natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is therefore necessary, firstly, to analyse the problem of classifying a contract such as that at issue in the main proceedings as an ‘agreement between undertakings’ within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty (Question 1(a) and Question 2(a)), secondly, to assess, according to the two possible situations contemplated by the referring court, whether the block exemption provided for by Regulation No 1984/83 (and subsequently by Regulation No 2790/1999) is applicable (Question 1(b) and (c) and Question 2(b) and (c)) and, thirdly, to examine, in the event that the abovementioned block exemption is not
Prvič, gre torej za analizo problema opredelitve pogodbe, kakr�na je ta v glavni stvari, kot „sporazuma med podjetji“ v smislu člena 85(1) Pogodbe (prvo vpra�anje pod a) in drugo vpra�anje pod a)), drugič, za presojo v obeh primerih, ki ju je opisalo predložitveno sodi�če, ali je mogoče uporabiti skupinsko izjemo, določeno v Uredbi �t.
6 — See, in addition to the wording of Question 1(a), the first sentence of point 7 of the order for reference (p.
6 – Razen besedila prvega vpra�anja pod a) glej tudi predložitveno odločbo, prvi stavek točke, naslovljene „sedmič“ (str.
13 of the original version).
13 izvirne različice).
The referring court submits two questions which appear to postulate opposite situations. The first, which subdivides into
Predložitveno sodi�če postavlja dve vrsti vpra�anj, za kateri se zdi, da izhajata iz domnev o dveh nasprotnih položajih. Prva
CEPSA applicable, the consequences of possible nullity of the contract (Question 1(d)).
CEPSA more bitne ničnosti pogodbe (prvo vpra�anje pod d)).
ment between two undertakings.
podjetjema 8.
8 According to settled caselaw, the term ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Community competition law covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of that entity and the way in which it is financed.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pojem podjetja v smislu konkurenčnega prava Skupnosti zajema vse subjekte, ki opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost, ne glede na njihovo pravno obliko in njihov način financiranja.
Moreover, any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market is an economic activity. 9
Poleg tega je gospodarska dejavnost vsaka dejavnost, ki na določenem trgu ponuja blago ali storitve 9.
A — Classification of a contract such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings as an ‘agreement between undertakings’ within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty (Question 1(a) and Question 2(a))
A – Opredelitev pogodbe, kakršna je ta v zadevi v glavni stvari, kot sporazuma med podjetji v smislu člena 85(1) Pogodbe (prvo vprašanje pod a) in drugo vprašanje pod a))
In that regard, it should be made clear, as pointed out by the referring court and the Commission, that commercial agents operate, in principle, on two distinct markets, namely, on the one hand, the upstream market on which the agent offers his agency services to potential principals and, on the other, the downstream market, on which he offers his principal’s goods or services to potential customers. 10
Glede tega je treba pojasniti, na kar sta opozorila predložitveno sodi�če in Komisija, da trgovski zastopniki načeloma opravljajo dejavnost na dveh različnih trgih, in sicer na nabavnem trgu, na katerem trgovski zastopnik ponuja lastne storitve posrednika morebitnim naročiteljem, ter na prodajnem trgu, na katerem ta zastopnik morebitnim strankam ponuja naročiteljevo blago oziroma storitve 10.
In essence, by its Question 1(a), the referring court asks whether, if it must be held that the contract at issue is a genuine agency contract, such a contract falls within the scope of Article 85(1) of the Treaty by virtue of the exclusive supply or non-competition clause which characterises it.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem pod a) spra�uje, ali bi se, če bi bilo treba �teti, da je sporna pogodbe pristna pogodba o zastopanju, zanjo uporabljal člen 85(1) Pogodbe glede na določbi o izključni nabavi in prepovedi konkurence, ki jo opredeljujeta.
In its Question 2(a), it asks whether a contract such as that in the main proceedings falls within the scope of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, regard being had in particular to the fact that the sale price is fixed by the supplier.
Z drugim vpra�anjem pod a) spra�uje, ali se za pogodbo, kakr�na je ta v zadevi v glavni stvari, uporablja člen 85(1) Pogodbe, upo�tevaje predvsem dejstvo, da prodajno ceno določi dobavitelj.
On the first market, the commercial agent is normally an independent economic operator and thus an undertaking for the purposes of Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
Na prvem trgu so trgovski zastopniki po splo�nem pravilu neodvisni gospodarski subjekti, zato so podjetja v smislu člena 85(1) Pogodbe.
Therefore, clauses in a commercialagency agreement by which a principal requires an agent not to act on behalf of other principals
Tako je treba določila pogodbe o trgovskem zastopanju, s katerimi naročitelj zastopniku prepoveduje delovanje za konku-
8 — Case C-217/05 [2006] ECR I-11987, paragraph 38.
I-11987, točka 39).
9 — See, inter alia, Case C-205/03 P FENIN v Commission [2006] ECR I-6295, paragraph 25.
9 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 11. julija 2006 v zadevi FENIN proti Komisiji (C-205/03 P, ZOdl., str. I-6295, točka 25).
10 — See also, to that effect, point 43 of the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio.
10 – V tem smislu glej tudi točko 43 sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke J. Kokott, predstavljenih v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio.
As the Court has already ruled in Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio, vertical agreements such as the agreements between CEPSA and servicestation operators are covered by Article 85 of the Treaty only where the operator is regarded as an independent economic operator and there is, consequently, an agree-
Kot je Sodi�če že presodilo v zadevi Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio, vertikalni sporazumi, kot so pogodbe med CEPSO in imetniki bencinskih postaj, sodijo pod člen 85 Pogodbe le, če se imetnika �teje kot samostojnega gospodarskega subjekta in če, posledično, obstaja sporazum med dvema
(non-compete provisions) must be assessed by reference to Article 85 of the Treaty.
zastopnik, in je delno upo�tevna tudi v tej zadevi 13.
After identifying the criteria for assessing the actual allocation of the financial and commercial risks as between the servicestation operators and the supplier of fuels, as effected in the agreements at issue in that case, for the purpose of determining whether Article 85 of the Treaty was applicable — a question which I shall examine in more detail at a later stage in this Opinion — the Court made it clear that Article 85 of the Treaty is inapplicable not only where the operator does not assume any financial and commercial risk, but also where the operator bears only a negligible share of those risks. 14
Potem ko je Sodi�če opredelilo upo�tevna merila, na podlagi katerih je mogoče presoditi dejansko porazdelitev finančnih in poslovnih tveganj med imetniki bencinskih postaj in dobavitelji goriva, kakr�na je ta, ki izhaja iz pogodb v glavni stvari, da bi ugotovili, ali zanje velja člen 85 Pogodbe – vpra�anje, ki ga bom podrobneje obravnaval v nadaljevanju sklepnih predlogov –, je pojasnilo, da se člen 85 Pogodbe ne uporablja niti v primerih, ko imetnik ne nosi nobenega finančnega in poslovnega tveganja, niti takrat, ko nosi le zanemarljiv del tega tveganja 14.
However, on the second market, namely that for the sale of the principal’s goods or services to potential customers, commercial agents, despite having a legal personality separate from that of their principal, lose their character as independent traders if they do not assume the financial and commercial risks as regards the economic activity concerned, which prevents them from independently determining their conduct on the market since they depend entirely on their principal.
Nasprotno na drugem trgu, to je na trgu prodaje naročiteljevega blaga in storitev morebitnim strankam, na katerem posrednik, čeprav ima ločeno pravno osebnost, ne določi samostojno svojega ravnanja na trgu, ker je od svojega naročitelja popolnoma odvisen na podlagi dejstva, da nosi finančna in poslovna tveganja glede zadevne gospodarske dejavnosti.
Where that is the case, the prohibition laid down in Article 85(1) of the Treaty is in principle not applicable to the relationship between the agent and his principal.
Če je tako, prepoved iz člena 85(1) Pogodbe za razmerja med tem posrednikom in naročiteljem načeloma ne velja 12.
12That agent will then be regarded as an auxiliary organ forming an integral part of the principal’s undertaking.
Tega zastopnika je treba zato �teti za pomožni organ, ki je vključen v naročiteljevo podjetje.
However, the Court added that, in such a case, ‘only the obligations imposed on [the operator] in the context of the sale of the goods to third parties on behalf of the principal fall outside the scope of that article.
Sodi�če je kljub temu dodalo, da „v ta kem primeru pod ta člen ne sodijo le obveznosti, ki so [posredniku] naložene v okviru prodaje blaga tretjim osebam za račun naročitelja.
As the Commission submitted, an agency contract may contain clauses concerning the relationship between the agent and the principal to which that article applies, such as exclu­sivity and non­competition clauses.
Kot trdi Komisija, lahko pogodba o trgovskem zastopanju vsebuje določbe, ki se nana�ajo na razmerja med zastopnikom in naročiteljem, za katere velja navedeni člen, kot so klavzule o ekskluzivnosti in konkurenčne klavzule.
In that connection it must be considered that, in the context of such relationships, agents are, in
Glede tega je treba izhajati iz dejstva, da so, v zvezi s takimi razmerji, zastopniki načeloma neodvisni gospodarski subjekti in da lahko
The Court appears to have endorsed that dichotomy, based on the different markets on which the agent operates, in the judgment in Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio in regard to the agreements concluded between CEPSA and
Zdi se, da je Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio glede sporazumov, sklenjenih med CEPSO in imetniki bencinskih postaj, sprejelo to delitev, ki temelji na različnih trgih, na katerih posluje
11 — Ibid., point 44.
11 – Ibidem, točka 44.
See also point 19 of the Commission notice ‘Guidelines on vertical restraints’ (OJ 2000 C 291, p.
Glej tudi točko 19 sporočila Komisije, naslovljenega „Smernice o vertikalnih omejitvah“ (UL 2000, C 291, str.
1; ‘the Guidelines’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Smernice).
13 — From a factual point of view, I note that the referring court states that the clauses of the contract at issue appear to be identical to those of the agreements which lay behind the reference for a preliminary ruling in the Confeder­ación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio case, which, according to paragraph 9 of the judgment in that case, applied to 95% of service stations in the CEPSA network.
13 – Glede dejstev opozarjam na pojasnilo predložitve -nega sodi�ča, da se zdijo določbe sporne pogodbe enake določbam pogodb, ki so bile podlaga za predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio, ki glede na točko 9 v tej zadevi zadevajo 95 % bencinskih postaj omrežja CEPSE.
12 — See, to that effect, Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio, paragraphs 43 and 44.
12 – V tem smislu glej navedeno sodbo Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio (točki 43 in 44).
CEPSA principle, independent economic operators and such clauses are capable of infringing the competition rules in so far as they entail locking up the market concerned’.
CEPSA navedene klavzule kr�ijo pravila konkurence, ker povzročajo zaporo zadevnega trga“ 15.
15 on behalf of the principal.
konkurenco med blagovnimi znamkami, ni v pogodbi o zastopanju.
That clarification means that, where the commercial agent bears, on the market for the sale of goods to third parties, only, at the very most, a negligible financial and commercial risk, it is not the whole of the contractual relationship between that agent and his principal which falls outside the scope of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, but only the part of that relationship which is based on the contractual clauses relating to that market.
Posledica tega pojasnila je, da se, če zastopnik na prodajnem trgu blaga tretjim nosi le zanemarljivo finančno in poslovno tveganje, uporabi člena 85(1) Pogodbe ne izogne celotno pogodbeno razmerje med zastopnikom in njegovim naročiteljem, ampak le del tega razmerja, ki temelji na pogodbenih določilih, vezanih na ta trg.
The whole of an agency contract falls within the scope of Article 85 of the Treaty if it contains, in addition to a non-competition clause such as that mentioned in point 17 of this Opinion, clauses under which the agent bears, at the very least, a nonnegligible share of the financial and commercial risks linked to the sale of goods to third parties on behalf of the principal.
Člen 85 Pogodbe se bo uporabljal za celotno pogodbo o zastopanju, če so v njej konkurenčna klavzula, kakr�na je omenjena v točki 17 teh sklepnih predlogov, in določbe, na podlagi katerih zastopnik nosi najmanj nezanemarljiv del finančnega in poslovnega tveganja, povezanega s prodajo blaga tretjim za naročiteljev račun.
In those circumstances, the contractual relationship is no longer a genuine commercialagency relationship.
V teh okoli�činah pogodbeno razmerje ne bo več pristno razmerje trgovskega zastopanja.
Such clauses will be capable of falling within the scope of Article 85 of the Treaty only if the commercial agent assumes, at the very least, a nonnegligible share of the financial and commercial risks relating to the sale of goods (and/or services) to third parties on behalf of the principal.
Člen 85 Pogodbe se lahko uporabi le, če trgovski zastopnik prevzame najmanj del finančnega in poslovnega tveganja, povezanega s prodajo blaga (in/oziroma storitev) tretjim za naročiteljev račun, ki ni zanemarljiv.
In that regard, by its Question 2(a), the referring court asks whether, in the light of the characteristics of the contractual relationship between CEPSA and Tobar, set out in that question, Article 85(1) of the Treaty should be interpreted as precluding that type of contract on the ground, in particular, that the sale price is fixed by the supplier.
V zvezi s tem predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem pod točko a) spra�uje, ali je treba glede na značilnosti pogodbenega razmerja med CEPSO in Tobarjem, na�tetimi v tem vpra�anju, člen 85(1) Pogodbe razlagati tako, da nasprotuje tej vrsti pogodb predvsem zato, ker dobavitelj določi prodajno ceno.
By contrast, the non-competition clause stipulated between the commercial agent and its principal, which relates to the market for agency services, continues to fall within the scope of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, irrespect­ive of any financial and commercial risks assumed by the commercial agent on the market for the sale of goods to third parties
Nasprotno se za konkurenčno klavzulo, dogovorjeno med trgovskim zastopnikom in njegovim naročiteljem, ki se nanaša na trg posrednikovih storitev, �e naprej uporablja člen 85(1) Pogodbe, neodvisno od finančnega in poslovnega tveganja, ki ga nosi trgovski zastopnik na prodajnem trgu blaga tretjim za naročiteljev račun. Zdi se, da ta pristop upravičuje dejstvo, da določila, ki vpliva na
Although CEPSA strongly disputes the description and assessment of the contractual relationship between it and Tobar, as
Čeprav CEPSA ostro nasprotuje predstavitvi in presoji pogodbenega razmerja s Tobarjem, kot ju je predložilo predložitveno sodi�če v drugem vpra�anju pod a),
15 — Paragraph 62 (emphasis added).
15 – Točka 62 (ležeči tisk je moj poudarek).
Servicio, and will be set out again below in the light of their relevance to this case.
Servicio, na katero je treba v nadaljevanju opozoriti glede pomena, ki ga ima za obravnavano zadevo.
given by the referring court in its Question 2(a), it is settled caselaw that, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court, which remains responsible for the subsequent judicial decision.
je ustaljena sodna praksa, da je v okviru postopka iz člena 234 ES, ki temelji na jasni delitvi vlog med nacionalnimi sodi�či in Sodi�čem, presoja zadevnih dejstev v celoti v pristojnosti nacionalnega sodi�ča, ki je odgovorno za izdano sodno odločbo 16.
16Similarly, the task of applying the rules of Community law which the Court has interpreted to particular situations also falls within the jurisdiction of the national court, and not within that of the Court. 17
Enako nacionalno sodi�če in ne Sodi�če v posebnih primerih uporabi pravila Skupnosti, katerih razlago je podalo Sodi�če 17.
According to that judgment, the national court should take account, first, of the risks linked to the sale of the goods, such as the financing of fuel stocks and, second, of the risks linked to investments specific to the market, namely those required to enable the servicestation operator to negotiate or conclude contracts with third parties. 20
V skladu s to sodbo bi moralo nacionalno sodi�če upo�tevati tveganja, povezana s prodajo blaga, kot je financiranje zalog goriva, in tveganja, povezana s posebnimi tržnimi naložbami, in sicer tistimi, ki so potrebne, da lahko imetnik bencinske postaje s pogajanji doseže ali sklene pogodbe s tretjimi osebami 20.
Under the division of jurisdiction between the Community judicature and the national courts, the Court must nevertheless take account of the factual and legislative context, as described in the order for reference, in which the questions put to it are set, 18 and in order to give a useful answer to the referring court, it is appropriate to set out the criteria enabling an assessment to be made as to the actual allocation of the financial and commercial risks between servicestation operators and the fuel supplier under the contract at issue in the case in the main proceedings. 19
Sodi�če mora pri delitvi pristojnosti med sodi�či Skupnosti in nacionalnimi sodi�či, upo�tevaje dejanski in pravni okvir, v katerega se ume�čajo vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, kot so opredeljena v predložitveni odločbi 18, in da bi predložitvenemu sodi�ču vendarle dalo koristen odgovor, natančno določiti merila, na podlagi katerih je mogoče presoditi dejansko porazdelitev finančnih in poslovnih tveganj med imetniki bencinskih postaj in dobavitelji goriva, kakr�na je ta, ki izhaja iz pogodb v glavni stvari 19.
That having been said, such criteria were developed by the Court in Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de
Glede na povedano je ta merila izdelalo v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de
16 — See in particular, to that effect, Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri [2007] ECR I-11767, paragraph 45 and the caselaw cited.
16 – V tem smislu glej zlasti sodbo z dne 18. decembra 2007 v zadevi Laval un Partneri (C-341/05, ZOdl., str. I-11767, točka 45 in navedena sodna praksa).
As regards the first category of risks, it is also clear from the judgment in Confeder­ación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio that the servicestation operator is likely to assume those risks, wholly or in part, when he owns the goods which he has obtained from the supplier, prior to selling them on to a third party, when he assumes, directly or indirectly, the costs linked to the distribution of those goods, particularly the transport costs, when he maintains stocks at his own expense and/or when he assumes responsibility for any damage caused to the goods, such as loss or deterioration, and for damage caused by the goods sold to third parties, irrespective of the agent’s fault liability.
Glede prve skupine tveganj, iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servici izhaja tudi, da jih navedeni imetnik verjetno deloma ali v celoti prevzame, ko postane lastnik blaga, ki ga je prejel od dobavitelja, to je pred nadaljnjo prodajo tretjim osebam, ko neposredno ali posredno prevzame stro�ke, povezane z distribucijo tega blaga, zlasti stro�ke prevoza, ko vzdržuje zaloge na lastne stro�ke oziroma ko prevzame odgovornost za morebitno �kodo, povzročeno blagu, kot je njegova izguba ali poslab�anje, in za �kodo, ki jo prodano blago povzroči tretjim osebam, ne glede na zastopnikovo krivdo 21.
21 The financial risk linked to the goods must also be assessed, in particular as regards payment for the fuel should the operator not find a purchaser, or where payment is deferred as a result of payment by credit card,
Prav tako je treba presoditi finančno tveganje, povezano z blagom, zlasti glede plačila goriva v primeru, da imetnik ne najde kupca ali da bi bilo blago zaradi uporabe kreditne kartice v sistemu,
17 — See, to that effect, Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio, paragraph 49 and the caselaw cited.
17 – Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio (točka 49 in navedena sodna praksa).
18 — Laval un Partneri, paragraph 47 and the caselaw cited.
18 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Laval un Partneri (točka 47 in navedena sodna praksa).
CEPSA on the basis of the rules or practices relating to the payment system for fuel.
CEPSA in položajem zastopnika, ki nosi le njegov zanemarljiv del 25.
22 ates and that of an agent who bears only a negligible share of them. 25
ki se uporablja za plačilo goriva, plačano z zamudo 22.
As regards the risks linked to marketspecific investments, their transfer to the servicestation operator arises, according to the Court, when the operator makes specific investments linked to the sale of the goods, such as premises or equipment such as a fuel tank, or commits himself to investing in advertising campaigns. 23
Tveganja, povezana s posebnimi tržnimi naložbami, se po mnenju Sodi�ča prenesejo na imetnika, če je opravil posebne naložbe, povezane s prodajo blaga, kot so prostori ali oprema, na primer rezervoar za gorivo, ali če se odloči za naložbo v reklamne akcije 23.