natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The threats to restrict supplies, followed by sporadic restrictions, affected among others the 306 Estate model.
Grožnje glede omejitve dobave, ki so jim sledile posamezne omejitve, so prav tako zadevale model 306 break.
That the association of Dutch Peugeot Dealers (VPDN) also supported, from 1997 onwards, the adoption of measures to restrict the supply of certain models and remove the most exported models from the range is clear from a number of meeting records.
Iz več zapisnikov sestanka je razvidno, da je VDPN (virtual private dialup network) od leta 1997 dalje tudi podpiral sprejetje ukrepov, da se omeji dobava nekaterih modelov ter odpravi vrsto najbolj izvažanih modelov.
In 1998 dealers in the west of the country put on record their wish to see an end to exports of the 206 model.
Nenazadnje so koncesionarji iz zahodnega dela države leta 1998 v zvezi z modelom 206 izrazili svoj interes, da bi se prenehal izvažati.
The agreement on the measures at issue
Sporazum o zadevnih ukrepih
The measures taken by Automobiles Peugeot SA to restrict export sales and intra-brand competition were not unilateral practices.
Ukrepi, ki jih je sprejelo podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA, za omejitev prodaje na tuje trge in konkurence med avtomobilskimi znamkami niso pomenili enostranskih ravnanj.
On the contrary, they fell within the scope of Article 81(1) of the Treaty.
Ukrepi nasprotno izhajajo iz člena 81(1) Pogodbe.
They formed part of the contractual relations between Automobiles Peugeot SA, on the one hand, and the dealers belonging to its selective, exclusive distribution networks in the Netherlands, on the other, concerning the sale of Peugeot vehicles and other contract goods.
Uvrstili so se med pogodbena razmerja med podjetjem Automobiles Peugeot SA na eni strani in koncesionarji, ki pripadajo izključni in selektivni distribucijski mreži na Nizozemskem, na drugi, ta mreža se ukvarja s prodajo vozil Peugeot in drugih pogodbenih dobrin.
In the present case, as far as the discriminatory bonus is concerned, the agreement was between Automobiles Peugeot SA and the members of its Dutch network.
V okviru te zadeve ter glede diskriminatorne premije je bil sporazum sklenjen med podjetjem Automobiles Peugeot SA in člani, ki pripadajo njegovi nizozemski mreži.
The practical arrangements for operation of the Peugeot network between 1997 and 2003 show that there was tacit acquiescence on the part of the Peugeot dealers in the Netherlands, and therefore a concurrence of wills, when each sales transaction took place [5].
Dejansko praktična podrobna ureditev delovanja mreže podjetja Peugeot med leti 1997 in 2003 kaže, da so koncesionarji Peugeota na Nizozemskem pri vsaki prodaji tiho privolili, kar torej pomeni sovpadanje želja [5].
As far as pressure on dealers is concerned, starting in 1997 at the latest, Automobiles Peugeot SA issued to its Dutch dealers through the VPDN a clear call for discipline in limiting exports to other Member States.
Glede pritiskov na koncesionarje je podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA na nizozemske koncesionarje naslovilo jasno povabilo s pomočjo VPDN, katerega namen je bila uvedba reda pri omejevanju izvoza v druge države članice vsaj od leta 1997 dalje.
The episodes of pressure on dealers described in the Decision show that the call by Automobiles Peugeot/PNE to its dealers to ensure that their exporting activities remained exceptional was endorsed in principle by all members of the network, subject to the occasional action by the manufacturer to maintain the discipline thus brought about.
Nadalje primeri pritiskov na koncesionarje, kakor so opisani v Odločbi, kažejo, da so se s povabilom, ki sta ga nanje naslovili podjetji Automobiles Peugeot SA/PNE, in je skušalo zagotoviti, da bi dejavnosti izvoza koncesionarjev ohranile izjemen značaj, načeloma strinjali vsi člani mreže, ob upoštevanju posameznih posredovanj, s katerimi je proizvajalec lahko vzdrževal tako vzpostavljeni red.
The object of the infringement involving the two measures
Predmet kršitve, ki zadeva oba ukrepa
Automobiles Peugeot SA and PNE adopted a strategy aimed at limiting export sales from the Netherlands.
Podjetji Automobiles Peugeot SA in PNE sta sprejeli strategijo, katere cilj je omejiti prodajo na tuje trge iz Nizozemske.
This strategy, which was implemented in agreement with the dealers and in conjunction with VPDN, had, like each of the measures constituting it, as its object and effect a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81(1).
Cilj in posledica te strategije, ki so jo izvajali v soglasju s koncesionarji in v povezavi z VPDN, ter obeh ukrepov, ki jo sestavljata, sta omejitev konkurence v smislu člena 81(1).
A discriminatory bonus liable to hinder exports
Diskriminatorna premija, ki skuša zavirati izvoz
In its reply to the statement of objections, Automobiles Peugeot SA argued that the quantity bonus introduced in the Netherlands was pro-competitive and had the ‘sole, manifest objective’ of motivating dealers by offering them the necessary economic incentives, in the form of bonuses, to concentrate their best sales efforts on their contract territory and thereby enable Automobiles Peugeot SA to increase its market share in the Netherlands.
Podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA se je v svojem odgovoru na razloge za pritožbo sklicevalo na konkurenčno usmerjen značaj kvantitativne premije, vzpostavljene na Nizozemskem, njen „edini in nedvomni“ cilj naj bi bilo spodbujanje koncesionarjev z zagotavljanjem potrebnih gospodarskih spodbud v obliki premije, da bi si čim bolj prizadevali za prodajo na svojem pogodbenem ozemlju, in tako omogočili podjetju Automobiles Peugeot SA povečati njegov tržni delež na Nizozemskem.
It should be noted in this connection that the Decision does not call into question the possibility for the manufacturer to tailor its commercial policy to the requirements of different national markets with a view to achieving better penetration rates in those markets.
V tem okviru je treba omeniti, da Odločba ne izpodbija možnosti proizvajalca, da oblikuje lastno komercialno politiko na podlagi različnih zahtev nacionalnih trgov za pridobitev najboljših stopenj prodora na te trge.
It challenges neither the manufacturer’s freedom to agree with its dealers sales targets set in terms of sales to be achieved in the contract territory nor its freedom to adopt appropriate incentives, in the form of performance bonuses in particular, in order to urge its dealers to increase their sales volumes in the territory allocated to them.
Odločba dejansko ne izpodbija niti možnosti proizvajalca, da se s svojimi koncesionarji sporazume o ciljih prodaje, določenih na podlagi prodaje, ki jo je treba doseči na pogodbenem ozemlju, niti možnosti sprejemanja ustreznih spodbujevalnih ukrepov, še zlasti v obliki premije, ki temelji na rezultatih, da bi svoje koncesionarje spodbudil k povečanju obsega prodaje na dodeljenem ozemlju.
This possibility, which stimulates inter-brand competition, is furthermore expressly provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 [6] (the exemption Regulation).
Ta možnost, ki spodbuja konkurenco med znamkami, je sicer predvidena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1475/95 [6] (Uredbo o izjemah).
However, from January 1997, the annual circulars to all dealers concerning implementation of the new bonus scheme stipulated — as is borne out by other evidence — that only passenger cars registered in the Dutch market would count towards payment of the bonus.
Toda od januarja 1997 dalje je bilo v letnih okrožnicah, poslanih vsem koncesionarjem, glede izvajanja novega sistema premij, potrjenih z drugimi poskusnimi elementi, predvideno, da so se pri izplačilu premije upoštevala samo tista osebna vozila, registrirana na nizozemskem trgu.
Consequently, any dealer who had fully achieved his territorial sales targets and had therefore acquired entitlement to the bonus was nevertheless denied the benefit of the bonus thus acquired when it came to payment of that entitlement with respect to sales to non-resident consumers.
Zato vsak koncesionar, ki je v celoti dosegel te prodajne cilje na ozemlju in si je torej pridobil pravico do premije, kljub temu ni bil upravičen do tako pridobljene premije za plačilo (ali izplačilo) te pravice, če je prodajal potrošnikom nerezidentom.
Such a scheme, viewed from the standpoint of its objective modus operandi, therefore went beyond what was necessary to encourage Dutch dealers to devote their best sales efforts to their contract territory.
Tak sistem, obravnavan z vidika objektivnega delovanja, je torej presegel tisto, kar je bilo potrebno za spodbujanje nizozemskih koncesionarjev, da bi si čim bolj prizadevali za prodajo na svojem pogodbenem ozemlju.
It was in the nature of one of the hardcore restrictions mentioned in Regulation (EC) No 1475/95, Article 6(1)(8) which provides that the exemption does not apply where ‘the supplier, without any objective reason, grants dealers remunerations calculated on the basis of the place of destination of the motor vehicles resold or the place of residence of the purchaser’.
Narava tega sistema je pomenila značilno omejitev, omenjeno v Uredbi (ES) št. 1475/95, in je hkrati kršila člen 6(1)(8) na podlagi katerega izjema ne velja „od tedaj, ko dobavitelj brez objektivno utemeljenega razloga distributerjem dodeli nadomestila, izračunana na podlagi namembnega kraja preprodanih motornih vozil ali stalnega prebivališča kupca“.
What is more, PNE made it less easy for dealers to get round the scheme by checking the car order data input by the dealer in the database by which the manufacturer managed its relations with its network (DIALOG) against the data obtained from the national registration authority.
Poleg tega je podjetje PNE koncesionarjem zmanjšalo možnosti, da bi se izognili temu sistemu po eni strani s preverjanjem skladnosti med podrobnostmi v zvezi z naročilom vozila, ki jih je koncesionar vnesel v programsko opremo, s katero je proizvajalec upravljal svoje odnose z mrežo (DIALOG), ter po drugi s podatki, pridobljenimi od nacionalnega organa za registracijo.
In its reply to the statement of objections, Automobiles Peugeot SA questioned the effectiveness of such a measure, maintaining that the amount of the bonus was too small for its non-payment to act as a disincentive for dealers to export.
Sicer pa je podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA v svojem odgovoru na razloge za pritožbo izpodbijalo učinkovitost takega ukrepa s poudarjanjem, da znesek te premije ni dovolj visok, da bi njeno neizplačilo koncesionarje odvračalo od izvoza.
The defence put forward by Automobiles Peugeot SA is intrinsically contradictory.
Toda sprva je treba omeniti resnično protisloven značaj obrambe, ki ga je zavzelo podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA.
On the one hand, it argues that the level of the bonus on offer between 1997 and 2003 was too low to have had any effect on dealers’ behaviour.
Po eni strani podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA dejansko uveljavlja stališče, da raven premije, vzpostavljena med leti 1997 in 2003, ni bila dovolj visoka, da bi lahko vplivala na ravnanje koncesionarjev.
On the other, it stresses that the scheme at issue, and in particular the level of the discounts granted to dealers who had achieved their sales targets, was essential to providing appropriate financial incentives to ensure that dealers devoted their best sales efforts to their respective contract territories.
Po drugi strani podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA poudarja, da bi bil zadevni sistem, in zlasti raven rabata, dodeljenega koncesionarjem, ki je dosegla njihove cilje prodaje, nepogrešljiva pri dodelitvi ustreznih gospodarskih spodbud za zagotovitev, da bi si koncesionarji čim bolj prizadevali za prodajo na svojih pogodbenih ozemljih.
Moreover, the evidence gathered during the course of the investigation bears out the objections about the measures’ significant impact by showing that the bonus was important to dealers throughout the period and that its loss on export sales significantly affected dealer interest in selling to non-resident consumers.
Poleg tega dokazilni elementi, zbrani med zaslišanjem, potrjujejo razloge za pritožbo o odločilnih vplivu ukrepov s prikazom, da je bila premija za koncesionarje pomembna med vsem obdobjem in da je njen izpad pri prodaji na tuje trge odločilo vplival na interes koncesionarjev glede prodaje nerezidentom.
The exerting of pressure as proof of Peugeot’s intention to hinder exports
Pritiski, ki kažejo, da je skušalo podjetje Peugeot zavirati izvoz
From 1997 onwards and until a more recent period in 2001, Automobiles Peugeot SA occasionally intervened to deter certain Dutch dealers from supplying vehicles to final consumers in other Member States.
Podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA je od leta 1997 do poznejšega obdobja leta 2001 je pravočasno posredovalo, da je odvračalo nekatere nizozemske koncesionarje od dobave vozil končnim potrošnikom v drugih državah članicah.
The pressure put on Dutch dealers, like the aspects of the remuneration system that de facto discriminated against exports, was intended to hinder cross-border trade in cars between dealers in the Netherlands and those in other Member States with a view to walling off the Dutch market from the other markets in the European Union.
Cilj pritiskov na nizozemske koncesionarje, kot so sredstva za nadomestila, ki povzročajo diskriminacijo pri dejavnikih izvoza, je bilo oviranje čezmejne trgovine vozil med nizozemskimi koncesionarji in koncesionarji iz drugih držav članic, zato da bi porazdelili nizozemski trg v primerjavi z drugimi trgi Evropske unije.
It is in the context of this strategy that the documents held on file concerning the pressure on dealers should be assessed.
Dokumente iz dosjeja v zvezi s pritiski na koncesionarje je treba oceniti v okviru te strategije.
Significant, quantifiable impact of the measures
Odločilen vpliv in zneski ukrepov
Parallel exports from the Netherlands declined after 1997, the year in which the remuneration system was implemented, falling by about 50 % after 1999.
Sprva je treba poudariti, da v zadevnem primeru opazimo zmanjšanje vzporednih izvozov iz Nizozemske po letu 1997, datum začetka izvajanja zadevnega sistema nadomestil, nato pa padec teh izvozov za približno 50 % po letu 1999.
In its reply to the statement of objections, Automobiles Peugeot SA attributes this to factors other than the remuneration system in dispute, namely the ‘essential role’ played by diminishing price differentials.
Podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA v svojem odgovoru na razloge za pritožbo tega padca ne pripisuje spornemu sistemu nadomestil, ampak drugim dejavnikom, in sicer „bistveno vlogo“ ima zmanjšanje razlike v cenah.
However, several factors contradict this analysis.
Toda več elementov nasprotuje tej analizi.
First, there was no significant variation in the price differential at Community level during the period in question.
Prvič, med obravnavanim obdobjem ne opazimo odločilnega spreminjanja razlike v cenah na ravni Skupnosti.
Second, an internal PNE memo dating from 2002 quantified the remuneration system’s impact on parallel trade by estimating the volume of additional sales to non-resident final consumers compared with the previous year achievable if the bonus were in fact paid in 2003 in respect of vehicles sold for export.
Drugič, v interni opombi podjetja PNE iz leta 2002 je bil opravljen izračun učinka sistema nadomestil na vzporedno trgovino, tako da se je izdelala ocena o obsegu dodatne prodaje končnim potrošnikom nerezidentom glede na prejšnje leto, ki bi bila lahko dosežena, če bi bila premija za vozila, prodana na tuje trge, dejansko izplačana v letu 2003.
Third, in relation to the pressure on dealers, a total of 22 French consumers complained to the Commission about the loss caused by delivery delays coupled with threats from Peugeot.
Tretjič skupno štiriindvajset francoskih koncesionarjev je, v zvezi s pritiski na koncesionarje, pri Komisiji vložilo pritožbo za škodo, ki so jo povzročile zamude pri dobavi, povezane z grožnjami podjetja Peugeot.
The Commission considered that a fine should therefore be imposed commensurate with the gravity of the infringement, the deterrent effect of which would prevent any repeat offending.
Komisija je menila, da je treba zato naložiti globo, ki ustrezno kaznuje to kršitev in katere odvračilni učinek izključuje vsako ponovno kršitev.
In fixing the amount of the fine, the Commission took into account all the appropriate circumstances, and in particular the gravity and duration of the infringement, these being criteria explicitly mentioned in Article 23(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
Komisija je pri določitvi zneska globe upoštevala vse ustrezne okoliščine ter še zlasti težo in trajanje kršitve, ki sta izrecno omenjena kriterija v členu 23(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003.
In the light of the above, the infringement of Article 81 committed by Automobiles Peugeot SA and its subsidiary PNE was characterised as very serious, an assessment which held good both for the policy regarding bonuses and for the other pressure exerted by Automobiles Peugeot SA.
Ob upoštevanju vsega zgoraj navedenega je bila kršitev člena 81, ki sta jo storili podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA in njegovo hčerinsko podjetje PNE, označena kot zelo resna, ta ocena velja za politiko glede premij ter za druge sprejete ukrepe podjetja Automobiles Peugeot SA, vključno z izvajanjem pritiskov. Dejansko je podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA delovalo namerno, tako da ne moremo prezreti, da je bil cilj spornih ukrepov oviranje konkurence.
The Commission and the Court of Justice have already had occasion to rule on remuneration systems that discriminate according to a vehicle’s destination [7].
Komisija in Sodišče sta že imela priložnost, da sta se izrekla o sistemih diskriminatornih nadomestil v zvezi z namembnim krajem vozila [7].
The assessment of the gravity of the infringement is based on the provisions of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines [8].
Ocena teže kršitve temelji na določbah v smernicah o načinu določanja glob [8].
The infringement is also one of significant duration.
Prav tako gre za dolgotrajno kršitev.
From the beginning of January 1997 to the end of September 2003, Automobiles Peugeot SA renewed each year the discriminatory system of remuneration for exports in its annual circulars.
Dejansko je podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA od začetka januarja 1997 do konca septembra 2003 vsako leto obnovilo sistem diskriminatornih nadomestil za izvoze v okviru letnih okrožnic.
There are neither any mitigating nor any aggravating circumstances in this case.
V zadevnem primeru ne obstajajo niti obteževalne niti olajševalne okoliščine.
Automobiles Peugeot SA and its subsidiary Peugeot Nederland NV infringed Article 81(1) of the Treaty by concluding agreements with dealers in the Peugeot distribution network in the Netherlands having as their object and effect the impeding of sales to final consumers in other Member States, whether in person or represented by intermediaries acting on their behalf.
Podjetje Automobiles Peugeot SA in njegovo hčerinsko podjetje Peugeot Nederland NV sta kršila člen 81(1) Pogodbe s sklepanjem sporazumov s koncesionarji, ki pripadajo distribucijski mreži Peugeot na Nizozemskem, s ciljem in posledico oviranja prodaje končnim potrošnikom, osebno ali preko posrednikov, ki delujejo v njihovem imenu, iz drugih državah članicah.
The infringement commenced at the beginning of January 1997 and continued until the end of September 2003.
Kršitev se je začela v začetku meseca januarja 1997 in nadaljevala do konca meseca septembra 2003.
To the extent that they have not already done so, the undertakings referred to in Article 1 must bring the infringement found in that article to an end.
Podjetja iz člena 1 morajo prenehati z ugotovljeno kršitvijo navedenega člena, če tega še niso storila.
They must refrain in future from implementing anew or continuing to implement any measure constituting the said infringement and from taking any measures having an equivalent object or effect.
V prihodnosti ne smejo več ponovno ali še naprej izvajati kakršen koli ukrep, ki bi temeljil na navedeni kršitvi, ali sprejemati ukrepov s podobnim ciljem ali posledico.
For the infringement referred to in Article 1, a fine of EUR 49,5 million is imposed on Automobiles Peugeot SA and its subsidiary Peugeot Nederland NV, which are jointly and severally liable.
Za kršitev iz člena 1 je podjetju Automobiles Peugeot SA in njegovemu hčerinskemu podjetju Peugeot Nederland NV, ki sta solidarno odgovorna, naložena globa v višini 49,5 milijonov EUR.
PSA held, with the Peugeot and Citroën makes, a growing market share of between 12 % (in 1995) and 15,3 % (in the first six months of 2003) on the basis of new registrations, making it as from 1999 the secondlargest supplier of passenger cars in Europe behind the Volkswagen group.
Podjetje PSA je imelo z znamkama Peugeot in Citroën naraščajoč tržni delež, ki je na podlagi novih registracij obsegal 12 % (v letu 1995) in 15,3 % (v prvih šestih mesecih leta 2003), zaradi česar je od leta 1999 postal drugi dobavitelj osebnih vozil v Evropi za skupino Volkswagen.
The dealer’s margin is the difference between the net recommended list price of a given model and the price at which the dealer buys the car from his supplier.
Koncesionarjeva marža je razlika med priporočeno kataloško ceno določenega modela in ceno, po kateri koncesionar kupi vozilo od dobavitelja.
This amount serves to cover the dealer’s distribution costs and overheads as well as the discounts which he has to grant most of the time to final consumers.
Ta razlika je namenjena financiranju stroškov distribucije in splošnih stroškov dobavitelja ter rabatov, ki jih mora slednji v večini primerov ponuditi končnim potrošnikom.
The bonus consists of a flat-rate payment made to the dealer by his supplier at regular intervals for each vehicle sold in accordance with the terms applicable.
Premija obsega pavšalno nadomestilo, ki ga koncesionarju izplača njegov dobavitelj v rednih časovnih presledkih, za vsako vozilo, prodano v skladu z veljavnimi pogoji.
Payment of the bonus is subject to the dealer’s meeting certain quality and quantity targets.
Izplačilo premije je pogojeno z doseganjem določenih kvalitativnih in kvantitativnih ciljev.
The manufacturer’s will was embodied in the circular received by the dealer at the beginning of each year, laying down the conditions for the dealer’s remuneration (margin and bonus).
Dejansko so bila pričakovanja proizvajalca opisana v okrožnici, ki jo je koncesionar prejel v začetku leta. Ta okrožnica je določila pogoje za nadomestila za koncesionarje (maržo in premijo).
Those conditions were accepted by the dealer each time he sought to have a vehicle ordered by him counted towards the sales targets (on which the bonus depended) and asked for payment of the bonus for each vehicle registered (once the sales targets had been achieved).
Te pogoje je koncesionar sprejel vsakokrat, ko je hotel vknjižiti vozilo, ki ga je naročil v skladu s cilji prodaje (ki so pogojevala pridobitev premije) ter ko je zahteval plačilo premije za vsako registrirano vozilo (po doseženem cilju prodaje).
The dealer’s acceptance was signified by the action of entering the car’s order details in the database by which the manufacturer managed relations with its network (DIALOG).
V zadevnem primeru je koncesionar pogoje sprejel z dejanjem, s katerim je podrobnosti v zvezi z naročilom vozila vnesel v programsko opremo, s katero je proizvajalec upravljal svoje odnose z mrežo (DIALOG).
The measure at issue was thus consented to by the dealers concerned since, in any event, they carried out sales within this system.
Zadevni ukrep so zadevni koncesionarji tako sprejeli s soglasjem, ker so pravzaprav sami opravljali prodajo v okviru tega sistema.
OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 25.
UL L 145, 29.6.1995, str. 25.