natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the case of Kali & Salz, 16the Court has already made it clear that the concept of a dominant position for the purposes of the Merger Regulation refers not only to 20.
Sodi�če je že v sodbi „Kali & Salz“ 16 pojasnilo, da s pojmom prevladujočega položaja v smislu Uredbe o združitvah ni mi�ljen le individualni, ampak tudi kolektivni prevladujoči položaj. Kolektivni prevladujoči položaj 20.
As Bertelsmann and Sony confirmed in the proceedings before the Court, the concentration was brought fully into effect in 2004.
Kot sta Bertelsmann in Sony potrdila v postopku pred Sodi�čem, je bila koncentracija v letu 2004 v celoti izvedena.
16 — Joined Cases C-68/94 and C-30/95 France and Others v Commission (Kali & Salz) [1998] ECR I-1375, paragraphs 164 to 178; see also the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-102/96 Gencor v Commission [1999] ECR II-753, paragraphs 123 to 156. 13 — Hereinafter, ‘Sony’.14 — The so-called ‘A & R’ (‘Artists and Repertoire’). I - 4967
16 – Sodba z dne 31. marca 1998 v združenih zadevah Francija in drugi proti Komisiji, „Kali & Salz“ (C-68/94 in C-30/95, Recueil, str. I-1375, točke od 164 do 178); glej tudi sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 25. marca 1999 v zadevi Gencor proti Komisiji (T-102/96, Recueil, str. II-753, točke od 123 do 156). 13 – V nadaljevanju: Sony.14 – Tako imenovani „A & R“ („Artists and Repertoire“). I - 4967
A collective dominant position may be constituted by two undertakings (duopoly) or several undertakings (oligopoly).
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-413/06 P prevladujočega položaja in v tu izpodbijani sodbi povzelo takole: imata lahko dve podjetji (duopol) ali več podjetij (oligopol). 17
Collective market dominance does not necessarily require that the members of an oligopoly cooperate collusively, for example by entering into anti-competitive agreements within the meaning of Article 81 EC.
Kolektivni prevladujoči položaj ne pomeni nujno, da bi morali člani oligopola med seboj sklepati dogovore, na primer protikonkurenčne sporazume v smislu člena 81 ES.
18Instead, collective market dominance may arise from the tacit coordination of market behaviour 19 of all members of the oligopoly.
18Kolektivni prevladujoči položaj lahko namreč temelji tudi na tihem usklajevanju konkurenčnega ravnanja 19 vseh članov oligo- pola.
The members of the oligopoly are then contented with the market shares they have achieved, and there is no longer any effective competition between them. 20
Člani oligopola se potem zadovoljijo s tržnimi deleži, ki so jih dosegli, med njimi pa ni več nikakr�ne učinkovite konkurence. 20
‘First, the market must be sufficiently transparent for the undertakings which coord -inate their conduct to be able to monitor sufficiently whether the rules of coordination are being observed.
„Prvič mora biti trg tako pregleden, da udeležena podjetja lahko zadostno nadzirajo, ali se upo�tevajo podrobna pravila usklajevanja.
Second, the discipline requires that there be a form of deterrent mechanism in the event of deviant conduct.
Drugič mora zaradi disciplinskih razlogov obstajati neke vrste odvračilni mehanizem za odstopanja od skupnega ravnanja.
Third, the reactions of undertakings which do not participate in the coordination, such as current or future competitors, and also the reactions of customers, should not be able to jeopardise the results expected from the coordination.’ 22
Tretjič odzivi podjetij, ki niso udeležena pri usklajenem ravnanju, kot so na primer trenutni ali prihodnji konkurenti, ali odzivi kupcev ne smejo ogroziti predvidenega učinka usklajevanja.“ 22
However, a necessary condition for a finding of collective market dominance in those circumstances is that the market in question actually admits in the long term of tacit coordination of market behaviour by the members of an oligopoly.
Pogoj za domnevo kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja pa potem je, da zadevni trg trajno sploh dopu�ča tiho usklajevanje konkurenčnega ravnanja članov oligopola.
The three criteria developed by the Court of First Instance in Airtours 21for the purpose of determining
Iz tega je mogoče razbrati tri merila, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje razvilo v sodbi Airtours 21zaradi ugotovitve kolektivnega
17 — Gencor (cited above, footnote 16), paragraphs 276 and 277, and Case T-342/99 Airtours v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585, paragraphs 59 to 61.
17 – Sodbi Gencor proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 16, točki 276 in 277) in z dne 6. junija 2002 v zadevi Airtours proti Komisiji (T-342/99, Recueil, str. II-2585, točke od 59 do 61).
18 — Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P Compagnie maritime belge transports and Others v Commission [2000] ECR I-1365, paragraph 45, in relation to Article 82 EC.
18 – Sodba z dne 16. marca 2000 v zadevi Compagnie maritime belge transports in drugi proti Komisiji (C-395/96 P in C-396/96 P, Recueil, str. I-1365, točka 45), ki se nana�a na člen 82 ES.
It is the first of the so-called ‘Airtours criteria’ which is at the heart of the present case, and thus the question as to whether the markets for recorded music are sufficiently transparent for the majors to be able to co -ordinate their conduct tacitly.
V obravnavanem primeru je zlasti zanimivo prvo izmed teh treh tako imenovanih „meril Airtours“, torej vpra�anje, ali so trgi posnetih nosilcev zvoka dovolj pregledni, da omogočajo tiho usklajevanje „top“ skupin družb.
In essence the parties to the proceedings are in dispute as to the efforts the Court of First Instance may require from the Commission in terms of investigation and justification in that respect.
V bistvu so stranke postopka v sporu glede tega, kako obsežno preiskavo in obrazložitev je Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko v zvezi s tem zahtevalo od Komisije.
19 — Normally, this occurs by means of anti-competitive parallel behaviour.
19 – Običajno se to zgodi s protikonkurenčno vzporednostjo ravnanj.
However, in Case COMP/M.2201 — MAN/Auwärter the Commission assessed a concentration for whether it enabled a permanent, tacit coordination of market behaviour by the members of a duopoly apart from the classic forms of anti-competitive parallel behaviour (Decision 2002/335/EC, OJ 2002 L 116, p.
Komisija pa je v zadevi COMP/M.2201 – MAN/Auwärter preverjala koncentracijo glede tega, ali je omogočala trajno tiho usklajevanje konkurenčnega ravnanja dveh duopolistov zunaj klasičnih oblik protikonkurenčne vzporednosti ravnanj (odločba 2002/335/ES, UL 2002, UL L 116, str.
35; see in particular recitals 33 to 35).
35, glej tam zlasti od 33. do 35. uvodne izjave).
(cited above, footnote
20 – K vsemu temu glej tudi sodbo Gencor proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 16, točka 276).
20 — See generally paragraph 276.
22 – Točka 247 izpodbijane sodbe.
22 — Paragraph 247 of the judgment under appeal.
V istem smislu sodba z dne 8. julija 2003 v zadevi Verband der freien Rohrwerke in drugi proti Komisiji (T-374/00, Recueil, str.
To the same effect see Case T-347/00 Verband der freien Rohrwerke and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II-2275, paragraph 186, and — in relation to Article 82 EC — Case T-193/02 Piau v Commission [2005] ECR II-209, paragraph 111.
II-2275, točka 186) in – nana�ajoč se na člen 82 ES – sodba z dne 26. januarja 2005 v zadevi Piau proti Komisiji (T-193/02, ZOdl., str. II-209, točka 111).
21 — Airtours (cited above, footnote 17), paragraph 62.
21 – Sodba Airtours proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 17, točka 62).
C — Administrative procedure and the Commission’s first clearance decision raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the EEA Agreement.
C – Upravni postopek in prva odločba Komisije o odobritvi glede združljivosti s skupnim trgom in Sporazumom EGP.
On 9 January 2004 the notification of the concentration required by Article 4 of the Merger Regulation was lodged with the Commission. 23
Pri Komisiji je bil 9. januarja 2004 prigla�en načrt koncentracije v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe o združitvah. 23
Under Article 11(5) of the Merger Regulation the proceedings were stayed from 7 April to 5 May 2004, because the parties to the concentration provided incomplete information to the Commission’s request for information. 24
Postopek je bil začasno ustavljen od 7. aprila do 5. maja 2004 v skladu s čle -nom 11(5) Uredbe o združitvah, ker stranki koncentracije nista v celoti odgovorili na zahtevo Komisije po podatkih. 24
In the preliminary phase (‘Phase I’ of the merger control procedure) the Commission issued a questionnaire to a number of market participants on 20 January 2004.
Komisija je 20. januarja 2004 v fazi predhodnega preizkusa („faza I“ postopka nadzora koncentracij) �tevilnim tržnim subjektom poslala vpra�alnik.
On 24 May 2004 the Commission sent a statement of objections to the parties to the concentration, in which it provisionally concluded that the notified operation was incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, since it would strengthen a collective dominant position in the recorded music market and in the wholesale market for licences for online music and would coordinate the parent companies’ behaviour in a way incompatible with Article 81 EC.
Komisija je 24. maja 2004 strankama koncentracije poslala izjavo o ugovorih, v kateri je pri�la do predhodne ugotovitve, da je prigla�eni načrt nezdružljiv s skupnim trgom in Sporazumom EGP, saj naj bi krepil kolektivni prevladujoči položaj na trgu posnetih nosilcev zvoka in na trgu trgovine na debelo za licence za spletno glasbo in usklajeval ravnanje matičnih družb na način, ki je nedopusten v skladu s členom 81 ES.
Impala answered the questionnaire, and on 28 January 2004 it also lodged a separate submission in which it set out the reasons why, in its view, the Commission should declare the operation incompatible with the common market.
Impala je izpolnil ta vpra�alnik in poleg tega 28. januarja 2004 vložil �e posebno vlogo, v kateri je obrazložil, zakaj mora Komisija po njegovem mnenju načrt razglasiti za nezdružljiv s skupnih trgom.
In this submission Impala set out its concerns about further concentration in the market and the impact that this would have on market access, including in the retail sector, the media, the internet and consumer choice.
Impala je v tem dopisu izrazil pomisleke zaradi večje koncentracije na trgu in vplivov, ki bi jih ta imela na dostop do trga, skupaj s prodajnim sektorjem, mediji in internetom, ter na odločitev potro�nika.
Thereafter, on 12 February 2004 the Commission initiated formal proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation (‘Phase II’ of the merger control procedure), because the project notified
Komisija je nato 12. februarja 2004 v skladu s členom 6(1)(c) Uredbe o združitvah uvedla uradni postopek preizkusa („faza II“ postopka nadzora koncentracij), saj naj bi prigla�eni načrt sprožal resne dvome
The parties to the concentration replied to the statement of objections and a hearing took place before the Commission’s Hearing Officer on 14 and 15 June 2004 in the presence of, among others, Impala.
Stranki koncentracije sta odgovorili na izjavo o ugovorih; poobla�čenec Komisije za zasli�anje je stranki zasli�al 14. in 15. junija 2004, zasli�anja pa se je udeležil tudi Impala.
23 — On this point and the following see paragraphs 2 and 7 to 11 of the judgment under appeal.
23 – K temu in k nadaljnjemu besedilu glej točko 2 in točke od 7 do 11 izpodbijane sodbe.
24 — On this point see the Final report of the hearing officer (OJ 2005 C 59, p. 2).
24 – K temu glej končno poročilo poobla�čenca za zasli�anje (UL 2005, C 59, str. 2).
The interveners were ordered to bear their own costs.
Intervenientom je naložilo plačilo lastnih stro�kov.
By its first clearance decision of 19 July 2004, the Commission finally declared the concentration compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation.
Komisija je naposled s prvo odločbo o odobritvi z dne 19. julija 2004 razglasila, da je načrt koncentracije v skladu s členom 8(2) Uredbe o združitvah združljiv s skupnim trgom in Sporazumom EGP.
This clearance was not subject to any conditions or obligations.
Ta odobritev ni vsebovala pogojev ali zahtev.
E — Appeal proceedings
E – Pritožbeni postopek
D — The proceedings at first instance
D – Postopek na prvi stopnji
By their joint appeal, which was lodged at the Registry of the Court on 13 July 2006, Bertelsmann and Sony (‘the appellants’) claim that the Court should:
Bertelsmann in Sony (v nadaljevanju tudi: pritožnika) sta s skupaj vloženo pritožbo, ki je v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prispela 13. julija 2006, Sodi�ču predlagala, naj
— set aside the judgment under appeal;
– razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo,
On 3 December 2004 Impala brought an action against the first clearance decision before the Court of First Instance and applied for the Decision to be annulled 25 and for the Commission to be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Impala je 3. decembra 2004 zoper prvo odločbo o odobritvi vložil tožbo pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in predlagal, naj se ta odločba razglasi za nično 25 in Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov postopka.
The Commission applied for the action to be dismissed and for Impala to be ordered to bear the costs.
Komisija pa je predlagala, naj se tožba zavrne in družbi Impala naloži plačilo stro�kov.
It was supported in that regard by Bertelsmann and Sony, as well as by Sony BMG Music Entertainment, to whom the Court had given leave to intervene by Order of the President of the Third Chamber of 4 February 2005.
Pri tem so jo podprli Bertelsmann in Sony ter Sony BMG Music Entertainment, ki jim je Sodi�če prve stopnje s sklepom predsednika tretjega senata z dne 4. februarja 2005 dopustilo udeležbo kot intervenientom.
— dismiss Impala’s application for annulment of the Commission’s Decision, or, alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for reconsider -ation; and
zavrne predlog družbe Impala za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije ali, podredno, zadevo vrne v ponovno odločanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje, in
— order Impala to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
– družbi Impala naloži plačilo stro�kov tega postopka.
By the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance annulled the first clearance decision and ordered the Commission to bear its own costs and three quarters of Impala’s costs.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je prvo odločbo o odobritvi z izpodbijano sodbo razglasilo za nično in Komisiji naložilo plačilo lastnih stro�kov ter treh četrtin stro�kov družbe Impala.
Impala itself was ordered to
Družbi Impala sami je naložilo plačilo ene
25 — On a subsidiary basis Impala applied for the clearance decision to be annulled in certain respects: see the third indent of paragraph 29 of the judgment under appeal.
25 – Impala je podredno predlagal, naj se prva odločba o odobritvi razglasi za nično v določenih točkah; k temu glej tretjo alineo točke 29 izpodbijane sodbe.
Sony BMG Music Entertainment adopts in full both the appeal and the form of order sought by Bertelsmann and Sony.
Sony BMG Music Entertainment se v celoti pridružuje pritožbi ter predlogom družb Bertelsmann und Sony.
Before the Court the appeal procedure was first written and then, on 6 November 2007, oral.
Postopek v zvezi s pritožbo pred Sodi�čem je bil najprej pisni, nato je 6. novembra 2007 sledila obravnava.
F — New administrative proceedings and the Commission’s second clearance decision
F – Ponovni upravni postopek in druga odločba Komisije o odobritvi
— dismiss the application for annulment of the first clearance decision or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for reconsideration; and
– zavrne ničnostno tožbo zoper prvo odločbo o odobritvi ali, podredno, zadevo vrne v ponovno odločanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje, in
— order Impala to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the present proceedings.
– družbi Impala naloži plačilo stro�kov Komisije v tem postopku.
In consequence of the annulment of the first clearance decision by the judgment under appeal, the Commission carried out a new merger control procedure in this case 26(in this regard see Article 10(5) of the Merger Regulation), which necessarily ran in parallel to the present appeal proceedings, because the appeal did not have any suspensory effect (Article 60(1) of the Statute of the Court).
Ker je bila z izpodbijano sodbo prva odločba o odobritvi razgla�ena za nično, je Komisija v tej zadevi znova izpeljala postopek nadzora koncentracij 26(k temu glej tudi člen 10(5) Uredbe o združitvah), ki je nujno potekal vzporedno z obravnavanim pritožbenim postopkom, saj pritožba nima odložilnega učinka (člen 60(1) Statuta Sodi�ča).
Impala contends that the Court should:
– pritožbo zavrne kot neutemeljeno, in/ali zavrže kot deloma nedopustno, ali zavrže kot v celoti nedopustno,
Thus, for the purpose of its new competitive assessment the concentration was notified again to the Commission on 31 January 2007, and on 1 March 2007 the Commission initiated the formal procedure under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation (‘Phase II’).
Tako je bila koncentracija zaradi ponovnega preizkusa skladnosti s konkurenčnim pravom 31. januarja 2007 prigla�ena Komisiji, ki je 1. marca 2007 v skladu s členom 6(1)(c) Uredbe o združitvah uvedla uradni postopek preizkusa („faza II“).
— uphold the judgment under appeal; and
– ohrani v veljavi izpodbijano sodbo in
The merger control procedure was concluded by decision dated 3 October 2007,
Postopek nadzora koncentracij je bil končan z odločbo z dne 3. oktobra 2007,
26 — On this and the following points see the Commission’s press releases of 1 March 2007 (IP/07/272) and of 3 October 2007 (IP/07/1437).
26 – K temu in k nadaljnjim navedbam glej sporočili za javnost Komisije z dne 1. marca 2007 (IP/07/272) in z dne 3. oktobra 2007 (IP/07/1437).
— order the appellants to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
pritožnikoma naloži plačilo stro�kov tega postopka.
The clearance was not subject to any conditions or obligations.
Ta odobritev ni vsebovala pogojev ali zahtev.
Given this objection, it is appropriate to recall the standard of reference laid down by Article 225(1) EC and Article 58(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and which the Court has confirmed in its consistent caselaw in appeal proceedings: 27appeals are limited to points of law.
Spričo tega očitka se zdi primerno, da se spomni na merilo za presojo, ki izhaja iz člena 225(1) ES in iz člena 58(1) Statuta Sodi�ča in ki ga Sodi�če uporablja v ustaljeni sodni praksi v pritožbenih postopkih 27: pritožba je omejena na pravna vpra�anja.
The Court of First Instance thus has exclusive jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence, and the appraisal of those facts and the assessment of that evidence thus do not, save where the facts or evidence are distorted, constitute points of law subject, as such, to review by the Court on appeal.
Zato je samo Sodi�če prve stopnje pristojno za ugotovitev in presojo relevantnih dejstev ter za presojo dokazov, presoja dejstev in dokazov pa, s pridržkom, da so izkrivljeni, ni pravno vpra�anje, ki bi bilo kot tak�no podvrženo nadzoru Sodi�ča v okviru pritožbe.
IV — Preliminary questions to analysis of the appeal
IV – Predhodna vprašanja v zvezi s presojo pritožbe
Before considering the appeal as to substance, it is necessary to consider whether the individual grounds of appeal it raises are admissible (see below, section A), whether they can at all achieve the result sought by the appellants (see below, section B), and whether the appellants’ interest in continuing to pursue the appeal has not been superseded by the second clearance decision which has since been issued (see below, section C).
Pred presojo same pritožbe je treba preučiti, ali so njeni posamezni pritožbeni razlogi dopustni (glej spodaj pod A), ali je z njimi sploh mogoče doseči cilja, ki ga zasledujeta pritožnika (glej spodaj pod B), in ali �e obstaja interes pritožnikov za nadaljevanje pritožbenega postopka, glede na to, da je Komisija medtem izdala drugo odločbo o odobritvi (glej spodaj pod C).
By contrast, whether the Court of First Instance has imposed too high a standard as regards the reasons given for a Commission decision, whether it has applied the correct criteria in its appraisal of the facts and of the evidence, and whether it has generally applied the law correctly in its judgment, are all questions of law which may be the subject of an appeal.
Ali je, nasprotno, Sodi�če prve stopnje postavilo pretirane zahteve za obrazložitev odločbe Komisije, ali je pri presoji dejstev in dokazov uporabilo pravilna merila in ali je čisto na splo�no pravilno uporabilo pravo v sodbi, je pravno vpra�anje, ki je lahko predmet pritožbenega postopka.
28 Likewise, the Court has jurisdiction to review the legal characterisation
28 Prav tako je pravno vpra�anje, za katerega presojo je pristojno Sodi�če, ali je Sodi�če prve stopnje posameznih pritožbenih
Impala resists the appeal on the ground that it is inadmissible in its entirety, because it merely seeks reconsideration of the Court of First Instance’s appraisal of the facts.
Impala v celoti zanika dopustnost pritožbe, saj se z njo zahteva zgolj preizkus presoje dejstev, ki jo je opravilo Sodi�če prve stopnje.
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA of the facts and the evidence by the Court of First Instance and to review the legal conclusions it has drawn from them, 29as well as
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALA pravno pravilno opredelilo dejstva in dokaze in iz njih izpeljalo pravno dopustne sklepe, 29 kot tudi, ali je upo�tevalo predpise o dokaznem bremenu in dokaznem postopku. 30
The introductory part raises essentially the question whether the criteria the Court of First Instance itself developed in Airtours 33 whether it has properly applied the provisions relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence. 30 for a finding of collective market dominance are to be applied with different degrees of strictness depending on whether what must be proved is a collective dominant position which already exists or a prognosis for the future as regards the risk that a collective dominant position will arise in consequence of a concentration.
V uvodnem delu se v bistvu zastavlja vpra�anje, ali se merila, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje nekoč samo razvilo v sodbi Airtours, 33lahko različno strogo uporabijo pri ugotavljanju kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, vsakič glede na to, ali je treba dokazati obstoj že obstoječega kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja ali pa je treba za prihodnost podati napoved glede nevarnosti nastanka kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja zaradi koncentracije.
Thus, the introductory part of the fifth ground of appeal concerns the interpretation of the criteria in Airtours.
S tem ta uvodni del petega pritožbenega razloga zadeva razlago meril iz sodbe Airtours.
This is a question of law which may indeed be the subject of an appeal.
To je pravno vpra�anje, ki je dopustno in je lahko predmet pritožbe.
Applying these criteria, contrary to Impala’s submissions the present appeal cannot be regarded as wholly inadmissible.
Če upo�tevamo to merilo za presojo, potem obravnavane pritožbe v nasprotju s stali�čem družbe Impala ni mogoče �teti za v celoti nedopustno.
Instead, in this connection a distinction must be drawn between the fifth ground of appeal and the other grounds of appeal.
V tem smislu je namreč treba razlikovati med petim pritožbenim razlogom na eni strani in preostalimi pritožbenimi razlogi na drugi strani.
Admissibility of the fifth ground of appeal
Dopustnost petega pritožbenega razloga
The fifth ground of appeal, which concerns the requirements for a finding of a collective dominant position, consists in an introductory part 31 and a number of detailed points of criticism. 32
Najprej, kar zadeva peti pritožbeni razlog, ki se ukvarja s pogoji za določitev kolektivnega prevladujočega položaja, je ta sestavljen iz uvodnega dela 31in več podrobnih točk kritike. 32