natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Case C-503/03 Commission v Spain [2006] ECR I-1097, which was an action for failure to full obligations brought by the Commission against Spain because of the practice of that Member State’s authorities of refusing entry onto its territory or issue of a visa to nationals of a third country married to a Member State national on the sole ground that they were persons for whom alerts were entered in the Schengen Information System (SIS), the Court explained the relationship between the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (‘the CISA’) and Community law on freedom of movement for persons.
Za predstavitev sodne prakse na tem področju bomo razlikovali med pravili, ki veljajo za podjetja, in sistemi državnih pomoči.
It also ruled on how Member States are expected to act in applying the SIS.
V zvezi s prvimi je zlasti zanimivih trinajst sodb.
On the first point, the Court held that the compliance of an administrative practice with the provisions of the CISA may justify the conduct of the competent national authorities only insofar as the application of the relevant provisions is compatible with the Community rules governing freedom of movement for persons.
Prva sodba, ki jo je treba omeniti, dopolnjuje opredelitev pojma podjetja, ki določa področje uporabe pravil o konkurenci.
It thus stated that it is consistent with the CISA for Member States automatically to refuse entry or a visa to an alien for whom a Schengen alert has been issued for the purposes of refusing him entry. However, insofar as this automatic refusal provided for by the CISA does not distinguish as to whether or not the alien concerned is married to a Member State national, it is also necessary to verify whether, in the circumstances of the case, that automatic refusal is compatible with the rules governing freedom of movement for persons, in particular with Directive 64/221/EEC 16.
V zadevi FENIN proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 11. julija 2006, C-205/03 P, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče potem, ko je poudarilo, da ta pojem v smislu prava Skupnosti o konkurenci zajema vse subjekte, ki opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost, ne glede na njihovo pravno obliko in njihov način financiranja, odločilo, da ponujanje proizvodov ali storitev na določenem trgu označuje pojem gospodarske dejavnosti, tako da za namene presoje njene narave ni treba razmejiti dejavnosti nakupa proizvoda od njegove poznejše uporabe, in da poznejša uporaba kupljenega proizvoda nujno določa naravo dejavnosti nakupa.
More specically, the Court stated that the inclusion of an entry in the SIS does indeed constitute evidence that there is a reason to justify refusal of entry into the Schengen Area.
V drugih treh sodbah je Sodišče ponovno potrdilo in natančneje opredelilo več delov denicije pojma sporazuma, ki omejuje konkurenco v smislu člena 81 ES.
However, such evidence must be corroborated by information enabling it to be veried before any refusal that the presence of the person concerned in the Schengen Area constitutes a genuine, present and suciently serious threat aecting one of the fundamental interests of society.
V zadevi General Motors (sodba z dne 6. aprila 2006, C-551/03, ZOdl., str.
The Court added with regard to that verication that the State consulting the SIS must give due consideration to the information provided by the State which issued the alert and the latter must make supplementary information available to the consulting State to enable it to gauge, in the specic case, the gravity of the threat that the person for whom an alert has been issued is likely to represent.
I-3173) je Sodišče, ko je obravnavalo pritožbo proizvajalca avtomobilov istega imena zoper sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 21. oktobra 2003 v zadevi General Motors Nederland in Opel Nederland proti Komisiji (T368/00, Recueil, str.
In Case C-241/05 Bot (judgment of 3 October 2006, not yet published in the ECR) the Court, in response to a question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État (France), interpreted Article 20(1) of the CISA 17, which provides that aliens not subject to a visa requirement may move freely within the territories of the Contracting Parties for a maximum period of three months during the six months following the date of first entry,
II-4491), opozorilo, da je mogoče šteti, da ima sporazum omejevalni cilj, čeprav njegov edini namen ni omejevanje konkurence, ampak zasleduje tudi druge, legitimne cilje, ter da je treba za ugotovitev, ali take cilje res zasleduje, upoštevati ne le besedilo tega sporazuma, ampak tudi druge dejavnike, kot so cilji, ki jih sporazum zasleduje, ob upoštevanju gospodarskega in pravnega okvira.
Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justied on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (OJ, English Special Edition 1963–1964, p. 117).
Tako je presodilo, da ima sporazum glede distribucije omejevalni cilj v smislu člena 81 ES, če se jasno kaže volja, da se izvozne prodaje obravnavajo manj ugodno kot domače prodaje in da se tako povzroči delitev zadevnega trga, in hkrati poudarilo, da takega namena ni mogoče uresničiti samo z neposrednimi izvoznimi omejitvami, ampak tudi s posrednimi ukrepi, na primer tako, da
Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ L 239, 22.8.2000, p. 19).
Listina o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije (UL 2000, C 364, str. 1).
Proceedings provided that they full the entry conditions referred to in Article 5(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of that Convention.
Razvoj in dejavnost dobavitelj motornih vozil v okviru koncesijskih pogodb sprejme ukrep, ki izvozne prodaje izvzame iz sistema premij, ki jih da koncesionarjem, saj vplivajo na ekonomske pogoje teh transakcij.
The case before the Conseil d’État concerned a Romanian national not requiring a visa who, after having made successive stays in the Schengen Area amounting to more than three months in all during the six months following the date of his very first entry into that area, entered the area again after that initial six-month period had elapsed and was subject to a check there less than three months after that new entry.
Poleg tega je Sodišče še opozorilo, da čeprav dokaz o nameri strank sporazuma, da omejijo konkurenco, ni nujen dejavnik za ugotovitev, ali je bil namen sporazuma taka omejitev, Komisiji ali sodišču Skupnosti vendarle nič ne prepoveduje, da bi upoštevala to namero.
The Court held that Article 20(1) of the CISA is to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘rst entry’ in that provision refers, besides the very first entry into the territories of the Contracting States to the Schengen Agreement, to the first entry into those territories taking place after the expiry of a period of six months from that very first entry and also to any other first entry taking place after the expiry of any new period of six months following an earlier date of first entry.
Na koncu je Sodišče v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso razsodilo, da je treba za presojo, ali je sporazum treba šteti za prepovedanega zaradi izkrivljanja konkurence, preučiti konkurenco v dejanskem okviru, v katerem bi do nje prišlo, če ne bi bilo spornega sporazuma, in da je zato v okoliščinah, kot so te, v katerih je dobavitelj motornih vozil v okviru koncesijskih pogodb uvedel ukrep, ki izvozne prodaje izključuje iz sistema premij, ki so dodeljene koncesionarjem, treba preučiti ravnanje slednjih in konkurenčni položaj na zadevnem trgu, če izvozne prodaje ne bi bile izključene iz politike premij.V zadevi Komisija protiVolkswagnu (sodba z dne 13. julija 2006, C-74/04 P, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče, ko je obravnavalo pritožbo Komisije zoper sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 3. decembra 2003 v zadevi Volkswagen proti Komisiji (T-208/01, Recueil, str.
In Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council (judgment of 27 June 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the European Parliament challenging the final subparagraph of Article 4(1), Article 4(6) and Article 8 of Directive 2003/86 on family reunication 18.
II-5141), razsodilo, da za nastanek sporazuma v smislu člena 81(1) ES zadostuje, da je navidezno enostranski akt ali ravnanje izraz soglasja volje vsaj dveh strank in da oblika tega soglasja sama po sebi ni odločilna.
The Court held, contrary to the European Parliament’s assertions, that those provisions — which state that the Member States are to authorise the entry and residence, pursuant to the directive, of, in particular, the minor children, including adopted children, of the sponsor and his or her spouse, and those of the sponsor or of the sponsor’s spouse where that parent has custody of the children and they are dependent on him or her, and that Member States may require the sponsor to have stayed lawfully in their territory for a period not exceeding two years, before having his/her family members join him/her — respect fundamental rights as recognised in the Community legal order.
V zvezi s tem je zlasti natančno opredelilo, da čeprav poziv, ki ga proizvajalec avtomobilov s pogodbo naslovi na svoje distributerje, ne pomeni enostranski akt, ampak sporazum v smislu člena 81(1) ES, ker se uvršča med vse stalne poslovne odnose, ki jih še naprej ureja prej sklenjeni splošni sporazum, to vseeno ne implicira, da vsak poziv, ki ga proizvajalec avtomobilov naslovi na koncesionarje, pomeni sporazum v smislu člena 81(1) ES in Komisije ne odveže tega, da v posameznem primeru dokaže obstoj soglasja volj strank koncesijske pogodbe.
In order to reach that conclusion, the Court compared the contested provisions with the right to respect for family life as laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights solemnly proclaimed in Nice in 2000 19, while pointing out that those instruments do not create for the members of a family an individual right to be allowed to enter the territory of a State and cannot be interpreted as denying Member States a certain margin of appreciation when they examine applications for family reunication.
Po mnenju Sodišča lahko taka volja strank izhaja tako iz določb zadevne koncesijske pogodbe kot iz ravnanja strank in zlasti iz morebitnega obstoja tihe privolitve koncesionarjev v ukrep, ki ga sprejme proizvajalec avtomobilov. Na povsem drugem področju je Sodišče v zadevi Meca-Medina in Majcen proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 18. julija 2006, C-519/04 P, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.), ko je odločalo o pritožbi zoper sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 20. septembra 2004 v zadevi Meca-Medina in Majcen proti Komisiji (T-313/02, ZOdl., str.
The Court rejected the various arguments relied upon by the European Parliament, taking care to establish that, given the manner in which they are laid down, the derogations permitted by the contested provisions cannot be regarded as running counter to the fundamental right to respect for family life, to the obligation to have regard to the best interests of children or to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, either in themselves or in that they expressly or impliedly authorise the Member States to act in such a way.
II-3291), potem ko je poudarilo, da zgolj okoliščina, da naj bi bilo pravilo izključno športne narave, s področja uporabe Pogodbe in zlasti pravil o konkurenci, ne izključuje tistega, ki izvaja dejavnost, ki jo ureja to pravilo, ali organizacije, ki je to pravilo določila, nazadnje razsodilo, da čeprav je sporno antidopinško ureditev mogoče šteti za sklep podjetniškega združenja, ki omejuje svobodo delovanja oseb, za katere velja, iz tega razloga nujno ne pomeni omejitve konkurence, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom v smislu člena 81 ES, ker jo upravičuje legitimen cilj.
In the following presentation of the caselaw on competition, a distinction will be drawn between the rules applicable to undertakings and the system of State aid.
Ob tem, da je vseeno priznalo, da imata kaznovalni značaj sporne antidopinške ureditve in obseg sankcij, ki se uporabijo v primeru njene kršitve, vsekakor lahko negativne učinke na konkurenco, saj bi lahko, če bi se te sankcije dokončno izkazale kot neutemeljene, privedle do neupravičene izključitve športnika iz tekmovanj in tako do izkrivljanja pogojev, pod katerimi se izvaja zadevna dejavnost, je Sodišče pojasnilo, da je treba omejitve, ki jih določa taka ureditev, zato da zanje ne bi veljala prepoved iz člena 81(1) ES, omejiti na tisto, kar je nujno za zagotovitev pravilnega poteka športnega tekmovanja.
Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunication (OJ L 251, 3.10.2003, p. 12).
Glede uporabe Sodišča materialnopravnih pravil o konkurenci je treba izpostaviti še tri sodbe.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1).
V združenih zadevah Cipolla in drugi (sodba z dne 5. decembra 2006, C-94/04 in
As regards the rules applicable to undertakings, 13 judgments are of particular interest. A first judgment is to be noted in that it adds to the denition of ‘undertaking’, which determines the scope of the competition rules.
C-202/04, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče, ko je obravnavalo predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki sta ju vložili Corte d’appello di Torino (Italija) in Tribunale di Roma (Italija), razsodilo, da členi 10 ES, 81 ES in 82 ES ne nasprotujejo sprejetju normativnega ukrepa države članice, s katerim se na podlagi predloga, ki ga pripravi poklicno združenje odvetnikov, potrdi tarifa, ki določa najnižjo mejo nagrad članov poklicnega združenja odvetnikov, ki je tarifa, od katere načeloma ni mogoče odstopiti tako glede storitev, katerih opravljanje je omejeno na te člane, kot tudi glede izvensodnih storitev, ki jih lahko opravljajo tudi drugi gospodarski subjekti, za katere navedena tarifa ne velja.
In Case C-205/03 P FENIN v Commission (judgment of 11 July 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court, after recalling that ‘undertaking’covers, in the context of Community competition law, any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of that entity and the way in which it is financed, stated that, in that regard, it is the activity consisting in oering goods and services on a given market that is the characteristic feature of an economic activity, so that, for the purposes of assessing the nature of such an activity, there is no need to dissociate the activity of purchasing goods from the subsequent use to which they are put and that the nature of the purchasing activity must be determined according to the subsequent use of the purchased goods.
Vendar je menilo, da takšna ureditev, ki absolutno prepoveduje, da bi se z dogovorom odstopilo od najnižjih nagrad, določenih z odvetniško tarifo, za storitve, ki so pravne in jih lahko opravljajo le odvetniki, pomeni omejevanje svobode opravljanja storitev iz člena 49 ES, in odločilo, da mora predložitveno sodišče preveriti, ali ta ureditev glede na njeno konkretno uporabo resnično zagotavlja doseganje ciljev varstva potrošnikov in pravilnega delovanja pravosodja, ki lahko upravičita to ureditev, in ali omejitve, ki jih nalaga, glede na te cilje niso nesorazmerne.
In three other judgments, the Court rearmed, and dened in greater detail, a number of elements of the denition of an agreement restrictive of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.
Končno je imelo v zadevi Vulcan Silkeborg (sodba z dne 7. septembra 2006, C-125/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) in povezanih zadevah A.
In Case C-551/03 General Motors [2006] ECR I-3173, an appeal by the eponymous car manufacturer against the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-368/00 General Motors Nederland and Opel Nederland v Commission [2003] ECR II-4491, the Court observed that an agreement may be regarded as having a restrictive object even if it does not have the restriction of competition as its sole aim but also pursues other legitimate objectives, and that for the purpose of determining whether it pursues an object of that type account must be taken not only of the terms of the agreement but also of other factors, such as the aims pursued by the agreement as such, in the light of the economic and legal context.
Brünsteiner (sodba z dne 5. decembra 2006, C-376/05 in C-377/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.), o katerih je odločalo v okviru postopka za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, Sodišče prvič priložnost opredeliti se o vprašanjih, ki so neločljivo povezana z začetkom veljavnosti zadnje uredbe o izjemah po skupinah za sektor motornih vozil, in sicer Uredbe št. 1400/200220, in podati njeno prvo razlago.
It thus held that an agreement concerning distribution has a restrictive object for the purposes of Article 81 EC if it clearly manifests the will to treat export sales less favourably than national sales and thus leads to a partitioning of the market in question, and pointed out that such an objective can be achieved not only by direct restrictions on exports but also through indirect measures, such as the implementation by a supplier of motor vehicles, in the context of dealer agreements, of a measure excluding export sales from the system of bonuses paid to dealers, since they inuence the economic conditions of such transactions.
V teh zadevah je Sodišče razsodilo, da čeprav začetek veljavnosti Uredbe št. 1400/2002 sam po sebi ni povzročil nujnosti reorganizacije distribucijske mreže dobavitelja v smislu člena 5(3), prvi pododstavek, prva alinea, Uredbe št. 1475/9521, pa je ta začetek veljavnosti lahko glede na posebno organizacijo distribucijske mreže vsakega dobavitelja zahteval tako pomembne spremembe, da jih je resnično treba šteti za reorganizacijo navedene mreže v smislu te določbe in da morajo v zvezi s tem nacionalna sodišča in arbitražni organi presoditi, ali je tako glede na vse konkretne elemente spora, ki jim je predložen. V zgoraj navedenih združenih zadevah A.
The Court also recalled that, while proof that the parties to an agreement intended to restrict competition is not a necessary factor in determining whether an agreement has such a restriction as its object, there is nothing to prohibit the Commission or the Community Courts from taking that intention into account.
Brünsteiner je Sodišče med drugim razsodilo, da je člen 4 Uredbe št. 1400/2002 treba razlagati tako, da se izjema po skupinah, ki jo določa ta uredba, po izteku prehodnega obdobja, določenega v členu 10 te uredbe, ne uporablja za pogodbe, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje za izjemo po skupinah, ki jo določa Uredba št. 1475/95, in ki imajo za cilj vsaj eno od nedopustnih omejitev, ki so naštete v členu 4, tako da so lahko vse pogodbene določbe, ki omejujejo konkurenco in jih take pogodbe vsebujejo, prepovedane s členom 81(1) ES, če niso bili izpolnjeni pogoji za izjemo na podlagi člena 81(3) ES.
Last, the Court also held, in accordance with consistent case-law, that in order to determine whether an agreement is to be considered to be prohibited by reason of the distortion of competition which is its eect, the competition in question should be assessed within the actual context in which it would occur in the absence of the agreement in dispute and that, accordingly, in a situation such as that involving the implementation by a supplier of motor vehicles, in the context of dealer agreements, of a measure excluding export sales from the system of bonuses paid to dealers, it is necessary to examine what the conduct of those dealers and the competitive situation on the market in question would have been if export sales had not been excluded from the bonus policy.
Sodišče je v tej zvezi natančneje določilo, da posledice prepovedi pogodbenih določil, ki niso v skladu s členom 81(1) ES, za vse druge dele sporazuma ali za druge obveznosti, ki iz njega izhajajo, vseeno ne sodijo v pravo Skupnosti in da zato nacionalno sodišče v skladu z nacionalnim pravom, ki se uporabi, presodi obseg in posledice morebitne prepovedi nekaterih določil na podlagi člena 81 ES za vsa pogodbena razmerja.
In Case C-74/04 P Commission v Volkswagen (judgment of 13 July 2006, not yet published in the ECR), an appeal by the Commission against the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-208/01 Volkswagen v Commission [2003] ECR II-5141, the Court held, moreover, that in order to constitute an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC, it is sucient that an act or conduct which is apparently unilateral be the expression of the concurrence of wills of at least two
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1400/2002 z dne 31. julija 2002 o uporabi člena 81(3) Pogodbe za skupine vertikalnih sporazumov in usklajenih ravnanj na področju motornih vozil (UL L 203, str. 30).
Proceedings parties and that the form in which that concurrence is expressed is not by itself decisive.
Prispevek dveh izmed njih je predvsem v postopkovnih vprašanjih in vprašanjih glede izvajanja dokazov.
It stated, more specically, in that regard that while a call by a motor vehicle manufacturer to its authorised dealers does not constitute a unilateral act but an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC, provided that it forms part of a set of continuous business relations governed by a general agreement drawn up in advance, that does not, however, imply that any call by a motor vehicle manufacturer to dealers constitutes an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC and does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to prove that there was a concurrence of wills on the part of the parties to the dealership agreement in each specic case.
V zadevah Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 21. septembra 2006, C-105/04 P, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) in Technische Uni proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 21. septembra 2006, C113/04 P, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče ponovno potrdilo, da spoštovanje razumnega roka pri vodenju upravnih postopkov na področju konkurenčne politike pomeni splošno načelo prava Skupnosti, katerega spoštovanje zagotavlja sodišče Skupnosti, in razsodilo, da ugotovitev, da je postopek trajal pretirano dolgo, ne da bi bilo mogoče odgovornost za to pripisati zadevnim podjetjem, ne more povzročiti ničnosti odločbe o ugotovitvi kršitve zaradi kršitve omenjenega načela, razen če bi omenjeno trajanje s tem, da bi bila okrnjena pravica podjetij do obrambe, lahko vplivalo na izid postopka.
According to the Court, such a will on the part of the parties may result from both the clauses of the dealership agreement in question and from the conduct of the parties, and in particular from the possibility of there being tacit acquiescence by the dealers in the measure adopted by the vehicle manufacturer.
Poleg tega je poudarilo, da preizkus morebitnega oviranja izvrševanja pravice do obrambe iz razloga pretiranega trajanja upravnega postopka ne more biti omejen le na njegovo drugo fazo, ampak se mora nanašati tudi na fazo pred sprejetjem obvestila o ugotovitvah o možnih kršitvah, pri čemer je predvsem treba ugotoviti, ali lahko pretirano dolgo trajanje vpliva na prihodnje možnosti obrambe zadevnih podjetij.