natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De adskiller sig ganske vist fra specialbutikker, men denne forskel hindrer ikke
They were, of course, distinct from specialised shops, but the difference was not so big as to prevent consumers from buying goods in specialised shops if large-surface stores charged more.
Vendex og KBB's kombinerede markedsandele ligger på 19-40 % af markederne for produkter som babytøj, damelingeri, bijouteri og lædervarer.
The Council granted three negative clearances in respect of agreements between enterprises in these a transport, soft drinks and dietary products sectors.
Ifølge NMa har parterne dermed ikke en dominerende stilling, da der stadig er tilstrækkelig konkurrence fra andre stormagasiner.
In 1998 the Directorate-General for Trade and Competition initiated four sets of proceedings for infringement of Portugal's competition rules.
Desuden er tærsklerne for adgang til markederne for de omhandlede produkter ikke særlig høje.
They concerned flat glass, the provision of information during stock exchange sessions, the audiovisual sector and dietary products.
NMa har også undersøgt, om Vendex/KBB ville få en dominerende stilling som efterspørger af placeringer for up market produkter.
In the merger control field, the Directorate-General received 29 notifications and authorised 19 of these operations in the following sectors: industry (8), commerce (5) and services (6).
Undersøgelsen viste, at markedet for placeringer fra butikker af type Al er udbyders marked.
Two of them, concerning the industrial sector, were also notified in other Member States.
I betragtning af det begrænsede udbud af disse placeringer og den stigende efterspørgsel fra navnlig butikskæder befinder udbyderne sig i en stærk position.
Thus, one operation, concerning the industrial sector of plant and machinery, was notified in Belgium, Ireland and the United Kingdom, while another, in the chemical industry, was notified in Belgium, Germany, Greece and the United Kingdom.
Selv om Vendex og KBB er stærkt repræsenteret i de store indkøbscentre i Nederlandene, nyder de ingen fordel heraf i forhold til de øvrige butikskæder med hensyn til at erhverve nye placeringer.
The dispute between ARCO and Repsol was sparked off by agreements for the transfer of shares which ARCO Chemicals held in the Puertollano plant owned by a 50/50 joint venture between the two companies.
For den. der lejer udstillingsplads i en butik, er prisen det afgørende kriterium.
It was in this plant that a technique for the joint production of propylene oxide and styrene monomer was developed in the 1960s.
Ingen kan desuden være interesseret i at være fuldstændig afhængig af én stor udlejer.
When it disposed of its interest in 1986, ARCO placed limits on the expansion of production capacity by Repsol.
Pã baggrund af alle disse faktorer besluttede generaldirektøren for NMa at godkende den planlagte fusion uden at opstille betingelser herfor.
Repsol, for its part, lodged a complaint against ARCO before the Competition Service (SDC) and DG IV, arguing that the agreements infringed the Competition Act and Article 81(1).
Konkurrencerådet (»Conselho da Concorrência«) har ikke anvendt EF-retten i 1998.
DGIV closed the file on both cases early in 1998 and the SDC, after having analysed the new agreements and having been informed that both parties were withdrawing their suits, likewise found on 26 February that there was no case to answer in case 1454/96 and on 5 January closed the confidential inquiry in case 1742/97.
I medfør af national ret (lovdekret nr. 371/93 al' 24. oktober 1993) indledte Konkurrencerådet to overtrædelsesprocedurer, den ene vedrørende oprettelsen af en fælles virksomhed (Farmindtistria) mellem den nationale apotekersammenslutning og Stada Arzneimittel.
By decision of 26 May 1997 the Competition Tribunal had decided to adopt the interim protective measure proposed by the SDC at the request of the plaintiff, McLane, consisting in ordering Tabacalera to supply McLane, on nondiscriminatory terms, with tobacco products bearing its trade marks for a period of six months.
AG, med henblik på fremstilling og salg af generiske lægemidler, og den anden vedrørende samordnet praksis iværksat af en gruppe bestående af fire virksomheder i sektoren for medicinsk gas med henblik på en opdeling af markedet.
Tabacalera holds a monopoly on the relevant market, that for the manufacture and sale of tobacco products in Spain, and occupies a de facto dominant position in the wholesale distribution and importation of such products.
Ingen af disse procedurer medførte bødestraf.
The decision was notified to Tabacalera on 29 May 1997.
Konkurrencerådet udstedte endvidere tre negativattester for aftaler mellem virksomheder i sektorerne for søtransport, alkoholfrie drikkevarer og diætetiske produkter.
The SDC informed the Tribunal that the offers and responses in question were the same as those of which it already had cognisance and that, in the absence of any fresh evidence, Tabacalera had to be deemed not to have complied.
I 1998 indledte generaldirektoratet for handel og konkurrence fire procedurer for overtrædelse af de nationale konkurrenceregler. — vedrørende henholdsvis planglas, levering af børsinformation, den audiovisuelle industri og diætetiske produkter.
By decision of 15 July 1998 the Competition Tribunal dismissed the application for interim protective measures submitted by the SDC at the request of FederacioÂn EspanÄola de Hoteles, AgrupacioÂn Hotelera del as Zonas TurõÂsticas de EspanÄa, Sol MeliaÂ SA, Ciga International Hotels Corporation SA, Cigahotels EspanÄa SA and NH Hoteles SA.
Generaldirektoratet modtog 29 fusionsanmeldelser. hvoraf 19 blev godkendt inden for følgende sektorer : industri (8). handel (5) tjenesteydelser (6).
The applicants in this case did not recognise its right to make any charge for the piping of programmes picked up by hotel TV aerials to rooms, as they considered that, in such circumstances, there was no `communication to the public' (Article 20(2)(g)) or `retransmission' (Article 20(2)(f)) of the broadcast
To af disse, vedrørende industrisektoren, blev også anmeldt i andre EU-medlemsstater.
APPLICATION OF THE COMPETITION RULES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION work within the meaning of the Intellectual Property Act, and hence they challenged this interpretation in numerous actions before the ordinary courts.
En fusion i maskin- og udstyrssektoren blev således anmeldt både i Belgien.
The Competition Tribunal found that in this instance the requirements of the establishment of a prima facie case and urgency, which must be fulfilled before interim measures can be ordered, were not met.
Irland og Det Forenede Kongerige, og en anden fusion inden for kemisk industri blev anmeldt i Tyskland. Belgien.
Through these new conditions, Glaxo was trying to curb parallel exports by certain Spanish wholesalers to other EC countries where pharmaceutical prices were higher.
Den britiske konkurrencelov (Competition Act 1998) indeholder ingen bestemmelse om direkte anvendelse af artikel 81 og 82.
The Competition Tribunal, applying the Commission's criteria as confirmed by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Sandoz,256 held that, insofar as the purpose of the new conditions of sale was, as Glaxo had itself acknowledged, to limit exports of proprietary medicinal products from Spain, it had to be determined whether the existence of an infringement of Article 81(1), and hence of a prima facie case, had been sufficiently proven for interim measures to be granted, without prejudice to the final outcome of the main proceedings.
Undersøgelsen i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 84 af den planlagte alliance mellem British Airways og American Airlines fortsatte.
The interim protective measure did not enter into force, however, until December, when the applicants provided the guarantee.
ANVENDELSEN AF KONKURRENCEREGLERNE I DEN EUROPÆISKE UNION melserne i Fair Trading Act. og også Kommissionen havde iværksat en undersøgelse i medfør af artikel 85.
On 14 December the Competition Tribunal held in Ondas Ramblas v AGEDI that no practice prohibited by Article 6 of the Competition Actor by Article 82 of the EC Treaty, such as that which the SDC claimed the Association for the Management of Intellectual Property Rights (AGEDI) had engaged in, had been proved to exist.
1 1998 blev fem programmer, der tog sigte på at bringe forholdene i overensstemmelse med reglerne for genbrug af emballage, godkendt af ministeren efter høring af generaldirektøren.
It considered, therefore, that AGEDI had abused its dominant position on the market for management services in respect of rights held by producers of sound recordings in the transmission of their musical works to the public by radio.
Glaspak Ltd trak sin ansøgning om godkendelse tilbage, efter at generaldirektøren havde meddelt, at det pågældende program ikke opfyldte konkurrencebestemmelserne.
The contract had been negotiated between AGEDI and the Spanish Association for Commercial Broadcasting (AERC), which groups together most private stations.
I Sverige har konkurrencemyndigheden (»Konkurrenceverkct«) ikke mulighed for direkte at anvende artikel 81 og 82.
The Swedish competition authority (Konkurrenceverket) is not empowered to apply Articles 81 and 82.
Regeringen har imidlertid udpeget en ordfører, der skal undersøge spørgsmålet og forelægge en rapport i 1999.
The Government has, however, appointed a rapporteur to look into the question and present a report in 1999.
Blandt de tilfælde, hvor den nationale ret blev anvendt, skal nævnes sagen vedrørende Posten Sverige AB27"7. Denne virksomhed havde anmeldt, at den agtede at anvende en differentieret takst for distribution af store postordrepakker, dels mellem visse lokaliteter indbyrdes og dels mellem visse lokaliteter og resten af det nationale område.
Among the cases of interest involving the application of domestic law, mention may be made of the Posten Sverige AB case.257 Posten Sverige had notified its intention to charge a different rate for the distribution of large commercial consignments according to whether they were sent between certain localities or between certain localities and the rest of Sweden.
Konkurrencemyndigheden mente, at denneforanstaltning kunne udgøre et misbrug af dominerende stilling og forbød den nye takstordning.
The Competition Authority considered that the measure could constitute an abuse of a dominant position and prohibited the new rating method.
Virksomheden appellerede denne afgørelse, og markedsdomstolen (»Marknadsdomstolen«) fastslog, at anmeldelsen af differentierede takster måtte anses for en form for misbrug.
Posten Sverige appealed against the decision to the Market Tribunal (Marknadsdomstolen), which held that the system of charging different rates had to be considered a form of abuse.
Domstolen gjordegældende, at virksomheden havde objektive grunde til at anvende en differentieret takst mellem visselokaliteter og resten af Sverige, men at den ikke havde godtgjort nødvendigheden af differentieredetakster mellem visse lokaliteter.
Although Posten Sverige had objectively justifiable reasons for charging a different rate as between certain localities and the rest of Sweden, it had not established the need for doing soon the basis of cost differences between certain localities.
Markedsdomstolen godkendte derfor den planlagte takstordning for distributionen mellem visse lokaliteter og resten af det nationale omrade, men fastslog, at den anden påtænkte foranstaltning udgjorde et misbrug.
The Tribunal accordingly authorised the rating system proposed by Posten Sverige for deliveries between certain localities and the rest of Sweden, but held that the second measure envisaged constituted an abuse.
I 1997 forelagde konkurrencemyndigheden førsteinstansretten i Stockholm (»Stockholms tingsrätt«) en begæring om forbud mod virksomheden Optirocs (byggematerialer) erhvervelse af kapitalandele i en konkurrerende virksomhed.
In 1997 the Competition Authority submitted to the Stockholm District Court (Stockholms tingsraÈtt) an application for the prohibition of the acquisition by the building materials producer Optiroc of a holding in its competitor StaÊbruken.
De to virksomheder driver hovedsagelig forretning inden for fremstilling af byggematerialer.
Both firms are active mainly in the building materials field.
Konkurrencemyndigheden gjorde gældende, at koncentrationen ville give Optiroc en dominerende stilling med negative følger for konkurrencen, da virksomheden hermed ville være sikret omkring 80 % af visse markeder, og importkonkurrencen var ubetydelig.
The Authority argued that the merger would place Optiroc in a dominant position, which would be harmful to competition as the firm had a share of around 80% of some markets and competition from imports was insignificant.
Retten gav ikke konkurrencemyndigheden medhold og afviste begæringen om forbud mod transaktionen.
The court disagreed and dismissed the application.
Konkurrencemyndigheden appellerede denne afgørelse til markedsdomstolen, som imidlertid bekræftede afgørelsen.
The Authority appealed against the judgment to the Market Tribunal, which nevertheless upheld it.
Domstolen fastslog, at en undersøgelse af en fusionsplan ikke alene skulle omhandle transaktionens direkte virkninger på konkurrencen, men baseres på en global vurdering, hvor der også tages hensyn til andre interesser af særlig stor betydning.
The Tribunal found that a merger investigation should not concentrate solely on the operation's direct effects on competition, but should be based on an overall assessment embracing other particularly important interests.
Markedsdomstolen tog i det konkrete tilfælde hensyn til nødvendigheden af en omstrukturering og det stigende pres fra den internationale konkurrence.
It thus took account in this case of the need for restructuring and the growing pressure from international competition.
Den gjorde desuden gældende, at mulighederne for markedsadgang var tilfredsstillende, og at aftagerne (byggevirksomheder og forhandlere af byggematerialer) rådede over stor købekraft i forhold til leverandørerne (Optiroc).
It also considered that the opportunities for gaining access to the market were satisfactory and that purchasers (building firms and building materials distributors) had considerable buying power vis-aÁ-vis suppliers (Optiroc).
Markedsdomstolen fastslog endvidere, at et omfattende samarbejde i de sydlige Sverige mellem de meget store virksomheder i skovbrugssektoren, Stora, MoDo og Munksjö, inden for rammerne af den fælles indkøbscentral Sydved258, var forbudt ifølge konkurrenceloven og skulle' afvikles hurtigst muligt, inden for den af domstolen fastsatte frist.
The Tribunal also decided that a major cooperative venture in southern Sweden between the leading forest products companies Stora, MoDo and MunksjoÈ, operating through a common purchasing organisation, Sydved,258 was prohibited under the Competition Act and should be quickly dismantled within the period set by the Tribunal.
Samarbejdet, der drejede sig om fælles indkøb af træ til byggeri, havde til følge, at priskonkurrencen mellem de tre virksomheder afskaffedes, og leverandørerne hindredes i at sælge til og kunderne i at købe hos én af de tre virksomheder.
The cooperation involved the joint purchasing of building timber and had the effect of eliminating price competition between the three companies and preventing suppliers from selling to, and customers from buying from, each company individually.
I 1996 havde konkurrencemvndigheden anlagt sag for at få de statslige jernbaner (Statens Järnvägar­SJ) idømt en bøde. fordi virksomheden ved det tilbud, den havde afgivet for at opnå en offentlig kontrakt om drift af' den regionale jernbanetrafik, havde gjort sig skyldig i misbrug af en dominerende stilling. Misbruget bestod primært i fastsættelsen af en for lav pris2
In 1996 the Competition Authority brought an action against Statens JaÈrnvaÈgar (SJ), the state railways operator, on the ground that, through its bid to secure the contract for the operation of the regional rail network, SJ had abused its dominant position.
Førsteinstansretten gjorde for det første gældende, at SJ's samlede driftsomkostninger beløb sig til mere end 30 mio. SEK og de variable omkostninger til mindst 29 mio., og for det andet at SJ ikke kunne undgå at vide. at det afgivne tilbud var lavere end disse beløb.
The Stockholm District Court found, first, that the total operating cost to SJ was more than SEK 30 million, with variable costs of at least SEK 29 million, and secondly that SJ must have known that its bid was lower than those amounts.
Da SJ havde fastsat en pris. der var lavere end virksomhedens variable omkostninger, vurderede førsteinstansretten, at der var grund til at formode, at virksomheden havde sat prisen for lavt med det formål at trænge en eller flere konkurrenter ud af markedet, eller i det mindste alvorligt svække deres stilling.
SJ having quoted a price lower than its variable costs, the Court held that there was a presumption that the operator had quoted too low a price with a view to squeezing one or more competitors out of the market, or at least seriously weakening their position.
Endvidere havde SJ ikke modbevist denne formodning.
Moreover, SJ had not furnished any counter-evidence capable of rebutting that presumption.
Førsteinstansretten fastslog, at SJ ulovligt havde fastsat en for lav­pris og idømte virksomheden en bøde pä 8 mio. SEK. SJ appellerede dommen.
The Court concluded that SJ had unlawfully quoted too low a price and fined it SEK 8 million.
Konkurrencemyndigheden havde anlagt sag mod Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) med påstand om idømmelse af en bøde på 10 mio. SEK. fordi SAS havde nægtet at indgå en interline­aftale med Nordic European Airways (NEA), en meget mindre konkurrent.
The Competition Authority brought an action against Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) and called for it to be fined SEK 10 million for refusing to sign an interlining agreement with Nordic European Airways (NEA), a much smaller competing airline.
Førsteinstansretten imødekom myndighedens anmodning og fastslog, at SAS bevidst havde nægtet at indgå en interline­aftale med NEA med det formal at begrænse konkurrencen, eller at SAS under alle omstændigheder var vidende­om. at afvisningen kunne få konkurrencebegrænsende følger.
The Stockholm District Court found for the Authority, holding that SAS had knowingly refused to conclude an interlining agreement with NEA with the intention of restricting competition or, at least, that SAS knew that its refusal could have the effect of restricting competition.
Førsteinstansretten idømte imidlertid en mindre' bøde end den af myndigheden begærede under henvisning til overtrædelsens korte varighed (omkring 8 måneder) og virkningernes begrænsede karakter.
The Court nevertheless imposed a smaller fine than that called for by the Authority, giving as its reasons the brevity (about 8 months) and limited impact of the infringement.
Både SAS og konkurrencemyndigheden appellerede denne afgørelse til markedsdomstolen.
Both SAS and the Authority have appealed from the judgment to the Market Tribunal.
Konkurrencemyndigheden havde anlagt sag mod sprængstofvirksomheden Nitro Nobel AB med krav om idømmelse af en bøde pá 5 mio. SEK.
The Competition Authority brought an action against explosives manufacturer Nitro Nobel AB and called for it to be fined SEK 5 million.
Myndigheden mente, at virksomheden havde misbrugt sin dominerende stilling ved at give ét handelsselskab bedre betingelser end andre forhandlere for at fjerne importkonkurrencen og ved at binde visse kunder via eksklusive købsaftaler.
The Authority considered that the firm had abused its dominant position, first by granting to one reseller more favourable trade terms than it did to others, and
ANVENDELSEN AF KONKURRENCEREGLERNE I DEN EUROPÆISKE UNION
Application of the Community competition rules by courts in the Member States
Kun 6 medlemsstaters konkurrencemyndigheder (Tyskland.
This section does not include judgments delivered by courts with jurisdiction over decisions of national competition authorities.
Østrig. Frankrig, Italien.
These judgments were mentioned in the previous section (Application of the Community competition rules by national authorities).
Nederlandene og Det Forenede Kongerige) har givet meddelelse om afgørelser truffet af en national domstol tindet­anvendelse af EU's konkurrenceregler eller afgørelser, hvor EF­Domstolen blev anmodet om at afgøre et præjudicielt spørgsmål.
The competition authorities of six Member States only (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) have reported decisions by a national court applying the Community competition rules or referring a question to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
I 1998 tral' de tyske civildomstole følgende afgørelser om anvendelsen af EU's konkurrenceregler, hvorom forbundskartelkontoret blev informeret:
The judgments of the German civil courts applying Community competition law and notified to the Federal Cartel Office are indicated below:
I betragtning af. at denne sag ikke havde hastekarakter, fastslog domstolen, at del ikke ved foreløbig afgørelse var forbudt sagsøgte at påstå, at han ejede tv­rettighederne til visse motorsportskonkurrencer; fremsættelsen af en anmodning om negativattest og/eller fritagelse i medfør af artikel 81. stk. 3. gav ikke anledning til at suspendere proceduren
In view of the lack of urgency of the case, the defendant could not be prohibited by an injunction from claiming that it held certain television rights in motor racing competitions; as an application for negative clearance and/or exemption under Article 81(3) EC had been submitted, a suspension of proceedings was inappropriate.
Sagsøgeren havde ikke ret til at få leveret parfumerivarer, da sagsøgte ikke er omfattet af den pågældende retsregel, og diskrimineringen var berettiget (artikel 26, stk. 2. første og andet punktum, artikel 35 »Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen« GWB, artikel 81, stk. 1. sammenholdt med artikel 823. stk. 2 »Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch« ­ BGB)
The applicant is not entitled to supplies of cosmetic products as the defendant is not subject to the legal provision in question and the discrimination is justified (first and second sentences of Section 26(2) and Section 35 of the Law prohibiting restraints of competition - GWB, Article 81(1) EC, read in conjunction with Article 823(2) of the German Civil Code Ð BGB).
Førsteinstansretten i Berlin, dom af 17.03.1998. réf.: 16 O 642/97 P­072/98
Berlin Regional Court, judgment of 17 March 1998, 16 O 642/97 P-072/98 Langnese-Iglo GmbH, Hamburg Ingeborg Handl, SchoÈnwalde
Det blev ved foreløbig afgørelse forbudt sagsøgte i sin kiosk at sælge konsumis fra andre­producenter end sagsøgeren (artikel 81, stk. 1. artikel 3. litra d) i lovdekret (GVO) nr. 1984/83)
The applicant is prohibited by injunction from selling, at its stand, ice-cream made by manufacturers other than the defendant (Article 81(1) EC; Article 3(d) of Commission Regulation No 1984/83).
Førsteinstansretten i Düsseldorf, dom af 20.03.1998. réf.: 38 O 22/98 P­054/98 Procter & Gamble GmbH. Schwalbach am Taunus AOK Rheinland. Düsseldorf Intet påbud om. at de centrale sygekasser skulle ophøre med at fastsætte faste beløb i medfør af artikel 35 i GWB. artikel 1004 og artikel 823, stk. 2. i BGB sammen med artikel 81. idet fastsættelsen af faste beløb efter den tyske sygesikringslov (SGB V) udgør en suveræn aktivitet (foreløbig afgørelse)
DuÈsseldorf Regional Court, judgment of 20 March 1998, 38 O 22/98 P-054/98 Procter & Gamble GmbH, Schwalbach am Taunus AOK Rheinland, DuÈsseldorf No injunction can be granted under Section 35 of the GWB and Articles 1004 and 823(2) of the German Civil Code, read in conjunction with Article 81 EC, against sickness insurance funds as the determination of fixed amounts under the German Social Security Code (SGB V) constitutes a sovereign act.