natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Årsagerne til, at der ikke er truffet afgørelser i henhold til fællesskabsretten i de øvrige lande, er af forskellig art. De danske, irske, nederlandske og britiske myndigheder har endnu intet lovhjemlet retsgrundlag for anvendelse af artikel 85 og 86]).
There are various reasons why no decisions based on Community law were taken in such other Member States. The Danish, Dutch, Irish and United Kingdom authorities do not yet have in theirnational legislation a legal basis for applying Articles 85 and 86.'
De belgiske, græske, italienske og portugisiske myndigheder har ganske vist beføjelser til at anvende fællesskabsret ten, men har foretrukket udelukkende at gribe ind på grundlag af national ret.
The Belgian, Greek, Italian and Portuguese authorities, though they do have the power to apply Community law,preferred to take action on the basis of national law alone.
Fire medlemsstater har dog meddelt, at de anvender deres interne lovgivning subsidiært (Danmark)2) eller efter de principper, der ligger til grund for EU's konkurrenceregler (Irland, Nederlandene og Portugal).
Four Member States stated,however, that they apply the provisions of their domestic legislation in a subsidiary manner(Denmark)2 or in accordance with the principles underlying the Community competitionrules (Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal).
Landenes beslutningspraksis for 1994 kan sammenfattes således:
Decisionmaking practice in 1994 may be summarized as follows.
I 1992 anmeldte Oliebranchens Miljøpulje en finansieringsaftale til Kon kurrencerådet, som havde udtrykt betænkelighed over størrelsen af et særligt gebyr på 250 000 DKK i forbindelse med genåbning af en ny benzinstation på en grund, som Miljøpuljen havde renset for olieforurening.
In 1992, the 'Environment' pool of the Danish oil companies organization(Oliebranchens Milj0pulje) notified a financing agreement to the Competition Board,which had expressed concern at the level of the special fee of DKR 250 000 to be paid onthe reopening of any new service station on a site cleaned up by the 'Environment' pool.
Der blev truffet en forbudsbeslutning i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, med hensyn til en aftale mellem Ruhrgas AG og Thyssen GmbH.
A prohibition decision pursuant to Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty was taken in respect of ademarcation agreement concluded between Ruhrgas AG and Thyssen GmbH.
Denne aftale vedrører en afgrænsning af områder, der er forbeholdt hver af parterne, samt fælles forsyning af fire store byer (Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Köln og Oberhausen). På denne baggrund fandt Bundeskartellamt at aftalen udelukker enhver form for konkurrence mellem de to virksomheder, der er Tysklands største gasleverandører.
The agreement provides for the demarcation of territories reserved to each of the parties and for thejoint supply of four large towns (Duisburg, Diisseldorf, Cologne and Oberhausen) andthus, in the view of the Bundeskartellamt, prevents all competition between the two undertakings, which are the largest gas suppliers in Germany.
Konkurrencebegrænsningen påvirker desuden handelen mellem medlemsstaterne, fordi de to aftaleparter importerer naturgas til Tyskland fra andre europæiske lande. Parterne har ved appeldomstolen (»Kammergericht«) i Berlin anlagt annullationssøgsmål, hvor de anfægter beslutningen.
The restriction of competition alsoaffects trade between Member States, since the two undertakings which are parties to theagreement import natural gas from other European countries into Germany.
Bundeskartellamt forbød desuden oprettelse af et joint venture mellem de tre parter ATG Automobiltransportlogistik GmbH, Menke Holding GmbH & Co KG og Silcock and Colling Ltd. Beslutningen blev truffet i henhold til såvel de nationale regler om fusionskontrol som EF-traktatens artikel 85. Formålet med det planlagte joint venture var fælles transport af nye biler fra fabrikken til salgsstederne. Et sådant samarbejde ville begrænse konkurrencen mellem ATG og Menke væsentligt og ville styrke Menkes i forvejen dominerende stilling på markedet for transport af biler fra de tyske fabrikker. Det ville desuden i traktatens artikel 85, stk. l's forstand påvirke den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser inden for EU. Parterne appellerede denne beslutning til Kammergericht i Berlin. — TUI/NUR
The Bundeskartellamt also prohibited the setting-up of a tripartite joint venture by ATGAutomobiltransportlogistik GmbH, Menke Holding GmbH & Co KG and Silcock and Colling Ltd. The decision is based both on national merger control rules and on Article 85of the EC Treaty. The purpose of the proposed joint venture is the joint transport of newcars from the factory to various sales outlets. Such cooperation would substantially reducecompetition between ATG and Menke and would strengthen Menke's existing dominantposition on the market for the transport of cars manufactured in German factories. It wouldalso affect, within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty, freedom to provide services within the Community. The parties appealed against the decision to the Berlin Kammergericht. COMP.
EU's konkurrenceregler blev i 1994 anvendt af såvel det spanske konkurrenceråd, »Servicio de Defensa de la Competencia« (SDC), som konkurrence domstolen, »Tribunal de Defensa de la Compentencia« (TDC).
The Community competition rules were applied in 1994 by both the Competition Protection Service (Servicio de Defensa de la Competencia, SDC) and the Competition Protection Tribunal (Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia, TDC).
a) Sager behandlet af SDC
(a) Cases dealt with by the SDC
Denne sag vedrører en klage fra 3C Communications España, SA over, at Telefonica de España, SA, Cabitel og Aeropuertos Nacionales havde nægtet at levere telefonlinjer.
This case concerns a complaint brought by 3C Communications Espana SA against Telefonica de Espana SA, Cabitel and Aeropuertos Nacionales for having refused to supply telephone lines.
Klageren kunne desuden afsløre, at der var indgået en eksklusiv, femårig aftale om præstation af teletjenester mellem Cabitel og Aeropuertos Nacionales, som efter klagerens mening kunne indebære en over trædelse af dels artikel 1 og 6 i lov nr. 16/1989 om beskyttelse af konkurrencen dels EU's konkurrenceregler.
The complainant also objected to an exclusive five-year contract forthe supply of telecommunications services which had been concluded between Cabitel and Aeropuertos Nacionales and which, in the complainant's opinion, could constitute aninfringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Law No 16/1989 on the protection of competition andan infringement of the Community competition rules.
Den 9. juni 1994 blev sagen indbragt for Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia, som skal afgøre, om der er tale om en overtrædelse af EF-traktatens artikel 86.
On 9 June the case was referred tothe Competition Protection Tribunal to determine whether the facts complained of did ordid not constitute an infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty.
b) Sager behandlet af TDC
(b) Cases dealt with by the TDC
Denne procedure blev indledt på grundlag af en klage over virksomhederne Trip Difusión S.A. og Charles Chevignon, der havde indgået en licensaftale på markedet for konfektion, hvor distributionen berører hele EU og virksomheder af forskellig nationalitet. TDC fandt det ikke bevist, at der var tale om en overtrædelse af konkurrencelovens artikel 1, 6 og 7 eller EF-traktatens artikel 85.
In this proceeding, initiated following a complaint lodged against Trip Difusion SAand Charles Chevignon in respect of a trade mark licensing contract which they had concluded on a market (ready-to-wear clothing) on which distribution covers the whole of the Community territory and is carried out by firms of different nationalities, the TDC tookthe view that the existence of an infringement of Articles 1, 6 and 7 of the Law on the protection of competition and Article 85 of the EC Treaty was not proven.
Sag 310/92: Den kongelige spanske fodboldsammenslutning
Case 310/92: Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF)
Denne procedure blev indledt på grundlag af en klage fra virksomheden »Gestevisión Telecinco SA« over, at den kongelige spanske fodboldsammenslutning (RFEF) havde misbrugt sin dominerende stilling. Telecinco klagede over, at den ikke havde fået tilladelse af RFEF til i Spanien at transmittere billeder fra
This proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged by Gestevision Telecinco SAagainst the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) for abuse of a dominant position.Telecinco complained that it had not been authorized by the RFEF to televise the Naples-Juventus match in Spain although it had legally acquired the broadcasting rights of thematch.
Da TDC mente, at denne praksis kunne påvirke samhandelen mellem medlems staterne, anmodede den SDC om at anvende de spanske konkurrenceregler på denne sag og at undersøge, om der var grund til at indlede en sag mod RFEF for overtrædelse af EF-traktatens artikel 86.
Taking the view that the practices objected to were liable to affect intra-Community trade,the TDC asked the SDC to apply the Spanish competition rules in the case and in additionto examine whether proceedings should be initiated against the RFEF for infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty.
Da TDC senere fik kendskab til, at Europa-Kommissionens GD IV havde indledt proceduren i denne sag på grund af de samme forhold, besluttede den at indstille sine egne procedurer med henblik på anvendelse af fællesskabsretten i Spanien, uden dog at udelukke, at der kunne gribes ind på grundlag af den spanske konkurrencelovgivning.
Subsequently, when it learned of the proceedings initiated by DGIV of the European Commission in respect of the same practices, the TDC decided tosuspend the proceedings initiated in Spain for the purpose of applying Community law,though it did not rule out action on the basis of national competition law.
I henhold til artikel 44, stk. 1, i lov nr. 16/1989 om beskyttelse af konkurrencen kan TDC beslutte at udsætte sin afgørelse, indtil EU-myndighederne har udtalt sig.
Under Article 44(1) of Law No 16/1989 on the protection of competition, the TDC cansuspend judgment until the Community authorities have reached their decision.
Den nationale lovgivning giver den mulighed for frit at vurdere, om der er grund til at træffe en sådan beslutning.
Nationallegislation gives it full discretion in deciding whether or not to do so.
Der er således tale om en frivillig udsættelse.
Suspension is therefore optional.
I betragtning af de store nationale interesser, der stod på spil, fandt TDC det ikke ønskeligt at udsætte anvendelsen af den nationale ret.
The TDC took the view that, in view of the importance of the national interests involved, itwas not desirable for it to suspend the application of national law as well.
Den traf derfor en afgørelse i henhold til lov nr. 16/1989 om beskyttelse af konkurrencen.
It therefore tooka decision on the basis of Law No 16/1989 on the protection of competition.
Senere har den nægtet at annullere denne beslutning som ønsket af RFEF.
Subsequently,it refused the RFEF's request for annulment of its decision.
I denne sag fandt TDC, at den eksklusivaftale, der var indgået af Cosmeparf, og som vedrørte udnyttelse af teknisk viden, industrielle ejendomsrettigheder og teknisk bistand i forbindelse med fremstilling og afsætning af Rochas-produkter i Spanien, opfyldte alle betingelser i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 556/89 om gruppefritagelse for knowhow-licensaftaler, men også betingelser ne i kongeligt dekret nr. 157/92 om anvendelse af konkurrenceloven på gruppefritagelser og individuel fritagelse.
In this case, the TDC held that the exclusive concession agreement concluded by Cosmeparf, which related to the use of technical know-how, industrial property rights andtechnical assistance for the manufacture and marketing of Rochas products in Spain, metall the conditions provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 556/89 exempting
Da parterne var en spansk og en fransk virksomhed, mente TDC, at denne aftale påvirkede samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
Since the parties were a Spanish firm and a French firm, the TDC took the view that theagreement affected intra-Community trade.
I 1994 anvendte den franske konkurrencemyndighed (Conseil de la concurrence) fællesskabsretten i otte afgørelser.
In 1994, the Competition Council referred to Community law in eight decisions.
Sag 94-D-05: import af japanske biler
Case 94-D-05: Imports of Japanese cars
Derimod erklærede den sig kompetent til at fastslå, at det var i strid med artikel 85, stk. 1, at forhandlere af japanske eller koreanske bilmærker, der ikke havde en anerkendt importør, blev udelukket fra fagmesser og -udstillinger.
However, it held that it did have jurisdiction to give a ruling, as being contrary to Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty, against the practices involving the exclusion from trade fairsand shows of distributors of Japanese or Korean makes of vehicle that did not have anaccredited importer.
Den mente, at denne praksis kunne påvirke handelen mellem medlemsstaterne, fordi de forhandlere, der var udelukket fra fagudstillingerne, importerede deres biler til Frankrig fra andre EU-lande. Denne praksis var ligeledes i strid med national ret.
It took the view that such practices were liable to affect trade between Member States, since the distributors excluded from the trade shows imported their vehicles into France from other countries of the European Community; such practices werealso contrary to national law.
Der blev idømt sanktioner derfor.
Sanctions were imposed.
Sag 94-D-09: kalksten og marmor
Case 94-D-09: Limestone and marble
Konkurrencemyndigheden fastslog i sin afgørelse af 1. februar 1994 som vedrørte sektoren for kalksten og marmor, at der i de pågældende virksomheders generelle salgsbetingelser og tariffer var indføjet bestemmelser om, at direkte eller indirekte eksport af sten eller fliser, der var indkøbt hos de selskaber der driver stenbruddene, skulle godkendes formelt af disse selskaber på forhånd.
In a decision taken on 1 February 1994 on practices in the limestone and marble sector, the Council found that clauses had been included in the general conditions of sale and thescales of charges of the relevant companies under which direct or indirect export of thelimestone or marble purchased from companies operating quarries must be subject to theirformal and prior agreement.
Konkurrencemyndighederne mente ikke, at denne praksis kunne vurderes på grundlag af artikel 85, stk. 1, fordi selskaberne kun tegnede sig for en meget beskeden andel, under 5 %, af den franske eksport af kalksten og marmor, og at denne praksis derfor ikke havde kunnet påvirke samhandelen mellem medlems staterne mærkbart.
The Competition Council held that such practices could notbe dealt with under Article 85(1), since the companies' exports of limestone and marbleaccounted for only a very small proportion, in all cases less than 5%, of French exportsand that the practices could not therefore appreciably affect trade between Member States.
I afgørelse af 5. april 1994 om olivenoliesektoren fastslog Rådet, at en række brancheorganisationer fastsatte og rundsendte priserne på presning af oliven.
In its decision of 5 April 1994 on the olive-oil industry, the Competition Council examinedpractices under which trade organizations drew up and circulated prices for the pressing ofolives.
På grundlag af EF-Domstolens retspraksis i Walt Wilhelm-sagen (dom af 13. februar 1969), hvori den fastslog, at de nationale myndigheder kan anvende deres nationale ret, forudsat at det ikke skader en fuld og ensartet anvendelse af fællesskabsretten eller gennemførelsen af denne, mente konkurrencemyndigheden ikke, at den kunne anvende kendelsen af 1. december 1986 i det tilfælde, hvor den pågældende praksis var fritaget for forbuddet i artikel 85, stk. 1, i henhold til Kommissionens forordning nr. 26 om anvendelse af visse konkurrenceregler på produktion af og handel med landbrugsprodukter.
Basing itself on the judgment given by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the Walt Wilhelm case (judgment of 13 February 1969), which stated thatnational authorities may apply domestic law provided it does not prejudice the full and uniform application of Community law and the effect of acts taken to implement it, the Competition Council held that it had to refrain from applying the provisions of the Order of 1December 1986 if the practices in question were exempted from the prohibition of Article85(1) pursuant to Council Regulation No 26, as amended, applying certain rules on competition to production of and trade in agricultural products.
Hvis man antog, at den pågældende praksis havde påvirket handelen mellem medlemsstaterne mærkbart, var betingelserne for fritagelse i artikel 2, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 26 nemlig ikke opfyldt, fordi den pågældende praksis ikke vedrørte en national markedsordning, der var ophørt med indførelsen af den fælles markedsordning for olivenolie. Denne praksis kunne heller ikke anses for nødvendig for gennemførelsen af målsætningerne for den fælles landbrugspolitik.
It took the view that, on thesupposition that the practices in question had appreciably affected trade between Member States, the conditions for exemption under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 26 were not met,since the practices did not form part of a national market organization, which had endedwith the common organization of the olive-oil market; in addition, the practices could notbe regarded as necessary for the achievement of the objectives of the common agriculturalpolicy.
Endelig vedrørte den prisfastsættelse, en foranstaltning som ikke kan fritages efter artikel 2, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 26.
Lastly, they related to the setting of prices, which is excluded from the exceptionprovided for in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 26.
På denne baggrund kunne konkurrencemyndigheden i henhold til kendelsens artikel 7 pålægge de pågældende organisationer at bringe denne praksis til ophør.
Accordingly, the Council was able to apply Article 7 of the Order and ordered the organizations concerned to end the practices.
Ved afgørelse af 24. maj 1994 vedrørende Jacques Dessanges franchisenet inden for frisørsektoren fastslog konkurrencemyndigheden, at bestemmelsen om, at franchisetagere udelukkende skulle købe produkter fremstillet eller godkendt af Jacques Dessange hos franchisegiveren, var af en sådan art, at den kunne fritages efter traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, i henhold til Kommissionens forordning nr. 4087/88 om gruppefritagelse for franchiseaftaler.
In a decision delivered on 24 May 1994 concerning practices in the Jacques Dessangehairdressing franchise network, the Competition Council held that the clause requiringfranchisees to use only Jacques Dessange products or Jacques Dessange-approved products obtained from the franchiser, was similar to those which may be exempted under Article 85(3) of the Treaty pursuant to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4087/88 exemptingcertain categories of franchise agreements.
Ved afgørelse af 24. maj 1994 vedrørende Jean Louis David Diffusions franchisenet inden for frisørsektoren lagde konkurrencemyndigheden også forordning nr. 4087/88 til grund for sin vurdering af en bestemmelse om, at franchisetagerne udelukkende måtte købe og anvende de produkter, der var fremstillet eller godkendt af franchisegiveren.
Similarly, in its decision of 24 May 1994 concerning practices in the Jean Louis David Diffusion hairdressing franchise network, the Competition Council referred to Regulation(EEC) No 4087/88 in assessing the validity of a clause requiring franchisees to stock anduse only products manufactured or approved by the franchisor.
Konkurrencemyndigheden fandt, at denne bestemmelse måtte betragtes som nødvendig for at opretholde den succes, der var knyttet til mærket Jean Louis David Diffusion, for at bevare tilliden til dette net og for at beskytte mærkets renommé, og at bestemmelsen var af en sådan art, at den kunne fritages efter artikel 85, stk. 3.
The Council took the viewthat the clause must be deemed necessary to allow the continued success of the Jean Louis David Diffusion name, maintain the reliability of the network and safeguard its brandimage and that it therefore qualified for exemption under Article 85(3).
Sag 94-D-37: udstilling af terrængående køretøjer
Case 94-D-37: Showing of four-wheel drive vehicles
Ved afgørelse af 21. juni 1994 fastslog konkurrencemyndigheden, at bilforhandlerne i Perpignan, der havde udelukket en virksomhed fra en international fagudstilling af terrængående (firehjulstrukne) motorkøretøjer, havde handlet på en sådan måde, at det indebar en overtrædelse af national ret.
In its decision of 21 June 1994, the Competition Council held that practices engaged in byvarious motor vehicle dealers and agents in Perpignan whereby a firm was excluded froman international four-wheel drive vehicle show because of the actions of motor vehicledealers and agents constituted an infringement of national law, but not of Community law,since the practices did not appear likely to appreciably restrict trade between Member States, given the local nature of the show and of the firm which had been excluded.
Der var dog ikke tale om en overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten, fordi den pågældende praksis ikke ville kunne begrænse samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne mærkbart, da den
The Council also referred to Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 on the application of Article85(3) to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements, to
Under henvisning til forordning (EØF) nr. 123/85 om anvendelse af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, på kategorier af salgs- og serviceaftaler vedrørende motorkøretøjer fastslog konkurrencemyndigheden desuden, at en fuldmagtshaver skal kunne reklamere og udstille biler på bestemte vilkår, og at han bl.a. skal sørge for, at det udtrykkeligt og synligt fremgår, at han handler som mellemmand og ikke som forhandler.
RELATIONS WITH THE AUTHORITIES AND COURTS IN THE MEMBER STATES 65 assert that an authorized agent must be able to advertise and can display vehicles undercertain conditions, particularly if he expressly and visibly makes it clear that he is acting asan intermediary providing a service and not as a reseller.
Sag 94-D-54: kartofler til konservering
Case 94-D-54: Ware potatoes
Ved afgørelse af 25. oktober 1994 vedrørende markedet for kartofler til konservering i regionerne Nord-Pas-de-Calais og Picardiet har konkurrencemyndigheden undersøgt brancheorganisationernes praksis med hensyn til fastsættelse af mindstesalgspriser. Den fastslog, at det ikke kunne påvises, at denne praksis havde påvirket samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne mærkbart og den faldt derfor ikke ind under traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1.
In a decision taken on 25 October 1994 concerning practices in the ware potatoes marketin Nord/Pas-de-Calais and Picardy, the Competition Council examined practices engagedin by trade organizations in the sector imposing a minimum selling price; it concluded thatthe practices had not appreciably affected trade between Member States and consequentlythat they did not fall within the scope of Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
I andet halvår 1993, der ikke er omfattet af Frankrigs bidrag til denne beretning, har konkurrencemyndigheden desuden truffet to afgørelser på grund lag af fællesskabsretten.
During the second half of 1993, which was not covered by the French contribution tothe Commission's previous report, the Competition Council took two decisions thatreferred to Community law.
Sag 93-D-49: tandlægeudstyr
Case 93-D-49: Dental supplies
I forbindelse med afgørelse af 16. november 1993 vedrørende eksklusion af virksomheder, der sælger tandlægeudstyr pr. postordre eller pr. Minitel, overvejede konkurrencemyndigheden at anvende traktatens artikel 85, men anvendte i sidste instans kun kendelsen af 1. december 1986 i stedet for traktatens bestemmelser.
In its decision of 16 November 1993 concerning practices excluding mail-order or Mini-tel-order firms on the market for the distribution of dental equipment and supplies, the Competition Council took Article 85 of the Treaty into consideration, but did not finallyexamine the practices under those provisions, applying only the Order of 1 December1986.