natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Datterselskabernes salg til forhandlere :
Sales by subsidiaries to trade customers
Parkers salg til uafhængige forhandlere :
Sales by companies :
O Omsætning i Fællesskabet fordelt efter datterselskabernes salg til forhandlere og Parkers salg til sine uafhængige forhandlere Italien, Irland og Danmark.
Portugal, Greece, Italy, Ireland and Denmark.
(Kilde : Parker)
(Source: Parker)
Parker har 100 %-ejede datterselskaber i Spanien, Frankrig, Det Forenede Kongerige, Nederlandene, Belgien og Tyskland.
Parker has wholly-owned subsidiaries in Spain, France, the United. Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.
I de øvrige medlemsstater har Parker indgået forhandleraftaler med uafhængige importører.
In the other Member States of the Community, Parker has concluded distribution agreements with independent importers.
Under en undersøgelse, som Kommissionens embedsmænd foretog hos Herlitz den 19. og 20. september 1989 fandt de en forhandleraftale fra 18. august 1986.
During an investigation carried out on Herlitz's premises on 19 and 20 September 1989, Commission officials found a distribution agreement stated 18 August 1986.
Denne aftale trådte i kraft den 1. marts 1987 og havde en løbetid på fem år.
The agreement entered into force on 1 March 1987 and had a term of five years.
Viho har i en årrække bestræbt sig for at sælge Parker-produkter.
Viho has for a number of years been endeavouring to distribute Parker products.
Selskabet har med henblik herpå indhentet pristilbud hos Parkers forskellige datterselskaber i Fællesskabet.
For this purpose, it has obtained price quotations from various Parker subsidiaries in the Community.
Viho anfører i sin klage, at selskabet aldrig har fiet leveret nogen produkter.
In its complaint, Viho states that it has never been supplied.
Ethvert salg over landegrænserne er forbudt eller kun tilladt, såfremt der er indhentet skriftlig tilladelse hos Parker«).
Any distribution by Herlitz outside Germany is prohibited and may take place only with Parker's written consent.)
Under undersøgelsen har klageren dog indrømmet, at selskabet har købt Parkerprodukter hos uautoriserede forhandlere.
During the hearing, however, the complainant conceded that it had obtained Parker products from firms which were not Parker distributors.
Ifølge telex af 25. november 1987 fra Viho til det italienske firma API kan det desuden fastslås, at Viho har erklæret, at det i givet fald kunne levere enkelte Parkerprodukter eller ventuelt hele sortimentet (se under betragtning 8).
It is also evident from the telex message of 25 November 1987 from Viho to the Italian firm API that Viho declared that it was prepared to supply individual Parker products or possibly the whole range of such goods (see recital 8).
Parker har hævdet, at de udtrykkelige eksportforbud blev indføjet i forhandleraftalen på en marketingsdirektørs personlige initiativ, uden at denne var bemyndiget hertil af Parker, men har ikke bestridt, at der objektivt set foreligger et retsbrud.
Although Parker submitted that the express export ban had been inserted into the distribution agree ment on the personal initiative of a marketing director who did not have Parker's authority to do so, the company did not contest the objective fact of an infringement.
Selskabet har begrænset sig til at forsikre, at den adfærd, det bebrejdes, ikke har været tilsigtet.
It limited itself to the comment that the action of which it was accused was unintentional.
Den 19. november 1986 anmodede Viho API om et pristilbud. Den 24. november 1986 svarede API : •Sorry, we cannot be of help but we are distributors for Parker for the Italian market only and we cannot export:
On 19 November 1986, Viho asked API for a price quotation.
Prisforskelle i EF og overtrædelsens ophør
Price and differences in the Community termination of the infringement
Det skal dog tilføjes, at Viho den 19. november 1987 rettede en ny forespørgsel til API, hvori det anmodede API om et pristilbud for en forholdsmæssig stor varemængde, 20 000 Vector Rollerballs.
It should be added, however, that, on 19 November 1987, Viho approached API for a second time, asking it for a price quotation for a relatively large quantity of goods (20 000 Vector Rollerballs).
API svarede den 24. november 1987, at selskabet på grund af den livlige julehandel havde problemer med at klare en så stor leverance, men opgav dog en pris på [...] lire og erklærede sig i princippet rede til at levere.
On 24 November 1987, API replied that it had difficulty supplying such a large amount because of brisk business in the run-up to Christmas, but nevertheless quoted a price of Lit [... ] and stated that in principle it was prepared to supply Viho.
Som det fremgir af tabellen i betragtning 4, har Parker-produkterne en ikke-ubetydelig markeds andel i EF.
As may be seen from the table in recital 4, Parker products have a not insignificant market share in the Community.
For disse produkters vedkommende findes der prisforskelle mellem medlemsstaterne, der kan medføre sidanne forhold, at der kan opstå parallelhandel.
There are in the case of such products price differences between Member States that result in conditions under which a parallel trade may develop.
Dette bekræftes ogsi af Viho's gentagne forsøg pi at købe de omtalte varer hos forhandlere i andre medlemsstater.
This is confirmed by Viho's repeated attempts to obtain the products from distributors in other Member States.
På grund af de ovennævnte afslag på eksport var parallelimport fra Tyskland ikke mulig.
The abovementioned refusals to export impeded parallel imports from Germany.
Disse begrænsninger fik virkning senest fra 1986.
These restrictions operated as from 1986 at the latest.
I sit svar af 25. november 1987 fandt Viho den nævnte pris alt for høj og derfor uinteressant og tilføjede, at selskabet i givet fald selv kunne forsyne API med alle Parker-produkter, da selskabet lå inde med hele varesortimentet.
On 25 November 1987, Viho replied that it found the price quoted to be excessively high and there fore not of interest and added that it could if need be itself supply API with all the Parker produces, since it had the whole range of such products.
Den 20. og 24. april 1989 bad Viho Herlitz om et pristilbud. Den 24. april 1989 svarede Herlitz : » Vi må desværre meddele Dem, at vi ikke har lov til at eksportere ovennævnte produkter: I telex af 25. april 1989 fra Herlitz stir der endvidere bla. : »... we can sell quite a number of (our products) but not for the products that you had asked for...
On 20 and 24 April 1989, Viho asked Herlitz to quote a price. On 24 April 1989, Herlitz replied : 'Leider müssen wir Ihnen mitteilen, daß wir keine der o.g.
Nr. L 233/30 nødvendigt at bevise den faktiske anvendelse af de bestemmelser, der vedrører begrænsningen.
92 market are by their nature a restriction of competi tion within the meaning of Article 85 (1) and that, if this proves to be the object of an agreement, the actual implementation of a restriction laid down in an agreement does not have to be proved.
Den 18. december 1989 sendte Parker Herlitz et ændret udkast til en ny forhandleraftale, der skulle træde i kraft med tilbagevirkende kraft fra den 1. oktober 1989.
On 18 December 1989, Parker sent Herlitz the draft of a new distribution agreement which was to enter into force with retroactive effect as from 1 October 1989.
Denne nye aftale indeholder ikke nogen klausul om eksportforbud, men den er endnu ikke tridt i kraft.
The new agreement does not contain any clause prohibiting exports, but it has not yet entered into force.
For omgiende at efterkomme Kommissionens udtrykkelige henstilling har Parker ved skrivelse af 14. maj 1991 meddelt sine eneforhandlere i Danmark, Irland, Italien, Grækenland og Portugal, at de frit kan levere til kunder uden for deres eget omride.
Acting promptly in response to the Commission's express representations, Parker informed its exclusive distributors in Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Portugal by letter dated 14 May 1991 they they were free to supply customers outside their territory. tory.
Det er utvivlsomt rigtigt, at denne forhandleraftale blev indgiet mellem Parker og Herlitz AG, og at det var Herlitz GmbH & Co., der afsendte oven nævnte telex til Viho. Med hensyn til firmaet API kan det ikke af selskabets svar til Viho den 19. november 1986 udledes, om der har eksisteret en aftale mellem API og Parker om at undlade eksport fra Italien som påstået af Viho.
In the case of API, it cannot be deduced from its answer to Viho dated 19 November 1986 whether there was an agreement between it and Parker to prohibit exports from Italy, as Viho claimed.
I mellemtiden har API ved telex af 24. november 1987 givet Viho et tilbud om levering af Parker-produkter.
API did send Viho a telex message on 24 November 1987 offering to supply Parker products.
Det har dog ikke været muligt at påvise, at API kun afgav dette tilbud på skrømt og derfor til uacceptable priser, som påstået af Viho.
It has, however, not been possible to show, as Viho asserted, that API made this offer only for appearances' sake and, accordingly, at unacceptable prices.
Endelig skal det anføres, at Parker har opstillet et omfattende program med henblik på overholdelse af EF's konkurrenceregler for at sikre sig, at disse overholdes i fremtiden. Dette program er sendt til firmaets datterselskaber i EF samt til eneforhandlerne. lerne.
Lastly, it should be mentioned that Parker drew up, both for its Community subsidiaries and also for its sole distributors, a wideranging programme on compliance with Community competition law, so as to ensure that the competition rules were observed in future.
Parker og Herlitz er virksomheder i den i EØF-Traktatens artikel 85 anvendte betydning.
Parker and Herlitz are undertakings within the meaning of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty.
Aftalen mellem Parker og Herlitz er en aftale i den i denne artikel anvendte betydning.
The agreement between Parker and Herlitz is an agree ment within the meaning of that Article.
Den forhandleraftale, der den 18. august 1986 blev indgiet mellem Parker og Herlitz, indeholder et udtrykkeligt eksportforbud, der har til formål at begrænse konkurrencen ved at forhindre pa rallelimport.
The distribution agreement concluded between Parker and Herlitz on 18 August 1986 contains an express ban on exports.
Klausulen om eksportforbud har hverken til formål eller til følge at forhindre parallelimport eller afskærme enkelte markeder inden for Det Europæiske Fællesskab.
This export ban had as its object the restriction of competition through the prevention of parallel imports.
Bestemmelser af en sådan art er i strid med artikel 85, stk. 1. Domstolen har i en række domme
Provisions of this type infringe Article 85 (1).
)) fastslået, at aftaler om begrænsning af eksporten inden for det fælles marked ifølge sagens natur begrænser konkurren cen, som omhandlet i artikel 85, stk. 1, og at det, såfremt dette er formålet med aftalen, ikke er
)) that agreements on the restriction of exports within the common
Den anser endvidere de af Herlitz anførte argumenter på grundlag af »shop within the shop«princippet for at være irrelevante i det foreliggende tilfælde.
The prevention of parallel imports or the safeguarding of individual markets within the European Community had never been the object, purpose or even the result of the export ban clause.
Telexen fra Herlitz til Viho den 25. april 1989 beviser, at Herlitz også handler med andre produkter end virksomhedens egne.
In addition, the distribution agreement concluded between ' Parker and Herlitz had never been implemented.
Inden for fællesmarkedet har Herlitz trods påstande om det modsatte anvendt den forhandleraftale, som selskabet har indgiet med Parker.
The above considerations lead the Commission to conclude hat Parker and Herlitz have infringed Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty and that Article 85 (3) is not applicable.
Dette fremgir ligeledes af de to telex fra Herlitz til Viho.
The Commission cannot agree this reasoning.
Herlitz har siledes følt sig bundet af aftalen med Parker, der især forbyder salg til udlandet.
Furthermore, it takes the view the arguments which Herlitz derives from the application of the 'shop within a shop' principle are irrelevant The telex message of 25 April 1989 from Herlitz Co Viho proves that Herlitz also dealt in products not manufactured by iL
Pi grundlag af artikel 15, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 17, kan Kommissionen ved beslutning piiægge virksomheder bøder pi mindst et tusind og højst en million ECU eller derudover indtil 10 % af omsætningen i det sidste regnskabsir i hver af de virksomheder, der har medvirket ved overtrædelsen, sifremt de forsætligt eller uagtsomt overtræder bestemmelserne i Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1. Ved fastsættelsen af bødens størrelse skal der tages hensyn til bide overtrædelsens grovhed og dens varighed.
Under Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 17, the Commission may by decision impose on undertakings fines from ECU 1 000 to ECU 1 million, or a sum in excess thereof but not exceeding 10 % of the turnover in the preceding business year of each of the undertakings participating in the infringement where, either intentionally or negligently of the fine, regard must be had both to the gravity and to the duration of the infringement.
Denne begrænsning af den kommercielle handle frihed er tilstrækkelig til, at artikel 85, stk. 1, finder anvendelse.
The fact that Herlitz exported Parker products to Austria and Switzerland proves that it traded in such products.
Kommissionen konkluderer derfor, at der er ule om en klar overtrædelse af konkurrence retten.
Herlitz there fore felt bound by the agreement with Parker under which it was prohibited in particular from engaging in exports.
Artikel 85, stk. 1, finder derfor anvendelse på aftalen mellem Herlitz og Parker.
Article 85 (1) is thus applicable to the agreement between Herlitz and Parker.
Kommissionen er af den opfattelse, at det i det foreliggende tilfælde er berettiget at pålægge Parker en bøde.
As regards the amount of the fine imposed on Parker, the Commission took the following points in particular into account :
Parker tegner sig for betydelige markedsandele på det ovenfor definerede EF-marked.
Parker has substantial market share with ics products on the Community markec described above.
Aftalen mellem Parker og Herlitz kunne medføre en mærkbar påvirkning af handelen mellem medlemsstaterne ved at begrænse parallelimport og -eksport.
The agreement between Parker and Herlitz was such as to appreciably affect trade between Member States by restricting parallel imports and exports.
Med hensyn til bødens størrelse har Kommissionen især taget hensyn til følgende synspunkter :
1. the actions which are the subject of this Deci sion represent a serious infringement of the competition rules laid down in the EEC Treaty, since they significantly hinder the integration of the common market ;
1) De handlinger, der ligger til grund for den fore liggende beslutning, indebærer en alvorlig over trædelse af Traktatens konkurrenceregler, da de indebærer væsentlige hindringer for at fælles markedet kan blive ét enkelt marked.
2. since Community law is unmisCakeably clear on this poinc, che resericcions of compecition with which the undertaking is charged represent serious infringemencs of CommuniCy compecition law ;
Som det fremgår af API's svar af 19. november 1986 : »sorry, we cannot export...«, har selskabet i mindst ét tilfælde afslået at give Viho et pristilbud for Parker-produkter.
As is evident from ics reply of 19 November 1986 in which it stated 'sorry, we cannot export ...', API has in at least one instance declined to quote prices to Viho for Parker products.
Dette giver imidlertid ikke Kommissionen tilstrækkeligt grundlag for at slutte, at Viho's klage på dette punkt er begrundet.
However, this is not sufficient evidence to allow the commission to conclude that on this point viho's complaint was founded.
Den bekræftes heri af det forhold, at API allerede et halvt år inden klagens indgivelse var begyndt at efterkomme Viho's anmodninger om pristilbud.
This view is borne out by the fact that API had already, half a year before the complaint was lodged, started quoting prices to Viho at ics request.
Aftalen mellem Parker og Herlitz, der indeholdt eksportforbuddet eller havde et sådant forbud som mål, var ikke anmeldt til Kommissionen.
The agreemenc between Parker and Herlitz that contained the export ban or had such a ban as ics object was not notified to the Commission.
En sådan begrænsning af eksporten falder i øvrigt ind under de i artikel 4, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 17 nævnte undtagelser.
Furthermore, such a restriction of exports is one of the exceptions specified in Article 4 (2) of Regulation No 17.
Der kan siledes ikke blive tale om at indrømme fritagelse i henhold til artikel 85, stk. 3.
Individual exemption under Article 85 (3) cannot therefore be granCed.
4) Parker indgir i en stor koncern med en betydelig omsætning og med datterselskaber og vigtige forhandlere på markedet for skriveredskaber i Fællesskabet.
At the time it declared itself ready to cease all practices that proved incompatible with Community competition law and, in September 1989, withdrew the illegal provision in its distri bution agreement with Herlitz ;
Selv om aftalen havde været anmeldt, havde der ikke kunnet indrømmes fritagelse for forbuddet i artikel 85, stk. 1, da eksportforbuddet ikke kan betragtes som absolut nødvendigt for at forbedre fordelingen af varerne, og fordi det desuden er skadeligt for forbrugerne.
Even if the agreement had been notified, it would not have been possible to grant exemption from the prohibition laid down in Article 85 (1), since the export ban cannot be regarded as indispensable to improving and because it is moreover harmful to consumers.
I forbindelse med dette program har Parker imidlertid ikke taget hensyn til sin aftale med Herlitz.
However, Parker did not apply the programme to its agreement with Herlitz.
For at sikre, at konkurrencereglerne overholdes i fremtiden, og som reaktion på en udtrykkelig henstilling fra Kommissionen har Parker på den anden side i 1991 gjort alle sine forhandlere i Fællesskabet opmærksom på, at de frit kan levere til kunder uden for deres eget omride.
Nevertheless, in order to ensure future compliance with the competition rules and in response to express representations by the Commission, Parker did in 1991 inform all its distributors in the community that they were free to supply customers oucside cheir territory.
Efter udløbet af denne frist på tre måneder svares der uden videre renter efter den rentesats, der på den første arbejdsdag i den måned, hvor denne beslutning blev vedtaget, anvendes af Den Europæiske Fond for Monetært Samarbejde i forbindelse med ECU-transaktioner med tillæg af 3,5 procentpoint, dvs 13,75%.
After three months, interest shall automatically be payable at the reate charged by the European Monetary Cooperation Fund on its ECU transactions on the first working day of the month in which this Decision was adopted, plus 3,5 percentage points, i.e. 13,75%.
I tilfælde af betaling i national valuta, anvendes den omregningskurs, der var gældende på dagen forud for betalingen.
Should paymenc be made in national currency, the exchange rate applicable shall be that prevailing on the day preceding payment.
Der må også pålægges Herlitz en bøde.
A fine must also be imposed on Herlitz.
Virksom heden har været med til at underskrive den anfægtede aftale og har i hvert fald anvendt den indtil 1989.
It too signed the agreement and implemented it until 1989 at any rate.
Herlitz var fuldt ud bekendt med, hvad forbudsbestemmelsen indebærer.
Herlitz was under no illusions as to the applicability of the provisions laying down the prohibition.
Virksomhedsledelsen var således bekendt med, at eksportforbudsklausulen var uforenelig med artikel 85, men den har alligevel overholdt den efter Parkers ønske og i indforståelse med Parker, selvom Herlitz ikke har kunnet undgå at være klar over, at denne havde til formål at forhindre parallelimport og -eksport.
The management of the undertaking was aware that the export ban clause was incompatible with Article 85, but it abided by it so as to meet Parker's wishes and in agreement with it, although the fact cannot have escaped Herlitz that this resulted in the prevention of parallel imports and exports.
Ved fastsættelsen af den bøde Herlitz skal idømmes, erkender Kommissionen, at denne virksom heds eget ansvar ved indgåelsen af den konkurren cebegrænsende klausul er mindre, da det må antages, at Herlitz blot har efterkommet Parkers ønsker.
In imposing the fine on Herlitz, the commission recognizes that Herlitz's own responsibility in bringing about the provision in the agreement that restricted competition is smaller, since it is to be assumed that Herlitz was merely complying with Parker's wishes.
I betragtning af Herlitz' underordnede rolle er Kommissionen af den opfattelse, at den bøde, der skal fastsættes for denne virksomhed, derfor skal være mindre end den bøtøe, der pålægges Parker —
In view of Herlitz's subordinate role, the Commission takes the view that the fine to be imposed on Herlitz should therefore be smaller than that imposed on Parker,
Parker Pen Ltd. og Herlitz AG har overtrådt Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, ved at indsætte et eksportforbud i en aftale, der er indgået mellem dem.
Parker Pen Ltd and Herlitz AG have infringed Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty by including an export ban in an agreement concluded between them.
KOMMISSIONENS BESLUTNING af 24. juli 1992 om en procedure i henhold til EØF­Traktatens artikel 85 (IV/33.542 — Parfums Givenchys selektive distributionssystem)
COMMISSION DECISION of 24 July 1992 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (Case No IV/33.542 — Parfums Givenchy system of selective distribution) (Only the French text is authentic)
KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER HAR — under henvisning til Traktaten om Oprettelse af Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab, under henvisning til Rådets forordning nr. 17 af 6. februar 1962, første forordning om anvendelse af bestemmelserne i Traktatens artikel 85 og 86 ('), senest ændret ved akten vedrørende Spaniens og Portugals tiltrædelse, særlig artikel 6 og 8,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Louis Vuitton Moët­Hennessy, der fremstiller luksusparfu­merivarer, lædervarer, kufferter og tilbehør, champagne og vine, cognac og andre spirituosa, haute couture og mode­tilbehør.
Having regard to Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, first Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ('), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Articles 6 and 8 thereof, group whose activities include luxury perfumery products, leather goods, luggage and accessories, champagnes and wines, cognac, spirits, haute couture and fashion accessories.
Koncernen kontrollerer andre selskaber, der driver virksomhed pi samme marked som Givenchy, bl.a. selskaberne Parfums Christan Dior og Parfums Christian Lacroix. Koncernen Louis Vuitton Moët­Hennessys samlede nettoomsætning androg i 1991 22 mia. ffr.
The group controls other companies operating in the same market as Givenchy, namely Parfums Christian Dior and Parfums Christian Lacroix.
Samme ir havde selskabet Givenchy en samlet nettoom­sætning på 889 mio. ffr., hvoraf 430 mio. ffr. hidrørte fra selskabets virksomhed i EF.
In the same year, Givenchy achieved a net consolidated turnover of FF 889 million, of which FF 430 million derived from its activities in the Community.
Detailsalget af Givenchys skønhedsmidler varetages i medlemsstaterne af et net af godkendte forhandlere, hvis kontraktlige forpligtelser er nedfældet i den aftale, der er genstand for denne proce­dure.
The retail sale of Givenchy cosmetic products in the Member States is carried out by a network of authorized retailers, whose contractual conditions are laid down in the agreement to which this proceeding relates.