natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Steinbock Gabelstapler-Center GmbH & Co.KG, Kamen, mod Steinbock GmbH, Moosburg Konkurrenceforbud indeholdt i en eneforhandlingsaftale, som er blevet opsagt, er ugyldigt under aftalensafvikling (EF-traktatens art. 81, stk. 1, forordning nr. 1475/95 om gruppefritagelse for salgs- og serviceaftaler vedrørende motorkøretøjer, forordning nr. 2790/99 om vertikale aftaler, forordning nr. 1983/83);det er dog lovligt at indføje en begrænsning i adgangen til parallelt salg, således at salget må foregå isamme lokaler og med samme personale, men under andet firmanavn og anden ledelse (§ 242 i BGB).
Steinbock Gabelstapler-Center GmbH & Co.KG, Kamen v Steinbock GmbH, Moosburg Invalidity of the non-compete clause in the exclusive dealing agreement between the parties while theagreement, on which notice has been given to terminate, runs its course (Article 81(1) EC; Regulation No 1475/95 on motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements; Regulation No 2790/99 on verticalagreements; Regulation No 1983/83); however, replacement by a lawful restriction of parallel sales to theeffect that they may be transacted on the same premises with the same staff, but under a different firm andmanagement (Section 242 of the Civil Code).
Sagsøger kan ikke over for sagsøgte rejse krav om generelt at kunne levere ortopædiske hjælpemidler tilsagsøgtes medlemmer (§ 33, § 20, stk. 1 og 2; EF-traktatens art. 81 og 82, § 1 i UWG, § 124, stk. 5, andetpunktum, og § 127, stk. 2, andet punktum i SGB V).
Plaintiff not entitled to claim from the defendant general participation in the supply of the defendant’smembers with orthopaedic appliances (Sections 33, 20(1) and (2); Articles 81 and 82 EC; Section 1 ofthe Unfair Competition Act; second sentence of Section 124(5) and second sentence of Section 127(2) of Book V of the Social Security Code).
Sagsøgtes planmæssige opsigelse af Chrysler-forhandleraftalen pr. 31.12.2002 er ugyldig; sagsøger harikke krav på leverancer (EF-traktatens art. 81, forordning nr. 123/85, § 9 i AGBG).
Invalidity of the defendant’s routine notice to terminate the Chrysler dealer agreement for31 December 2002; plaintiff not entitled to delivery (Article 81 EC; Regulation (EEC) No 123/85;Section 9 of the Standard Terms of Business Act).
Sagsøgers første anbringende afvises; i øvrigt bortfalder fritagelsen af forbuddet mod videresalg til andreforhandlere i sagsøgtes selektive distributionssystem ikke efter Kommissionens beslutning medbødepålæg (EF-traktatens art. 81, art. 3, stk. 6 i forordning 1475/95, § 33 og § 20, stk. 1 og 2 i GWB).
Inadmissibility of the complaint regarding the application at 1; otherwise, no cessation of the exemptionof the prohibition on sales to commercial resellers as part of the defendant’s selective distribution systemfollowing the European Commission’s decision imposing a fine (Article 81 EC, Article 3(6) of Regulation No 1475/95, Sections 33, 20(1) and 2 of the Act Prohibiting Restraints of Competition).
Timmermann GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg, mod Tricon Int. Ltd.,London/GB mfl. Franchiseaftale (»Pizza-Hut«) er gyldig, da loven i forbundsstaten Kansas/USA finder anvendelse på allesagsøgers krav (§§ 11, 27, 29, 31 og 34 i EGBGB; §§ 15, 18, 34 og 98 i GWB (tidligere version), EF-traktatens artikel 81).
Timmermann GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg v Tricon Int. Ltd., London/GB and others. Validity of the franchise agreement (‘Pizza-Hut’), since the law of the state of Kansas/United Statesapplies to all claims asserted by the plaintiff (Articles 11, 27, 29, 31 and 34 of the Civil Code Introductory Law; Sections 15, 18, 34 and 98 of the Act Prohibiting Restraints of Competition beforeamendment; Article 85 EC before amendment).
Sagsøger har krav på oplysninger om levering af tobaksvarer til sagsøgtes benzinstationbutik; partnerskabsaftalen om benzinstationen er lovlig efter konkurrencereglerne (EF-traktatens art. 81 EGV; §§ 14,16 og 20 i GWB; § 139 i BGB).
Plaintiff entitled to information on the supply of tobacco products to the defendant’s petrol station shop;petrol station partner agreement valid under antitrust law (Article 81 EC; Sections 14, 16, and 20 of the Act Prohibiting Restraints of Competition; Section 139 of the Civil Code).
Den elforsyningaftale, parterne indgik i januar 1999, er gyldig, da den ikke indeholder nogen områdeafgrænsning eller totaldækningsforpligtelse og ikke har for lang løbetid, og da der ikke anvendes urimeligeaftalevilkår og priser (§§ 1, 16, 19 og 20 i GWB, EF-traktatens art. 81 og 82).
The electricity supply agreement concluded by the parties in January 1999 is valid under antitrust law,since it contains no territorial demarcation or total requirements coverage obligation, its duration is notunacceptably long and there is no abuse in terms of conditions or payment (Sections 1, 16, 19 and 20 ofthe Act Prohibiting Restraints of Competition; Articles 81 and 82 EC).
Franchiseaftale (»Pizza-Hut«) er gyldig, da loven i forbundsstaten Kansas/USA finder anvendelse på allesagsøgers krav; ingen skadeserstatning for overtrædelse af FTC-franchisereglerne (§§ 11, 27, 29, 31 og34 i EGBGB; §§ 15, 18, 34 og 98 i GWB (tidligere version), EF-traktatens artikel 81, art. 3 i forordning4087/88).
Validity of the franchise agreement (‘Pizza-Hut’), since the law of the state of Kansas/United Statesapplies to all claims asserted by the plaintiff; no compensation for breach of the FTC Franchise Regulations (Articles 11, 27, 29, 31 and 34 of the Civil Code Introductory Law; Sections 15, 18, 34 and98 of the Act Prohibiting Restraints of Competition before amendment; Article 85 EC beforeamendment; Article 3 of Regulation No 4087/88).
Dorothea Dankworth-Hansen, Flensburg, mod Tricon International Ltd., London (GB) mfl.
Dorothea Dankworth-Hansen, Flensburg v Tricon International Ltd., London (UK) and others
Franchiseaftale (»Pizza-Hut«) er gyldig, da loven i forbundsstaten Kansas/USA finder anvendelse på allesagsøgers krav; ingen skadeserstatning for overtrædelse af FTC-franchisereglerne (§§ 11, 27, 29, 31 og34 i EGBGB; §§ 15, 18, 34 og 98 i GWB (tidligere version), EF-traktatens artikel 81, art. 3 i forordning4087/88)
Validity of the franchise agreement (‘Pizza-Hut’), since the law of the state of Kansas/United Statesapplies to all claims asserted by the plaintiff; no compensation for breach of the FTC Franchise Regulations (Articles 11, 27, 29, 31 and 34 of the Civil Code Introductory Law; Sections 15, 18, 34 and
21 O 20/02 kart., P-236/02 der Navygather B.V., Weert (NL), mod Komatsu Hanomag AG, Hannover
Hanover Regional Court, 27 September 2002, 21 O 20/02 kart., P-236/02 der Navygather B.V., Weert (NL) v Komatsu Hanomag AG, Hannover
Sagsøger har ikke i henhold til aftalen eller efter reglerne om erstatning uden for kontraktforhold ellerkonkurrencelovgivningen krav på sagsøgtes EPA-certificering af den af sagsøgte købte gravemaskine (§16, § 19, stk. 4, nr. 1, og § 33 i GWB, EF-traktatens art. 81 EG, § 823 i BGB).
Plaintiff has no claims under contract, tort or antitrust law to EPA certification by the defendant of thedredger acquired by the plaintiff (Sections 16, 19(4)(1) and 33 of the Act Prohibiting Restraints of Competition; Article 81 EC; Section 823 of the Civil Code).
Statsrådet bekræftede sin kompetence med hensyn til konkurrencereglernes indføjelse i den lovgivning,der henhører under de administrative domstole.
The Council of State upheld its case-law on the inclusion of the competition rules in the body of lawguaranteed by the administrative courts.
Statsrådet annullerede beslutning af 11. august 1998 truffet af økonomi, finans- og industriministerenom fastsættelse af en degressiv enhedstakst for INSEE’s endelige kunder og et proportionalt gebyr på 20centimes for videreforsendelsesvirksomheder. Statsrådet fandt, at denne takst bevirker, at INSEEautomatisk kan misbruge sin dominerende stilling på markedet for større markedsanalysebaser i stridmed den franske handelslovs artikel L 420-2.
It annulled the Order of 11 August 1998 of the Minister of Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry,which laid down a single decreasing charge for final customers of INSEE and a proportional fee of20 centimes for broadcasters, finding that the charge was liable to place INSEE in a position in which itwould automatically abuse its dominant position on the market in large mailing lists and ignored theprovisions of Article L 420-2 of the Commercial Code.
Højesteret, 25. januar 2002, Etos B.V. mod Parfums Christiaan Dior S.A.(Beneluxmerkenwet; direktiv 89/104/EØF; EF-traktatens artikel 81)
Supreme Court, 25 January 2002, Etos BV v Parfums Christian Dior SA[Benelux Trademark Act; Directive 89/104/EEC; Article 81 EC]
Udnyttelsen af en endnu ikke udtømt varemærkeret kan ikke i sig selv føre til den konklusion, at derhandles i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 81.
The exercise of a trademark that has not yet expired is not in itself grounds for concluding that the actionis in breach of Article 81 of the EC Treaty.
Hvad angår Etos’ klager over rettens afvisning af firmaetspåberåbelse af EF-traktatens artikel 81, forfejlede klageren sit mål, da retten helt forståeligt vurderede, atdet punkt i sagerne ved underretterne ikke var tilstrækkeligt underbygget fra Etos’ side.
Etos’s complaint about the Court’s rejection of its appeal onthe grounds of Article 81 EC is unfounded, in that the Court understandably held that Etos failed to arguethis point adequately in the lower courts where the questions of fact were considered.
Højesteret, 15. februar 2002, Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. mod Kamstra International B.V. mfl.,Kamstra International B.V. mod Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. og Willem Adriaan Blijdorp mod Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc.(Beneluxmerkenwet; direktiv 89/104/EØF, EF-traktatens artikel 81)
Supreme Court, 15 February 2002, Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v Kamstra International BV et al.,Kamstra International BV v Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. and Willem Adriaan Blijdorp v Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc.[Benelux Trademark Act; Directive 89/104/EEC; Article 81 EC]
Forvaltningsdomstolen (Raad van State), afdelingen for administrative klager, dom af 22. maj 2002vedrørende klagerens indsigelse mod dom afsagt af retten i Rotterdam af 14. juni 2001 i sagenmellem klageren og bestyrelsen for Mondriaan Stichting(Begrebet virksomhed)
Arnhem Court of Appeal, 12 March 2002, Renault Nissan Nederland BV v Autobedrijf X BV[Regulation (EC) No 1475/95]
Domstolen fandt, at der ikke er tale om en virksomhed i konkurrenceretlig forstand, når det drejer sig omen offentlig institution, der handler i egenskab af støttetildelende instans.
The Court held that the termination of a car dealership agreement was not, in this case, incompatible withthe application of Regulation No 1475/95, nor with the principles of reasonableness and fairness.
Domstolen konstaterede, atbestyrelsen i Mondriaan Stichting i forbindelse med støttetildeling og afgørelser om optagelse af gallerierunder ordningen for kunstindkøb (Kunstkoopregeling) ikke handler i egenskab af virksomhed, menudelukkende som forvaltende myndighed.
Citing thejudgment of 21 January 1999 in Riviera ([1999] ECR II-3), the Court also ruled that the old regulation ondealerships (Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December 1984, OJ L 15, p. 16) contained no mandatoryprovisions that affect the validity of the clauses in a distribution contract.
Derudover fandt domstolen det forståeligt, at retten ikke havdekonstateret overtrædelse af artikel 3, stk. 1, litra g), læst i sammenhæng med artikel 10 og med EF-traktatens artikel 82, da intet synes at påvise, at et eller flere gallerier under ordningen skulle have endominerende stilling.
The old regulation does notdiffer materially from Regulation No 1475/95. Consequently, the Court of Appeal provisionally takes theview that a new distribution agreement did not come into existence under any clause in the regulation asa result of one or more deferments of the date of termination after notice had been given.
Denne sag vedrørte en eksklusiv aftagerforpligtelse mellem ASVA BP Direct, så ASVA udelukkendeskulle købe motorbrændstof til dets benzinstationer hos BP Direct i en periode på ti år.
The case concerns an exclusive purchase agreement between ASVA and BP Direct whereby ASVApurchases the fuel it needs for its petrol station exclusively from BP Direct for a period of 10 years.
Domstolenerklærede de pågældende bestemmelser i aftalen om videresalg af motorbrændstoffer ugyldig, for så vidtsom de omhandlede tidsrum på over fem år.
The Court annulled the relevant articles of the fuel resale agreement insofar as they related to a period of morethan five years.
Tvisten handlede om, hvorvidt de købsklausuler, som indgår i forpagtningsaftalen, gældsbrevet oglåneaftalen, er i strid med konkurrenceloven.
The dispute concerned the issue of whether purchase clauses in the lease agreement, the statement of debtand the loan agreement are incompatible with competition law.
Retten henviste til Delimitis-dommen af 28. februar 1991(Sml. 1991, s. I-935), hvori der redegøres for, på hvilke betingelser en ølleverancekontrakt falder indunder artikel 81, stk. 1, i EF-traktaten.
The Court refers to the judgment of28 February 1991 in Delimitis ([1991] ECR I-935) which describes the conditions under which a beersupply contract will be prohibited by Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.
Retten fandt, at Stichting og Sociëteit ikke i tilstrækkelig grad hargodtgjort, at markedet er vanskeligt tilgængeligt for konkurrenter, og at aftalebestemmelserne i vidtomfang bidrog til markedsafskærmning.
The Court held that the Stichting and Sociëteit had failed to establish that it was difficult for competitors to gain access to the market and thatthe clauses made a significant contribution to sealing off the market.
De falder derfor ikke ind under EF-traktatens artikel 81.
The clauses are not, therefore,prohibited by Article 81 of the EC Treaty.
Det blev i denne sag vurderet, om kommunen havde fastsat, opkrævet og fortsat opkræver uforholdsmæssigt høje havneafgifter for olietankeres brug af Rotterdams havn. Det blev ikke bestredet, atkommunen i denne sag ikke handlede som offentlig myndighed, men som virksomhed, hvorforkommunens praksis ikke undslipper konkurrencereglerne.
The question at issue in this case was whether the municipality (Gemeente) had abused its dominantposition by setting excessively high charges for oil tankers using the port of Rotterdam and bysubsequently applying and continuing to apply these charges.
Retten fandt, at det relevante marked for denkonkurrenceretlige vurdering af kommunens aktiviteter var markedet for handling-ydelser for søgåendeskibe, som lægger til i Rotterdams havn.
The Court assumes that the market in which the municipality’s actionsshould be subject to assessment in the light of competition law is the market for handling services formaritime ships using the port of Rotterdam.
Med udgangspunkt i retspraksis konstaterede retten, atkommunen indtager en — i hvert fald de facto — monopolstilling på det relevante marked.
Citing established case law, the court ruled that themunicipality — de facto at least — occupies a monopoly position in the relevant market.
En virksomhed anses for at misbruge sin dominerende stilling, når den fastsætter priser, der er urimelige i forhold til den økonomiske værdi af tjenesteydelsen (forbud mod »excessive pricing«).
An undertakingmay be said to abuse its dominant position if, for example, it charges prices that are not in reasonableproportion to the economic value of the service provided (excessive pricing).
De nationale domstole vurderer i de konkrete tilfælde, om derer tale om urimeligt høje priser.
It is for the national court todecide whether the prices are excessive in a particular case.
335 dvs. baseret på de faktiske omkostninger plus en rimelig fortjeneste.
The Court held that it cannot be assumed thatprices are excessive simply because the charges in a monopoly or monopoly-like market are not costoriented, i.e. the charges are not made up of actual costs plus a reasonable mark-up for profit.
Efter rettens mening bør udgangspunktet være, at fastsættelse af en pris, der — uden en saglig og økonomisk, objektiv begrundelse — ervæsentligt højere end omkostningerne ved den faktiske anvendelse (og som dermed giver en uforholdsmæssig stort fortjeneste), bør betragtes som udtryk for misbrug.
In the viewof the Court, the assumption should be that a price that is considerably higher than the costs of actual use(and thus yields an excessive profit), without any practical or objective justification on economicgrounds, should be regarded as abuse of dominant position.
Det skal derfor undersøges, hvordanomkostningerne ved den faktiske anvendelse beregnes.
An important issue here is how the costs ofactual use are calculated.
Retten anlagde her det synspunkt, at envirksomhed i en dominerende stilling — og i hvert fald et monopol — med al rimelighed kan forventes atføre gennemsigtige regnskaber, og at mangel på sådanne må være et belastende beviselement modvirksomheden.
In this connection the Court held that an undertaking with a dominant position— and certainly a monopoly — could legitimately be expected to keep transparent accounts, and thatfailure to do so must count as evidence against that undertaking.
Retten fandt endvidere, at omkostningsstrukturen og -fordelingen bør fastlægges eftermoderne og bredt anerkendte økomomiske og regnskabstekniske metoder og føre til et retvisenderesultat.
Furthermore, the Court held that the coststructure and method of allocating costs should be decided using current, generally accepted economicand accounting methods and techniques and should produce a reasonable outcome.
Retten fandt det nødvendigt at indkalde sagkyndige for at udarbejde en rapport om omkostningsstrukturen og -fordelingen, kostprisen og den dermed forbundne faktiske fortjeneste pr. post på grundlag af deaf kommunen opstillede »generelle vilkår for havneafgifter«.
The court considered that there were grounds for appointing experts to produce a report on the coststructure, allocation of costs, cost price and the actual return per category linked to this in the General Conditions Applying to Port Fees (Algemene voorwaarden zeehavengeld).
Appelretten (civilretlig afdeling) afsagde den 20. december 2002 en dom vedrørende Via Technologies Inc og Intel Corporation (sagsnumre: A3/2002/1380 og A3/2002/1381).
In a judgment made on 20 December 2002 concerning a Court of Appeal (Civil Division) actioninvolving Via Technologies Inc and Intel Corporation (Case Nos A3/2002/1380 and A3/2002/1381), thecourt allowed Via to appeal a previous judgment against it, acknowledging that it may have validdefences under Articles 81 and 82 EC.
Retten tillod Via at appellere entidligere dom i anerkendelse af, at dette kunne være berettiget i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 81 og 82.Både Via og Intel fremstiller CPU’er og chipsets til pc’er, og i den tidligere sag fra 2001 havde Intelvundet med en påstand om, at selskabets patenter ved flere lejligheder var omgået af Via, selv om Viapåstod, at Intels nægtelse af licens var misbrug af en dominerende stilling.
Both Via and Intel make central processing units and chipsets forpersonal computers; and in the previous judgment in 2001 Intel had largely succeeded in an actionalleging that its patents were being infringed by various acts of Via, despite Via arguing that Intel’srefusal to license was abuse of a dominant position.
D — Anvendelse af meddelelsen fra 1993 om samarbejdet mellem Kommissionen og de nationale domstole
D — Application of the 1993 notice on cooperation between the Commission and national courts
I 2002 blev meddelelsen fra 1993 om samarbejdet mellem Kommissionen og de nationale domstoleanvendt seks gange.
In 2002, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition replied to six requests from courts in the Member States pursuant to the 1993 notice.
Fem af disse sager stammede fra spanske domstole, og heraf vedrørte fire tvistermellem olieselskaber og forpagtere af tankstationer.
Five of these requests came from Spanish courts, four ofwhich relating to disputes between oil companies and service-station operators.
Ofte blev der stillet de samme spørgsmål.
The questions put wereoften similar.
Den femtesag (fra de spanske domstole) vedrørte et spørgsmål om sportssektoren.
The fifth request from a Spanish court concerned a sports case.
Den 8. april besvarede Kommissionen en anmodning fra en førsteinstansret (Juzgado de Primera Instancia n° 46) i Madrid fra 13. februar 2002.
The sixth request came from
BERETNING OM ANVENDELSEN AF KONKURRENCEREGLERNE I DEN EUROPÆISKE UNION udgangspunkt i punkt 12-20 i de retningslinjer om vertikale begrænsninger, den havde vedtaget den24. maj 2000 (118).
The Commission’s answerconcerning the distinction between an agent and a reseller under Community competition law was basedextensively on points 12 to 20 of the guidelines on vertical restraints it adopted on 24 May 2000 (118).
Kommissionen forklarede endvidere ratione temporis-afgrænsningen mellemforordning (EØF) nr. 1984/83 og (EF) nr. 2970/1999 samt forordningernes materielle anvendelse.
The Commission also explained to the Court the demarcation ratione temporis between Regulations (EEC)No 1984/83 and (EC) No 2970/1999 and the latter’s applicability ratione materiae.
Detfjerde spørgsmål vedrørte den maksimale varighed af eksklusive aftaler om køb af brændstof, der kunneindrømmes en gruppefritagelse.
The fourth questionconcerned the maximum duration of exclusive purchasing agreements for fuel if they were to qualify forblock exemption.
Kommissionen erindrede om sin strenge fortolkning af betingelserne iartikel 12, stk. 2, i forordning 1984/83, som angiver en maksimal løbetid på ti år for denne type bestemmelse.
The Commission reminded the Court of its strict interpretation of the conditions laiddown in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83, which provides for a maximum 10-yearexemption for this type of clause.
Kommissionen gjorde opmærksom på muligheden for at støde på juridiske konstruktioner medgensidige aftaler mellem leverandør og videresælger om midlertidig overførsel af ejendomsretten elleroprettelse af tinglige rettigheder og leje af forretningslokaler for at omgå tiårsreglen.
It pointed out the possibility of legal fictions being resorted to, withreciprocal contracts being entered into between suppliers and resellers involving the temporary transferof ownership or the creation of property rights and the leasing back of business premises so as tocircumvent the 10-year rule.
Kommissionenmindede også om betingelserne i artikel 5, litra a), i forordning nr. 2790/1999, samt punkt 59 i retningslinjer om vertikale begrænsninger, som begrænser varigheden af denne type bestemmelser til fem år.
It also drew attention to the conditions laid down in Article 5(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 and in point 59 of the guidelines on vertical restraints, limiting theduration of this type of clause to five years.
Detfemte spørgsmål vedrørte begrebet forbunden virksomhed.
The Court’s fifth question focused on the concept of aconnected undertaking.
Kommissionen opfordrede dommeren til atvurdere omstændighederne i lyset af artikel 11 i forordning nr. 2790/1999.
The Commission invited it to assess the facts in the light of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999.
Den 8. april 2002 besvarede Kommissionen ligeledes en anmodning fra en førsteinstansret (Juzgado de Primera Instancia n° 55) i Madrid fra 12. februar 2002.
The Commission also replied on the same date to a request made by Court of First Instance No 55 in Madrid on 12 February.
De heri indeholdte fire spørgsmål svarede til deførste fire spørgsmål i ovennævnte anmodning, hvorfor Kommissionens svar også var de samme.
The Court’s four questions were similar to the first four raised by Court of First Instance No 46 in Madrid, as was the Commission’s reply.
Den 5. juni 2002 besvarede Kommissionen en anmodning fra en førsteinstansret (Juzgado de Primera Instancia n° 19) i Madrid fra 25. april 2002.
On 5 June, the Commission replied to a request submitted by Court of First Instance No 19 in Madrid on25 April.