natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Commission v Belgium
Sodba Sodišča (sedmi senat) z dne 8. maja 2008 – Komisija proti Belgiji
(Case C-392/07)
(Zadeva C-392/07)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/19/EC — Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different
„Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Direktiva 2005/19/ES – Skupni sistem obdavčitve za združitve, delitve, prenose sredstev in zamenjave kapitalskih deležev družb iz različnih držav članic – Neizvr�itev prenosa v predpisanem roku“
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7)
Tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti – Preizkus utemeljenosti, ki ga opravi Sodišče – Stanje, ki ga je treba upoštevati – Stanje po izteku roka, določenega v obrazloženem mnenju (člen 226 ES) (Glej točko 7.)
Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations — National system pleaded as justification — Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)
Države članice – Obveznosti – Izvršitev direktive – Neizpolnitev obveznosti – Utemeljitev na podlagi nacionalne ureditve – Nedopustnost (člen 226 ES) (Glej točko 9.)
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/19/EC of 17 February 2005 amending Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 2005 L 58, p. 19).
Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Nesprejetje predpisov, ki so potrebni za uskladitev z Direktivo Sveta 2005/19/ES z dne 17. februarja 2005 o spremembah Direktive 90/434/EGS o skupnem sistemu obdavčitve za združitve, delitve, prenose sredstev in zamenjave kapitalskih deležev družb iz različnih držav članic (UL L 58, str. 19), v predvidenem roku.
Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/19/EC of 17 February 2005 amending
Kraljevina Belgija s tem, da v predpisanem roku ni sprejela zakonov in drugih predpisov, potrebnih za uskladitev z Direktivo Sveta 2005/19/ES z dne 17. februarja 2005 o spremembah Direktive 90/434/EGS o skupnem sistemu
Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
OBVESTILA O NEOBJAVLJENIH ODLOČBAH obdavčitve za združitve, delitve, prenose sredstev in zamenjave kapitalskih deležev družb iz različnih držav članic, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz te direktive.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 May 2008 — Ladbroke and Derby v État belge
Sklep Sodišča (osmi senat) z dne 14. maja 2008 – Ladbroke in Derby proti državi Belgiji
(Joined Cases C-231/07 and C-232/07)
(Združeni zadevi C-231/07 in C-232/07)
(Rules of Procedure — First subparagraph of Article 104(3) — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(d)(3) — Exemptions — Concepts of
„Poslovnik – Člen 104(3), prvi pododstavek – Šesta direktiva o DDV – Člen 13(B)(d), točka 3 – Oprostitve – Pojma ‚depoziti‘ in ‚plačila‘ – Zavrnitev oprostitve“
Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(d)(3)) (see paras 22, 24-25, operative part
Davčne določbe – Usklajevanje zakonodaj – Prometni davek – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost – Oprostitve, določene s Šesto direktivo (Direktiva Sveta 77/388, člen 13(B)(d), točka 3) (Glej točke 22, 24 in 25 ter izrek.)
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe – Cour d’appel de Bruxelles – Razlaga člena 13(B)(d), točka 3, Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (UL L 145, str.
1) — Exemptions in relation to transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts and payments — Bets, lotteries and other games of chance or forms of gambling — Supply of services by intermediaries responsible for collecting the bets on behalf of a principal and, where appropriate, for paying out winnings to bettors — Whether eligible for the exemption provided for in Article 13(B)(d)(3)?
1) – Oprostitve transakcij, vključno s posredovanjem v zvezi z depoziti in plačili – Stave, loterija in druge igre na srečo ali za denar – Storitve pobiralcev, ki so zadolženi za pobiranje stav za račun mandanta in izplačevanje morebitnih dobitkov osebam, ki stavijo – Možnost oprostitve, ki jo določa člen 13(B)(d), točka 3.
The terms ‘transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts and payments’ used in Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not refer to the supply of services by an agent acting on behalf of a client which carries out the activity of accepting bets on horse races and other sporting events, consisting of acceptance by the agent of bets on behalf of the client, registration thereof, confirmation to the client, by presentation of the betting slip, that a bet was made, collection of funds, payment of winnings, the sole assumption of liability as regards the client for the management of the funds collected and for thefts and/or losses of money and where the agent receives remuneration in the form of commission from the client in return for that activity.
Pojem „transakcije, vključno s posredovanjem v zvezi z depoziti in plačili“ iz člena 13(B)(d), točka 3 Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotno osnovo za odmero je treba razlagati tako, da se ne nana�a na opravljanje storitev mandatarja, ki deluje za račun mandanta in ki opravlja dejavnost sprejemanja stav na konjskih dirkah in drugih �portnih dogodkih, ki sestoji iz tega, da tak mandatar sprejema stave v imenu mandanta, vpisuje stave, z izdajo stavnega listka potrjuje stranki, da je stava sklenjena, pobira denar, izplačuje dobitke, sam prevzema odgovornost do mandanta glede upravljanja s pobranim denarjem kot tudi krajami in/ali izgubami denarja in od svojega mandanta prejema provizijo kot plačilo za to dejavnost.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 — Commission v Italy
Sodba Sodišča (šesti senat) z dne 15. maja 2008 – Komisija proti Italiji
(Case C-503/06)
(Zadeva C-503/06)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Derogations from the system of protection of wild birds — Region of Liguria)
„Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Direktiva 79/409/EGS – Ohranjanje prostoživečih ptic – Odstopanja od ureditve varstva prostoživečih ptic – Dežela Ligurija“
Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 22, 23)
Države članice – Obveznosti – Izvršitev direktive – Nesporna neizpolnitev obveznosti (člen 226 ES) (Glej točki 22 in 23.)
Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409 — Implementation by Member States (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 79/409, Art. 9) (see para. 24)
Okolje – Ohranjanje prostoživečih ptic – Direktiva 79/409 – Izvajanje držav članic (člen 226 ES; Direktiva Sveta 79/409, člen 9) (Glej točko 24.)
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Adoption and application by the Region of Liguria of legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).
Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Sprejetje in uporaba zakonodaje za deželo Ligurijo, ki dopu�ča odstopanja od ureditve varstva prostoživečih ptic in ne upo�teva pogojev iz člena 9 Direktive Sveta 79/409/EGS z dne 2. aprila 1979 o ohranjanju prostoživečih ptic (UL L 103, str. 1).
Declares that, by adopting and applying, for the region of Liguria, legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Italijanska republika s tem, da je za deželo Ligurijo sprejela in uporabila zakonodajo, ki dopu�ča odstopanja od ureditve varstva prostoživečih ptic in ne upo�teva pogojev iz člena 9 Direktive Sveta 79/409/EGS z dne 2. aprila 1979 o ohranjanju prostoživečih ptic, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz te direktive.
Orders the Italian Republic to bear the costs, including those linked to the interlocutory proceedings.
Italijanski republiki se naloži plačilo stro�kov, vključno s stro�ki za izdajo začasne odredbe.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 — Commission v Sweden
Sodba Sodišča (šesti senat) z dne 15. maja 2008 – Komisija proti Švedski
(Case C-341/07)
(Zadeva C-341/07)
Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)
Države članice – Obveznosti – Izvršitev direktive – Nesporna neizpolnitev obveznosti (člen 226 ES) (Glej točko 11.)
Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations — Difficulties of interpretation pleaded as justification — Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)
Države članice – Obveznosti – Izvršitev direktive – Neizpolnitev obveznosti – Utemeljitev s težavami pri razlagi – Nedopustnost (člen 226 ES) (Glej točko 12.)
Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Kraljevina Švedska s tem, da ni v predpisanem roku sprejela vseh zakonov in drugih predpisov, potrebnih za uskladitev z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/48/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz te direktive.
Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.
Kraljevini Švedski se naloži plačilo stro�kov.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2008 — Raulin v France
Sklep Sodišča (peti senat) z dne 16. maja 2008 – Raulin proti Franciji
(Case C-454/07)
(Zadeva C-454/07)
(Action brought by a natural person against a Member State and seeking a declaration that the Member State concerned has infringed
„Tožba fizične osebe zoper državo članico za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe, ki jo je izdalo nacionalno sodi�če, in za ugotovitev kr�itve prava Skupnosti s strani te države – Očitna nepristojnost Sodi�ča“
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Right of action reserved to the Commission and the Member States — Action brought by a natural or legal person — Inadmissible (Arts 226 EC and 227 EC) (see paras 6, 7)
Tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti – Pravica vložiti tožbo, pridržana Komisiji in državam članicam – Tožba fizične ali pravne osebe – Nedopustnost (člena 226 ES in 227 ES) (Glej točki 6 in 7.)
Infringement, in a particular case, of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77).
Kr�itev Direktive Sveta 87/344/EGS z dne 22. junija 1987 o usklajevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov o zavarovanju stro�kov postopka (UL L 185, str.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the present case.
Sodi�če Evropskih skupnosti je očitno nepristojno, da odloči o tej tožbi.
(Case C-49/08)
(Zadeva C-49/08)
(Action brought by a natural person against a Member State and seeking the annulment of a decision given by a national court and a declaration that the Member State concerned has infringed
„Tožba fizične osebe zoper državo članico za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe, ki jo je izdalo nacionalno sodi�če, in za ugotovitev kr�itve prava Skupnosti s strani te države – Očitna nepristojnost Sodi�ča“
Actions for annulment — Measures adopted by the national authorities — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 7, 8)
Ničnostna tožba – Akti nacionalnih organov – Nepristojnost Sodišča (člen 230 ES) (Glej točki 7 in 8.)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Right of action reserved to the Commission and the Member States — Action brought by a natural or legal person — Inadmissible (Arts 226 EC and 227 EC) (see paras 9, 10)
Tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti – Pravica vložiti tožbo, pridržana Komisiji in državam članicam – Tožba fizične ali pravne osebe – Nedopustnost (člena 226 ES in 227 ES) (Glej točki 9 in 10.)
Actions for annulment — Infringement, by a Member State, of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p.
Ničnostna tožba – Kr�itev Direktive Sveta 91/533/EGS z dne 14. oktobra 1991 o obveznosti delodajalca, da zaposlene obvesti o pogojih, ki se nana�ajo na pogodbo o zaposlitvi ali delovno razmerje (UL L 288, str.
32) — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court.
32), s strani države članice – Očitna nepristojnost Sodi�ča.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 May 2008 — Commission v Belgium
Sodba Sodišča (šesti senat) z dne 20. maja 2008 – Komisija proti Belgiji
(Case C-271/07)
(Zadeva C-271/07)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/61/EC — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Incomplete and incorrect transposition)
„Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Direktiva 96/61/ES – Celovito preprečevanje in nadzorovanje onesnaževanja – Nepravilen in pomanjkljiv prenos“
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 13)
Tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti – Preizkus utemeljenosti, ki ga opravi Sodišče – Upo�terni položaj – Stanje po izteku roka, določenega v obrazloženem mnenju (člen 226 ES) (Glej točko 13.)
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Partial, incorrect or non-existent transposition of Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14, Article 17(2) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto (OJ 1996 L 257, p.
Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Delna izvr�itev prenosa, nepravilen prenos ali neizvr�itev prenosa členov 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) in (11), 3, 5, 6(1), 8, 9(3), (4), (5) in (6), 10, 12(2), 13(1) in (2), 14 in 17(2) ter prilog I in IV k Direktivi Sveta 96/61/ES z dne 24. septembra 1996 o celovitem preprečevanju in nadzorovanju onesnaževanja (UL L 257, str.
26) — Lack of correspondence between the material scope of application of those measures and that of the directive — Excessively wide power of assessment given to the regional authorities with regard to operating permits and the situations in which the conditions laid down under the permit must be reassessed and/or updated.
26) – Pomanjkanje povezanosti med vsebinskim področjem uporabe ukrepov za prenos in vsebinskim področjem uporabe direktive – Pre�iroka diskrecijska pravica, priznana regionalnim organom glede dovoljenj za obratovanje in glede okoli�čin, v katerih je treba izvesti ponovno preverjanje in posodobitev pogojev v dovoljenju.
Declares that by transposing in part or incorrectly Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 14 of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Kraljevina Belgija z delno izvr�itvijo prenosa ali nepravilnim prenosom členov 2, od (2) do (7) in od (9) do (11), 3, 5, 6(1), 8, 9, od (3) do (6), 10, 12(2), 13(1) in (2), 14 ter prilog I in IV k Direktivi Sveta 96/61/ES z dne 24. septembra 1996 o celovitem preprečevanju in nadzorovanju onesnaževanja ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti iz te direktive.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 — Mihal v Daňový úrad Košice V
Sklep Sodišča (sedmi senat) z dne 21. maja 2008 – Mihal proti Daňový úrad Košice V
(Case C-456/07)
(Zadeva C-456/07)
(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable persons — Article 4(5), first subparagraph — Bodies governed by public law — Bailiffs — Natural and legal persons)
„Člen 104(3), prvi pododstavek, Poslovnika – Šesta direktiva o DDV – Davčni zavezanci – Člen 4(5), prvi pododstavek – Osebe javnega prava – Sodni izvr�itelji – Fizične in pravne osebe“
Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Taxable persons (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(5), first para.) (see para. 23)
Davčne določbe – Usklajevanje zakonodaj – Prometni davek – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost – Davčni zavezanci (Direktiva Sveta 77/388, člen 4(5), prvi pododstavek) (Glej točko 23.)
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe – Najvy��í súd Slovenskej republiky – Razlaga člena 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/CEE z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (UL L 145, str.
1) — Treatment of a body governed by public law as a non-taxable person in respect of activities or operations engaged in as a public authority — Inclusion of bailiffs in the exercise of their public duties — Direct effect.
1) – Osebe javnega prava, ki opravljajo dejavnosti ali transakcije kot organi oblasti, se ne �tejejo za davčne zavezance – Vključitev sodnih izvr�iteljev pri opravljanju javnih funkcij – Neposredni učinek.
An activity exercised by a private individual, such as that of a bailiff, is not exempted from value added tax merely because it consists in engaging in acts falling within the rights and powers of a public authority.
Dejavnost zasebne osebe, kot je dejavnost sodnega izvr�itelja, ni opro�čena davka na dodano vrednost že samo zato, ker obstaja zaradi opravljanja dejanj, pridržanih javni oblasti.
Even on the assumption that, in the exercise of his duties, a bailiff does carry out such acts, he does not, under legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, exercise his activity in the form of a body governed by public law, not being integrated into the organisation of the public administration, but in the form of an independent economic activity carried out in a selfemployed capacity, and, consequently, he is not covered by the exemption provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.
Čeprav sodni izvr�itelj pri opravljanju svojih nalog opravlja taka dejanja v skladu z zakonodajo, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ne opravlja dejavnosti kot organ oblasti, saj ni vključen v organizacijo javne uprave, ampak kot neodvisno gospodarsko dejavnost, opravljeno v okviru svobodnega poklica, in zato ne more biti opro�čen na podlagi člena 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 — Degussa v Commission
Sodba Sodišča (četrti senat) z dne 22. maja 2008 – Degussa proti Komisiji
(Case C-266/06 P)
(Zadeva C-266/06 P)
(Appeal — Competition — Cartel — Market in methionine — Fine — Regulation No 17 — Article 15(2) — Nulla poena sine lege — Distortion of the facts — Principle of proportionality — Principle of equal treatment)
„Pritožba – Konkurenca – Omejevalni sporazum – Trg metionina – Globa – Uredba �t. 17 – Člen 15(2) – Načelo zakonitosti kazni – Izkrivljanje dejstev – Načelo sorazmernosti – Načelo enakega obravnavanja“
Community law — General legal principles — Legal certainty — Nulla poena sine lege — Scope (see paras 38-40, 44-46)
Pravo Skupnosti – Splošna pravna načela – Pravna varnost – Zakonitost kazni – Obseg (Glej točke od 38 do 40 in od 44 do 46.)
Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Discretion conferred on the Commission by Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 50-62)
Konkurenca – Globe – Znesek – Določitev – Diskrecijska pravica Komisije na podlagi člena 15(2) Uredbe št. 17 (Uredba Sveta št. 17, člen 15(2); Obvestilo Komisije 98/C 9/03) (Glej točke od 50 do 62.)
Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 72-74, 86, 94)
Pritožba – Razlogi – Napačna presoja dejstev – Nedopustnost – Nadzor Sodišča nad presojo dokazov – Izključitev, razen v primeru izkrivljanja (člen 225(1) ES; Statut Sodišča, člen 58, prvi odstavek) (Glej točke od 72 do 74, 86 in 94.)
Appeals — Jurisdiction of the Court — Whether it may review, on grounds of fairness, the appraisal at first instance of the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking — Not included — Whether it may review that appraisal on the ground that the principle of nondiscrimination was infringed — Included (Art. 81(1), EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) (see paras 95, 114)
Pritožba – Pristojnosti Sodišča – Izpodbijanje presoje Sodišča prve stopnje glede zneska globe, naložene podjetju, iz razloga pravičnosti – Izključitev – Izpodbijanje te presoje iz razlogov kršitve načela prepovedi diskriminacije – Vključitev (člen 81(1) ES; Uredba Sveta št. 17, člen 15(2)) (Glej točki 95 in 114.)
Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate or contradictory grounds — Admissibility — Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning — Whether lawful — Conditions (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36, 53, first para., and 58, first para.) (see paras 102, 103)
Pritožba – Razlogi – Nezadostna ali nasprotujoča si obrazložitev – Dopustnost – Sklicevanje Sodišča prve stopnje na implicitno utemeljitev – Dopustnost – Pogoji (člen 225(1) ES; Statut Sodišča, členi 36, 53, prvi odstavek, in 58, prvi odstavek) (Glej točki 102 in 103.)