natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
138It follows that a decision by the Commission in either antitrust proceedings or merger control proceedings cannot be regarded as vitiated by an error of law and annulled solely on the ground that without further explanation it departs in substance from the statement of objections.
138 Zato ni dopustno odločbe Komisije v postopku v zvezi z omejevalnim sporazumom ali v postopku nadzora koncentracij razglasiti za nično zaradi napačne uporabe prava zgolj zato, ker brez podrobnej�ega pojasnila vsebinsko odstopa od izjave o ugovorih.
The same applies for paragraphs 378 and 379 of the judgment under appeal.
Isto velja za točki 378 in 379 izpodbijane sodbe.
If one reads them in conjunction with the immediately preceding paragraph 377 of the judgment under appeal, it is clear that they too serve merely to illustrate and supplement what the Court of First Instance has already taken solely from the first clearance decision concerning the transparency of price discounts and has summarised as follows: ‘Accordingly, it must be held that the evidence, as mentioned in the Decision, does not support the conclusions drawn from it.’ 136
Če se bereta v povezavi s predhodno točko 377 izpodbijane sodbe, tudi ti služita le prikazu in dopolnitvi tega, kar je Sodi�če prve stopnje že prej – glede preglednosti popustov – ugotovilo zgolj na podlagi odločbe o odobritvi in takole povzelo: „Dokazi, navedeni v odločbi, tako ne utemeljujejo sklepov, ki so bili izvedeni iz njih.“ 136
However, this does not preclude the possibility that a decision which diverges from the statement of objections can, for other reasons relating to the decision itself, be erroneous in law and accordingly be annulled if challenged.
To pa ne izključuje, da je v odločbi, ki odstopa od izjave o ugovorih, zaradi drugih razlogov, ki izvirajo iz same odločbe, pravo napačno uporabljeno in je zato na podlagi tožbe razgla�ena za nično.
By contrast, the references to the statement of objections in paragraphs 335, 398, 408 to 410, 419, 424, 446, 447, 451 and 528 of the judgment under appeal seem to be more problematic.
Težavnej�i se nasprotno zdijo sklici na izjavo o ugovorih v točkah 335, 398, od 408 do 410, 419, 424, 446, 447, 451 in 528 izpodbijane sodbe.
At first glance it appears that the Court of First Instance in fact intended to allege that the Commission had departed from the statement of objections in the first clearance decision without sufficient explanation. 137
Na prvi pogled dejansko kaže tako, kot da želi Sodi�če prve stopnje Komisiji tam očitati, da se je v prvi odločbi o odobritvi brez zadostnega pojasnila oddaljila od izjave o ugovorih. 137
According to caselaw to which the appellants and the Commission referred in the present proceedings, the Commission is not obliged to explain in its decision potential divergences from its statement of objections,
V skladu s sodno prakso, na katero so opozorili pritožnika in Komisija v obravnavanem postopku, Komisija v odločbi ni dolžna razlagati morebitnih odstopanj od svoje izjave o ugovorih, saj gre pri tej izjavi
In this connection it is to be recalled that in the context of merger control the Commission is required to analyse complex economic situations.
V tej zvezi je treba zlasti spomniti na to, da mora Komisija pri nadzoru koncentracij ocenjevati zapletene gospodarske povezave.
As already mentioned, in doing so it has a not insignificant discretion, 139 but it is none the less always subject to review by the Community Courts.
Pri tem ima sicer, kot je že bilo omenjeno, precej�njo možnost diskrecijskega odločanja, 139vendar pa je vseskozi podvržena nadzoru sodi�ča Skupnosti.
The latter have the task not only of establishing whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent but also whether that evidence contains all the information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situa-
To mora preveriti ne le vsebinsko točnost navedenih dokazov, njihovo zanesljivost in doslednost, ampak tudi, ali ti dokazi vsebujejo vse upo�tevne podatke, ki jih je treba upo�tevati
136 — Paragraph 377 of the judgment under appeal.
136 – Točka 377 izpodbijane sodbe.
137 — Below, I have particular regard to paragraph 335 of the judgment under appeal, because it was the subject of particularly heavy criticism by the appellants.
137 – V nadaljevanju posebno pozornost posvečam točki 335 izpodbijane sodbe, ker sta jo pritožnika �e posebej grajala.
However, my analysis applies mutatis mutandis to the other paragraphs of the judgment under appeal which have been called into question.
Moje navedbe pa ustrezno veljajo tudi za druge tu sporne točke izpodbijane sodbe.
139 — On this point see the caselaw cited above, footnote 96.
139 – K temu glej sodno prakso, navedeno v opombi 96.
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-413/06 P tion and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it.
– pri presoji zapletenega položaja, in ali lahko utemeljijo iz njih izvedene sklepe.
140 ing the conclusions drawn from them (strength of the factual basis). 141
140 tretjič, da lahko dejstva, na katerih temelji odločba, utemeljijo iz njih izvedene sklepe (moč dejstev). 141
Thus, even if, in its decision as to the compatibility of a concentration with the common market, the Commission need not explain why it has departed in substance from its statement of objections, three things must be capable of being understood from its decision:
Četudi Komisiji torej v odločbi o združljivosti koncentracije s skupnim trgom ni treba razložiti, zakaj se je vsebinsko oddaljila od izjave o ugovorih, mora iz njene odločbe kljub temu izhajati troje:
Reference points for whether the Commission has, in an individual case, fully taken into account all the relevant information may appear from all the circumstances of the individual case, and in particular from all the documents which were part of the administrative file in the administrative proceedings.
Oporne točke za to, ali je Komisija v konkretnem primeru v celoti upo�tevala vse relevantne podatke, lahko izhajajo iz vseh okoli�čin posameznega primera, zlasti iz vseh dokumentov, ki so bili sestavni del upravnega spisa v upravnem postopku.
Those documents include not least the statement of objections.
K tem dokumentom nenazadnje spada tudi izjava o ugovorih.
This is because this statement provides a summary of all the facts and evidence which the Commission considers at that stage in the proceedings to be relevant to its decision.
Kajti iz te izjave je mogoče razbrati povzetek vseh dejstev in dokazov, za katere je Komisija glede na takratno stanje postopka menila, da so pomembni za odločitev.
On this basis, in the judgment under appeal it was possible for the Court of First Instance to find that despite its provisional nature the statement of objections was not ‘wholly without merit or wholly irrelevant’. 142
V tem smislu je lahko Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi, ne da bi napačno uporabilo pravo, domnevalo, da izjava o ugovorih kljub svoji začasnosti ni „popolnoma nepomembna ali irelevantna“.
There is no doubt that as the procedure runs its course it may appear — in particular because of the submissions made by the
Nedvomno se lahko v nadaljevanju postopka – zlasti na podlagi navedb udeleženih podjetij v njihovo obrambo – izkaže, da
— third, that the facts on which the decision is based are capable of substantiat-
– drugič, da v odločbi niso bili spregledani nobeni relevantni podatki, ki bi jih bilo treba upo�tevati pri presoji koncentracije (popolnost dejstev), in
141 — As regards these three points, see again Tetra Laval (cited above, footnote 96), paragraph 39, and Spain v Lenzing (cited above, footnote 97), paragraph 57; in relation specifically to the completeness of the factual basis see also Technische Universität München (cited above, footnote 97) paragraph 14, Spain v Lenzing (cited above, footnote 97), paragraph 58, and Komninou (cited above, footnote 27), paragraph 51, which emphasises the obligation of the competent organ to consider carefully and impartially all the relevant features of the individual case.
141 – K tem trem točkam ponovno glej sodbi Komisija proti Tetra Laval (navedena v opombi 96, točka 39) in Španija proti Lenzing (navedena v opombi 97, točka 57); posebej glede popolnosti dejstev glej tudi sodbe Technische Universität München (navedena v opombi 97, točka 14); Španija proti Lenzing (navedena v opombi 97, točka 58) in Komninou in drugi proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 27, točka 51), ki poudarjajo obveznost pristojnega organa, da skrbno in nepristransko preveri vse upo�tevne elemente posameznega primera.
140 — Tetra Laval (cited above, footnote 96), paragraph 39, and Spain v Lenzing (cited above, footnote 97), paragraph 57.
142 – Točka 335, predzadnji stavek, izpodbijane sodbe; glej tudi točke 410, 419 in 446 te sodbe.
142 — The penultimate sentence of paragraph 335 of the judgment under appeal; see also paragraphs 410, 419 and 446 of that judgment.
140 – Sodba Komisija proti Tetra Laval (navedena v opombi 96, točka 39); prav tako sodba Španija proti Lenzing (navedena v opombi 97, točka 57).
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA within the limits of the discretion allowed to it or had committed manifest errors of assessment.
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALA je priznano, ali pa je naredila očitno napako pri presoji.
participating undertakings in their defence — that the facts and evidence on which the statement of objections was based were incomplete or inaccurate, or that they were not capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from them.
so bili dejstva in dokazi, na katerih je temeljila izjava o ugovorih, nepopolni ali netočni ali da niso mogli utemeljiti iz njih izvedenih sklepov.
The Court of First Instance correctly recognises this too, where it says in the judgment under appeal that the Commission ‘is obliged to take account of the evidence obtained during the administrative procedure and also of the arguments put forward by the undertakings concerned, and must drop any objections which might ul -timately prove to be unfounded’. 143
To pravilno ugotavlja tudi Sodi�če prve stopnje, ko v izpodbijani sodbi navaja, da mora Komisija „upo�tevati dokaze, zbrane v upravnem postopku, ter argumente prizadetih podjetij, da bi lahko opustila ugovore, ki se na koncu izkažejo za neutemeljene“. 143
Accordingly, in the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance correctly undertook this review and in doing so explained that the Commission ‘must be in a position to explain … at least in the context of the proceedings before the Court, its reasons for considering that its provisional findings were incorrect; but above all, the findings set out in the decision must be compatible with the findings of fact made in the statement of objections, in so far as it is not established that the latter findings were incorrect’. 145
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zato v izpodbijani sodbi upravičeno opravilo to presojo in pri tem izvedlo, da mora Komisija „vsaj v okviru postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje navesti razloge, zaradi katerih meni, da so bile njene začasne presoje napačne“, in predvsem bi morale biti „presoje v odločbi združljive z ugotovitvami o dejstvih v izjavi o ugovorih, če ni dokazano, da so bile te netočne“. 145
However, the Community Courts can and must ascertain whether certain facts which the Commission had established and still relied upon in its statement of objections were, in the further course of the procedure, correctly categorised as inaccur- ate or unreliable by the Commission and dropped.
Sodi�če Skupnosti pa se lahko prepriča, in se tudi mora, ali je Komisija določena dejstva, ki jih je ugotovila in s katerimi je �e utemeljila izjavo o ugovorih, v nadaljevanju postopka upravičeno označila za netočna ali nezanesljiva in jih je opustila.
Equally, the Community Courts can and must consider whether any new facts on which the Commission now relies are in fact accurate, whether the facts thus established are complete, and whether they are capable of substantiating the conclusions the Commission has drawn from them.
Prav tako sodi�če Skupnosti lahko preveri, in mora, ali so morebitna nova dejstva, na katera se poslej opira Komisija, vsebinsko točna, ali je tako ugotovljeno dejansko stanje popolno in ali lahko utemelji sklepe Komisije.
The correctness, completeness and strength of the factual material which underpins a decision must be liable to judicial review.
Točnost, popolnost in moč gradiva o dejstvih, na katerem temelji odločba, so lahko predmet sodne presoje.
144Without such a review of the factual basis for a decision it would not be possible to assess, in a meaningful way, whether the Commission had stayed
144 Brez tak�ne presoje dejstev odločbe sploh ne bi bilo mogoče smiselno presoditi, ali je Komisija ostala v mejah diskrecijskega odločanja, ki ji
Contrary to what the appellants and the Commission submit, this does not mean that the merger control authority is subject to a double burden before the courts.
Organ nadzora koncentracij s tem, drugače kot menijo pritožnika in Komisija, pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje ni izpostavljen dvojni obremenitvi.
It is not required to defend its decision and in addition refute the statement of objections in so far as it diverges from it.
Od njega se ne zahteva, naj brani svojo odločbo in poleg tega ovrže �e morebitno izjavo o ugovorih, ki od nje odstopa.
It must simply — and in response to a substantiated submission by the applicant — be able to explain that the factual basis of its decision was correct and complete and that it was capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn in its decision.
Ta organ mora biti zgolj sposo - ben – na podlagi tehtnih navedb tožeče stranke – predstaviti, da so bila dejstva v njeni odločbi točna in popolna in da lahko utemeljijo sklepe iz odločbe.
Any explanations as to why certain factual elements have been supplemented or abandoned or reassessed in the course of the administrative procedure are inevitably bound up with the question of the correct-
Morebitna pojasnila, zakaj so bili določeni elementi dejanskega stanja v teku upravnega postopka dopolnjeni ali opu�čeni ali na novo ocenjeni,
143 — The second sentence of paragraph 335 of the judgment under appeal.
145 – Točka 335, zadnji stavek, izpodbijane sodbe; v istem smislu točke 410, 419 in 446 te sodbe.
144 — Again, in relation to this point see Tetra Laval (cited above, footnote 96), paragraph 39, and Spain v Lenzing (cited above, footnote 97), paragraph 56; and to the same effect Technische Universität München (cited above, footnote 97), paragraph 14, Spain v Lenzing (cited above, footnote 97), paragraph 58, and Komninou (cited above, footnote 27), paragraph 51.
144 – K temu ponovno glej sodbi Komisija proti Tetra Laval (navedena v opombi 96, točka 39) in Španija proti Lenzing (navedena v opombi 97, točka 56); v istem smislu sodbe Technische Universität München (navedena v opombi 97, točka 14); Španija proti Lenzing (navedena v opombi 97, točka 58) in Komninou in drugi proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 27, točka 51).
The evidential value of factual assertions in the response to the objections (second ground of appeal; first part of the third ground of appeal)
Dokazna vrednost dejstev, predstavljenih v odgovoru na ugovore (drugi pritožbeni razlog; prvi del tretjega pritožbenega razloga)
The second ground of appeal is closely connected to the first part of the third ground of appeal; for that reason I propose to consider both together.
Drugi pritožbeni razlog je v tesni zvezi s prvim delom tretjega pritožbenega razloga; zato predlagam, naj se preučita skupaj.
In essence, the appellants submit that the Court of First Instance set too high a standard of proof as regards their assertions in the response to the statement of objections.
Pritožnika Sodi�ču prve stopnje tu v bistvenem očitata, da je postavilo pretirane zahteve glede dokazne moči njunih navedb v odgovoru na izjavo o ugovorih.
In addition, they submit that the Court of First Instance wrongly held that the Commission was under a duty to conduct a new market investigation following the statement of objections.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi dalje nepravilno izhajalo iz dolžnosti Komisije, da po izjavi o ugovorih opravi nove tržne raziskave.
Thus, all in all, the Court of First Instance relied on the statement of objections in an acceptable manner as a basis for its review of whether the first clearance decision was adopted on a correct and complete factual basis that was capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn by the Commission.
Skupno gledano je torej Sodi�če prve stopnje na dopusten način kot oporno točko pritegnilo izjavo o ugovorih, kolikor je bilo treba preizkusiti, ali je bila prva odločba o odobritvi izdana na podlagi točnih in popolnih dejstev, ki lahko utemeljijo sklepe Komisije.
However, the Court of First Instance did not annul the first clearance decision on account of apparent divergences from the statement of objections, but on account of its insufficient reasoning and on account of manifest errors of assessment.
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa prve odločbe o odobritvi ni razglasilo za nično zaradi morebitnih odstopanj od izjave o ugovorih, ampak zato, ker ni bila zadostno obrazložena in zaradi očitne napake pri presoji.
The Court of First Instance found there to be such errors of assessment because the factual basis for the decision had been incomplete and in -capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn by the Commission from it as regards the absence of market transparency. 146
Sodi�če prve stopnje je izhajalo iz napake pri presoji zato, ker naj bi bila dejstva iz odločbe nepopolna in ker naj ne bi mogla utemeljiti sklepov Komisije v zvezi z nepreglednostjo trga.
Thus, to summarise, the first ground of appeal and the second part of the sixth ground of appeal are unfounded.
Skupno je torej treba ugotoviti, da sta prvi pritožbeni razlog in drugi del �estega pritožbenega razloga neutemeljena.
In the course of reviewing the first clearance decision for the existence of manifest errors of assessment in relation to market transparency, the Court of First Instance stated inter alia that ‘the parties to the concentration cannot wait until the last minute before submitting evidence to the Commission with a view to refuting objections raised at the proper time by the Commission, since the Commission would then no longer be in a position to carry out the necessary investigations.
Sodi�če prve stopnje v okviru preizkusa, ali prva odločba o odobritvi vsebuje očitno napako pri presoji preglednosti trga, med drugim navaja, „da stranke koncentracije ne morejo do zadnjega trenutka čakati s tem, da Komisiji predložijo dokaze, s katerimi naj se ovržejo ugovori, ki jih je Komisija pravočasno predstavila, kajti Komisija potem ne bi bila več sposobna opraviti potrebnih preiskav.
In such a hypothetical situation, that evidence must at the very least be particularly reliable, objective, relevant and cogent if it is to be capable of
V tem primeru bi morali biti dokazi �e posebej zanesljivi, objektivni, upo�tevni in
146 — Paragraphs 459 and 475 of the judgment under appeal.
146 – Točki 459 in 475 izpodbijane sodbe.
(b) Analysis validly refuting the objections raised by the Commission’. 147
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALA b) Presoja prepričljivi, če naj bi se z njimi uspe�no ovrgli ugovori, ki jih je predstavila Komisija.“ 147
As has already been mentioned in connection with the first ground of appeal, in merger control proceedings it is essential to observe the rights of defence before making a decision which may adversely affect the undertakings concerned 150(see also the second sentence of Article 18(3) of the Merger Regulation).
Kot je bilo že omenjeno v zvezi s prvim pritožbenim razlogom, je treba v postopku nadzora koncentracij pred izdajo vsake odločbe, ki bi lahko negativno vplivala na prizadeta podjetja, upo�tevati pravice obrambe 150 (glej tudi člen 18(3), drugi stavek, Uredbe o združitvah).
The Court of First Instance was further of the view that the Commission could not ‘go so far as to delegate, without supervision, responsibility for conducting certain parts of the investigation to the parties to the concentration, in particular where, as in the present case, those aspects constitute the crucial element on which the decision is based and where the data and assessments submitted by the parties to the concentration are diame -trically opposite to the information gathered by the Commission during its investigation and also to the conclusions which it drew from that information’. 148
Sodi�če prve stopnje dalje meni, da Komisija ne sme „iti tako daleč, da odgovornost za izvedbo določenih delov preiskave brez nadzora prenese na stranke koncentracije, zlasti če so ti deli, kot v obravnavanem primeru, odločilni vidik, na katerem temelji odločba, in če so navedbe in ocene, ki so jih predstavile stranke koncentracije, diametralno nasprotne podatkom, ki jih je zbrala Komisija v svoji preiskavi, in sklepom, ki so bili izvedeni iz njih.“ 148
For that reason, the undertakings concerned cannot be faulted for not having put forward certain — possibly decisive — arguments, facts or evidence when notifying the concentration or during the Commission’s market investigation, and instead doing so only in their submissions in defence when responding to the statement of objections.
Zato prizadetim podjetjem ni mogoče očitati, če določenih trditev, dejstev ali dokazov, ki so morebiti odločilni v tem primeru, ne predstavijo že pri priglasitvi koncentracije ali med tržno raziskavo Komisije, ampak �ele v okviru navedb v svojo obrambo zoper izjavo o ugovorih.
151The statement of objections is the first document which tells the parties to the concentration in detail what the Commission’s objections are to their intended concentration and
151 Šele iz te izjave o ugovorih lahko namreč udeleženci koncentracije natančno razberejo, kak�ne ugovore Komisija uveljavlja zoper njihov
Moreover, in various places in the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance criticises the Commission for failing, following the response by the parties to the concentration to the statement of objections, to carry out any new market investigations in order to test the validity of the new direction of its assessment of the intended concentration. 149
Sodi�če prve stopnje poleg tega na različnih mestih izpodbijane sodbe Komisiji očita, da po odgovoru udeležencev koncentracije na izjavo o ugovorih ni opravila nobenih novih tržnih raziskav, da bi preverila trdnost svojega spremenjenega stali�ča do načrta koncentracije. 149
150 — See above, in particular points 150 to 152.
150 – K temu glej zgornje navedbe, zlasti točke od 150 do 152 teh sklepnih predlogov.
147 — Paragraph 414 of the judgment under appeal.
147 – Točka 414 izpodbijane sodbe.
148 — Paragraph 415 of the judgment under appeal; to similar effect see paragraph 452 of the judgment under appeal.
148 – Točka 415 izpodbijane sodbe; podobno točka 452 izpodbijane sodbe.
151 — Of course, this does not affect the obligation of the undertakings concerned to lodge a notification of their concentration which is materially correct and complete (on this point, see Article 3(1) of Regulation) No 447/98).
151 – To pa seveda ne vpliva na dolžnost prizadetih podjetij, da priglasitev koncentracije vsebuje vsebinsko točne in popolne podatke (k temu glej člen 3(1) Uredbe �t. 447/98).
In addition, the parties to the concentration are obliged to answer any requests by the Commission for information comprehensively, truthfully and within the applicable timelimit (Article 11(1) in conjunction with Article 11(4) and (5) of the Merger Regulation).
Poleg tega morajo udeleženci koncentracije na morebitno zahtevo Komisije za predložitev podatkov odgovoriti izčrpno, po resnici in pravočasno (člen 11(1) v povezavi z odstavkoma 4 in 5 Uredbe o združitvah).
149 — See, for example, paragraphs 398, 428 and 451 of the judgment under appeal.
149 – Glej na primer točke 398, 428 in 451 izpodbijane sodbe.