natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In those circumstances, a European Union measure can be of a general nature and, at the same time, vis-à-vis some traders, in the nature of a decision.
Poleg tega poudarja, da sta tožeči stranki članici velike industrijske skupine, ki ima pomemben položaj na zadevnih trgih, in da sta imeli pravni službi, ki sta bili popolnoma sposobni oceniti protikonkurenčnost zadevnega ravnanja.
Noting that Directive 91/414 provides that the assessment procedure concerning active substances already on the market is initiated by noti¤cation made by an interested producer, who submits a dossier containing the data necessary for that purpose and is associated with the various stages of examination of his dossier, the Court held that the applicant, in its capacity as noti¤er, enjoyed procedural safeguards and, on that basis, was individually concerned by the contested directive.
Drugič, glede konkretnega vpliva kršitve na navedeni trg Splošno sodišče opozarja, da Komisija ni namenila dovolj pozornosti vlogi, ki jo je imel razvoj cenovnih razlik pri padcu izvoza. Tako je v skladu s svojo neomejeno pristojnostjo razsodilo, da je treba globo zaradi teže kršitve zmanjšati za 10¥%.
With regard to the condition relating to direct concern, the Court found that through adoption of the contested directive the Commission had brought the assessment of chlorothalonil to an end, when it decided to include it in Annex I to Directive 91/414 subject to certain conditions.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 30.¥aprila¥2009 v zadevi Nintendo in Nintendo of Europe proti Komisiji (T-13/03, še neobjavljena) potrdilo, da ker gre za skupek sporazumov in usklajenega ravnanja vertikalne narave, katerih cilj in posledica je omejevanje vzporednega izvoza igralnih konzol in kartic, deleži zadevnih podjetij pri distribuciji obravnavanih proizvodov ustrezajo specični teži vsakega podjetja v spornem distribucijskem sistemu.
Moreover, by virtue of the directive, the Member States were obliged to review authorisations for plant protection products containing chlorothalonil and to verify compliance with the condition as to maximum HCB content, an action in respect of which they had no discretion.
Splošno sodišče v isti sodbi pri presoji, ali je Komisija napačno uporabila pravo pri ugotavljanju odvračilnega učinka globe, pojasnjuje, da je lahko pri vertikalnih kršitvah tudi lastnost proizvajalca proizvodov dejavnik, ki predstavlja njegovo dejansko sposobnost povzročiti znatno škodo konkurenci.
The contested directive was therefore of direct concern to the applicant, as an undertaking manufacturing the active substance in question, and consequently the action for annulment was admissible.
Proizvajalec zadevnih proizvodov, ki ima osrednji položaj v distribucijskem sistemu teh proizvodov, mora namreč izkazati posebno skrbnost in se prepričati, da ob sklepanju sporazumov o distribuciji upošteva pravila o konkurenci.
(4) Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, at p.°107.(5) Case C-386/96 P Dreyfus v Commission [1998] ECR I-2309, paragraph 43.
Na vprašanje odvračilnega učinka glob se nanaša tudi pojasnilo iz ene od sodb v zvezi z¥omejevalnim sporazumom na trgu monokloroocetne kisline.
6) OJ 2005°L°241, p.°51.7) Council Directive of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991
Smernice o načinu določanja glob, naloženih v skladu s členom¥15(2) Uredbe št.¥17 in člen[om]¥65(5) [P]ogodbe ESPJ (UL 1998, C¥9, str.¥3).
Period within which proceedings must be commenced
Dejavnost v omejevalnem sporazumu iz istega obdobja kršitve.
In Case T-257/04 Poland v Commission (judgment of 10 June 2009, under appeal) and Joined Cases T-300/05 and T-316/05 Cyprus v Commission (judgment of 2 October 2009, not published), the Court ruled on the question of determining the starting point of the period of two months provided for in the ¤fth paragraph of Article 230 EC in the case of an action for annulment brought by an acceding State against a regulation concerning transitional measures to be adopted in the agricultural sphere which has been adopted and published before the accession of that State.
Splošno sodišče je po proučitvi stopnje sodelovanja tožečih strank tudi spremenilo eno od odločb v zvezi s protikonkurenčnimi ravnanji na trgu igralnih konzol in kartic Nintendo. V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Nintendo in Nintendo of Europe proti Komisiji je primerjalo sodelovanje družbe Nintendo ter sodelovanje njenega izključnega distributerja za irski trg in trg Združenega kraljestva najprej s kronološkega vidika.
In the cases in point, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Cyprus claimed that the period allowed for commencing proceedings could not begin to run before their accession to the European Union, which was a condition of the entry into force of the regulation at issue.
Na podlagi tega je ugotovilo, da sta družba Nintendo in ta distributer predložila upoštevne dokumente v isti fazi postopka in da dejstvo, da je družba Nintendo začela sodelovati nekaj dni za tem distributerjem, glede tega ni odločilno.
In that connection, the Court recalled that, under the ¤fth paragraph of Article 230 EC, an action for annulment must be instituted within two months of the date of publication of the measure and that the strict application of rules concerning procedural time limits meets the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice.
Nato je Splošno sodišče primerjalo stopnjo sodelovanja s kakovostnega vidika, tako da je upoštevalo tako okoliščine, v¥katerih sta ti podjetji sodelovali, kot resnično vrednost sporočenih informacij.
In the circumstances of the cases before it, the Court thus concluded that the actions in question were out of time as the arguments of the States concerned did not call that conclusion into question.
Glede tega Splošno sodišče ugotavlja, da sta podjetji te informacije poslali na lastno pobudo in da je bila njihova vsebina Komisiji v enako pomoč.
First, the Court considered to be irrelevant the question whether the entry into force of the regulations at issue was subject to the accession of the States concerned, since that question confused the challengeability of a measure, which is connected with the completion of all the requisite formalities as to publicity and causes the period for bringing proceedings to start running, with the entry into force of that measure, which may be delayed.
Splošno sodišče zato ugotavlja, da je treba v skladu z načelom enakega obravnavanja šteti, da je bilo sodelovanje družbe Nintendo primerljivo s sodelovanjem distributerja.
Second, the Court held that, as the period laid down in Article 230 EC is of general application, that article did not require the States concerned to have the status of Member States and applied in any event to those States as legal persons.
Splošno sodišče je zato družbi Nintendo in distributerju določilo enako stopnjo znižanja globe.
Third, the Court pointed out that the States concerned had not been deprived of their right to e¥ective judicial protection, since non-member countries (including States before their accession to the European Union), although they cannot claim the status of litigant conferred on the Member States, may nevertheless bring proceedings by virtue of the right of action conferred on legal persons under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Splošno sodišče je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Outokumpu in Luvata proti Komisiji pojasnilo svojo sodno prakso na področju obteževalnih okoliščin in zlasti ponovitve kršitve.
Drawing an analogy with the case-law applicable to sub-State bodies (8), the Court concluded that, before they became Member States, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Cyprus were directly and individually concerned by the contested regulation and consequently the strict application of the periods within which proceedings had to be brought, starting from the date of publication of the regulation, did not prevent them from asserting their rights.
Dejstvo, da je bila prva kršitev storjena med veljavnostjo Pogodbe ESPJ in da zaradi posebnih okoliščin navedene zadeve ni bila naložena nobena globa, nikakor ne omaja načela, da ko Komisija z odločbo ugotovi, da je podjetje sodelovalo v omejevalnem sporazumu, je lahko ta odločba osnova za poznejšo presojo nagnjenosti tega podjetja h kršenju pravil, ki se nanašajo na omejevalne sporazume.
In addition, the Republic of Cyprus claimed that its action was in any event admissible in so far as it was brought within the period allowed for commencing proceedings against a regulation that amended the original regulation.
Upoštevanje ponovno storjene kršitve je tudi predmet posebnega razvoja v sodbi z dne 30.¥septembra¥2009 v zadevi Hoechst proti Komisiji (T-161/05, neobjavljena).
The Court observed that, although the de¤nitive nature of a measure which has not been challenged within the time limit concerns not only the measure itself but also any later measure which is merely con¤rmatory (an approach which is justi¤ed by the requirement of legal stability and applies to individual measures as well as to those which have a legislative character), where a provision in a regulation is amended, a fresh right of action arises, not only against that provision alone, but also against those which, even if not amended,
V obravnavani zadevi je tožeča stranka izpodbijala možnost Komisije, da upošteva preteklo odločbo, ker je ta postala dokončna šele po prenehanju zadevne kršitve. Splošno sodišče pa poudarja, da za upoštevanje te odločbe zadostuje, da je bilo pred tem ugotovljeno, da je bilo podjetje storilec kršitve iste vrste, in to tudi če je odločba predmet sodnega nadzora.
) Case T-214/95 Vlaams Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR°II-717, paragraph 29.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbah v zvezi z omejevalnim sporazumom na trgu monokloroocetne kisline podalo zanimiva pojasnila glede odgovornosti matične družbe za kršitve svojih hčerinskih družb.
General Court form a whole with it (9).
Splošno sodišče saj je ta zgolj neoperativen holding, ki zelo malo sodeluje pri upravljanju hčerinske družbe.
Considering that conclusion in its context, however, the Court quali¤ed it, stating that the fact that the action is out of time must be accepted in an action for annulment of an amended provision not only where the provision in question reproduces the provision contained in the act in respect of which the period allowed for commencing proceedings has expired but also where, although the new wording is di¥erent, the substance is not a¥ected.
Splošno sodišče poudarja, da na podlagi te okoliščine ni mogoče izključiti, da matična družba odločilno vpliva na ravnanje hčerinske družbe, tako da zlasti usklajuje nančne naložbe v zadevni skupini. V¥primeru skupine družb je namreč namen holdinške družbe, ki zlasti usklajuje nančne naložbe v¥skupini, zbrati kapitalske deleže v različnih družbah, njena funkcija pa je zagotoviti njihovo enotno upravljanje, zlasti prek proračunskega nadzora.
Conversely, where a provision of a regulation is, at least in part, substantially amended, a fresh right of action arises against that provision and also against all the provisions which, even if not amended, form with it an indivisible and substantial whole.
Poleg tega Splošno sodišče pojasnjuje, da na podlagi dejstva, da družbi poslujeta na ločenih trgih in nista povezani kot dobavitelji in stranke, ni mogoče ugotoviti ničesar. V skupini, kakršna je zadevna, je namreč delitev vlog običajen pojav, ki ne ovrže domneve, da sta matična družba in njena hčerinska družba eno samo podjetje v smislu člena¥81¥ES.
Here, as the regulation at issue made ancillary and procedural amendments, seeking solely to extend the periods prescribed by the original regulation, annulment of the provisions of the original regulation could not be sought by means of an action for annulment brought against the amending regulation.
Nazadnje Splošno sodišče opozarja, da se domneva odgovornosti matične družbe za kršitve, ki jih storijo hčerinske družbe, katerih kapital je v njeni popolni ali skoraj popolni lasti, opira na objektivno merilo, ki se uporablja ne glede na velikost ali pravno organiziranost podjetja.
Competition rules applicable to undertakings
Zato čeprav ima uporaba tega merila različne učinke glede na velikost skupine in njeno pravno organiziranost, je to zgolj objektivna posledica različnosti podjetij.
Duration of the infringement
Prispevek sodne prakse na področju člena 82 ES
Stating that the contested decision contained contradictory aspects regarding the end of the infringement, the Court held that the Commission, on which the burden of proof primarily fell, had not shown that the infringement in question had continued until the end of 1990. The Court therefore concluded that the contested decision should be varied by reducing by 25% the ¤ne imposed on the applicant.
V sodbi z dne 9.¥septembra¥2009 v zadevi Clearstream proti Komisiji (T-301/04, še neobjavljena) se je Splošno sodišče izreklo o zakonitosti odločbe Komisije, s katero je tožečima strankama očitala, da sta kršili člen¥82¥ES, prvič, s tem, da diskriminatorno nista hoteli opravljati svojih storitev, in drugič, s tem, da sta uporabili diskriminatorne cene.
Case T-405/06 ArcelorMittal Luxembourg and Others v Commission (judgment of 31 March 2009, under appeal) gave the Court an opportunity to con¤rm its earlier decision (10) concerning the scope ratione personae of the e¥ects of actions which interrupt the limitation period.
Splošno sodišče poudarja, da je lahko Komisija upravičeno ugotovila obstoj teh zlorab prevladujočega položaja.
In the case in point, the parent company of a subsidiary which had participated in a cartel on the market for steel beams asserted that the actions which interrupted the ¤ve-year limitation period had e¥ect only as against the undertakings which had participated in the infringement.
Splošno sodišče zlasti potrjuje, da zavrnitev zagotavljanja dostopa in neupravičena diskriminacija v zvezi s tem nista dve ločeni kršitvi, ampak dva izraza istega ravnanja, saj neupravičena diskriminacija izvira iz zavrnitve opravljanja enakih ali podobnih storitev primerljivim strankam.
Since it had neither been identi¤ed as such during the administrative procedure (during which the action interrupting the limitation period had been taken) nor been an addressee of the statement of objections, the parent company thus contended that the Commission could not raise that interruption against it.
Ker je bil čas za pridobitev dostopa veliko daljši od časa, ki bi še lahko štel za razumen in upravičen, kar je podobno zlorabni zavrnitvi zagotavljanja zadevne storitve, lahko glede tega čas za pridobitev dostopa povzroči konkurenčno neugodnost na zadevnem trgu.
The Court rejected that interpretation, explaining that it entailed an objective fact, namely participation in the infringement, which is distinct from a subjective and contingent element such as an undertaking being identi¤ed during the administrative procedure as having so participated.
Splošno sodišče tudi potrjuje, da je uporaba drugačnih cen za enega od poslovnih partnerjev za enake storitve, in to neprekinjeno pet let in s strani podjetja, ki ima na začetku verige na trgu dejanski monopol, tega partnerja nedvomno postavila v konkurenčno manj ugoden položaj.
An undertaking may have participated in the infringement without the Commission being aware that it has done so at the time when it takes an action interrupting the limitation period. That period is interrupted not only with respect to the undertakings which were the subject of an action taken for the purpose of the preliminary investigation or proceedings, but also with respect to those
Poleg tega je Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 17.¥decembra¥2009 v zadevi Solvay proti Komisiji (T-57/01, še neobjavljena) ugotovilo, da je mogoče dokumente, zasežene zgolj za proučitev sodelovanja pri omejevalnih sporazumih in/ali usklajenih ravnanjih iz člena¥81¥ES, uporabiti v¥utemeljitev očitkov o kršitvi člena¥82¥ES, kadar so si ravnanja, ki so po mnenju Komisije povzročila zlorabo prevladujočega položaja, in ravnanja, za preiskavo katerih je pooblastila svoje uslužbence, vsebinsko podobna.
(9) Case C-299/05 Commission v Parliament and Council [2007] ECR°I-8695, paragraphs 29 and 30.(10) Case T-276/04 Compagnie maritime belge v Commission [2008] ECR°II-1277.
Zato je bila namreč enotna cena teh količin znatno nižja od povprečne cene, ki jo je stranka plačala za osnovne količine, določene s¥pogodbo, kar je stranko spodbudilo k nabavi dodatnih tonaž, ki presegajo pogodbene količine, saj bi drugi dobavitelji za te tonaže težko ponudili konkurenčne cene glede na cene, ki jih je ponudila tožeča stranka.
General Court
Dejavnost
As regards suspension of the limitation period, the Court stated that, whereas Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (11) speci¤cally provides that interruption of the limitation period applies with regard to all undertakings which have participated in the infringement, no such speci¤c statement is made as regards suspension.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 7.¥maja¥2009 v zadevi NVV in drugi proti Komisiji (T-151/05, še neobjavljena) poudarilo, da ob upoštevanju zahteve po hitrosti in strogih rokih, ki Komisijo zavezujejo v postopku nadzora koncentracij, Komisija ne more biti zavezana k temu, da preverja vse prejete podatke, če ni dokazov o njihovi nepravilnosti.
The Court therefore considered whether initiation of an action before it had an e¥ect in relation to the applicant undertaking alone or an erga omnes e¥ect with respect to all the undertakings which had participated in the infringement, whether or not they had brought an action.
Čeprav obveznost skrbne in nepristranske preučitve, ki ji je naložena v tem postopku, Komisiji ne dovoljuje opreti se na dejstva ali podatke, ki jih ni mogoče obravnavati kot resnične, omenjena zahteva po hitrosti vendarle predvideva, da ne more sama do podrobnosti preverjati pristnosti in zanesljivosti vseh podatkov, ki so ji poslani, saj postopek nadzora koncentracij do neke mere nujno temelji na zaupanju.
In that connection, it stated at the outset that, as is the case with interruption of the limitation period, suspension of that period, which constitutes an exception to the principle of a ¤ve-year limitation period, must be interpreted restrictively.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 4.¥februarja¥2009 v zadevi Omya proti Komisiji (T-145/06, še neobjavljena) natančno določilo obseg pristojnosti Komisije pri zahtevah za informacije.
Therefore it could not be presumed that the legislature intended to apply the same rules in both situations.
Po eni strani Splošno sodišče glede same zahteve za informacije navaja, prvič, da se potrebnost zahtevanih podatkov presoja glede na stališče, ki ga je Komisija v zvezi s tem lahko upravičeno imela ob sestavi zahteve, ne pa glede na dejansko potrebo po teh podatkih v nadaljnjem postopku.
Furthermore, unlike interruption of the limitation period, which is intended to enable the Commission to take proceedings and impose e¥ective sanctions in respect of infringements of the competition rules, suspension of the limitation period concerns, by de¤nition, a situation in which the Commission has already adopted a decision.
Drugič, poudarja, da ker je zadržanje rokov, določenih v členu¥10 Uredbe¥(ES) št.¥139/200414, do katerega je prišlo s sprejetjem odločbe na podlagi člena¥11 navedene uredbe, odvisno od datuma predložitve potrebnih podatkov, Komisija s prekinitvijo postopka ne krši načela sorazmernosti, če ji ti podatki niso bili predloženi.
While it is true that the competition rules are addressed to‘undertakings’, understood as economic units, the fact remains that, for the purposes of the application and implementation of Commission decisions in such matters, it is necessary to identify, as the addressee, an entity having legal personality, which alone is able to initiate an action against the decision adopted at the close of the administrative procedure and of which it is an addressee.
Po drugi strani Splošno sodišče glede zahtev po popravkih podatkov, ki jih je stranka sporočila in so se izkazali za napačne, poudarja, prvič, da lahko Komisija zahteva te popravke, če obstaja nevarnost, da bi lahko odkrite napake imele občuten vpliv na njeno presojo združljivosti zadevne koncentracije s skupnim trgom.
The Court concluded that the 10-year limitation period had been exceeded in relation to one of the applicants and annulled the contested decision in so far as it concerned that undertaking.
Drugič, navaja, da se ni mogoče sklicevati na obstoj legitimnih pričakovanj, da bi se izognilo posledicam kršitve obveznosti predložitve popolnih in pravilnih podatkov zgolj zato, ker Komisija te kršitve pri zgoraj navedenih preizkusih ni odkrila.
Rights of the defence
Rok za vložitev tožbe
In Case T-24/07 ThyssenKrupp Stainless v Commission (judgment of 1 July 2009, under appeal), the Court recalled that, in order to allow the Commission to balance, on the one hand, the need to preserve the parties’ rights of defence by granting as much access as possible to the ¤le and, on the other, the concern to protect con¤dential information of other parties or third parties, those other parties and third parties had to provide the Commission with all relevant details.
Komisija je v zadevi Qualcomm proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 19.¥junija¥2009, T-48/04, še neobjavljena) trdila, da je tožba, ki jo je družba Qualcomm vložila zoper odločbo o razglasitvi operacije, s katero sta podjetji pridobili skupni nadzor nad Toll Collect, sistemom za avtomatizirano pobiranje cestnin, za združljivo s skupnim trgom, nedopustna, ker čeprav družba Qualcomm ni bila naslovnik te odločbe, pomeni posredovanje te odločbe temu podjetju uradno obvestilo v smislu člena¥230, peti odstavek, ES in je zato rok za vložitev tožbe začel teči od tega trenutka. Splošno sodišče zavrača trditve Komisije.
It pointed out that, if a party considers that, after having obtained access to the ¤le, it requires knowledge of speci¤c non-accessible information for its defence, it may submit a reasoned request to that end to the Commission.
Opozarja, prvič, da člen¥20(1) Uredbe (EGS) št.¥4064/8915 nalaga, da se odločbe, ki so sprejete v skladu s to uredbo, objavijo v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, tako da je treba rok za vložitev tožbe za osebe, ki v izpodbijani odločbi niso navedeni naslovniki, izračunati na podlagi prvega primera, določenega v členu¥230, peti odstavek, ES, torej od te objave.
In that regard, the Court held that a request which is in general terms and does not go into detail in respect of each document does not amount to a reasoned request and does not answer any question that the Commission has as to the apparent relevance of the information that was not accessible for the applicant’s own defence.
Drugič, poudarja, da če se sprejme razširjena razlaga pojma naslovnika – ki jo je predlagala Komisija in v¥katero so
) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
V tej zadevi se je obravnavala Uredba Sveta (EGS) št.¥4064/89 z dne 21.¥decembra¥1989 o nadzoru koncentracij podjetij (popravek v UL 1990, L¥257, str.
General Court
Državne pomoči
Furthermore, the Court observed that, in order to respect the rights of defence of undertakings, the Commission must give the parties concerned the right to be heard before it takes any of the decisions provided for in Articles 7, 8, 23 and 24(2) of Regulation No 1/2003.
Spori v zvezi z državnimi pomočmi so s 70 končanimi in 46 vloženimi zadevami obsegali velik del dejavnosti Splošnega sodišča leta 2009.
Where documents are provided to the applicant after adoption of one of the abovementioned decisions, such as a statement of objections, there is none the less no infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence if the Commission has not amended the objections set out in the decision in question and, consequently, does not rely on facts on which the applicant has not been given an opportunity to explain itself.
Predstaviti je mogoče zgolj pregled teh odločb o, prvič, vprašanjih dopustnosti, drugič, materialnopravnih vprašanjih in, tretjič, postopkovnih vprašanjih.