natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under Article 10(6) of the Regulation, a notified concentration is to be deemed compatible with the common market where the Commission has not taken a decision either to initiate the formal proceedings or a decision on the compatibility of the concentration with the common market within the periods laid down in Article 10(1) and (3), respectively.
V skladu s členom 10(6) Uredbe se razume, da je prigla�ena koncentracija združljiva s skupnim trgom, če Komisija v rokih, ki so predpisani v odstavkih 1 in 3 istega člena, ni sprejela bodisi odločbe o uvedbi formalnega postopka bodisi odločbe o združljivosti te koncentracije.
Article 11 of the Regulation concerns the requests for information which the Commission, in carrying out the duties assigned to it by the Regulation, may send to, among others, the notifying parties and to other undertakings or associations of undertakings, where appropriate by way of decision.
Člen 11 Uredbe se nana�a na zahtevo za predložitev podatkov, ki jo Komisija pri opravljanju nalog, ki so ji dodeljene s to uredbo, lahko po�lje zlasti osebam, ki so priglasile koncentracijo, in drugim podjetjem ali podjetni�kim združenjem, če je potrebno z odločbo.
Articles 14 and 15 of the Regulation provide for the imposition of fines or periodic penalty payments where incorrect or misleading information is supplied.
Člena 14 in 15 Uredbe določata naložitev glob in periodičnih denarnih kazni, če so predloženi podatki neresnični ali zavajajoči.
Article 18(3) of the Regulation provides:
V členu 18(3) Uredbe je določeno:
‘The Commission shall base its decision only on objections on which the parties have been able to submit their observations.
„Odločba Komisije temelji le na ugovorih, o katerih so lahko stranke predstavile svoja stali�ča.
The rights of the defence shall be fully respected in the proceedings.
Pravice do obrambe se v postopku povsem spo�tujejo.
Access to the file shall be open at least to the parties directly involved, subject to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.’
Dostop do spisa je na voljo vsaj neposredno prizadetim strankam, ob upo�tevanju pravnega interesa podjetij do varovanja njihovih poslovnih skrivnosti.“
Article 19 of the Regulation concerns liaison between the Commission and the competent authorities of the Member States.
Člen 19 Uredbe se nana�a na povezavo med Komisijo in pristojnimi organi držav članic.
Under Article 19(3), an Advis- ory Committee on concentrations is to be consulted before any decision is taken pursuant to Article 8(2) to (5) of the Regulation.
V skladu z odstavkom 3 te določbe se pred sprejetjem vsake odločbe na podlagi člena 8(2) in (5) Uredbe posvetuje s svetovalnim odborom za koncentracije.
Article 19(6) provides that the Advisory Committee is to deliver an opinion on the Commission’s draft decision, if necessary by taking a vote.
Navedeni svetovalni odbor v skladu z odstavkom 6 istega člena predloži mnenje o osnutku odločbe Komisije, če je to potrebno, z glasovanjem.
1) (‘the Implementing Regulation’), the notification of the proposed concentration must contain the information, including documents, requested by form CO annexed to that regulation.
1, v nadaljevanju: izvedbena uredba) mora priglasitev nameravane koncentracije vsebovati podatke in dokumente, zahtevane v obrazcu CO, ki je priložen k isti uredbi.
Article 13(2) of the Implementing Regulation provides, among other things, that the Commission is to address its objections in writing to the notifying parties and to set a timelimit within which they may inform the Commission of their views in writing.
V členu 13(2) izvedbene uredbe je med drugim določeno, da Komisija naslovi svoje pripombe strankam, ki prigla�ujejo pisno in pri tem določi rok, v katerem ji lahko priglasitelji pisno sporočijo svoje mnenje.
The facts of the dispute were set out as follows by the Court of First Instance in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the judgment under appeal:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je dejansko stanje spora obravnavalo v točkah od 1 do 11 izpodbijane sodbe tako:
On 9 January 2004 the Commission received notification pursuant to [the Regulation] of a proposed concentration by which the undertakings Bertelsmann … and Sony … proposed to merge their global recorded music businesses.
Komisija je 9. januarja 2004 v skladu [z Uredbo] prejela priglasitev načrta koncentracije, s katero sta družbi Bertelsmann […] in Sony […] nameravali združiti svoje svetovne dejavnosti na področju posnete glasbe.
Bertelsmann is an international media company … active in recorded music through its whollyowned subsidiary Bertelsmann Music Group “BMG” ….
Bertelsmann je mednarodno dejavna medijska družba […], ki deluje na področju posnete glasbe prek svoje hčerinske družbe, ki jo v celoti nadzira, to je Bertelsmann Music Group (BMG) […].
… In the recorded music sector [Sony] acts through Sony Music Entertainment ...
[…] v sektorju posnete glasbe [družba Sony] deluje prek družbe Sony Music Entertainment […]
The proposed operation consisted in the integration of the global recorded music businesses of the parties to the concentration (with the exception of Sony’s activities in Japan) into three or more newly-created companies pursuant to a Business Contribution Agreement dated 11 December 2003.
Predlagana koncentracija se nana�a na združitev svetovne dejavnosti strank koncentracije na področju posnete glasbe (razen dejavnosti družbe Sony na Japonskem) v tri ali več novih družb, ustanovljenih na podlagi ‚Business Contribution Agreement‘ (sporazum o udeležbi podjetij) z dne 11. decembra 2003.
In the aggregate, these joint venture companies were to be operated under the name Sony BMG.
Načrtovano je, da naj bi ta podjetja delovala skupaj pod imenom Sony BMG.
Under the agreement, Sony BMG would be active in the discovery and development of artists (the so-called A & R (“Artist and Repertoire”) activity) and the marketing and sale of the resulting discs. Sony BMG would not be involved in related activities such as music publishing, manufacturing and distribution. 7
V skladu s Sporazumom bo Sony BMG delovala na področju odkrivanja in spodbujanja izvajalcev (dejavnost oddelka za umetnost z imenom A & R (izvajalci in repertoar)) ter trženja in prodaje plo�č, ki so rezultat tega. Družba Sony BMG se bo ukvarjala le s povezanimi dejavnostmi, kot so izdaja, produkcija in distribucija glasbe. 7
On 20 January 2004, the Commission sent out questionnaires to a number of players on the market.
Komisija je 20. januarja določenim udeležencem na trgu poslala vpra�alnik.
[Impala] replied to that questionnaire and lodged a separate submission on 28 January 200[4] in which it set out the reasons why in its view the Commission should declare the operation incompatible with the common market.
[Impala] je na ta vpra�alnik odgovorila in 28. januarja 2004 […] vložila ločeno vlogo, v kateri je navedla razloge, na podlagi katerih bi morala po njenem mnenju Komisija ugotoviti združljivost koncentracije s skupnim trgom.
[Impala] set out its concerns about further concentration in the
[Impala] je v njej izrazila bojazen glede okrepljene koncentracije na trgu in vpliva, ki naj bi ga imela
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA market and the impact that this would have on market access, including in the retail sector, the media, the internet and consumer choice.
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALI na dostop do trga, vključno s sektorjem distribucije, medijev in interneta, ter na izbiro potro�nikov.
By decision dated 12 February 2004, the Commission found that the notified operation raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”). It therefore initiated [the formal proceedings].
Komisija je z odločbo z dne 12. februarja 2004 ugotovila, da glede prigla�ene koncentracije obstaja resen dvom o njeni združljivosti s skupnim trgom in delovanjem Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (EGP) in je uvedla postopek (formalni).
On 24 May 2004 the Commission sent a statement of objections to the parties to the concentration, in which it provisionally concluded that the notified oper -ation was incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, since it would strengthen a collective dominant position in the recorded music market and in the wholesale market for licences for online music and would coordinate the parent companies’ behaviour in a way incompatible with Article 81 EC.
Komisija je 24. maja 2004 strankam koncentracije poslala obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, v katerem je začasno sklenila, da načrtovana koncentracija ni združljiva s skupnim trgom in delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, ker naj bi krepila kolektivni prevladujoči položaj na trgu posnete glasbe in na grosističnem trgu licenc za spletno glasbo in uskladila ravnanje matičnih družb na način, ki ni v skladu s členom 81 ES.
10 The parties to the concentration replied to the statement of objections and a hearing took place before the Hearing Officer on 14 and 15 June 2004 in the presence of, among others, [Impala].
10 Stranke koncentracije so odgovorile na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah in pred poobla�čencem je 14. in 15. junija potekalo zasli�anje, na katerem je bila med drugimi prisotna tudi [Impala].
11 By [the contested decision], the Commission declared the concentration compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 8(2) of [the Regulation] …’
11 Komisija je z izpodbijano odločbo ugotovila, da je koncentracija združljiva s skupnim trgom na podlagi člena 8(2) Uredbe […]“
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 3 December 2004, Impala brought an action for the annulment of the contested decision.
Impala je 3. decembra 2004 v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje vložila tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe.
In support of that action, Impala put forward five pleas in law, divided into a number of parts.
Impala je v utemeljitev tožbe navedla pet tožbenih razlogov, razdeljenih na več delov.
As regards the first plea, relating to the strengthening of a pre-existing collective dominant position, the Court of First Instance, after having first set out a number of observations regarding the concept of a ‘collective dominant position’, examined the argument according to which, in essence, the contested decision did not explain to the requisite legal standard the reasons for which discounts, in particular campaign discounts, undermine the transparency necessary to allow the development of such a position.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je glede prvega tožbenega razloga v zvezi s krepitvijo prej�njega kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, potem ko je oblikovalo določena stali�ča glede pojma „kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja“, obravnavalo trditev, da v bistvu v sporni odločbi niso bili v pravno zadostni meri pojasnjeni razlogi za to, da popusti, zlasti reklamni, preprečujejo preglednost, ki je potrebna za nastanek takega položaja.
Having reached the conclusion set out in paragraph 325 of the judgment under appeal that, in essence, the contested decision should be annulled on the ground that it was inadequately reasoned, in paragraphs 327 to 458 of the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance none the less examined, in the interest of completeness, Impala’s arguments that the elements put forward by the Commission in order to demonstrate insufficient transparency in the recorded music markets at issue were vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.
Čeprav je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 325 izpodbijane sodbe sklenilo, da je treba sporno odločbo razglasiti za nično zaradi nezadostne obrazložitve, je v točkah od 327 do 458 te sodbe vseeno ob�irno obravnavalo trditve Impale, da je bila glede dokazov, ki jih je predložila Komisija za utemeljitev nezadostne preglednosti zadevnih trgov posnete glasbe, storjena očitna napaka pri presoji.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance found in particular, in paragraph 373 of the judgment under appeal, that it followed both from the contested decision and from the arguments advanced by the Commission before it that the only alleged element of opacity of the market resulted from the lesser transparency of the campaign discounts.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi s tem zlasti v točki 373 izpodbijane sodbe poudarilo, da iz sporne odločbe in iz utemeljitev Komisije pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje izhaja, da je edini dokaz o zatrjevani nepreglednosti trga manj�a preglednost reklamnih popustov.
In paragraphs 377 and 378 of the judgment under appeal, it held, first, that the evidence, as mentioned in the contested decision, did not support the conclusions drawn from it by the Commission and, secondly, that those conclusions were also markedly different from the findings made in the statement of objections.
V točkah 377 in 378 izpodbijane sodbe je razsodilo, da z dokazi, ki so navedeni v sporni odločbi, ni mogoče utemeljiti ugotovitev Komisije, in da se te ugotovitve močno razlikujejo od tistih iz obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah.
In paragraphs 475 and 476 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance set out its conclusions relating to the first plea as follows:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah 475 in 476 izpodbijane sodbe podalo ugotovitve glede prvega tožbenega razloga tako:
… the assertion that the markets for recorded music are not sufficiently transparent to permit a collective dominant position is not supported by a statement of reasons of the requisite legal standard and is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that the elements on which it is based are incomplete
[…] trditev, da trgi posnete glasbe niso dovolj pregledni, da bi omogočili kolektivni prevladujoči položaj, ni obrazložena v pravno zadostni meri, poleg tega pa je bila glede tega storjena očitna napaka pri presoji,
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA and do not include all the relevant data that ought to have been taken into consideration by the Commission and are not capable of supporting the conclusions which are drawn from them.
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALI ker dokazi, s katerimi je utemeljena, niso popolni in ne obsegajo vseh upo�tevnih podatkov, ki bi jih morala upo�tevati Komisija, ter ne omogočajo utemeljitve ugotovitev, ki iz njih izhajajo.
As that assertion constitutes … an essential ground on which the Commission concluded … that there was no collective dominant position, the [contested decision] must be annulled on that ground alone.
Ker je ta trditev […] glavni razlog, na podlagi katerega je Komisija odločila […], da ni bilo kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, je treba [sporno] odločbo razglasiti za nično zaradi tega edinega razloga.
Likewise, as the analysis in respect of retaliation is vitiated by an error of law, or at the very least by a manifest error of assessment, and as that analysis constitutes the other essential ground on which the Commission concluded in the [contested decision] that there was no collective dominant position, that defect also provides a ground for annulment of the [contested decision].’
Poleg tega, ker je bilo pri analizi povračilnih ukrepov napačno uporabljeno pravo oziroma je pri�lo vsaj do očitne napake pri presoji in je ta analiza glavni razlog, da je Komisija v izpodbijani odločbi ugotovila neobstoj kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, tudi ta napaka upravičuje razglasitev ničnosti [sporne] odločbe.“
By its second plea raised before the Court of First Instance, Impala claimed that, by not taking the view that the proposed concentration would create a collective dom -inant position on the market for recorded music, the Commission had infringed Article 253 EC and made a manifest error of assessment and an error of law.
Impala je v okviru drugega tožbenega razloga, ki ga je navajala pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, zatrjevala, da je Komisija s tem, da ni upo�tevala, da bi načrtovana koncentracija ustvarila kolektivni prevladujoči položaj na trgu posnete glasbe, kr�ila člen 253 ES in storila očitno napako pri presoji ter napačno uporabila pravo.
In paragraph 527 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance set out the terms of the analysis in the contested decision as regards the risk that a collective dominant position might be created and went on to hold as follows in paragraph 528 of the judgment:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 527 izpodbijane sodbe najprej ponovilo analizo tveganja vzpostavitve kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, ki izhaja iz sporne odločbe, nato pa v točki 528 navedene sodbe navedlo te ugotovitve:
‘… these few observations, which are so superficial, indeed purely formal, cannot satisfy the Commission’s obligation to carry out a prospective analysis … particularly where, as in the present case, the concentration raises serious problems.
„[…] na podlagi teh nekaterih ugotovitev, ki so tako povr�ne, celo zgolj formalne, ne more biti izpolnjena obveznost Komisije, da izvede prospektivno analizo […], in to predvsem zato, ker koncentracija, kot v obravnavani zadevi, povzroča resne težave.
Independently of the Court’s findings in respect of the first plea in law, it follows both from the fact that the Commission had to engage in lengthy discussion in the [contested decision] in order to conclude that there was no collective dominant position before the concentration and from the fact that it had concluded in the statement of objections, after an investigation lasting five months, that such a position did exist before the concentration, that the question whether the fusion between two of the five [major record companies (‘the majors’)] might create a collective dominant position raises,
Neodvisno od presoje Sodi�ča prve stopnje o prvem tožbenem razlogu iz okoli�čine, da je morala Komisija v [sporni] odločbi ob�irno obravnavati zadevo, da je pri�la do sklepa o neobstoju kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja pred koncentracijo, in iz dejstva, da je po petmesečni preiskavi v obvestilu o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah ugotovila, da tak predhodni položaj obstaja, izhaja vpra�anje, ali pomeni združitev med dvema od petih velikih [velika podjetja fonogramov, v nadaljevanju: veliki]
2008 — CASE C-413/06 P for even stronger reasons, serious problems requiring a thorough examin ation.
2008 – ZADEVA C-413/06 P nevarnost nastanka kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, a fortiori resne težave, ki zahtevajo poglobljeno analizo.
As that examination was not carried out, it follows, on that ground alone, that the second plea in law is well founded.’
Ker ta preizkus ni bil izveden, je treba že samo iz tega razloga ugotoviti, da je drugi tožbeni razlog utemeljen.“
In the interest of completeness, the Court of First Instance held in paragraph 539 of the judgment under appeal that the Commission could not, without making an error, rely on the fact that there was no evidence that retaliatory measures had been used in the past to conclude that the concentration in question was not likely to give rise to a collective dominant position.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je za celovito obravnavo v točki 539 izpodbijane sodbe razsodilo, da se Komisija za ugotovitev, da zadevna koncentracija ni bila nevarna za nastanek kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, ni mogla opreti na neobstoj dokazov o obstoju predhodnih povračilnih ukrepov, ne da bi pri tem storila napako.
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance held that the first and second pleas in law were well founded and annulled the contested decision without examining the third to fifth pleas raised before it.
V teh okoli�činah je Sodi�če prve stopnje odločilo, da sta prvi in drugi tožbeni razlog utemeljena, in razglasilo ničnost sporne odločbe, ne da bi obravnavalo tretji, četrti in peti tožbeni razlog.
By their appeal, the appellants request that the Court of Justice should:
Pritožnici s pritožbo predlagata, naj Sodi�če:
— dismiss Impala’s application for annulment of the contested decision or, alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for reconsideration; and
– zavrne predlog Impale za razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe ali, podredno, vrne zadevo Sodi�ču prve stopnje v novo odločanje;
— order Impala to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
– Impali naloži plačilo stro�kov tega postopka.
By the seven grounds of appeal put forward by the appellants, some of which are divided into a number of parts, the appellants allege errors of law in that in the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance:
Pritožnici v okviru sedmih pritožbenih razlogov, od katerih so nekateri razdeljeni na več delov, zatrjujeta napačno uporabo prava, ker naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi:
— relied on the statement of objections as a benchmark for its review of the substance of the contested decision;
– presojalo vsebino sporne odločbe tako, da se je oprlo na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah;
— required the Commission to undertake new market investigations following the response to the statement of objections;
– od Komisije zahtevalo, da opravi novo preiskavo po prejemu odgovora na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah;
— applied an excessive and incorrect standard of proof for decisions approving a concentration;
– uporabilo pretiran in napačen dokazni standard na področju odločitev o odobritvi koncentracij;
— exceeded the scope of its role in carrying out judicial review;
– prekoračilo okvir sodnega nadzora, za katerega je pristojno;
— misconstrued the relevant legal criteria applying to the creation or strengthening of a collective dominant position;
– ne upo�tevalo ustreznih pravnih meril, ki se uporabljajo na področju nastanka ali krepitve kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja;
— applied an incorrect standard of reasoning as regards decisions approving a concentration; and
– uporabilo napačno določbo na področju obrazložitve odločb o odobritvi koncentracij in
— relied on evidence that was not disclosed to the parties to the concentration.
– utemeljilo odločitev z dokazi, ki strankam koncentracije niso bili razkriti.
Sony BMG Music Entertainment BV adopts in full both the appeal and the forms of order sought by the appellants.
Družba Sony BMG Music Entertainment BV se v celoti pridružuje pritožbi in predlogom pritožnic.
The Commission supports the first, second and fourth grounds of appeal, together with the first part of the third ground.
Komisija podpira prvi, drugi in četrti pritožbeni razlog ter prvi del tretjega pritožbenega razloga.
Impala requests the Court to dismiss the appeal and to order the appellants to pay the costs.
Impala Sodi�ču predlaga, naj zavrne pritožbo in pritožnicama naloži plačilo stro�kov.
As a preliminary point, it pleads that the appeal is inadmissible in whole or in part.
Uvodoma se sklicuje na nedopustnost pritožbe v celoti ali deloma.
It also argues that the appeal could not in any event lead to the setting aside of the judgment under appeal, since the appellants have failed to challenge paragraph 528 of the judgment, which is itself sufficient justification for the annulment of the contested decision.
Poleg tega Impala meni, da pritožba v vsakem primeru ne bi povzročila razveljavitve izpodbijane sodbe, ker pritožnici nista izpodbijali točke 528 izpodbijane sodbe, ki bi že sama po sebi zadostovala za razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe.
The appellants and the Commission claim that both the plea of inadmissibility and the line of argument relating to paragraph 528 of the judgment under appeal sum -marised in the preceding paragraph of this judgment should be rejected.
Pritožnici in Komisija predlagajo zavrnitev ugovora nedopustnosti in trditev v zvezi s točko 528 izpodbijane sodbe, povzetih v prej�nji točki te sodbe.
At the end of its response, the Commission made some ‘additional observations on the “essential grounds” of the [contested] decision’.
Komisija je na koncu odgovora na pritožbo izrazila „dodatna stali�ča o ‚glavnih razlogih‘ [sporne] odločbe“. Impala ta stali�ča prereka na podlagi člena 117(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča. Pritožnici ta stali�ča podpirata.