natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Against this background the Court of First Instance erred in law when it supported its decision to annul the first clearance decision by relying on the confidential documents lodged by Impala.
Glede na navedeno je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, ko je razglasitev ničnosti prve odločbe o odobritvi utemeljilo z zaupnimi dokumenti, ki jih je predložil Impala.
Indeed, contrary to what might appear at first sight, the confidential treatment of documents submitted by Impala is less a problem in the adversarial proceedings before the Court of First Instance than a question of observing the rights of defence of the parties to the concentration in the administrative procedure.
Zaupna obravnava dokumentov, ki jih je predložil Impala, je potem tudi – drugače kot se morda zdi na prvi pogled – manj težava kontradiktornega postopka pred Sodiščem prve stopnje kot nasprotno vpra�anje upo�tevanja pravic obrambe udeležencev koncentracije v upravnem postopku.
However, this error of law does not mean that the judgment under appeal is to be set aside, as the Court of First Instance’s findings were supported by other reasons which were unrelated to the confidential documents submitted by Impala.
Kljub temu pa ta napačna uporaba prava ne vodi k razveljavitvi izpodbijane sodbe. Za ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje so namreč obstajali �e drugi razlogi, ki niso imeli nobene zveze z zaupnimi dokumenti, ki jih je predložil Impala.
Thus, reliance on those documents was merely one of a number of factors from which the Court of First Instance concluded ‘that the already strong transparency … is increased even further’.
Tako so sklici na te dokumente na koncu pomenili le enega od več dejavnikov, iz katerih po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje izhaja, „da je že tako ali tako velika preglednost […] �e večja“.
223Accordingly, even if, having regard to the appellants’ rights of defence, the Court of First Instance had declined to take the confidential documents submitted by Impala into account, this would not have undermined the conclusions it drew in the judgment under appeal in any way. 224
223 Četudi bi se torej Sodi�če prve stopnje zaradi upo�tevanja pravic obrambe odpovedalo zaupnim dokumentom, ki jih je predložil Impala, to nikakor ne bi spodkopalo njegovih sklepov iz izpodbijane sodbe. 224
The appellants correctly submit that the Court of First Instance was not entitled to rely on the disputed documents lodged by Impala to support the annulment of the first clearance decision, because the Commission itself ought not to have used these documents, owing to their confidential nature.
Pritožnika upravičeno uveljavljata, da Sodi�če prve stopnje razglasitve ničnosti prve odločbe o odobritvi ne bi smelo utemeljiti s spornimi dokumenti, ki jih je predložil Impala, saj Komisija s svoje strani teh dokumentov ne bi smela uporabiti zaradi njihove zaupnosti.
If the Court of First Instance considers certain documents to be confidential to such an extent that it withholds their entire content from the undertakings participating in the concentration, 222the Commission cannot
Če namreč Sodi�če prve stopnje meni, da so določeni dokumenti tako zaupni, da podjetij, udeleženih pri koncentraciji, v celoti ne seznani z njihovo vsebino, 222potem seveda tudi od Komisije ni mogoče
It follows that the seventh ground of appeal is also unfounded.
Zato je tudi sedmi pritožbeni razlog neutemeljen.
223 — Paragraphs 348 to 362, in particular paragraph 362, of the judgment under appeal.
223 – Točke od 348 do 362, zlasti točka 362, izpodbijane sodbe.
224 — To the same effect, see Aalborg Portland (cited above, footnote 121), paragraph 72, Musique Diffusion française (cited above, footnote 117), paragraph 30, and Case T-30/91 Solvay v Commission [1995] ECR II-1775, paragraph 58.
222 – Četudi po pregledu upravnega spisa iz postopka na prvi stopnji močno dvomim, da je bilo tak�no postopanje v tem primeru upravičeno, ni naloga Sodi�ča v obravnavanem pritožbenem postopku, da preverja pravilnost presoje Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede zaupnosti zadevnih dokumentov.
222 — Even if I have considerable doubt after looking at the case file from the proceedings at first instance as to whether such an approach was justified in the present case, it is not the task of the Court in the present appeal proceedings to call in question the Court of First Instance’s assessment as to the confidentiality of these documents.
224 – V istem smislu sodbe Aalborg Portland in drugi proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 121, točka 72); Musique Diffusion française in drugi proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 117, točka 30) in z dne 29. junija 1995 v zadevi Solvay proti Komisiji (T-30/91, Recueil, str. II-1775, točka 58).
Impala considered these observations by the Commission to be a cross appeal, and under reference to Article 117(2) of the Rules of Procedure replied to them by a separate document.
Impala je te navedbe Komisije razumel kot nasprotno pritožbo in s sklicevanjem na člen 117(2) Poslovnika nanje odgovoril s posebno vlogo.
With permission of the President of the Court further documents were submitted on this matter.
K tej temi so bile z dovoljenjem predsednika Sodi�ča vložene nadaljnje vloge.
However, this in itself by no means constitutes a definitive finding by the Court in the present case that there is in fact a cross appeal.
Samo to pa nikakor �e ne pomeni, da je Sodi�če v obravnavanem primeru že zavezu -joče ugotovilo obstoj nasprotne pritožbe.
Under Article 117(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for a submission to be regarded as a cross appeal it must seek to set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment under appeal on a plea in law which was not raised in the appeal.
V skladu s členom 117(2) Poslovnika opredelitev navedbe kot nasprotne pritožbe predpostavlja, da se z njo predlaga delna ali celotna razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe na podlagi razloga, ki v pritožbi ni bil naveden.
Whether this is the case here is to be determined by reference to the wording, aim and context of the passage in question in the Commission’s response to the appeal.
Ali gre tu za tak primer, je treba preučiti na podlagi besedila, cilja in konteksta spornega dela besedila iz odgovora Komisije na pritožbo.
There the Commission submits that in paragraphs 474 and 476 of the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance wrongly classified the Commission’s findings as regards retaliation measures 226 as an essential ground of the first clearance decision.
Komisija tam uveljavlja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje njene ugotovitve glede povračilnih ukrepov 226 v točkah 474 in 476 izpodbijane sodbe nepravilno označilo za bistveni razlog prve odločbe o odobritvi.
In particular, if it were to be decided in the present proceedings that, contrary to the opinion of the Court of First Instance, the Commission’s findings as regards a lack of market transparency were not vitiated by an error of law, the first clearance decision would have to be upheld, regardless of whether it contained any error of law in relation to retaliation measures.
Če se bo namreč v obravnavanem postopku izkazalo, da pri ugotovitvah Komisije glede nepreglednosti trga, v nasprotju z mnenjem Sodi�ča prve stopnje, pravo ni bilo napačno uporabljeno, bi morala prva odločba o odobritvi ostati v veljavi, ne glede na to, ali je bilo pri njej v zvezi s povračilnimi ukrepi pravo napačno uporabljeno.
In that connection it is to be emphasised that the term ‘cross appeal’ is not used by the Commission anywhere in its document.
V tem smislu je treba poudariti, da Komisija na nobenem mestu v svoji vlogi ni uporabila pojma „nasprotna pritožba“.
Instead, the heading ‘Additional observations’ indicates that it contains supplementary points which are intended merely to achieve a better understanding of the Commission’s actual submission in response to Bertelsmann’s and Sony’s appeal.
Nasprotno naslov „dodatne opombe“ kaže na to, da gre za dopolnilne navedbe, ki so namenjene zgolj bolj�emu razumevanju dejanskih navedb Komisije v odgovor na pritožbo družb Bertelsmann in Sony.
In par -ticular, the ‘additional observations’ seek to clarify what the consequence for the validity of the first clearance decision would be if the judgment under appeal were set aside, in part as the case may be, at the instance of Bertelsmann and Sony. 227
Njene „dodatne opombe“ so zlasti namenjene ponazoritvi tega, kak�ne posledice bi za veljavo prve odločbe o odobritvi imelo, če bi bila izpodbijana sodba na predlog družb Bertelsmann in Sony (po potrebi delno) razveljavljena. 227
225 — Paragraphs 37 to 39 of the Commission’s response to the appeal, which is headed, ‘6.
225 – Točke od 37 do 39 odgovora Komisije na pritožbo z naslovom „6. Additional observations: On the ‚essential grounds’ of the Decision‘.
227 — See in particular the last sentence of paragraph 39 of the Commission’s response to the appeal.
227 – Glej zlasti točko 39, zadnji stavek, odgovora Komisije na pritožbo.
226 — Paragraphs 114 to 118 of the first clearance decision.
226 – Točke od 114 do 118 prve odločbe o odobritvi.
Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to bear the costs if they have been applied for; where there are several unsuccessful parties the Court is to decide how the costs are to be shared.
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni; če je več neuspelih strank, Sodi�če odloči o porazdelitvi stro�kov.
In derogation from this, Article 69(3)(1) of the Rules of Proced- ure provides that where each party fails on some and succeeds on other heads, the Court may order that the costs be shared; this applies also where an appeal is dismissed notwithstanding that the appellant has succeeded in part of its submissions. 229
Sodi�če pa lahko v skladu s členom 69(3)(1) Poslovnika odloči, da se stro�ki delijo, če vsaka stranka uspe samo deloma; to velja tudi, če se pritožba sicer zavrne, pritožnik pa je uspel z enim delom trditev. 229
Against this background it is to be held that the Commission’s ‘additional observations’ did not contain any cross appeal, and that it is not necessary for the Court to make a separate decision on it, such decision even being ultra petita.
Na podlagi navedenega je treba izhajati iz tega, da „dodatne opombe“ Komisije ne vsebujejo nasprotne pritožbe in da posebna odločitev Sodi�ča glede njih ni potrebna, bila bi celo ultra petita.
As the appellants, Bertelsmann and Sony, have been unsuccessful in the result, but part of their grounds of appeal have in substance succeeded, the costs should be shared.
Ker pritožnika Bertelsmann in Sony s pritožbo na koncu nista uspela, vendar pa je bil kljub temu del njunih pritožbenih razlogov vsebinsko utemeljen, je treba stro�ke deliti.
I suggest that Bertelsmann and Sony should each be ordered to pay their own costs and three quarters of Impala’s costs; moreover, to the extent that they are to bear Impala’s costs it appears appropriate to order that Bertelsmann and Sony should be jointly and severally liable.
Zato predlagam, naj se družbama Bertelsmann in Sony naloži plačilo njunih stro�kov in treh četrtin stro�kov družbe Impala; ker nosita stro�ke družbe Impala, se mi poleg tega zdi primerno, da Bertelsmann in Sony odgovarjata solidarno.
230Impala should be ordered to bear one quarter of its own costs.
230 Impala naj nasprotno nosi eno četrtino svojih stro�kov.
Other parties to the proceedings who support an appeal by applications to the Court may be ordered to bear their own costs, applying Article 69(4) by analogy.
Drugim strankam v postopku, ki s predlogi pred Sodi�čem podpirajo pritožbo, se lahko z ustrezno uporabo člena 69(4) naložijo lastni stro�ke.
The Commission and Sony BMG Music
Ker sta Komisija in
If, as I suggest in the present case, the appeal is dismissed, the Court decides on the costs (Article 122(1) of the Rules of Proced- ure) according to Article 69 in conjunction with Article 118 of the Rules of Procedure.
Če se pritožba, kot predlagam v obravnavanem primeru, zavrne, Sodi�če odloči o stro�kih (člen 122(1) Poslovnika) v skladu s členom 69 v povezavi s členom 118 Poslovnika.
230 — Joined Cases C-122/99 P D and Sweden v Council [2001] ECR I-4319, paragraph 65.
230 – Sodba z dne 31. maja 2001 v združenih zadevah D in Švedska proti Svetu (C-122/99 P in C-125/99 P, Recueil, str. I-4319, točka 65).
228 — Letter by the Commission dated 15 May 2007 to the Registrar of the Court.
228 – Dopis Komisije z dne 15. maja 2007 sodnemu tajniku Sodi�ča.
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA the result in doing so, it appears appropriate to order each of them to bear its own costs.231
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALA mi zdi primerno, da se jima naloži plačilo njunih stro�kov. 231
Entertainment having supported the appeal of Bertelsmann and Sony with their own applications, and having been unsuccessful in
Sony BMG Music Entertainment pritožbo družb Bertelsmann in Sony podprla s svojimi predlogi in z njimi na koncu nista uspela, se
For the foregoing reasons I suggest to the Court that it should decide as follows:
Glede na navedeno Sodi�ču predlagam, naj razsodi:
JUDGMENT OF 10. 7.
SODBA Z DNE 10. 7.
2008 — CASE C-413/06 P
2008 – ZADEVA C-413/06 P
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 10. julija 2008 *
Legal context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pravni okvir .......................................................................
The proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal ........
Postopek pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in izpodbijana sodba .............................
The appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pritožba ..........................................................................
The plea of inadmissibility based on the appellants having omitted to challenge a critical passage of the judgment under appeal ............................
Ugovor nedopustnosti, ker pritožnici nista izpodbijali odločilnega dela izpodbijane sodbe .............................................................
The second part of the third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the Court of First Instance applied an excessive burden and standard of proof as regards decisions approving a concentration ..............................
Drugi del tretjega pritožbenega razloga: napačna uporaba prava, ker je Sodi�če prve stopnje uporabilo pretiran dokazni standard na področju odločb o odobritvi koncentracij ..................................................
— The judgment under appeal ......................................
Izpodbijana sodba ...............................................
— Arguments of the parties .........................................
Trditve strank ..................................................
The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the Court of First Instance relied on the statement of objections as a benchmark for its review of the substance of the contested decision ...................................
Prvi pritožbeni razlog: napačna uporaba prava, ker se je Sodi�če prve stopnje pri presoji vsebine sporne odločbe oprlo na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah ...............................................................
The second ground of appeal, together with the first part of the third ground, alleging errors of law in that the Court of First Instance required the Commission to undertake new market investigations following the response to the statement of objections and applied an unduly high standard of proof to the evidence submitted in response to the statement of objections ...............
Drugi pritožbeni razlog in prvi del tretjega tožbenega razloga: napačna uporaba prava, ker je Sodi�če prve stopnje menilo, da bi morala Komisija opraviti nova preverjanja po odgovoru na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, in uporabilo pretiran dokazni standard za dokaze, predložne v odgovoru na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah .....................................
The seventh ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the Court of First Instance relied on evidence that was not disclosed to the parties to the concentration .........................................................
Sedmi pritožbeni razlog: napačna uporaba prava, ker se je Sodi�če prve stopnje oprlo na dokaze, ki niso bili razkriti strankam koncentracije .................
The fifth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the Court of First Instance misconstrued the relevant legal criteria applying to the creation or strengthening of a collective dominant position ............................
Peti pritožbeni razlog: napačna uporaba prava, ker Sodi�če prve stopnje ni upo�tevalo ustreznih pravnih meril, ki se uporabljajo na področju nastanka ali krepitve kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja ............................
The fourth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the Court of First Instance exceeded the scope of its role in carrying out judicial review .........
Četrti pritožbeni razlog: napačna uporaba prava, ker je Sodi�če prve stopnje prekoračilo okvir sodnega nadzora, ki ga mora izvesti ......................
The sixth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the Court of First Instance applied an incorrect standard of reasoning as regards decisions approving a concentration ..............................................
Šesti pritožbeni razlog: napačna uporaba prava, ker je Sodi�če prve stopnje uporabilo napačno določbo za obrazložitev odločb o odobritvi koncentracije .........
The alleged cross-appeal ............................................................
Domnevna nasprotna pritožba .......................................................
Referral of the case back to the Court of First Instance ..................................
Vrnitev zadeve v novo odločanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje ..................................
In Case C-413/06 P,
V zadevi C-413/06 P, zaradi pritožbe na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, vložene 3. oktobra 2006,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 3 October 2006,
Bertelsmann AG s sedežem v Güterslohu (Nemčija), ki jo zastopata P. Chappatte in J. Boyce, solicitors,
Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 6 November 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 December 2007, gives the following
Hewlett, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 6. novembra 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke na obravnavi 13. decembra 2007 izreka naslednjo
By their appeal, Bertelsmann AG (‘Bertelsmann’) and Sony Corporation of America (‘Sony’) request the Court to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-464/04 Impala v Commission [2006] ECR II-2289 (‘the judgment under appeal’), in which the Court of First Instance annulled Commission Decision 2005/188/EC of 19 July 2004 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG) (OJ 2005 L 62, p.
Družbi Bertelsmann AG (v nadaljevanju: Bertelsmann) in Sony Corporation of America (v nadaljevanju: Sony) s pritožbo predlagata razveljavitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 13. junija 2006 v zadevi Impala proti Komisiji (T-464/04, ZOdl., str. II-2289, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba), s katero je to za nično razglasilo Odločbo 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) (UL 2005, L 62, str.
13)), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 180, p.
13), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 1310/97 z dne 30. junija 1997 (UL L 180, str. 1, in popravek v UL 1998, L 40, str.
17)) (‘the Regulation’) states:
17, v nadaljevanju: Uredba), v členu 2(2) in (3) določa:
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.
Koncentracija, ki ne ustvari ali krepi prevladujočega položaja, katerega posledica bi bila resno oviranje učinkovite konkurence na skupnem trgu ali na njegovem znatnem delu, se razglasi za združljivo s skupnim trgom.
A concentration which creates or strengthens 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 incompatible with the common market.’
Koncentracija, ki ustvari ali krepi prevladujoči položaj, katerega posledica bi bila resno oviranje učinkovite konkurence na skupnem trgu ali na njegovem znatnem delu, se razglasi za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom.“
Article 6(1) of the Regulation provides as follows:
V členu 6(1) Uredbe je določeno:
‘The Commission shall examine the notification as soon as it is received.
„Komisija priglasitev preizkusi takoj po prejemu.
(c) … where the Commission finds that the concentration notified falls within the scope of this Regulation and raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market, it shall decide to initiate proceedings.’
(c) Če pa [Komisija] ugotovi, da prigla�ena koncentracija sodi v področje uporabe te uredbe in da obstaja resen dvom glede njene združljivosti s skupnim trgom, se odloči, da uvede postopek.“
Article 8 of the Regulation empowers the Commission, in the formal proceedings for assessing the compatibility of the concentration with the common market initiated under Article 6(1)(c) of the Regulation (‘the formal proceedings’), to adopt a decision pursuant to Article 8(2) declaring the concentration compatible, where appropriate following modification by the undertakings concerned to the proposed concentration as notified, or a decision pursuant to Article 8(3) declaring the concentration
V členu 8(2) in (3) je določeno pooblastilo Komisije, da v okviru formalnega postopka preizkusa združljivosti koncentracije s skupnim trgom, uvedenim na podlagi člena 6(1)(c) navedene uredbe (v nadaljevanju: formalni postopek) po spremembi, ki jo opravijo udeležena podjetja glede svojega načrta koncentracije, kot je bila prigla�ena, če je to potrebno, izda bodisi odločbo združljivosti bodisi
2008 — CASE C-413/06 P incompatible.
2008 – ZADEVA C-413/06 P odločbo o nezdružljivosti.
Under Article 8(5)(a) of the Regulation, the Commission may revoke the decision it has taken pursuant to Article 8(2) where the declaration of compatibility is based on incorrect information for which one of the undertakings concerned is responsible or where it has been obtained by deceit.
V skladu s členom 8(5)(a) Uredbe lahko Komisija prekliče odločbe, ki jih je sprejela v skladu z odstavkom 2, če izjava o združljivosti temelji na neresničnih podatkih, za katere je odgovorno eno od udeleženih podjetij, ali je bila pridobljena s prevaro.
Article 10(1) of the Regulation allows the Commission, except in certain circumstances which are not relevant to the present appeal, a period of one month in which to decide whether to initiate the formal proceedings.
Iz člena 10(1) Uredbe izhaja, da ima Komisija, razen v določenih primerih, ki v obravnavani zadevi niso upo�tevni, en mesec časa, da se odloči, ali bo uvedla formalni preizkus ali ne.
Article 10(3) provides that a decision declaring the notified concentration incompatible with the common market is to be taken within not more than four months of the date on which the formal proceedings are initiated.
V skladu z odstavkom 3 istega člena se mora odločba, s katero se prigla�ena koncentracija razglasi za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom, sprejeti najpozneje v �tirih mesecih od dne, ko se začne formalni postopek.