natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, such an assessment did not precede the deforestation authorised in May 2003, contrary to the requirements of the Irish legislation.
Poleg tega pred krčenjem gozda, za kar je bilo izdano soglasje maja 2003, ni bila izvedena ta presoja, kar je v nasprotju z zahtevami irske zakonodaje.
However, point 3(i) of Annex II to Directive 85/337 as amended refers to installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms) and point 13 of that annex refers to any change or extension of projects listed in Annex II, already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment.
Vendar so v prilogi II, točka 3(i), k spremenjeni Direktivi 85/337 navedeni obrati za izkori�čanje energije vetra za proizvodnjo elektrike (polja vetrnih elektrarn) in v točki 13 navedene priloge vsaka sprememba ali raz�iritev projektov, na�tetih v isti prilogi, ki so že dovoljeni, izvedeni ali se izvajajo in lahko imajo pomembne �kodljive vplive na okolje.
In addition, the relevant selection criteria in Annex III to Directive 85/337 as amended, which are applicable to the projects listed in Annex II and are referred to in Article 4(3) of that directive, include the risk of accidents having regard inter alia to the technologies used.
Poleg tega je med ustreznimi izbirnimi merili, določenimi v prilogi III k spremenjeni Direktivi 85/337, ki veljajo za projekte, na�tete v prilogi II k tej direktivi, in na katere se sklicuje člen 4(3) navedene direktive, navedeno tveganje nastanka nesreč ob upo�tevanju zlasti uporabljene tehnologije.
Since the installation of 25 new turbines, the construction of new service roadways and the change in the type of wind turbines initially authorised, which was intended to increase the production of electricity, are projects which are referred to in Annex II to Directive 85/337 as amended and which were likely, having regard to the specific features of the site noted in paragraph 102 of this judgment and the criteria referred to in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, to have significant effects on the environment, they should, before being authorised, have been subject to a requirement for development consent and to an assessment of their effects on the environment, in conformity with the conditions laid down in Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337 as amended.
Postavitev 25 novih turbin, gradnja novih dovoznih poti in sprememba prvotno dovoljene vrste turbin na veter, kar naj bi povečalo proizvodnjo elektrike, so projekti, ki so navedeni v prilogi II k spremenjeni Direktivi 85/337 in ki lahko ob upo�tevanju posebnosti območja, na katere je bilo opozorjeno v točki 102 te sodbe, in meril, navedenih v prej�nji točki te sodbe, verjetno pomembno vplivajo na okolje, zato bi moral zanje, preden so dovoljeni, veljati postopek v zvezi z zahtevo za soglasje za izvedbo in v zvezi s presojo njihovih vplivov na okolje v skladu s pogoji, določenimi v členih od 5 do 10 spremenjene Direktive 85/337.
Consequently, by failing to take all measures necessary to ensure that the grant of the amending consents and the consent relating to the third phase of construction of the wind farm was preceded by such an assessment, and by merely attaching to the applications for consent environmental impact statements which did not satisfy those requirements, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 85/337 as amended.
Tako Irska, s tem da ni sprejela vseh potrebnih ukrepov za zagotovitev, da se pred izdajo soglasij k spremembam in soglasja v zvezi s tretjo fazo gradnje polja vetrnih elektrarn opravi taka presoja, in s tem da se je omejila na predložitev izjave o vplivih na okolje, ki ne ustreza tem zahtevam, ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti iz spremenjene Direktive 85/337.
It follows from the foregoing that, by failing to take all measures necessary to ensure that the development consents given for, and the execution of, wind farm developments and associated works at Derrybrien, County Galway, were preceded by an assessment with regard to their environmental effects, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337 either before or after amendment by Directive 97/11, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 4 and 5 to 10 of that directive.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da Irska s tem, da ni sprejela vseh potrebnih ukrepov za zagotovitev, da se pred izdajo soglasij za gradnjo polja vetrnih elektrarn in za povezana dela v Derrybrienu v okrožju Galway ter pred izvedbo del opravi presoja vplivov projekta na okolje v skladu s členi od 5 do 10 Direktive 85/337 v različici pred spremembami, uvedenimi z Direktivo 97/11, in v različici po njih, ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti iz členov 2, 4 in od 5 do 10 navedene direktive.
Since the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against Ireland and the latter has been unsuccessful, Ireland must be ordered to pay the costs.
Komisija je predlagala, naj se Irski naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s svojimi predlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
Declares that, by failing to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that:
Irska s tem, da ni sprejela vseh potrebnih ukrepov za zagotovitev, da se
— projects which are within the scope of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment either before or after amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 are, before they are executed in whole or in part, first, considered with regard to the need for an environmental impact assessment and, secondly, where those projects are likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location, that they are made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337, and
– preden so v celoti ali deloma izvedeni, presodi, ali je za projekte, ki spadajo na področje uporabe Direktive Sveta 85/337/EGS z dne 27. junija 1985 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, v različici pred spremembami, uvedenimi z Direktivo Sveta 97/11/ES z dne 3. marca 1997, in v različici po njih, treba izvesti presojo vplivov na okolje, in da se izvede presoja njihovih vplivov v skladu s členi od 5 do 10 Direktive 85/337, če bodo verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije, in
— the development consents given for, and the execution of, wind farm developments and associated works at Derrybrien, County Galway, were preceded by an assessment with regard to their environmental effects, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337 either before or after amendment by Directive 97/11,
– pred izdajo soglasij za gradnjo polja vetrnih elektrarn in za povezana dela v Derrybrienu v okrožju Galway ter pred izvedbo del opravi presoja vplivov projekta na okolje v skladu s členi od 5 do 10 Direktive 85/337 v različici pred spremembami ali po njih, uvedenih z Direktivo Sveta 97/11, ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti iz členov 2, 4 in od 5 do 10 navedene direktive.
Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Irski se naloži plačilo stroškov.
Case C-413/06 P
Zadeva C-413/06 P
(Appeals — Competition — Control of concentrations between undertakings — Sony BMG joint venture — Appeal against the annulment of a Commission decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market — Judicial review — Scope — Standard of proof — Role of the statement of objections — Strengthening or creation of a collective dominant position — Statement of reasons for a decision approving a concentration — Use of confidential information)
„Pritožba – Konkurenca – Nadzor koncentracij podjetij – Skupno podjetje Sony BMG – Tožba za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije o združljivosti koncentracije s skupnim trgom – Sodni nadzor – Obseg – Dokazni standard – Vloga obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah – Krepitev ali vzpostavitev kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja – Obrazložitev odločb o odobritvi koncentracije – Uporaba zaupnih podatkov“
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 13 December 2007 . . . . .
Kokott, predstavljeni 13. decembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Competition — Concentrations — Assessment of compatibility with the common market — Standard of proof — Identical in cases where a concentration is approved and where it is prohibited
Konkurenca – Koncentracije – Presoja združljivosti s skupnim trgom – Dokazni standard – Enakost v primerih odobritve in prepovedi koncentracije
Competition — Concentrations — Administrative procedure — Statement of objections — Provisional nature
Konkurenca – Koncentracije – Upravni postopek – Obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kršitvah – Začasna narava
(Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 18(3); Commission Regulation No 447/98, Art. 13(2))
(člena 81 ES in 82 ES; Uredba Sveta št. 4064/89, člen 18(3); Uredba Komisije št. 447/98, člen 13(2))
SUMMARY — CASE C-413/06 P
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-413/06 P
Competition — Concentrations — Examination by the Commission — Adoption of a decision holding a concentration to be compatible with the common market — Judicial review
Konkurenca – Koncentracije – Presoja Komisije – Sprejetje odločbe, s katero je ugoto -vljena združljivost koncentracije s skupnim trgom – Sodni nadzor
Competition — Concentrations — Administrative procedure — Observance of the rights of the defence — Submission of arguments in reply to the statement of objections — Right of the notifying parties
Konkurenca – Koncentracije – Upravni postopek – Spoštovanje pravic do obrambe – Navajanje trditev v odgovoru na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kršitvah – Pravice priglasiteljev
(Council Regulation No 4064/89, Arts 11, 14, 15, 18(3) and 19; Commission Regulation No 447/98, Arts 3(1) and 13(2))
(Uredba Sveta št. 4064/89, členi 11, 14, 15, 18(3) in 19; Uredba Komisije št. 447/98, člena 3(1) in 13(2))
Competition — Concentrations — Assessment of compatibility with the common market — Creation or strengthening of a collective dominant position significantly impeding effective competition in the common market — Criteria
Konkurenca – Koncentracije – Presoja združljivosti s skupnim trgom – Krepitev ali vzpostavitev kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, ki znatno ovira učinkovito konkurenco na skupnem trgu – Merila
Competition — Concentrations — Examination by the Commission — Economic assessments — Judicial review — Limits
Konkurenca – Koncentracije – Presoja Komisije – Presoja ekonomskih vprašanj – Sodni nadzor – Omejitve
Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision applying the rules relating to concentrations between undertakings
Akti institucij – Obrazložitev – Obveznost – Obseg – Odločba, ki temelji na pravilih o koncentracijah podjetij
Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Infringement of the duty to state reasons in relation to a decision authorising a concentration — To be considered of the Court’s own motion
Ničnostna tožba – Razlogi – Bistvena kršitev postopka – Kršitev obveznosti obrazložitve glede odločbe o odobritvi koncentracije – Preizkus sodišča po uradni dolžnosti
makes it necessary to envisage various chains of cause and effect with a view to ascertaining which of them is the most likely.
da se ugotovi, kateri izmed njih je najbolj verjeten.
It cannot therefore be inferred from the regulation that there is a general presumption that a notified concentration is compatible with, or incompatible with, the common market.
Iz Uredbe torej ni mogoče sklepati na splo�no domnevo združljivosti ali nezdružljivosti prigla�ene koncentracije s skupnim trgom.
There is nothing in Article 2(2) or (3) of Regulation No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings which states that it imposes different standards of proof in relation to decisions approving a concentration, on the one hand, and decisions prohibiting a concentration, on the other.
Iz besedila v odstavkih 2 in 3 člena 2 Uredbe �t. 4064/89 o nadzoru koncentracij podjetij ne izhaja, da ta določa različni dokazni standard za odločbe o odobritvi koncentracije na eni strani in za odločbe o prepovedi koncentracije na drugi strani.
The prospective analysis called for in relation to the control of concentrations, which consists of an examination of how a concentration might alter the factors determining the state of competition on a given market in order to establish whether it would give rise to a significant impediment to effective competition, of Regulation invalidated by
Za prospektivno analizo, potrebno na področju nadzora koncentracij, ki obsega preučitev, kako bi lahko koncentracija spremenila dejavnike, ki določajo stanje konkurence na danem trgu, zato da se ugotovi, ali bi imela za posledico resno oviranje učinkovite konkurence, si je namreč treba zamisliti različne nize razlogov in učinkov, zato
That interpretation No 4064/89 is not
4064/89 ni mogoče ovreči z njenim členom 10(6),
Furthermore, the fact that an issue of collective dominance does, or does not, arise, cannot of itself have an impact on the standard of proof which applies.
Komisije. Poleg tega okoli�čina, da gre ali ne gre za tezo o kolektivnem prevladujočem položaju, sama po sebi ne more vplivati na uporabni dokazni standard.
The inherent complexity of a theory of competitive harm put forward in relation to a notified concentration is a factor which must be taken into account when assessing the plausibility of the various consequences such a concentration may have, in order to identify those which are most likely to arise, but such complexity does not, of itself, have an impact on the standard of proof which is required.
V zvezi s tem je značilna zapletenost teze o oviranju konkurence, ki se zatrjuje glede prigla�ene koncentracije, element, ki ga je treba upo�tevati pri presoji verjetnosti različnih posledic te koncentracije, da bi opredelili tisto, ki je najbolj verjetna, ta zapletenost pa kot taka ne vpliva na zahtevan dokazni standard.
Article 10(6), which provides that a notified concentration is to be deemed compatible with the common market where the Commission has not taken a decision on the compatibility of that concentration within the prescribed period.
na podlagi katerega se razume, da je prigla�ena koncentracija združljiva s skupnim trgom, če Komisija v ustreznem roku ni sprejela odločbe o združljivosti te koncentracije.
That provision is a specific expression of the need for speed, which characterises the general scheme of the regulation and which requires the Commission to comply with strict timelimits for the adoption of the final decision.
Ta določba je namreč poseben izraz zahteve po hitrosti, ki označuje splo�no sistematiko navedene uredbe in ki nalaga Komisiji, da spo�tuje stroge roke za sprejetje končne odločbe.
It is, however, an exception to the general scheme of the regulation, which is laid down in particular in Art -icles 6(1) and 8(1), according to which the Commission is to rule expressly on the concentrations which are notified to it.
Navedena določba pomeni zato izjemo od splo�ne sistematike Uredbe, ki izhaja zlasti iz členov 6(1) in 8(1), na podlagi katere Komisija izrecno odloča o koncentracijah, ki so ji prigla�ene.
It follows that, where it has been notified of a proposed concentration pursuant to Regulation No 4064/89, the Commission is, in principle, required to adopt a position, either in the sense of approving or of prohibiting the concentration, in accordance with its assessment of the economic outcome attributable to the concentration which is most likely to ensue.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da mora Komisija, kadar je pozvana, da odlo či o koncentraciji na podlagi Uredbe �t. 4064/89, načeloma zavzeti stali�če bodisi v smislu odobritve te koncentracije bodisi v smislu njene prepovedi na podlagi njene presoje o ekonomskih posledicah zadevne koncentracije, do katerih bo najverjetneje pri�lo.
(see paras 46-52)
(Glej točke od 46 do 52.)
Furthermore, it is true that the decisions of the Commission as to the compatibility of concentrations with the common market must be supported by a sufficiently cogent and consistent body of evidence and that in the context of the analysis of a ‘conglomeratetype’ concentration the quality of the evidence produced by the Commission in order to establish that it is necessary to adopt a decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the common market is particularly important.
Poleg tega je res, da morajo biti odločbe Komisije o združljivosti koncentracij s skupnim trgom utemeljene z dovolj pomembnimi in doslednimi dokazi in da mora biti kakovost dokazov, ki jih v okviru analize „konglomeratne“ koncentracije predloži Komisija, da bi utemeljila nujnost sprejetja odločbe, ki koncentracijo razgla�a za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom, �e zlasti pomembna.
However, it cannot be deduced from that that the Commission must, particularly where it pursues a theory of collective dominance, comply with a higher standard of proof in relation to decisions prohibiting concentrations than in relation to decisions approving them.
Vendar iz tega ne izhaja, da mora Komisija, zlasti kadar se opira na tezo o kolektivnem prevladujočem položaju, uporabiti vi�ji dokazni standard na področju odločb o prepovedi koncentracij kot na področju določb o odobritvi teh koncentracij.
The essential function of evidence is to establish convincingly the merits
Bistvena vloga dokaza je namreč v tem, da prepriča o utemeljenosti teze oziroma, kot na področju nadzora koncentracij, da utemelji presoje, ki so podlaga odločb
SUMMARY — CASE C-413/06 P
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-413/06 P kr�itvah.
The effective exercise of the rights of the defence requires that the arguments of the parties to a proposed concentration be taken into account in proceedings for the control of concentrations in the same way as the arguments of the parties affected by proceedings initiated under Articles 81 EC or 82 EC.
Učinkovito izvr�evanje pravic do obrambe zahteva, da se trditve strank nameravane koncentracije v postopku nadzora koncentracij upo�tevajo enako kot trditve zadevnih strank v postopkih, sproženih na podlagi členov 81 ES in 82 ES.
(see paras 63-66)
(Glej točke od 63 do 66.) v odločbi, s katero se zadevni postopek konča.
latter from relying on other objections in its decision terminating the proced- ure in question. It is therefore inherent in the nature of the statement of objections that it is provisional and subject to amendments to be made by the Commission in its further assessment on the basis of the observations submitted to it by the parties and subsequent findings of fact.
Zato je za obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah značilno, da je začasno in da lahko presoja, ki jo pozneje opravi Komisija na podlagi pripomb, ki so jih v odgovor posredovale stranke, in drugih ugotovitev o dejstvih, pripelje do drugačnih sklepov.
The Commission must take into account the factors emerging from the whole of the administrative proced- ure, in order either to abandon such objections as have been shown to be unfounded or to amend and supplement its arguments, both in fact and in law, in support of the objections which it maintains.
Komisija mora namreč upo�tevati dejavnike, ki izhajajo iz celotnega upravnega postopka, da bi bodisi odstopila od očitkov, ki ne bi bili utemeljeni, bodisi izbolj�ala ali dopolnila – glede dejanskega stanja in prava – svoje trditve za utemeljitev očitkov.
Thus, the statement of objections does not prevent the Commission from altering its standpoint in favour of the undertakings concerned
Zato obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah nikakor ne preprečuje Komisiji, da bi spremenila svoje stali�če v korist zadevnih podjetij.
The Court of First Instance is not necessarily precluded from using the statement of objections in order to interpret a decision of the Commission relating to the control of concentrations, particularly as regards the examination of its factual basis. That is the case notwithstanding the preparatory and provisional nature of the document and despite the fact that the Commission is not obliged to explain any differences in the final decision by comparison with the statement of objections.
Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko uporabi obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah pri razlagi odločbe Komisije na področju nadzora koncentracij zlasti glede preizkusa njene dejanske podlage, in to kljub pripravljalni in začasni naravi tega dokumenta in kljub dejstvu, da Komisiji ni treba pojasniti morebitnih razhajanj med končno odločbo in tem dokumentom.
It follows that the Commission is not obliged to maintain the factual or legal assessments set forth in the statement of objections.
Iz tega izhaja, da Komisija ni zavezana vztrajati pri presoji dejstev ali pravni presoji, ki izhajata iz obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah.
On the contrary, it must give as reasons for its ultimate decision its final assessments based on the situation existing at the time the formal proceedings are closed.
Nasprotno, svojo končno odločbo mora obrazložiti s svojimi končnimi presojami, ki temeljijo na rezultatih celotne preiskave, kot so podani ob koncu formalnega postopka.
Furthermore, the Commission is not obliged to explain any differences with respect to its provisional assessments set out in the statement of objections.
Poleg tega Komisiji ni treba pojasniti morebitnih razhajanj v primerjavi z začasno presojo iz navedenega obvestila.
The fact that the Commission is, by contrast to the position under Art -icles 81 EC and 82 EC, subject to strict timelimits in the control of concentrations, has no effect on the provisional nature of the statement of objections.
Dejstvo, da mora Komisija v okviru nadzora koncentracij, za razliko od področja izvajanja členov 81 ES in 82 ES, upo�tevati stroge procesne roke, v ničemer na spremeni začasne narave obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih
However, the Court of First Instance commits an error of law where, in its examination of the line of argument alleging the existence of manifest errors of assessment, it does not merely use the statement of objections as a basis for verifying the correctness, completeness and reliability of the factual material which underpinned the contested decision, but treats a particular category of conclusions set out in that statement as established, without demonstrating the reasons for which, notwithstanding
Vendar Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabi pravo, kadar se pri preizkusu trditev o obstoju očitne napake pri presoji ne omeji na uporabo obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, da bi preverilo pravilnost, popolnost in zanesljivost dejstev, ki so podlaga za sporno odločbo, ampak nekatere elemente iz obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah �teje za dokazane, ne da bi navedlo razloge, zakaj bi se te elemente, kljub končnemu stali�ču Komisije v sporni
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA the final position adopted by the Commission in the contested decision, those elements should be considered as being established beyond dispute.
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALA odločbi, moralo �teti za nesporno ugotovljene.
Apart, possibly, from noncontroversial elements which, for example, by reason of their empirical and verifiable nature are obvious to such a degree that they cannot be contested, it should not be assumed that assessments made in a statement of objections cannot be mod -ified in the light of the replies to such a statement.
Vendar iz nespornih dokazov, ki so na primer zaradi njihove empirične in preverljive narave tako očitni, da jih ni mogoče izpodbijati, ni mogoče domnevati, da trditev v obvestilu o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah ni mogoče spremeniti glede na odgovore na to obvestilo.