natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It follows simply from the hierarchy of norms that provisions of secondary law cannot restrict the scope of primary law, including Article 230 EC and Article 253 EC.
Že iz hierarhije predpisov izhaja, da določbe sekundarnega prava ne morejo omejiti dosega primarnega prava, h kateremu spadata tudi člen 230 ES in člen 253 ES.
Instead, Article 10(6) of the Merger Regulation is to be interpreted and applied in light of higherranking provisions, in particular Article 230 EC and Article 253 EC. 61
Člen 10(6) Uredbe o združitvah je namreč treba razlagati in uporabljati v luči primarnega prava, zlasti v luči člena 230 ES in člena 253 ES. 61
In addition, Article 10(6) of the Merger Regulation is certainly an expression of the requirement for speed which characterises the whole of the merger control pro -cedure.
Člen 10(6) Uredbe o združitvah je poleg tega zanesljivo tudi izraz zahteve po pospe�itvi, ki je značilna za celotni postopek nadzora koncentracij.
Together with the strict procedural timelimits laid down by that same article, this provision contributes to creating legal certainty as quickly as possible, and this is to the benefit not only of the undertakings participating in the concentration but also of the markets in general.
Ta določba skupaj s strogimi procesnimi roki, določenimi v istem členu, prispeva k čimprej�nji vzpostavitvi pravne varnosti, kar ne koristi zgolj podjetjem, udeleženim pri koncentraciji, ampak tudi trgom na splo�no.
In any event, to introduce an exception to the duty to state reasons, or even to confer on Commission clearance decisions an ‘immunity’ from challenge on the ground of failure to state reasons, would not cor -respond to the wording or to the purpose and legislative context of Article 10(6) of the Merger Regulation.
Tako ali tako pa uvedba izjeme od obveznosti obrazložitve ali celo „imunizacija“ odločb Komisije o odobritvi zoper očitek pomanjkljive obrazložitve ne ustrezata niti besedilu niti ciljem in kontekstu ureditve člena 10(6) Uredbe o združitvah.
Article 10(6) of the Merger Regulation provides for deemed clearance only where the Commission does not give a decision in good time as to the compatibility with the common market of a concentration which has been notified to it.
Člen 10(6) Uredbe o združitvah določa zgolj fikcijo odobritve za primer, da Komisija ne odloči pravočasno o združljivosti pri njej prigla�ene koncentracije s skupnim trgom.
62By contrast, the provision does not relieve the Commission
62Določba torej ne odvezuje Komisije od njene
Nevertheless, the legitimate need for legal certainty cannot go so far as to exclude the decision on a concentration in whole or in part from review by the courts.
Kljub temu pa legitimna potreba po pravni varnosti ne sme iti tako daleč, da bi bila odločba o koncentraciji v celoti ali delno izvzeta iz sodnega nadzora.
It is only once the timelimit under Article 230(5) EC for bringing a challenge has expired, or for example an annulment action which has been raised is dismissed, that the clearance of the concentration becomes final and creates definitive legal certainty for all the participants.
Šele po tem, ko poteče rok za vložitev tožbe v skladu s členom 230(5) ES ali ko morebitna vložena ničnostna tožba ni bila uspe�na, odobritev koncentracije postane dokončna in dokončno ustvari pravno varnost za vse udeležence.
63 — This obligation arises from Article 6(1) of the Merger Regulation as regards the preliminary phase and from Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation as regards the formal investigation procedure.
63 – Ta obveznost za fazo predhodnega preizkusa izhaja iz člena 6(1) Uredbe o združitvah in za uradni postopek preizkusa iz člena 8(1) Uredbe o združitvah.
64 — The Commission is relieved of this obligation only in so far as the concentration is referred to a national competition authority under Article 9 of the Merger Regulation, except for cases in which the notification is withdrawn because the intention to form a concentration is abandoned.
64 – Komisija je te obveznosti odvezana le, če koncentracijo v skladu s členom 9 Uredbe o združitvah napoti na nacionalni organ, ki je pristojen za konkurenco, poleg tega tudi pri umiku priglasitve zaradi opustitve načrta koncentracije.
62 — In that event, there is a presumption that the concentration is compatible with the common market (as regards the concept of the presumption, see also Article 7(1) and (5) of the Merger Regulation).
62 – Potem velja domneva, da je koncentracija združljiva s skupnim trgom (glede pojma domneve glej tudi člen 7(1) in (5) Uredbe o združitvah).
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALA b) Obseg obveznosti obrazložitve
The appellants are in addition of the view that in the present case the Court of First Instance erred in finding that insufficient reasons were given for the first clearance decision.
Pritožnika poleg tega menita, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v obravnavanem primeru nepravilno izhajalo iz nezadostne obrazložitve prve odločbe o odobritvi.
In their opinion, the Court of First Instance thereby set itself against the established caselaw of the Community Courts.
S tem naj bi se Sodi�če prve stopnje zapletlo v protislovje z ustaljeno sodno prakso sodi�č Skupnosti.
In essence the dispute revolves around the question of the level of detail in which the Commission was required to justify its finding in the first clearance decision that the market was not so transparent as to enable prices to be co-ordinated. 67
Bistvo spora je vpra�anje, kako podrobno bi morala Komisija v prvi odločbi o odobritvi obrazložiti svojo ugotovitev, da trg ni tako pregleden, da bi se cene lahko usklajevale. 67
In all, I conclude that clearance of a concentration — whether explicit or deemed — can be annulled on the ground of breach of the duty to state reasons.
Moj skupni sklep je zato, da se odobritev koncentracije – ne glede na to, ali je izrecna ali implicitna – lahko razglasi za nično zaradi kr�itve obveznosti obrazložitve.
This finding was of relevance to the Commission’s assessment that there was no sufficient basis for finding a collective dom -inant position of the five majors on various national markets for recorded music and that the concentration was not likely to create such a collective dominant position.
Ta ugotovitev je bila pomembna za presojo Komisije, da ni zadostnih pokazateljev za obstoj kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja petih „top“ skupin družb na različnih nacionalnih trgih posnetih nosilcev zvoka in da koncentracija predvidoma tudi ne bo pripeljala do nastanka takega kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja.
68The clearance of the concentration was based not least on this assessment.
68Na tej presoji nenazadnje temelji odobritev koncentracije.
65 — So far as appears, in the long history of European merger control the Commission has only once failed to comply with a procedural time-limit, and then on account of a mistake in calculation (Case IV/M.330 — McCormick/CPC/Rabobank/ Ostmann); in relation to this see Von Koppenfels, U., in Drauz / Jones (eds), EU Competition Law, Volume II — Mergers and Acquisitions (Leuven 2006), paragraph 6.27.
65 – Kolikor je razvidno, je v dolgoletni zgodovini evropskega nadzora koncentracij Komisija le enkrat – zaradi napake v izračunu – zamudila procesni rok (zadeva IV/M.330 – McCormick/CPC/Rabobank/Ostmann); k temu glej Von Koppenfels, U., v: Drauz/Jones (ur.), EU Competition Law, zvezek II – Mergers and Acquisitions, Leuven, 2006, točka 6.27.
67 — On this point, see paragraphs 278 to 325, and in particular paragraphs 287 and 325, of the judgment under appeal.
67 – K temu glej točke od 278 do 325, zlasti točki 287 in 325, izpodbijane sodbe.
66 — Annulment actions at the instance of third parties under Article 242(1) EC do not have suspensory effect.
66 – Morebitne ničnostne tožbe tretjih oseb v skladu s členom 242, prvi stavek, ES nimajo odložilnega učinka.
68 — Recitals 153, 158 and 183 of the first clearance decision.
68 – 153., 158. in 183. uvodna izjava prve odločbe o odobritvi.
In the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance reviewed various sections of the first clearance decision as to whether they provided sufficient justification for the finding that the market was not transparent, and in each case decided the issue in the negative.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v izpodbijani sodbi preučilo različne dele prve odločbe o odobritvi v zvezi s tem, ali je ugotovitev o nepreglednosti trga v zadostni meri obrazložena, in je v vseh primerih to zanikalo.
73 In this connection it considered both the information provided by the Commission as regards list prices and that as regards price discounts (file discounts and campaign discounts).
preučilo tako navedbe Komisije glede cen po ceniku kot tudi tiste glede popustov (popusti za kupce in reklamni popusti).
In this regard the Court of First Instance held first, that ‘according to the very terms of the Decision, list prices … constitute a factor of market transparency’.
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če prve stopnje po eni strani ugotovilo, „da cena po ceniku glede na besedilo odločbe […] predstavlja enega od dejavnikov preglednosti trga“.
74Second, ‘the few assertions relating to campaign discounts … in so far as they are imprecise, unsupported, and indeed contradicted by other observations in the Decision, cannot demonstrate the opacity of the market or even of campaign discounts …’.
74Po drugi strani naj „redke navedbe glede reklamnih popustov […], kolikor so netočne ali nestvarne ali so celo v nasprotju z drugimi ugotovitvami v odločbi, ne bi mogle dokazati niti manjkajoče preglednosti trga niti manjkajoče preglednosti reklamnih popustov“. 75Končno naj
75Finally, ‘the section dealing with the smaller countries, too, contains no reasoning for the finding that the market is not transparent on account of the campaign discounts’. 76
„tudi del o majhnih državah ne bi vseboval nikakr�ne utemeljitve trditve, da trg zaradi reklamnih popustov ni pregleden“. 76
The Court of First Instance considered, first, the section of the first clearance decision which concerned the issue of market transparency, 69 and found that the Commission ‘did not conclude that the market was opaque or not sufficiently transparent to allow a collective dominant position’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je najprej preučilo posebni del prve odločbe o odobritvi, ki zadeva preglednost trga, 69in ugotovilo, da Komisija v njem „ne pride do zaključka, da trg ni bil ali ni bil tako pregleden, da bi omogočal kolektivni prevladujoči položaj“.
In addition, in that section the Commission mentioned ‘only factors capable of giving rise to great transparency in the market and of facilitating the monitoring of compliance with collusion, with the sole exception of the rather limited and unsubstantiated assertion that campaign discounts could reduce transparency and make tacit collusion more difficult’.
Poleg tega naj bi se Komisija v tem delu sklicevala „le na dejavnike, ki lahko vzpostavijo veliko preglednost trga in olaj�ajo nadzor nad dogovarjanjem, z edino izjemo trditve, ki nima velike sporočilnosti in je nestvarna, da bi reklamni popusti lahko omejili preglednost in otežili tajne sporazume“.
Thus, this specific section of the first clearance decision could ‘clearly not, in itself, be considered to support to the requisite legal standard the assertion that the market was not sufficiently transparent’. 70
Samo ta posebni del prve odločbe o odobritvi naj tako „očitno ne bi mogel �teti za zadostno pravno utemeljitev trditve, da trg ni dovolj pregleden“. 70
Specifically in regard to the campaign discounts relied upon by the Commission, the Court of First Instance felt that there was a lack of more specific findings in the
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zlasti glede reklamnih popustov, ki jih je navajala Komisija, v prvi odločbi o odobritvi pogre�alo konkretnej�e ugotovitve, posebno „glede
71 — The German translation of recital 69 of the first clearance decision is inaccurate in that regard, given that it uses the term ‘Preisabsprachen’ for the term ‘common price policy’.
71 – Nem�ki prevod 69. uvodne izjave prve odločbe o odobritvi je v tem pogledu netočen, saj za „common price policy“ uporablja besedno zvezo „dogovori o cenah“.
The Court of First Instance then directed its attention to the Commission’s
Sodi�če prve stopnje se je nato posvetilo navedbam Komisije o morebitni „skupni
72 — The Commission’s consideration appears essentially in recitals 74 to 80 of the first clearance decision, and the Court of First Instance reviewed the information provided there as regards the situation in the United Kingdom as representative of the reasons for the decision in general.
72 – Te navedbe Komisije so v pretežnem delu zapisane v 74. do 80. uvodni izjavi prve odločbe o odobritvi; Sodi�če prve stopnje preučuje tam navedene trditve glede stanja v Združenem kraljestvu, njegove ugotovitve pa veljajo tudi za obrazložitev odločbe v preostalem delu.
69 — Recitals 111 to 113 of the first clearance decision.70 — Paragraph 294 of the judgment under appeal.
73 – Točke od 295 do 324 izpodbijane sodbe.74 – Točka 303 izpodbijane sodbe.75 – Točka 320 izpodbijane sodbe.76 – Točka 324 izpodbijane sodbe.
73 — Paragraphs 295 to 324 of the judgment under appeal.74 — Paragraph 303 of the judgment under appeal.75 — Paragraph 320 of the judgment under appeal.76 — Paragraph 324 of the judgment under appeal.
69 – Od 111. do 113. uvodne izjave prve odločbe o odobritvi.70 – Točka 294 izpodbijane sodbe.
The Court has consistently held that the statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted that measure in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for it and to enable the competent Community Court to exercise its power of review.
Kot izhaja iz ustaljene sodne prakse mora biti obrazložitev, ki se zahteva v členu 253 ES, prilagojena vrsti obravnavanega akta in jasno in nedvoumno izražati razlogovanje institucije, ki je akt izdala, tako da se lahko stranke seznanijo z utemeljitvijo sprejetega ukrepa in da pristojno sodi�če izvr�i nadzor.
79 first clearance decision as regards ‘the nature of campaign discounts, the circumstances in which such discounts might be applied, their degree of opacity, their size or their impact on price transparency’.
79 narave reklamnih popustov, okoli�čin, v katerih se lahko uporabijo reklamni popusti, stopnje njihove nepreglednosti, njihovega obsega ali njihovih vplivov na preglednost cen“.
77 The Court of First Instance also bemoaned that ‘[t]hose assertions [by the Commission as regards campaign discounts in larger countries] are confined, moreover, to indicating that campaign discounts are less transparent than file discounts, but do not explain how they would be relevant for the transparency of the market and do not make it possible to understand how they in themselves might compensate for all the other factors of transparency of the market identified in the Decision and thus eliminate the transparency necessary for the existence of a collective dominant position’. 78
77Sodi�če prve stopnje dalje očita, „da se [navedbe Komisije glede reklamnih popustov v velikih državah] poleg tega omejujejo na ugotovitev, da naj bi bili reklamni popusti manj pregledni kot popusti za kupce, nasprotno pa ne razložijo, zakaj so pomembni za preglednost trga in iz njih tudi ni mogoče razbrati, kako lahko reklamni popusti sami zase odtehtajo vse druge dejavnike preglednosti trga, ki jih omenja odločba, in s tem izključijo preglednost, ki je potrebna za kolektivni prevladujoči položaj“. 78
The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations.
Zahtevo po obrazložitvi je treba presojati glede na okoli�čine posameznega primera, zlasti vsebine zadevnega akta, lastnosti podanih razlogov in interesa za pojasnitev, ki ga imajo lahko naslovniki ali druge osebe, ki jih ukrep neposredno in posamično zadeva.
It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. 80
Ni treba, da se v obrazložitvi podrobno navedejo vse upo�tevne dejanske in pravne okoli�čine, ker se vpra�anje, ali obrazložitev izpolnjuje zahteve iz člena 253 ES, nana�a ne le na besedilo tega člena, ampak tudi na njegov okvir in vsa pravna pravila, ki urejajo zadevno področje. 80
The particular features of a merger control procedure include the time pressure to which the Commission is subject
K posebnim okoli�činam postopka nadzora koncentracij spada časovni pritisk, ki mu je izpostavljena Komisija zaradi tam
In the appeal it is not the task of the Court to substitute its own assessment of the first clearance decision for that of the Court of First Instance.
V pritožbenem postopku ni naloga Sodi�ča, da presojo prve odločbe o odobritvi, ki jo je naredilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, nadomesti s svojo.
Accordingly, the Court need not itself review and assess the clearance decision as to whether its reasoning was inadequate or sufficient.
Temu ustrezno Sodi�ču samemu ni treba morebiti preučiti odločbe o odobritvi in presoditi, ali je bila njena obrazložitev pomanjkljiva ali zadostna.
Instead, the Court has to decide whether the Court of First Instance for its part made any errors of law in the judgment under appeal when it reviewed the reasons given for the clearance decision, and in particular whether the Court of First Instance based its review on correct or on excessively strict criteria.
Sodi�če mora nasprotno odločiti, ali je Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi pri presoji obrazložitve odločbe o odobritvi napačno uporabilo pravo, zlasti, ali je Sodi�če prve stopnje za presojo uporabilo primerna merila ali pa so bila ta pretirano stroga.
79 — See, for example, Case C-367/95 P Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France [1998] ECR I-1719, paragraph 63, Joined Cases C-138/03, C-324/03 and C-431/03 Italy v Commission [2005] ECR I-10043, paragraph 54, and Sison (cited above, footnote 34), paragraph 80.
79 – Glej le sodbe z dne 2. aprila 1998 v zadevi Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France (C-367/95 P, Recueil, str. I-1719, točka 63); z dne 24. novembra 2005 v združenih zadevah Italija proti Komisiji (C-138/03, C-324/03 in C-431/03, ZOdl., str.
77 — The last sentence of paragraph 289 of the judgment under appeal.
I-10043, točka 54) in Sison proti Svetu (navedena v opombi 34, točka 80).
80 — Sytraval and Brink’s France (cited above, footnote 79), paragraph 63, Italy v Commission (cited above, footnote 79), paragraph 55, and Sison (cited above, footnote 34), paragraph 80.
80 – Sodbe Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France (navedena v opombi 79, točka 63); Italija proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 79, točka 55) in Sison proti Svetu (navedena v opombi 34, točka 80).
78 — The last sentence of paragraph 320 of the judgment under appeal.
77 – Zadnji stavek točke 289 izpodbijane sodbe.78 – Zadnji stavek točke 320 izpodbijane sodbe.
At least the factual and legal considerations which are of decisive importance in the context of the decision must always be capable of being understood from the reasons given.
Vsekakor pa morajo bistveni dejanski in pravni preudarki za izdajo odločbe vedno izhajati iz njene obrazložitve.
81In addition, in giving reasons for its decisions in the field of competition law the Commission can orientate itself by reference to the degree of difficulty of the individual case, and in doing so assume the knowledge of informed market participants who are familiar with market circumstances; 82this applies a fortiori to cases involving rights and interests of market participants who, like Impala in the present case, themselves participated in the proceedings.
85 Zato obrazlo- obrazložitvi svojih odločb v pravu konkurence ravna po težavnostni stopnji konkretnega primera in pri tem izhaja iz védenja razumnih gospodarskih subjektov, ki se spoznajo na tržne razmere; 82to �e toliko bolj velja, če so prizadeti pravice in interesi tržnih subjektov, ki so bili – tako kot Impala v obravnavanem primeru – sami udeleženi v postopku.
83The appellants correctly referred to both of these points.
83Pritožnika sta upravičeno opozorila na oba vidika.
given must not be so laconic as to endanger their clarity and persuasiveness.
žitev ne sme biti tako skopa, da bi to vplivalo na njeno jasnost in sklepčnost.
86 They must in addition be logical 87 and must not disclose any internal inconsistencies. 88
86 Poleg tega mora biti dosledna 87in ne sme vsebovati notranjih protislovij. 88
In the present case the Court of First Instance considered that the reasons given were not persuasive, comprehensible and free of inconsistency.
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa meni, da v obravnavanem primeru obrazložitev ni ravno tako sklepčna, razumljiva in neprotislovna.
Accordingly, it clearly cannot be required that, in a decision on a concentration notified to it, the Commission defines its position on matters which are manifestly irrelevant or insignificant or plainly of secondary importance.
Zato zanesljivo ni dopustno od Komisije zahtevati, naj v svoji odločbi o koncentraciji, ki je pri njej prigla�ena, zavzame stali�če tudi k vidikom, ki očitno niso povezani z zadevo ali ki nimajo pomena oziroma so očitno podredni.
84The obvious need not be expressly mentioned in the decision.
84 Očitnega v odločbi ni treba posebej omenjati.
Moreover, the Commission need not provide more detailed reasons for its decision than is appropriate having regard to the degree of difficulty of the particular case, or than
Poleg tega Komisiji ni treba svoje odločbe obrazložiti izčrpneje, kot je to primerno glede na težavnostno stopnjo konkretnega primera in kot je to
In essence, what the Court of First Instance found to be inadequate was an imbalance in the reasons given for the first clearance decision: it contained a list of factors pointing to the existence of market transparency and explained these in detail, 89but by contrast, as regards the factor of
Sodi�če prve stopnje v bistvu tu kritizira nesorazmerje v obrazložitvi prve odločbe o odobritvi: vsebovala naj bi vrsto pokazateljev za obstoj preglednosti trga in te tudi izčrpno razlagala, 89 medtem ko naj bi glede dejavnika reklamnih popustov, ki domnevno
81 — As regards the influence of the temporal conditions in which a decision is issued on the duty to state reasons, see Case 16/65 Schwarze [1965] ECR 877, at p.
81 – Glede vpliva časovnih pogojev, pod katerimi je izdana odločba, na obveznost obrazložitve, glej sodbe z dne 1. de -cembra 1965 v zadevi Schwarze (16/65, Recueil, str.
888, Case C-350/88 Delacre and Others v Commission [1990] ECR I-395, paragraph 16, and Verband der freien Rohrwerke (cited above, footnote 22), paragraph 186.
1152, 1167); z dne 14. februarja 1990 v zadevi Delacre in drugi proti Komisiji (C-350/88, Recueil, str. I-395, točka 16) in Verband der freien Rohrwerke in drugi proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 22, točka 186).
86 — Germany v Commission (cited above, footnote 85), p.
86 – Sodba Nemčija proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 85, str. 155).
69.87 — ACF Chemiefarma (cited above, footnote 85), paragraph 78.
1645, točka 9) in z dne 22. oktobra 1996 v zadevi Skibsværftsforeningen in drugi proti Komisiji (T-266/94, Recueil, str. II-1399, točka 239).
83 — Case 32/86 SISMA v Commission [1987] ECR 1645, paragraph 9, and Case T-266/94 Skibsværftsforeningen and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-1399, paragraph 239.
87 – Sodba ACF Chemiefarma proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 85, točka 78).
88 — Germany v Commission (cited above, footnote 85), p.
88 – Sodbi Nemčija proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 85, str. 156) in z dne 7. julija 1981 v zadevi Rewe-Markt Steffen, „Butterfahrten“ (158/80, Recueil, str.