natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court concluded from this that passengers whose ªights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose ªights are cancelled, which means that they too can claim ªat-rate compensation from the airline where they reach their ¤nal destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time, unless the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances.
Sodišče je na podlagi tega sklepalo, da je za uporabo določb o pravici do odškodnine mogoče potnike, katerih let ima zamudo, izenačiti s potniki, katerih let je odpovedan, zaradi česar lahko od letalske družbe prav tako zahtevajo pavšalno odškodnino, če prispejo v končni namembni kraj tri ure ali več po predvideni uri prihoda, razen če niso za zamudo krive izredne razmere.
The Court noted that a technical problem in an aircraft cannot be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance unless the problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the airline concerned and are beyond its actual control.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče spomnilo, da tehničnih napak na letalu ni mogoče šteti za izredne razmere, razen če je taka napaka nastala zaradi dogodkov, ki glede na značilnosti ali izvor niso neločljivo povezani z običajnim opravljanjem dejavnosti zadevne letalske družbe in nad katerimi ta nima dejanskega nadzora.
Competition rules
Pravila o konkurenci
On a very general level, in Case C-429/07 X BV (judgment of 11 June 2009) the Court held that the Commission may submit on its own initiative written observations to a national court of a Member State in proceedings relating to the tax deductibility of a ¤ne imposed by the Commission for infringement of Article 81 EC or 82 EC.
Na zelo splošni ravni je Sodišče v zadevi X BV (sodba z dne 11. junija 2009, C-429/07) presodilo, da lahko Komisija sodišču države članice na lastno pobudo pisno predloži pripombe v postopku, ki se nanaša na možnost davčnega odbitka globe, ki jo je Komisija naložila zaradi kršitve člena 81 ES ali 82 ES.
Article 15 of Regulation No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (14), entitled‘Cooperation with national courts’, provides, in speci¤c circumstances, for the possibility of intervention by the Commission in proceedings pending before national courts.
Člen 15 Uredbe št. 1/2003 o izvajanju pravil konkurence iz členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe14, naslovljen„Sodelovanje z nacionalnimi sodišči“, določa, da lahko v določenih okoliščinah Komisija posreduje v postopkih, ki potekajo pred nacionalnimi sodišči.
The Court stated that the option for the Commission, acting on its own initiative, to submit written observations to national courts is subject to the sole condition that the coherent application of Article 81 EC or 82 EC so requires.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da je možnost Komisije, da navedenim sodiščem na lastno pobudo pisno predloži pripombe, pogojena le s tem, da to zahteva skladna uporaba člena 81 ES ali 82 ES.
That condition may be ful¤lled even if the proceedings concerned do not pertain to issues relating to the application of Article 81 EC or 82 EC.
Ta pogoj je lahko izpolnjen tudi v primerih, v¥katerih se zadevni postopek ne nanaša na uporabo členov 81 ES in 82 ES.
In addition, given that there is an intrinsic link between ¤nes and the application of Article 81 EC and 82 EC, the e¥ectiveness of the penalties imposed by the national or Community competition authorities on the basis of Article 83(2)(a) EC is a condition for the coherent application of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC.
Poleg tega, ker obstaja med globami in uporabo členov 81 ES in 82 ES notranja zveza, je učinkovitost kazni, ki jih na podlagi člena 83(2)(a) ES naložijo nacionalni organi ali organi Skupnosti, pristojni za konkurenco, pogoj za skladno uporabo členov 81 ES in 82 ES.
Consequently, the decision that the court of a Member State must give in proceedings relating to the deductibility from taxable pro¤ts of the amount of a ¤ne or a part thereof is capable of impairing the e¥ectiveness of penalties in respect of anti-competitive practices and, therefore, might compromise the coherent application of Article 81 EC or 82 EC.
Iz tega izhaja, da lahko odločba, ki jo mora sodišče države članice izdati v postopku, ki se nanaša na možnost, da se od obdavčljivega dobička odbije znesek ali del globe, ogrozi učinkovitost kazni na področju protikonkurenčnih praks in torej ogrozi skladno uporabo členov 81 ES ali 82 ES.
The Court thus found that, in such a situation, Article°15 of Regulation No°1/2003 permits the Commission to submit observations to a national court.
Sodišče je tako presodilo, da člen 15 Uredbe št. 1/2003 v¥takem primeru pooblašča Komisijo, da nacionalnemu sodišču predloži pripombe.
With regard to agreements and concerted practices, the Court was given the opportunity in Joined Cases C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P and C-519/06 P GlaxoSmithKline v Commission (judgment of 6 October 2009) to rule on the compatibility with Article 81 EC of agreements aimed at restricting parallel trade in medicinal products (15).
Na področju omejevalnih sporazumov je Sodišče v združenih zadevah GlaxoSmithKline proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 6. oktobra 2009, C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P, C-519/06 P) imelo priložnost, da odloči o združljivosti sporazumov o omejitvi vzporedne trgovine z zdravili15 s členom 81 ES.
The Court held that, in principle, agreements aimed at prohibiting or limiting parallel trade have as their object the prevention of competition.
Sodišče je v tej zadevi presodilo, da je načeloma cilj sporazumov, s katerimi se želi prepovedati ali omejiti vzporedna trgovina, preprečevanje konkurence.
That principle applies to the pharmaceuticals sector.
To načelo velja za farmacevtski sektor.
It cannot be a requirement for ¤nding that an agreement has an anti-competitive object that there be proof that the agreement entails disadvantages for ¤nal consumers.
Ugotovitev obstoja protikonkurenčnega cilja sporazuma ne more biti pogojena z dokazom, da sporazum povzroča neugodnosti za končne potrošnike.
In addition, the Court noted that, in order to be capable of being exempted under Article 81(3) EC, an agreement must contribute to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress.
Takega prispevka ni mogoče priznati vsem ugodnostim, ki za podjetja, stranke sporazuma, izhajajo iz njega za njihove dejavnosti, ampak znatnim objektivnim ugodnostim, s katerimi je mogoče upravičiti slabosti, ki nastajajo za konkurenco.
That contribution is not identi¤ed with all the advantages which the undertakings participating in the agreement derive from it for their activities, but with appreciable objective advantages of such a kind as to compensate for the
Komisija lahko torej naredi prospektivno analizo. Zadošča, da je prepričana, da je verjetnost nastanka znatne objektivne ugodnosti dovolj velika za domnevo, da sporazum prinaša tako ugodnost.
Proceedings resulting disadvantages for competition. The Commission may therefore carry out a prospective analysis.
Razvoj in dejavnost zahteva upoštevanje značilnosti in morebitnih posebnosti sektorja, na katerega se sporazum nanaša, če so te odločilne za izid preizkusa.
It is sucient for the Commission to arrive at the conviction that the occurrence of the appreciable objective advantage is suciently likely in order to presume that the agreement entails such an advantage.
To upoštevanje ne pomeni, da je dokazno breme obrnjeno, temveč le zagotavlja, da se preizkus zahteve za izvzetje opravi ob upoštevanju primernih trditev in dokazov, ki jih je predložil vlagatelj.
In Case C-511/06°P Archer Daniels Midland v Commission (judgment of 9 July 2009), concerning an unlawful cartel in the citric acid sector, the Court dealt with the consequences of the classi¤cation as leader of a cartel for the rights of defence.
V zadevi Archer Daniels Midland proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 9. julija 2009, C-511/06 P), ki se nanaša na nezakonit kartel v sektorju citronske kisline, je Sodišče obravnavalo posledice, ki jih ima opredelitev kot vodje kartela na pravico do obrambe.
Such a classi¤cation has signi¤cant repercussions on the amount of the ¤ne to be imposed on an undertaking.
Taka opredelitev ima namreč pomembne posledice na znesek globe, ki se naloži podjetju.
It constitutes, ¤rst, an aggravating circumstance and, second, a circumstance which, where the undertaking cooperates, excludes from the outset the granting of a very substantial reduction of the ¤ne.
Na eni strani gre za obteževalno okoliščino, na drugi strani pa za okoliščino, ki ob sodelovanju družbe takoj izključi ugodnost precejšnjega zmanjšanja globe.
The Court held that, although the Commission is not required to state in the statement of objections the manner in which it intends to take account of the facts when setting the level of the ¤ne or, in particular, whether it intends, on the basis of those facts, to classify an undertaking as a leader of the cartel, it is required, at the very least, to state those facts.
Sodišče je presodilo, da čeprav Komisija v obvestilu o ugotovitvah o možnih kršitvah ni dolžna navesti, kako namerava uporabiti dejstva pri določitvi globe niti, natančneje, ali namerava na podlagi teh dejstev opredeliti družbo kot vodjo kartela, pa je vseeno dolžna vsaj navesti ta dejstva.
Where the documents and items of evidence which are the source of the facts used as a basis for the classi¤cation as a leader of the cartel consist of testi monies of persons involved in the infringement procedure and therefore have a subjective aspect, the fact that those documents are annexed to the statement of objections, without those facts being expressly referred to in the wording itself of the statement, does not enable the undertaking either to assess the credence which the Commission gives to each of the items of evidence or to contest them, or consequently usefully to exercise its rights.
Kadar gre pri dokumentih in dokazih, iz katerih so razvidna dejstva, na katerih je utemeljena opredelitev vodje kartela, za pričevanja oseb, obravnavanih v postopku v zvezi s¥kršitvijo, in torej za subjektivni vidik, potem to, da se ti dokumenti priložijo obvestilu o ugotovitvah o možnih kršitvah, ne da bi bila ta dejstva izrecno navedena v samem besedilu obvestila, podjetju ne omogoči niti presoje stopnje verodostojnosti, ki jo Komisija pripisuje vsakemu od teh elementov, niti izpodbijanja teh dejstev in zato tudi ne primernega uveljavljanja svojih pravic.
In proceeding in that manner, the Commission infringes the rights of defence of the undertaking concerned.
S takim ravnanjem Komisija tako krši pravico zadevnega podjetja do obrambe.
The Commission cannot therefore rely on those items of evidence in order to classify the undertaking as a°leader of the cartel.
S temi elementi torej ne more utemeljiti opredelitve tega podjetja kot vodje kartela.
In addition, in the absence of other evidence in the statement of objections which makes it possible to arrive at such a classi¤cation, the Commission cannot rule out, from the outset, a°signi¤cant reduction in the ¤ne where the undertaking cooperates.
Poleg tega ob neobstoju drugih dokazov v obvestilu o ugotovitvah o možnih kršitvah, ki bi omogočali tako opredelitev, Komisija ne more ob sodelovanju podjetja takoj odreči ugodnosti precejšnjega zmanjšanja globe.
Furthermore, in that same case, the Court con¤rmed that actual termination of the infringement as soon as the Commission intervenes does not automatically entail a reduction of the ¤ne.
Poleg tega je Sodišče v isti zadevi potrdilo, da prenehanje kršitve ob prvem posredovanju Komisije ne povzroči samodejno zmanjšanja globe.
It also noted that the actual impact of an infringement on the market is a factor, among others, which must be taken into account in assessing the gravity of the infringement.
Prav tako je spomnilo, da je konkretni vpliv kršitve na trg eden od elementov, ki se upošteva pri presoji teže kršitve.
By its judgment of 24 September 2009 in Joined Cases C-125/07 P, C-133/07 P, C-135/07 P and C-137/07 P Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v Commission, which was delivered on the appeal in the ‘Lombard Club’ case, the Court held that the fact that an arrangement relates only to the marketing of products in a single Member State is not sucient to preclude the possibility that trade between Member States might be a¥ected.
V sodbi z dne 24. septembra 2009 v združenih zadevah Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen proti Komisiji (C-125/07 P, C-133/07 P, C-135/07 P, C-137/07 P), izdani v okviru pritožbe v zadevi„klub Lombard“, je Sodišče presodilo, da dejstvo, da se kartel nanaša zgolj na trženje proizvodov v samo eni državi članici, ne zadostuje za izključitev možnosti, da bi bila lahko prizadeta trgovina med državami članicami.
Since such an arrangement has, by its very nature, the e¥ect of reinforcing the partitioning of markets on a national basis, thus impeding the economic interpenetration which the EC Treaty is designed to bring about, there is a strong presumption that trade between Member States is a¥ected, which can only be rebutted if an analysis of the characteristics of the agreement and its economic context demonstrates the contrary.
Ker tak kartel po svoji naravi deluje kot utrditev razdelitve trga na nacionalni podlagi in tako ovira gospodarsko prepletenost, ki ji sledi Pogodba, obstaja močna domneva o¥prizadetosti trgovine med državami članicami, ki jo je mogoče ovreči samo, če se s proučitvijo značilnosti sporazuma in gospodarskega okvira, v katerega se uvršča, dokaže nasprotno.
In addition, the Court stated that the Commission is in no way obliged, where the subsidiary has committed an infringement, to verify as a matter of priority whether the conditions for attribution of the infringement to the parent company have been ful¤lled.
Poleg tega je Sodišče pojasnilo, da Komisija ob kršitvi, ki jo je storila hčerinska družba, ni nikakor zavezana prednostno proučiti, ali so izpolnjeni pogoji za pripisanje kršitve matični družbi.
The Commission has the option of penalising either the subsidiary which participated in the infringement or the parent company which controlled it during that period.
Komisija ima namreč na izbiro, da naloži sankcijo hčerinski družbi, ki je sodelovala pri kršitvi, ali matični družbi, ki jo je v tem obdobju nadzorovala.
As regards the determination of the amount of the ¤nes, the Court held, ¤rst of all, that a horizontal price cartel in an economic sector as important as the banking industry cannot, in principle, escape the classi¤cation of a very serious infringement, whatever its context.
V zvezi z določitvijo zneska globe je Sodišče najprej presodilo, da je treba horizontalni omejevalni sporazum o cenah, ki se nanaša na tako pomemben gospodarski sektor, kot je bančni, ne glede na njegov kontekst opredeliti za „zelo resno“ kršitev.
It then stated that, contrary to what the applicants claimed, the General Court did not base its ¤ndings in relation to the assessment of the gravity of the infringement merely on the implementation of the cartel, but determined its actual impact on the market.
Nato je pojasnilo, da se pri presoji teže kršitve nasprotno od tega, kar so trdile pritožnice, Splošno sodišče ni oprlo le na izvajanje kartela, ampak je ugotovilo njegov dejanski vpliv na trg.
Furthermore, the Court considered that, in the context of the determination of the amount of the ¤nes, the taking into account by the Commission, in order to divide into di¥erent categories the companies which assumed the role of lead institutions within a banking group, of the market shares of the members of the group did not constitute imputation of the unlawful conduct of the latter to the lead institutions. It was a step designed to ensure that the level of the ¤nes imposed on the lead institutions adequately reªected the gravity of their unlawful conduct.
Poleg tega je Sodišče menilo, da v okviru določitve zneska glob dejstvo, da je Komisija za razdelitev družb, ki so imele vlogo krovnih družb bančnih skupin, v¥različne kategorije upoštevala tržne deleže družb iz skupine, ne pomeni pripisanja odgovornosti za kršitve teh bank krovnim družbam.
Finally, the Court noted that, as far as concerns the extent of the reduction of the ¤ne, it is not for the Court to substitute its own assessment for that of the General Court when it exercises its unlimited jurisdiction.
Gre za korak, katerega namen je zagotoviti, da globe, naložene krovnim družbam, ustrezno odsevajo težo njihovih kršitev.
With regard to abuse of a dominant position, the Court delivered two important judgments.
Sodišče je nazadnje spomnilo,
However, the Court stated that, although it is true that failure on the part of the General Court to adjudicate within a reasonable time constitutes a procedural irregularity, the ¤rst paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court must be interpreted and applied purposively.
II-107) je Sodišče potrdilo navedeno sodbo, s¥katero je bila zavrnjena tožba zoper odločbo Komisije, s katero je bila tej družbi naložena globa 10,35 milijona EUR zaradi zlorabe prevladujočega položaja na francoskem trgu širokopasovnega internetnega dostopa za gospodinjstva.
Since there was nothing to suggest that the failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time may have had an e¥ect on the outcome of the dispute, the setting aside of the judgment under appeal would not have remedied the infringement of the principle of e¥ective legal protection committed by the General Court.
Na trditev te družbe, da je Splošno sodišče kršilo člen 82 ES s tem, da je štelo, da prikaz možnosti poravnave izgub ni pogoj za ugotovitev prakse plenilskih cen, je Sodišče odgovorilo, da ta možnost ni nujni pogoj za ugotovitev zlorabe s tako cenovno politiko.
In addition, having regard to the need to ensure that Community competition law is complied with, an appellant cannot be permitted to reopen the question of the existence of an infringement, on the sole ground that there was a failure to adjudicate within a reasonable time, where all of its pleas directed against the ¤ndings made by the General Court concerning that infringement and the administrative procedure relating to it have been rejected as unfounded.
Taka možnost je le upošteven element pri presoji, ali obravnavana praksa pomeni zlorabo, ker se lahko na primer ob uporabi cen, ki so nižje od povprečja spremenljivih stroškov, izključijo gospodarske utemeljitve, ki niso izključitev konkurenta, ali pa se lahko ob uporabi cen, ki so nižje od povprečja celotnih stroškov, vendar višje od povprečja spremenljivih stroškov, ugotovi, da obstaja načrt za izključitev konkurenta.
Conversely, failure on the part of the General Court to adjudicate within a reasonable time can give rise to a claim for damages brought against the Community under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC.
Poleg tega po mnenju Sodišča neobstoj kakršne koli možnosti poravnave izgub ne zadostuje za to, da se izključi, da je zadevnemu podjetju uspelo okrepiti prevladujoči položaj predvsem po izstopu enega ali več njegovih konkurentov s trga, tako da bo obstoječa konkurenca na trgu, ki je že šibka, prav zaradi prisotnosti zadevnega podjetja še bolj zmanjšana, in da bo potrošnikom zaradi omejitve njihovih možnosti izbire nastala škoda.
The case-law on State aid was also supplemented by various judgments. In Case C-319/07 P 3F v Commission (judgment of 9 July 2009), the Court, on appeal, had the opportunity to develop its case-law on actions for annulment in State aid cases where the action is brought by a third party who is not the recipient of the aid.
V zadevi Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 16.¥julija¥2009, C-385/07 P) je Sodišče, potem ko je spomnilo, da se razumnost roka sojenja presoja glede na posebne okoliščine vsakega primera, kot sta zapletenost spora in ravnanje strank, menilo, da imata v sporu o obstoju kršitve konkurenčnega prava temeljna zahteva po pravni varnosti, ki mora biti zagotovljena gospodarskim subjektom, in cilj zagotovitve neizkrivljene konkurence na notranjem trgu velik pomen ne samo za pritožnico in njene konkurente, ampak tudi za tretje osebe zaradi velikega števila zadevnih oseb in s tem povezanih nančnih interesov.
The proceedings at ¤rst instance concerned an action brought by the main Danish trade union for annulment of a Commission decision declaring compatible with the common market aid granted in the form of an exemption from income tax for seafarers employed on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register for vessels, the register having the aim of keeping under the national ªag vessels which were likely to be transferred to ªags of convenience.
Glede na to, da gre za spor o zlorabi prevladujočega položaja podjetja, ki zahteva embalažnino za izredno široko uporabo svojega logotipa, in glede na morebitne učinke izida tega spora so v postopku pred Splošnim sodiščem, ki je trajal približno 5 let in 10 mesecev – ker tega ni mogoče upravičiti z nobeno posebno okoliščino zadeve, in sicer niti z zapletenostjo spora, niti z ravnanjem strank, niti z nastankom postopkovnih vprašanj strank, niti s tem, da je Splošno sodišče sprejelo ukrepe procesnega vodstva ali pripravljalne ukrepe – kršene zahteve v zvezi z upoštevanjem razumnega roka sojenja.
The Commission did so without initiating the formal review procedure under Article 88(2) EC.
Vendar je Sodišče poudarilo, da čeprav to, da Splošno sodišče ni upoštevalo razumnega roka sojenja, pomeni kršitev postopka, pa je treba člen 61, prvi odstavek, Statuta Sodišča razlagati in uporabljati učinkovito.
The General Court dismissed the action as inadmissible, considering that neither the trade union nor its members were individually concerned by the contested decision.
Ker ni nobenih dokazov, iz katerih bi bilo razvidno, da je lahko neupoštevanje razumnega roka sojenja vplivalo na rešitev spora, razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe ne bi odpravila kršitve načela učinkovitega sodnega varstva, ki jo je storilo Splošno sodišče.
In its judgment, the Court of Justice noted, ¤rst of all, that an action brought against a decision not to initiate the formal review procedure is admissible where the applicant has to be regarded as a party concerned, within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, whose action seeks to safeguard procedural interests.
Poleg tega ob upoštevanju nujnosti spoštovanja konkurenčnega prava Skupnosti pritožnici ne more biti zgolj zaradi kršitve razumnega roka sojenja dovoljeno, da ponovno načne vprašanje obstoja kršitve, čeprav so bili vsi pritožbeni razlogi, ki jih je navedla zoper ugotovitve Splošnega sodišča v zvezi s to kršitvijo in z njo povezanim upravnim postopkom, zavrnjeni kot neutemeljeni.
Consequently, it is not excluded that a trade union may be regarded as ‘con-cerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC if it shows that its interests or those of its members might be a¥ected by the granting of aid.
Nasprotno pa je lahko to, da Splošno sodišče ni upoštevalo razumnega roka sojenja, povod za odškodninski zahtevek v okviru tožbe proti Skupnosti v skladu s členoma 235 ES in 288, drugi odstavek, ES.
In that regard, the Court pointed out that the question was whether the appellant’s competitive position in relation to other trade unions had been a¥ected by the granting of that aid.
Več sodb je obogatilo sodno prakso na področju državnih pomoči.
To exclude a priori the possibility that a trade union could show that it is a party concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, by relying on its role in collective negotiations and the e¥ects on that role of national tax measures regarded by the Commission as aid compatible with the common market, would be
V zadevi 3F proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 9. julija 2009, C-319/07 P) je lahko Sodišče v okviru odločanja o pritožbi pojasnilo svojo sodno prakso o mehanizmu ničnostne tožbe na področju pomoči, kadar tožbo vloži tretja
Court of Justice liable to undermine the same social policy objectives, laid down in particular in the ¤rst paragraph of Article 136 EC and Article 138(1) EC.
Razvoj in dejavnost oseba, ki ni upravičenec do pomoči.