natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Fra 1995 til 2002 steg det samlede antal personbiler, der hvert år blev indregistreret i EU og EØS, fra 12034316 til 14398718 enheder.
Between 1995 and 2002, the total number of new passenger cars registered each year in the European Union and the European Economic Area went up from 12034316 to 14398718 units.
Mærket Peugeot tegnede sig alene for i alt 861696 indregistreringer i 1995 og 1277738 i 2002, hvorved Peugeot gik fra sjette- til tredjepladsen blandt producenterne i EU med en markedsandel, der steg fra 7,2 % i 1995 til 8,9 % i 2002 [2].
The Peugeot make on its own accounted for a total of 861696 registrations in 1995 and 1277738 registrations in 2002, jumping from sixth to third place among makes in the European Union with a market share up from 7,2 % in 1995 to 8,9 % in 2002 [2].
Peugeot oplevede i Nederlandene en kraftig vedvarende stigning i markedsandele, der gik fra 6,5 % i 1997 til 10,7 % i 2003 for personbilers vedkommende.
The Peugeot make also experienced strong, steady market share growth in the Netherlands, increasing from 6,5 % in 1997 to 10,7 % in 2003 in the case of passenger cars.
Aftalen
The agreement at issue
Beslutningen vedrører en overtrædelse i form af eksklusive og selektive distributionsaftaler mellem Peugeot og virksomhedens nederlandske forhandlere.
The Decision concerns an infringement committed against the background of the exclusive, selective distribution agreements governing relations between Peugeot and its Dutch dealers.
Denne overtrædelse var koncentreret om to specifikke foranstaltninger, der skulle begrænse parallelimporten: et system til belønning af forhandlere afhængigt af bilens geografiske bestemmelsessted og pres på de forhandlere, der eksporterede biler.
The infringement hinged on two specific measures liable to restrict parallel trade: a dealer remuneration system dependent on the vehicle’s geographic destination, and pressure on dealers actively involved in exporting.
Diskriminerende bonus
Discriminatory bonus
I Nederlandene bestod afregningen med forhandlerne af et fast beløb (fortjenstmargenen [3]) og et beløb, der afhang af forhandlerens resultater (bonus [4]), som forhandleren havde brug for, hvis han skulle tjene penge på aktiviteterne.
In the Netherlands, dealers’ remuneration was made up of a fixed part (the margin on invoices [3]) and a part linked to the dealer’s results (the bonus [4]), which the dealer needed in order to earn a profit from his business.
De nederlandske forhandlere kunne dog kun opnå denne bonus på betingelse af, at de solgte biler blev indregistreret i Nederlandene.
This bonus could be obtained by a Dutch dealer only if the cars he sold were registered in the Netherlands.
Når salgsmålet var nået, afhang udbetalingen af den optjente bonus desuden af antallet af biler solgt inden for dette område.
Subsequently, once the sales target had been met, payment of the entitlement thus gained was also made on the basis of vehicles sold in that territory.
Automobiles Peugeot SA krævede indregistrering i Nederlandene for både 1) at opfylde det salgsmål, der gav ret til bonus, og fastsatte rabatniveauet pr. bil, og 2) at identificere alle biler solgt af Automobiles Peugeot SA, der kunne medtages i denne afregning (udbetalingen af bonussen).
Registration in the Netherlands was required by Automobiles Peugeot SA for the purpose of 1. achieving any sales target leading to the acquisition of entitlement to the bonus and the determination of the level of discount per car, and 2. identifying each vehicle sold by Automobiles Peugeot SA eligible for such remuneration (payment of the bonus).
I perioden fra 1. januar 1997 til 31. december 1999 anvendte Automobiles Peugeot SA et afregningssystem for sine forhandlere, der bestod i at udbetale forhandleren et supplerende beløb (»bonus« og »superbonus«) for at have solgt alle de bilmodeller, der blev indregistreret i Nederlandene efter den 1. januar 1997.
During the period between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 1999, Automobiles Peugeot SA operated a dealer remuneration system which consisted in paying the dealer a flat-rate additional amount (‘bonus’ and ‘superbonus’) for the sale of all passenger car models registered in the Netherlands after 1 January 1997.
Derefter, i perioden 1. januar 2000 til 1. oktober 2003 ændrede Automobiles Peugeot SA afregningssystemet for forhandlerne og indførte et beløb, der var afhængigt af fortjenstmargenen, men bevarede en »kvantitativ bonus«, der blev udbetalt til forhandlere, der opfyldte deres mål for indregistrering af Peugeoter i Nederlandene.
Subsequently, during the period between 1 January 2000 and 1 October 2003, Automobiles Peugeot SA modified the dealer remuneration system in order to introduce a variable margin component while retaining a ‘quantity bonus’ paid to dealers who achieved their targets for the registration of Peugeot vehicles in the Netherlands.
Princippet om den kvantitative bonus ændrede sig kun en smule i de to perioder.
The principle of the quantity bonus varied little during these two periods.
Ved tildelingen af bonussen blev forhandlerne opdelt i kategorier afhængigt af, hvor mange biler de regnede med at sælge.
For the purposes of applying the bonus, dealers were divided into categories according to the number of cars in their target.
Fastsættelsen af bonussen blev foretaget efter bilmodellen, forhandlerkategorien og den procentsats af målet, der blev nået.
The bonus was determined on the basis of the model of car, the category of dealer and the percentage of target attained.
Fra og med januar 1997 blev der hvert år sendt rundskrivelser til samtlige forhandlere om et nyt bonussystem og en række forsøgsordninger, hvorefter det generelt kun var de personbiler, der blev indregistreret på det nederlandske marked, der blev medregnet ved udbetalingen af bonussen.
From January 1997, the annual circulars to all dealers concerning implementation of the new bonus scheme stipulated — as is borne out by other evidence — that only passenger cars registered in the Dutch market would as a rule count towards payment of the bonus.
Pres på forhandlerne
Pressure on dealers
Gennem den anden af de nævnte foranstaltninger lagde Automobiles Peugeot SA pres på forhandlerne, og dette pres forstærkede virkningen af det diskriminerende bonussystem gennem direkte indgreb over for forhandlerne eller forsøg på at begrænse de eksportaktiviteter, de havde udviklet, ved at true med at begrænse leverancerne.
The second of the two measures referred to above concerns the exerting of pressure on dealers by Automobiles Peugeot SA, which pressure strengthened the impact of the discriminatory bonus scheme through direct action against dealers or attempts to limit, by threatening to restrict supplies, the export business they had plainly developed.
Her skal det understreges, at medlemmerne af distributionsnettet havde kendskab til Automobiles Peugeot SA’s strategi om at begrænse eksporten fra Nederlandene og frygtede eksportens virkning for deres fortjeneste på lang sigt. Derfor gav de på tre møder med importøren udtryk for, at de var enige med hans målsætning for de foranstaltninger, han krævede.
It should be noted that Automobiles Peugeot SA’s strategy of limiting exports from the Netherlands was known to the members of the distribution network, who feared the long-term effects of exports on their profits and who indicated, at three meetings with the importer, that they shared the aim of the measures requested by it.
Peugeot lagde vægt på at sikre, at alle medlemmer af det nederlandske distributionsnet handlede som ønsket: Hvis der var tale om eksport, greb importøren ind med direkte trusler og restriktioner af leverancerne for at håndhæve den indførte disciplin.
Peugeot was keen to ensure that all members of the Dutch network toed the line: if any exporting took place, the importer would intervene with direct threats and supply restrictions in order to restore discipline.
I første omgang lagde PNE direkte pres på forhandlerne ved lejlighedsvis at gribe ind og begrænse visse forhandleres eksportsalg.
To begin with, PNE applied direct pressure by occasionally acting to limit the export sales of certain dealers.
PNE lagde især pres på forhandlerne gennem Account Managers Dealernet (AMD), som var en del af importørens salgsafdeling.
It brought such pressure to bear among other things through its Account Managers Dealernet (AMDs), who were employed by its Car Sales Department.
I nogle af AMD's besøgsrapporter var der omtale af salg af biler til forbrugere med adresse i udlandet.
In some of the inspection reports drawn up by these AMDs, mention was made of sales of vehicles to consumers living abroad.
De kommentarer fra AMD, der er nævnt i beslutningen, giver kun mening, hvis eksport set fra Automobiles Peugeot SA’s synspunkt fortsat skulle være noget helt exceptionelt.
The comments by these AMDs mentioned in the Decision make sense only if exports were, from Automobile Peugeot SA’s point of view, to remain altogether exceptional.
Andre eksempler bekræfter, at der blev lagt pres på forhandlerne med samme formål af andre end AMD.
There are other examples of pressure being brought to bear with the same end in view, otherwise than through the AMDs.
Der blev foretaget direkte indgreb over for otte forhandlere fra 1997 til 2001.
Direct action affected eight dealers between 1997 and 2001.
Fra og med 1997 kom presset desuden til udtryk i form af trusler om at begrænse leverancerne af blandt andet de mest solgte modeller som 806.
From 1997 onwards, the pressure also took the form of threats to reduce supplies, including of the most exported models such as the 806.
I 1997 blev nogle modeller, f.eks. 406 Airline og 106 Accent, udelukkende forbeholdt det nederlandske marked: Eksport af disse modeller var upassende adfærd, som den eksporterende forhandler ville blive stillet til ansvar for.
In 1997 certain models such as the 406 Airline and the 106 Accent were strictly reserved for the Dutch market: their export constituted improper conduct for which the exporting dealer would be held responsible.
Truslerne om leverancebegrænsninger blev fulgt op af sporadiske begrænsninger og vedrørte især model 306 stationcar.
The threats to restrict supplies, followed by sporadic restrictions, affected among others the 306 Estate model.
Det fremgår af en række mødereferater, at Vereniging Peugeot Dealers Nederland (VPDN) fra og med 1997 desuden støttede foranstaltninger for at begrænse leverancerne af visse modeller samt at trække de mest eksporterede modeller ud af udvalget.
That the association of Dutch Peugeot Dealers (VPDN) also supported, from 1997 onwards, the adoption of measures to restrict the supply of certain models and remove the most exported models from the range is clear from a number of meeting records.
Endvidere gjorde forhandlerne i den vestlige del af landet i 1998 opmærksom på, at de ville afslutte eksporten af model 206.
In 1998 dealers in the west of the country put on record their wish to see an end to exports of the 206 model.
Aftalen om de pågældende foranstaltninger
The agreement on the measures at issue
De foranstaltninger, som Automobiles Peugeot SA traf for at begrænse eksportsalget og konkurrencen udgjorde ikke ensidig adfærd.
The measures taken by Automobiles Peugeot SA to restrict export sales and intra-brand competition were not unilateral practices.
De falder tværtimod ind under traktatens artikel 81, stk. 1.
On the contrary, they fell within the scope of Article 81(1) of the Treaty.
De indgik i kontraktforholdet mellem Automobiles Peugeot SA på den ene side og forhandlerne i virksomhedens eksklusive distributionsnet i Nederlandene på den anden, med hensyn til salg af Peugeot-biler og andre varer omfattet af kontrakterne.
They formed part of the contractual relations between Automobiles Peugeot SA, on the one hand, and the dealers belonging to its selective, exclusive distribution networks in the Netherlands, on the other, concerning the sale of Peugeot vehicles and other contract goods.
I den foreliggende sag blev aftalen om den diskriminerende bonus indgået mellem Automobiles Peugeot SA og medlemmerne af virksomhedens nederlandske netværk.
In the present case, as far as the discriminatory bonus is concerned, the agreement was between Automobiles Peugeot SA and the members of its Dutch network.
De praktiske bestemmelser om, hvordan Peugeot-netværket skulle fungere mellem 1997 og 2003, viser, at der var en stiltiende aftale med Peugeot-forhandlerne i Nederlandene, og dermed samstemmighed, når de enkelte salg fandt sted [5].
The practical arrangements for operation of the Peugeot network between 1997 and 2003 show that there was tacit acquiescence on the part of the Peugeot dealers in the Netherlands, and therefore a concurrence of wills, when each sales transaction took place [5].
Hvad angår presset på forhandlerne, sendte Automobiles Peugeot SA gennem VPDN en tydelig opfordring til sine nederlandske forhandlere om at overholde begrænsningen af eksporten til andre medlemsstater, i hvert fald fra og med 1997.
As far as pressure on dealers is concerned, starting in 1997 at the latest, Automobiles Peugeot SA issued to its Dutch dealers through the VPDN a clear call for discipline in limiting exports to other Member States.
Det pres på forhandlerne, der er nævnt i beslutningen, viser, at opfordringen fra Automobiles Peugeot SA/PNE til forhandlerne om at sikre, at sidstnævntes eksportaktiviteter blev begrænset til noget exceptionelt, i princippet blev accepteret af alle deltagerne i netværket, mens producenten lejlighedsvis kunne gribe ind for at opretholde den disciplin, man således havde indført.
The episodes of pressure on dealers described in the Decision show that the call by Automobiles Peugeot/PNE to its dealers to ensure that their exporting activities remained exceptional was endorsed in principle by all members of the network, subject to the occasional action by the manufacturer to maintain the discipline thus brought about.
Formålet med overtrædelsen i form af de to foranstaltninger
The object of the infringement involving the two measures
Automobiles Peugeot SA og PNE lagde en strategi om at begrænse eksportsalget fra Nederlandene.
Automobiles Peugeot SA and PNE adopted a strategy aimed at limiting export sales from the Netherlands.
Denne strategi, der blev gennemført i enighed med forhandlerne og sammen med VPDN, havde ligesom de enkelte foranstaltninger, den bestod af, til formål og følge at begrænse konkurrencen i henhold til artikel 81, stk. 1.
This strategy, which was implemented in agreement with the dealers and in conjunction with VPDN, had, like each of the measures constituting it, as its object and effect a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81(1).
En diskriminerende bonus for at bremse eksporten
A discriminatory bonus liable to hinder exports
I sit svar på klagepunktsmeddelelsen fremførte Automobiles Peugeot SA, at den kvantitative bonus, der blev indført i Nederlandene, var konkurrencefremmende, og at det »eneste og klare formål« var at motivere forhandlerne ved at give dem de nødvendige økonomiske incitamenter i form af en bonus til at koncentrere deres salgsbestræbelser inden for kontraktområdet og dermed give Automobiles Peugeot SA mulighed for at øge sin markedsandel i Nederlandene.
In its reply to the statement of objections, Automobiles Peugeot SA argued that the quantity bonus introduced in the Netherlands was pro-competitive and had the ‘sole, manifest objective’ of motivating dealers by offering them the necessary economic incentives, in the form of bonuses, to concentrate their best sales efforts on their contract territory and thereby enable Automobiles Peugeot SA to increase its market share in the Netherlands.
I denne forbindelse skal det bemærkes, at man i beslutningen ikke anfægter producentens ret til at tilrettelægge sin forretningspolitik efter forholdene på de forskellige nationale markeder for at opnå større penetration på disse markeder.
It should be noted in this connection that the Decision does not call into question the possibility for the manufacturer to tailor its commercial policy to the requirements of different national markets with a view to achieving better penetration rates in those markets.
I beslutningen anfægter man heller ikke hverken producentens mulighed for sammen med sine forhandlere at fastsætte salgsmål inden for kontraktområdet eller for at indføre passende incitamenter, blandt andet i form af en bonus afhængig af resultaterne for at tilskynde forhandlerne til at øge deres omsætning på det område, de har fået tildelt.
It challenges neither the manufacturer’s freedom to agree with its dealers sales targets set in terms of sales to be achieved in the contract territory nor its freedom to adopt appropriate incentives, in the form of performance bonuses in particular, in order to urge its dealers to increase their sales volumes in the territory allocated to them.
Denne mulighed, der stimulerer konkurrencen mellem de forskellige mærker, blev endvidere udtrykkelig nævnt i Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1475/95 [6] (fritagelsesforordningen).
This possibility, which stimulates inter-brand competition, is furthermore expressly provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 [6] (the exemption Regulation).
Imidlertid fremgik det af de rundskrivelser om indførelsen af et nyt bonussystem og en række forsøgsordninger, som alle forhandlere fik tilsendt fra og med 1997, at kun de personbiler, der var indregistreret på det nederlandske marked, ville blive medregnet ved udbetalingen af bonussen.
However, from January 1997, the annual circulars to all dealers concerning implementation of the new bonus scheme stipulated — as is borne out by other evidence — that only passenger cars registered in the Dutch market would count towards payment of the bonus.
Dermed mistede en forhandler, som havde nået sine salgsmål inden for området fuldt ud, og som dermed havde optjent en bonus, imidlertid retten til at få denne bonus udbetalt for det salg, der var foretaget til forbrugere med bopæl i andre lande.
Consequently, any dealer who had fully achieved his territorial sales targets and had therefore acquired entitlement to the bonus was nevertheless denied the benefit of the bonus thus acquired when it came to payment of that entitlement with respect to sales to non-resident consumers.
Når man betragter et sådant systems objektive funktion, må det siges at gå ud over det nødvendige for at tilskynde de nederlandske forhandlere til at bestræbe sig for at sælge flest mulige biler inden for deres kontraktområde.
Such a scheme, viewed from the standpoint of its objective modus operandi, therefore went beyond what was necessary to encourage Dutch dealers to devote their best sales efforts to their contract territory.
Det må betragtes som en af de hardcorebegrænsninger, der er nævnt i forordning (EF) nr. 1475/95, og er i strid med artikel 6, stk. 1, nr. 8), som siger, at fritagelsen ikke gælder, når »leverandøren uden objektive grunde betaler forhandlerne i forhold til de solgte motorkøretøjers destination eller køberens bopæl«.
It was in the nature of one of the hardcore restrictions mentioned in Regulation (EC) No 1475/95, Article 6(1)(8) which provides that the exemption does not apply where ‘the supplier, without any objective reason, grants dealers remunerations calculated on the basis of the place of destination of the motor vehicles resold or the place of residence of the purchaser’.
Endvidere begrænsede PNE forhandlernes muligheder for at omgå ordningen ved at tjekke, om der var overensstemmelse mellem forhandlerens input af bestillinger af biler i den database, som producenten brugte til at forvalte sine relationer med netværket (Dialog), og dataene om indregistreringer fra de nationale myndigheder.
What is more, PNE made it less easy for dealers to get round the scheme by checking the car order data input by the dealer in the database by which the manufacturer managed its relations with its network (DIALOG) against the data obtained from the national registration authority.
I sit svar på klagepunktsmeddelelsen stillede Automobiles Peugeot SA imidlertid spørgsmålstegn ved, om en sådan foranstaltning var effektiv, og understregede, at bonusbeløbet var for beskedent til at afskrække forhandlerne fra at eksportere.
In its reply to the statement of objections, Automobiles Peugeot SA questioned the effectiveness of such a measure, maintaining that the amount of the bonus was too small for its non-payment to act as a disincentive for dealers to export.
Det skal dog først understreges, at Automobiles Peugeot SA’s forsvar er selvmodsigende.
The defence put forward by Automobiles Peugeot SA is intrinsically contradictory.
På den ene side fremfører Automobiles Peugeot SA, at det bonusniveau, der gjaldt i 1997-2003, var for beskedent til at påvirke forhandlernes adfærd.
On the one hand, it argues that the level of the bonus on offer between 1997 and 2003 was too low to have had any effect on dealers’ behaviour.
På den anden siden understreger Automobiles Peugeot SA, at det pågældende system, ikke mindst størrelsen af rabatten til de forhandlere, der nåede deres salgsmål, var af afgørende betydning for forhandlernes økonomiske incitament til at bestræbe sig for at sælge mest muligt inden for deres respektive kontraktområder.
On the other, it stresses that the scheme at issue, and in particular the level of the discounts granted to dealers who had achieved their sales targets, was essential to providing appropriate financial incentives to ensure that dealers devoted their best sales efforts to their respective contract territories.
Endvidere bekræfter det materiale, der er indsamlet som led i undersøgelsen, klagepunkterne om foranstaltningernes væsentlige indflydelse, idet det fremgår, at bonussen var betydelig for forhandlerne gennem hele perioden, og at tabet heraf på salget til eksport havde stor betydning for forhandlernes interesse i at sælge til forbrugere med bopæl i andre lande.
Moreover, the evidence gathered during the course of the investigation bears out the objections about the measures’ significant impact by showing that the bonus was important to dealers throughout the period and that its loss on export sales significantly affected dealer interest in selling to non-resident consumers.
Udøvelse af pres som bevis for Peugeots intention om at ville bremse eksporten
The exerting of pressure as proof of Peugeot’s intention to hinder exports
Fra 1997 til et tidspunkt i 2001 greb Automobiles Peugeot SA lejlighedsvis ind for at afskrække visse nederlandske forhandlere fra at levere biler til endelige forbrugere fra andre medlemsstater.
From 1997 onwards and until a more recent period in 2001, Automobiles Peugeot SA occasionally intervened to deter certain Dutch dealers from supplying vehicles to final consumers in other Member States.
Presset på de nederlandske forhandlere havde ligesom bonussen, der diskriminerede eksporten, til formål at bremse den grænseoverskridende handel med biler mellem nederlandske forhandlere og forhandlere i andre medlemsstater for at afsondre det nederlandske marked fra de øvrige markeder i EU.
The pressure put on Dutch dealers, like the aspects of the remuneration system that de facto discriminated against exports, was intended to hinder cross-border trade in cars between dealers in the Netherlands and those in other Member States with a view to walling off the Dutch market from the other markets in the European Union.
Dokumenterne i sagsakterne om presset på forhandlerne skal ses som led i denne strategi.
It is in the context of this strategy that the documents held on file concerning the pressure on dealers should be assessed.
En betydelig kvantitativ virkning af foranstaltningerne
Significant, quantifiable impact of the measures
Der er sket et fald i paralleleksporten fra Nederlandene efter 1997, hvor afregningssystemet blev indført, fra 1999 på omkring 50 %.
Parallel exports from the Netherlands declined after 1997, the year in which the remuneration system was implemented, falling by about 50 % after 1999.