natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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 (see, in that regard, Case C-202/06 P Cementbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission [2007] ECR I-12129, paragraph 39). It is, however, an exception to the general scheme of the Regulation, which is laid down in particular in Articles 6(1) and 8(1), according to which the Commission is to rule expressly on the concentrations which are notified to it. 50
Ta določba je namreč poseben izraz zahteve po hitrosti, ki označuje splo�no sistematiko Uredbe in ki nalaga Komisiji, naj spo�tuje stroge roke za sprejetje končne odločbe (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 18. decembra 2007 v zadevi Cementbouw Handel & Industrie proti Komisiji, C-202/06 P, ZOdl., str. I-12129, točka 39). 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. 50
Furthermore, it is true that, as is apparent from the Court’s caselaw, the decisions of the Commission as to the compatibility of concentrations with the common market
Poleg tega je res, da iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da morajo biti odločbe Komisije o združljivosti koncentracij s skupnim trgom utemeljene z dovolj pomembnimi
2008 — CASE C-413/06 P must be supported by a sufficiently cogent and consistent body of evidence (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-68/94 and C-30/95 France and Others v Commission [1998] ECR I-1375, ‘Kali & Salz’, paragraph 228) and that in the context of the an -alysis 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 (see Commission v Tetra Laval, paragraph 44). 51
2008 – ZADEVA C-413/06 P in doslednimi dokazi (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 31. marca 1998 v združenih zadevah Francija in drugi proti Komisiji, imenovana „Kali & Salz“, C-68/94 in C-30/95, Recueil, str. I-1375, točka 228) 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 posebej pomembna (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Tetra Laval, točka 44). 51
That caselaw merely reflects the essential function of evidence, which is to establish convincingly the merits of an argument or, as in the case of the control of concentrations, to support the conclusions underpinning the Commission’s decisions (see, to that effect, Commission v Tetra Laval, paragraphs 41 and 44).
Ta sodna praksa namreč le pojasnjuje bistveno vlogo dokaza, ki je v tem, da prepriča o utemeljenosti teze oziroma da na področju nadzora koncentracij utemelji presoje, ki so podlaga odločb Komisije (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Tetra Laval, točki 41 in 44).
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.
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.
In that regard, 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, dejavnik, ki ga je treba upo�tevati pri presoji verjetnosti različnih posledic te koncentracije, da bi opredelili tisto, ki je najverjetnej�a, ta zapletenost pa kot taka ne vpliva na zahtevani dokazni standard.
It follows that, where it has been notified of a proposed concentration pursuant to the Regulation, 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, naj odloči o koncentraciji na podlagi Uredbe, 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.
The appellants are accordingly incorrect in maintaining that, since it was a decision approving a concentration that was at issue, the Court of First Instance should have considered only whether the Commission could, by applying a particularly high standard of proof, have prohibited that concentration.
Iz tega izhaja, da so trditve pritožnic, da mora Sodi�če prve stopnje, kadar gre za odločbo o odobritvi koncentracije, preučiti le, ali bi lahko Komisija na podlagi zelo visokega dokaznega standarda prepovedala sporno koncentracijo, nepravilne. Ne
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA it being necessary to adopt a position on the admissibility of the specific criticisms relating to the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal listed in paragraph 41 of this judgment, it must be held that since the premiss underlying those criticisms is groundless, they cannot, in any event, be accepted.
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALI da bi bilo treba sprejeti stali�če o dopustnosti posebnih očitkov v zvezi s točkami izpodbijane sodbe, na�tetimi v točki 41 te sodbe, je treba ugotoviti, da teh očitkov ni mogoče sprejeti, ker premisa, na kateri temeljijo, ni utemeljena.
In the light of the above, the second part of the third ground of appeal must be rejected.
Glede na navedeno je treba drugi del tretjega pritožbenega razloga zavrniti.
The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the Court of First Instance relied on the statement of objections as a benchmark for its review of the substance of the contested decision
Prvi pritožbeni razlog: napačna uporaba prava, ker se je Sodi�če prve stopnje pri presoji vsebine sporne odločbe oprlo na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah
In a number of passages in the judgment under appeal, among others, in paragraphs 379, 424 and 446, the Court of First Instance referred to the statement of objections in order to support its reasoning, both as regards the plea alleging inadequate reasoning in the contested decision and as regards the argument alleging manifest errors of assessment which vitiated that decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje se je v več delih izpodbijane sodbe, zlasti v točkah 379, 424 in 446, sklicevalo na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah za utemeljitev svojega razlogovanja glede tožbenega razloga o nezadostni obrazložitvi sporne odločbe in glede očitnih napak pri presoji v tej odločbi.
In its examination of the plea alleging insufficient reasoning in the contested decision, the Court of First Instance observed in particular as follows:
V okviru obravnavanja tožbenega razloga o nezadostni obrazložitvi sporne odločbe je Sodi�če prve stopnje opozorilo zlasti na to:
The Court must examine, first of all, the impact of the circumstance, emphasised by [Impala], that the Commission had concluded emphatically in the statement of objections that the concentration was incompatible with the common market on the ground, in particular, that a collective dominant position existed before the proposed concentration and that the market for recorded music was transparent and particularly conducive to coordination.
Najprej je treba preučiti vpliv okoli�čine, ki jo navaja [Impala], da je Komisija v obvestilu o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah zelo poudarjeno ugotovila, da koncentracija ni združljiva s skupnim trgom zlasti zato, ker je obstajal kolektivni prevladujoči položaj pred nameravano koncentracijo in ker je bil trg posnete glasbe zelo pregleden in posebej ugoden za usklajevanje.
In effect, as may be seen from the case-file and from the oral argument before the Court, throughout the administrative procedure the Commission considered, on the basis of all the information which it had received, during an investigation lasting five months, both from the various operators on the market and from the parties to the concentration, that the market was sufficiently transparent to allow tacit collusion on prices, and that it was only in the wake of the arguments submitted by the parties to the concentration, assisted by their economic adviser, at the hearing on [14] and [15] June 2004 that, without carrying out any fresh market investigations, it adopted the opposite position and, on 1 July 2004, sent the draft decision to the Advisory Committee.
Kot izhaja iz spisa in razprav pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, je namreč Komisija med celotnim upravnim postopkom na podlagi vseh podatkov, ki jih je med petmesečno preiskavo dobila od različnih udeležencev na trgu in od strank koncentracije, menila, da je bil trg dovolj pregleden, da je omogočal tiho usklajevanje cen in je �ele po trditvah strank koncentracije in njihovega ekonomskega svetovalca na obravnavi [14.] in [15.] junija 2004, ne da bi opravila nove preiskave v zvezi s trgom, sprejela nasprotno stali�če in 1. julija 2004 poslala osnutek odločbe svetovalnemu odboru.
17), it is sufficient for it to set out the reasons why it did not consider it possible to show the existence of an infringement of the competition rules, but it is not obliged to explain any differences by comparison with the statement of objections, since that is a preparatory document containing assessments which are purely provisional in nature and are intended to define the scope of the administrative procedure vis-à-vis the undertakings forming the subject of that procedure, or to discuss all the points of fact and of law dealt with during the administrative procedure.
204), zadostuje, da navede razloge, zakaj je menila, da ni mogoče ugotoviti obstoja kr�itve pravil konkurence, ne da bi bila pri tem zavezana pojasniti morebitne razlike v primerjavi z obvestilom o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, ker je to pripravljalni dokument, v katerem so presoje zgolj začasne in namenjene določitvi obsega predmeta upravnega postopka proti podjetjem, ki so predmet tega postopka, niti razpravljati o vseh dejanskih in pravnih vidikih, obravnavanih v upravnem postopku.
In [Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C- 211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P] Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission [[2004] ECR I-123], the Court of Justice referred to the provisional nature of a statement of objections and to the Commission’s obligation to take into account the elements resulting from the administrative pro cedure, in order, in particular, to drop any objections which may have proved unfounded.
Sodi�če je v svoji sodbi [z dne 7. januarja 2004 v združenih zadevah Aalborg Portland in drugi proti Komisiji, C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P in C-219/00 P, Recueil, str. I-123] opozorilo na začasnost obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah in obveznost Komisije, da upo�teva dokaze, ki izhajajo iz upravnega postopka, zlasti pri zavrnitvi očitkov, ki bi bili neutemeljeni.
Admittedly, that caselaw was developed in respect of proceedings for the application of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC and not in the specific field of the control of concentrations, where the need to observe the mandatory timelimits governing the adoption of decisions by the Commission does not allow
Opozoriti je treba, da se je ta sodna praksa res razvila v zvezi s postopki izvajanja členov 81 ES in 82 ES, ne na posebnem področju nadzora koncentracij, v okviru katerega spo�tovanje zavezujočih rokov za sprejetje odločb Komisije tej ne omogoča podalj�anja preiskave in zato zmanj�uje možnost, da bi
In its final observations, moreover, the Commission emphasised that the measures of investigation carried out after the hearing consisted essentially in consulting the operators on the market concerning the proposed commitments and did not deal with the objections raised against the notified concentration.
Komisija bistveno spremenila stali�če v nadaljevanju upravnega postopka. Komisija je v končnih stali�čih poleg tega poudarila, da ukrepi preiskave po zasli�anju zajemajo v glavnem posvetovanje z udeleženci na trgu glede predlaganih zavez in se ne nana�ajo na očitke proti prigla�eni koncentraciji.
However, the fact remains that the statement of objections is merely a preparatory document and that the final decision must be based solely on all the circumstances and evidence relevant for the purpose of the assessment of the effects which the proposed concentration will have on competition in the reference markets.
Vendar ostaja dejstvo, da je obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah le pripravljalni dokument in da mora biti končna odločba obrazložena le glede vseh okoli�čin in dokazov, upo�tevnih za presojo vplivov nameravane koncentracije na konkurenco na referenčnih trgih.
It follows that the mere fact that the Commission did not explain in the body of the decision the change in its position by comparison with that set out in the statement of objections cannot as such constitute a lack of, or an insufficient, statement of reasons.’
Iz tega izhaja, da edina okoli�čina, da Komisija v svoji odločbi ni obrazložila spremembe svojega stali�ča glede na stali�če, ki izhaja iz obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, kot taka ne more pomeniti neobstoja ali nezadostnosti obrazložitve.“
The appellants claim that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in using the statement of objections as a benchmark for evaluating the substance of the contested decision, in contravention of the rights of the defence.
Pritožnici menita, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, ker je za podlago vsebinske presoje sporne odločbe uporabilo obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah in je kr�ilo pravice do obrambe.
In those circumstances, the appellants take the view that the comparison made by the Court of First Instance between the contested decision and the provisional findings of the Commission contained in the statement of objections cannot support the conclusions reached in the judgment under appeal as regards the reasoning of the contested decision and the Commission’s findings in it.
V teh okoli�činah pritožnici menita, da primerjava, ki jo je izvedlo Sodi�če prve stopnje, med sporno odločbo in začasnimi sklepi Komisije iz obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah ne more utemeljiti sklepov iz izpodbijane sodbe glede obrazložitve sporne odločbe in ugotovitev Komisije, ki iz nje izhajajo.
They cite in that regard paragraphs 300, 302 and 308 of the judgment under appeal as regards the conclusions of the Court of First Instance in relation to the reasoning of the contested decision.
V zvezi s tem navajata točke 300, 302 in 308 izpodbijane sodbe glede presoje Sodi�ča prve stopnje o obrazložitvi sporne odločbe.
In addition, as regards the examination by the Court of First Instance of the arguments based on manifest errors of assessment, the appellants criticise in their appeal paragraphs 338, 339, 341, 362, 378, 379, 398, 402, 409, 419, 424, 446, 447, 451, 456, 467, 491, 532 and 538 of the judgment.
Poleg tega pritožnici v pritožbi glede preizkusa trditev o očitnih napakah pri presoji, ki ga je izvedlo Sodi�če prve stopnje, kritizirata točke 338, 339, 341, 362, 378, 379, 398, 402, 409, 419, 424, 446, 447, 451, 456, 467, 491, 532 in 538 navedene sodbe.
In support of the appellants in relation to this ground of appeal, the Commission argues that in much of the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance — contrary to the caselaw cited by that court itself in paragraph 284 of the judgment, to which it paid only lip service — did not examine the contested decision on its own merits as regards the question whether it was adequately reasoned and, as regards the plea of substantive error, the question whether that decision contains errors of fact or manifest errors of assessment, but instead focused in its judgment on the question whether the statement of objections was shown to be unfounded.
Komisija, ki glede tega pritožbenega razloga podpira pritožnici, navaja, da Sodi�če prve stopnje v nasprotju s sodno prakso, ki jo je samo navajalo v točki 284 te sodbe in na katero se je „sklicevalo zgolj formalno“, ni preučilo sporne odločbe glede vpra�anja, ali je bila ta odločba zadostno obrazložena, in glede tožbenega razloga o vsebinski napaki, ali je v navedeni odločbi napačno ugotovljeno dejansko stanje ali storjena očitna napaka pri presoji, ampak se v svoji sodbi bolj osredotoča na vpra�anje, ali je obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah neutemeljeno.
Thus, according to the Commission, since certain facts were not mentioned in the statement of objections, the Court of First Instance inferred from that that they could not be important for the assessment of the consequences of the concentration in general.
Tako Komisija meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje zato, ker nekatera dejstva v obvestilu o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah niso bila navedena, iz tega sklepalo, da ne morejo biti pomembna za presojo posledic koncentracije na splo�no.
Moreover, whereas the Commission set out certain findings in the contested decision that were expressed in a less unqualified manner in the statement of objections, the Court of First Instance took as a basis for its review the assessment made in the statement of objections.
Čeprav je Komisija v sporni odločbi pojasnila določene sklepe, ki so bili v obvestilu o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah oblikovani bolj pozitivno, naj bi se Sodi�če prve stopnje pri svojem nadzoru oprlo na presojo, ki izhaja iz navedenega obvestila.
Impala argues that the Court of First Instance merely mentioned extracts from the statement of objections in order to emphasise inherent inconsistencies in the contested decision itself and the lack of underlying support for the findings set out in it.
Impala navaja, da se je Sodi�če prve stopnje omejilo na navedbo posameznih delov obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, da bi poudarilo značilna neskladja sporne odločbe in neobstoj podlage za utemeljitev ugotovitev, ki iz nje izhajajo.
The Court of First Instance expressly recognised that the statement of objections is a preparatory document, that its findings are purely provisional and that the Commission does not have to explain differences between that statement and the contested decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi izrecno priznalo, da je obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah pripravljalni dokument, da so ugotovitve, ki jih vsebuje, zgolj začasne in da Komisija ni pojasnila razlik med tem obvestilom in sporno odločbo.
It is apparent from the Court’s caselaw that the right to a fair hearing, which is a fundamental principle of Community law and forms, in particular, part of the rights of the defence, requires that the undertaking concerned must have been afforded the opportunity, during the administrative procedure, to make known its views on the truth and relevance of the facts and circumstances alleged and on the documents used by the Commission to support its claim that there has been an infringement of the EC Treaty (see inter alia, to that effect, Case 17/74 Transocean Marine Paint Association v Commission [1974] ECR 1063, paragraph 15; Joined Cases 100/80 to 103/80 Musique diffusion française and Others v Commission [1983] ECR 1825,
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da načelo kontradiktornosti, ki je temeljno načelo prava Skupnosti in je sestavni del pravic do obrambe, zahteva, naj se zadevnemu podjetju v upravnem postopku da možnost, da ustrezno predstavi svoje stali�če o resničnosti in upo�tevnosti zatrjevanih dejstev in okoli�čin ter o dokumentih, ki jih Komisija navaja v podporo svoji trditvi o obstoju kr�itve Pogodbe ES (glej v tem smislu zlasti sodbi z dne 23. oktobra 1974 v zadevi Transocean Marine Paint Association proti Komisiji, 17/74, Recueil, str. 1063, točka 15, in z dne 7. junija 1983 v združenih zadevah Musique Diffusion française in drugi proti Komisiji, od
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA paragraph 10; Kali & Salz, paragraph 174; and Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission, paragraph 66). 62
1825, točka 10, ter zgoraj navedeni sodbi Kali & Salz, točka 174, in Aalborg Portland in drugi proti Komisiji, točka 66). 62
For procedures for the control of concentrations governed by the Regulation, that principle is laid down in the second sentence of Article 18(3) and, in more detail, in Article 13(2) of the Implementing Regulation.
To načelo je za postopke nadzora koncentracij, ki jih ureja Uredba, določeno v njenem členu 18(3), druga poved, in natančneje v členu 13(2) izvedbene uredbe.
The latter in substance requires, among other things, that written notice be given to the notifying parties of the Commission’s objections, with an indication to those parties of the period within which they may inform the Commission of their views in writing.
Te zadnje določbe v bistvu zahtevajo zlasti, da Komisija pisno naslovi svoje pripombe strankam, ki prigla�ujejo, in jim določi rok, v katerem ji lahko pisno sporočijo svoje mnenje.
It follows, by analogy with the caselaw on Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, that the statement of objections is a procedural and preparatory document which, in order to ensure that the rights of the defence may be exercised effectively, delimits the scope of the administrative procedure initiated by the Commission, thereby preventing the latter from relying on other objections in its decision terminating the procedure in question (see, in particular, the order in Joined Cases 142/84 and 156/84 British American Tobacco and Reynolds Industries v Commission [1986] ECR 1899, paragraphs 13 and 14).
Podobno iz sodne prakse glede členov 81 ES in 82 ES izhaja, da je obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah procesni in pripravljalni dokument, ki za zagotovitev učinkovitega nadzora pravice do obrambe opredeljuje predmet upravnega postopka, ki ga je uvedla Komisija, in tako preprečuje, da bi se ta sklicevala na druge očitke v odločbi, s katero se zadevni postopek konča (glej zlasti sklep z dne 18. junija 1986 v zadevi British American Tobacco in Reynolds [Industries] proti Komisiji, 142/84 in 156/84, Recueil, str. 1899, točki 13 in 14).
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 (see, to that effect, SGL Carbon v Commission, paragraph 62).
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 (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo SGL Carbon proti Komisiji, točka 62).
The Commission must take into account the factors emerging from the whole of the administrative procedure, 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 (see the order in British American Tobacco and Reynolds Industries v Commission, paragraph 13).
Zato obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah nikakor ne preprečuje Komisiji, da bi spremenila svoje stali�če v korist zadevnih podjetij (glej zgoraj navedeni sklep British American Tobacco in Reynolds [Industries] proti Komisiji, točka 13).