natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Meddelelsen af klagepunkter af 31. juli 1990 vedrørende Helsinkiaftalen var koncentreret om anvendelsen af artikel 85, stk. 1, for på daværende tidspunkt var Helsinkiaftalen ikke blevet anmeldt, og spørgsmålet om anvendelse af artikel 85, stk. 3, kom derfor ikke på tale.
The Statements of Objections of 31 July 1990 concerning the Helsinki Agreement concentrated on the applicability of Article 85 (1), since, at the time when they were drawn up, the Helsinki Agreement had not been notified and therefore the question of the applicability of Article 85 (3) did not arise.
Dette spørgsmål var dog blevet løseligt berørt i meddelelserne af klagepunk ter, og det var blevet konkluderet, at der ikke kunne indrømmes fritagelse, selv om Helsinkiaftalen havde været anmeldt.
However, this question was none the less discussed in the Statements of Objections, and the conclusion reached was that, even if the Helsinki Agreement had been notified, it could not have been exempted.
Klagepunkterne over for Eurocheque International og groupement vedrørende Helsinkiaftalen gik ud på, at der klart var tale om en prisaftale, som oven i købet blev anvendt imellem bankerne og deres kunder og ikke blot i interbankforbindelserne ; for med denne aftale vedtog de franske banker, med hele Eurocheque Communitys samtykke, at pilægge deres kunder (de handlende) et gebyr af samme størrelse som det gebyr, de pilægger dem ved betaling med (franske eller udenlandske) bankkort.
The objections stated to Eurocheque International and the Groupement in respect of the Helsinki Agreement related to the fact that this was clearly a price-fixing agreement, applicable moreover in relations between banks and customers and not only in interbank relations, since, through the Agreement, the French banks decided, with the approval of the Eurocheque International community as a whole, to charge their trader customers a commission equal in amount to that which they charge them for payments made by bank card (French or foreign).
Kommissionen kritiserede desuden, at denne aftale havde til formil og direkte til følge at udelukke en hvilken som helst konkurrence inden for nonbanking sektoren mellem eurocheques (der i princippet er gratis for modtagerne) og kort, som de franske pengeinstitutter som helhed havde valgt at favorisere og privilegere i forhold til Euro cheque-systemet.
In addition, the objection was made that the Agreement had the object and immediate effect in the trading sector of making any competition whatsoever impossible between Eurocheques (in principle free of charge to payees) and payments by card, which the French banks have on the whole opted for in preference to the Eurocheque system.
Den 16. juli 1990 anmeldte groupement formelt Helsinkiaftalen.
However, on 16 July 1990, the Groupement formally notified the Commission of the Helsinki Agreement.
Denne anmeldelse blev indgivet fem dage efter, at der var holdt møde med Kommissionens tjenestegrene, hvor sidstnævnte havde bekræftet over for groupements advokater, at der var udarbejdet en meddelelse af klagepunkter vedrørende Helsinki-aftalen, som sandsynligvis meget snart ville blive afsendt.
This notification took place five days after a meeting with Commission officials, during which the Commission officials had confirmed to the lawyers representing the Groupement that a Statement of Objections concerning the Helsinki Agreement had been drawn up and that its dispatch was probably imminent.
Meddelelsen af klagepunkter af 31. juli 1990 indeholder en henvisning til den i hast indsendte anmeldelse af aftalen, der var indgået syv år forinden.
The Statements of Objections of 31 July 1990 make reference to this' precipitate notification of an agreement concluded seven years previously.
Groupement des cartes bancaires indvendte, at meddelelsen af klage punkter ikke tog hensyn til anmeldelsen og de argumenter, den havde fremsat i denne forbindelse.
The Groupement objected that the Statement of Objections that had been sent to it had not taken account of the notification and the arguments put forward therein.
Da Kommissionen er indstillet på, at parternes rettigheder skal respekteres fuldt ud, besluttede den at supplere sin meddelelse af klagepunkter til groupement af 31. juli 1990 med en yderligere meddelelse af klagepunkter vedrørende artikel 85, stk. 3.
The Commission therefore deemed it appropriate, so as to ensure absolute respect of the rights of the parties, to follow up the Statement of Objections sent to the Groupement on 31 July 1990 with a supplementary Statement of Objections relating to Article 85 (3).
I sit svar af 6. november 1990 på meddelelsen af klagepunkterne bestred Eurocheque International begrundelsen for disse.
Eurocheque International replied to the Statement of Objections on-6 November 1990, disputing the correctness of its arguments.
Efter den høring, der fandt sted den 28. november 1990 på Eurocheque Inter nationals anmodning, fortsatte drøftelserne med Kommissionen ; de kom efterhånden til at dreje sig om et vigtigt spørgsmål, der ikke hidtil havde givet anledning til problemer, nemlig princippet om, at eurocheques var gratis for modtageren, hvilket netop var blevet tilsidesat ved Helsinkiaftalen.
Following the hearing organized at Eurocheque International's request on 28 November 1990, discussions continued to take place with the Commission ; during these, it became apparent that the focus was shifting to a major point which, hitherto, had not posed any problem, namely the fact that Eurocheques were free of charge to payees, an aspect which had been breached by the Helsinki Agreement.
Eurocheque International benægtede ikke, at systemet oprindeligt havde bygget på dette princip, men fandt, at det ikke længere var berettiget, medens Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at dette væsentlige princip dannede grundlag for dens beslutning 85/77/EØF, og at fornyelsen af fritagelsen derfor var bragt i fare, også selv om de øvrige forhold, der var påtalt i meddelelsen af klagepunk ter, på forhånd skulle være blevet afklaret.
Eurocheque International, while not disputing that the system was originally founded on this basis, now felt that this principle should no longer be applied, whereas the Commission pointed out that it was on this essential aspect that Decision 85/77/EEC hinged and that this therefore called into question the renewal of the exemption, assuming that all the other points raised in the Statement of Objections were resolved.
Den supplerende meddelelse af klagepunkter vedrørende anmeldelsen af Helsinkiaftalen blev kun sendt til groupement, idet Eurocheque Inter national se ikke havde medvirket ved anmeldelsen.
The supplementary Statement of Objections rela ting to the notification of the Helsinki Agreement was sent only to the Groupement, since Euro cheque International sc had not been involved in the notification.
Eurocheque International fik dog tilsendt en kopi af den supplerende meddelelse af klagepunkter den 20. juni 1991.
However, a copy of the supplementary Statement of Objections was sent to Euro cheque International on 20 June 1991.
De argumenter vedrørende Helsinki-aftalen, der blev fremført af Eurocheque International og groupement under høringen den 28. november 1990 og for groupements vedkommende også i svaret af 29. oktober 1990 på meddelelsen af klagepunkter af 31. juli 1990, gik hovedsagelig ud på, at aftalen ikke indebar nogen som helst forpligtelse til at opkræve gebyrer, samt at aftalen langt fra var konkurrence begrænsende, men tværtimod havde til formål og til følge at fremme brugen af eurocheques i Frankrig.
With regard to the Helsinki Agreement, the arguments put forward by Eurocheque International and, in particular, by the Groupement in its reply of 29 October 1990 to the Statement of Objections of 31 July 1990, and at the hearing on 28 November 1990, consisted mainly in denying that the Agreement contained any obligation whatsoever to charge a commission and in asserting that, far from having been restrictive, the Agreement had, on the contrary, the object and effect of promoting the development of Eurocheques in France.
I sit svar af 12. juli 1991 pi den supplerende meddelelse af klagepunkter af 19. juni 1991 frem fører groupement, at »Helsinki-aftalen ... ikke er en aftale mellem de franske banker og Eurocheque Community.
In its reply of 12 July 1991 to the supplementary Statement of Objections of 19 June 1991 the Grou­pement asserts that 'the Helsinki agreement [... ] is not an agreement between French banks and the Eurocheque community.
Dens bestemmelser beror pi en resolution, der er vedtaget af Eurocheque Assembly. Under alle omstændigheder er der tale om en beslutning, som involverer hele Eurocheque Community«.
Its provisions stem from a resolution of the Eurocheque General Assembly.
Groupement fjernede dog enhver uklarhed pi dette område i sit svar af 12. juli 1991 pi den supplerende meddelelse af klagepunkter, idet den vedlagde en cirkulæreskrivelse af 27. maj 1991, som formanden for groupement havde sendt samtlige medlemmer, og hvor han meddelte dem, at : »De af Kommissionen piklagede bestemmelser går gene relt under betegnelsen »Helsinki-aftalen«, som er vedtaget af Eurocheque Assembly. Eurocheque Assembly har netop pi sit møde den 9. og 50. maj 1991 ophævet aftalen.
In its reply of 12 July 1991 to the supplementary Statement of Objections, the Groupement removed any ambiguity on this subject by attaching a circular sent on 27 May 1991 by the Chairman of the Groupement to all members, informing them that:
Det skal dog bemærkes, at den tekst, som groupe ment anmeldte den 16. juli 1990, blev betegnet »aftale mellem de franske pengeinstitutter og Euro cheque Assembly«.
It should be pointed out, however, in this connec­tion that the text which the Groupement notified to the Commission on 16 July 1990 is in fact entitled 'Agreement between the French financial institutions and the Eurocheque Assembly'.
I sit bilag til anmeldelsesformular A/B anvender groupement fortrinsvis ordet »bestemmelser« ; men den gør ikke pi noget tidspunkt gældende, at der ikke skulle være tale om en aftale. Tværtimod anvender groupement ordet »aftale« gentagne gange.
Although in its Annex to Form A/B of the notifica­tion the Groupement chooses to use the word 'modalities', not once does it say that the text is not an agreement ; on the contrary, it uses the word 'agreement' several times.
Med hensyn til begrundelsen for en negativattest er det siledes anført under punkt 5.1 (side 5 i bilaget), at »groupement ikke mener, at den anmeldte aftale indeholder nogen konkurrencebegrænsning«, under punkt 5.2 (side 6), at »aftalen forøger konkurrencen mærkbart«, og under punkt 6.1 (side 6), at »Frankrig takket være denne aftale har ændret sin yderst beskedne stilling til en førerstilling...«.
Concerning the grounds for the negative clearance requested, it is thus stated in point 5.1 (page 5 of the Annex) that 'the Groupement does not think that the notified agree­ment contains any restrictions of competition' and in point 5.2 (page 6) that 'the agreement appreci­ably increases competition', and again in point 6:1 (page 6) that 'thanks to this agreement, France has risen from a particularly modest position to a posi­tion of leader'.
Helsinkiaftalen indebærer en særlig alvorlig begrænsning af konkurrencen.
The Helsinki Agreement constitutes a particularly serious restriction of competition.
Der er nemlig klart tale om en prisaftale, som oven i købet anvendes i forbindelserne med kunderne.
Not only is it clearly a price­fixing agreement, but it is also appli­cable to relations with customers.
De banker og pengeinstitutter, der er medlemmer af groupement og af de øvrige nationale bankforeninger, der deltager i Eurochequesystemet, er virksomheder i den i artikel 85, stk. 1, anvendte betydning.
The banks and other credit institutions members of the Groupement and of the other national banking groups participating in the Eurocheque system are undertakings within the meaning of Article 85 (1).
Eurocheque International se, groupement og de nationale bankforeninger i de øvrige medlems stater, der har andele i Eurocheque International se, er sammenslutninger af virksomheder i den i artikel 85, stk. 1, anvendte betydning.
Eurocheque International sc, the Groupement and the national banking groups of the other Member States holding shares in Eurocheque Internation­al sc are associations of undertakings within the meaning of Article 85 (1).
Der er først og fremmest tale om en aftale om opkrævning af et gebyr hos kunderne og nærmere betegnet en aftale mellem alle franske banker om at pilægge deres kunder (de franske handlende), der er tilsluttet betalingssystemet groupement, et gebyr svarende til det, der opkræves ved betaling med CB-kort.
In the first place, it is an agreement on the char­ging of a commission to customers, or more preci­sely an agreement whereby all French banks agree among themselves to bill their French trader cus­tomers affiliated to the payment system of the Groupement a commission equivalent to that which they charge them on­ payments effected by holders of 'CB' cards.
For det andet bekræftes dette af ovennævnte skrivelse af 17. oktober 1984 fra den franske bankforening, der præciserede, at de franske handlende, der var tilsluttet Groupement Carte bleue, skulle indløse udenlandske eurocheques »pi de samme vilkår« som gjaldt for Carte bleue.
(48) letter from the AFB dated 17 October 1984, in which it is once more stated that the network of French traders affiliated to the Groupement Carte bleue was open to foreign Eurocheques 'on the same terms' as those of Carte Bleue.
I denne forbindelse har groupement hele tiden hævdet ('), at aftalen ikke indeholdt nogen forplig­telse til at opkræve et gebyr.
In this connection, the Groupement has claimed throughout (') that the agreement did not prescribe the charging of a commission.
Eurocheque Interna­tional har kun taget stilling til Helsinki­aftalen — sivel i henseende til artikel 85, stk. 1, som artikel 85, stk. 3 — i sit svar af 6. november 1990 pi meddelelsen af klagepunkter af 31. juli 1990 og har ellers overladt det til groupement af forsvare denne aftale, navnlig under høringen den 28. november 1990. Eurocheque International har i dette svar forsvaret samme tese O, nemlig at aftalen under ingen omstændigheder indeholdt nogen forpligtelse til at opkræve et gebyr.
Eurocheque international, which commented on the Helsinki Agree ment — both from the point of view of Article 85 (1) and from that of Article 85 (3) — only in its reply of 6 November 1990 to the Statement of Objections of 31 July 1990, subsequently leaving it to the Groupement to defend the Agreement, in particular at the hearing of 28 November 1990, likewise maintained (2) that the agreement in no way prescribed the charging of a commission.
Helsinki­afta­lens ordlyd er imidlertid fuldstændig klar på dette punkt, for den indeholder en bestemmelse om, at »medlemmer af Groupement Carte bleue og Euro­card opkræver et gebyr hos de handlende, der er tilsluttet·.
The wording of the Helsinki Agreement is, however, unequivocal in this respect, stipulating that 'members of the Groupement Carte bleue and of Eurocard shall charge their affiliated traders a commission'.
Det fremgår således klart af Helsinki­aftalens ordlyd, at den indeholder en forpligtelse til at opkræve et gebyr.
It is therefore perfectly clear from the wording of the Helsinki agreement itself that it lays down the obligation to charge a commission.
Groupement des cartes ban­caires gjorde også gældende under høringen, at en række franske banker ikke opkrævede et sådant gebyr.
The Groupement also argued at the hearing that some French banks do not charge such a commission.
Den omstændighed, at der kan gives to eksempler herpå, viser imidlertid modsætningsvis, at næsten samtlige franske banker opkræver et gebyr, og herudover skal det desuden bemærkes, at en aftale om opkrævning af et gebyr ikke mister sin konkurrencebegrænsende karakter, fordi den ikke anvendes af alle medlemmer, men kun af næsten dem alle.
Apart from the fact that only two examples were given, from which it can be deduced that almost all French banks charge a commission, an agreement on the charging of a commission does not cease to be restrictive of competition by virtue of the fact that not all the parties thereto, but only the vast majority of them, apply it.
Desuden vedrører artikel 85, stk. 1, ikke blot aftaler, der har til følge, at konkurrencen begrænses, men også aftaler med et sådant formål.
Moreover, Article 85 (1) is applicable not only to agreements which have as their effect the restriction of competition but also to those which have such a restriction as their object.
Anvendelsen af udtrykket »opkræver« viser klart, at aftalen havde til formål at opkræve et gebyr på eurocheques.
The use of the words 'will charge' shows clearly that the object of the agreement was in fact to charge a commission on Eurocheques.
Aftalens konkurrencebegrænsende karakter var særlig alvorlig fra det tidspunkt, hvor aftalen blev indgiet, og indtil den 25. oktober 1985; men det forhold, at groupement fra sidstnævnte dato opgav de ensartede gebyrer, der hidtil var blevet opkrævet hos de handlende, fjerner ikke Helsinki­aftalens klart konkurrencebegrænsende karakter.
Although the anticompetitive nature of the agree ment was particularly serious at the time of its conclusion and up until 25 October 1985, the fact that as from that date the Groupement abolished the uniform rating hitherto applied to traders docs not make the restriction of competition that the Helsinki agreement represents any less marked.
Aftalen er fortsat en principaftale om opkrævning af et gebyr : en sidan aftale er pr. definition konkurrencebe­grænsende, hvilket Kommissionen ogsi konstate­rede i et andet tilfælde, jf. Kommissionens beslut­ning 87/13/EØF »Association Belge des Banques« (­*).
That agreement has continued ever since to be an agreement on the principle of charging a commission : such an agreement is, by its very nature, restrictive of competition, as the Commission found in Decision 87/13/EEC, Association Beige des Banques (3).
Helsinki­aftalen har desuden — om ikke for samtlige handlende, som det var tilfældet indtil oktober 1985, si i hvert fald for hver enkelt handlende, der er tilsluttet Groupement des cartes bancaires »CB« — skabt en uløselig og fuldstændig urimelig forbindelse mellem betalinger med kort og betalinger med eurocheques, der er to vidt forskellige betalingsmidler.
Moreover, the Helsinki agreement continues to establish, if not for all traders as it did up until October 1985, then at least for each trader affiliated to the Groupement, an indissociable and altogether unjustified link between payment by card and payment by Eurocheque — two profoundly different means of payment.
I sidste instans har det været Helsinki­aftalens formil at piføre de franske handlende de samme omkostninger ved indløsning af eurocheques, som nir kunderne betaler med kort. Dette tiltag har ført til, at betalinger med eurocheques er mindre attraktive for de franske handlende.
In the last analysis, the aim of the Helsinki agreement is to align the price of payment by Eurocheque for French traders on the price of payment by card.
Kombineret med det af de franske banker indførte forbud (nævnt i betragtning 29) mod udstedelse af eurocheques til nationalt brug har aftalen medvirket til at hindre udviklingen af nationale eurocheques i Frankrig.
Combined with the prohibition (referred to at recital 29) imposed by French banks on issuing Eurocheques for domestic use, this agreement has impeded the development of Eurocheques within France as a domestic means of payment.
Helsinki­aftalen er i øvrigt i strid med eurocheque­systemet, siledes som det blev fritaget af Kommis­sionen i 1984, idet det bL·. bygger pi det princip — som Eurocheque selv erkender har bidraget til systemets succes — at modtageren af en euro­cheque fir udbetalt chequens fulde beløb.
Compared with the Eurocheque system as exempted by the Commission in 1984, the Helsinki Agreement appears to be truly at variance with that system, which was based, inter alia, on the principle — which, as Eurocheque acknowledges, has contributed to its success — that the payee of a Eurocheque receives the amount thereof in full.
Der er desuden tale om en aftale om gebyrets stør­relse.
The Helsinki agreement is also an agreement on the amount of commission charged.
I aftalens punkt 3 er det ganske vist anført, at medlemmerne opkræver »et gebyr, der ikke kan være højere end gebyret i forbindelse med beta­linger med Carte bleue og Eurocard«.
Point 3 of the agreement states that members will charge 'a commission which may not be greater than that applicable to payments by Carte bleue and Eurocard'.
Pi denne baggrund har groupement gentagne gange hævdet, at Helsinki­aftalen pi ingen mide er en aftale om gebyrets størrelse.
On the strength of this wording, the Groupe ment has repeatedly asserted that the Helsinki Agreement in no way constitutes such an agree ment.
Men denne tese modsiges af i hvert fald to forhold.
This is contradicted, however, by at least two factors.
For det første stir der i indledningen til aftalen, at de handlende, der er tilsluttet systemet, indløser udenlandske euro­cheques »pi de samme vilkir«, som anvendes af Groupement Cartes bleue og Eurocard. Pi det tids­
Firstly, the opening lines of the agreement state that affiliated traders will accept foreign Euro cheques 'on the same terms' as those of the Groupement Carte bleue and Eurocard. At the time of signature of the agreement, and up until October 1985, those terms were uniform.
Groupement og Eurocheque International gør i denne forbindelse gældende, at Kommissionen havde kendskab til den situation, der fulgte af Helsinki­aftalen, da den vedtog sin beslutning om fritagelse i 1984.
The Groupement and Eurocheque International contend that the Commission was aware of the situation arising from the Helsinki agreement when it adopted Decision 85/77/EEC.
(') Bide i anmeldelsen, i svaret pi den oprindelige meddelelse af klagepunkter, under høringen og i svaret pi den supplerende meddelelse af klagepunkter.
(') Both in che nocificacion and in its reply to the original State ment of Objections, at the hearing and in its reply to the supplementary Scacemenc of Objeccions.
P) Punkt 61 og 99 ι svaret pi meddelelsen af klagepunkter.
O Poincs 61 and 99 of che reply Co che ScatemenC of Objections.
Package Dealaftalen var netop velbegrundet, fordi den byggede på den forudsætning, at den indløsende bank ikke modtog vederlag fra den, der forelagde en eurocheque til betaling, men derimod modtog et provisionsbeløb fra den udstedende bank.
The package deal Agreement was justified precisely because the paying bank received no remuneration from the remittance of the Eurocheque but rather received a commission from the issuing bank.
Helsinki-aftalen, der blev indgået i 1983, ikke blev officielt anmeldt før i 1990, samt at Kommissionen først fik aftalens ordlyd forelagt i august 1989 efter at have insisteret kraftigt derpå.
States sion was not sent a copy of the Agreement until August 1989.
Kommissionen var siledes ikke i stand til at vurdere denne aftale, si længe den ikke havde noget indgiende kendskab til den.
The Commission was therefore unable to assess the agreement for want of an exhaustive knowledge of it.
Den hørte ganske vist om aftalen gennem den franske bankforening i oktober 1984, men det skal understreges, at aftalen kun blev omtalt som »forsøgsvis«, hvilket pi daværende tidspunkt kunne begrænse Kommissionens interesse for at gi mere i dybden med selve aftalens ordlyd.
Admittedly, the Commission did get to hear about the agreement form the AFB in October 1984, but the AFB described it as being 'experimental', and this had the effect of limiting the Commission's interest in gaining more detailed knowledge at that time of ics precise terms.
I øvrigt er Helsinkiaftalens forsøgsvise karakter ikke nævnt i selve aftalens ordlyd, hvor der blot stir, at der efter et ir skal gøres status over erfaringerne med hensyn til gebyrberegningen.
There is, incidentally, nothing in the Helsinki Agreement itself about its being experimental ; all the Agreement says is that the position with regard to rating will be reviewed in a year's time.