natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is apparent from the order for reference that the contractual relationship between CEPSA and Tobar is characterised, in essence, by three types of clause, namely, firstly, an exclusive purchasing clause, also described by the referring court as a ‘noncompetition clause’, 4secondly, clauses on the allocation of costs and risks and, thirdly, clauses relating to payment for the motorvehicle and other fuels.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da pogodbeni odnos med CEPSO in Tobarjem po vsebini določajo tri vrste pogodbenih klavzul, in sicer, prvič, določilo o izključni nabavi, ki ga predložitveno sodi�če opredeljuje tudi kot „klavzulo o prepovedi konkurence“ 4, drugič, klavzule o delitvi stro�kov in tveganja ter, tretjič, klavzule o plačilu motornega goriva in goriva.
As regards the exclusive purchasing or non-competition clause, Tobar undertook to purchase exclusively from CEPSA fuels, including motorvehicle fuels, as well as lubricants and other related products, for resale in the service station at prices fixed for retail sale and in accordance with the conditions and methods of sale and business laid
Glede klavzule o izključni nabavi oziroma prepovedi konkurence se je Tobar zavezal, da bo pri CEPSI izključno nabavljal gorivo, vključno z gorivom za motorna vozila, ter maziva in druge povezane proizvode z namenom njihove prodaje na bencinski postaji po točno določeni maloprodajni ceni in ob spo�tovanju pogojev in tehnik prodaje in uporabe, ki jih je uvedel navedeni
As regards the clauses on the allocation of costs and risks, Tobar was obliged, first, to assume the risks associated with the goods as soon as they had been received from the supplier by being placed in the storage tanks and to keep them under the conditions necessary to ensure that they underwent no loss or deterioration.
Glede določil o delitvi tveganja je bil Tobar dolžan prevzeti tveganja za proizvode do vključno dobave dobavitelja v rezervoarje za skladi�čenje in jih hraniti v zahtevanih pogojih, da se izključita vsaka izguba oziroma njihovo poslab�anje.
Second, Tobar was liable, both to the supplier and to third parties, for any loss, contamination or adulteration which might affect the goods and for any damage caused by those goods.
Drugič, Tobar je bil tako nasproti dobavitelju kot tretjim osebam odgovoren za vsako izgubo, onesnaženje in pome�anje, ki bi lahko vplivali na navedene proizvode, ter za vsako morebitno �kodo, ki bi jo lahko ti proizvodi povzročili 5.
5Third, although Tobar did not bear the risk associated with unpaid debts arising from the use of the CEPSA CARD credit card, it nevertheless guaranteed and was responsible for customers who had signed up, through Tobar, for the use of that card or who had been allowed direct credit.
Tretjič, tudi če Tobar ni prevzel tveganja za neplačane dolgove, ki so izhajali iz uporabe kreditne kartice CEPSA CARD, je zagotavljal in odgovarjal za stranke, ki so z njegovim posredovanjem pristopile k uporabi te kartice oziroma ki jim je neposredno odobril posojilo.
Tobar also contributed to the financing of a small proportion of the costs relating to use of the CEPSA loyalty card.
Tobar je sodeloval tudi pri financiranju majhnega dela stro�kov, povezanih z uporabo kartice zvestobe CEPSA.
On the other hand, CEPSA bore the cost of transporting the goods and the cost of installing and maintaining its brand image in the service station.
V zameno je CEPSA prevzela stro�ke prevoza proizvodov in stro�ke namestitve in vzdrževanja bencinske postaje, povezane s podobo svoje znamke.
Moreover, CEPSA also transferred to Tobar the fuel tanks and pumps which the servicestation operator could use only to sell
Poleg tega je CEPSA na Tobarja prenesla rezervoarje in črpalke za gorivo, ki jih je moral imetnik bencinske postaje uporabljati samo za prodajo proizvodov, ki jih je dobavila
4 — The undifferentiated use of those two expressions by the referring court seems to be understandable in the light of the fact that, unlike exclusive purchasing contracts for other products, such as beer, an exclusive purchasing contract for motorvehicle and other fuels is characterised, as a matter of fact, by the sale of only one brand in a particular service station (single branding).
4 – Uporabo teh izrazov predložitvenega sodi�ča brez razlikovanja je mogoče razumeti v smislu okoli�čine, da v nasprotju s pogodbami o izključni nabavi drugih proizvodov, na primer piva, pogodbo o izključni nabavi goriv in goriv za motorna vozila izključno iz vsebinskega zornega kota opredeljuje prodaja le ene znamke na določeni bencinski postaji (zahteva po izključnem poslovanju).
See, in that regard, Case C-214/99 Neste [2000] ECR I-11121, paragraph 31.
Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 7. decembra 2000 v zadevi Neste (C-214/99, Recueil, str. I-11121, točka 31).
5 — Including the risk of losses due both to cases of force majeure and to discrepancies in volume between the product supplied and that sold, on account of changes in fuel temperature or for other reasons.
5 – Vključno s tveganjem za izgube, ki jih povzročijo vi�ja sila ali razlika med količino dobavljenih in prodanih proizvodov zaradi temperaturnih razlik goriva za motorna vozila oziroma drugi dejavniki.
CEPSA’s products and which it had to hand back to CEPSA when it ceased to use them as authorised.
CEPSA, in jih je moral vrniti, če je prenehal odobreno dejavnost.
However, the service station had to provide a guarantee on first demand in favour of CEPSA to cover the value of the technical installations.
Kljub temu je morala bencinska postaja skleniti garancijo na prvi poziv v korist CEPSE za znesek vrednosti tehničnih naprav.
In 2003, after sending several letters to CEPSA, the servicestation operator ceased obtaining supplies from that supplier and concealed its logo on the servicestation installations.
Leta 2003 je imetnik bencinske postaje, potem ko je na CEPSO naslovil več dopisov, prenehal nabavljati pri tem dobavitelju in zakril njegov znak na napravah na bencinski postaji.
In 2004, Tobar brought an action against CEPSA for annulment of the contract, claiming that it was incompatible with Article 85 of the Treaty, and that its purpose was non-existent or unlawful on the ground that the determination of the price was left to the sole discretion of CEPSA.
Leta 2004 je Tobar proti CEPSI vložil tožbo za razveljavitev pogodbe, v kateri je zatrjeval, da ta ni bila v skladu s členom 85 Pogodbe in da je bil njen predmet neobstoječ oziroma nezakonit zato, ker je bila določitev cene prepu�čena le presoji CEPSE.
Tobar also applied for damages.
Tobar je zahteval tudi od�kodnino.
CEPSA, for its part, defended the action and counterclaimed, demanding performance of the contract or its rescission if its performance was impossible and, in both cases, compensation.
CEPSA je tožbo izpodbijala in vložila nasprotno tožbo, s katero je zahtevala izvr�itev pogodbe oziroma njeno razvezo, če bi se izvr�itev izkazala za nemogočo, in v obeh primerih zahtevala povračilo.
As regards the clauses relating to payment for the motorvehicle and other fuels, Tobar was required to pay the price of the motorvehicle or other fuels within nine days from the date of their delivery to the service station, and to take out and present, on the date of the first delivery, a bank guarantee for a total amount equivalent to 15 days’ supply.
Glede določb o plačilu goriva za motorna vozila in drugega goriva, Tobar je moral plačati gorivo za motorna vozila oziroma drugo gorivo v devetih dneh od vključno dneva njihove dobave na bencinsko postajo ter na dan prve dobave skleniti in predložiti tudi bančno garancijo za skupni znesek, enak znesku za petnajstdnevno dobavo.
If Tobar were to fail to pay, CEPSA was entitled to enforce the guarantee, with the consequence that the servicestation operator would be required to pay for supplies in advance.
Ob morebitnem neplačilu je lahko CEPSA unovčila garancijo, kar je povzročilo, da je bil imetnik bencinske postaje prisiljen plačati dobave vnaprej.
Tobar received, by way of remuneration, the market commission in force for each service station.
Tobar je kot plačilo pobiral tržno provizijo, ki je veljala za vsako bencinsko postajo.
The initial amount was stipulated in the contract, which provided that the commission to be received would be not less than the average amount of the commissions paid to service stations by other market operators having a significant market share and for the same products in the same geographical area.
Začetni znesek je bil naveden v pogodbi, ki je določala, da provizije niso nižje od povprečnega zneska provizij, ki jih drugi gospodarski subjekti z znatnim deležem na trgu plačujejo bencinskim postajam za iste proizvode na istem geografskem območju.
The payments to CEPSA, determined on the basis of the number of litres delivered to the service station, were made by deducting from the retail price fixed by CEPSA, including value added tax (‘VAT’), the amount of the servicestation operator’s commission, including VAT.
Plačilo CEPSI, določeno glede na �tevilo litrov, dobavljenih bencinski postaji, je bilo opravljeno tako, da se je od maloprodajne cene, ki jo je določila CEPSA, vključno z davkom na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV), od�tel znesek provizije imetnika bencinske postaje, vključno z DDV.
Regulations No 1984/83 and No 2790/1999. CEPSA appealed against that judgment to the referring court.
CEPSA je proti tej sodbi vložila pritožbo pred predložitvenim sodi�čem.
If the contract does fall within the ambit of Article [85](1) [of the Treaty], is it possible to claim the benefit of exemption from the prohibition if it satisfies the requirements of Regulation No 1984/83, especially those relating to duration?
Če bi se zanjo dejansko uporabljala ta določba, ali bi lahko veljala tudi izjema od prepovedi, če izpolnjuje zahteve iz Uredbe �t. 1984/83, zlasti glede trajanja?
Having established the need for an interpretation of Article 85 of the Treaty and Regulation No 1984/83 in order to give judgment on the action for annulment of the contract, the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid decided to stay the proceedings and to submit to the Court the following questions for a preliminary ruling:
Ker je Audiencia Provincial de Madrid ugotovilo, da je za odločitev o tožbi za razveljavitev pogodbe potrebna razlaga člena 85 Pogodbe in Uredbe �t. 1984/83, je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji: c)
Is Article [85](1) [of the Treaty] to be construed as meaning that an exclusive supply contract under a brand name concluded in 1996 by a distributor of petroleum products and the operator of a service station requiring the latter to sell exclusively the supplier’s motorvehicle and other fuels for a fixed period, and to undertake not to sell such products supplied by other distributors, falls within the ambit of that provision in so far as that obligation involves a no-competi-tion agreement, even though that contract might, given its commercial significance, be regarded as an agency contract?
Ali je treba člen [85](1) [Pogodbe] razlagati tako, da ta velja za pogodbo o izključni nabavi pod blagovno znamko dobavitelja, sklenjeno leta 1996 med distributerjem naftnih proizvodov in podjetjem, imetnikom bencinske postaje, s katero se ta zaveže, da bo za določen čas prodajal izključno dobaviteljevo gorivo za motorna vozila in drugo gorivo, in da ne bo prodajal proizvodov drugih dobaviteljev, glede na to, da navedena obveznost vsebuje sporazum o prepovedi konkurence, čeprav je navedeno pogodbo v gospodarskem smislu mogoče �teti za pogodbo o trgovskem zastopanju?
If that should be the case, does the fact that Articles 10 and 12 of that regulation permit the duration of the no-competition agreement to exceed five years as consideration for the granting of commercial or financial advantages by the supplier to the servicestation operator, require those commercial or financial advantages to be substantial or is it enough that they are not insignificant?
Če je tako, ali člena 10 in 12 navedene uredbe, ki dopu�čata klavzulo o prepovedi konkurence, sklenjeno za več kot pet let, če gre za nasprotno dajatev v obliki gospodarskih in finančnih prednosti, zahtevata, da morajo biti navedene gospodarske in finančne prednosti znatne, ali zadostuje, da niso nepomembne?
Can those provisions be interpreted as meaning that such commercial or financial advantages have been conferred in exclusive supply contracts under a brand name in which the supplier of petroleum products bears the costs of installing and maintaining its brand image in the service station, or transfers fuel-tanks and -pumps which the servicestation operator may not use without the authorisation in writing of the sole supplier for products not supplied by the latter and which it must hand back when it ceases to use them as authorised, and the value of which is covered by the guarantee on first demand that the servicestation operator has provided in favour of the supplier?
Ali je mogoče ti določbi razlagati tako, da so bile te gospodarske in finančne prednosti podeljene s pogodbami o izključni nabavi pod blagovno znamko, v katerih dobavitelj naftnih proizvodov nosi stro�ke namestitve in vzdrževanja podobe svoje blagovne znamke na bencinski postaji, oziroma da na voljo rezervoarje in črpalke za gorivo, ki jih imetnik bencinske postaje brez pisnega dovoljenja izključnega dobavitelja ne sme uporabljati za prodajo proizvodov, ki mu jih ni dobavil navedeni dobavitelj, in katere mora vrniti, ko jih preneha uporabljati v skladu z dovoljeno uporabo, in katerih vrednost je zavarovana z bančno garancijo na prvi poziv, ki jo je moral imetnik bencinske postaje skleniti v korist dobavitelja?
If that exemption should not be applicable, does the automatic nullity provided for by Article [85](2) [of the Treaty] affect the contract in its entirety?
Če navedena izjema ne velja, ali samodejna ničnost, ki jo določa člen [85](2) [Pogodbe], vpliva na celotno pogodbo?
fuels, in accordance with the retail prices, conditions and sales and business methods stipulated by the supplier for a period of 10 years, which may be extended for successive periods each of five years by express agreement in writing on notice of at least six months.
drugo gorivo po maloprodajnih cenah in v skladu s prodajnimi pogoji in načini prodaje in uporabe, ki jih določi dobavitelj, in sicer za obdobje desetih let, z možnostjo podalj�anja za nadaljnja zaporedna obdobja petih let na podlagi izrecnega pisnega dogovora z najmanj �estmesečnim predhodnim obvestilom;
(ii) The servicestation operator assumes the risk associated with the motorvehicle and other fuels as soon as they are received from the supplier in the storage tanks, including the risk of discrepancies in volume.
— imetnik bencinske postaje prevzame tveganje, povezano z gorivom za motorna vozila in drugim gorivom od trenutka, ko jih prejme od dobavitelja v rezervoarje za skladi�čenje na bencinski postaji, vključno s tveganjem, povezanim s prostornino.
From the moment of receipt the operator assumes the obligation to keep the products in the conditions necessary to ensure that they undergo no loss or deterioration and is liable, where applicable, to the supplier and to third parties for any loss, contamination or adulteration which may affect the products and for any damage arising as a result thereof.
Potem ko ta imetnik sprejme proizvode, prevzame obveznost, da jih bo hranil v razmerah, potrebnih za preprečitev izgub ali poslab�anja in v tem primeru nasproti dobavitelju in tretjim odgovarja za vsako izgubo, onesnaženje ali pome�anje, ki lahko nastane na proizvodih, in za �kodo, ki jo lahko ti proizvodi povzročijo;
Is Article [85](1) [of the Treaty] to be interpreted as meaning that an exclusive supply contract under a brand name, such as that in the present case, in so far as it provides that the servicestation operator must sell motorvehicle and other fuels supplied by the exclusive supplier at the prices for sale to the public fixed by the supplier, is in theory caught by the prohibition of restriction of competition because it fixes sale prices, taking account of its economic significance and in particular of the risks assumed by the servicestation operator and its contribution to the costs connected with the supply of goods under the contract or of the sales promotion of those goods, given the following relevant points:
Ali je treba člen 85(1) [Pogodbe] razlagati tako, da gre pri pogodbi o izključni nabavi pod blagovno znamko, kot je ta v zadevi v glavni stvari, če določa, da mora podjetje, ki je lastnik bencinske postaje, prodajati izključno dobaviteljevo gorivo za motorna vozila in drugo gorivo po maloprodajnih cenah, ki mu jih ta določi, načeloma za prepovedano omejevanje konkurence zaradi pogodbenega določanja prodajnih cen, ob upo�tevanju njenega gospodarskega pomena in �e posebej tveganj, ki jih je prevzel imetnik bencinske postaje, ter njegov prispevek k stro�kom, povezanih z dobavo blaga, ki je predmet pogodbe, ali spodbujanjem njihove prodaje, ob upo�tevanju naslednjih elementov:
(iii) The servicestation operator is required to pay the supplier the cost of the motorvehicle and other fuels nine days after the date of their delivery to the service station, on presentation on the date of the first supply of a bank guarantee for the total price … equivalent to 15 days’ [supply]. If it should fail to pay, apart from the possibility that the
— imetnik bencinske postaje se zaveže, da bo prodajal izključno dobaviteljeva maziva, druge proizvode za motorna vozila ter gorivo za motorna vozila in
(i) The servicestation operator undertakes to sell exclusively the supplier’s lubricants, vehicle products and motorvehicle and other
— imetnik bencinske postaje mora dobavitelju plačati znesek za gorivo za motorna vozila in drugo gorivo v devetih dneh od vključno dneva dobave na bencinsko postajo, pred prvo dobavo pa mora skleniti bančno garancijo [v] vi�ini celotnega zneska dobave […],
CEPSA risk of non-payment by those customers who have been allowed direct credit.
CEPSA tistih strank, ki jim neposredno odobri posojilo;
(v) The supplier of the petroleum products bears the costs of installing and maintaining its brand image in the service station, and also transfers the fuel-tanks and -pumps which the operator of the service station may not use, without the supplier’s authorisation in writing, to sell products not supplied by that supplier, and which are valued precisely at the amount of the bank guarantee that the servicestation operator has presented in favour of the supplier?
— podjetje, dobavitelj naftnih proizvodov, nosi stro�ke namestitve in vzdrževanja podobe svoje blagovne znamke na bencinski postaji, […] in imetniku da na voljo rezervoarje in črpalke za gorivo, ki jih ta brez pisnega dovoljenja dobavitelja ne sme uporabljati za prodajo proizvodov, ki mu jih ni dobavil zadnji, ter opremo, ki je ocenjena ravno na vrednost, za katero je imetnik bencinske postaje sklenil garancijo na prvo poziv v korist dobavitelja.
(b) supplier might enforce the guarantee presented by the servicestation operator, the latter would be required to pay for supplies before they were delivered to the service station.
Ob morebitnem neplačilu je poleg možnosti, da dobavitelj unovči bančno garancijo, ki jo je sklenil imenik bencinske postaje, ta lahko dolžan plačati proizvode �e pred njihovo dejansko dobavo na bencinsko postajo.
Payment is made by the servicestation operator to the supplier by deducting from the retail price fixed by the distributor, including VAT, the amount of “commission” due to the servicestation operator, plus the corresponding VAT.
Imetnik bencinske postaje distributerju plačilo izvr�i tako, da od maloprodajne cene, ki jo določi družba za distribucijo, vključno z DDV, od�teje znesek ‚provizije‘, do katere je upravičen, skupaj z pripadajočim zneskom DDV.
The fuel supplied is sold on average in a period of much less than the nine days provided for payment by the applicant (respondent in these proceedings) to the defendant (appellant in these proceedings).
Dobavljeno gorivo se običajno proda veliko prej kot v devetih dneh po dobavi, to je v roku, v katerem ga mora tožeča stranka plačati toženi stranki.
The distributor debits or credits the service station monthly, depending on the upward or downward variation in the prices fixed for the fuel delivered.
[Dobavitelj] je mesečno dolžnik ali upnik imetnika bencinske postaje, odvisno od razlik v cenah, določenih za dobavljeno gorivo, navzgor ali navzdol. Stro�ke prevoza proizvodov nosi dobavitelj; b)
If so, on a proper construction of Regulation [No 1984/83], and in particular of Articles 10 to 13 thereof, do those provisions catch within their scope a contract of that kind with the result that the prohibition laid down in Article [85](1) [of the Treaty] is not applicable if the contract satisfies the requirements for exemption contained in those articles of the regulation?
Če je tako, ali je treba Uredbo �t. 1984/83 z dne 22. junija 1983, zlasti člene od 10 do 13, razlagati tako, da veljajo tudi za tako pogodbo, in sicer da prepoved, vsebovana v členu [85](1) [Pogodbe], ne velja, če pogodba izpolnjuje pogoje za izjemo, vsebovane v navedenih členih uredbe?
In that case, is Article 11 of that regulation to be construed as meaning that, if the contract at issue imposes more than one restriction on competition, and,
Ali je treba v takem primeru člen 11 te uredbe razlagati tako, da je v obravnavani pogodbi v glavni stvari določena več kot ena omejitev konkurence, če ob
(iv) The operator of the service station guarantees and is responsible for those customers who have signed up for the use of the credit card created and managed by the group of companies to which the supplier belongs, charges the sales made by means of the card one month after they are made, finances a small part of the cost of customers’ use of the fuel distributor’s loyalty card and assumes the
— imetnik bencinske postaje jamči in odgovarja za stranke, ki so z njegovim posredovanjem začele uporabljati kreditno kartico, ki jo je ustvarila in z njo upravlja skupina družb, v kateri je tudi dobavitelj […], prihodek od nakupov, opravljenih z navedeno kreditno kartico, obračuna naslednji mesec po opravljeni prodaji, […] nosi majhen delež stro�kov za uporabo družbine kartice zvestobe za naftne proizvode in […] tveganje neplačila
Does the authorisation given by [the supplier] to the servicestation [operator] to lower its sale price without affecting [that supplier’s] receipts, which took place in November 2001, make it possible to regard the contract as valid?’ four parts ((a) to (d)), is raised to cover the case in which the contractual relationship at issue in the main proceedings is classifiable as an agency relationship between the principal and his intermediary.
Ali dovoljenje [dobavitelja], dano [imetniku] bencinske postaje novembra 2001, da lahko [ta imetnik] zniža maloprodajne cene, kar pa ne sme vplivati na dohodke [zadevnega dobavitelja], pomeni, da je mogoče pogodbo �teti za veljavno?“ vrsta vpra�anj, ki se deli na �tiri dele (od a) do d)), je postavljena za primer, da je mogoče zadevni pogodbeni odnos v zadevi v glavni stvari opredeliti kot pogodbo o zastopanju med naročiteljem in posrednikom 6. Druga vrsta vpra�anj, ki se deli na tri dele (od a) do c)), je postavljena za primer, da je treba ta pogodbeni odnos obravnavati kot odnos med dvema samostojnima podjetjema in v katerem gre v bistvu za razlago člena 85 Pogodbe in Uredbe �t.
CEPSA, Tobar and the Commission of the European Communities submitted written observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
CEPSA, Tobar in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti so predložili pisna stali�ča v sladu s členom 23 Statuta Sodi�ča.
They also presented oral argument at the hearing on 7 June 2007.
Stali�ča so predstavili tudi na obravnavi 7. junija 2007.
Although it would be possible to contemplate answering the two questions and their respective subdivisions in turn, I propose to adopt a different approach which consists in examining them according to the issues which they raise.
Čeprav bi bilo mogoče na vpra�anji in njunih sedem podvpra�anj odgovoriti po vrsti, predlagam drug način, ki nanje odgovarja glede na njihovo tematiko.