natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Those assertions are confined, moreover, to indicating that campaign discounts are less transparent than file discounts, but do not explain how they would be relevant for the transparency of the market and do not make it possible to understand how they in themselves might compensate for all the other factors of transparency of the market identified in the [contested decision] and thus eliminate the transparency necessary for the existence of a collective dominant position.
Te trditve so poleg tega omejene na navajanje, da naj bi bili reklamni popusti manj pregledni od običajnih popustov, vendar ne pojasnijo, zakaj naj bi bili upo�tevni za preglednost trga, in ne omogočajo razumeti, kako naj bi sami nadomestili druge dejavnike preglednosti trgov, opredeljene v [sporni] odločbi, in tako odpravili preglednost, ki je potrebna za obstoj kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja.
It follows that the section dealing with the smaller countries, too, contains no reasoning for the finding that the market is not transparent on account of the campaign discounts.
Iz tega izhaja, da oddelek v zvezi z majhnimi državami ne vsebuje obrazložitve glede ugotovitve, da trg ni pregleden zaradi reklamnih popustov.
In any event, the situation existing in the smaller countries cannot constitute a valid ground for the finding relating to the degree of transparency in the markets in the large countries.
V vsakem primeru, obstoječe razmere v majhnih državah niso veljavna obrazložitev ugotovitve v zvezi s stopnjo preglednosti trgov velikih držav.
It follows from all of the foregoing that the complaint alleging insufficient reasoning for the finding relating to the transparency of the market is well founded, which in itself is reason to annul the [contested decision].’
Iz vsega navedenega izhaja, da je očitek o nezadostni obrazložitvi trditve v zvezi s preglednostjo trga utemeljen, kar samo po sebi upravičuje razglasitev ničnosti [sporne] odločbe.“
Paragraph 411 of the judgment under appeal reads as follows:
Točka 411 izpodbijane sodbe vsebuje besedilo:
‘In its defence, the Commission did, admittedly, claim that it examined the other majors’ discounts, but that as those figures could not be disclosed to the parties to the concentration, they could not be included in the [contested decision].
„Komisija v odgovoru na tožbo res navaja, da je preučila popuste drugih velikih, ker pa te �tevilke niso mogle biti razkrite strankam koncentracije, jih je bilo nemogoče vključiti v [sporno] odločbo.
However, that argument cannot be followed.’
Tej trditvi ni mogoče pritrditi.“
Paragraph 530 of the judgment under appeal states as follows:
V točki 530 izpodbijane sodbe vsebuje besedilo:
‘It follows from recital 157 to the [contested decision], and in particular from the final sentence thereof, that the Commission’s conclusion that the concentration does not represent a sufficiently significant change to entail the probable creation of a collective dominant position is expressly based on the conditions relating to the transparency of the market and to the retaliatory measures.’
„Iz uvodne izjave 157 in zlasti njenega zadnjega stavka [sporne] odločbe izhaja, da sklep Komisije, da koncentracija ne prina�a dovolj velike spremembe, da bi omogočila verjetni nastanek kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, temelji izrecno na pogojih, ki se nana�ajo na preglednost trga in povračilne ukrepe.“
The appellants submit, as their principal argument, that the Community system of control of concentrations, and more specifically Article 10(6) of the Regulation, precludes the Court of First Instance from annulling a decision approving such a concentration on the ground of inadequate reasoning.
Pritožnici v glavnem menita, da sistem Skupnosti za nadzor koncentracij in �e posebej člen 10(6) Uredbe preprečujeta Sodi�ču prve stopnje, da bi odločbo o odobritvi take koncentracije razglasilo za nično zaradi nezadostne obrazložitve.
In the alternative, the appellants submit that the Court of First Instance applied an excessively high standard of reasoning that is inconsistent with settled caselaw and fails to take account of the particular context and nature of proceedings for the control of concentrations.
Podredno, pritožnici navajata, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje uporabilo prekomeren standard obrazložitve, ki ni v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso in ne upo�teva posebnega okvira in značilnosti postopka nadzora koncentracij.
In the first place, the Court of First Instance was wrong to require the Commission to explain its departure from the statement of objections.
Na eni strani naj bi se Sodi�če prve stopnje zmotilo, ko je Komisiji naložilo, naj pojasni razlike v primerjavi z obvestilom o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah.
In the second place, the Court of First Instance erred in its review of the reasoning of the contested decision in failing to take account of the particular context of a decision approving a concentration.
Na drugi strani naj bi se Sodi�če prve stopnje pri preizkusu obrazložitve sporne odločbe zmotilo, ker ni upo�tevalo posebnega okvira odločbe o odobritvi koncentracije.
In that regard, the appellants put forward a number of arguments.
Pritožnici v zvezi s tem navajata več trditev.
First, they consider that it is necessary to impose less stringent requirements as regards the reasoning of a decision approving a concentration than as regards a decision prohibiting a concentration.
Prvič, menita, da je treba glede obrazložitve o odobritvi koncentracije postaviti manj�e zahteve kot glede odločbe o prepovedi take operacije.
Secondly, the Court of First Instance wrongly failed to review the reasoning of the contested decision from the perspective of knowledgeable industry professionals.
Drugič, Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi ravnalo napačno, ker ni preučilo obrazložitve sporne odločbe z vidika dobro obve�čenega strokovnjaka sektorja.
Thirdly, the short timescale separating the statement of objections from a decision approving a concentration calls for a measure of restraint in the review of the reasoning of such a decision.
Tretjič, kratko obdobje med po�iljanjem obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah in sprejetjem odločbe o odobritvi koncentracije zahteva določeno stopnjo pazljivosti pri nadzoru obrazložitve take odločbe.
Fourthly, the fact that the appellants are entitled to implement the notified concentration pleads in favour of not annulling decisions approving a concentration lightly on the ground that they are inadequately reasoned.
Četrtič, dejstvo, da sta pritožnici upravičeni izvesti prigla�eno koncentracijo, bi moralo preprečiti razglasitev ničnosti odločb o odobritvi koncentracije zaradi nezadostne obrazložitve.
Fifthly, the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in paragraph 411 of the judgment under appeal in requiring the Commission to publish details on pricing and discounting, taking into account their confidential and sensitive nature.
Petič, Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi v točki 411 izpodbijane sodbe napačno uporabilo pravo, ker je od Komisije zahtevalo, da objavi podrobne podatke o cenah in popustih ob upo�tevanju njihove zaupnosti in občutljivosti.
In any event, contrary to the conclusions of the Court of First Instance, the appellants contend that settled caselaw indicates that the contested decision is adequately reasoned since it permitted Impala to ascertain the reasons underlying the decision and the Court of First Instance to exercise its power of review.
V vsakem primeru, v nasprotju s presojo, ki jo je izvedlo Sodi�če prve stopnje, je po mnenju pritožnic v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso sporna odločba ustrezno obrazložena, ker je omogočila Impali preveritev razlogov, s katerimi je bila utemeljena ta odločba, in Sodi�ču prve stopnje izvedbo sodnega nadzora.
In that regard, the appellants argue, among other things, that the finding of the Court of First Instance that the contested decision was inadequately reasoned sits ill with its conclusion that the decision was vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.
Pritožnici v zvezi s tem zlasti navajata, da je ugotovitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da odločba ni bila dovolj obrazložena, težko skladna z njegovo presojo, da navedena odločba vsebuje očitne napake pri presoji.
Lastly, the appellants submit that the review by the Court of First Instance of the reasoning of the contested decision is vitiated by the application of an incorrect
Nazadnje, pritožnici menita, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje pri preizkusu obrazložitve sporne odločbe uporabilo napačen dokazni standard, da ni upo�tevalo pravilnega obsega sodnega nadzora in da je uporabilo napačno merilo v zvezi s preglednostjo.
Without prejudice to its general plea of inadmissibility, Impala considers, first, that the appellants cannot make a general rule out of the exception clause that is Article 10(6) of the Regulation.
Brez poseganja v splo�en ugovor nedopustnosti Impala meni, prvič, da pritožnici ne moreta kot splo�no pravilo postaviti klavzule o izjemi, ki je člen 10(6) Uredbe.
Secondly, according to Impala, the appellants are incorrect in maintaining, in substance, that Article 253 EC may or may not be applied according to whether a decision relating to a proposed concentration is negative or positive.
Drugič, Impala meni, da pritožnici napačno zatrjujeta, da se člen 253 ES uporabi glede na to, ali je odločba o predlagani koncentraciji negativna ali pozitivna.
Thirdly, Impala submits that the degree of reasoning required depends on the context and legal framework within which a particular measure is adopted.
Tretjič, Impala meni, da je zahtevana stopnja obrazložitve odvisna od konteksta in pravnega okvira, v katerem je določen akt sprejet.
It is entirely consistent with this principle that the type of reasoning required should be adapted to the type of case involved.
Povsem skladno s tem načelom naj bi bilo, da so zahteve glede obrazložitve prilagojene vrsti obravnavane zadeve.
The present case is one in which the formal proceedings were opened and which involved both substantial third-party opposition and a statement of objections.
Vendar naj bi �lo v obravnavanem primeru za zadevo, v kateri je bil uveden formalni postopek, kar je povzročilo resno nasprotovanje tretje stranke in izdajo obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah.
As regards the appellants’ line of argument put forward in the alternative concerning the standard of reasoning applied by the Court of First Instance, Impala contends that the Court merely mentioned extracts from the statement of reasons in order to emphasise the inadequacy of the reasoning of the contested decision and the inconsistencies in it and that that court’s finding that the reasoning in the contested decision was inadequate was based on the reasoning set out in it and not on its inadequacy as compared with the reasoning of the statement of objections.
Impala glede podredno predstavljene trditve pritožnic o standardu obrazložitve, ki ga je uporabilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, meni, da se je Sodi�če prve stopnje omejilo na navajanje posameznih delov obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah, da bi poudarilo nezadostno obrazložitev sporne odločbe in njena glavna neskladja, ter utemelji svojo ugotovitev o tej nezadostnosti obrazložitve s trditvami, navedenimi v sporni odločbi sami, in ne tako, da bi jih primerjalo s trditvami v obvestilu o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah.
Impala also submits that the Court of First Instance did not disregard the context of proceedings for the control of concentrations.
Na drugi strani Impala meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje upo�tevalo okvir postopka nadzora koncentracij.
Moreover, it does not follow from the fact that the Court of First Instance was able to make an in-depth review of the contested decision that the reasoning of that decision was adequate.
Poleg tega naj iz dejstva, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko izvedlo ob�iren preizkus sporne odločbe, ne bi izhajalo, da je bila ta dovolj obrazložena.
According to Impala, it is quite clear that the Court of First Instance was unable to understand in particular why the Commission, when the evidence consistently pointed to there being sufficient transparency to support a finding of collective dominance, nevertheless concluded that there was insufficient evidence of transparency because campaign discounts were less transparent than other kinds of discounts.
Impala meni, da je očitno, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni moglo razumeti zlasti tega, zakaj je Komisija, čeprav je bil na podlagi dokazov razviden obstoj potrebne preglednosti, ki podpira ugotovitev o obstoju kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, sklenila, da dokazi o preglednosti niso bili zadostni, ker so bili reklamni popusti manj pregledni kot drugi popusti.
In Impala’s view, the real reasons for the contested decision remain unknown.
Impala meni, da resnični razlogi izpodbijane odločbe ostajajo nepoznani.
As regards the appellants’ line of argument summarised in paragraph 161 of this judgment, Impala contends that the observations of the Court of First Instance on certain aspects of the reasoning of the contested decision are based on a thorough examination of the Commission’s analysis but, above all, on the internal inconsistencies within the contested decision itself.
Impala glede trditev pritožnic, povzetih v točki 161 te sodbe, navaja, da so stali�ča Sodi�ča prve stopnje o nekaterih vidikih obrazložitve sporne odločbe utemeljena s poglobljenim preizkusom analize, ki jo je izvedla Komisija, zlasti pa z notranjimi nedoslednostmi same sporne odločbe.
It is clear from settled caselaw that the statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community Court to exercise its power of review.
Kot izhaja iz ustaljene sodne prakse, mora biti obrazložitev, ki se zahteva v členu 253 ES, prilagojena vrsti obravnavanega akta ter mora jasno in nedvoumno izražati razlogovanje institucije, ki je akt izdala, tako da se lahko stranke seznanijo z utemeljitvijo sprejetega ukrepa in da lahko pristojno sodi�če izvede nadzor.
The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations.
Zahtevo po obrazložitvi je treba presojati glede na okoli�čine posameznega primera, zlasti glede na vsebino zadevnega akta, lastnosti podanih razlogov in interes za pojasnitev, ki ga imajo lahko naslovniki akta ali druge osebe, ki jih ta neposredno in posamično zadeva.
The institution which adopted the measure is not required, however, to define its position on matters which are plainly of secondary importance or to anticipate potential objections (Joined Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02 Germany and Denmark v Commission [2005] ECR I-9115, ‘Feta’, paragraph 106).
Vendar avtorju takega akta ni treba sprejeti stali�ča o podatkih, ki so očitno drugotnega pomena, oziroma predpostaviti morebitnih ugovorov (sodba z dne 25. oktobra 2005 v združenih zadevah Nemčija in Danska proti Komisiji, imenovana „Feta“, C-465/02 in C-466/02, ZOdl., str. I-9115, točka 106).
Thus, the Commission does not infringe its duty to state reasons if, when exercising its power to examine concentrations, it does not include precise reasoning in its decision as to the appraisal of a number of aspects of the concentration which appear to it to be manifestly irrelevant
Zato Komisija ne kr�i obveznosti obrazložitve, če pri izvr�evanju svoje pristojnosti na področju nadzora koncentracij v odločbi ne razloži natančno presoje določenega �tevila vidikov koncentracije, ki se ji zdijo očitno neupo�tevni, nepomembni ali popolnoma
2008 — CASE C-413/06 P or insignificant or plainly of secondary importance to the appraisal of the concentration (see, to that effect, Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 64).
2008 – ZADEVA C-413/06 P drugotnega pomena za presojo koncentracije (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Sytraval in Brink’s France, točka 64).
Such a requirement would be difficult to reconcile with the need for speed and the short timescales which the Commission is bound to observe when exercising its power to examine concentrations and which form part of the particular circumstances of proceedings for control of those concentrations.
Taka zahteva je namreč težko skladna z zahtevo po hitrosti in kratkimi procesnimi roki, ki so naloženi Komisiji pri izvr�evanju njene pristojnosti na področju nadzora koncentracij in ki so del posebnih okoli�čin postopka nadzora koncentracij.
It follows that where the Commission declares a concentration to be compatible with the common market on the basis of Article 8(2) of the Regulation the requirement to state reasons is satisfied when that decision clearly sets out the reasons for which the Commission considers that the concentration in question, where appropriate following modification by the undertakings concerned, does not create or strengthen a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the common market or in a substantial part of it.
Iz tega izhaja, da je takrat, kadar Komisija razglasi koncentracijo, združljivo s skupnim trgom na podlagi člena 8(2) Uredbe, zahteva po obrazložitvi izpolnjena, če so v tej odločbi jasno navedeni razlogi, zakaj Komisija meni, da zadevna koncentracija, morda po spremembah, ki so jih uvedla zadevna podjetja, ne ustvarja ali krepi prevladujočega položaja, ki lahko povzroči resno oviro za učinkovito konkurenco na skupnem trgu ali njegovem znatnem delu.
In that regard, while it is true that the Commission is not obliged, in the statement of reasons for decisions adopted under the Regulation, to take a position on all the information and arguments relied on before it, including those which are plainly of secondary importance to the appraisal it is required to undertake, it none the less remains the case that it is required to set out the facts and the legal considerations having decisive importance in the context of the decision.
Čeprav je res, da Komisiji v obrazložitvi odločb, sprejetih na podlagi uredbe, ni treba sprejeti stali�ča glede vseh elementov in trditev, na katere se sklicuje, vključno s tistimi, ki so povsem drugotnega pomena za presojo, �e vedno ostaja dejstvo, da mora navesti dejstva in pravne ugotovitve, ki so bistvene v strukturi odločbe. Poleg tega mora biti obrazložitev logična in zlasti ne sme vsebovati notranjih protislovij (glej v tem smislu po analogiji sodbe z dne 18. maja 1962 v zadevi Geitling in drugi proti Visoki oblasti, 13/60, Recueil, str. 165, 221; z dne 15. julija 1970 v zadevi ACF Chemie -farma proti Komisiji, 41/69, Recueil, str. 661, točka 78; z dne 7. julija 1981 v zadevi Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord in Rewe-Markt Steffen, 158/80, Recueil, str. 1805, točka 26, in z dne 17. maja 1988 v zadevi Arendt proti Parlamentu, 28/87, Recueil, str. 2633, točki 7 in 8).
It is in the light of these principles that the objections raised by the appellants under the sixth ground of appeal should be examined.
Glede na ta načela je treba preizkusiti očitke pritožnic v okviru �estega pritožbenega razloga.
As their principal argument, the appellants submit that a Commission decision approving a concentration cannot be annulled on the ground of inadequate reasoning.
Pritožnici primarno navajata, da odločba Komisije o odobritvi koncentracije ne more biti razgla�ena za nično zaradi nezadostne obrazložitve.
They rely in particular in this regard on Article 10(6) of the Regulation.
V zvezi s tem se opirata zlasti na člen 10(6) Uredbe.
It follows from paragraph 49 of this judgment that the purpose of that provision is to ensure legal certainty where, exceptionally, the Commission has not adopted a decision within the prescribed period.
Iz točke 49 te sodbe izhaja, da ta določba zagotavlja pravno varnost v primeru, če Komisija izjemoma ne bi sprejela odločbe v predpisanem roku.
Thus, the undertakings concerned are free to implement their concentration as soon as approval is deemed to have been given.
Tako bi bila zadevna podjetja prosta pri izvr�itvi koncentracije, saj je pri�lo do tihe odobritve.
As Impala observes, the line of argument of the appellants based on Article 10(6) of the Regulation has the result that decisions approving concentrations do not have to be reasoned at all, as they cannot be challenged on the ground of lack of a statement of reasons.
Kot poudarja Impala, utemeljitev pritožnic, ki temelji na členu 10(6) Uredbe, kaže na to, da odločb o odobritvi koncentracije sploh ni treba obrazložiti, saj jih ni mogoče izpodbijati zaradi neobstoja obrazložitve.
It should be noted that an inadequate statement of reasons in breach of Article 253 EC constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements for the purposes of Article 230 EC and is, moreover, a plea which may, and even must, be raised by the Community judicature of its own motion (see, to that effect, Case C-166/95 P Commission v Daffix [1997] ECR I-983, paragraph 24).
Vendar je treba opozoriti, da je nezadostnost obrazložitve, ki pomeni kr�itev člena 253 ES, bistvena kr�itev postopka v smislu člena 230 ES in je zato razlog, na katerega lahko oziroma mora paziti sodi�če Skupnosti po uradni dolžnosti (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 20. februarja 1997 v zadevi Komisija proti Daffix, C-166/95 P, Recueil, str.
It follows that Article 10(6) of the Regulation must be interpreted and applied in the light of Articles 230 EC and 253 EC.
Iz tega izhaja, da je treba člen 10(6) Uredbe razlagati in uporabljati glede na člena 230 ES in 253 ES.
Thus, as is apparent from paragraph 49 of this judgment, Article 10(6) constitutes an exception to the general scheme of the Regulation, which is laid down in particular in Articles 6(1) and 8(1) thereof, according to which the Commission is to rule expressly on the concentrations which are notified to it, whether its decision be a negative or a positive one.
Zato, kot izhaja iz točke 49 te sodbe, je navedeni člen 10(6) izjema od splo�ne sistematike Uredbe, ki izhaja zlasti iz členov 6(1) in 8(1) in na podlagi katere Komisija izrecno odloči o koncentracijah, ki so ji prigla�ene, in to ne glede na to, ali gre za pozitivno ali negativno odločbo.
It follows that, not only can Article 10(6) of the Regulation not form the basis of a general presumption that concentrations are compatible with the common market, it also cannot serve as a basis for an exception to the rule that a decision approving such a concentration may be challenged on the ground of infringement of
Zato člen 10(6) Uredbe ne more biti podlaga za splo�no domnevo o združljivosti koncentracij s skupnim trgom, poleg tega pa niti ne more biti podlaga za izjemo glede možnosti izpodbijanja zakonitosti odločbe o odobritvi
2008 — CASE C-413/06 P the duty to state reasons.
2008 – ZADEVA C-413/06 P te koncentracije zaradi kr�itve obveznosti obrazložitve.
The legitimate need for legal certainty in exceptional situations, which that provision reflects, cannot go so far as to exclude decisions relating to concentrations in whole or in part from review by the Community judicature.
Legitimna potreba po pravni varnosti v izjemnih okoli�činah, ki je izražena v navedeni določbi, nazadnje ne more izključiti odločb o koncentracijah v celoti ali delno iz nadzora sodi�ča Skupnosti.
The appellants’ line of argument based on Article 10(6) of the Regulation must therefore be rejected.
Trditve pritožnic glede člena 10(6) Uredbe je zato treba zavrniti.