Besonderhede van voorbeeld: 1805226135459231895

Bulgarian

Обстоятелството, че в два различни откъса от обжалваното съдебно решение във връзка с ръкописните бележки на Campine Общият съд използва различна терминология, като констатира, от една страна, че тези бележки „съдържат различни сведения, доказващи, че става въпрос за протокол от „антиконкурентна среща“ („they contain information that established that this was a record of anticompetitive discussions“) (точка 93), и от друга страна, че „от съдържанието и смисъла на тези бележки било възможно да се докаже, че различните цитирани предприятия и техните представители са участвали на 23 септември 2009 г. в антиконкурентна среща“ („it was possible to establish from the content and meaning of the handwritten notes that the various undertakings referred to and their representatives had participated, on 23 September 2009, in an anticompetitive meeting“) (точка 95)(19), не поставя под въпрос посоченото по-горе.

Czech

Skutečnost, že Tribunál ve dvou různých pasážích napadeného rozsudku, při odkazu na ručně psané poznámky Campine, použil odlišnou terminologii, když na jedné straně uvedl, že tyto poznámky „obsahovaly různé informace, které prokazovaly, že se jednalo o zápis z protisoutěžní schůzky“ („they contain information that established that this was a record of anticompetitive discussions“) (bod 93) a na druhé straně, že „z obsahu a smyslu těchto poznámek bylo možné prokázat, že různé podniky, které byly zmíněny, a jejich zástupci, se dne 23. září 2009 zúčastnili protisoutěžní schůzky“ („it was possible to establish from the content and meaning of the handwritten notes that the various undertakings referred to and their representatives had participated, on 23 September 2009, in an anticompetitive meeting“) (bod 95)(19), nezpochybňuje výše uvedené.

English

The fact that, in two different sections of the judgment under appeal, referring to Campine’s handwritten notes, the General Court used different terminology, finding, first, that those notes ‘contain information that established that this was a record of anticompetitive discussions’ (paragraph 93) and, secondly, that ‘it was possible to establish from the content and meaning of the handwritten notes that the various undertakings referred to and their representatives had participated, on 23 September 2009, in an anticompetitive meeting’) (paragraph 95) (19) does not call into question the foregoing.

Estonian

Asjaolu, et Üldkohus kasutas vaidlustatud kohtuotsuse kahes erinevas lõigus Campine’i käsitsi kirjutatud märkmetele viidates erinevaid väljendeid, leides ühest küljest, et need märkmed „sisaldasid mitmesugust teavet, mis tõendas, et tegemist oli konkurentsialase kohtumise protokolliga“ („they contain information that established that this was a record of anticompetitive discussions“) (punkt 93), ja teisest küljest, et „nende märkmete sisu ja mõtte põhjal oli võimalik tõendada, et erinevad viidatud ettevõtjad ja nende esindajad olid 23. septembril 2009 osalenud konkurentsi kahjustaval kohtumisel“ („it was possible to establish from the content and meaning of the handwritten notes that the various undertakings referred to and their representatives had participated, on 23 September 2009, in an anticompetitive meeting“) (punkt 95),(19) ei sea eespool esitatut kahtluse alla.

Croatian

Okolnost da je Opći sud u dvama različitim odlomcima pobijane presude, pri čemu je upućivao na rukom pisane bilješke društva Campine, upotrijebio različitu terminologiju kad je zaključio, s jedne strane, da te bilješke „sadržavaju različite informacije kojima se dokazuje da je bila riječ o zapisniku s protutržišnog sastanka” („they contain information that established that this was a record of anticompetitive discussions”) (točka 93.) i, s druge strane, „da je iz sadržaja i smisla tih bilješki bilo moguće dokazati da su različiti navedeni poduzetnici i njihovi predstavnici 23. rujna 2009. sudjelovali na protutržišnom sastanku” („it was possible to establish from the content and meaning of the handwritten notes that the various undertakings referred to and their representatives had participated, on 23 September 2009, in an anticompetitive meeting”) (točka 95.)(19), ne dovodi u pitanje prethodno navedeno.

Lithuanian

Tai, kad dviejose skirtingose skundžiamo sprendimo dalyse, remdamasis Campine rankraštiniais užrašais, Bendrasis Teismas vartojo skirtingą terminologiją, konstatuodamas, pirma, kad šiuose užrašuose „buvo įvairios informacijos, įrodančios, kad tai buvo konkurentų susitikimo ataskaita“ („they contain information that established that this was a record of anticompetitive direcord“) (93 punktas), ir, antra, kad „iš šių užrašų turinio bei prasmės aiškėja, kad buvo galima įrodyti, jog įvairios minėtos įmonės ir jų atstovai 2009 m. rugsėjo 23 d. dalyvavo antikonkurenciniame susirinkime“ („it was possible to establish from the content and meaning of the handwritten notes that the various undertakings referred to and their representatives had participated, on 23 September 2009, in an anticompetitive meeting“) (95 punktas)(19), nėra pagrindas suabejoti pirmiau išdėstytu teiginiu.

Latvian

Apstāklis, ka divās dažādās pārsūdzētā sprieduma daļās, runājot par Campine ar roku rakstītajām piezīmēm, Vispārējā tiesa ir izmantojusi atšķirīgu terminoloģiju, konstatējot, pirmkārt, ka minētajās piezīmēs bija “ietverta informācija, kas pierādīja, ka runa bija par sanāksmes, kas vērsta pret konkurenci, atskaiti” (“they contain information that established that this was a record of anticompetitive discussions”) (93. punkts), un, otrkārt, ka “no minēto piezīmju satura un nozīmes bija iespējams pierādīt, ka dažādi minētie uzņēmumi un to pārstāvji 2009. gada 23. septembrī bija piedalījušies pret konkurenci vērstā sanāksmē” (“it was possible to establish from the content and meaning of the handwritten notes that the various undertakings referred to and their representatives had participated, on 23 September 2009, in an anticompetitive meeting”) (95. punkts) (19), neliek apšaubīt iepriekš apgalvoto.

Polish

Okoliczność, że w dwóch różnych fragmentach zaskarżonego wyroku Sąd, odnosząc się do odręcznych notatek Campine, użył innej terminologii, stwierdzając, po pierwsze, że notatki te „zawierały różne informacje dowodzące, iż jest to zapis spotkania naruszającego reguły konkurencji” („they contain information that established that this was a record of anticompetitive discussions”) (pkt 93), a po drugie, że „na podstawie treści i znaczenia tych notatek można było udowodnić, iż różne wymienione w nim przedsiębiorstwa i ich przedstawiciele uczestniczyli w dniu 23 września 2009 r. w antykonkurencyjnym spotkaniu” („it was possible to establish from the content and meaning of the handwritten notes that the various undertakings referred to and their representatives had participated, on 23 September 2009, in an anticompetitive meeting”) (pkt 95)(19), nie podważa powyższych uwag.

Slovak

Skutočnosť, že Všeobecný súd použil v dvoch rôznych častiach napadnutého rozsudku v súvislosti s ručne písanými poznámkami spoločnosti Campine odlišnú terminológiu, pričom na jednej strane konštatoval, že tieto poznámky „obsahovali viacero informácií, ktoré preukazovali, že išlo o záznam z protisúťažného stretnutia“ („they contain information that established that this was a record of anticompetitive discussions“) (bod 93), a na druhej strane uviedol, že „z obsahu a významu týchto poznámok bolo možné preukázať, že viaceré uvedené podniky a ich zástupcovia sa 23. septembra 2009 zúčastnili na protisúťažnom stretnutí“ („it was possible to establish from the content and meaning of the handwritten notes that the various undertakings referred to and their representatives had participated, on 23 September 2009, in an anticompetitive meeting“) (bod 95)(19), nespochybňuje vyššie uvedené tvrdenia.

Slovenian

Okoliščina, da je Splošno sodišče na dveh različnih mestih v izpodbijani sodbi v zvezi z lastnoročnimi zapiski podjetja Campine uporabilo različno terminologijo ter po eni strani ugotovilo, da ti zapiski „vsebujejo različne informacije, ki dokazujejo, da je šlo za zapisnik protikonkurenčnega sestanka“ („they contain information that established that this was a record of anticompetitive discussions“) (točka 93), in po drugi, da je bilo „glede na vsebino in smisel teh zapiskov mogoče dokazati, da so različna navedena podjetja in njihovi zastopniki 23. septembra 2009 sodelovali na protikonkurenčnem sestanku“ („it was possible to establish from the content and meaning of the handwritten notes that the various undertakings referred to and their representatives had participated, on 23 September 2009, in an anticompetitive meeting“) (točka 95)(19), ne izpodbija zgoraj navedenega.

Swedish

Det ovan anförda kan inte omkullkastas av den omständigheten att tribunalen i två olika delar av den överklagade domen använde olikartad terminologi vad gäller Campines handskrivna anteckningar och konstaterade å ena sidan att dessa anteckningar ”innehåller olika uppgifter som fastställde att det var fråga om protokollet för ett kartellmöte” (”they contain information that established that this was a record of anticompetitive discussions”) (punkt 93), å andra sidan att ”det på grundval av dessa anteckningars innehåll och innebörd kunde styrkas att de olika nämnda företagen och deras representanter den 23 september 2009 hade deltagit i ett kartellmöte” (”it was possible to establish from the content and meaning of the handwritten notes that the various undertakings referred to and their representatives had participated, on 23 September 2009, in an anticompetitive meeting”) (punkt 95).( 19)