natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court of First Instance recalled that if the applicant calls into question the merits of the decision appraising the aid as such, the mere fact that it may be regarded as concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC cannot suce to render the action admissible.
Poleg tega lahko ta ukrep dejansko spremeni konkurenčni položaj nekaterih članic tožeče stranke, saj neposredno konkurirajo proizvajalcem oproščenih materialov, ki so zaradi uvedbe zadevne ekološke dajatve postali konkurenčni.
The applicant must then demonstrate that it has a particular status within the meaning of the judgment in Plaumann v Commission.
Ker ta ukrep lahko znatno vpliva na konkurenčni položaj nekaterih članov tožeče stranke, je bila njena tožba dopustna.
That applies in particular where the applicant’s market position is substantially aected by the aid to which the decision at issue relates.
Za to, da se šteje, da akt tožečo stranko zadeva neposredno v smislu člena 230, četrti pododstavek, ES, morata biti izpolnjena dva pogoja.
The Court found, in this case, that the applicant, which is an association of undertakings, does not merely seek to challenge the Commission’s refusal to initiate the formal investigation procedure, but also calls into question the merits of the contested decision.
Prvič, zadevni akt mora neposredno učinkovati na pravni položaj posameznika.
In considering whether it has explained why the measure under investigation is liable to have a signicant eect on the position of one or more of its members on the relevant market, the Court of First Instance found that the measure was intended to modify generally the allocation of the market between virgin aggregates, which were subject to it, and alternative products, which were exempt.
Drugič, navedeni akt svojim naslovljencem, zadolženim za njegovo morebitno izvršitev, ne sme puščati diskrecijske pravice, ampak mora biti ta izvršitev popolnoma samodejna in mora izhajati izključno iz predpisov Skupnosti brez uporabe drugih izvedbenih predpisov18.
Moreover, that levy is liable to lead to a genuine change in the competitive position of some of the applicant’s members since
Ta drugi pogoj je izpolnjen, kadar ima država članica povsem teoretično možnost, da ne izvede ukrepa Skupnosti, pri čemer ni nobenega dvoma v njeno pripravljenost za ravnanje v skladu z njim19.
As regards standing to bring proceedings in the area of State aid, see also the judgment of 27 September 2006 in Case T-117/04 Werkgroep Commerciële Jachthavens Zuidelijke Randmeren and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, in which the Court of First Instance held that an association and its members had no standing to bring proceedings to contest a decision adopted on conclusion of the formal examination procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 13. septembra 2006, British Aggregates proti Komisiji, T-210/02 (v pritožbenem postopku, C-487/06 P), še neobjavljena v ZOdl.
Judgment of 10 May 2006 in Case T-395/04 Air One v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
I-2309, točka 43, in Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 13. decembra 2000 v zadevi DSTV proti Komisiji, T-69/99, Recueil, str. II-4039, točka 24.
Judgment of 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02 British Aggregates v Commission (under appeal, Case C-487/06 P), not yet published in the ECR.
Zgoraj navedena sodba Dreyfus proti Komisiji, točka 44.
Applying those principles in Boyle and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance held that a decision rejecting a request to increase the objectives of the Multiannual guidance programme for the Irish fishing fleet (‘MAGP IV’) directly concerned the owners of the vessels in question.
Sodišče prve stopnje je ta načela uporabilo v že navedeni sodbi Boyle in drugi proti Komisiji in presodilo, da je odločba o zavrnitvi nekaterih zahtev za povečanje ciljev večletnega usmerjevalnega programa za irsko ribiško floto (VUP IV) neposredno zadevala lastnike zadevnih plovil.
In the contested decision, the Commission, as the only authority with competence in the matter, ruled denitively on the eligibility for an increase in capacity of certain particular vessels by reference to the conditions of the application of the applicable legislation.
V izpodbijani odločbi je Komisija kot edini pristojni organ na tem področju namreč dokončno odločila o upravičenosti do povečanja zmogljivosti določenih posameznih plovil, in sicer glede na pogoje za uporabo izjeme od predpisov, ki se uporabijo.
In finding that the applicants’ vessels were not eligible, the contested decision had the direct and denitive eect of precluding them from the possibility of beneting from a measure of Community law.
Ker je bilo z izpodbijano odločbo ugotovljeno, da plovila, ki so v lasti tožečih strank, do izjeme niso upravičena, ima ta odločba neposredni in dokončni učinek v tem, da tožečim strankam odvzema možnost, da bi bile upravičene do ukrepa po pravu Skupnosti.
The national authorities had no discretion as regards their obligation to implement that decision.
Nacionalni organi nimajo namreč nobene diskrecijske pravice glede izvršitve odločbe.
In that regard the Court of First Instance dismissed the argument that Ireland might in theory decide to grant the additional capacity to the applicants’ vessels up to the ceiling set under MAGP IV.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v zvezi s tem zavrnilo trditev, da bi Irska teoretično plovilom tožečih strank lahko odobrila dodatne zmogljivosti v mejah najvišje vrednosti, ki jo določaVUP IV.
According to the Court of First Instance, a national decision of that nature would not mean that the Commission’s decision ceased to apply automatically as it would remain extraneous, legally speaking, to the application in Community law of the contested decision.
Po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje tovrstna nacionalna odločba izpodbijani odločbi dejansko ne bi odvzela samodejne uporabe, saj v pravnem smislu ne bi imela zveze z uporabo izpodbijane odločbe v pravu Skupnosti.
The eect of that national decision would be to alter the applicants’ situation once again, and that second alteration of their legal situation would be the consequence of the national decision alone and not of the implementation of the contested decision.
Učinek take nacionalne odločbe bi bila ponovna sprememba položaja tožečih strank, pri čemer bi bila ta druga sprememba njihovega pravnega položaja izključna posledica nove nacionalne odločbe, ne pa izvršitve izpodbijane odločbe.
Competition rules applicable to undertakings
Pravila konkurence za podjetja
In 2006 the Court of First Instance delivered 26 judgments in proceedings concerning the substantive rules prohibiting anticompetitive agreements, of which no fewer than 18
V letu 2006 je Sodišče prve stopnje izdalo 26 sodb, v katerih je odločalo o pravilih materialnega prava, ki prepovedujejo protikonkurenčne sporazume; od tega je izdalo 18 sodb s področja kartelov20.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-386/96 P Dreyfus v Commission [1998] ECR I-2309, paragraph 43, and judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-69/99 DSTV v Commission [2000] ECR II-4039, paragraph 24.
Poleg kartelov je Sodišče prve stopnje izdalo štiri sodbe v zvezi z uporabo členov 81 ES in 82 ES21 in štiri sodbe glede materialnopravnih vprašanj v zvezi z
Annual Report 2006
22 nadzorom koncentracij
determining substantive questions relating to the control of concentrations
Sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 15. marca 2006 v zadevi Daiichi Pharmaceutical proti Komisiji,T-26/02, ZOdl., str. II-713, in v zadevi BASF proti Komisiji, T-15/02, ZOdl., str.
The complaint had been rejected on the ground that Eurocontrol’s relevant activities were not of an economic nature.
II-497; z dne 5. aprila 2006 v zadevi Degussa proti Komisiji, T-279/02 (v pritožbenem postopku, C-266/06 P), ZOdl., str. II-897; z dne 30. maja 2006 v zadevi Bank Austria Creditanstalt proti Komisiji, T-198/03, ZOdl., str. II-1429; z dne 7. junija 2006 v zadevi Österreichische Postsparkasse in Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft proti Komisiji, T-213/01 in T-214/01, ZOdl., str.
Judgments of 15 March 2006 in Case T-26/02 Daiichi Pharmaceutical v Commission, and Case T-15/02 BASF v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; of 5 April 2006 in CaseT-279/02 Degussa v Commission (on appeal, Case C-266/06 P), not yet published in the ECR; of 30 May 2006 in Case T-198/03 Bank Austria Creditanstalt v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; of 7 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-213/01 and T-214/01 Österreichische Postsparkasse and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; of 4 July 2006 in Case T-304/02 Hoek Loos v Commission not yet published in the ECR; of 27 September 2006 in Case T-153/04 Ferriere Nord v Commission, Case T-59/02 Archer Daniels Midland v Commission (citric acid), and Case T-329/01 Archer Daniels Midland v Commission (sodium gluconate), Joined Cases T-44/02 OP, T-54/02 OP, T-56/02 OP, T-60/02 OP and T-61/02 OP Dresdner Bank and Others v Commission, Case T-43/02 Jungbunzlauer v Commission,T-330/01 AkzoNobel v Commission, CaseT-322/01 Roquette Frères v Commission and also Case T-314/01 Avebe v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; of 16 November 2006 in Case T-120/04 Peróxidos Orgánicos v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; of 5 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03 Westfalen Gassen Nederland v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; of 13 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03 FNCBV and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; and of 14 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02 Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
II-1601; z dne 4. julija 2006 v zadevi Hoek Loos proti Komisiji, T-304/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.; z dne 27. septembra 2006 v zadevah Ferriere Nord proti Komisiji, T-153/04, Archer Daniels Midland proti Komisiji (citronska kislina), T-59/02, in Archer Daniels Midland proti Komisiji (natrijev glukonat), T-329/01, Dresdner Bank in drugi proti Komisiji,T-44/02 OP,T-54/02 OP,T-56/02 OP,T-60/02 OP inT-61/02 OP, Jungbunzlauer proti Komisiji,T-43/02, Akzo Nobel proti Komisiji, T-330/01, Roquette Frères proti Komisiji, T-322/01, ter Avebe proti Komisiji, T-314/01, še neobjavljene v ZOdl.; z dne 16. novembra 2006 v zadevi Peróxidos Orgánicos proti Komisiji, T-120/04, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.; z dne 5. decembra 2006 v zadevi Westfalen Gassen Nederland proti Komisiji,T-303/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.; z dne 13. decembra 2006 v zadevi FNCBV in drugi proti Komisiji,T-217/03 inT-245/03, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.; z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Raieisen Zentralbank Österreich in drugi proti Komisiji, od T-259/02 do T-264/02 in T-271/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.
Judgments of 2 May 2006 in Case T-328/03 O2 (Germany) v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; of 27 September 2006 in CaseT-168/01 GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission and CaseT-204/03 Haladjian Frères v Commission, neither yet published in the ECR; and also of 12 December 2006 in Case T-155/04 SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 2. maja 2006 v zadevi O2 (Nemčija) proti Komisiji, T-328/03, ZOdl., str. II-1231; z dne 27. septembra 2006 v zadevah GlaxoSmithKline Services proti Komisiji, T-168/01, in Haladjian Frères proti Komisiji, T-204/03, še neobjavljeni v Zodl., in z dne 12. decembra 2006 v zadevi SELEX Sistemi Integrati proti Komisiji, T-155/04, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.
Judgments of 23 February 2006 in Case T-282/02 Cementbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission (on appeal, Case C-202/06 P); of 4 July 2006 in Case T-177/04 easyJet v Commission; of 13 July 2006 in Case T-464/04 Impala v Commission (on appeal, Case C-413/06 P); and of 14 July 2006 in Case T-417/05 Endesa v Commission, none yet published in the ECR. 23
Sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 23. februarja 2006 v zadevi Cementbouw Handel & Industrie proti Komisiji, T-282/02 (v pritožbenem postopku, C-202/06 P), ZOdl., str. II-319; z dne 4. julija 2006 v zadevi easyJet proti Komisiji, T-177/04; z dne 13. julija 2006 v zadevi Impala proti Komisiji, T-464/04 (v pritožbenem postopku, C-413/06 P), in z dne 14. julija 2006 v zadevi Endesa proti Komisiji, T-417/05, še neobjavljene v ZOdl. Letno poročilo 2006
Court of First Instance as economic activities.
V zvezi s tem je gospodarska dejavnost vsaka dejavnost, ki zajema ponujanje blaga ali storitev na določenem trgu23.
On the other hand, it found that the consultancy activities which Eurocontrol carried out for the national administrations in the form of assistance in drafting the contract documents for calls for tender or the selection of undertakings participating in those calls for tender constitute an oer of services on a market on which private undertakings specialised in this area could also very well oer their services.
Po drugi strani pa Sodišče prve stopnje ugotavlja, da gre pri Eurocontrolovi dejavnosti svetovanja nacionalnim upravam – v obliki pomoči pri pripravi dokumentacije za javne razpise ali pri izboru podjetij, ki sodelujejo na javnih razpisih – prav za ponujanje storitev na trgu, kjer bi lahko prav tako delovala zasebna podjetja, specializirana na zadevnem področju.
The fact that an activity may be exercised by a private undertaking is a further indication that the activity in question may be described as an economic activity.
Dejstvo, da dejavnost lahko opravlja zasebno podjetje, pa je dodaten kazalec, ki omogoča, da se zadevno dejavnost opredeli kot dejavnost podjetja.
Furthermore, while the fact that that activity of providing assistance is not remunerated and is carried out in pursuit of a public service objective is an indication that it is a non-economic activity, that does not preclude in all situations the existence of an economic activity.
Poleg tega, čeprav je dejstvo, da se zadevna storitev pomoči opravlja brezplačno in v javnem interesu, znak obstoja negospodarske dejavnosti, pa to ne izključuje možnosti obstoja gospodarske dejavnosti.
The Court of First Instance concluded that the Commission had therefore been wrong to take the view that the activities in issue could not be described as economic activities.
Sodišče prve stopnje je odločilo, da je Komisija torej nepravilno menila, da zadevnih dejavnosti ni mogoče opredeliti za gospodarske.
Application of competition law in the agricultural sector
Uporaba konkurenčnega prava na področju kmetijstva
By decision of 2 April 2003 24, the Commission imposed fines amounting to EUR 16.68 million on the main French federations in the beef sector.
Komisija je z odločbo z dne 2. aprila 200324 glavnim francoskim združenjem iz sektorja govejega mesa naložila globe v skupnem znesku 16,68 milijona evrov.
Those federations, which represent farmers and slaughterers, were penalised for having taken part in a cartel contrary to Community law.
Ta združenja, ki zastopajo kmete in klavce, so bila sankcionirana, ker so sodelovala v omejevalnem sporazumu, ki je bil v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
The agreement in question continued orally beyond the end of November 2001, the date on which it was supposed to come to an end, in spite of a warning from the Commission, which drew the federations’ attention to the unlawful nature of the agreement.
Ta sporazum se je ustno nadaljeval tudi po koncu novembra 2001, ko naj bi prenehal, in to kljub opozorilom Komisije, ki je združenja opozorila na njegovo nezakonitost.
The agreement had been concluded in an economic context marked by the serious crisis in the beef sector from 2000, following the discovery of new cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, known as‘mad cow disease’.
Sporazum je bil sklenjen, ko je gospodarstvo zaznamovala velika kriza govejega sektorja od leta 2000 naprej, in sicer po odkritju novih primerov goveje spongiformne encefalopatije, imenovane„bolezen norih krav“.
In FNCBV and Others v Commission, on an action against that decision, the Court of First Instance, after rejecting, in particular, the applicants’ arguments that the Commission had infringed their freedom to form associations, considered that the agreement in question could not benet from the exemption provided for in Regulation No 26 in favour of certain activities connected with the production and marketing of agricultural products 25.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi FNCBV in drugi proti Komisiji pri odločanju o tožbi zoper to odločbo najprej zavrnilo trditve tožečih strank, da je Komisija
Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 — French beef) (OJ L 209, 19.8.2003, p. 12).
Odločba Komisije 2003/600/ES z dne 2. aprila 2003 v postopku uporabe člena [81 ES] (Zadeva COMP/C.38.279/F3 – Francosko goveje meso) (UL L 209, str. 12).
Points raised on the scope of Article 81 EC
Prispevek sodne prakse na področju člena 81 ES a)
Application of Article 81(1) EC
Uporaba člena 81(1) ES
Article 81(1) EC provides that all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may aect trade between Member States and which have as their object or eect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market are to be prohibited as incompatible with the common market.
Člen 81(1) ES določa, da so vsi sporazumi med podjetji, sklepi podjetniških združenj in usklajena ravnanja, ki bi lahko prizadeli trgovino med državami članicami in katerih cilj oziroma posledica je preprečevanje, omejevanje ali izkrivljanje konkurence na skupnem trgu, nezdružljivi s skupnim trgom in prepovedani.
Anticompetitive object or eect of agreements
Protikonkurenčni cilj oziroma posledica omejevalnih sporazumov
The judgment in GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission, which concerns the connections between the restriction of parallel trade and the protection of competition, contains some signicant developments concerning the concept of an agreement having as its object the restriction of competition in the European pharmaceutical sector.
V sodbi GlaxoSmithKline Services proti Komisiji, ki se nanaša na zvezo med omejevanjem vzporedne trgovine in varstvom konkurence, so pomembne ugotovitve glede pojma sporazuma, katerega cilj je omejevanje konkurence v evropskem farmacevtskem sektorju.
Glaxo Wellcome, a Spanish subsidiary of the GlaxoSmithKline group, one of the main world producers of pharmaceutical products, had adopted new general sales conditions concerning wholesalers of pharmaceutical products, under which its medicines were to be sold to Spanish wholesalers at prices dierentiated according to the national health insurance scheme which would reimburse them and the marketing of those medicines, depending on whether they would be marketed in Spain or in another Member State.
Družba Glaxo Wellcome, španska hčerinska družba skupine GlaxoSmithKline, ene vodilnih svetovnih proizvajalcev zdravil, je sprejela nove splošne prodajne pogoje glede trgovcev na debelo s farmacevtskimi proizvodi, na podlagi katerih je njena zdravila španskim trgovcem na debelo treba prodajati po različnih cenah, in sicer glede na nacionalni sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja, ki krije njihov nakup, in glede na to, ali se ta zdravila prodajajo v Španiji ali v drugi državi članici.
In practice, medicines intended to be reimbursed in other Member States of the Community were to be sold at a higher price than those intended to be reimbursed in Spain, where the administration sets maximum prices.
V praksi bi se zdravila, ki naj bi se prevzela v drugih državah članicah Skupnosti, morala prodajati po višji ceni od cene za prevzem v Španiji, kjer uprava določi najvišje cene.
GlaxoSmithKline notied those general sales conditions to the Commission and, in response to a number of complaints, the Commission found that the sales conditions in question had the object and the eect of restricting competition.
Družba GlaxoSmithKline je Komisijo obvestila o teh splošnih prodajnih pogojih, slednja pa je po več vloženih pritožbah ugotovila, da imajo splošni prodajni pogoji tako za cilj kot posledico omejevanje konkurence.
In its judgment, the Court of First Instance nonetheless considered that an agreement intended to limit parallel trade must not be considered by its nature, that is to say, independently of any competitive analysis, to have as its object the restriction of competition.
Vendar je Sodišče prve stopnje v svoji sodbi razsodilo, da ni mogoče – neodvisno od vsakršne analize konkurenčnosti – šteti, da ima sporazum, s katerim se želi omejiti vzporedno trgovino, za cilj omejevanje konkurence.
Consequently, while it is accepted that an agreement intended to limit parallel trade must in principle be considered to have as its object the restriction of competition, that applies insofar as the agreement may be presumed to deprive final consumers of those advantages.
Čeprav je ugotovljeno, da je vzporedna trgovina deležna ugodnosti določene zaščite, pa te ugodnosti nima sama kot taka, ampak zaradi tega, ker po eni strani prispeva k razvoju trgovine in po drugi strani krepi konkurenco, kar glede slednjega vidika pomeni, da končnim potrošnikom priskrbi ugodnosti učinkovite konkurence glede na dobavo in ceno.
In this, in view of the legal and economic context in which GlaxoSmithKline’s General Sales Conditions were applied, it could not be presumed that those conditions deprive the final consumers of medicines of such advantages.
Zato, čeprav je splošno sprejeto, da je za sporazum, s katerim se želi omejiti vzporedna trgovina, načeloma treba šteti, da ima za cilj omejevanje konkurence, pa je to mogoče ob domnevi, da končnim potrošnikom takšne ugodnosti
Court of First Instance from the free play of supply and demand owing to the applicable regulations and are set or controlled by the public authorities, it cannot be taken for granted at the outset that parallel trade tends to reduce those prices and thus to increase the welfare of final consumers.
Dejavnost odvzema. V obravnavani zadevi pa ob upoštevanju pravnega in gospodarskega okvira, v katerem se uporabljajo splošni prodajni pogoji družbe GlaxoSmithKline, ni bilo mogoče domnevati, da končnim potrošnikom zdravil odvzemajo take ugodnosti.
In those circumstances, according to the Court of First Instance, it cannot be inferred merely from a reading of the terms of the agreement, even in its context, that the agreement is restrictive of competition, and it is therefore necessary to consider the eects of the agreement.
Po eni strani so farmacevtski trgovci na debelo, katerih naloga je zagotavljati dobavo trgovini na drobno, pri čemer izkoristijo konkurenco med proizvajalci, namreč nosilci gospodarske dejavnosti, ki delujejo na vmesni stopnji vrednostne verige in lahko ohranijo ugodnost, ki jo ima lahko vzporedna konkurenca z vidika cene in ki se v tem primeru ne prenese na potrošnike.
The Court of First Instance therefore examined the eects of the agreement on competition and rejected certain of the analyses carried out by the Commission on that point in its decision, but nonetheless found that the agreement constituted an obstacle to the pressure which in its absence would have existed on the unit price of the medicines in question, to the detriment of the final consumer, taken to mean both the patient and the national sickness insurance scheme acting on behalf of claimants.
Sodišče prve stopnje je ob obravnavi posledic sporazuma za konkurenco zavrnilo nekatere analize, ki jih je glede tega vprašanja v svoji odločbi podala Komisija, vendar je kljub temu ugotovilo, da je sporazum v škodo končnega potrošnika – za katerega se štejeta obenem bolnik in nacionalni sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja, ki deluje za račun svojih upravičencev – omejeval pritisk, ki bi mu bile brez tega sporazuma izpostavljene cene na enoto zadevnih zdravil.