natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I et brev dateret den 17. januar 1976 lykønsker Tetra Pak­koncernen Tetra Pak Italiana med selska­bets »tiltag« (activities), for så vidt angår maskinerne ­Resolvo«, »aseptisk Pure­Pak«, »Pure­Pak pasteu­risering« og »Combibloc«.
In a letter dated 17 January 1976, the Tetra Pak group congratulated Tetra Pak Italiana on its activities relating to the Resolvo, aseptic Pure-Pak, pasteurized Pure-Pak and Combiblok machines.
I dene brev henvises der til et telex af 7. januar 1976, der sandsynligvis indeholdt en beskrivelse af disse tiltag.
This letter refers to a telex dated 7 January 1976 which, apparently, described these activities.
De repræsen­tanter for Tetra Pak, der var til stede under dette kontrolbesøg, erklærede, at de ikke længere var i besiddelse af telexet.
The Tetra Pak representatives present during the inspeaion visit claimed that they were no longer in possession of this telex.
Hvad angår de aseptiske Re­solvo­maskincr (udviklet af Buitoni), vil det senere fremgå (nr. (76) til (83)), at Tetra Pak gjorde alt for at forhindre deres afsætning på det italienske mar­ked.
With regard to Resolvo aseptic machines (developed by Buitoni), it will be seen below (recitals (76) to (83)) that Tetra Pak took various steps to prevent their distribution in Italy.
Hvad angår »aseptisk Pure­Pak«, vides det blot, at forsøgene i sin tid på at udvikle aseptiske Pure­Pak maskiner ikke lykkedes.
As regards the Pure-Pak aseptic machines, it is only known that attempts made at the time to develop such machines were unsuccesful.
I beretningerne fra bestyrelsen for Tetra Pak Italiana for 1979 og 1980 gores der generelt opmærksom pi, at der mi bringes betydelige finansielle ofre med hensyn til priser og leveringsvilkår for at tage kam­pen op mod konkurrencen fra navnlig Pure­Pak (jf. nr. (51)).
The reports issued by the board of direaors of Tetra Pak Italiana in 1979 and 1980 referred generally to the need to make major financial sacrifices with regard to prices and conditions of supply in order to fight competition, in particular from Pure-Pak (see recital (52) above).
Efterfølgende beretninger indeholder for
Subsequent reports give details of such sacrifices as regards machines. The 1981,
I en rapport af 4. november 1978 forklarer en ansat ved Tetra Pak Italiana, at han af generaldirektøren
In a report dated 4 November 1978, an employee of Tetra Pak Italiana explained that he had been
(') _BAR_f bilag 6.1 og 6.3 (2) Jf. meddelelsen af klagepunkter, s 52 til 54.
(·) See Annexes VI.l and VI.3. (2) See statement of objections, pp. 52 to 54.
(') Med undtagelse af de ι nr (75) narvnre dokumenter.
) Not including the documents referred to in recital (75).
Jf. nr. (71): brev af 17. januar 1976, hvori Tetra Pak-koncernen lykønsker Tetra Pak Italiana med dets initiativ, for så vidt angår aseptiske Resol-vo-maskiner.
See recital (71 ) above: letter of congratulations dated 17 January 1976 from Tetra Pak to Tetra Pak Italiana on its activities relating to the Resolvo aseptic machines.
Jf. nr. (73): opkøb af fire Systempak /Resol vo-maskiner og en forpligtelse til at tilbagelevere eller til ikke længere at anvende en anden Resolvo-maskinc uden for virksomheden (rapport af 11. december 1981).
See recital (73) above: purchase of four Systempak/Resolvo machines and undertaking to return or no longer use another Resolvo machine outside the premises (report of 11 December 1981).
I et telex af 7. oktober 1981 underretter Tetra Pak-koncernen Tetra Pak Italiana om sin formodning om, at International Paper skulle være i færd med at indlede en aggressiv, verdensomspændende salgskampagne for Resolvo-metoden, som International Paper havde erhvervet fra Buitoni.
In a telex dated 7 Oaober 1981, Tetra Pak advised Terra Pak Italiana of the supposed intention of International Paper to market the Resolvo process, which the latter had just bought from Buitoni, aggressively throughout the world.
Tetra Pak-koncernen fandt det derfor af afgørende strategisk betydning »at få fjernet (»throw out«) samtlige Resolvo-maskiner i Italien« for derved at fratage International Paper ethvert forretningsmæssigt referencegrundlag på dette område.
It therefore considered it strategically important to 'throw out all Resolvo machines in Italy' so as to deny International Paper any trade references in its respea.
Tetra Pak Italiana opfordres derfor til at »prøve at opkøbe maskinerne for at forhindre Resolvo i at placere dem i andre mejerier«.
It consequently asked Tetra Pak Italiana to 'try to buy out the machine to prevent Resolvo from placing them in other dairies'.'
I et brev af 4. december 1981 meddeler Tetra Pak Italiana Tetra Pak-koncernen, at selskabet gør sit bedste for at »få fjernet Resolvo-maskinerne i Italien«, men at der er store vanskeligheder forbundet hermed.
In a letter dated 4 December 1981, Tetra Pak Italiana informed Tetra Pak that it was doing its best to 'throw out Resolvo machines in Italy' but that it was experiencing major difficulties.
Selskabet anmoder Tetra Pak-koncernen om at lægge pres på Kornas Marma, en fælles papirleverandør til både Tetra Pak og Buitoni, for at få dette selskab til at standse leverancerne til Buitoni. Det foreslås, at Tetra Pak-koncernen for eksempel selv opkøber de papirmængder, som Kornas Marma sædvanligvis leverer til Buitoni. Brevet afsluttes med en passage om, at det med en velgennemtænkt taktik vil være muligt at bringe Buitoni i store vanskeligheder. der.
It asked Tetra Pak to exert pressure on Kornas Marma, the supplier of paper to boch Tetra Pak and Buitoni, to stop supplying Buitoni.
Et af punkterne i Elopaks klage angik Tetra Paks reklamevirksomhed i bladet »Il Mondo del Latte«, med hvilket virksomheden havde indgået en aftale om eneret.
On of the points of Elopak's complaint of 27 September 1983 concerned Tara Pak's appropriation of an advertising medium, the journal Il Mondo del Latte, by entering into an exclusive rights agreement.
Det fremgår af korrespondancen herom mellem Elopaks agenter og nævnte blads redaktion og af redaktionens svar på Kommissionens fore spørgsler, at Tetra Pak opnåede om ikke en skriftlig eneretsaftale, så i hvert fald en mundtlig aftale om eneret på reklamer i bladet »Il Mondo del Latte« over en lang periode (mindst hele 1982). I denne periode var det umuligt for Elopak at reklamere i bladet.
From correspondence exchanged on this subjea at the time between Elopak representatives and the association which edited this journal, as well as from the replies given by this association to the Commission's requests for information, it emerges that Tetra Pak did indeed obtain, if not a written, at least an oral exclusive rights agreement covering a long period (at least for 1982) with regard to the journal il Mondo del Latte.
I et brev af 28. oktober 1982 giver Tetra Pak-koncernen Tetra Pak Italiana meddelelse om, at afsætningen af Systempak /Resolvo-metoden ikke ligefrem er »flatterende«.
In a letter dated 28 Oaober 1982, Tetra Pak advised Tetra Pak Italiana that the commercial development of the Systempak/ Resolvo process was not very 'flattering'.
Faktisk er det tænkeligt, at kun Portugal og Italien vil være rimelige markeder, hvor for det er af »vital« betydning, at Tetra Pak Italiana får sat en stopper for denne udvikling i landet og »erstatter« disse maskiner for således at give International Paper »en knusende negativ reference« (»a crushing negative reference«).
Since Portugal and Italy might in faa be the only references, it considered it 'vital' that Tetra Pak Italiana do its utmost to stop the development of these machines in Italy and 'substitute' them in order to give International Paper a 'crushing negative reference'.
I begyndelsen af 1970'erne udviklede selskabet Poligrafico Buitoni en aseptisk cmballeringsteknik kaldet Resolvo.
At the beginning of the 1970s, the company Poligrafico Buitoni developed an aseptic packaging process called the Resolvo System.
Efterfølgende forskning i samarbejde med andre virksomheder udmundede i systemet »Systempak«, hvortil International Paper købte patentet fra Buitoni i 1981.
Subsequent research, carried out in collaboration with other companies, led to the Systempak system, the patent for which was bought from Buitoni by the International Paper Group in 1981.
Det vil fremgå af det efterfølgende, at Tetra Pak på forskellig vis forsøgte at hindre udbredelsen af dette system i Italien og faktisk endte med at opkøbe alle eller næsten alle de Resolvo-maskiner, der var opstillet i mejerierne.
It emerges from what follows that Tetra Pak attempted by various means to prevent the distribution of this system in Italy and indeed managed to purchase all or virtually all the Resolvo machines installed in dairies.
Denne kontrakt har »medført et vist økonomisk tab«, men selskabet mener, at sagen »virkelig har været det værd«, for så vidt som Buitoni har mistet sit eneste grundlag for eventuelle fremtidige forsøg.
This contraa had 'cost a certain financial sacrifice' but it considered that this had been 'really worthwhile' since Buitoni had lost its only point of reference for the possible continuation of tests.
Målsætningen om at få fjernet alle Resolvo-maskiner fra det italienske marked — jf. Tetra Pak-koncernens telex af 7. oktober 1981 (nr. (80) ovenfor) — syntes derfor at være nået.
The aim of removing all Resolvo machines from the Italian market, as defined in the telex from Tetra Pak dated 7 Oaober 1981 (see recital (80)), appeared therefore to have been achieved.
I en rapport dateret den 30. oktober 1975 tales der om muligheden for at tilbyde en nedsat pris på en aseptisk Tetra Pak-maskine for at få Centrale Lane di Perugia til at afstå fra at købe en Resolvo-maskinc. nc.
A report dated 30 Oaober 1975 refers to the possibility of the sale at a reduced price of a Tetra Pak aseptic machine in order to persuade La Centrale Latte di Perugia not to purchase a Resolvo machine.
Efter overtagelsen af Selfpack gjorde Tetra Pak på sin side brug af dette selskabs teknologi til at forbedre sin egen sterilis­eringsteknologi.
But in view of PKL's low level of penetration in Italy, Tetra Pak's Italian subsidiaries have apparently experienced very few cases of direa or concrete competition from PKL.
Tetra Pak trak efter opkøbet af Selfpack alle eller næsten alle Selfpacks produkter ud af markedet.
also developed, in collaboration with Buitoni, a brick­type carton and an aseptic packaging system.
Selfpacks omsætning, da Tetra Pak overtog det, lå på 1,4 mia. øsch. (64,1 mio. ECU).
Buitoni would later find inspiration in this system when developing its Resolvo system.
Adskillige dokumenter viser, at der blev fulgt nøje med ι PKI.'s udvikling, formodentlig fordi PKL nu var Tetra Paks eneste reelle konkurrent inden for aseptisk emballering.
Terra Pak, having bought Sei f ρ ack, used the company's technology to improve its own sterilization technology.
Men som følge af PKL's svage markedsandel i Italien oplevede Tetra Pak­koncer­nens italienske datterselskaber øjensynligt ikke nogen direkte og konkret konkurrence fra PKL i ret mange tilfælde.
The group subsequently withdrew Selfpack produas from the market. Selfpack's turnover at the time it was taken over by Terra Pak was ÖS 1,4 billion (ECU 64,1 million).
I 1982 overtog Tetra Pak Zupack, en tysk konkur­rent, der ligeledes fremstillede en karton svarende til Tetra Paks Brik­karton, og som havde udviklet eller var i færd med at udvikle en aseptisk emballerings­metode.
In 1982, Tetra Pak took over Zupack, a German competitor, which also produced a carton similar to Tetra Pak's brick carton and had also developed or was developing an aseptic packaging process.
Efter Tetra Paks overtagelse standsede Zupack sin virksomhed inden for denne sektor, og selskabets maskiner forsvandt fra markedet.
After its takeover by Tetra Pak, Zupack ceased its operations in this field and its machines disappeared from the market.
Zu­packs omsætning lå ifølge Tetra Pak på 2,6 mio. DM ι 1981 (1,03 mio. ECU).
Zupack's turnover, according to Tetra Pak, was DM 2,6 million in 1981 (ECU 1,03 million).
Den 7. november 1978 udfærdiger en sælger for Tetra Pak Italiana en rapport om de afgivne tilbud i forbindelse med en licitation over køb af en maskine til et offentligt mejeri, hvor Tetra Pak står over for PKL og IBP.
On 7 November 1978, a Tetra Pak Italiana salesman reported on the offers submitted as part of an invitation to tender for the purchase of a machine by a public dairy where Tetra Pak had found itself in competition with PKL and IBP.
Tetra Pak er rede til at sænke sin pris, men kun i et relativt begrænset omfang (fra (...) mio. til (...) mio. lire).
Tetra Pak was prepared to reduce its price, but only within fairly tight limits (from Lit [...] to [...] million).
Derimod viser dokumentet, at samme sælger forsøger at øve indflydelse på det pågældende licitationsudvalg.
However, the document shows that this salesman attempted to influence the committee responsible for awarding the contraa.
I 1986 overtog Tetra Pak kontrollen med Liquipak, en af konkurrenten Elopaks store leverandører.
In 1986, Tetra Pak took control of Liquipak, one of the main suppliers of its rival Elopak.
Liquipak havde eksklusiv patent­ og knowhow­li­cens på en ny aseptisk emballeringsteknologi bereg­net til kartoner af typen Gable Top.
Liquipak held a patent and exclusive know­how licence for a new aseptic packaging technique intended for gable­cop cartons.
Denne teknologi var blevet udviklet i samarbejde med Elopak.
This technology had been developed in collaboration with Elopak.
Efter Tetra Paks overtagelse af kontrollen blev licensen overdraget til Tetra Pak, som ligeledes blev leveran­dør til sin største konkurrent.
By taking control in chis way, Tecra Pak took over the licence and also became the supplier of its main competitor.
På tidspunktet for Tetra Paks overtagelse havde Liquipak en omsæt­ning på 9,9 mio. US $ (10,1 mio. ECU) (1986).
At the time of its takeover by Tetra Pak, Liquipak's turnover was US$ 9,9 million (ECU 10,1 million) (1986).
B. RETLIG VURDERING
B. LEGAL ASSESSMENT
I et telex af 23. april 1982 meddeler Tetra Pak­kon­cernen Tetra Pak Italiana, at selskabet ICA i Bolo­gna forsøger at udvikle en maskine i stil med Tetra Paks aseptiske maskiner, og at det tilsyneladende ønsker at indgå et vist samarbejde.
In a telex dated 23 April 1982, Tetra Pak informed Tetra Pak Italiana that the company ICA of Bologna was attempting to develop a machine similar to Tetra Pak's aseptic machines and that it appeard to be seeking cooperation.
Koncernen kon­kluderer, at den ikke kan forestille sig, at det kan være »i Tetra Paks interesse at søge et samarbejde, men at man derimod bør søge at forhindre enhver konkurrence«.
The group concluded that it could not imagine that it would be 'in Tetra Pak's interests to seek collaboration', but that it would be of benefit 'to hinder resolutely any competition'.
Berørte Markeder
Relevant markets
Koncernen konkluderer, at »det vil være latter­ligt at føre en slags priskrig, hvis ingen af parterne — bonset fra kunderne! — drager fordel deraf«.
It concluded that it would be 'ridiculous to have some kind of price war, if neither party — except the customer! — gets an advantage'.
Tetra Pak opererer på de fire »aseptiske« og »ikke­aseptiske« markeder for maskiner og kartoner, jf. nr. (11).
Tetra Pak operates on the four markets of aseptic and non­aseptic machines and cartons, as described in paragraph (II) of this Decision.
Overtagelse af konkurrende selskaber
Takeover of rival companies
I 1970 overtog Tetra Pak­koncernen Selfpack, en østrigsk producent af emballagemateriale. Selfpack
In 1970, Tetra Pak took over Selfpack, an Austrian manufacturer of packaging equipment. Selfpack had
Årsagerne til, at Kommissionen har valgt denne definition på de berørte maskiner og produkter, er der nøje redegjort for i nr. (29) til (39) i den allerede nævnte beslutning Tetra Pak I (BTG), hvortil der
The reasons which have led the Commission to adopt this definition of the relevant markets were explained in detail at points 29 to 39 of the abovementioned Tetra Pak I (BTG) Decision, to
92 given virksomhed udnytter sin sryrke på marke­det (5), og det er derfor den kone sigt, der skal danne grundlag for vurderingen.
92 operative time during which a given company exercises its power on the market (5) and, consequently, on which one must concentrate in order to assess that power.
(95) henvises (')· D*?' fremgår heraf, at selv om så forskel­lig emballagetyper som glasflasker, plasticflasker, plasticposer, metaldåser, aseptiske kartoner, ikke­aseptiske kartoner osv. indgår i det, der sæd­vanligvis og overordnet set kaldes emballagemarke­det for flydende levnedsmidler, udgør dette marked ikke »det berørte marked« i henseende til artikel 86, da disse forskellige emballagetyper kun konkurrerer med hinanden på lang sigt (2).
(95) which reference should be made ('). It emerges from these explanations that, although types of packaging as diverse as glass bottles, plastic bottles, plastic bags, metal tins, aseptic cartons, nonaseptic cartons, etc., form part of what is commonly known in the broad sense of the term as the packaging market for the liquid foods, this is not the 'relevant market' within the meaning of Article 86, since these different types of packaging compete with each other only in the long term (2).
På kon sigt, og sandsynligvis også på mellemlang sigt, er udbuds­ og efterspørgsclsbetingelseme således, at produkternes substitutionselasticitet i forhold til priserne nærmest er nul.
In the short, and probably even the medium term, the conditions of supply and demand are such that the elasticity of substitution for produas in relation to prices is almost zero.
Det er på grund af den sammenblanding af disse økonomiske tidshorisonter, at Tetra Pak anlægger det synspunkt, at der findes ét stort marked, som omfatter samtlige eksisterende former for emballage til flydende levnedsmidler, og det uanset hvilket materiale der anvendes (glas, plastic, karton osv.)(*).
It is confusion about such operative times which has led Tetra Pak to take the view that there is one vast market taking in all existing forms of packaging for liquid foods, irrespeaive of the material from which they are made (glass, plastic, cardboard, etc.) (6).
Når én type emballagemateriale substitue­res med en anden rype, skyldes det imidlertid hoved­sagelig ændringer i forbrugsmønstrene, og som Tetra Pak i øvrigt også selv har erkendt i sit svar på meddelelsen af klagepunkterne, så er disse ændringer resultatet af en langvarig proces.
However, the replacement on the market of one type of packaging material by another is essentially the result of changes in consumer habits which, as Terra Pak moreover acknowledges in its reply to the statement of objeaions, is clearly a longterm process.
På kort sigt er, jf. forklaringen ovenfor, de forskellige ryper emballage til flydende levnedsmidler — under hensyntagen til de karakteristiske træk for produkternes udbud og efterspørgsel — ikke »fuldstændig usubstituerbare«, men dog kun substituerbare »i begrænset omfang«. Dette er i god overensstemmelse med Domstolens retspraksis, i henhold til hvilken der ikke nødvendig­vis skal være en total mangel på substituerbarhed for at kunne tale om særskilte markeder (7).
During a short period, however, it has been explained above that the possibility of substituting the various types of liquid-foods packaging for each other, given the nature of supply and demand for such produas, is not non-existent but rather very small, which tallies well with the concepts enshrined in the case law of the Court, which in no case requires the total absence of substitutabiliry for separate markets to exist (7).
På efterspørgselssiden kan denne ubetydelige substi­tutionselasticitet forklares ved emballeringens margi­nale andel af flydende levnedsmidlers detailsalgs­pris (3) og forbrugernes forholdsvis uforanderlige smagspræferencer på kort sigt.
At the level of demand, this low elasticity of substitution can be explained by the marginal share accounted for by packaging in the retail price of liquid foods (3) and by the fairly high stability of consumer preferences over a short period.
På udbudssiden skyl­des den manglende elasticitet hovedsagelig de finan­sielle investeringsomkostninger, som producenten eller emballeringsvirksomhcden pådrager sig ved at overgå fra én type emballage til en anden, problemet med oplæring i den nye teknologi og eventuelle konsekvenser for afsætningen (4), hvilket alt sammen skal ses på baggrund af den meget ringe substitu­tionselasticitet på efterspørgselssiden.
At the level of supply, it can be traced essentially to the financial cost to the producer/packager of the investment involved in changing over from one type of packaging to another, the acquisition of technological know-how needed and the repercussions for marketing (4), particularly, for all these faaors, in view of the very low substitution elasticity of demand.
Kommissionen benægter ikke, at producenterne i et vist omfang kan fremskynde eller bremse en ændring i forbrugsmønstrene ved på forskellig vis at påvirke forbrugerens valg af emballage, men som Tetra Pak på ny erkender (8), drejer det sig også her om en »kostbar« og »langvarig« proces, »som kan strække sig over adskillige år«, og hvis resultat bestemt ikke kan forudses.
The Commission does not deny that producers can to a certain extent hasten or delay che evolvemenc of consumer habics chrough measures aimed at influencing the consumer in his choice of packaging bue, as Tetra Pak again acknowledges (8), this is a
På et givet tidspunkt med bestemte tekniske mulighe­der og bestemte forbrugerpræferencer må de forskel­lige emballagetyper og det dertil svarende udstyr — som ofte er knyttet sammen med bestemte teknolo­gier — anses for særskilte markeder med egne udbuds­ og efterspørgselsbetingelser.
In a given situation of technology and consumer preferences, therefore, it must be considered that the various types of packaging and associated equipment, often requiring their own technology, form distina markets responding to their respeaive conditions of supply and demand.
Det er derfor i denne sammenhæng ligegyldigt, om emballeringen er en af de eneste kontrollerbare omkostninger (»influenceable costs«) for den virk­
It does not therefore matter whether che packaging is one of the few costs that the producer/packager of the liquid can influence: in view of 'che inelasticity of
Grunden til, at den analyse, der skal bidrage til at definere markedet, efter Kommissionens opfattelse skal tage udgangspunkt i en periode af kort varig­hed, er, at strukturerne ændrer sig på lang sigt under indflydelse af den teknologiske udvikling og nye forbrugsvaner, og grænserne mellem de forskellige markeder flytter sig.
The reason why the Commission considers that the analysis used to define a market should cover only a short period is that over a long period, during which techological progress may occur and consumer habits' evolve, structures will change and the very boundaries between the various markets shift.
Det er den korte sigt, der er det økonomisk relevante tidsrum, inden for hvilket en
A short period corresponds more to the economic
1990, s. 11­347), har den ikke beskæftigt sig med definitionen af de berene markeder og ej heller med Tetra Paks stilling pi disse markeder. (Se navnlig præmis 12 og 13 i dommen).
II 347), it did not consider the question of the definition of the relevant markets nor that of Terra Pak's position on those markets (see in particular points 12 and 13 of the said Judgment).
(2) I økonomisk betydning. (3) Ca.
(2) In the economic sense of the terms.
10 % for mælk, men endnu mindre for andre flydende
(3) Some 10 % for milk, and even less for most other liquid foods.
I lobet af proceduren har Terra Pak imidlenid bevæget sig fra en definition pi det relevante marked, der mindede om, men var mere snæver end Kommissionens definition, til denne helt modsatte definition.
During the proceeding, Terra Pak has shifted from one definition of the relevant market, similar to, but more restrictive than, that of the Commission, to this opposite definition.
(8) Skriftlig svar pi meddelelsen af klagepunkter, navnlig S 7.3.15 levnedsmidler.
(8) Written reply to the statement of objections, sections 7.3.15. and 7.3.16.