natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
the representatives of BPB, Knauf, Lafarge and Gyproc exchanged information on various occasions and concerted their action on the application of price increases on the German market between 1996 and 1998.
predstavniki podjetij BPB, Knauf, Lafarge in Gyproc so se med seboj večkrat obveščali in dogovarjali o zvišanju cen na nemškem trgu med letoma 1996 in 1998.
Duration
Trajanje kršitve
The undertakings concerned participated in the infringements for the following periods:
Zadevna podjetja so pri kršitvah sodelovala v naslednjih obdobjih:
BPB: from 31 March 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998,
BPB: najpozneje od 31. marca 1992 do 25. novembra 1998
Knauf: from 31 March 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998,
Knauf: najpozneje od 31. marca 1992 do 25. novembra 1998
Lafarge: from 31 August 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998,
Lafarge: najpozneje od 31. avgusta 1992 do 25. novembra 1998
Gyproc: from 6 June 1996, at the latest, to 25 November 1998.
Gyproc: najpozneje od 6. junija 1996 do 25. novembra 1998
Procedural steps
Faze postopka
On the basis of information received, the Commission carried out inspections pursuant to Commission Decisions under Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 at the premises of several undertakings between November 1998 and July 1999.
Komisija je na podlagi prejetih podatkov v skladu s členom 14(3) Uredbe št. 17 med novembrom 1998 in julijem 1999 pregledala prostore različnih podjetij.
Following these inspections, the Commission sent requests for information to certain undertakings in January, July and September 1999 and in March 2000.
Na podlagi teh pregledov je Komisija januarja, julija in septembra 1999 ter marca 2000 nekaterim podjetjem poslala zahteve po podatkih.
On 18 April 2001, the Commission initiated proceedings in this case and adopted a statement of objections against five undertakings, namely: BPB, Knauf, Lafarge, Gyproc and Etex SA.
Komisija je 18. aprila 2001 začela postopek v tej zadevi in sprejela sporočilo o možnih povodih za tožbo proti petim podjetjem, in sicer BPB, Knauf, Lafarge, Gyproc in Etex SA.
All the parties to which the statement of objections had been addressed submitted written comments in response to the objections raised by the Commission.
Vse stranke so Komisiji predložile pisne pripombe.
On 17 July 2001, a hearing took place in which all of the undertakings participated.
Zaslišanje v tej zadevi je potekalo 17. julija 2001, na njem pa so sodelovala vsa podjetja, na katera je bila naslovljena ugotovitev o možnih povodih za tožbo.
The Commission considers that the evidence in its possession is insufficient to establish Etex SA’s involvement in the single, complex and continuous infringement. Etex is therefore not an addressee of this Decision.
Ker Komisija meni, da z razpoložljivimi elementi ni mogoče dokazati udeležbe podjetja Etex SA pri edinstveni, zamotani in nepretrgani kršitvi, ta odločba ni naslovljena na podjetje Etex.
Product and market
Izdelek in trg
The product which is concerned in the instant case is plasterboard.
Zadevni izdelek v primeru je mavčna plošča.
This is a manufactured product used as a prefabricated construction material and consisting of a sheet of gypsum plaster sandwiched between two sheets of paper or some other material.
Gre za industrijski izdelek, sestavljen iz plasti mavca med dvema polama papirja ali drugega materiala, ki se uporablja kot montažni gradbeni material.
Plasterboard is cut in various sizes and thicknesses and is typically used as an internal lining for walls, to form internal partitions inside buildings, as a roof lining and as a ceiling material for residential, commercial and administrative premises.
Mavčne plošče so razrezane na različne velikosti in debeline in se navadno uporabljajo kot obloge notranjih sten, za izdelavo notranjih pregradnih sten ter kot strešne in stropne obloge za stanovanjske, poslovne in upravne prostore.
Plasterboard is an attractive product for the building industry by virtue of its stability, durability, ease of application, fire resistance and low cost.
Mavčne plošče so zaradi svoje trdnosti, trajnosti, enostavne montaže, odpornosti proti ognju in nizke cene zanimive za gradbeništvo.
Plasterboard is also an attractive product for consumers.
Zanimive so tudi neposredno za potrošnike.
It is largely used in the construction of modern homes and for DIY.
Dejansko se veliko uporabljajo pri gradnji sodobnih stanovanj in raznovrstnih konjičkih.
Plasterboard is a well-known product and the firms concerned are house-hold names in several Member States (one talks of buying ‘gyproc’ in Belgium, ‘placoplâtre’ in France, etc.).
Mavčne plošče so prepoznaven izdelek; ime zadevnih tovarn se v mnogih državah pojavlja kot občno ime („gyproc“ v Belgiji, „placoplâtre“ v Franciji ipd.).
The annual value of sales on the Benelux, French, German and UK markets covered by the present Decision was some ECU 1210 million in 1997 and 1998 for a sales volume of some 692 million square metres in 1997 and some 710 million square meters in 1998.
Skupna letna vrednost prodaje na nemškem, britanskem, francoskem in beneluškem trgu je bila v letih 1997 in 1998 okrog 1210 milijonov eki, pri čemer je prodaja v letu 1997 obsegala okrog 692 milijonov m2 in v letu 1998 710 milijonov m2.
The undertakings together accounted for nearly all plasterboard sales on the four markets concerned.
Podjetja, udeležena pri dogovoru, so na štirih zadevnih trgih skupaj pokrivala skoraj celotno prodajo mavčnih plošč.
FINES
GLOBE
Basic amount
Osnovni znesek
In fixing the amount of any fine the Commission must have regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular the gravity and duration of the infringement, which are the two criteria referred to expressly in Article 15(2) of Regulation 17.
Komisija pri določitvi zneska globe upošteva vse ustrezne okoliščine ter predvsem težo in trajanje kršitve, izrecni merili iz člena 15(2) Uredbe št. 17.
Gravity
Teža kršitve
Having regard to the nature of the conduct in question, its practical impact on the plasterboard market and the fact that it covered the four principal markets at the heart of the European Community, the Commission considers that the addressees of the instant Decision committed a very serious infringement of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija ob upoštevanju vrste spornega ravnanja, njegovega dejanskega vpliva na trg mavčnih plošč in dejstva, da je zadevalo štiri glavne trge znotraj Evropske skupnosti, meni, da so štiri podjetja, na katera je naslovljena ta odločba, zelo resno kršila člen 81(1) Pogodbe.
Differential treatment
Različna obravnava
Within the category of very serious infringements, the Commission may apply differential treatment to the undertakings concerned in order to take account of their effective economic capacity to cause significant damage to competition and in order to set the fine at a level which ensures it has sufficient deterrent effect.
Komisija lahko znotraj kategorije zelo težkih kršitev podjetja obravnava različno, da tako upošteva dejansko ekonomsko sposobnost obravnavanih podjetij, ki bi lahko pomembno škodovala konkurenci, ter določi znesek globe v višini, ki zagotavlja njen zadostni odvračilni učinek.
This is particularly necessary where, as in the present case, there is considerable disparity between the sizes of the undertakings which participated in the infringement.
Takšen pristop je primeren, kadar, kot v tem primeru, obstaja precejšnja razlika med velikostjo podjetij, udeleženih pri kršitvi.
To this end the Decision divides the companies into three groups on the basis of their respective market shares based on turnover from sales of the product on the four markets concerned in the last complete year of the infringement, i.e. 1997: the first group comprises BPB with a market share of some [40-45] %; the second group comprises Knauf and Lafarge with market shares of some [25-30] % and [20-25] % respectively; and the third group comprises Gyproc with a market share of some [7-10] %.
Odločba zato deli naslovnike v tri kategorije, in sicer na podlagi njihovega tržnega deleža, ki temelji na prometu od prodaje izdelka na štirih zadevnih trgih izdelka v letu 1997, zadnjem celotnem letu kršitve: prvo skupino sestavlja BPB s tržnim deležem približno [40–45] %, v drugi sta Knauf in Lafarge s tržnima deležema približno [25–30] % in [20–25] %, tretjo skupino pa sestavlja Gyproc s tržnim deležem približno [7–10] %.
In order to ensure that the fines imposed have a sufficient deterrent effect, and in view of its large size and world-wide resources, the Decision applies a 100 % multiplier to the starting amount of the fine set for Lafarge.
Da bi bil odvračilni učinek naloženih glob zadosten in glede na precejšnjo velikost in svetovne vire podjetja Lafarge, je treba začetni znesek njegove globe povečati za 100 %.
Knauf and BPB infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty from, at the latest, 31 March 1992 to 25 November 1998.
Knauf in BPB sta člen 81(1) Pogodbe kršila najpozneje od 31. marca 1992 do 25. novembra 1998.
Lafarge committed the same infringement from, at the latest, 31 August 1992 to 25 November 1998.
Lafarge je enako kršitev zakrivil najpozneje med 31. avgustom 1992 in 25. novembrom 1998.
Gyproc actively participated in the infringement from, at the latest, 6 June 1996 to 25 November 1998.
Podjetje Gyproc je dejavno sodelovalo pri kršitvi najpozneje med 6. junijem 1996 in 25. novembrom 1998.
In the case of Knauf, BPB and Lafarge the infringement was thus of long duration (more than five years) and in the case of Gyproc, the infringement was of medium duration (between one and five years). The starting amount of the fine determined for gravity is therefore increased by 65 % for BPB and Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke, by 60 % for Lafarge and by 20 % for Gyproc.
Komisija ugotavlja, da gre pri podjetjih Knauf, BPB in Lafarge za dolgotrajno kršitev (več kot pet let), pri podjetju Gyproc pa za srednje dolgo (od enega do petih let), zato se osnovni znesek globe, naložene podjetjema BPB in Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke, poveča za 65 %, osnovni znesek globe, naložene podjetju Lafarge, za 60 % in osnovni znesek globe, naložene podjetju Gyproc, za 20 %.
The Commission has previously adopted measures imposing fines on BPB De Eendracht NV [4] (a member of the BPB group, addressee of the draft Decision) for having taken part in an illegal agreement in the cartonboard sector and on Lafarge SA (then known as Lafarge Coppée SA) for having taken part in an illegal agreement in the cement sector [5].
Komisija je v zvezi s tihimi dogovori že prej sprejela ukrepe proti podjetjema BPB in Lafarge: globi sta bili naloženi podjetju BPB De Eendracht NV [4] (družba iz skupine, ki jo vodi BPB, naslovnik te odločbe) zaradi udeležbe pri nezakonitem dogovoru v sektorju kartona ter podjetju Lafarge SA [5] (tedaj pod imenom Lafarge Coppée SA) zaradi udeležbe pri nezakonitem dogovoru v cementnem sektorju.
The facts as set out in the Decision establish that BPB and Lafarge actively continued to participate in a cartel in the plasterboard sector after the abovementioned Decisions were notified to them.
V tej odločbi predstavljena dejstva dokazujejo, da sta BPB in Lafarge po prejetju omenjenih odločb še naprej aktivno sodelovala pri dogovoru v sektorju mavčnih plošč.
The fact that these undertakings have repeated the same kind of behaviour in a different sector from the one concerned by the first Decisions, shows that sanctions imposed in the first case did not lead the undertakings to modify their conduct and thus constitutes an aggravating circumstance.
Dejstvo, da sta obe podjetji ponovili isto vrsto ravnanja v drugem sektorju od tistega, za katero sta bili kaznovani, kaže, da prva predpisana kazen teh podjetij ni spodbudila k spremembi njunega ravnanja, zato za Komisijo to pomeni oteževalno okoliščino.
In the case of BPB, the fact that Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 was addressed to a subsidiary of BPB, BPB De Eendracht NV, does not prevent the Commission from treating it as an aggravating circumstance in the instant case.
Dejstvo, da je bila Odločba 94/601/ES naslovljena na podružnico BPB, BPB De Eendracht NV, za BPB ne pomeni, da se ne sme uporabiti takšne oteževalne okoliščine v tej zadevi.
Indeed, the Commission considers that since BPB De Eendracht NV was a subsidiary of BPB PLC at the time of the earlier Decision, these in fact form part of one and the same undertaking, within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of an undertaking which is censured by the Commission both to bring to an end the anti-competitive conduct identified in the particular Decision which is addressed to it and to bring its commercial policy throughout the Community into line with that Decision.
Ker je bila ob datumu navedene odločbe BPB De Eendracht NV podružnica BPB PLC, Komisija meni, da gre v smislu člena 81 Pogodbe za eno in isto podjetje ter da je odgovornost podjetja, ki ga je Komisija kaznovala, ne samo, da preneha s protikonkurenčnim ravnanjem, ampak tudi, da svojo poslovno politiko v celotni Skupnosti prilagodi posebni odločbi, ki mu je bila predložena.
With regard to the above aggravating factors, an increase of 50 % of the basic amount of the fine for BPB and Lafarge appears justified.
Ob upoštevanju oteževalne okoliščine se zdi 50-odstotno povečanje osnovnega zneska globe za BPB in Lafarge upravičeno.
Whilst Gyproc may be held responsible for the infringement as a whole for the period during which it was a participant, that is from June 1996 to November 1998, the available evidence shows that Gyproc was in an objectively different situation from that of the other addressees of the Decision, such that the Commission recognises that Gyproc did not play an identical role in the agreement to that of the other undertakings.
Čeprav je podjetje Gyproc odgovorno za celotno kršitev v obdobju, v katerem je bilo pri njej udeleženo, to pomeni med junijem 1996 in novembrom 1998, iz razpoložljivih dokazov izhaja, da je bilo v objektivno drugačnem položaju kot drugi naslovniki te odločbe, zato Komisija priznava, da podjetje Gyproc pri dogovoru ni imelo enake vloge kot druga podjetja.
The distinguishing circumstances recognised by the Commission are the fact that: during a substantial period of its involvement in the agreement, Gyproc appears to have had difficulties in preventing BPB from obtaining and transmitting information relating to it, as a result of BPB’s being represented on Gyproc’s board of directors; Gyproc was a constant destabilising element and contributed to the limitation of the effects of the agreement on the German market; and Gyproc was absent from the UK market where the agreement most frequently manifested itself.
Drugačne okoliščine, ki jih navaja Komisija, so v dejstvu, da naj bi Gyproc v večjem delu obdobja svoje udeležbe pri dogovoru le težko preprečil, da BPB ne bi prejemal in razširjal podatkov o njem, ker je BPB imel zastopnike v njegovem upravnem odboru; ker je kot stalen destabilizacijski element prispeval k omejitvi učinkov dogovora na nemški trg in se ni pojavljal na britanskem trgu, kjer je dogovor najpogosteje prišel do izraza.
Gyproc will therefore be granted a 25 % reduction of the basic amount of the fine on the grounds of attenuating circumstances.
Zaradi olajševalne okoliščine se osnovni znesek globe za podjetje Gyproc torej zmanjša za 25 %.
Application of the Commission Notice on the Non-imposition or Reduction of Fines in Cartel Cases (the Leniency Notice): significant reduction in the amount of the fine
Uporaba sporočila Komisije o tem, da se ne naloži globe ali da se zmanjša njen znesek v primerih, povezanih z dogovori („Sporočilo o prizanesljivosti“): izrazito znižanje zneska globe
Before the Commission adopted its statement of objections, BPB and Gyproc provided it with information and/or documents.
Preden je Komisija sprejela svoje sporočilo o povodih za tožbo, sta ji BPB in Gyproc poslala podatke in/ali dokumente.
The extent and quality of the co-operation afforded by these undertakings were nevertheless different.
Vendar sta bila obseg in kakovost sodelovanja obeh podjetij s Komisijo različna.
BPB was the first member of the agreement, following a request for information from the Commission, to provide additional evidence, complementary to that uncovered during the inspections and confirming the existence of the agreement, as set out above.
BPB je bil prvi član dogovora, ki je na zahtevo Komisije po podatkih poslal podrobnosti, ki so dopolnjevale podrobnosti, odkrite med preverjanji, in potrdile obstoj dogovora, kot je navedeno zgoraj.
This evidence comprised detailed information on the meetings in question, notably the meeting in London and on the exchanges of information in respect of the principal European markets and, in particular, the UK market.
Te podrobnosti obsegajo podatke o zadevnih sestankih, predvsem o sestanku v Londonu, in izmenjavah podatkov o glavnih evropskih trgih, še zlasti o britanskem trgu.
In addition, BPB also recognised in part the facts which were described in the statement of objections.
Poleg tega je BPB priznal del dejstev, opisanih v sporočilu o povodih za tožbo.
BPB nevertheless contested the infringing nature of some of the facts described in the statement of objections, which are retained in the Decision.
Vendar pa zanika, da bi nekatera dejstva, opisana v sporočilu o povodih za tožbo in navedena v odločbi, lahko pomenila kršitev.
Gyproc also provided evidence which contributed to the establishment of the infringement.
Tudi Gyproc je predložil dokazne elemente, ki so pomagali dokazati kršitev.
Following a request for information from the Commission, this undertaking provided information concerning the cartel meetings, specifying the periods during which the meetings took place in various Member States of the Community and the names of the participating undertakings.
To podjetje je na zahtevo Komisije po podatkih predložilo podatke o sestankih kartela, s podrobnimi podatki o obdobjih, v katerih so potekali sestanki v različnih državah članicah Skupnosti, in z imeni udeleženih podjetij.
In the course of a meeting with the Commission services requested by Gyproc, a representative of the undertaking volunteered oral explanations regarding manuscript notes.
Poleg tega je na sestanku, ki ga je s službami Komisije zahteval Gyproc, predstavnik podjetja ustno pojasnil rokopisne zapise.
In the above circumstances, the Commission considers that it is appropriate to grant a 30 % reduction in the amount of the fine for BPB and a 40 % reduction in the amount of the fine for Gyproc.
Zaradi tega Komisija meni, da se upravičeno zmanjša znesek glob za obe podjetji, in sicer za 30 % za BPB in za 40 % za Gyproc.
Final amount of fines imposed in this proceeding
Končni znesek naloženih glob v tem postopku
By way of conclusion, the amounts of the fines to be imposed in accordance with Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 17 should be set as follows:
Iz tega sledi, da je treba zneske glob, naloženih v skladu s členom 15(2)(a) Uredbe št. 17 določiti, kot sledi:
BPB EUR 138,6 million,
BPB 138,6 milijonov EUR,
Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke EUR 85,8 million,
Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke 85,8 milijonov EUR,
Lafarge EUR 249,6 million,
Lafarge 249,6 milijonov EUR,
Gyproc EUR 4,32 million.
Gyproc 4,32 milijonov EUR.
BPB plc, the Knauf Group, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV have infringed Article 81(1) of the Treaty by participating in a set of agreements and concerted practices in the plasterboard business.
BPB PLC, skupina Knauf, Société Lafarge S. A. in Gyproc Benelux N. V. so z udeležbo pri vseh sporazumih in dogovorjenih praksah v sektorju mavčnih plošč prekršili člen 81(1) Pogodbe.
The duration of the infringement was as follows:
Trajanje kršitve je bilo naslednje:
BPB plc: from 31 March 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998;
BPB PLC: najpozneje od 31. marca 1992 do 25. novembra 1998;
Knauf: from 31 March 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998;
Knauf: najpozneje od 31. marca 1992 do 25. novembra 1998;
Société Lafarge SA: from 31 August 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998;
Société Lafarge S. A.: najpozneje od 31. avgusta 1992 do 25. novembra 1998;
Gyproc Benelux NV: from 6 June 1996, at the latest, to 25 November 1998.
Gyproc Benelux N. V.: najpozneje od 6. junija 1996 do 25. novembra 1998.
The undertakings referred to in Article 1 shall put an end to the infringement referred to in that Article, if they have not already done so.
Navedena podjetja prenehajo s kršitvijo, če tega še niso storila.
In their plasterboard business they shall refrain from any agreement or concerted practice that might have an identical or similar object or effect to the infringement.
Pri svojih dejavnostih, povezanih z mavčnimi ploščami, se vzdržijo vsakega sporazuma in dogovorjene prakse, ki bi lahko imela enak ali podoben namen ali učinek kot kršitev.
In respect of the infringement referred to in Article 1, the following fines are imposed on the following undertakings:
Naslednjim podjetjem se naložijo naslednje globe:
BPB plc EUR 138,6 million,
BPB PLC 138,6 milijonov EUR;
Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG EUR 85,8 million,
Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG 85,8 milijonov EUR;
Société Lafarge SA EUR 249,6 million,
Société Lafarge S. A. 249,6 milijonov EUR;
Gyproc Benelux NV EUR 4,32 million.
Gyproc Benelux N. V. 4,32 milijonov EUR.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1/2003 z dne 16. decembra 2002 o izvajanju pravil konkurence iz členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe (UL L 1, 4.1.2003, str. 1).
Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 (OJ 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204/62) Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
Uredba Sveta št. 17 z dne 6. februarja 1962(UL 13, 21.2.1962, str. 204/62). Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1/2003.
‘Knauf’ means all the companies in the Knauf group, see section 1.3.3.2.
V odločbi „Knauf“ pomeni vse družbe skupine Knauf.
Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 (Case IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard) (OJ L 243,19.9.1994, p. 1), relating to a proceeding under Article 85 (now 81) of the EC Treaty imposed a fine of ECU 1750000.
Odločba Komisije 94/601/ES z dne 13. julija 1994, zadeva IV/C/33.833 – Karton (UL L 243, 19.9.1994, str. 1) o postopku uporabe člena 85 (poznejši člen 81) Pogodbe ES in naložitvi globe v višini 1750000 EKU.
On 14 May 1998, in Case T-311/94, the Court of First Instance reduced the fine to ECU 750000 (ECR 1998, II-1129).
Sodišče prve stopnje je 14. maja 1998 v zadevi T-311/94 to globo znižalo na 750000 EKU (Rec. 1998, str. II-1129).
Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994, Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement, (OJ L 343, 30.12.1994, p. 1), relating to a procedure under Article 85 (now 81) of the EC Treaty imposed a fine of ECU 22872000.
Odločba Komisije 94/815/ES z dne 30. novembra 1994, zadevi IV/33.126 in 33.322 – Cement, (UL L 343, 30.12.1994, str. 1) o postopku uporabe člena 85 (poznejši člen 81) Pogodbe ES in naložitvi globe v višini 22872000 EKU.
On 15 March 2000, in Case T 43/95, the Court of First Instance reduced the fine to EUR 14248000 (ECR 2000, II-491).
Sodišče prve stopnje je 15. marca 2000 v zadevi T-43/95 to globo znižalo na 14248000 EUR (Rec. 2000, str. II-491).
See also Commission Decision 2002/405/EC of 20 June 2001 relating to a procedure applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty, Michelin (OJ L 143, 31.5.2002, p. 1, recitals 361 to 363).
Glej tudi Odločbo Komisije 2002/405/ES z dne 20. junija 2001 o postopku uporabe člena 82 Pogodbe ES, Michelin (UL L 143, 31.5.2002, str. 1, uvodne izjave 361 do 363).
In addition, Gyproc of its own accord provided the Commission with manuscript notes of which the Commission had not become aware during the inspection. These notes in particular contained information relating to the exchange of information regarding sales volumes during the meeting in Versailles.
Gyproc je tudi sam od sebe Komisiji predložil rokopise, s katerimi se Komisija med preverjanjem ni seznanila, v njih pa so bile predvsem informacije o izmenjavi podatkov o obsegih prodaje na sestanku v Versaillesu.