natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det samme gjaldt for onsite-løsninger til levering af coating-PCC.
This also holds for coating on-site solutions.
Nuværende kunder til handelsleverancer
Current merchant customers
For de kunder, der får leveret disse mineraler som handelsprodukter, fandt Kommissionen, at selv om de måske havde mulighed for onsite-leverancer af fyldstof-PCC, ville en mineralfabrik beliggende inden for en bestemt afstand fra en papirfabrik udgøre en realistisk forsyningsmulighed for enten fyldstof-PCC eller fyldstof-GCC.
For customers who are supplied on a merchant basis, and even if they have the option of relying upon on-site filling PCC, the Commission considered that a mineral plant located within a certain distance of a paper mill constitutes a realistic option for either filling PCC or filling GCC.
Efter at have gennemgået situationen for Omyas nuværende kunder til handelsleverancer af fyldstof-PCC drog Kommissionen den konklusion, at der ikke var sandsynlighed for, at fusionen ville få negative virkninger for disse kunder, eftersom de alle sammen havde andre realistiske PCC-alternativer.
Having examined the options of the current merchant filling PCC customers of Omya, the Commission has come to the conclusion that these customers are unlikely to be adversely affected by the transaction because, in each case, these customers had other realistic PCC alternatives.
Det var derfor usandsynligt, at elimineringen af Huber som en konkurrent ville få større konkurrenceskadelige virkninger for Omyas kunder til fyldstof-PCC.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the removal of Huber as a competitor would significantly impede competition for Omya’s filling PCC customers.
Desuden er der for Omyas kunder til fyldstof-GCC ingen sandsynlighed for, at Huber var det næstbedste alternativ.
In addition, for filling GCC customers of Omya, it is not likely that Huber constitutes the next-best alternative.
Disse kunder havde enten en alternativ leverandør af fyldstof-GCC og/eller andre alternativer til deres forsyninger med fyldstof-PCC, der ikke så ud til at have noget konkurrencemæssigt handicap i forhold til Hubers fyldstof-PCC-fabrikker.
These customers have either an alternative filling GCC option and/or other filling PCC alternatives which do not appear to have any competitive disadvantage compared to Huber’s filling PCC plants.
Desuden viste den økonometriske undersøgelse, at Huber som helhed ikke var det næstbedste alternativ.
Moreover, the results of the econometric study show that Huber is, on average, not the next-best alternative.
Det var derfor usandsynligt, at elimineringen af Huber som konkurrent ville få større konkurrenceskadelige virkninger for Omyas kunder til fyldstof-GCC.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the removal of Huber as a competitor would significantly impede competition for Omya’s filling GCC customers.
For Hubers kunder til handelsleverancer af PCC så flere af Omyas fabrikker til produktion af fyldstof-GCC ud til at være realistiske alternativer.
For Huber’s merchant PCC customers, different Omya filling GCC plants appear to be realistic alternatives.
I Sverige har Imerys imidlertid flere fabrikker, både i Husum, hvor der produceres fyldstof-PCC, og i Tunadal, hvor der produceres fyldstof-GCC.
However, Imerys is present in Sweden, both in the production of filling PCC, at Husum, and of filling GCC, at Tunadal.
Desuden har SMI fabrikker til produktion af fyldstof-PCC i Finland, i Lappeenranta, Myllykoski og Äänekoski.
Moreover, SMI's filling PCC plants are present in Finland, at Lappeenranta, Myllykoski and Äänekoski.
Ingen af disse alternative forsyningsmuligheder så ud til at have noget konkurrencemæssigt handicap i forhold til Hubers onsite-produktion af fyldstof-PCC i Sverige og Finland.
All these alternative solutions do not appear to hold any competitive disadvantages when compared to Huber's filling PCC on-site plants located at in Sweden and in Finland.
Desuden viste den økonometriske undersøgelse, at det konkurrencepres, der udgik fra handelsleverandører af fyldstof-GCC, nok var mindre end det, der udgik fra handelsleverandører af fyldstof-PCC.
Moreover, the econometric study shows that the competitive constraint exerted by merchant filling GCC suppliers is likely to be less than that exerted by merchant filling PCC suppliers on other merchant filling suppliers.
Det var derfor ikke sandsynligt, at elimineringen af Omya som konkurrent ville få større konkurrenceskadelige virkninger for Hubers kunder til fyldstof-PCC.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the removal of Omya as a competitor would significantly impede competition for Huber's filling PCC customers.
Kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål
Calcium carbonates for coating applications
I sin anmeldelse af denne fusion udtalte Omya, at coatingmarkedet ikke ville blive berørt af fusionen, fordi Huber ikke for øjeblikket var aktiv på dette marked.
In the notification of the proposed transaction Omya took the position that the market for paper coating would not be affected by this transaction because Huber was currently not active in this market.
Kommissionens markedsundersøgelse viste imidlertid, at Huber havde været i gang med at udvikle et PCC-produkt, der egnede sig til brug i GCC/PCC-blandinger til coatingformål, og også havde afgivet tilbud på leverancer af PCC-produkter til coatingformål.
However, the Commission’s market investigation revealed that Huber has been developing a suitable PCC for use in GCC/PCC coating blends and had made offers to supply PCC coating products.
Kommissionen betragtede derfor Huber som en potentiel konkurrent på markedet for kalciumkarbonater til papircoating, som uden fusionen sandsynligvis ville være blevet en effektiv konkurrent på markedet for kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål.
Consequently, the Commission considers Huber as a potential competitor in the market for calcium carbonates for paper coating applications, who, absent the transaction, would very likely become an effective competitive force on the market for coating calcium carbonates.
Kommissionen konkluderede derfor, at den anmeldte fusion ville hæmme konkurrencen betydeligt, i særdeleshed ved at styrke Omyas dominerende stilling på markederne for kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål leveret til kunder i Sydfinland.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the proposed transaction would significantly impede competition, in particular through the strengthening of Omya’s dominant position in the markets for coating calcium carbonates for affected customers in the south of Finland.
Kommissionen baserede sin konklusion på følgende argumenter.
The Commission’s conclusion is based on the following arguments.
For det første var Omya allerede den dominerende leverandør af kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål til de fleste kunder i EU og Finland.
Firstly, Omya is already the dominant supplier of coating grade calcium carbonates for most customers in Europe and Finland.
Omya tegnede sig for en meget stor del af alle leverancerne af kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål til papirindustrien i EØS i 2004.
Omya supplied a very large proportion of all coating calcium carbonates to the paper industry in the EEA in 2004.
Omya ejede eller kontrollerede adgangen til en meget stor del af EØS' reserver af de råmaterialer, der er nødvendige for at kunne producere GCC til coatingformål, og kunne levere til papirfabrikker overalt i EØS.
It owns or controls the access to a very large portion of the EEA reserves of the raw materials necessary for the production of coating grade GCC and can supply paper mills all over the EEA.
I betragtning af sin dominerende stilling og kontrol med råmaterialeforsyningerne var Omya en uomgængelig handelspartner for alle papirfabrikker, der havde brug for at købe kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål i Europa, og især i Finland.
Given its dominant position and its control on raw material supplies, Omya is an unavoidable trading partner for paper mills which need to purchase coating calcium carbonates in Europe, and in particular in Finland.
For det andet var Huber med sin teknologi inden for PCC-additiver i stand til at gå ind på coatingmarkedet.
Secondly, Huber has the ability to enter the paper coating market with its coating PCC Additives technology.
Kommissionen så især på, om Hubers PCC-additivteknologi var nået så langt som til markedsføringsstadiet, om Huber havde tiltro til, at det var en kommercielt rentabel mulighed i større målestok, og om Huber kunne frigøre tilstrækkeligt med kapacitet i sin onsite-PCC-fabrik i Kuusankoski til at gå ind på markedet.
The Commission assessed in particular to what extent (i) Huber’s PCC additives technology was ready for commercialisation, (ii) Huber believed in the commercial viability of its proposition on a larger scale, and (iii) Huber could make sufficient production capacity available at the Kuusankoski on-site PCC plant to enter the market.
Og endelig så Kommissionen også på, hvor store irreversible omkostninger det ville være forbundet med for Huber, hvis Huber gik ind på markedet for kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål.
The Commission’s analysis also considered (iv) Huber’s sunk costs to enter the market for calcium coating carbonates.
Kommissionen fandt, at Huber før indledningen af fusionsforhandlingerne med Omya havde planer om at gå ind på coatingmarkedet i større målestok og inden længe ville have gjort det på basis af sin PCC-additivteknologi.
The Commission took the view, that prior to engaging in merger negotiations with Omya, Huber was planning to enter the paper coating market in a significant way and would have done so with its coating PCC Additives technology in a timely manner.
Kuusankoski-fabrikkens beliggenhed ville have sat Huber i stand til også at levere til flere af Omyas kunder i Sydfinland.
The location of the Kuusankoski plant would enable Huber to also supply a number of other Omya customers located in the south of Finland.
Disse kunder, der i øjeblikket købte deres forsyninger af kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål hos Omya, kunne overveje at hente i det mindste en del af deres forsyninger fra Hubers Kuusankoski-fabrik.
These customers, who currently source their coating calcium carbonate supply from Omya, may consider arranging at least part of their supply from Huber’s Kuusankoski plant.
Kommissionen identificerede en række kunder, for hvem afstanden til Hubers fabrik i Kuusankoski var betydeligt kortere end til den nærmeste SMI- eller Imerys-fabrik (»berørte kunder«).
The Commission identified a number of customers for which Huber’s Kuusankoski plant would be significantly closer than the next plant of SMI or Imerys (affected customers).
For det tredje ville Huber være en effektiv konkurrencefaktor, der med stor sandsynlighed kunne lægge et betydeligt konkurrencepres på Omya på markedet for kalciumkarbonater til papircoating.
Thirdly, Huber would be an effective competitive force that is very likely to significantly constrain Omya’s behaviour on the market for paper coating calcium carbonates.
I betragtning af det finske markeds struktur og den omstændighed, at den eneste anden konkurrent, SMI, fortsat kun havde en lille markedsandel og havde beliggenhedsmæssige handicap, fandt Kommissionen det meget sandsynligt, at Hubers kapacitet i Kuusankoski ville lægge et betydeligt pres på Omyas leverancer af kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål til de identificerede kunder i Finland.
Given the structure of the market in Finland and the fact that the only other competitor, SMI, remains small in terms of market share and has locational disadvantages, the Commission considers it to be very likely that Huber’s capacity at Kuusankoski would significantly constrain Omya’s calcium carbonates coating offering for the identified Finnish customers.
Kommissionen fandt desuden, at der ikke var nogen anden potentiel konkurrent, der kunne lægge et tilstrækkeligt konkurrencepres på Omya i Sydfinland.
The Commission also finds that there are no other potential competitors that could maintain sufficient competitive pressure in the south of Finland.
Af de ovennævnte grunde drog Kommissionen den konklusion, at den anmeldte fusion ville hæmme konkurrencen betydeligt, især gennem en styrkelse af Omyas dominerende stilling på markederne for kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål leveret til berørte kunder i Sydfinland.
For the above reasons, the Commission has come to the conclusion that the proposed transaction would significantly impede competition, in particular through the strengthening of Omya’s dominant position in the markets for coating calcium carbonates for affected customers in the south of Finland.
Ingen samordnings- eller konglomeratvirkninger
No coordinated or conglomerate effects
Kommissionen konkluderede endelig, at den anmeldte fusion ikke kunne antages at give anledning til konglomeratvirkninger eller at øge sandsynligheden for, at virksomhederne blev i stand til at samordne deres adfærd og derigennem hæve priserne til over det konkurrencedygtige niveau.
Finally, the Commission concludes that the present transaction is unlikely to give rise to conglomerate concerns or increase the likelihood that firms are able to coordinate their behaviour with the effect of raising prices above competitive levels.
V. TILSAGN
V. COMMITMENTS
Med henblik på at løse de ovennævnte horisontale konkurrenceproblemer på markedet for kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål tilbød Omya og J.M.
To remove the abovementioned horizontal competition concerns on the market for coating calcium carbonates, Omya and J.M.
Huber Corporation den 23. maj 2006 at afgive en række tilsagn over for Kommissionen.
Huber Corporation submitted on 23 May 2006 a package of commitments to the Commission.
Der var tale om to alternative tilsagnspakker, hvoraf den første bestod af afhændelse af onsite-PPC-fabrikken i Kuusankoski og additivteknologien, mens den anden alene gik ud på afhændelse af teknologien.
The package contained two alternative proposals for commitments, the first comprising of the divestiture of the Kuusankoski PCC on-site plant and the coating and additive technology and the second only the divestiture of the technology.
Kommissionen besluttede at markedsteste den første tilsagnspakke (afhændelse af onsite-PCC-fabrikken i Kuusankoski, Finland, samt af Hubers coating- og additivteknologi).
The Commission decided to market test the first alternative commitment proposal (divestment of the on-site PCC plant in Kuusankoski, Finland and the PCC coating and additive technology of Huber).
Der blev udsendt spørgeskema til i alt 11 kunder og 4 konkurrenter, der har været impliceret i undersøgelsen af denne fusion, og der indkom svar fra dem alle [5].
The market test was sent to a total of 11 customers and four competitors that have been involved in investigation of this transaction and a response was received from all of them [5].
Svarene på denne markedstest var blandede.
The response to the market test was mixed.
Kunderne mente stort set, at tilsagnet kunne løse de af Kommissionen påviste konkurrenceproblemer, mens konkurrenterne gav udtryk for forbehold med hensyn til tilsagnets omfang og mente, at det burde forbedres for at kunne give en tilfredsstillende løsning på de af Kommissionen påviste konkurrenceproblemer [6].
Whereas customers largely considered the commitment as being able to remove the competition concerns identified by the Commission, competitors expressed reservations as to the scope of the proposed remedy and suggested improvements for the commitment to sufficiently resolve the competition concerns raised by the Commission [6].
Med hensyn til det første alternative tilsagn tog Kommissionen stilling til, om afhændelsen af onsite-fabrikken til produktion af fyldstof-PCC i Kuusankoski sammen med teknologien ville sætte en egnet køber i stand til at opnå et konkurrencepotentiale på markedet for PCC til coatingformål, der ville svare til det potentiale, Huber ville have haft, hvis fusionen ikke fandt sted.
With regard to the first alternative commitment, the Commission evaluated whether the divestiture of the on-site PCC filler plant at Kuusankoski together with the technology offered would enable a suitable purchaser of the divestiture package to acquire the potential of the competitive force in the market for PCC coating carbonates comparable to that which Huber would have had absent the present transaction.
Kommissionen drog den konklusion, at det første tilsagn (afhændelse af onsite-fabrikken i Kuusankoski samt teknologien) ville sikre den egnede køber adgang til såvel produktionskapacitet, den fornødne teknologi og nært samarbejde med papirfabrikken, således at køberen blev placeret i en position svarende til den, Huber for øjeblikket havde, og tillige ville kunne fremstå som en etableret leverandør, der ikke ville være nødt til først at opføre en ny fabrik i tilfælde af, at vedkommende bød på en kontraktfornyelse og opnåede kontrakten.
The Commission concluded that the first alternative commitment (divestiture of the Kuusankoski on-site PCC plant and the technology) whereby the suitable purchaser has access to both spare production capacity, the necessary technology and the close cooperation with the host mill, places the purchaser in a similar position to that which Huber currently possess, including the advantage of an incumbent supplier who will not need to build a new facility in the event it is successful in bidding for a renewal contract.
Det var derfor det tilsagn, der ville give den bedste løsningog sikre udvikling af et troværdigt konkurrerende produkt på markedet for kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål.
Therefore, this alternative would best ensure the viability of the divestiture and the launch of a credible competing product in the market for coating calcium carbonates.
Kommissionen fandt endvidere, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt onsite-PCC-fabrikken i Kuusankoski og teknologien fortsat ville kunne virke som en konkurrencefaktor og tage konkurrencen op på markedet med Omya og andre udbydere, i vid udstrækning afhang af, hvem køberen var.
The Commission further considered that in assessing the ability and incentive of the Kuusankoski on-site PCC plant and the divested technology to continue to act as a competitive force and restore competition on the market in competition with Omya and other competitors largely depends on the identity of the purchaser.
En egnet køber i denne sag måtte derfor være en industrivirksomhed, der i forvejen havde de fornødne finansielle midler og erfaring på området.
Therefore, a suitable purchaser in the present case would be an industrial purchaser that already has the financial resources and proven expertise.
Kommissionens konklusion var følgelig, at det første af de tilbudte alternative tilsagn, nemlig afhændelse af onsite-PCC-fabrikken i Kuusankoski samt afhændelse af Hubers coatingteknologi (med de forbedringer, parterne tilbød den 3. juli 2006), ville kunne genoprette den effektive konkurrence på markedet for levering af kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål til de berørte kunder i Sydfinland ved at genetablere det konkurrencepres, som Hubers PCC-additivteknologi lagde på Omyas aktiviteter inden for kalciumkarbonater til coatingformål, og som ellers ville være gået tabt som følge af fusionen i den oprindeligt anmeldte version.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the proposed first alternative commitment, the divestiture of the Kuusankoski on-site PCC plant together with the divestiture of Huber’s coating technology (given the improvements proposed by the parties on 3 July 2006) would restore effective competition in the market for coating calcium carbonates for the affected customers in the south of Finland by re-establishing the competitive constraint to Omya’s coating calcium carbonates coming from Huber’s PCC additive technology which would otherwise be lost due to the concentration, as originally notified.
Af de ovennævnte grunde, betragtet såvel hver for sig som tilsammen, drog Kommissionen den konklusion, at de af Omya og J.M.
For above mentioned reasons, considered individually or together, the Commission has come to the conclusion that the commitments submitted by Omya and J.M.
Huber afgivne tilsagn var tilstrækkelige til at løse de konkurrenceproblemer, denne fusion rejste.
Huber are sufficient to address the competition concerns raised by this concentration.
I sin beslutning i sagen har Kommissionen derfor erklæret den anmeldte fusion forenelig med fællesmarkedet og med EØS-aftalen i henhold til fusionsforordningens artikel 8, stk. 2.
The Commission’s decision therefore declares the notified transaction compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation.
Industrimineraler omfatter PCC (udfældet kalciumkarbonat), GCC (malet kalciumkarbonat), kaolintalkum og dolomit.
Industrial minerals include PCC (precipitated calcium carbonate), GCC (ground calcium carbonate), kaolin talc and dolomite.
Ordet »karbonater« dækker over både PCC og GCC.
The term ‘carbonates’ encompasses both PCC and GCC.
Kommissionen etablerede en omfattende database over mineralleverancer omfattende alle de store udbyderes årlige leverancer af PCC og GCC til brug som fyldstof og til coatingformål i EØS i årene 2002, 2003 og 2004 (opdelt på mineraltyper, leverende mineralfabrik, papirfabrik, papirtype, leveringsafstand, leveringsmængder, pris pr. ton tørprodukt, transportmåde og transportomkostninger).
The Commission constructed an extensive mineral shipment database which included all major competitors’ annual shipments of PCC and GCC for paper filling and coating purposes for the EEA for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 (data by mineral type, originating mineral plant, destination paper mill, paper type, distance shipped, shipment volumes, price per dry metric tonne, transportation mode and cost).
Der indkom tillige svar fra den finske konkurrencemyndighed.
In addition, the Finnish Competition Authority submitted a response.
Det andet alternative tilsagn, der udelukkende bestod i afhændelse af teknologien, ville efter Kommissionens vurdering ikke løse de af Kommissionen påviste konkurrenceproblemer, og det blev derfor ikke underkastet nogen markedstest.
As regards the second alternative commitment containing only the divestiture of the technology, the Commission assessed the proposed remedy and considered that it does not address the competition concerns raised by the Commission and therefore it was not made subject to a market test.
(Sag COMP/M.3796 — OMYA/J.M.
(Case COMP/M.3796 — OMYA/J.M.
af 14. marts 2007
of 14 March 2007
om ændring af beslutning 96/4/EF om godkendelse af metoder til klassificering af svinekroppe i Østrig
amending Decision 96/4/EC authorising a method for grading pig carcasses in Austria
(meddelt under nummer K(2007) 833)
(notified under document number C(2007) 833)
Ved Kommissionens beslutning 96/4/EF [2] fik Østrig tilladelse til at anvende en klassificeringsmetode for svinekroppe, benævnt »Zwei-Punkte-Meßverfahren (ZP)«.
By Commission Decision 96/4/EC [2], Austria was authorised to apply a method for grading pig carcasses termed the ‘Zwei-Punkte-Messverfahren (ZP)’.
Som følge af den tekniske udvikling har den østrigske regering anmodet Kommissionen om tilladelse til at anvende en ny formel for den metode, der anvendes efter beslutning 96/4/EF, og indsendt de oplysninger, der kræves efter artikel 3 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2967/85 af 24. oktober 1985 om fastsættelse af gennemførelsesbestemmelser til Fællesskabets handelsklasseskema for svinekroppe [3].
In view of technical developments, the Austrian Government has asked the Commission to authorise the use of a new formula for the method used under Decision 96/4/EC and has submitted the elements required under Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2967/85 of 24 October 1985 laying down detailed rules for the application of the Community scale for grading pig carcasses [3].
Det fremgår af evalueringen af denne anmodning, at betingelserne for at tillade den nye klassificeringsmetode, er opfyldt.
The evaluation of this request has revealed that the conditions for authorising the new grading method are fulfilled.
Beslutning 96/4/EF bør ændres i overensstemmelse hermed.
Decision 96/4/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.