natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 June 2002 in Case C-242/00 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities [2002] ECR I-5603, in particular paragraph 28.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 18. junija 2002 v zadevi C-242/00, Zvezna republika Nemčija proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti, Rec. 2002, str. I-5603, zlasti točka 28.
Case C-242/00 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (see footnote 18), Judgment of 15 October 1996 in Case C-311/94 IJssel-VlietCombinatie BV v Minister van Economische Zaken [1996] ECR I-5023, in particular paragraphs 36 and 37, and Judgment of 5 October 2000 in Case C-288/96 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities [2000] ECR I-8237, particularly paragraphs 62 to 65.
Zadeva C-242/00, Zvezna republika Nemčija proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti (opomba 20), Sodba Sodišča z dne 15. oktobra 1996 v zadevi C-311/94, IJssel-Vliet Combinatie BV proti Minister van Economische Zaken, Rec. 1996, str. I-5023, zlasti točki 36 in 37, Sodba Sodišča z dne 5. oktobra 2000 v zadevi C-288/96, Zvezna republika Nemčija proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti, Rec. 2000, str. I-8237, zlasti točke 62–65.
Information regarding the implementation of Commission Decision 2005/468/EC
Obrazec v zvezi z izvajanjem sklepa Komisije 2005/468/ES
Total number of beneficiaries and total amount of aid to be recovered
Skupno število upravičencev in skupna vsota vrnjene pomoči
Please explain in detail how the amount of aid to be recovered from individual beneficiaries will be calculated?
Podrobno navedite, na kakšen način bo izračunana vsota vrnjene pomoči, glede na različne upravičence
the principal,
Kapital
the interest.
Obresti
What is the total amount of unlawful aid granted under this scheme that is to be recovered (gross aid equivalent, prices of …)?
Podrobno navedite skupno vsoto nezakonito dodeljene pomoči, v skladu s shemo pomoči, ki jo je treba vrniti (ustrezna bruto pomoč, cene, …).
What is the total number of beneficiaries from which unlawful aid granted under this scheme is to be recovered?
Podrobno navedite skupno število upravičencev, ki morajo vrniti nezakonito dodeljeno pomoč v okviru zadevne sheme.
Measures planned and already taken to recover the aid
Predvideni in že sprejeti ukrepi za vračilo pomoči
Please describe in detail what measures are planned and what measures have already been taken to effect an immediate and effective recovery of the aid.
Podrobno navedite, kateri ukrepi za takojšnje in učinkovito vračilo pomoči so predvideni in kateri so bili že sprejeti.
Please also indicate where relevant the legal basis for the measures taken/planned.
Prav tako navedite, če je primerno, pravno podlago za predvidene/sprejete ukrepe.
By what date will the recovery of the aid be completed?
Kdaj bo vračanje zaključeno?
Information by individual beneficiary
Podatki o različnih upravičencih
Please provide details for each beneficiary from whom unlawful aid granted under the scheme is to be recovered in the table overleaf.
V priloženi tabeli navedite podatke vsakega upravičenca, ki mora vrniti nezakonito dodeljeno pomoč v okviru zadevne sheme.
Identity of the beneficiary
Identiteta upravičenca pomoči
Amount of unlawful aid granted [1]Currency:
Znesek nezakonito dodeljene pomoči [1]Valuta:
Amounts reimbursed [2]Currency:
Znesek vračila [2]Valuta:
Amount of aid put at the disposal of the beneficiary (in gross aid equivalents; in prices of …).
Znesek pomoči na voljo upravičencu (bruto ekvivalent pomoči, cena …).
Gross amounts reimbursed (including interest).
Vrnjene bruto vsote (vključno z obrestmi).
Article 18 of the same Regulation states that ‘where the Commission […] concludes that the existing aid scheme is not, or is no longer, compatible with the common market, it shall issue a recommendation proposing appropriate measures to the Member State concerned.’
Člen 18 te uredbe pravi, „če […] Komisija sklepa, da sedanja shema pomoči ni ali ni več združljiva s skupnim trgom, na zadevno državo članico naslovi priporočilo o sprejetju uporabnih ukrepov“.
Article 19(1) of that Regulation sets out that where the Member State accepts the proposed appropriate measures, the Commission shall ‘record that finding’ and inform the Member State thereof.
Člen 19(1) uredbe določa, če država članica sprejme predlagane uporabne ukrepe, Komisija „to obravnava“ in o tem obvesti državo članico.
Regulation amended by the 2003 Act of accession.
Uredba, spremenjena z Aktom o pristopu iz leta 2003.
Secondly, due to legitimate expectations of the beneficiaries, no recovery can be made. The act in question has been proposed by the Swedish Government and adopted by the Swedish Parliament.
Drugič, zaradi legitimnih pričakovanj upravičencev vračilo ni mogoče.
In addition, the Swedish tax levels in the energy area are generally high compared to the corresponding level in most other Member States. It would not have been possible to achieve these levels without an exemption from the electricity tax for certain sectors.
Poleg tega je stopnja obdavčitve energije na Švedskem na splošno višja kot v večini drugih držav članic, te stopnje pa ne bi bilo mogoče doseči, če nekateri sektorji ne bi bili oproščeni davka na električno energijo
That provision requires benefiting companies to pay a significant proportion of the national tax. The reason for that is to leave them with an incentive to improve their environmental performance.
Zaradi te določbe morajo podjetja, upravičena do znižanja, kljub temu plačati bistveni del nacionalnega davka, ker tako ohranjajo spodbudo za okoljsko uspešnost.
The Commission maintains its position that the tax on electricity cannot be assessed together with the CO2 tax. As stated in the decision to open the Article 88(2) procedure, there are two reasons for this.
Komisija potrjuje svoje stališče, da se davka na električno energijo ne sme ocenjevati skupaj s takso na CO2 zaradi dveh razlogov, kot navaja sklep o začetku postopka iz člena 88(2).
Therefore, for the period 1 January 2002 until 31 December 2003 the Swedish measure can be declared compatible to the extent that beneficiaries are required to pay the minimum rates set by Directive 2003/96/EC. Incompatible aid corresponds to the amount resulting from the application of the minimum levels set out in the Energy Tax Directive.
Zato se v obdobju od 1. januarja 2002 do 31. decembra 2003 švedski ukrep razglasi kot združljiv s skupnim trgom tako, da morajo upravičenci plačati najnižjo raven določeno v Direktivi 2003/96/ES.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1
SPREJELA NASLEDNJO ODLOČBO:
In the present case, the conditions for applying a zero tax rate are not fulfilled. Therefore, similarly for the period since 1 January 2004, the Swedish measure may only be declared compatible to the extent that beneficiaries are required to pay the minimum rates set by Directive 2003/96/EC. Incompatible aid corresponds to the amount resulting from the application of the minimum levels set out in the energy tax Directive.
V tem primeru pogoji za uporabo stopnje nič niso izpolnjeni.
of 24 June 2005
z dne 24. junija 2005
amending for the third time Decision 2004/614/EC as regards the period of application of protection measures relating to avian influenza in South Africa
o tretji spremembi Odločbe 2004/614/ES glede obdobja uporabe zaščitnih ukrepov v zvezi s kokošjo kugo v Južni Afriki
(notified under document number C(2005) 1863)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko K(2005) 1863)
By Commission Decision 2004/614/EC of 24 August 2004 concerning protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in the Republic of South Africa [3] the Commission adopted protection measures in relation to avian influenza in ratite flocks in South Africa.
Z Odločbo Komisije 2004/614/ES z dne 24. avgusta 2004 o zaščitnih ukrepih v zvezi z visoko patogeno obliko kokošje kuge v Republiki Južni Afriki [3], je Komisija sprejela zaščitne ukrepe glede kokošje kuge v jatah ratitov v Južni Afriki.
In December 2004, the Commission received information from South Africa indicating that the disease situation in ratite flocks had improved.
Decembra 2004 je Komisija od Južne Afrike prejela informacijo, ki kaže na izboljšanje stanja bolezni v jatah ratitov.
However, that information did not allow the Commission to conclude that the disease had been effectively controlled.
Vendar Komisija iz navedene informacije ni mogla sklepati, da je ta bolezen dejansko nadzorovana.
No further information has been received from South Africa and the current disease situation appears unclear.
Iz Južne Afrike niso prispele nobene dodatne informacije in sedanje stanje bolezni se zdi negotovo.
Under the circumstances it is appropriate to prolong the application of Decision 2004/614/EC for another six months.
V takih okoliščinah je primerno podaljšati veljavo Odločbe 2004/614/ES za nadaljnjih šest mesecev.
That Decision may, however, be reviewed before the end of the six-month period depending on any further information supplied by South Africa.
Vendar je navedeno določbo možno pred iztekom šestmesečnega roka ponovno pregledati glede na dodatne informacije, ki jih bo posredovala Južna Afrika.
In Article 7 of Decision 2004/614/EC, the date ‘30 June 2005’ is replaced by the date ‘31 December 2005’.
V členu 7 Odločbe 2004/614/ES se datum „30. junija 2005“ nadomesti z datumom „31. decembra 2005“.
Done at Brussels, 24 June 2005.
V Bruslju, 24. junija 2005
Directive as last amended by the 2003 Act of Accession.
Direktiva, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Aktom o pristopu leta 2003.
Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1); corrected version OJ L 191, 28.5.2004, p. 1.
Direktiva, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 882/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (UL L 165, 30.4.2004, str. 1); popravljena različica (UL L 191, 28.5.2004, str. 1).
Decision as last amended by Decision 2005/210/EC (OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p. 43).
Odločba, kakor je bila spremenjena z Odločbo 2005/210/ES (UL L 68, 15.3.2005, str. 43).
terminating the examination procedure concerning piracy of Community sound recordings in Thailand and its effects on Community trade in sound recordings
o zaključku postopka preverjanja v zvezi s piratstvom posnetih nosilcev zvoka Skupnosti na Tajskem in njegovih učinkih na trgovino Skupnosti s posnetimi nosilci zvoka
On 5 June 1991 the Commission received a complaint, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84 of 17 September 1984 on the strengthening of the common commercial policy with regard in particular to protection against illicit commercial practices [2] from the European Office of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), representing virtually all producers of sound recordings in the Community.
Dne 5. junija 1991 je Komisija od evropskega urada Mednarodne zveze fonografske industrije (IFPI), ki predstavlja dejansko vse proizvajalce posnetih nosilcev zvoka v Skupnosti, prejela pritožbo v skladu z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) št. 2641/84 z dne 17. septembra 1984 o krepitvi skupne trgovinske politike zlasti glede zaščite pred nedovoljenimi trgovinskimi praksami [2].
The complaint alleged that piracy of Community sound recordings was taking place on a large scale in Thailand and that such piracy was causing injury to the Community industry, notably by affecting exports of Community sound recordings to Thailand as well as to other third markets.
V pritožbi je bilo navedeno, da se je piratstvo posnetih nosilcev zvoka Skupnosti v velikem obsegu izvajalo na Tajskem in da je tako piratstvo povzročalo škodo industriji Skupnosti, zlasti ker je negativno vplivalo na izvoz posnetih nosilcev zvoka Skupnosti na Tajsko, kot tudi na druge tretje trge.
A corresponding notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities [3].
Ustrezno obvestilo je bilo objavljeno v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti [3].
Following the initiation of the procedure, the Commission conducted a factual and legal examination and presented on 20 February 1992 its examination report to the Advisory Committee.
Po uvedbi postopka je Komisija opravila dejansko in pravno preiskavo ter je 20. februarja 1992 predložila svoje poročilo o preverjanju Svetovalnemu odboru.
From this it appeared that, during the reference period, and essentially as a result of the Thai authorities' failure to properly enforce the then Thai legislation on copyright, the level of piracy of sound recordings (international repertoire) was likely to have reached 90 %, and that this situation resulted in material injury to the Community industry, notably in the form of lost sales on the Thai market (as well as certain other third markets).
Iz poročila izhaja, da je v referenčnem obdobju in predvsem zaradi tega, ker tajski organi niso bili sposobni ustrezno izvajati tedanje tajske zakonodaje o avtorskih pravicah, raven piratstva posnetih nosilcev zvočnega zapisa (mednarodni repertoar) verjetno dosegla 90 %, kar je povzročilo materialno škodo industriji Skupnosti, zlasti v obliki izgubljene prodaje na tajskem trgu (in na nekaterih drugih tretjih trgih).
The Commission then held consultations with the Thai authorities which brought about the commitment of the Thai Government, in September 1992, to bring down piracy of EC sound recordings to negligible levels within the shortest possible time span and, in a first stage, to achieve a substantial reduction within one year.
Komisija se je nato posvetovala s tajskimi organi oblasti, nakar se je septembra 1992 tajska vlada zavezala, da bo v najkrajšem možnem času piratstvo posnetih nosilcev zvoka ES zmanjšala na zanemarljivo raven in da bo v prvi fazi dosegla občutno zmanjšanje že v enem letu.
The new Thai Copyright Act entered into force on 21 March 1995.
Novi tajski zakon o avtorskih pravicah je začel veljati 21. marca 1995.
It introduced numerous provisions aimed at simplifying action against the pirates and including the necessary deterrent effects against potential as well as actual infringers, notably through much increased penalties.
Uvedel je številne določbe, katerih cilj je zlasti preko občutno povišanih kazni poenostaviti ukrepe proti piratom in vključiti potrebne kazenske ukrepe proti možnim in dejanskim kršiteljem.
Under these circumstances, it was decided by Commission decision 96/40/EC [4] to suspend the examination procedure, and to continue a close monitoring of the situation.
V teh okoliščinah je bilo s Sklepom Komisije 96/40/EC [4] sklenjeno, da se postopek preverjanja prekine in se nadaljuje natančno spremljanje stanja.
The Commission conducted a further factual and legal examination and presented on 29 May 2002, 13 October 2003 and 29 June 2004 three examination reports to the Advisory Committee.
Komisija je opravila nadaljnjo dejansko in pravno preiskavo in 29. maja 2002, 13. oktobra 2003 in 29. junija 2004 Svetovalnemu odboru predstavila tri poročila o preiskavi.
From these it appeared that Thailand has taken measures aimed at effectively reducing the level of piracy of sound recordings including the adoption by the Thai Parliament of an Optical Media Legislation, intensified enforcement activities targeted at persons engaged in music piracy, closer coordination between the different Thai authorities involved in the fight against music piracy and between the Thai authorities and music industry associations, and the organisation of public campaigns aimed at making consumers aware of the adverse effects of piracy.
Iz poročil je bilo razvidno, da so bili sprejeti ukrepi Tajske usmerjeni k učinkovitemu zmanjševanju piratstva posnetih nosilcev zvoka, vključno z zakonodajo o optičnih medijih, ki jo je sprejel tajski parlament, okrepljenimi dejavnostmi izvrševanja, usmerjenimi k osebam, vpletenim v piratstvo na področju glasbe, tesnejšim usklajevanjem med raznimi tajskimi organi oblasti, vključenimi v boj proti piratstvu na področju glasbe in tajskimi organi oblasti in združenji glasbene industrije ter z organiziranjem javnih kampanj, namenjenih osveščanju potrošnikov o škodljivih učinkih piratstva.
Despite these initiatives, piracy of sound recordings (international repertoire) remains a serious problem in Thailand, and substantial numbers of pirated sound recordings continue to be exported to the European Union.
Kljub tem pobudam ostaja piratstvo posnetih nosilcev zvoka (mednarodni repertoar) na Tajskem resen problem in v Evropsko unijo se še naprej izvaža večje število piratsko posnetih nosilcev zvoka.
These continuing problems can, however, better be addressed in other contexts than an investigation under Regulation 3286/94.
Vendar bi se te težave lahko bolje rešile na druge načine in ne s preiskavo v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 3286/94.
Further progress in the reduction of piracy of Community sound recordings in Thailand should be sought in the context of permanent bilateral and regional cooperation arrangements between Thailand and the Community.
Nadaljnji napredek pri zmanjševanju piratstva posnetih nosilcev zvoka Skupnosti na Tajskem je treba iskati v okviru dogovorov o stalnem dvostranskem in regionalnem sodelovanju med Tajsko in Skupnostjo.
Measures to address piracy may also be developed in the context of a bilateral partnership and cooperation agreement between Thailand and the Community.
Ukrepe za preprečevanje piratstva bi se lahko razvilo tudi v okviru dvostranskega sporazuma o partnerstvu in sodelovanju med Tajsko in Skupnostjo.
The Community may also continue to support efforts to enhance the technical capacity of Thai authorities to combat piracy of sound recordings in the context of financial support programmes.
Skupnost lahko še naprej podpira prizadevanja za krepitev tehnične zmogljivosti tajskih organov oblasti za boj proti piratstvu posnetih nosilcev zvoka v okviru programov finančne pomoči.
The efforts made by Thailand to address problems of piracy of Community sound recordings can be monitored in the framework of the mechanisms envisaged by the Communication on the Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries [5].
Prizadevanja Tajske pri reševanju težav v zvezi s piratstvom posnetih nosilcev zvoka Skupnosti se lahko spremljajo v okviru mehanizmov, predvidenih v Sporočilu o strategiji uveljavljanja pravic intelektualne lastnine v tretjih državah [5].
Accordingly, it is appropriate to terminate the examination procedure.
Zato je primerno, da se postopek preverjanja zaključi.
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee,
Ukrepi, predvideni s to odločbo, so v skladu z mnenjem Svetovalnega odbora –
The examination procedure concerning piracy of Community sound recordings in Thailand and its effects on Community trade in sound recordings, is hereby terminated.
Postopek preverjanja v zvezi s piratstvom posnetih nosilcev zvoka Skupnosti na Tajskem in njegovih učinkih na trgovino Skupnosti s posnetimi nosilci zvoka se prekine.
OJ L 252, 20.9.1984, p. 1.
UL L 252, 20.9.1984, str. 1.
Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 522/94 (OJ L 66, 10.3.1994, p. 10).
Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 522/94 (UL L 66, 10.3.1994, str. 10).
OJ C 189, 20.7.1991, p. 26.
UL C 189, 20.7.1991, str. 26.
OJ L 11, 16.1.1996, p. 7.
UL L 11, 16.1.1996, str. 7.
OJ C 129, 26.5.2005, p. 3.
UL C 129, 26.5.2005, str. 3.
relating to proceedings under Article 81 of the EC Treaty against BPB PLC, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV
o postopku iz člena 81 Pogodbe ES proti podjetjem BPB PLC, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA in Gyproc Benelux N. V.
(Case No COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard)
(Zadeva št. COMP/E-1/37.152 – Mavčne plošče)
(notified under document number C(2002) 4570)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko K(2002) 4570)
(Only the English, French, German and Dutch versions are authentic)
(Besedila v angleškem, francoskem, nemškem in nizozemskem jeziku so edina verodostojna)
On 27 November 2002, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty.
Komisija je 27. novembra 2002 sprejela odločbo o postopku iz člena 81 Pogodbe ES.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 [1] replacing Article 21 of Regulation No 17 [2], the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business interests.
Komisija v skladu z določbami člena 30 Uredbe 1/2003 [1], ki je nadomestil člen 21 Uredbe 17 [2], objavlja imena zainteresiranih strank in glavno vsebino odločbe, vključno s predpisanimi kaznimi, pri čemer upošteva upravičeni interes strank, da se njihove poslovne skrivnosti ne razkrijejo.
A non-confidential version of the full text of the decision can be found in the authentic languages of the case and in the Commission’s working languages at DG COMP’s website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.html).I.
Javna različica odločbe v verodostojnih različicah in delovnih jezikih Komisije je dostopna na spletni strani Generalnega direktorata za konkurenco Komisije: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.htmlI.
SUMMARY OF THE INFRINGEMENT
POVZETEK KRŠITVE
The following undertakings are the addressees of this Decision relating to the infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty:
Ta odločba je zaradi kršitve člena 81 Pogodbe naslovljena na naslednja podjetja:
BPB plc (hereinafter: BPB),
BPB PLC (v nadaljevanju: „BPB“),
Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG (hereinafter: Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke),
Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG (v nadaljevanju: „Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke“),
Société Lafarge SA (hereinafter: Lafarge),
Société Lafarge SA (v nadaljevanju: „Lafarge“),
Gyproc Benelux NV (hereinafter: Gyproc).
Gyproc Benelux NV (v nadaljevanju: „Gyproc“).
Nature of the infringement
Vrsta kršitve
BPB, Knauf [3], Lafarge and Gyproc entered into and participated without interruption in a complex and continuing agreement contrary to Article 81(1) of the Treaty which was manifested in the following conduct constituting agreements or concerted practices:
BPB, Knauf [3], Lafarge in Gyproc so sklenili in neprekinjeno sodelovali pri celovitem in nepretrganem sporazumu v nasprotju s členom 81(1) Pogodbe, izraženim z naslednjim ravnanjem, ki je obsegalo sporazume ali dogovorjene prakse:
the representatives of BPB and Knauf met in London in 1992 and expressed the common desire to stabilise the markets in Germany (hereinafter: German market), the United Kingdom (hereinafter: UK market), France (hereinafter: French market) and the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg (hereinafter: Benelux market),
predstavniki podjetij BPB in Knauf so leta 1992 na sestanku v Londonu izrazili skupno željo po stabilizaciji trgov na ozemlju Nemčije (v nadaljevanju: „nemški trg“), ozemlju Združenega kraljestva (v nadaljevanju: „britanski trg“), ozemlju Francije (v nadaljevanju: „francoski trg“) ter ozemljih Nizozemske, Belgije in Luksemburga (v nadaljevanju: „beneluški trg“);
the representatives of BPB and Knauf established, as from 1992, information exchange arrangements, to which Lafarge and subsequently Gyproc acceded, relating to their sales volumes on the German, French, UK and Benelux plasterboard markets,
predstavniki podjetij BPB in Knauf so leta 1992 vzpostavili sisteme izmenjave podatkov o svojih obsegih prodaje na nemškem, francoskem, britanskem in beneluškem trgu mavčnih plošč, vanje pa sta se vključili tudi podjetji Lafarge in kasneje še Gyproc;
the representatives of BPB, Knauf and Lafarge exchanged information, on various occasions, prior to price increases on the UK market,
predstavniki podjetij BPB, Knauf in Lafarge so se med seboj večkrat vnaprej obveščali o zvišanju cen na britanskem trgu;
in view of particular developments on the German market, the representatives of BPB, Knauf, Lafarge and Gyproc met at Versailles in 1996, Brussels in 1997 and The Hague in 1998 with a view to sharing out or at least stabilising the German market,
predstavniki podjetij BPB, Knauf, Lafarge in Gyproc so se zaradi posebnih dogajanj na nemškem trgu leta 1996 sestali v Versaillesu, leta 1997 v Bruslju in leta 1998 v Haagu, da bi si razdelili ali vsaj stabilizirali nemški trg;