natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It must be recalled at the outset, as has been stated at paragraph 42 of this judgment, that, in the case of a contractual relationship between two undertakings, the application of the block exemption is precluded if, in addition to an exclusive supply clause,
Najprej je treba je spomniti – kot je bilo že navedeno v točki 42 te sodbe – da je v primeru pogodbenega razmerja med dvema podjetjema uporaba skupinske izjeme
CEPSA the contract concluded between those undertakings contains a clause providing for the fixing of the retail price by the supplier.
CEPSA izključena, če pogodba, sklenjena med njima, vsebuje poleg klavzule o izključni dobavi �e klavzulo, s katero se predvideva, da dobavitelj določa maloprodajne cene.
Article 11 of Regulation No 1984/83 listed exhaustively the obligations which, apart from an exclusivity clause, could be imposed on a reseller, but which did not include the fixing of the retail price.
Člen 11 Uredbe 1984/83 namreč izčrpno na�teva obveznosti, razen klavzule o izključnosti, ki se lahko naložijo preprodajalcem, in med njimi ni določanja maloprodajne cene.
Under recital 8 in the preamble to that regulation, ‘further restrictive obligations and in particular those which limit the reseller’s … freedom to determine his prices … cannot be exempted under this regulation’.
Na podlagi osme uvodne izjave iste uredbe „druge določbe, ki omejejujo konkurenco, in zlasti tiste, ki omejujejo svobodo preprodajalca pri določanju njegovih cen, […] ne morejo biti izvzete na podlagi te uredbe“.
Consequently, the fixing by CEPSA of the retail price of the petroleum products would constitute a restriction on competition not covered by the exemption provided for in Article 10 of that regulation (see CEEES, paragraph 64).
Zato naj bi določitev maloprodajnih cen naftnih proizvodov, ki jo je izvedla družba CEPSA, pomenila omejevanje konku rence, ki je ne zajema izjema iz člena 10 navedene uredbe (glej sodbo CEEES, točka 64).
However, it is apparent from the order for reference that on 2 November 2001 CEPSA sent Tobar a letter authorising it to lower its sale prices without affecting the supplier’s receipts.
Vendar pa iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je družba CEPSA 2. novembra 2001 družbi Tobar poslala dopis in ji dovolila znižanje maloprodajnih cen, kar pa ni vplivalo na dohodke dobavitelja.
In its written and oral submissions, CEPSA states that such authorisation existed from the time of the conclusion of the contract at issue in the main proceedings and that Tobar had in actual fact made use of that authorisation even before that letter was sent.
Družba CEPSA v svojih pisnih in ustnih stali�čih trdi, da je tak�no dovoljenje obstajalo od sklenitve zadevne pogodbe v postopku v glavni stvari in da ga je družba Tobar dejansko izkoristila �e pred poslanim dopisom.
Tobar strongly disputes that claim and submits that it is impossible validly to amend that contract by way of a unilateral act.
Družba Tobar odločno ugovarja tej trditvi in poudarja, da je z enostranskim dejanjem nemogoče veljavno spremeniti to pogodbo.
In such a situation, in the light of the division of jurisdiction between the national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the referring court to assess the manner in which the retail price was fixed in the case in the main proceedings, as well as to determine whether it is possible, in national law, to amend unilaterally the clause governing the fixing of that price.
V takih okoli�činah glede na delitev pristojnosti med nacionalnim sodi�čem in Sodi�čem predložitveno sodi�če presodi o načinih določanja maloprodajne cene v zadevi v postopku v glavni stvari in o obstoju možnosti, da se v nacionalnem pravu enostransko spremeni določilo, ki ureja določanje navedene cene.
If the referring court should conclude that such a unilateral amendment is possible under national law, it would then be necessary to examine the conditions for exemption in force on the date on which CEPSA gave its authorisation.
Ob predpostavki, da predložitveno sodi�če ugotovi, da je na podlagi nacionalnega prava taka enostranska sprememba mogoča, bi bilo torej treba preučiti pogoje za izjemo, ki veljajo na dan dovoljenja, ki ga je dala družba CEPSA.
According to Article 4(a) of Regulation No 2790/1999, the exemption provided for in Article 2 thereof was not to apply to vertical agreements which have as their object the ‘restriction of the buyer’s ability to determine its sale price, without prejudice to the possibility of the supplier’s imposing a maximum sale price or recommending a sale price, provided that they do not amount to a fixed or minimum sale price as a result of pressure from, or incentives offered by, any of the parties’.
Skladno s členom 4(a) zadnje uredbe izjema iz člena 2 te uredbe ne velja za vertikalne sporazume, katerih cilj je „omejitev možnosti kupca, da določi svojo prodajno ceno, brez poseganja v možnost dobavitelja, da določi maksimalno prodajno ceno ali priporoči prodajno ceno, pod pogojem, da to ne vodi k fiksnim ali minimalnim prodajnim cenam zaradi pritiska ali spodbud katere koli pogodbene stranke“.
It follows that it is necessary to ascertain whether the fixing of the maximum sale price does not remain, in reality, a fixed or minimum sale price, account being taken of all the contractual obligations and the conduct of the parties in the main proceedings.
Iz tega sledi, da je treba preveriti, ali določitev maksimalne prodajne cene v resnici ne pomeni fiksne ali minimalne cene, in to ob upo�tevanju vseh pogodbenih obveznosti in ravnanja strank v postopku v glavni stvari.
Since the Court is not in a position to assess the discretion that Tobar had to determine the retail price of the petroleum products, following the authorisation granted to that company by CEPSA’s letter of 2 November 2001, it is for the referring court to examine whether that authorisation made it genuinely possible for the reseller to lower that sale price, taking account of the actual effect of all the clauses of the contract at issue in the main proceedings in their economic and legal context.
Ker Sodi�če ne more presojati o svobodi, ki jo ima družba Tobar po dovoljenju, danem v dopisu družbe CEPSA z dne 2. novembra 2001, pri določanju maloprodajnih cen naftnih proizvodov predložitveno sodi�če ob upo�tevanju dejanskega učinka vseh določil zadevne pogodbe v postopku v glavni stvari v njihovem gospodarskem in pravnem okviru preuči, ali to dovoljenje pomeni resnično možnost, da preprodajalec zniža prodajne cene.
In particular, it is necessary to ascertain whether such a retail price is not, in reality, fixed by indirect or concealed means, such as the fixing of the margin of the servicestation operator, threats, intimidation, warnings, penalties or incentives.
Zlasti je treba preveriti, ali ni v resnici tak�na maloprodajna cena določena s posrednimi in prikritimi načini, kakr�ne so določitev marže imetniku bencinske postaje, grožnje, zastra�evanje, opozorila, kazni ali spodbude.
If the referring court were to conclude that Tobar was, in reality, required to charge the fixed or minimum sale price imposed by CEPSA, that contract could not qualify for the block exemption established by Regulation No 2790/1999.
Za navedeno pogodbo ne more veljati skupinska izjema, ki jo določa Uredba �t. 2790/1999, če bi predložitveno sodi�če ugotovilo, da je bila družba Tobar resnično zavezana spo�tovati fiksne ali minimalne cene, ki jih je določila družba CEPSA.
However, where an agreement does not satisfy all the conditions provided for by an exempting regulation, it will be caught by the prohibition provided for in Article 81(1) EC only if its object or effect is to restrict appreciably competition within the common market and it is capable of affecting trade between Member States (see, to that effect, Cabour, cited above, paragraph 48).
Vendar pa je sporazum, kadar ne izpolnjuje vseh pogojev iz uredbe o izjemah, zajet s prepovedjo iz člena 81(1) ES le, če je cilj oziroma posledica tega sporazuma znatna omejitev konkurence na notranjem trgu in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Cabour, točka 48).
CEPSA exemption pursuant to Article 81(3) EC, the price agreement would be automatically void under Article 81(2) EC.
CEPSA in ko ni posamične izjeme na podlagi člena 81(3) ES, bi bil sporazum o ceni skladno z odstavkom 2 istega člena ničen.
By contrast, if the unilateral amendment of the contract at issue in the main proceedings meant that the clause relating to the retail price of the petroleum products was to be brought into line with the competition rules, that contract would then qualify for the block exemption, subject to its satisfying all the conditions laid down in Regulation No 2790/1999.
Nasprotno, če bi bila posledica enostranske spremembe zadevne pogodbe v postopku v glavni stvari ta, da bi bilo določilo o maloprodajni ceni naftnih proizvodov skladno s pravili konkurence, bi torej za to pogodbo veljala skupinska izjema, če izpolnjuje vse pogoje iz Uredbe �t. 2790/1999.
It follows from settled caselaw that, once the conditions for the application of Article 81(1) EC are met and so long as the agreement concerned does not justify the grant of an exemption under Article 81(3) EC, the nullity referred to in Article 81(2) EC can be relied on by anyone.
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse namreč izhaja, da ko so izpolnjeni pogoji uporabe člena 81(1) ES in zadevni sporazum ne more upravičiti dovolitve izjeme na podlagi člena 81(3) ES, se lahko vsakdo sklicuje na ničnost iz odstavka 2 istega člena.
Since that nullity is absolute, it is capable of having a bearing on all the effects, either past or future, of the agreement concerned (Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 Manfredi and Others [2006] ECR I-6619, paragraph 57 and the caselaw cited).
Ker ima ničnost absolutni značaj, lahko ta vpliva na vse učinke, pretekle ali prihodnje, zadevnega sporazuma (sodba z dne 13. julija 2006 v zadevi Manfredi in drugi, od C-295/04 do C-298/04, ZOdl., str. I-6619, točka 57 in navedena sodna praksa).
The question whether the nullity of the clause relating to the fixing of the retail price of the petroleum products means that the contract at issue in the main proceedings becomes automatically void in its entirety is the subject of Question 1(d), which is answered in paragraphs 78 to 80 of this judgment.
Vpra�anje, ali je posledica ničnosti določila o določanju maloprodajne cene naftnih proizvodov ta, da zadevna pogodba v postopku v glavni stvari postane nična v celoti, je predmet prvega vpra�anja, pod d), in odgovor nanj je v točkah od 78 do 80 te sodbe.
However, should the referring court find that that contract was automatically void in its entirety, the question whether it may become valid following the amendment of the clause relating to the sale price is, as the Commission of the European Communities rightly submits, a matter to be decided under national contract law.
Vendar pa v primeru, ko bi predložitveno sodi�če ugotovilo ničnost te celotne pogodbe, spada vpra�anje, ali ta lahko postane veljavna po spremembi določila o prodajni ceni – kot to pravilno trdi Komisija Evropskih skupnosti – v nacionalno pogodbeno pravo.
It is for the referring court to ascertain whether, under
Predložitveno sodi�če preveri, ali se lahko na podlagi
2008 — CASE C-279/06 national law, the contractual clause relating to that sale price can be amended by unilateral authorisation of the supplier, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and whether a contract which is automatically void may become valid following an amendment of that contractual clause which has the effect of bringing that clause into line with Article 81(1) EC.
2008 – ZADEVA C-279/06 nacionalnega prava z enostranskim dovoljenjem dobavitelja, kakr�no je to v postopku v glavni stvari, spremeni pogodbeno določilo o prodajni ceni in ali lahko po spremembi tega pogodbenega določila nična pogodba postane veljavna, ker je učinek spremembe njena skladnost s členom 81(1) ES.
By its Question 1(d), the referring court asks whether the automatic nullity provided for by Article 81(2) EC affects the contract at issue in the main proceedings in its entirety or only those clauses which are incompatible with Article 81(1) EC.
S prvim vpra�anjem, pod d), predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali ničnost, ki jo določa člen 81(2) Pogodbe ES, vpliva na celotno zadevno pogodbo v postopku v glavni stvari ali samo na določila, nezdružljiva z odstavkom 1 istega člena.
In this regard, it must be borne in mind that, according to the settled caselaw of the Court, the automatic nullity of an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(2) EC only applies to those parts of the agreement affected by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC or to the agreement as a whole if it appears that those parts are not severable from the agreement itself (see, in particular, Case 56/65 LTM [1966] ECR 235, at 250, and Delimitis, cited above, paragraph 40).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da ničnost sporazuma v smislu člena 81(2) ES v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča velja le za dele sporazuma, ki so prizadeti s prepovedjo, določeno v odstavku 1 istega člena, oziroma za celoten sporazum, če ti deli niso ločljivi od samega sporazuma (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 30. junija 1966 v zadevi LTM, 56/65, Recueil, str. 337, 360, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Delimitis, točka 40).
If those parts are severable from the agreement, the consequences, for all other parts of the agreement or for other obligations flowing from it, of the nullity are not a matter for Community law.
Če so ti deli ločljivi od sporazuma, posledice ničnosti za vse preostale dele sporazuma ali za druge obveznosti, ki iz njega izhajajo, ne spadajo v pravo Skupnosti.
The answer to Question 1(d) must therefore be that the automatic nullity provided for in Article 81(2) EC affects a contract in its entirety only if the clauses which are incompatible with Article 81(1) EC are not severable from the contract itself.
Zato je treba na prvo vpra�anje, pod d), odgovoriti, da ničnost, določena v členu 81(2) ES, vpliva na celotno pogodbo le v primerih, ko določila, nezdružljiva z odstav - kom 1 istega člena, niso ločljiva od same pogodbe.
Otherwise, the consequences of the nullity, in respect of all the other parts of the contract, are not a matter for Community law.
V nasprotnem primeru glede drugih delov pogodbe posledice ničnosti ne spadajo v pravo Skupnosti.
An exclusive supply contract for motorvehicle and other fuels, as well as lubricants and other related products, is capable of falling within the scope of Article 81(1) EC where the servicestation operator assumes, in a nonnegligible proportion, one or more financial and commercial risks linked to the sale of those products to third parties and where that contract contains clauses capable of infringing competition, such as that relating to the fixing of the retail price.
Pogodba o izključni dobavi goriva za motorna vozila in drugega goriva ter maziva in drugih sorodnih proizvodov lahko spada na področje uporabe člena 81(1) ES, kadar imetnik bencinske postaje v nezanemarljivem delu prevzame enega ali več finančnih in poslovnih tveganj, povezanih s prodajo teh proizvodov tretjim osebam, in kadar pogodba vsebuje klavzule, zaradi katerih so lahko kršena pravila konkurence, kakršna je ta o določanju maloprodajnih cen.
If the servicestation operator does not assume such risks or assumes only a negligible share of them, only the obligations imposed on the operator in the context of services as an intermediary offered by the operator to the principal, such as the exclusivity and non-competition clauses, are capable of falling within the scope of that provision.
Kadar imetnik bencinske postaje ne prevzame takšnih tveganj ali prevzame le njihov zanemarljivi del, lahko spadajo na področje uporabe tega člena samo obveznosti, kakršne so klavzule o izključnosti in prepovedi konkurence, ki so naložene imetniku v okviru storitev posrednika, ki jih nudi naročitelju.
It is for the referring court to ascertain, moreover, whether the contract concluded on 7 February 1996 between CEPSA Estaciones de Servicio SA and LV Tobar e Hijos SL has the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.
Predložitveno sodišče med drugim preveri, ali je posledica pogodbe, sklenjene 7. februarja 1996 med CEPSA Estaciones de Servicio SA in LV Tobar e Hijos SL, preprečevanje, omejevanje ali izkrivljanje konkurence v smislu člena 81 ES.
An exclusive supply contract, such as that referred to in the preceding paragraph of this operative part, is capable of benefiting from a block exemption provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1582/97 of 30 July 1997, if it complies with the maximum duration of 10 years referred to in Article 12(1)(c) of that regulation and if the supplier grants the servicestation operator, in return for exclusivity, substantial commercial advantages which contribute to an improvement in distribution, facilitate the establishment or modernisation of the service station and lower the distribution costs.
Za pogodbo o izključni dobavi, kakršna je omenjena v zgornji točki tega izreka, lahko velja skupinska izjema, kot je določena v Uredbi Komisije (EGS) št. 1984/83 z dne 22. junija 1983 o uporabi člena [81](3) Pogodbe za skupine sporazumov o izključni nabavi, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1582/97 z dne 30. julija 1997, če spoštuje najdaljše trajanje desetih let iz člena 12(1)(c) iste uredbe in če dobavitelj imetniku bencinske postaje v zameno za izključnost dodeli pomembne gospodarske prednosti, ki prispevajo k izboljšanju distribucije, pospeševanju namestitve ali modernizacije bencinske postaje in zniževanju stroškov distribucije.
It is for the referring court to assess whether those conditions are satisfied in the case in the main proceedings.
Predložitveno sodišče presodi, ali so pogoji v postopku v glavni stvari izpolnjeni.
Articles 10 to 13 of Regulation No 1984/83, as amended by Regulation No 1582/97, must be interpreted as precluding the application of the block exemption to an exclusive supply contract which provides for the fixing of the retail price by the supplier.
Člene od 10 do 13 Uredbe št. 1984/83, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo št. 1582/97, je treba razlagati tako, da izključujejo uporabo skupinske izjeme za pogodbo o izključni dobavi, ki predvideva, da dobavitelj določa maloprodajno ceno.
It is for the referring court to ascertain whether, under national law, the contractual clause relating to that sale price can be amended by unilateral authorisation of the supplier, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and whether a contract which is automatically void may become valid following an amendment of that contractual clause which has the effect of bringing that clause into line with Article 81(1) EC.
Predložitveno sodišče preveri, ali se lahko na podlagi nacionalnega prava z enostranskim dovoljenjem dobavitelja, kakršno je to v postopku v glavni stvari, spremeni pogodbeno določilo o prodajni ceni in ali lahko po spremembi tega pogodbenega določila nična pogodba postane veljavna, ker je učinek spremembe njena skladnost s členom 81(1) ES.
The automatic nullity provided for in Article 81(2) EC affects a contract in its entirety only if the clauses which are incompatible with Article 81(1) EC are not severable from the contract itself.
Ničnost, določena v členu 81(2) ES, vpliva na celotno pogodbo le v primerih, ko določila, nezdružljiva z odstavkom 1 istega člena, niso ločljiva od same pogodbe.
Joined Cases C-428/06 to C-434/06
Združene zadeve od C-428/06 do C-434/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco)
(Predlogi za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki jih je vložilo Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco)
(State aid — Tax measures adopted by a regional or local authority — Selective nature)
„Državne pomoči — Davčni ukrepi regionalnih ali lokalnih skupnosti — Selektivnost“
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 11 September 2008 . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 11. septembra 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
State aid — Definition — Selective nature of the measure (Art. 87(1) EC)
Pomoči, ki jih dodelijo države — Pojem — Selektivnost ukrepa (člen 87(1) ES)
State aid — Definition — Selective nature of the measure — Measures adopted by an infra­State body
Pomoči, ki jih dodelijo države — Pojem — Selektivnost ukrepa — Ukrepi, ki jih sprejme poddržavna enota
(Art. 87(1) EC)
(člen 87(1) ES)
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-428/06 TO C-434/06
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE OD C-428/06 DO C-434/06
When examining whether a measure is selective, it is essential to determine the reference framework and that framework is not necessarily defined within the limits of the national territory concerned.
Ob določanju, ali je ukrep selektiven, je treba določiti referenčni okvir in ta okvir ni nujno opredeljen v mejah nacionalnega ozemlja.
Where an infraState body is sufficiently autonomous, in other words, when it has autonomy from the institutional, procedural and economic points of view, it plays a fundamental role in the definition of the political and economic environment in which the undertakings operate.
poddržavna enota dovolj avtonomna, kar pomeni, da uživa zadostno institucionalno, procesno in gospodarsko avtonomijo, opravlja temeljno vlogo pri opredelitvi političnega in gospodarskega okolja, v katerem delujejo podjetja.
Accordingly, in order to determine whether a measure, adopted by an infraState body and seeking to fix in only one part of the territory of a Member State a lower tax rate than that which is applicable in the rest of that Member State, is selective, it is appropriate to examine whether the measure was adopted by that body in the exercise of sufficiently autonomous powers in relation to the central power and, if so, to investigate whether it applies to all undertakings established in or to all production of goods carried out on the territory falling within the competence of that body.
Tako je treba za presojo selektivnosti ukrepa, ki ga sprejme poddržavna enota in katerega namen je, da davčno stopnjo, ki je nižja od stopnje, ki velja v preostalem delu navedene države članice, določi le v delu nacionalnega ozemlja države članice, preučiti, ali je ta enota navedeni ukrep sprejela pri izvr�evanju pristojnosti, ki so dovolj avtonomne glede na osrednjo pristojnost, in po potrebi preizkusiti, ali se dejansko nana�a na vsa podjetja s sedežem na tem ozemlju oziroma vso proizvodnjo, opravljeno na njem, za katero je pristojna ta enota.
In the situation where a regional or local authority adopts, in the exercise of sufficiently autonomous powers in relation to the central power, a tax rate lower than the national rate and which is applicable only to undertakings present in the territory within its competence, the legal framework appropriate to determine the selectivity of a tax measure may be limited to the geographical area concerned where the infraState body, in particular on account of its status and powers, occupies a fundamental role in the definition of the political and economic environment in which the undertakings present on the territory within its competence operate.
V položaju, v katerem regionalni ali lokalni organ pri izvr�evanju pristojnosti, ki so dovolj avtonomne glede na osrednjo pristojnost, določi davčno stopnjo, ki je nižja od nacionalne stopnje in ki se uporablja le za podjetja na zadevnem ozemlju v njegovi pristojnosti, bi se lahko upo�teven pravni okvir za presojo selektivnosti davčnega ukrepa omejil na zadevno geografsko ozemlje, kadar poddržavna enota zlasti zaradi svojega statusa in pristojnosti opravlja temeljno vlogo pri opredelitvi političnega in gospodarskega okolja, v katerem delujejo podjetja, ki so prisotna na ozemlju v njeni pristojnosti. Glede tega je ta temeljna vloga posledica avtonomije in ne temeljni pogoj zanjo.