannot be the case where such bodies are not responsible for the management of a budget, in other words, where they do not have control of both revenue and expenditure.
Sodišče je tako imelo priložnost pojasniti v zvezi z zgoraj navedeno sodbo, da ta avtonomija zahteva, da poddržavne enote prevzamejo politične in ê na nč ne posledice ukrepa znižanja davka. Če taka enota ne upravlja proračuna, torej če ne nadzira niti prihodkov niti odhodkov, ne gre za tak primer.
Moreover, the financial consequences of a reduction of the national tax rate must not be offset by aid or subsidies from other regions or central government which have been declared or result only from the actual examination of the financial flows.
Poleg tega ê na nč nih posledic znižanja nacionalne stopnje obdavčitve ni mogoče izravnati s pomočjo ali subvencijami iz drugih regij ali osrednje vlade, ki so jasne in izhajajo le iz konkretne preučitve ê na nč nih tokov.
According to the Court, the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is based on the preservative purpose of ensuring that only compatible aid will be implemented.
I-469) je Sodišče razsodilo, da čeprav pravo Skupnosti nalaga nacionalnemu sodišču sprejetje primernih ukrepov za učinkovito odpravo učinkov nezakonitosti, pa mu ne nalaga, tudi kadar ni izjemnih okoliščin, obveznosti popolne izterjave nezakonite pomoči.
In order to achieve that purpose, the implementation of planned aid is to be deferred until any doubt as to its compatibility is resolved by the Commission’s final decision.
Pomnenju Sodišča je namreč podlaga člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES varovalni namen, in sicer da se zagotovi, da se bodo izvajale samo pomoči, ki so združljive s skupnim trgom.
When the Commission adopts a positive decision, it is then apparent that that purpose has not been frustrated by the premature payment of the aid.
Da bi se dosegel ta cilj, se izvedba načrta pomoči odloži, dokler ni z dokončno odločbo Komisije odpravljen dvom o združljivosti.
From the aid recipient’s point of view, the undue advantage will have consisted, first, in the non-payment of the interest which it would have paid on the amount of the compatible aid in question, had it had to borrow that amount on the market pending the Commission’s decision, and, second, in the improvement of its competitive position as against the other operators in the market while the unlawfulness lasted.
Zdi se, da takrat, ko Komisija sprejme pozitivno odločbo, predčasno izplačilo pomoči ni v nasprotju s tem ciljem.