natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Parlamentet har imidlertid nu vedtaget lov nr. 24/2002, hvorefter regeringen kan påbegynde oprettelsenaf en konkurrencemyndighed, som skal påbegynde arbejdet i 2003 med det formål at sikre konkurrencereglernes overholdelse under hensyntagen til markedseffektiviteten, ressourceallokeringen og forbrugernes interesser. Denne retsakt betyder, at der i den nærmeste fremtid kan forventes store ændringer i destrukturer, der er kompetente til at anvende konkurrencereglerne.
DSD is the only nationwide system for the return and disposal of sales packaging,whereby firms are exempt from their individual waste disposal obligations under environmental law.The Federal Cartel Office is examining whether the system as a whole, including the DSD’s articlesof association, agreements between licence-holders and the DSD on the use of its trademark andservice agreements between DSD and waste disposal firms, is compatible with Section 1 of the Act Prohibiting Restraints of Competition (GWB) and Article 81(1) EC.
Konkurrenceloven blev ændret pr. 1. august 2002 som følger:
In the reporting period, the following ruling relating to the EU competition rules was handed down by the Federal Supreme Court.
Privatpersoner har nu større mulighed for at inddrive retsomkostninger i sager, hvor konkurrencemyndigheden erpart.
The Federal Supreme Court referred the case against Scandlines Deutschland GmbH back to the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court for a new hearing and decision.
I år 2002 blev de mere vidtrækkende fortrolighedsbestemmelser for myndighedens undersøgelser afovertrædelser af konkurrenceloven indføjet i loven om fortrolighed, bl.a. for at beskytte oplysningertilvejebragt af privatpersoner.
The latter had overturned the Federal Cartel Office’s decision of 21 December 1999 prohibiting Scandlines, pursuant to Section 19(4)(4) of the Act Prohibiting Restraints of Competition (GWB) and Article 82 EC, from refusing two competing ferrycompanies shared use of the port facilities at Puttgarden in return for an appropriate fee, for not beingsufficiently specific.
Som følge af ændringerne af konkurrenceloven vedrørende bøder udstedte myndigheden generelleretningslinjer for bødenedsættelse og -fritagelse (KKVFS 2002:1).
The Supreme Court ruled, on the Federal Cartel Office’s appeal, that the conditionsfor access to the port did not have to be laid down in the prohibition decision, but that the Federal Cartel Office could give further details on the obligations of the dominant firm if necessary.
Enterprise Act blev kongeligt stadfæstet i 2002, men bestemmelserne træder først i kraft i 2003.
During the period under review, the Competition Commission initiated proceedings with a view toadopting a decision on a complaint brought by pharmacists and pharmacists’ cooperatives against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for unfairly refusing to sell certain medicines (Case 229/III/2003).
Med hensyn til fusionskontrollen skal Enterprise Act erstatte fusionsbestemmelserne i Fair Trading Act1973.
The casewas examined in conjunction with a request by GSK for negative clearance under Article 11 of Act 703/77 of its distribution system from the standpoint of both national and Community law andcompetition.
Med hensyn til karteller indføres der med Enterprise Act en strafferetlig forseelse for personer, som på uærligvis deltager i kartelaftaler, ligesom OFT får beføjelse til at diskvalificere ledelsesmedlemmer, der overtræderkonkurrencelovgivningen.
The Court was also asked to rule on whether a national competition authority has to apply the Community competition rules in the same manner to markets which operate competitively and to thoseon which competition is distorted through government intervention.
Der oprettes en ny appelret for konkurrence — adskilt fra Competition Commission — som skal afgøre erstatningskrav ved overtrædelse af såvel britisk konkurrencelov som EU-retten, ligesom beføjelserne til at henvise undersøgelser til Competition Commission revideres.
If the Court were to take the viewthat the restriction of parallel trade for the above reasons does not constitute an abuse where practised bya company holding a dominant position, it was invited to state what criteria should be taken into accountin assessing any abuse.
Maître Tambue, advokat i Arlon, anfægtede forskellige regler vedtaget af det belgiske advokatsamfund,Ordre national des avocats, og/eller lokale advokatsammenslutninger vedrørende adgangen til at udøveerhverv som advokat, som klager mente udgjorde konkurrencebegrænsende praksis, særlig reglen om at
The Competition Tribunal ruled that DISA Red de Servicios Petrolíferos SA, a company engaged in thewholesale distribution of petroleum products in the Canary Islands, had by its behaviour infringed Article 1(1) of the Competition Act (Act 16/1989 of 17 July 1989, Official Gazette of 18.7.1989, asamended by Act 52/99 of 28 December 1999, Official Gazette of 29.12.1999) and Article 81(1)(b) of the EC Treaty.
115 skulle være i besiddelse af et certifikat for adgang til erhvervet (det såkaldte CAPA-certifikat) (
The restrictive practices consisted in the inclusion in the exclusive concession contracts withservice station proprietors in the Canary Islands of clauses that were prohibited by Regulation (EEC)No 1984/83 and Royal Decree 157/92 granting block exemptions, for example: excessive duration ofcontracts, obligation to sell only DISA lubricants, imposition of retail prices for fuels and lubricants,right of DISA to inspect the service stations, and an explicit ban on industrial activities not authorised by DISA.
Konkurrencerådet erklærede sig kompetent til at undersøge, om advokatsamfundets regler stred modkonkurrencereglerne.
The Tribunal ordered DISA to cease applying the prohibited clauses, bring its contracts into line with theprovisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/99 of 29 December 1999, and pay a fine of EUR 300 000.
Det horisontale aftalekompleks, der ligger til grund for »Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland AG« (DSD), er genstand for en undersøgelse efter EF-traktatens artikel 81. DSD er deteneste landsdækkende system for indsamling og bortskaffelse af emballage, som virksomhederne kan
In its ruling, the Competition Tribunal found only that Telefónica had infringed Article 6 of the Competition Act by abusing its dominant position through including in the contract for the Megavia ADSL service illegal clauses that could mislead consumers into preferring that service to those offeredby other Internet service providers.
Det fremgår af bilaget, hvilke nationale konkurrencemyndigheder, der er kompetente til at anvende EF-traktatensartikel 81 og 82.
The proceedings were initiated in response to a complaint brought by a number of service stations in the Balearic Islands against Repsol Comercial de Productos Petroliferos SA for restrictive clauses in its fuelsupply contracts.
I dette afsnit omtales også de domme, der er afsagt af domstole, der har skullet tage stilling tillovligheden af de afgørelser, der er truffet af en national konkurrencemyndighed.Se også XXVIII Beretning om Konkurrencepolitikken 1998, s. 184.
It alsoconsidered that Article 1 of the Competition Act had been infringed by a set of practices aimed atextending the maximum duration allowed by Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 and Royal Decree 157/92 inthe case of certain contracts concluded with service stations.
TDC fandt, at den første indklagede adfærd allerede var genstand for dens afgørelse nr. 490/00 af11. juli 2001, hvorfor den ikke kunne undersøges på ny.
In its decision, the Tribunal stated that the first conduct of which the defendant was accused had alreadybeen assessed in its judgment 490/00 of 11 July 2001 and could not be re-examined.
For så vidt angår den anden indklagede praksis,fandt domstolen, at denne ikke var tilstrækkeligt underbygget.
The secondaccusation was not sufficiently established.
Sagsnr. 510/01 Fujifilm
Case 510/01 Fujifilm
Sagen vedrørte en klage fra SAFEX´80 S.L. over Fujifilm España S.A. for konkurrencebegrænsendepraksis i form af forsøg på at begrænse paralleleksport.
The case involved a complaint by Safex´80 S.L. against Fujifilm España SA for restricting competitionby acting to limit parallel exports.
Konkurrencestyrelsen (SDC) fandt, at der varovertrædelse af EF-traktatens artikel 81, stk. 1, i form af forskellige forsøg på at begrænse paralleleksportfra SAFEX´80 af to røntgenprodukter af mærket FUJI, dels fra Fujifilm España S.A.’s side, dels framoderselskabets side, Fuji Photo Film (Europe). Konkurrencedomstolen (TDC) erklærede, at påstanden
The Competition Service took the view that Fujifilm España SA and itsparent company Fuji Photo Film (Europe) had infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty by engaging invarious practices designed to limit parallel exports of two Fuji brand radiography products by Safex’80.The Tribunal ruled that the infringements of Article 81(1) were not proven and stated that the facts hadnot been assessed correctly, neither was the legal assessment adequate to establish that there was aconvergence of wills between Fujifilm España SA and Fuji Photo Film (Europe) with the intention ofpreventing or restricting parallel exports of the products in question.
Klagen vedrørte det forhold, at Tabacalera i 1996 skulle have nægtet at levere sine egne tobaksmærker til McLane España S.A., hvilket kunne være en overtrædelse af artikel 6 i den spanske konkurrencelov og EF-traktatens artikel 86.
The complaint focused on Tabacalera’s refusal in 1996 to supply its own brands of manufactured tobaccoto McLane España SA, thereby allegedly infringing Article 6 of the Competition Act and Article 86 ofthe EC Treaty.
Konkurrencedomstolen (TDC) traf flere gange sikrende foranstaltninger ogpålagde Tabacalera at levere til McLane, afgørelser, der efterfølgende blev indbragt for Audiencianacional (klagenævnet).
The Tribunal issued interim measures on several occasions, ordering Tabacalera to supply McLane, but these were successively appealed against before the Audiencia Nacional.
Efter at der var truffet afgørelse om de foreløbige foranstaltninger, fandt TDC isin kendelse, at Tabacalera havde overtrådt forbuddet i konkurrencelovens artikel 6 ved at nægte at leveretobak af sine egne mærker til McLane España.
After settling thepreliminary issues, the Tribunal ruled that Tabacalera had engaged in unlawful conduct prohibited by Article 6 of the Competition Act by refusing to supply McLane España with its own brands ofmanufactured tobacco.
Tabacalera (som nu hedder Altadis) idømtes en bøde på 3mio. EUR i TDC’s afgørelse af 24. april 2002.
In its judgment of 24 April, the Tribunal imposed a EUR 3 million fine on Tabacalera (now Altadis).
2.Andre klager om overtrædelse af EF-traktatens artikel 81 og 82 behandlet af konkurrencestyrelsen (SDC)
2.Other complaints alleging infringement of Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty examined by the Competition Service
Sagsnr. Expte SDC 2204/00: Sammenslutninger af Tankstationsejere mod virksomheder under koncernerne REpsol, Cepsa, BP Oil og CLH.
Case SDC 2204/00 Associations of service station proprietors v companies belonging to the Repsol and Cepsa groups, BP Oil and CLH
I alt fire klager om overtrædelse af den spanske konkurrencelov og EF-traktatens artikel 81 og 82 blevsamlet i en forenet sag om følgende konkurrencebegrænsende praksis:
A total of four complaints against alleged infringements of the Competition Act and Articles 81 and 82 ofthe EC Treaty were grouped together in a case involving the following restrictive practices:
Anvendelse af underbudspriser fra Repsol’s, Cepsa’s og BP’s side, hvorved faktiske prisstigningerpå råolie på verdensmarkedet ikke kom til udtryk i de endelige priser i deres respektive net aftankstationer.
predatory pricing by Repsol, Cepsa and BP, which did not pass on in final prices to the servicestations belonging to their networks the real increases in the cost of crude oil on the internationalmarket;
Anvendelse af diskriminerende priser over for visse brændstofgrossister og de vertikalt integreredeolieselskabers nægtelse af at levere til uafhængige tankstationsejere.
discriminatory pricing in the wholesale distribution of petroleum products and the refusal by thevertically integrated oil companies to sell to independent operators;
Anvendelse af diskriminerende priser i detailleddet over for visse endelige kunder i form af rabatter,egne betalingsmidler og andre fremgangsmåder.
discriminatory pricing in retail distribution to certain final customers by means of discounts, the useof own means of payment and other instruments.
EF-traktatens artikel 81 og/eller 82 syntes at kunne finde anvendelse på den nævnte praksis under punkt 2og anden påstået adfærd fra CLH’s side.
The view was taken that the conduct referred to in (2) above and other restrictive practices atributed to CLH were caught by Articles 81 and/or 82 of the EC Treaty.
Klagen vedrørte TSA’s nægtelse af at forsyne McLane med sine egne produkter, tilstedeværelsen afkonkurrenceklausuler i TSA’s kontrakter med forhandlerne, formodning om en hemmelig aftale inden for
The Competition Service was aware that the Commission was examining competitive conditions in the wholesale distribution of motor and heatingfuels to independent operators by vertically integrated refineries in several Member States, including
325 tobaksindustrien for at hindre videreleverancer gennem McLane, og TSA’s deltagelse i konkurrerendevirksomheder, som kunne give anledning til restriktive horisontale aftaler, hvilket ville være overtrædelser af den spanske konkurrencelovs artikel 1 og 6 samt EF-traktatens artikel 81 og 82.
The complaint related to Tabacalera’s refusal to supply its products to McLane, the existence ofexclusivity clauses in Tabacalera’s contracts with its distributors, alleged collusion in the tobaccoindustry to prevent distribution via McLane, and the stake held by Tabacalera in competing companies,allegedly giving rise to restrictive horizontal agreements, and claimed that all these practices infringed Articles 1 and 6 of the Competition Act and Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty.
Det første punkt falder sammen med genstanden for konkurrencedomstolens (TDC) afgørelse nr. 486/00af 24. april 2002.
The first accusation relates to behaviour covered by the judgment handed down by the Competition Tribunal on 24 April 2002 in Case 486/00.
For de resterende punkter erklærede konkurrencestyrelsen (SDC), at den ikke kunne vurdere, hvorvidtder forelå en overtrædelse hverken af EF-traktatens artikel 81 eller af konkurrencelovens artikel 1 for såvidt angår tilstedeværelsen af konkurrenceklausuler i TSA’s kontrakter med forhandlerne, da TSA på Kommissionens anmodning havde fjernet de pågældende klausuler fra de aftaler, som TSA havdeanmeldt til Kommissionen.
As regards the other heads of complaint, the Competition Service stated that there was no need for it toexamine the exclusivity clauses in Tabacalera’s contracts with its distributors in the light of Article 81 ofthe EC Treaty or Article 1 of the Competition Act since Tabacalera had, at the Commission’s demand,removed those clauses from the agreements it had notified to the latter.
Konkurrencestyrelsen anlagde også dette synspunkt for så vidt angår de horisontale aftaler indgåetmellem TSA og Philip Morris, da de efter anmeldelse til Kommissionen blev ændret, så de konkurrencebegrænsende komponenter blev fjernet.
It took the same view with regard to the horizontal agreements concluded by Tabacalera and Philip Morris, since after they had been notified to the Commission the restrictive clauses had been removedfrom the agreements.
For så vidt angår tilstedeværelse af aftaler inden for tobaksindustrien med det formål at hindre McLANE’s forhandling af produkterne, kunne dette ikke underbygges.
The claim that the tobacco industry had entered into agreements to prevent its products being distributedby McLane was not proven.
TSA’s deltagelse i kapitalen ikonkurrerende virksomheder kunne heller ikke erklæres uforenelig med hverken konkurrencelovensartikel 1 eller EF-traktatens artikel 81.
Neither was the stake held by Tabacalera in the capital of competingcompanies regarded as incompatible with Article 1 of the Competition Act or Article 81 of the EC Treaty.
Klagerne vedrørte formodet konkurrencebegrænsende adfærd under overtrædelse af den spanske konkurrencelovs artikel 1 og 6 samt EF-traktatens artikel 81 og 82 i form af anvendelse af diskriminerendepriser for lastning, losning, stuvning og diverse containerhandlingsydelser i Alicantes havn.
The complaint related to alleged restrictive practices infringing Articles 1 and 6 of the Competition Actand Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, consisting in the application of discriminatory charges for vesselloading and unloading services and other container handling operations in the port of Alicante.
SDCerklærede efter sin undersøgelse, at hverken konkurrencelovens artikel 1 eller EF-traktatens artikel 81kunne finde anvendelse, idet klagen vedrørte ensidig praksis fra en virksomheds side i fastsættelsen afpriser for virksomhedens egne ydelser. Artikel 6 og artikel 82 kunne heller ikke finde anvendelse, idetservicevirksomheden ikke havde en dominerende stilling på det relevante marked.
Afterinvestigating the facts, the Competition Service found that the practices complained of were not caughtby Article 1 of the Competition Act and Article 81 of the EC Treaty, since they related to the unilateralbehaviour of an enterprise in establishing the prices for its services; neither were Article 6 of the Competition Act and Article 82 of the EC Treaty applicable, because the undertaking did not hold adominant position on the relevant market.
Ved beslutning nr. 02-MC-2002 af 15. maj 2002 afviste konkurrencemyndigheden anmodningen omsikrende foranstaltninger fremført af SA Pharma Lab. Denne virksomhed havde anmodet myndighedenom at påbyde selskaberne Pfizer, Lilly France og GlaxoSmithkline fortsat at levere de produkter, som denbestilte med henblik på salg til eksport.
By decision No 02-MC-2002 of 15 May, the Competition Council dismissed an application for interimmeasures presented by SA Pharma Lab.
BERETNING OM ANVENDELSEN AF KONKURRENCEREGLERNE I DEN EUROPÆISKE UNION var til stede (navnlig eksistensen af alvorlig og umiddelbar skade for økonomien) og afviste Pharmajetsappel.
The Paris Appeal Court ruled thatthe necessary conditions for the adoption of interim measures (in particular, the existence of a serious,immediate threat to the economy) were not fulfilled and dismissed Pharmajet’s appeal.
I løbet af 2002 afsluttede den italienske konkurrencemyndighed (Autorità garante della concorrenza)undersøgelserne af to sager (International Mail Express mod Poste Italiane og Blugas Snam), der varindledt under EF-traktatens artikel 82, ligesom myndigheden indledte yderligere en sag, også underartikel 82 (Enel Trade-Clienti Idonei), som endnu ikke er afsluttet.
During the period under review, the Competition Authority terminated its investigation of two cases(International Mail Express v Poste Italiane and Blugas Snam), which had been instituted under Article 82 of the EC Treaty, and started proceedings, also under Article 82, in a further case (Enel Trade— eligible customers), which is still pending.
Den første procedure blev indledt efter klager fra en række kurérvirksomheder, som Poste Italiane villehindre i at udøve grænseoverskridende postydelser i Italien.
The first set of proceedings was initiated following complaints by several express delivery firms that Poste Italiane was acting to prevent the transmission of crossborder mail in Italy.
Undersøgelsen viste, at Poste Italiane havdegennemført en systematisk politik for at opfange store mængder post, som kom til Italien fra udlandet,uden at skelne mellem sager vedrørende såkaldt ABA-videreforsendelse (dvs. forsendelse af breve ogfakturaer på vegne af en italiensk operatør til adresser i Italien, men via et andet land) og almindeliggrænseoverskridende posttrafik.
The investigationrevealed that Poste Italiane had implemented a systematic policy of intercepting consignments of largevolumes of mail entering Italy from abroad, without distinguishing between cases of ‘ABA’ remailing(i.e. the posting of letters and invoices on behalf of an Italian operator and to addressees in Italy but via aforeign country) and ordinary crossborder mail traffic.
Især blev det konstateret, at Poste Italiane havde udvist ulovlig adfærda) ved at blokere udenlandsk korrespondance på udvekslingskontorerne og anvende vilkårlige metoder ibehandlingen af den opfangede post.
It was found in particular that Poste Italiane hadengaged in unlawful conduct (i) by blocking foreign correspondence at the offices of exchange and usingarbitrary methods for dealing with the intercepted mail.
Der havde været tilfælde, hvor meddelelsen til afsender om denopfangede post var blevet forsinket og opfanget post åbnet og destrueret uden meddelelse til afsender,b) ved at anvende overdrevent høje priser.
There had been cases where notification of theinterception to the sender was delayed and intercepted items were opened and destroyed withoutinforming the sender; and (ii) by charging excessively high prices.
Poste Italiane havde ikke kun opfanget egentlige ABA-videre-forsendelser, men også indkommende grænseoverskridende post med anvendelse af den almindeligetakst for indenlandsk post med store besparelser til følge afspejlet i forskellen mellem den indenlandsketakst og de pågældende terminalomkostninger.
Poste Italiane had intercepted not onlyactual ABA remailed items but also incoming crossborder mail to which the ordinary domestic rate hadbeen applied at a considerable saving representing the difference between the domestic rate and therelevant terminal dues.
Konkurrencemyndigheden fandt, at Poste Italianes adfærdudgjorde en overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 82, litra a) og b), endog en særdeles alvorlig overtrædelse,da adfærden blev udvist af en virksomhed, som ved lov var tildelt en særlig ret, der gav virksomheden ennæsten monopolagtig situation på det relevante marked.
The authority found that Poste Italiane’s behaviour constituted an infringement of Article 82(a) and (b) of the Treaty that was particularly serious because it was adopted by an undertakingthat had been granted a special right by law affording it a near-monopoly on the relevant market.
Endvidere fandt adfærden sted over et betydeligttidsrum, nemlig mere end et år, og antog et omfang, der i høj grad kunne påvirke konkurrencevilkårenepå det relevante marked.
Theduration of the behaviour was furthermore significant, since it lasted more than one year, and was such asto alter the competitive forces on the relevant market considerably.
Konkurrencemyndigheden påbød derfor Poste Italiane at betale en administrativbøde på 7,5 mio. EUR.
The authority accordingly required Poste Italiane to pay an administrative fine of EUR 7.5 million.
I den anden undersøgelse fandt konkurrencemyndigheden, at den måde, hvorpå Eni havde gennemførtlovdekret nr. 164/2000 om gennemførelse af direktiv 98/30/EF om fælles regler for det indre marked fornaturgas, udgjorde misbrug af dominerende stilling og en overtrædelse af EF-traktatens artikel 82.Navnlig skulle Eni i henhold til dekretet fra og med den 1. januar 2002 mindske sine forsyninger af gas tilendeligt forbrug i Italien til 75 % af det indenlandske forbrug.
In the second investigation, the authority found that the way in which Eni had implemented Legislative Decree No 164/2000 transposing Directive 98/30/EC concerning common rules for the internal market innatural gas constituted an abuse of a dominant position in breach of Article 82 of the EC Treaty.
Konkurrencemyndigheden fandt, at Eniuden for Italien til italienske forsyningsvirksomheder og fra sine egne take-or-pay-kontrakter havde solgtmængder af gas, der indtil 2007 ville have været tilstrækkelige til at dække hele den restkvote, som underdekretet er forbeholdt tredjepartsoperatører.
Thedecree required Eni in particular to reduce, from 1 January 2002, its deliveries of gas for finalconsumption in Italy to 75 % of domestic consumption.