natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission was thus seriously misinformed in its first analysis.
Tako je bila Komisija pri prvi preiskavi resno zavedena.
INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 14(1)(b) IN THE ORIGINAL NOTIFICATION
KRŠITEV ČLENA 14(1)(b) V PRVOTNI PRIGLASITVI
Tetra started developing Tetra Fast as early as in 1996.
Tetra je pričela z razvojem Tetre Fast že leta 1996.
Tetra had obtained a Swiss patent (1996) and a European patent (1997) for the new technology and by the time of the Original Notification in Tetra I (18 May 2001) had filed at least four other patent applications.
Tetra je pridobila švicarski patent (1996) in evropski patent (1997) za novo tehnologijo in do prvotne priglasitve Tetra I (18. maj 2001) je izpolnila še najmanj štiri druge patentne prijave.
Tests had also been carried out at or by university centres and institutes in 2000 and 2001.
Prav tako so v letih 2000 in 2001 univerzitetni centri in inštituti izvedli teste na postopku.
Tetra obtained safety approval requirements for the technology in 2000 and started field tests a few months before the Form CO was submitted to the Commission.
Tetra je v letu 2000 zadostila varnostnim zahtevam in pričela s testi na terenu nekaj mesecev pred oddajo obrazca CO Komisiji.
The Form CO, in its section 8.10, requests the notifying party(ies) to supply information about R&D in the affected markets, in particular as carried out by the parties themselves.
Obrazec CO v oddelku 8.10 zahteva, da priglasitvena(-e) stranka(-e) navede(-jo) podatke o raziskavah in razvoju na prizadetih trgih, zlasti tistih, ki jih izvajajo sami.
It requests:
Obrazec zahteva:
‘Explain the nature of the research and development in affected markets carried out by parties to the concentration.’
„Razložite vrsto raziskav in razvoja na prizadetih trgih, ki jih izvajajo stranke združevanja.“
In doing so the parties are to take account of: ‘(b) the course of technological development for these markets over an appropriate time period (including developments in products and/or services, production processes, distribution systems, etc.)’ and ‘(c) the major innovations that have been made in these markets and the undertakings responsible for these innovations;’
Pri tem morajo stranke upoštevati: „(b) potek tehnološkega razvoja za te trge za primerno časovno obdobje (vključno z razvojem proizvodov in/ali storitev, proizvodnih postopkov, sistemov za distribucijo itd.)“ in „(c) večje inovacije na teh trgih in podjetja, ki so odgovorna za te inovacije“.
The notification does not contain any reference to the Tetra Fast technology.
Priglasitev ne vsebuje navedb o tehnologiji Tetra Fast.
Tetra’s principal argument is that Tetra Fast does not form part of any market affected by the operation and does not closely relate to the affected market for SBM machines and that it was therefore not necessary for Tetra Fast to be mentioned in Section 8.10 of Form CO. Tetra considers that the Tetra Fast technology replaces an external piece of equipment supplying the pressure necessary for blowing the bottle within the SBM machine.
Glavni argument Tetre je, da Tetra Fast ni del katerega koli trga, ki ga zadeva dejanje združitve, in ni tesno povezana s prizadetim trgom strojev SBM in zato Tetre Fast ni bilo treba omeniti v oddelku 8.10 obrazca CO. Tetra meni, da tehnologija Tetra Fast nadomešča zunanji del opreme, ki dovaja pritisk, potreben za napihovanje plastenk v sklopu stroja SBM.
The traditional means of achieving this pressure relies on compressed air produced by a compressor (most often supplied by a party other than the SBM machine suppliers), whilst the Tetra Fast technology relies on the pressure generated by explosive combustion of a hydrogen/oxygen mixture.
Pri običajni metodi se uporabi stisnjeni zrak, ki ga proizvede kompresor (ki ga najpogosteje dobavi druga stranka kot stroje SBM), medtem ko se tehnologija Tetra Fast poslužuje pritiska, ki nastane pri eksplozivni kemijski reakciji med kisikom in vodikom.
The Commission considers that this argument is manifestly wrong.
Komisija ocenjuje ta argument kot očitno napačen.
It is evident that a technology which brings about a major change in the performance of SBM machines belongs to the affected market for SBM machines as long as the technology is not actually marketed separately (in which case Tetra would have had to submit the information on the basis of a separate technology market).
Jasno je, da tehnologija, ki prinaša večje spremembe v delovanju strojev SBM, spada k prizadetemu trgu za stroje SBM, dokler se ta tehnologija dejansko ne trži ločeno (v tem primeru bi morala Tetra predložiti podatke na podlagi samostojnega tehnološkega trga).
Tetra’s R&D overview for 2000, disclosed only during the Tetra II procedure, shows that Tetra itself saw Tetra Fast as part of the SBM machine market.
Tetrin pregled R&R za leto 2000, razkrit šele med postopkom za Tetra II, kaže, da je Tetra sama videla Tetra Fast kot del trga s stroji SBM.
The Commission also rejects Tetra’s argument that the technology was irrelevant as it would not bring about a significant improvement to the way SBM machines operate.
Komisija zavrača tudi razlago Tetre, da naj bi bila tehnologija Tetra Fast nepomembna, saj naj ne bi prispevala k pomembnemu izboljšanju delovanja strojev SBM.
Tetra’s internal documents clearly show that it saw a significant potential for, inter alia, reductions in power consumption.
Interni dokumenti podjetja Tetra jasno kažejo, da je podjetje videlo pomemben potencial med drugim za zmanjšanje porabe energije.
Legal assessment
Pravna ocena
Under Article 14(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation the Commission may by decision impose fines from EUR 1000 to 50000 where, intentionally or negligently, an undertaking supplies incorrect or misleading information in a notification pursuant to Article 4.
Po členu 14(1)(b) Uredbe o združitvah lahko Komisija z odločbo naloži globo v višini od 1000 do 50000 EUR podjetjem, ki v priglasitvi v skladu s členom 4 namerno ali iz malomarnosti predložijo netočne ali zavajajoče podatke.
It is evident that in not disclosing the information on Tetra Fast in Section 8.10 of Form CO Tetra submitted incorrect information.
Očitno je, da je Tetra s tem, ko ni posredovala podatkov o Tetra Fast v oddelku 8.10 obrazca CO, predložila netočne podatke.
While the Commission has no proof of Tetra acting intentionally Tetra’s infringement must be considered grossly negligent.
Ker Komisija nima dokaza, da bi Tetra tako ravnala namerno, mora kršitev obravnavati kot skrajno malomarno.
During the Commission’s Tetra I investigation, field tests were being carried out and several management meetings were held.
Med preiskavo Komisije za Tetra I so se izvajali poskusi na terenu in bilo je več sestankov vodstva.
By the time of the adoption of the Commission's prohibition decision, millions of bottles were produced using the Tetra Fast technology.
Do sprejetja odločitve Komisije o prepovedi se je s tehnologijo Tetra Fast proizvedlo milijone plastenk.
Even if Tetra had not been aware of the importance of the technology at the time of the notification, it had plenty of occasions during the administrative procedure of Tetra I to realise the incorrectness of the information it had provided in Form CO. It should be noted in this context that Article 4(3) of the Implementing Regulation contains an obligation to inform the Commission of any ‘material changes in the facts’ arising during the administrative procedure.
Tudi če se v času priglasitve Tetra ni zavedala pomembnosti tehnologije, je imela v času upravnega postopka za Tetra I veliko priložnosti ugotoviti napako v podatkih, navedenih v obrazcu CO. V tem kontekstu je treba opozoriti, da člen 4(3) izvedbene uredbe vsebuje dolžnost obvestiti Komisijo o „bistvenih spremembah“, ki se pojavijo med upravnim postopkom.
V. INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 14(1)(c) IN REPLY TO THE ARTICLE 11 REQUEST OF 13 JULY 2001
V. KRŠITEV ČLENA 14(1)(c) V ODGOVORU NA ZAHTEVEK V SKLADU S ČLENOM 11 Z DNE 13. JULIJA 2001
In an Article 11 request of 13 July 2001, the Commission required the parties to:
V zahtevku po členu 11 z dne 13. julija 1001 je Komisija od strank zahtevala, da:
Please provide all available information on the future potential use of PET in the LDPs and juice segments.
Prosimo, navedite vse podatke, ki jih imate na voljo, o prihodnji možni rabi PET v oddelkih za tekoče mlečne izdelke in sokove.
Provide all studies and internal documents discussing this possibility.
Navedite vse študije in interne dokumente, ki govorijo o teh možnostih.
Explain in detail what technologies would be needed to enable PET to be used successfully for the packaging of LDPs and juice.
Podrobno razložite, katere tehnologije bi bile potrebne, da bi PET uspešno uvedli za pakiranje tekočih mlečnih izdelkov in sokov.
Discuss your activities and others’ activities in this area.
Obravnavajte vaše dejavnosti in dejavnosti drugih na tem področju.
Please provide all documents in your possession relating to the development of a barrier technology.
Prosimo, navedite vse dokumente v vaši lasti o razvoju pregradne tehnologije.
In particular, please provide all studies, internal documents, technical and economic analyses and scientific documents relating to PET barrier.’
Zlasti prosimo, da navedete vse študije, interne dokumente, tehnične in gospodarske analize in znanstvene dokumente o pregradah PET.“
The parties submitted six annexes in response to the previous questions including many technical documents.
Stranke so predložile šest prilog v odgovor na prejšnja vprašanja, vključno z več tehničnimi dokumenti.
However, in its answer of 26 July 2002 Tetra did not provide any document that contained any reference to Tetra Fast itself or to the barrier or coating technology (PCT/EP02/02160) that Tetra Laval had developed for use with its Tetra Fast technology.
Vendar pa Tetra v svojem odgovoru z dne 26. julija 2002 ni predložila nobenega dokumenta, ki bi vseboval podatke o tehnologiji Tetra Fast sami ali o pregradni tehnologiji ali o tehnologiji za prevleko (PCT/EP02/02160), ki jih je Tetra Laval razvila za uporabo v povezavi s tehnologijo Tetra Fast.
Tetra Fast is not only a method of blowing a PET bottle in a novel way (through explosion) but has two extra advantages: (i) the explosion has a sterilising effect on the bottle and (ii) by introducing special gases into the explosive process, the inside of the bottle may be coated by substances acting as a barrier.
Tetra Fast ni samo nova metoda za napihovanje plastenk PET s pomočjo eksplozije, ampak ima dve dodatni prednosti: (i) eksplozija sterilizira plastenko in (ii) z dovajanjem posebnih plinov v proces eksplozije se notranja stran plastenke lahko prevleče s snovmi, ki delujejo kot pregrada.
Tetra was fully aware of both.
Tetra se je teh vidikov v celoti zavedala.
It had submitted a patent application for a new barrier technology related to Tetra Fast on 23 March 2001, which underlined both the aseptic quality of the Tetra Fast blown bottle and sought to patent the gas barrier enhancing properties of the new technology.
Dne 23. marca 2001 je vložila patentno prijavo za novo pregradno tehnologijo v zvezi s Tetra Fast, v kateri je poudarila aseptično značilnost plastenke, napihnjene s tehnologijo Tetra Fast, in skušala pridobiti patent tudi za izboljšavo značilnosti plinske pregrade pri novi tehnologiji.
Also, a Tetra internal analysis underlined these aseptic qualities.
Tudi interne analize Tetre so poudarile te aseptične značilnosti.
Tetra relies on what it considers to be the different character between Form CO and a Request for Information.
Tetra se sklicuje na (po njenem mnenju razliko) med obrazcem CO in zahtevkom za podatke.
In Tetra’s opinion, Form CO sets out a series of pre-defined factual questions to allow for an assessment of the completeness of the notification, whereas the contents of Requests for Information, are drawn up depending on the Commission’s information requirements at a given moment in its decision-making process and must be construed taking into account this context and typically requires the addressees to express subjective views as to the issues raised.
Po mnenju Tetre je obrazec CO sestavljen iz vnaprej določenih vprašanj, ki omogočajo oceno o popolnosti priglasitve, vsebina zahtevkov za podatke pa je sestavljena glede na potrebe Komisije po podatkih v danem trenutku pri njenem postopku odločanja in mora biti razumljena v tem okviru in ponavadi zahteva od naslovnikov, da izrazijo subjektivno mnenje o obravnavanih vprašanjih.
In addition, Tetra considers that Requests for Information are of a less formal character and provide a means of discussion and exchange of views, for the Commission and the parties.
Tetra je tudi mnenja, da so zahtevki za podatke manj formalnega značaja in da za Komisijo in stranke predstavlja sredstvo za razpravo in izmenjavo mnenj.
According to Tetra, this is recognised in Article 14(1)(c) which sanctions the provision of incorrect information but not of misleading information whereas Article 14(1)(b) sanctions the provision of incorrect or misleading information.
Kakor razlaga Tetra, je to razvidno iz člena 14(1)(c), ki kaznuje navedbo netočnih podatkov, ne pa zavajajočih podatkov, medtem ko člen 14(1)(b) kaznuje navedbo netočnih ali zavajajočih podatkov.
On this basis, Tetra considers that the scope for imposing sanctions under Article 14(1)(c) is significantly more limited than under Article 14(1)(b).
Na podlagi tega Tetra meni, da je področje uporabe za naložitev kazni v skladu s členom 14(1)(c) precej bolj omejeno kot pri členu 14(1)(b).
The Commission considers that Tetra’s arguments must be rejected on the basis that the standard required by Form CO and by an Article 11 request is no different at least in respect to the provision of correct information.
Komisija meni, da je treba argumente Tetre zavrniti, saj so zahteve po pravilnosti podatkov enake za obrazec CO in zahtevkom v skladu s členom 11.
For the same reason Tetra’s claim that the scope for imposing sanctions under Article 14 (1)(c) is more limited is unfounded.
Iz istega razloga se kot neutemeljena šteje tudi pritožba Tetre glede področja uporabe za naložitev kazni v skladu s členom 14(1)(c) kot bolj omejenega.
Regarding question 4, Tetra holds that the technology ‘would not be needed’ for the packaging of juice and LDP and therefore it was not required to disclose its existence in response to this question.
Glede vprašanja 4 je Tetra mnenja, da tehnologija „ni potrebna“ za pakiranje sokov in tekočih mlečnih izdelkov in je zato ni bilo potrebno navesti v odgovoru na to vprašanje.
However, the Commission notes the question requested all studies and internal documents discussing the potential use of PET in the LDPs and juice segments and asked what was needed to package LDPs and juice in order to compete successfully on the market.
Vendar pa Komisija opozarja, da je v vprašanju zahtevana navedba vseh študij in internih dokumentov o možni rabi PET v oddelkih za tekoče mlečne izdelke in sokove in vprašanje, katere tehnologije bi bile potrebne, da bi PET uspešno uvedli za pakiranje tekočih mlečnih izdelkov in sokov.
It also requested Tetra to discuss its, and its competitors’ activities in this area.
Zahtevalo se je tudi, da Tetra obravnava svoje dejavnosti in dejavnosti drugih konkurentov na tem področju.
This necessitated a discussion of the technologies that the parties and their competitors possessed or were developing in order to compete effectively in future.
Zato je bila potrebna obravnava tehnologij, ki jih stranke in njeni konkurenti imajo ali razvijajo, da bi učinkovito konkurirali v prihodnosti.
As outlined above, Tetra had submitted a patent application for a new barrier technology related to Tetra Fast which, mentioning juice explicitly, underlined the gas barrier enhancing properties of the new technology and stressed its aseptic qualities, the latter being of high importance for commercially successful packaging of both juice and LDPs.
Kakor navedeno zgoraj, je Tetra vložila patentno prijavo za novo pregradno tehnologijo v povezavi s Tetra Fast, ki je zlasti pri polnjenju sokov poudarila značilnost nove tehnologije za izboljšavo plinske pregrade in njene aseptične značilnosti, ki se je izkazala za zelo pomembno za tržno uspešno pakiranje tekočih mlečnih izdelkov in sokov.
Tetra itself outlines that improvements in gas barrier technologies are of high relevance for future packaging of juice and that aseptic filling is of high potential relevance for packaging juice and LDP.
Tetra sama je opisala izboljšanja tehnologije s plinsko pregrado kot zelo pomembno za prihodnost pakiranja sokov in aseptično polnjenje kot možno zelo pomembno za pakiranje sokov in tekočih mlečnih izdelkov.
Consequently, it should have discussed Tetra Fast in its reply to Question 4 which asked for technologies which would be needed to enable PET to be used successfully for the packaging of LDPs and juice and requested Tetra to discuss its own activities.
Posledično bi morala obravnavati Tetra Fast v odgovoru na vprašanje 4, ki je zahtevalo podatke o tehnologijah, potrebnih, da bi PET uspešno uvedli za pakiranje tekočih mlečnih izdelkov in sokov, in podatke o njenih dejavnostih.
Regarding question 5, Tetra argues that Tetra Fast is not a barrier technology as such and therefore, it was not required to mention its existence in response to the question.
Glede vprašanja 5 Tetra dokazuje, da pri Tetra Fast ne gre za pregradno tehnologijo in zato je v odgovoru na to vprašanje ni bilo potrebno navesti.
The Commission notes that Tetra’s coating technology patent application of 23 March 2001, unambiguously links Tetra Fast to barrier technologies.
Komisija opozarja, da patentna prijava za tehnologijo za prevleko z dne 23. marca 2001 nedvoumno povezuje Tetra Fast s pregradno tehnologijo.
The patent application describes a method of blowing bottles using a precursor gas mixture to coat the inner side of the bottle at the same time as blowing the bottle which while also relating to the blowing of the bottle is still a technology for applying a barrier to the inner surface of the bottle.
Patentna prijava opisuje metodo napihovanja plastenk z uporabo mešanice plinov kot predhodne sestavine za prevleko notranje strani plastenk istočasno z napihovanjem plastenk; kljub povezavi z napihovanjem, gre za tehniko nanašanja pregrade na notranjo stran plastenke.
The fact that it is not sprayed or applied on to the surface of the bottle in the same way as other barrier technologies does not make it any less related to PET barrier technologies.
Dejstvo, da se ne brizga ali nanaša na površino plastenke na enak način kot pri drugih pregradnih tehnologijah, ne pomeni, da ne gre za pregradno tehnologijo PET.
Under Article 14(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation the Commission may by decision impose fines from EUR 1000 to 50000 where, intentionally or negligently, an undertaking supplies incorrect information in response to a request made pursuant to Article 11.
Po členu 14(1)(c) Uredbe o združitvah lahko Komisija z odločbo naloži globo v višini od 1000 do 50000 EUR podjetjem, ki v odgovoru v skladu s členom 11 namerno ali iz malomarnosti navedejo netočne podatke.
Regarding Question 4, it is clear that a full discussion of the future potential competitive environment should have included a detailed explanation of Tetra Fast for both its potential for the application of barrier coatings through the Tetra Fast technology and for their enhanced aseptic quality.
Glede vprašanja 4 je jasno, da bi obravnava prihodnjega možnega konkurenčnega okolja morala vsebovati podrobno obrazložitev tehnologije Tetra Fast, tako za možnosti uporabe tehnologije pregradnih prevlek v povezavi s Tetra Fast kot tudi njeno izboljšano aseptično značilnost.
Gas barrier technology, as acknowledged by Tetra is of relevance for packaging of juices and aseptic filling is of importance for both the packaging of juices and LDP.
Kakor je priznala Tetra, je plinska pregradna tehnologija pomembna za pakiranje sokov in aseptično polnjenje je pomembno tako za polnjenje sokov kot tudi tekočih mlečnih izdelkov.
Tetra’s response was incorrect in that it did not give the Commission a full picture of the future potential for development of competition on the market.
Odgovor Tetre je bil netočen, saj Komisiji ni podala celotne slike prihodnjih možnosti za razvoj konkurence na trgu.
GRAVITY OF THE INFRINGEMENT AND AMOUNT OF THE FINE
TEŽA KRŠITVE IN ZNESEK GLOBE
While there are no indications that Tetra acted intentionally, Tetra’s infringement must be considered grossly negligent.
Ker ni dokazov, da bi Tetra tako ravnala namerno, je treba kršitev obravnavati kot skrajno malomarno.
In its response to the Statement of Objections Tetra did not make comments as to the gravity of the infringement.
V odgovoru na obvestilo o nasprotovanju Tetra ni dala pripomb na težo kršitve.
Neither did Tetra identify any mitigating factors.
Prav tako ni navedla nobenih olajševalnih dejavnikov.
In the Commission’s view, the infringements in this case are very serious.
Po mnenju Komisije gre v tem primeru za zelo resne kršitve.
A notification is the basis and the starting point for the Commission’s investigation of a concentration.
Priglasitev je temelj in začetna točka za preiskavo Komisije o koncentraciji.
It determines to a large extent the approach of the Commission towards the case and the areas and focal points of its investigation.
V veliki meri določa pristop Komisije do primera, področja in glavne točke preiskave.
Incorrect information creates the risk that important aspects relevant for the competitive assessment of the transaction are neither investigated nor analysed by the Commission resulting in its final decision being flawed since it is based on incorrect or incomplete information.
Zaradi netočnih podatkov lahko pride do tveganja, da se pomembni vidiki za oceno konkurenčnosti ne preiskujejo in ne analizirajo s strani Komisije, in se nato v končni odločitvi izkaže za napačno, saj temelji na netočnih ali nepopolnih podatkih.
The same may be said of the failure to provide correct information in the Article 11 Reply which prevented the Commission from making a full and proper assessment of the merger.
Isto velja za nezagotavljanje točnih podatkov v odgovoru v skladu s členom 11, kar je Komisiji preprečilo, da bi izdelala popolno in pravilno oceno združitve.
The development of Tetra Fast was important for the Commission’s analysis of the conditions of competition on PET packaging markets.
Razvoj tehnologije Tetra Fast je bil zelo pomemben za analizo Komisije glede pogojev konkurence na trgu embalaže PET. Nerazkriti podatki so bili zelo pomembni za oceno nakupa podjetja Sidel s strani podjetja Tetra.
The undisclosed information was highly significant for the assessment of Tetra’s acquisition of Sidel in Tetra I. The potential of the technology would have had a significant impact on the Commission’s assessment of: (a) PET packaging markets and in particular on SBM markets; and (b) the future position of the merged entity on PET packaging markets, in particular on the relevant SBM markets.
Možnost tehnologije bi imela velik vpliv na oceno Komisije glede: (a) trgov embalaže PET in zlasti na trge strojev SBM; in (b) prihodnjega položaja združenega subjekta na trgu embalaže PET, zlasti na upoštevanih trgih strojev SBM.
Another factor to be taken into account in concluding that the infringement of Article 14(1)(c) is very serious is that Tetra gave incorrect replies to two questions in the Commission’s Article 11 request having a different scope, whereas in response to each of these two questions information on Tetra Fast, should have been disclosed for different reasons.
Pri ugotavljanju resnosti kršitve člena 14(1)(c) je treba upoštevati tudi dejstvo, da je Tetra dala netočne odgovore na dve vprašanji v zahtevku Komisije v skladu s členom 11, ki sta imeli različna cilja, in v odgovorih na ti dve vprašanji bi morali biti podani podatki o Tetra Fast iz različnih vzrokov.
For infringements of Article 14(1)(b) and Article 14(1)(c) the Commission may impose fines from EUR 1000 to 50000.
Za kršitve člena 14(1)(b) in člena 14(1)(c) Komisija lahko naloži globo v višini od 1000 do 50000 EUR.