natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Dresdner Bank and Others v Commission the Court of First Instance observed that, in the light of the principle of the presumption of innocence, any doubt in the mind of the Court must operate to the advantage of the undertaking to which the decision finding an infringement was addressed.
Sodišče prve stopnje v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Dresdner Bank in drugi proti Komisiji opominja, da se ob upoštevanju splošnega načela domneve nedolžnosti dvom na strani sodišča razlaga v korist podjetja, naslovnika odločbe o ugotovitvi kršitve. Zato se mora Komisija, da bi dokazala obstoj kršitve, sklicevati na točne in dosledne dokaze.
Nonetheless, it is not necessary for every item of evidence produced by the Commission to satisfy those criteria in relation to every aspect of the infringement: it is sucient if the body of evidence relied on by the institution, viewed as a whole, meets that requirement.
Vendar ni nujno, da vsak dokaz Komisije ustreza tem merilom glede vsakega dejavnika kršitve: zadošča, da tej zahtevi ustreza sklenjen krog indicev, na katere se sklicuje institucija in ki se presojajo skupaj.
In the present case, the five applicant banks maintained that no agreement had been concluded by them, at a meeting held on 15 October 1997, on the level and structure of exchange commissions on currencies constituting subdivisions of the euro during the transitional stage between the introduction of the scriptural euro and the introduction of the fiduciary euro.
V obravnavani zadevi je pet bank – tožečih strank – zatrjevalo, da na sestanku 15. oktobra 1997 niso sklenile nobenega sporazuma o višini in strukturi provizij za menjavo gotovine v prehodni fazi od uvedbe knjižnega denarja valute evro do uvedbe evrogotovine.
The Court of First Instance examined both the evidence relating to the context of the meeting of 15 October 1997 and the direct evidence concerning that meeting and held that the evidence did not have sucient force for it to be considered, without any reasonable doubt remaining on that point, that the banks present concluded the impugned agreement.
Sodišče prve stopnje je obravnavalo tako dokaze, ki se nanašajo na okvir tega sestanka z dne 15. oktobra 1997, kot neposredne dokaze glede tega sestanka ter presodilo, da ne zadoščajo za ugotovitev – ne da bi pri tem obstajal razumen dvom –, da so navzoče banke sklenile sankcionirani sporazum.
Obligations borne by the Commission when it examines an agreement
Obveznosti Komisije pri preučitvi sporazuma
In O2 (Germany) v Commission, the Court of First Instance recalled that, in order to assess whether an agreement is compatible with the common market in the light of the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, it is necessary to examine the economic and legal context in which the agreement was concluded, its object, its eects, and its impact on intraCommunity trade, taking into account in particular the economic context in which the undertakings operate, the products or services covered by the agreement, and the structure of the market concerned and the actual conditions in which it functions.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi O2 (Nemčija) proti Komisiji spomnilo, da je za presojo skladnosti sporazuma s skupnim trgom z vidika prepovedi, določene v členu 81(1) ES, treba preučiti ekonomske in pravne okoliščine sporazuma, predmet, posledice in vpliv sporazuma na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti, pri čemer je treba upoštevati predvsem gospodarske okoliščine, v katerih poslujejo podjetja, proizvode ali storitve, ki jih zadeva ta sporazum, ter organiziranost in dejanske razmere, v katerih deluje zadevni trg.
Furthermore, in a case such as this, where it is accepted that the agreement does not have an anticompetitive object, the eects of the agreement should be considered and in order for the agreement to be caught by the prohibition it is necessary to find that those factors are present which show that competition has in fact been prevented or restricted
Poleg tega je v takem primeru, kot je v obravnavani zadevi, ko je ugotovljeno, da sporazum nima
Proceedings or distorted to an appreciable extent.
Sodišče prve stopnje protikonkurenčnega cilja, treba preučiti posledice sporazuma, za njegovo prepoved pa je potrebna prisotnost dejavnikov, ki dokazujejo, da je bila konkurenca dejansko ovirana, omejena ali znatno izkrivljena.
The competition in question must be understood within the actual context in which it would occur in the absence of the agreement in dispute; the interference with competition may in particular be doubted if the agreement seems really necessary for the penetration of a new area by an undertaking.
Zadevno konkurenco je treba razumeti v dejanskem okviru, v katerem bi do nje prišlo brez spornega sporazuma, pri čemer se oslabitev konkurence lahko postavi pod vprašaj, zlasti, če se sporazum zdi potreben za prodor določenega podjetja na področje, na katerem prej ni delovalo.
Such an approach is not, according to the Court of First Instance, tantamount to applying a‘rule of reason’to Article 81(1) EC, which would consist in carrying out an assessment of the pro- and anticompetitive eects of the agreement, but to taking account of the impact of the agreement on existing and potential competition and also the competitive situation in the absence of the agreement, those two factors being intrinsically linked.
Po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje tak pristop ne pomeni uporabe „načela razumne presoje“ za člen 81(1) ES, ki bi pomenilo sestavo bilance posledic sporazuma v prid in proti konkurenci, ampak je treba upoštevati učinek sporazuma na sedanjo in potencialno konkurenco ter konkurenčni položaj brez sporazuma, pri čemer sta ta dva vidika neločljivo povezana.
The Court of First Instance further stated that such an examination is particularly necessary in respect of markets undergoing liberalisation or emerging markets, as in the case of the thirdgeneration mobile communications market here at issue, where eective competition may be problematic owing, for example, to the presence of a dominant operator, the concentrated nature of the market structure or the existence of signicant barriers to entry.
Sodišče prve stopnje dodaja, da je taka preučitev še posebej potrebna, ko gre za trge, na katerih prihaja do liberalizacije, ali nastajajoče trge, kot pri obravnavanem trgu mobilnih komunikacij tretje generacije, kjer je dejanski obstoj konkurence lahko dvomljiv zaradi, na primer, prisotnosti operaterja, ki ima prevladujoč tržni položaj, koncentrirane organizacije trga ali obstoja velikih ovir za vstop na trg.
In this case, the Court of First Instance considered that the contested decision was aected by a number of errors of analysis.
V obravnavani zadevi Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da je v analizi v izpodbijani odločbi več napak.
First, it contained no objective discussion of what the competition situation would have been in the absence of the agreement, which distorted the assessment of the actual and potential eects of the agreement on competition.
Po eni strani ne vsebuje objektivne analize konkurenčnega položaja brez tega sporazuma, kar izkrivlja presojo dejanskih in mogočih posledic sporazuma na konkurenco.
In order to be able to make a proper assessment of the extent to which the agreement was necessary for O2(Germany) to penetrate the thirdgeneration mobile communications market, the Commission ought to have examined more closely whether, in the absence of the agreement, the applicant would have been present on that market.
Komisija bi za pravilno presojo o tem, koliko je družba O2 (Nemčija) potrebovala sporazum, da bi prodrla na trg mobilnih komunikacij, morala preučiti vprašanje, ali bi ob neobstoju sporazuma tožeča stranka bila prisotna na tem trgu.
Second, the decision did not demonstrate, in concrete terms, in the context of the relevant emerging market, that the provisions of the agreement on roaming had restrictive eects on competition, but was conned, in this respect, to a petitio principii and to broad and general statements.
Po drugi strani v odločbi konkretno – v okviru zadevnega nastajajočega trga – ni dokazano, da imajo določbe sporazuma o gostovanju omejevalne posledice na konkurenco, ampak se v tem pogledu zadovolji z načelno izjavo in splošnimi trditvami.
Application of Article 81(3) EC
Uporaba člena 81(3) ES
Article 81(3) EC provides that the provisions of Article 81(1) EC may be declared inapplicable to, in particular, any agreement between undertakings which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benet, and which does not impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of those objectives or aord to such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.
Člen 81(3) ES določa, da se lahko določi, da se določbe člena 81(1) ES ne uporabljajo, med drugim za sporazume med podjetji, ki prispevajo k izboljšanju distribucije blaga oziroma pospeševanju tehničnega ali gospodarskega napredka, pri čemer potrošnikom zagotavljajo pravičen delež doseženih koristi, in ki zadevnim podjetjem ne določajo omejitev, ki za doseganje teh ciljev niso nujne, ter takšnim podjetjem glede znatnega dela zadevnih izdelkov ne dajejo možnosti izključitve konkurence.
In GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission, to which reference has already been made, the applicant put forward, in particular, evidence intended to establish that parallel trade would lead to a loss in eciency by reducing the applicant’s capacity to innovate.
V že omenjeni sodbi GlaxoSmithKline Services proti Komisiji se je tožeča stranka sklicevala predvsem na dokaze, ki naj bi dokazovali, da je vzporedna trgovina z zmanjšanjem njene inovativnosti povzročila padec učinkovitosti.
It thus contended that the agreement in issue, by aecting parallel trade and improving the applicant’s margins, would enable the applicant to increase its capacity for innovation.The Commission’s examination of certain relevant evidence put forward by the applicant could not be accepted as sucient to support the conclusions which the Commission had
Tožeča stranka je tako zatrjevala, da je sporni sporazum s tem, da je prizadel vzporedno trgovino in izboljšal njene marže, omogočil povečanje njene inovativnosti. Vendar preučitve določenih upoštevnih elementov s strani Komisije, ki jih je izpostavila tožeča stranka, ni bilo mogoče šteti za zadostno podporo zaključkom, do katerih je pri teh točkah prišla uprava.
In eect, the gain in eciency to which the agreement is likely to give rise for interbrand competition, the role of which is limited by the applicable pharmaceutical regulatory framework, must be compared with the loss in eciency to which the agreement is likely to give rise for interbrand competition.
Dejavnost katere vloga je omejena s predpisi s področja farmacije, upoštevnimi v obravnavani zadevi, je treba primerjati z zmanjšanjem učinkovitosti, ki ustvarja konkurenco med znamkami.
The Court of First Instance therefore annulled the Commission’s decision on that point.
Sodišče prve stopnje je glede tega vprašanja odločbo Komisije torej razglasilo za nično.
Points raised on the scope of Article 82 EC
Prispevek sodne prakse na področju člena 82 ES
In 2006 the Court of First Instance adjudicated on the conditions of Article 82 EC in only two judgments, both relating to the rejection of a complaint.
V letu 2006 je Sodišče prve stopnje o pogojih iz člena 82 ES odločalo le v dveh zadevah, obeh v zvezi z zavrnitvijo pritožbe.
First, in SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission, to which reference has already been made in connection with the concept of ‘undertaking’, the Court of First Instance found that the applicant had not shown in its complaint that Eurocontrol’s conduct, in the context of its activity of advising national administrations, satised the criteria for the application of Article 82 EC, and, moreover, no competitive relationship appeared to exist between Eurocontrol and the applicant or any other undertaking active in the sector concerned.
Prvič, Sodišče prve stopnje je v sodbi SELEX Sistemi Integrati proti Komisiji, navedeni zgoraj v zvezi s pojmom podjetja, ugotovilo, da tožeča stranka v svoji pritožbi ni dokazala, da je Eurocontrol pri svoji dejavnosti svetovanja nacionalnim upravam ravnal tako, da bi bila izpolnjena merila za uporabo člena 82 ES, saj med drugim ni obstajalo nobeno konkurenčno razmerje med Eurocontrolom in tožečo stranko ali drugim podjetjem, dejavnim v zadevnem sektorju.
Second, in Haladjian Frères v Commission, the company Haladjian Frères had lodged a complaint with the Commission, claiming in particular that there had been a number of infringements of Article 82 EC which were alleged to result from the introduction of a system for the marketing of replacement parts by the United States company Caterpillar.
Drugič, v zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana zgoraj navedena sodba Haladjian Frères proti Komisiji, je družba Haladjian Frères pri Komisiji vložila pritožbo, v kateri je med drugim zatrjevala več kršitev člena 82 ES, do katerih naj bi prišlo zaradi sistema trženja rezervnih delov, ki ga je vzpostavila ameriška družba Caterpillar.
The Court of First Instance held that the applicant’s arguments did not call in question the appraisals of the elements of fact and of law carried out by the Commission and that the Commission had been correct to reject the applicant’s complaint.
Sodišče prve stopnje je presodilo, da trditve tožeče stranke niso postavile pod vprašaj Komisijine presoje pravnih in dejanskih dejavnikov ter da je Komisija utemeljeno zavrnila pritožbo tožeče stranke.
The complaints alleging the imposition of unfair prices, the limiting of markets or the application of dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions were rejected, regard being had in particular to the fact that the system in issue did not prohibit in fact or in law competition in the form of parts imported at prices lower than the European prices.
Očitki glede domnevnega predpisovanja nepravičnih cen, omejitve prodajnih mest in uporabe različnih pogojev za enake storitve so bili zavrnjeni, in sicer predvsem zaradi dejstva, da zadevni sistem ne izolira trga Skupnosti, ker niti dejansko niti pravno ne prepoveduje konkurence pri rezervnih delih, uvoženih po cenah, nižjih od evropskih.
Procedure for penalising anticompetitive practices
Postopek zatiranja protikonkurenčnih ravnanj a)
Legitimate interest of third parties and conduct of the proceedings for the application of the competition rules
Legitimni interes tretjih strank in potek postopkov uporabe pravil konkurence
In Österreichische Postsparkasse and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft v Commission and also in Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance held that a final customer purchasing goods or services, such as a political party which is a customer for Austrian banking services, has a legitimate interest which entitles it to access to the statement of objections.
V zgoraj navedenih sodbah Österreichische Postsparkasse in Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft proti Komisiji ter Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich in drugi proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje presodilo, da ima končni kupec blaga ali storitev, kot je politična stranka, ki je uporabnik avstrijskih bančnih storitev, legitimen interes, na podlagi katerega ima pravico vpogleda v uradno obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kršitvah.
A final customer which shows that it has suered harm or might suer harm to his economic interests owing to a restriction of competition has a legitimate interest in lodging an application or a complaint in order to obtain a finding by
Ker je končni cilj pravil, katerih namen je zagotoviti, da se konkurenca na notranjem trgu ne izkrivlja, povečanje blaginje potrošnika, priznanje legitimnega interesa tem strankam za to, da Komisija ugotovi kršitve členov 81 ES in 82 ES, prispeva k uresničitvi ciljev prava konkurence.
In Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance further stated, first, that a concerned party may be admitted as complainant and receive the statement of objections at any stage of the administrative procedure and, second, that the right to receive the statement of objections cannot be restricted on the basis of mere suspicion that that document may be misused.
Sodišče prve stopnje upravnim postopkom, in drugič, da se pravice do predložitve uradnega obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kršitvah ne sme omejiti zgolj na podlagi dvomov o morebitni zlorabi tega dokumenta.
Right not to incriminate oneself
Privilegij zoper samoobtožbo
The judgment in Archer Daniels Midland v Commission (citric acid) provided the Court of First Instance with the opportunity to dene the conditions in which the Commission may use against an undertaking admissions obtained by an authority in a non-Member country without breaching the right not to contribute to one’s own incrimination as recognised by Community law 26.
Zgoraj navedena sodba v zadevi Archer Daniels Midland proti Komisiji (citronska kislina) je Sodišču prve stopnje omogočila, da podrobneje opredeli pogoje, pod katerimi sme Komisija priznanja, ki jih je pridobil organ tretje države, uporabiti zoper podjetje, ne da bi pri tem kršila privilegij zoper samoobtožbo, kot jo priznava pravo Skupnosti26.
Bayer, one of the members of the cartel on which sanctions were imposed, had communicated to the Commission a report of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concerning the hearing of a representative of the applicant before the United States authorities, which was subsequently used in support of the statement of objections and then of the decision penalising the undertaking.
Skupina Bayer, eden od članov sankcioniranega omejevalnega sporazuma, je Komisiji namreč predložila poročila ameriškega Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) v zvezi z zaslišanjem predstavnika tožeče stranke pred ameriškimi organi, ki je bilo pozneje uporabljeno za utemeljitev uradnega obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kršitvah in zatem za utemeljitev odločbe, ki je sankcionirala podjetje.
In its action against that decision, the applicant contended that it had not had the opportunity to rely on its right not to incriminate itself, as recognised by Community law.
Tožeča stranka je v pritožbi zoper to odločbo zatrdila, da ni imela možnosti uveljavljati svoje pravice zoper samoobtožbo, kot jo priznava pravo Skupnosti.
In its judgment, however, the Court of First Instance held that there is no provision prohibiting the Commission from relying, as evidence, on a document drawn up in a procedure other than that conducted by the Commission itself.
Vendar je Sodišče prve stopnje v svoji sodbi ugotovilo, da nobena določba ne prepoveduje, da Komisija kot dokaz uporabi dokument, ki je bil sestavljen v postopku, ki ga ni vodila Komisija.
Nonetheless, it held that where the Commission relies on a statement made in a dierent context from that of the procedure before it, and where that statement potentially contains information which the undertaking concerned would have been entitled to refuse to supply, the Commission is required to ensure that the undertakings concerned enjoys procedural rights equivalent to those conferred by Community law.
Vseeno pa je presodilo, da mora Komisija, če se opre na izjavo, podano drugje kot v ustreznem postopku pred to institucijo, in če so v tej izjavi morebitne informacije, katerih posredovanje bi bilo podjetje upravičeno zavrniti, zadevnemu podjetju zagotoviti procesne pravice, ustrezne pravicam, ki jih daje pravo Skupnosti.
Thus, the Commission is required to examine of its own motion whether, at first sight, there are serious doubts as to observance of the procedural rights of the parties concerned in the proceedings during which they supplied such statements.
Tako mora Komisija po uradni dolžnosti preizkusiti, ali na prvi pogled obstajajo resni dvomi glede spoštovanja procesnih pravic zadevnih podjetij v okviru postopka, v katerem so slednja podala take izjave.
In the absence of such doubts, the procedural rights of the parties concerned must be considered to have been suciently guaranteed if, in the statement of objections, the Commission indicated clearly, annexing the documents concerned to the statement of objections where necessary, that it intended to rely on the statements in issue.
V zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana zgoraj navedena sodba Bank Austria Creditanstalt proti Komisiji, je tožeča stranka v bistvu zatrjevala nezakonitost objave odločbe, s katero so bile naložene globe, saj objava te odločbe v obravnavani zadevi ni bila obvezna.
In this case, none of those principles had been breached by the Commission, notably because it had annexed the report in issue to the statement of objections and Archer Daniels Midland had not criticised the use of that document.
Vendar je Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi zavrnilo ta tožbeni razlog, saj je presodilo, da je možnost institucij, da objavljajo akte, ki jih sprejemajo, pravilo, vendar obstajajo izjeme od tega načela, če pravo Skupnosti, zlasti z določbami, ki zagotavljajo spoštovanje poklicne tajnosti, nasprotuje razkritju teh aktov ali določenih informacij, ki jih ti akti vsebujejo.
On the right not to incriminate oneself, see the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 October 1989 in Case 374/87 Orkem v Commission [1989] ECR 3283.
Glede pravice zoper samoobtožbo glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 18. oktobra 1989 v zadevi Orkem proti Komisiji, 374/87, Recueil, str. 3283.
Public nature of measures and denition of professional secrecy
Dejavnost za to, da so informacije po svoji naravi deležne tega varstva, prvič, s temi informacijami biti seznanjenih malo oseb.
It must then be information whose disclosure is liable to cause serious harm to the person who has provided it or to third parties.
Dalje, to morajo biti informacije, katerih razkritje lahko resno škodi osebi, ki jih posreduje, ali tretjim osebam.
Finally, the interests liable to be harmed by disclosure must, objectively, be worthy of protection.
Nazadnje, nujno je, da si interesi, ki jim razkritje informacije lahko povzroči škodo, objektivno zaslužijo varstvo.
The assessment as to the condentiality of a piece of information thus requires that the legitimate interests opposing disclosure of the information be weighed against the public interest that the activities of the Community institutions take place as openly as possible.
Pri presoji zaupnosti informacije je treba tako tehtati med legitimnimi interesi, ki nasprotujejo njihovemu razkritju, in javnim interesom, ki zahteva, da dejavnosti institucij Skupnosti potekajo čim bolj javno.
In fact, the Community legislature has balanced the public interest in the transparency of Community action against interests liable to militate against such transparency in various acts of secondary legislation, inter alia in Regulations (EC) No 45/2001 and (EC) No 1049/2001 27.
Sodišče prve stopnje pa ugotavlja, da je tehtanje med splošnim interesom preglednosti dejavnosti Skupnosti in interesi, ki bi temu lahko nasprotovali, zakonodajalec Skupnosti izvedel v različnih sekundarnih pravnih aktih, zlasti z Uredbo št. 45/2001 in Uredbo št. 1049/200127.
The Court of First Instance therefore established a relationship of correspondence between the concept of professional secrecy and those two regulations.
Po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje torej obstaja povezava med pojmom poklicne tajnosti in tema uredbama.
Insofar as such provisions of secondary legislation prohibit the disclosure of information to the public or exclude public access to documents containing it, that information must be considered to be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.
Če take določbe sekundarnega prava prepovedujejo razkritje informacij javnosti ali izključujejo dostop javnosti do dokumentov, ki jih vsebujejo, je treba šteti, da za te informacije velja zavezanost k poklicni tajnosti.