http://www.9ask.cn/blog/user/gjlls/index.html

www.9ask.cn 复制网址 | 加入收藏 | 设为主页
我的公告
最新日志
最新评论
最新留言
友情链接
[原创]通用汽车案(五)
  • Restrictive practices. Dominant position. Public office. Relevant market.
    限制性惯例。优势地位。公共机关。相关市场。


    A monopoly granted by the state to a private undertaking to carry out a public (in casu, the approval inspection of motor cars) will, if the undertaking is free to fix its price for performing the , amount to a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 EEC. This will be so even if the monopoly is granted to different undertakings, for different brands of the same product, the brand being the relevant market for this purpose. [9]
      国家授予私人企业完成某一公共职能(in casu,对汽车进行检查的权力)的垄断权可以视为欧共体条约第86条意义上的优势地位,如果该企业在履行职能时具有自由定价权的话。即使垄断权是授予不同的企业也一样,对于相同产品的不同品牌,在这个目的上构成相关市场。


    Restrictive practices. Dominant position. Abuse. Prices.
    限制性惯例 优势地位 滥用 价格
    Where a private undertaking has been granted a monopoly in the performing of a public so that it has a dominant position under Article 86 EEC, an abuse of such position might consist in the imposition of a price for performing that which is excessive in relation to the economic of the service provided and which has the effect of curbing parallel imports (of the product which is the object of the service) by neutralising the possibly more favourable level of prices applying in other sales areas in the Community or by leading to unfair trade in the sense of Article 86 (2) (a) EEC. [12]
      如果一家私人企业被授予履行某一公共职能的垄断权因而构成欧共体条约第86条意义上的优势地位。那么,在履行职能时强制收取相对于服务的经济价值超高的价格构成滥用,而且具有控制(服务产品)的平等进口的效果,其方法是通过中和适用于共同体内其他销售区域更加合理的价格水平的可能或者通过导致欧共体条约第86条意义上的不公平交易的方法。


    Restrictive practices. Dominant position. Abuse. Strict liability. Prices.
    限制性惯例 优势地位 滥用 严格责任 价格
    The imposition by an undertaking in a dominant position of prices for its services which are excessive in relation to the economic of the service provided constitutes an abuse under Article 86 EEC; but it will not constitute such an abuse if the excessive price was charged to cope with a new situation and before the firm had acquired sufficient experience to determine an appropriate charge, but where the firm, as soon as it realised its price was excessive, remedied the situation and repaid the excess which it had already received. [16] & [20]
    一家具有优势地位的企业强制收取相对于其提供的服务超高的价格的行为构成欧共体条约第86条意义上的滥用;但它将不构成滥用如果该超高价格的收取是在企业获得足够经验以决定一个合适价格之前并且产为了适应新的形势,但是如果企业意识到其收取的价格超高,就应该尽快修正并退还已经多收的费用。


    European Court. Procedure. Costs.
    欧洲法院 程序 诉讼费用
    The Court refused to grant costs to the successful plaintiff even though it had annulled the whole of a decision of the E.C. Commission which imposed *96 a fine of 100,000 u.a. (i.e. about £62,500) on the plaintiff; it cited Article 69 (3) of the Rules of Procedure (which refers to 'exceptional circumstances'), but gave no reasons for invoking that provision. [24]-[25]
    The European Court of Justice annulled a decision of the E.C. Commission imposing a fine on the plaintiff firm for violation of Article 86 EEC, holding that in the circumstances there was no such abuse. But the successful plaintiff was ordered to pay its own costs.
      法院拒绝豁免胜诉的原告的诉讼费用,即使法院已经撤销了欧共体委员会作出的对原告处以100,000欧洲货币单位(即,大约62,500英镑)的罚款的整个决定。法院引用了程序规则第69条第3款的规定(规定了“例外情形”),但没有给出适用该规定的理由。
      欧洲法院撤销了欧共体委员会作出的对原告违反欧共体条约第86条处以罚款的决定,判决在这样的情况下不构成滥用。但胜诉的原告被判承担自己的费用。


    Representation 陈述

    Michel Waelbroeck, avocat at the Cour d'Appel of Brussels, for the plaintiff company.
    Michel van Ackere, legal adviser to the E.C. Commission, for the defendant Commission.

    The following cases were referred to by the Advocate General in his opinion:下列案例被护法顾问在其意见中引用:
    1. SIRENA Srl v. Eda Srl (40/70), 18 February 1971: [1971] C.M.L.R. 260, 17 Recueil 69.
    2. Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft mbH v. Metro-Sbgrossm?rkte GmbH & Co. KG (78/70), 8 June 1971: [1971] C.M.L.R. 631, 17 Recueil 487.
    3. Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano SpA and Commercial Solvents Corp. v. E.C. Commission (6-7/73), 6 March 1974: [1974] 1 C.M.L.R. 309, [1974] E.C.R. 223.
    4. Europemballage Corp. and Continental Can Co. Inc. v. E.C. Commission 6/72), 21 February 1973: [1973] C.M.L.R. 199, [1973] E.C.R. 215.
    5. ETS Consten Sàrl and Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v. EEC Commission (56/64 & 58/64), 13 July 1966: [1966] C.M.L.R. 418, [1966] E.C.R. 324.
    6. Belgische Radio en Televisie v. S.A.B.A.M. (127/73), 27 March 1974: [1974] 2 C.M.L.R. 295, [1974] E.C.R. 313.
    7. State v. Sacchi (155/73), 30 April 1974: [1974] 2 C.M.L.R. 177, [1974] E.C.R. 409.
    8. Re the Application of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (E.C. Commission, 13 December 1974): [1975] 1 C.M.L.R. D44, [1975] O.J. L29/1.

    Facts 事实

    In order to be used on the public highway in Belgium vehicles registered in that country must satisfy the requirements of the Royal Decree of 15 March 1968 which embodies a general regulation *97 concerning the technical standards to be met by motor vehicles and their trailers. [FN1]
      在比利时,经登记的汽车要上路行驶必须满足1968315颁布的皇家法令的规定要求,该法包括了有关汽车及其拖车必须符合的技术标准。

    Each type of chassis or unit-construction vehicle manufactured or assembled in Belgium or imported for use in that country must be approved by the Minister for Transport or his representative and be the subject of an approval (procès-verbal d'agréation) ( sections 3 (1) and 10 (1) of the Royal Decree of 15 March 1968).
      在比利时制造和装配的或进口到该国使用的每一型号底盘或独立结构的汽车都必须经运输部或其代理人的批准,并成为许可的对象(1968315皇家法令第31)和101)部分)


    Where a type of vehicle has thus obtained an approval the manufacturer or, where he is established abroad, his sole authorised agent in Belgium shall issue, in respect of each new vehicle of the same type which is in use on the road, a certificate 'of conformity' which attests that the vehicle entirely satisfies the requirements contained in the certificate of approval (section 10 (4) of the Decree). The manufacturer or his sole authorised agent subsequently affixes to each vehicle the compulsory type-shield (section 16 (2) of the Decree).
      如果一种型号的汽车已经获得了这样的批准,则其制造商,如果它在比利时境外建立,或者它在比利时的代理机构应当对在路行驶的同一种型号的新汽车发行一份“相符”证书,以证明该车完全符合批准文件[法令第1040)]的要求。相应地,该制造商或其代理机构应该为每一汽车帖上强制性的已检标签[法令第162)]。


    Following instructions from the Belgian Minister for Transport, since 15 March 1973 the State testing stations, which until that date carried out the inspections of used vehicles, have no longer issued certificates of conformity and type-shields for vehicles which have been registered abroad for less than six months; since that date, therefore, the conformity inspections of such vehicles have been carried out by the manufacturer's authorised agent in Belgium.
      根据比利时运输部的指令,从1973315起,原负责对汽车进行检查的国家测试站点不再为在国外注册少于6个月的汽车颁发相符证书和已检标签。从该日起,这项工作由制造商在比利时的代理机构进行。


    For the purposes of the Royal Decree of 15 March 1968, General Motors Continental NV, a limited company incorporated under Belgian law having its registered office in Antwerp, is the sole authorised agent of Adam Opel AG, Rüsselsheim/Main, a manufacturer of private motor cars, and of other manufacturers belonging to the General Motors group.
    G.M.C. is responsible for obtaining a certificate of approval for all types of General Motors vehicles included in its Belgian sales programme. It applies for 'general' approvals for Opel and Vauxhall models; for the American models produced by General Motors, it applies for 'low-volume' type approvals, valid for up to 10 units per year. G.M.C. subsequently issues the certificates of conformity and the type-shields for each vehicle sold through its approved dealers.
      根据1968315的皇家法令,通用汽车大陆公司作为一家依比利时法律成立的有限公司,它在安特卫普有一家注册机构,是私人汽车制造商Adam Opel AG, Rüsselsheim/Main的唯一代理机构,也是通用汽车大陆公司旗下其他制造商的唯一代理机构。通用汽车大陆公司负责为所有型号的通用汽车获取批准证书,包括其在比利时的销售计划。它为Opel and Vauxhall型号的汽车申请了“通用的”批准证书;对通用汽车公司制造的美国型号汽车,它申请了“低容量”型批准,每年有多达10个单位的有效期。通用汽车大陆公司相应地为每一辆通过其经销商卖出的汽车颁发相符证书和已检标签。


    Private customers and dealers importing vehicles manufactured within the General Motors group into Belgium otherwise than through G.M.C.'s standard distribution system--parallel imports--are also obliged to resort to G.M.C., in its capacity as sole authorised agent for the approval procedures for both new vehicles and, since 15 March 1973, for vehicles registered abroad for less than six months.
      把通用汽车集团制造的汽车进口至比利时的私人消费者和交易商除了通过通用汽车大陆公司的经销商进行――平行进口――之外,也被迫求之于通用汽车大陆公司,因该公司从1973315起已作为唯一的为新汽车以及在国外注册少于6个月的汽车进行批准程序的代理机构。


    Between 15 March and 31 July 1973, G.M.C. charged the same rates for the issue of certificates of conformity and type-shields in *98 five cases of parallel imports as it had charged previously for inspecting certain American models (5,000 BF plus 900 BF VAT).
    With effect from 1 August 1973 it implemented its new scale of charges, which distinguishes between G.M.C. vehicles of American manufacture and those of European manufacture: the costs charged for a private motor car manufactured in Europe by an undertaking within the General Motors group and already type-approved in Belgium were 1,250 BF whereas, as regards private motor cars manufactured in the U.S.A. by General Motors, the costs were 5,300, 7,000, or 30,000 BF, as the case might be.
    On 3 August 1973, G.M.C. took action to reimburse part of the amounts charged in the five cases mentioned above. In two cases 4,900 BF and in three cases 4,425 BF were returned.
      在1973315731之间,通用汽车大陆公司在五个平行进口的案例中为颁发相符证书和已检标签收取相同的费用,就如同此前它对某一美国型号汽车收取的费用一样(5,000比利时法郎加上900比利时法郎的增值税)。从197381起它调整了其收费幅度,区分了美国制造与欧洲制造的通用汽车:如同本案的情况所示,对在欧洲制造的和已在比利时帖标的私人通用公司产骄车收取的费用是1,250比利时法郎;而对在美国制造的私人通用公司骄车分别收取5,3007,000或者30,000比利时法郎。197383,通用汽车大陆公司对上述五个案例中多收取的费用进行了补偿,其中两个案例退还了4,900比利时法郎,三个案例退还了4425比利时法郎。


    The Commission of the European Communities considered that by requiring parallel importers of Opel vehicles to pay an excessive price for the technical inspections and administrative costs involved in the issue of certificates of conformity and type-shields G.M.C. had abused a dominant position within a substantial part of the common market within the meaning of Article 86 of the EEC Treaty. On 26 July 1974, therefore, acting on its own initiative, it set in motion against G.M.C. the procedure provided for by Council Regulation 17 of 6 February 1962, the first regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty.
      欧共体委员会认为,在Opel汽车的平行进口中,通用汽车大陆公司在进行技术检查和涉及颁发相符证书和已检标签的行政费用上实行了超高价格,因此构成欧共体条约第86条意义上的在共同市场的一个实质部分滥用了优势地位。因此在1974726,委员会根据196226的委员会规则中提供的程序,即对欧共体条约第85条和第86条的第一次修订,主动提起动议起诉通用汽车大陆公司。


    In pursuance of Article 19 (1) of Regulation 17 and of Article 2 (1) of Commission Regulation 99/63 of 25 July 1963, the Commission informed G.M.C. by letter on 31 July 1974 of the statement of objections which it intended to raise against it. On 6 September 1974 G.M.C. informed the Commission in writing of its views on these objections. On 19 December 1974, the Commission adopted Decision No. IV/28.851--General Motors Continental, relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty. [FN2]
      依照17号规则第191)条和196399/63号委员会规则第21)条之规定,委员会在1974731书面通知了通用汽车大陆公司其意欲对该公司提起的异议。1974919,通用汽车大陆公司书面回复委员会,发表了对此异议的观点。1974919,委员会发布第IV/28.851号决定――通用汽车大陆公司,涉及欧共体条约第86条的一个程序。


发表评论:

    大名:
    密码: (游客无须输入密码)
    主页:
    标题:
用户登录
博客搜索
我的相册
时间记忆
加入群组
我的好友
博客信息