natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its order of 10 May 2004 in Case T-391/02 Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwertung and Kloh v Parliament and Council, not yet published in the ECR, and in Schmoldt and Others v Commission, cited above, the Court, in particular, refused to accept that the applicant associations had occupied a clearly circumscribed position as negotiator which was intimately linked to the subject-matter of the contested measure.
V svojih sklepih z dne 10. maja 2004 v zadevi Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwertung in Kloh proti Parlamentu in Svetu (T-391/02, še neobjavljen v Recueil) in v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Schmoldt in drugi proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje zlasti zavrnilo mnenje, da so tožeča združenja imela položaj pogajalca, jasno omejenega na predmet izpodbijanega akta in z njim neločljivo povezanega.
In the field of State aid, actions mainly seek the annulment either of a decision taken without opening the formal investigation procedure referred to in Article 88(2) EC or of a decision taken at the end of that procedure.
Na področju državnih pomoči je namen tožb predvsem razglasitev ničnosti odločbe, sprejete brez sprožitve uradnega postopka preverjanja po členu 88(2) ES, ali odločbe, sprejete po koncu tega postopka.
Since those decisions are addressed to the Member State concerned, it is for the undertaking, which is not the addressee, to show that that measure is of direct and individual concern to it.
Te odločbe so naslovljene na zadevne države članice, zato morajo podjetja, na katera niso naslovljene, dokazati, da jih ti akti neposredno in posamično zadevajo.
Where the Commission, without opening the formal investigation procedure, finds in the course of a preliminary investigation that State aid is compatible with the common
V sodbi z dne 16. marca 2004 v zadevi Danske Busvognmaend proti Komisiji (T-157/01, še neobjavljena v Recueil) je bila lastnost zadevne stranke priznana profesionalni
In the judgment of 16 March 2004 in Case T-157/01 Danske Busvognmaend v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, a trade association representing the interests of the majority of Danish bus companies was recognised as having the status of a ‘party concerned’, on the ground that it made a complaint to the Commission, that its interventions influenced the course of the administrative procedure and that at least some of its members were in competition with the undertaking which benefited from the disputed aid.
Sodišče prve stopnje federaciji, ki predstavlja interese večine danskih avtobusnih podjetij, zato ker je bila ta federacija tožeča stranka pred Komisijo, ker so njena posredovanja vplivala na potek upravnega postopka in ker je bilo vsaj nekaj podjetij, ki so njeni člani, v konkurenčnem položaju glede na družbo, ki je prejela sporno pomoč.
In the judgment of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 Kronofrance v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, the Court held that the applicant, who had pleaded the failure to open the formal investigation procedure, was indeed a ‘party concerned’ in light of its status as a competitor, a status established by having regard to the identity of the products manufactured by it with those of the undertaking benefiting from the aid and to the fact that their sales areas overlapped.
V sodbi z dne 1. decembra 2004 v zadevi Kronofrance proti Komisiji (T-27/02, še neobjavljena v Recueil) je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da je bila tožeča stranka, ki je uveljavljala razlog nesprožitve uradnega postopka preverjanja, dejansko zadevna stranka z ozirom na njen status konkurenta, vzpostavljen ob upoštevanju istovetnosti izdelkov, ki jih prozvaja, z izdelki podjetja, ki prejema pomoč, in z ozirom na delno prekrivanje njunih področij trženja.
In the judgment of 13 January 2004 in Case T-158/99 Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, hotel operators in a tourist resort in the Province of Styria (Austria) were entitled to challenge the legality of a Commission decision declaring the public financing of the construction of a luxury hotel in the same resort to be compatible with the common market.
V sodbi z dne 13. januarja 2004 v zadevi Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz in drugi proti Komisiji (T-158/99, še neobjavljena v Recueil) je bilo lastnikom hotelov iz turističnega kraja na Štajerskem (Avstrija) dopuščeno izpodbijati zakonitost odločb Komisije, s katerimi je razglasila združljivost javnega financiranjagradnjerazkošnega hotela v tem kraju.
The Court observed that the applicants were direct competitors of the hotel receiving the aid in question and that they were recognised as having this status in the contested decision.
Sodišče prve stopnje v bistvu poudarja, da so tožeče stranke neposredni konkurenti hotelu, ki je prejel zadevno pomoč, in da jim izpodbijana odločba to lastnost priznava.
In the above three cases it was held that the applicant undertakings were, in their capacity as parties concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, individually concerned by the decisions declaring at the end of the preliminary investigation procedure that aid was compatible with the common market.
V treh zgoraj navedenih zadevah je bilo odločeno, da so imela tožeča podjetja lastnost zadevnih strank v smislu člena 88(2) ES, ki jih odločbe o združljivosti pomoči, izdane po koncu predhodnega preverjanja, posamično zadevajo.
It should nevertheless be noted, with regard to the extent of the review of the pleas, that in one instance the Court regarded the pleas for annulment in their entirety as seeking to establish that the Commission had unlawfully failed to open the formal investigation procedure (Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz and Others v Commission), whereas in another instance it annulled on the merits the decision approving the grant of aid (Danske Busvognmaend v Commission).
Glede obsega nadzora o tožbenih razlogih je Sodišče prve stopnje v enem primeru preučilo celoto ničnostnih razlogov, da bi dokazalo, da Komisija nezakonito ni sprožila uradnega postopka preverjanja (zgoraj navedena sodba v zadevi Thermenhotel Stoiser Franz in drugi proti Komisiji), medtem ko je v drugem primeru razglasilo ničnost pravnega temelja odločbe, s katero ji je bila dodeljena pomoč (zgoraj navedena sodba v zadevi Danske Busvognmaend proti Komisiji).
Where the contested decision has been adopted at the end of the formal investigation procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC, it is not sufficient, in order for an undertaking to be distinguished individually in the same way as the addressee of the decision, that it has the status of a ‘party concerned’.
Kadar je bila sporna odločba sprejeta po koncu uradnega postopka preverjanja iz člena 88(2) ES, podjetju ne zadostuje lastnost zainteresirane stranke za to, da bi bilo na enak način individualizirano s podjetjem, ki naj bi bilo naslovnik te odločbe.
According to the case-law, such a decision is of individual concern to the undertakings which were at the origin of the complaint which led to that procedure and whose views were heard and determined the conduct of the procedure, provided, however, that their position on the market is substantially affected by the aid which is the subject of that decision.
Glede na sodno prakso taka odločba posamično zadeva podjetja, ki so vložila pritožbo, na podlagi katere je bil sprožen ta postopek, in podjetja, ki so predstavila svoja stališča, odločilna za potek postopka, če ukrep, ki je predmet navedene odločbe, bistveno vpliva na njihov položaj na trgu.
Applying those criteria identified for the first time by the Court of Justice in Case 169/84 COFAZ and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 391, the Court of First Instance held that
Ob uporabi teh meril, ki jih je Sodišče prvič priznalo v sodbi z dne 28. januarja 1986 v zadevi COFAZ in drugi proti Komisiji (169/84, Recueil, str.
Measures of general application
Akti splošne veljave
The Court did not fail to recall that although the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC makes no express provision regarding the admissibility of actions brought by private persons for annulment of measures of general application, the mere fact that the contested measure is of general application is not sufficient to render such an action inadmissible.
Glede na to, da člen 230, četrti pododstavek, ES izrecno ne obravnava dopustnosti ničnostne tožbe, ki jo posamezniki vložijo zoper akte splošnega pomena, Sodišče prve stopnje opominja, da ta edina okoliščina ne zadošča za to, da se take tožbe razglasijo za nedopustne.
None the less, after analysing whether the private persons were individually concerned by the measures of general application whose legality they put in issue, the Court concluded that they were not and dismissed actions for the annulment of regulations (order of 6 July 2004 in Case T-370/02 Alpenhain-Camembert-Werk and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR), 8 directives (order of 6 September 2004 in Case T-213/02 SNF v Commission, not yet published in the ECR (under appeal, Case C-482/04 P)), 9and decisions of general application (Schmoldt and Others v Commission, cited above).
Analizo vprašanja, ali akti splošnega pomena posamično zadevajo posameznike, ki dvomijo o njihovi zakonitosti, je Sodišče prve stopnje odločilo odklonilno in zavrnilo tožbe zaradi razglasitve ničnosti uredb (sklep Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. julija 2004 v zadevi Alpenhain-Camembert-Werk in drugi proti Komisiji, T-370/02, še neobjavljen v Recueil8), direktiv (sklep z dne 6. septembra 2004 v zadevi SNF proti Komisiji, T-213/02, še neobjavljen v Recueil9
By this order the Court dismissed an action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the name ‘Feta’ (OJ 2002 L 277, p.
S tem sklepom je Sodišče prve stopnje zavrnilo tožbo zaradi razglasitve ničnosti uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1829/2002 z dne 14. oktobra 2002, ki je spremenila Prilogo k Uredbi (ES) št. 1107/96, glede označevanja „Feta“ (UL L 277, str.
10), by which ‘Feta’ was added as a protected designation of origin.
10) pod zaščitenim izvirnim imenom.
By this order the Court dismissed an action for partial annulment of the Twenty-sixth Commission Directive (2002/34/EC) of 15 April 2002 adapting to technical progress Annexes II, III and VII to Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 2002 L 102, p.
S tem sklepom je Sodišče prve stopnje zavrnilo tožbo zaradi delne razglasitve ničnosti Šestindvajsete direktive Komisije 2002/34/ES z dne 15. aprila 2002 o prilagoditvi Prilog II, III in VII k Direktivi Sveta 76/768/EGS o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi s kozmetičnimi izdelki tehničnemu napredku.
Judgment of 29 April 2004 in Joined Cases T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01 Tokai Carbon and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR (under appeal, Cases C-289/04 P, C-301/04 P, C-307/04 P and C-308/04 P).
Sodba z dne 29. aprila 2004. Tokai Carbon in drugi proti Komisiji, T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 do T-246/01, T-251/01 in T-252/01, še neobjavljena v Recueil (pritožba, zadeve C-289/04 P, C-301/04 P, C-307/04 P in C-308/04 P).
Judgments of 8 July 2004 in Case T-44/00 Mannesmannröhren-Werke v Commission (under appeal, Case C-411/04 P); Case T-48/00 Corus UK v Commission; Case T-50/00 Dalmine v Commission (under appeal, Case C-407/04 P); and Joined Cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 JFE Engineering and Others v Commission (under appeal, Cases C-403/04 P and C-405/04 P); none yet published in the ECR.
Sodbe z dne 8. julija 2004, v zadevi Mannesmannröhren-Werke proti Komisiji, T-44/00 (pritožba, zadeva C 411/04 P); v zadevi Corus UK proti Komisiji, T-48/00; v zadevi Dalmine proti Komisiji, T-50/00 (pritožba, zadeva C 407/04 P); v zadevi JFE Engineering in drugi proti Komisiji, T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 in T-78/00 (pritožba, zadevi C-403/04 P in C-405/04 P); še neobjavljene v Recueil.
Commission Decision 2002/271/EC of 18 July 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Case COMP/E-1/36.490 – Graphite electrodes (OJ 2002 L 100, p. 1).
Odločba Komisije 2002/271/ES z dne 18. julija 2001 o postopku uporabe člena 81 ES ali člena 53 sporazuma EGS – Zadeva COMP/E-1/36.490 – Grafitneelektrode(UL 2002, L 100, str. 1).
Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) (OJ 2003, L 140, p. 1).
Odločba Komisije 2003/382/ES z dne 8. decembra 1999 o postopku uporabe člena 81 Pogodbe ES (Zadeva IV/E-1/35.860-B – Nevarjene jeklene cevi) (UL 2003, L 140, str. 1).
4; ‘the Leniency Notice’).
Sodišče prve stopnje
Points raised in the case-law on the scope of Article 81 CE a)
Prispevek sodne prakse na področju člena 81 ES a)
In Case T-313/02 Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission (judgment of 30 September 2004, not yet published in the ECR; under appeal, Case C-519/04 P), the Court of First Instance had occasion to apply the concept of economic activity to sport.
V zadevi Meca-Medina in Majcen proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 30. septembra 2004, T-313/02, še neobjavljena v Recueil; pritožba (zadeva C-519/04 P)), je Sodišče prve stopnje imelo priložnost uporabiti pojem gospodarske aktivnosti na področju športa.
In its judgment, the Court upheld the Commission’s decision rejecting the complaint lodged by two professional athletes who compete in long-distance swimming events.
Sodišče prve stopnje v svoji sodbi potrjuje odločbo Komisije, ki je zavrnila pritožbo dveh poklicnih športniko v ki se ukvarjata z daljinskim plavanjem.
Those two athletes, who were suspended under the Olympic Movement’s Anti-Doping Code after testing positive for nandrolone, had claimed before the Commission that the International Olympic Committee’s anti-doping rules infringed the Community rules on competition and the free movement of services.
Ta športnika, ki sta bila po preizkusu nandrolona, ki je bil pozitiven, suspendirana na podlagi protidopinškega kodeksa olimpijskega gibanja, sta pred Komisijo navajala, da je protidopinška ureditev Mednarodnega olimpijskega komiteja kršila pravila konkurence Skupnosti in svobodo opravljanja storitev.
The Court recalled that, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, sport is subject to Community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 2 EC.
Sodišče prve stopnje opominja, da se pravo Skupnosti, upoštevajoč sodno prakso Sodišča, na šport nanaša zgolj toliko, kolikor je ta dejansko gospodarska dejavnost v smislu člena 2 ES.
The provisions of the EC Treaty on free movement of workers and services apply to the rules adopted in the field of sport which concern the economic aspect which sporting activity can present.
Določbe Pogodbe ES o prostem pretoku delavcev in storitev se uporabljajo pri pravilih s področja športa, ki so gospodarske narave, kakršna je lahko tudi športna dejavnost.
That applies, in particular, to the rules providing for the payment of fees for the transfer of professional players between clubs (transfer clauses) or limiting the number of professional players who are nationals of other Member States which those clubs may field in matches.
Za to gre zlasti pri pravilih, ki določajo plačilo nadomestil pri prestopu poklicnih igralcev v drug klub (klavzula o prestopu) ali ki omejujejo število poklicnih igralcev, državljanov drugih držav, s katerimi lahko ti klubi tekmujejo.
On the other hand, Community law does not extend to what are purely sporting rules which for that reason have nothing to do with
Nasprotno pravo Skupnosti nima učinkov na pravila, ki se nanašajo zgolj na šport in so gospodarski dejavnosti tuja, kot so to pravila v zvezi s sestavo nacionalnih moštev ali „pravila igre“, ki določajo na primer trajanje igre ali število igralcev na igrišču.
Court of First Instance
Vpogled v spis
Proceedings economic activity, like the rules on the composition of national teams or ‘the rules of the game’ fixing, for example, the length of matches or the number of players on the field.
Pravo Skupnosti danes jasno priznava pravilo, po katerem je treba podjetjem, ki so predmet preiskave na podlagi členov 81 ES in 82 ES, omogočiti vpogled v spis Komisije.
After noting that the Court of Justice had not, in cases concerning Article 39 EC et seq. and Article 49 EC et seq., had to rule on whether sporting rules are subject to the Treaty provisions on competition, the Court of First Instance considered that the principles identified in respect of free movement of workers and services are equally valid as regards the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to competition and that the opposite is also true.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi Tokai Carbon in drugi proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje najprej poudarilo, da je Komisija dolžna zadevnim podjetjem za to, da bi se jim omogočila učinkovita obramba zoper očitke, ki so v obvestilu o ugotovitvi kršitve navedene proti njim, omogočiti vpogled v celoten spis, razen dokumentov, ki vsebujejo poslovne skrivnosti drugih podjetij ali druge zaupne podatke, in notranjih dokumentov Komisije.
Competition procedure
Sodišče prve stopnje
The rule that undertakings being investigated under Articles 81 EC and 82 EC must have access to the Commission’s file is now clearly recognised in Community law.
Namen obvestila o ugotovitvi kršitve je ustaljen: zadevnim strankam mora omogočiti, da dejansko izvedo, kakšna dejanja jim Komisija očita, in da koristno izvršujejo svoje pravice obrambe.
That rule has its basis in the principle of equality of arms and is therefore essential to the exercise of the rights of the defence. None the less, there are limits to the rule, which seek to protect the Commission’s decision-taking process or the legitimate interests of third parties.
Ta zahteva je spoštovana, če končna odločba zadevnim strankam ne očita kršitev, ki se razlikujejo od tistih, ki jih omenja obvestilo o ugotovitvi kršitve, in se omeji le na dejstva, o katerih so se zadevne stranke imele priložnost izreči.
In Tokai Carbon and Others v Commission, cited above, the Court of First Instance first observed that, in order to allow the undertakings concerned to defend themselves effectively against the objections raised against them in the statement of objections, the Commission is required to make available to them the entire investigation file, except for documents containing business secrets of other undertakings, other confidential information and internal documents of the Commission.
V sodbi z dne 8. julija 2004 v zadevi Mannesmannröhren-Werke proti Komisiji (T-44/00, še neobjavljena v Recueil; pritožba (zadeva C-411/04 P)), je Sodišče prve stopnje spomnilo, da neskladnost med obvestilom o ugotovitvi kršitve in končno odločbo krši pravice obrambe samo pod pogojem, da ugotovitev iz odločbe v obvestilu ni bila izpostavljena na zadovoljiv način, da bi naslovnikom omogočila obrambo.
As regards those internal documents, the restriction of access to them is justified by the need to ensure the proper functioning of the Commission when it deals with infringements of the Treaty competition rules; internal documents can be made available only if the exceptional circumstances of the case so require, on the basis of serious evidence which it is for the party concerned to provide, both before the Community Court and in the administrative procedure conducted by the Commission.
Dejansko je obveznost Komisije glede obvestila o ugotovitvi kršitve omejena na navedbo zatrjevanih očitkov, na jasno izražanje dejstev, na katerih temelji obvestilo, in na pravno kvalifikacijo,dabisenaslovnikomobvestilaomogočila obramba. Sodišče prve stopnje v tem oziru sodi, da je lahko pravna kvalifikacijadejstev, vsebovanih v obvestilu o ugotovitvi kršitve, po definicijilezačasna in poznejše odločbe Komisije ne bi bilo mogoče razglasiti za nično samo zato, ker se dokončni sklepi, izhajajoči iz teh dejstev, natančno ne skladajo s to vmesno kvalifikacijo.
The scope of the Statement of Objections
Posledice izrecnega priznanja dejstev v upravni fazi
The function of the Statement of Objections is well established: it must enable those concerned to be fully aware of the conduct in respect of which the Commission criticises them and to exercise their rights of defence effectively.
Če ni izrecnega priznanja podjetja, ki je obravnavano v okviru kršitve pravil konkurence, mora Komisija ugotoviti dejstva, s tem da lahko podjetje v sodnem postopku prosto predstavi vse obrambne razloge, ki se mu zdijo koristni.
That requirement is satisfied where the final decision does not impute to the parties concerned infringements different from those referred to in the statement of objections and sets out only facts in respect of which the parties concerned have had the opportunity to provide an explanation.
V skladu s temi merili je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da sklep, ki ga je Komisija izvedla na podlagi skupine elementov, kot so objektivno obnašanje zadevnega podjetja do te institucije v upravnem postopku in njegove zelo splošne izjave o neugovarjanju, ne more pomeniti takega priznanja (ista sodba, točka 109).
In its judgment of 8 July 2004 in Case T-44/00 Mannesmannröhren-Werke v Commission, not yet published in the ECR (under appeal, Case C-411/04 P), the Court of First Instance recalled that the rights of the defence are infringed as a result of a discrepancy between the statement of objections and the final decision only where an objection stated in the decision was not set out in the statement of objections in a manner sufficient to enable
S tako sodbo Sodišče prve stopnje natančneje opredeli presojo, ki jo je sprejelo v letu 2003 v zadevah o „Lysin“, v skladu s katero Sodišče prve stopnje ne more več presojati dejanskih elementov, na katere se je pri določitvi zneska globe lahko oprla Komisija, če jih je tožeča stranka izrecno priznala v upravnem postopku (sodba z dne 9. julija 2003
The Commission is required to hear the addressees of a statement of objections and, where necessary, to take account of any observations made in response to the objections by amending its analysis, specifically in order to respect their rights of defence.
II-2597 (pritožba, zadeva C-397/03 P), pojasnjena v Letnem poročilu za leto 2003).
Where the undertaking involved in an infringement of the competition rules does not expressly acknowledge the facts, the Commission must prove the facts and the undertaking is free to put forward, in the procedure before the Court, any plea in its defence which it deems appropriate.
Sodišče (sodbi z dne 18. oktobra 1989 v zadevi Orkem proti Komisiji, 374/87, Recueil, str. 3283, in z dne 15. oktobra 2002 v zadevi Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij in drugi proti Komisiji, C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P do C-252/99 P in C-254/99 P, Recueil, str.
On the other hand, that is not the case where the undertaking expressly, clearly and specifically acknowledges the facts: where the undertaking explicitly admits during the administrative procedure the substantive truth of the facts which the Commission alleges against it in the statement of objections, those facts must thereafter be regarded as established and the undertaking estopped in principle from disputing them during the procedure before the Court (Tokai Carbon and Others v Commission, cited above, paragraph 108).
I-8375) in Sodišče prve stopnje (sodba z dne 20. februarja 2001 v zadevi Mannesmannröhren-Werke proti Komisiji, T-112/98, Recueil, str. II-729) sta nepretrgoma sodili, da bi bilo priznavanje take pravice onstran potrebnega za to, da se obvaruje pravica podjetij do obrambe, da bi Komisiji predstavljalo neupravičeno oviro za izpolnitev vloge nadzora nad spoštovanjem pravil konkurence na skupnem trgu in da se pravica do molka lahko prizna samo toliko, kolikor bi bilo zadevno podjetje dolžno predložiti odgovore, s katerimi bi v bistvu priznalo obstoj kršitve, ki jo mora dokazati Komisija.