natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The infringement consisted of allocating customers and volume quotas, agreeing concerted price increases, arranging a compensation mechanism to ensure the implementation of quotas, exchanging sales volumes and prices, and, participating in regular meetings, both multilateral and bilateral, as well as other contacts to ensure the proper functioning of the cartel.
Kršitev je temeljila na dodelitvi kvot strank in obsega, dogovoru o usklajenih povišanjih cen, ureditvi mehanizma nadomestil, da bi zagotovili izvrševanje kvot, izmenjavi podatkov o obsegu prodaje in cenah ter sodelovanju na rednih srečanjih, tako večstranskih kot dvostranskih, kot tudi pri drugih stikih, ki naj bi zagotovili pravilno delovanje kartela.
These types of conduct are by their very nature very serious violations of Articles 81 EC and 53(1) EEA.
Te vrste ravnanja so po svoji naravi zelo hude kršitve člena 81 ES in člena 53(1) EGP.
The cartel agreement was implemented by producers, which for the relevant period covered the vast majority of the Common market and the EEA, after 1 January 1994.
Kartel so izvajali proizvajalci, ki so v ustreznem obdobju pokrivali veliko večino trga Skupnosti in EGP, po 1. januarju 1994.
It must therefore have had an impact on the MCAA market in the Common market and the EEA.
Zato je moral vplivati na trg MCAA na trgu Skupnosti in EGP.
Given the nature of the behaviour under scrutiny, the Commission considered that the addressees of this Decision committed a very serious infringement of Article 81 EC and 53(1) EEA.
Ob upoštevanju narave obnašanja pod nadzorom je Komisija menila, da so naslovniki te odločbe storili zelo hudo kršitev člena 81 ES in člena 53(1) EGP.
The undertakings were divided into different categories according to their relative importance in the market to account for the specific weight and therefore the real impact of each undertaking on the market.
Podjetja so bila razdeljena v različne kategorije v skladu s svojo relativno pomembnostjo na trgu z namenom, da se ugotovi posebna teža in zato realni vpliv vsakega podjetja na trg.
As the basis for comparing the relative importance of an undertaking in the market concerned, the Commission considered it appropriate to take the EEA-wide product turnover.
Komisija je menila, da je kot podlago za primerjavo relativne pomembnosti podjetja na zadevnem trgu primerno upoštevati promet z izdelkom na celotnem EGP.
The comparison was made on the basis of the EEA-wide product turnover in the last full year of the infringement: 1998 for all the undertakings except for Hoechst for whom 1996 was the reference year, as it exited the MCAA market in mid-1997.
Primerjava je bila izdelana na podlagi prometa z izdelkom na celotnem EGP v zadnjem polnem letu kršitve: 1998 za vsa podjetja razen za Hoechst, za katero je bilo referenčno leto 1996, saj je podjetje izstopilo iz trga MCAA sredi leta 1997.
Akzo, Clariant, and Atofina were the major producers of MCAA in the EEA in 1998, with respective approximate market shares of 44 %, 34 % and 17 %.
Akzo, Clariant in Atofina so bili glavni proizvajalci MCAA v EGP v letu 1998, njihovi približni tržni deleži so znašali 44 %, 34 % in 17 %.
Hoechst had a market share of 28 % in 1996 before it exited the MCAA market in mid-1997.
Tržni delež podjetja Hoechst je bil leta 1996 28 %, sredi leta 1997 pa je podjetje izstopilo iz trga MCAA.
The undertakings were therefore split into three categories.
Podjetja so bila tako razdeljena v tri kategorije.
First category: Akzo; second category: Hoechst and Clariant; third category: Atofina.
Prva kategorija: Akzo; druga kategorija: Hoechst in Clariant; tretja kategorija: Atofina.
Within the category of very serious infringements, the scale of likely fines also makes it possible to set the fines at a level which ensures that they have sufficient deterrent effect, taking into account the size of each undertaking.
Stopnja možnih glob omogoča znotraj obsega zelo hudih kršitev tudi določitev glob na ravni, ki zagotavlja zadosten svarilni učinek, ob upoštevanju velikosti vsakega podjetja.
In this respect, the Commission noted that in 2003 the turnover of Atofina/Elf Aquitaine was EUR 84,5 billion, and that of Akzo was EUR 13 billion. Accordingly, the Commission considered it appropriate to multiply the fine for Atofina/Elf Aquitaine with a factor of 2,5 and that of Akzo with a factor of 1,5.
Pri tem je Komisija opazila, da je znašal leta 2003 promet podjetja Atofina/Elf Aquitaine 84,5 milijarde EUR in podjetja Akzo 13 milijard EUR. V skladu s tem je Komisija menila, da se globo ustrezno pomnoži za podjetje Atofina/Elf Aquitaine s faktorjem 2,5 in za podjetje Akzo s faktorjem 1,5.
Akzo and Atofina have committed an infringement of a long duration.
Akzo in Atofina sta storila dolgotrajno kršitev.
They participated in the cartel from January 1984 to May 1999, equating to 15 years and four months, which justified an increase of 150 % of the basic amount of the fine for both undertakings.
V kartelu sta sodelovala od januarja 1984 do maja 1999, kar je 15 let in štiri mesece, in to je utemeljilo povišanje osnovnega zneska globe za obe podjetji za 150 %.
Hoechst has also committed an infringement over a long time, by being involved in the illegal arrangements from January 1984 to the end of June 1997, or a period of 13 years and 6 months, which justified an increase of 135 % of the basic amount of the fine.
Kršitev podjetja Hoechst je prav tako trajala dolgo časa, saj je bilo vpleteno v nezakonite sporazume od januarja 1984 do konca junija 1997 oziroma v obdobju 13 let in 6 mesecev, kar je utemeljilo povišanje osnovnega zneska globe za 135 %.
Clariant's participation is restricted to the period from July 1997, date at which it acquired the MCAA business from Hoechst, to May 1999.
Sodelovanje podjetja Clariant je omejeno na obdobje od julija 1997, ko je prevzelo posel z MCAA od podjetja Hoechst, do maja 1999.
It was accordingly involved in the cartel for a period of 1 year and 10 months, which justified an increase of 15 % of the basic amount of the fine.
V skladu s tem je sodelovalo v kartelu 1 leto in 10 mesecev, kar je utemeljilo povišanje osnovnega zneska globe za 15 %.
At the time the infringement took place, two of the addressees of this Decision had already been subject to previous Commission Decisions in cartel cases.
V času kršitve je prejšnja Komisija že izdala odločbe v zadevah o kartelih dvema naslovnikoma te odločbe.
Hoechst was an addressee in the PVC II (94/599/EC; 27 July 1994) and Dyestuffs (69/243/EEC; 24 July 1969) Commission Decisions.
Podjetje Hoechst je bilo naslovnik odločb Komisije v zadevi PVC II (94/599/ES; 27. julij 1994) in zadevi Dyestuffs (69/243/EGS; 24. julij 1969).
Atofina was also an addressee of the PVC II Decision.
Prav tako je bilo naslovnik Odločbe PVC II podjetje Atofina.
These aggravating circumstances justified an increase of 50 % in the basic amount of the fine imposed on Hoechst and Atofina.
Te obteževalne okoliščine so utemeljile povišanje osnovnega zneska globe, naložene podjetjema Hoechst in Atofina, za 50 %.
Akzo made voluntary statements which allowed the Commission to conclude that Eka Nobel AB, Eka Nobel Skoghall AB and Nobel Industrier AB (now respectively Eka Chemicals AB, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB and Akzo Nobel AB) were independently involved in the cartel from 15 June 1993 until they became part of the Akzo group on 25 February 1994.
Podjetje Akzo je podalo prostovoljne izjave, na podlagi katerih je Komisija lahko sklepala, da so bila podjetja Eka Nobel AB, Eka Nobel Skoghall AB in Nobel Industrier AB (zdaj Eka Chemicals AB, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB in Akzo Nobel AB) vsako zase neodvisno vpletena v kartel od 15. junija 1993 do takrat, ko so postala del skupine Akzo 25. februarja 1994.
As a result of Akzo's disclosures it faces a higher fine than it would without its cooperation.
Na podlagi razkritja se podjetje Akzo sooča z višjo globo, kot bi se brez svojega sodelovanja.
The Commission therefore considered it appropriate, having regard to the principles of fairness and the particular circumstances of the case, to reduce to zero the fine on the above companies for their independent infringement.
Komisiji se je zato ob upoštevanju načel poštenosti in posebnih okoliščin zadeve zdelo primerno, da zniža na nič globo za zgornja podjetja za njihove neodvisne kršitve.
Three of the addressees (Akzo, Atofina and Clariant) of the present Decision co-operated with the Commission at different stages of the investigation into the infringement for the purpose of receiving the favourable treatment set out in the Commission's 1996 Leniency Notice.
Trije naslovniki te odločbe (Akzo, Atofina in Clariant) so s Komisijo sodelovali na različnih stopnjah preiskave kršitve z namenom, da bi si zagotovili ugodnejšo obravnavo, določeno v Obvestilu o ugodni obravnavi iz leta 1996, ki ga je sprejela Komisija.
The Leniency Notice was applied as follows in the Decision:
Obvestilo o ugodni obravnavi je bilo uporabljeno, kot sledi v odločbi:
Non-imposition of a fine or a very substantial reduction of its amount (‘Section B’: reduction from of 75 % to 100 %)
Nenalaganje globe ali zelo občutno znižanje njenega zneska („oddelek B“: znižanje od 75 % do 100 %)
Clariant was the first undertaking to submit decisive evidence on the existence of a secret cartel affecting the MCAA industry in the EEA.
Clariant je bilo prvo podjetje, ki je predložilo odločilen dokaz o obstoju skrivnega kartela, ki je vplival na industrijo MCAA v EGP.
This information was provided in a statement and evidence submitted by Clariant on 6 December 1999, and, it enabled the Commission to carry out an investigation at the premises of Akzo and Atofina.
Te podatke je podjetje Clariant predložilo v izjavi in dokazih 6. decembra 1999, Komisiji pa so omogočili izvedbo preiskave v prostorih podjetij Akzo in Atofina.
Clariant also fulfilled the other conditions of Section B: it ended its involvement in the cartel, cooperated fully throughout the investigation and did not act as an instigator of the cartel.
Podjetje Clariant je izpolnilo tudi druge pogoje oddelka B: prenehalo je sodelovati v kartelu, tekom preiskave je polno sodelovalo in ni delovalo kot pobudnik kartela.
The Decision took into account all of these elements when granting a 100 % reduction of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed on Clariant AG and Clariant GmbH had they not cooperated with the Commission.
Odločba je pri dodelitvi 100 % znižanja globe, ki bi bila drugače naložena podjetjema Clariant AG in Clariant GmbH, če ne bi sodelovala s Komisijo, upoštevala vse zgoraj naštete elemente.
Substantial reduction in a fine (‘Section C’: reduction from 50 % to 75 %)
Občutno znižanje globe („oddelek C“: znižanje od 50 % do 75 %)
Neither Akzo or Atofina met the conditions set out in Section C of the Leniency Notice.
Ne Akzo ne Atofina nista izpolnila pogojev iz oddelka C Obvestila o ugodni obravnavi.
Both Akzo and Atofina co-operated with the Commission.
Obe podjetji, Akzo in Atofina, sta sodelovali s Komisijo.
Atofina closely cooperated with the Commission and therefore qualified for a significant reduction in the amount of the fine as it was the second undertaking that provided the Commission with information and evidence that materially contributed to the establishment of the existence of the cartel.
Podjetje Atofina je s Komisijo tesno sodelovalo in tako izpolnilo pogoje za znatno znižanje zneska globe, saj je bilo to drugo podjetje, ki je Komisiji zagotovilo podatke in dokaze, ki so pomembno prispevali k ugotovitvi obstoja kartela.
Additionally, Atofina did not contest the facts relied upon to establish the existence of the cartel.
Poleg tega podjetje Atofina ni spodbijalo dejstev, na katere se je oprlo pri ugotavljanju obstoja kartela.
The information and evidence provided by Atofina was detailed and extensively relied upon by the Commission in this Decision.
Podatki in dokazi, ki jih je predložilo podjetje Atofina, so bili podrobni in nanje se je Komisija v tej odločbi v veliki meri oprla.
Atofina fulfilled the conditions set out in Section D and its cooperation is reflected in a 40 % reduction of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed.
Podjetje Atofina je izpolnilo pogoje iz oddelka D in njegovo sodelovanje se odraža v 40 % znižanju globe, ki bi mu bila drugače naložena.
Akzo qualified for a significant reduction of the amount of the fine as it was the third undertaking that provided the Commission with information and evidence that corroborated the existence of the MCAA cartel.
Podjetje Akzo je izpolnilo pogoje za znatno znižanje zneska globe, saj je bilo tretje podjetje, ki je Komisiji zagotovilo podatke in dokaze, ki so potrdili obstoj kartela MCAA.
Akzo did not contest the facts that the Commission relied upon.
Podjetje Akzo ni spodbijalo dejstev, na katere se je oprla Komisija.
The Commission concluded that Akzo fulfilled the conditions set out in Section D. The information and evidence provided by Akzo was detailed, was relied upon by the Commission and this is reflected in the 25 % reduction of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed.
Komisija je sklenila, da je podjetje Akzo izpolnilo pogoje iz oddelka D. Podatki in dokazi, ki jih je predložilo podjetje, so bili podrobni, Komisija se je nanje oprla in zato za 25 % znižala globo, ki bi jo drugače naložila.
The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the Treaty by allocating volume quotas, allocating customers, agreeing concerted price increases, agreeing on a compensation mechanism, exchanging information on sales volumes and prices, and, participating in regular meetings and other contacts to agree and implement the above restrictions.
Naslednja podjetja so kršila člen 81 Pogodbe z dodelitvijo kvot obsega, dodelitvijo strank, dogovorom o usklajenih povišanjih cen, dogovorom o mehanizmu nadomestil, izmenjavo podatkov o obsegu prodaje in cenah ter sodelovanjem na rednih srečanjih kot tudi pri drugih stikih z namenom dogovora o zgornjih omejitvah in njihovega izvrševanja.
The following undertakings’ behaviour also constituted an infringement of Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement as from 1 January 1994.
Ravnanja naslednjih podjetij so prav tako predstavljala kršitev člena 53(1) Sporazuma EGP od 1. januarja 1994.
Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV and Akzo Nobel NV, from 1 January 1984 to 7 May 1999;
Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV in Akzo Nobel NV, od 1. januarja 1984 do 7. maja 1999;
Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB, Eka Chemicals AB and Akzo Nobel AB, from 15 June 1993 to 7 May 1999;
Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB, Eka Chemicals AB in Akzo Nobel AB, od 15. junija 1993 do 7. maja 1999;
Hoechst AG, from 1 January 1984 to 31 June 1997;
Hoechst AG, od 1. januarja 1984 do 31. junija 1997;
Elf Aquitaine and Arkema SA (formerly known as Atofina SA), from 1 January 1984 to 7 May 1999;
Elf Aquitaine in Arkema SA (prej znan kot Atofina SA), od 1. januarja 1984 do 7. maja 1999;
Clariant AG, Clariant GmbH, from 1 July 1997 to 7 May 1999.
Clariant AG, Clariant GmbH, od 1. julija 1997 do 7. maja 1999.
Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB, Eka Chemicals AB and Akzo Nobel AB:
Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB, Eka Chemicals AB in Akzo Nobel AB
EUR 84,38 million;
84,38 milijona EUR;
EUR 74,03 million;
74,03 milijona EUR;
Elf Aquitaine SA and Arkema SA (formerly known as Atofina SA) jointly and severally:
Elf Aquitaine SA in Arkema SA (prej znan kot Atofina SA) solidarno
EUR 45,00 million;
45,00 milijona EUR;
Arkema SA (formerly known as Atofina SA):
Arkema SA (prej znan kot Atofina SA)
EUR 13,50 million;
13,50 milijona EUR;
Clariant AG and Clariant GmbH jointly and severally:
Clariant AG in Clariant GmbH solidarno
EUR 0 million.
0 milijona EUR.
Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB, Eka Chemicals AB and Akzo Nobel AB shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine imposed in point (a) of the first paragraph, up to an amount of EUR 50,63 million. The other Akzo companies listed in that point shall be jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the fine.
Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB, Eka Chemicals AB in Akzo Nobel AB so solidarno odgovorni za plačilo globe, naložene v točki (a) prvega odstavka, do zneska 50,63 milijona EUR. Ostale družbe Akzo, naštete v tej točki, so solidarno odgovorne za celotni znesek globe.
The undertakings listed in point 1 above shall immediately bring their infringement to an end, insofar as they have not already done so.
Podjetja iz točke 1 zgoraj takoj prenehajo s kršitvami, če tega še niso storila.
According to point 28 of the 2002 Leniency Notice, from 14 February 2002, the 2002 Notice replaces the 1996 Notice for all cases in which no undertaking has contacted the Commission in order to take advantage of the favourable treatment set out in that notice.
V skladu s točko 28 Obvestila o ugodni obravnavi iz leta 2002 z dne 14. februarja 2002, Obvestilo iz leta 2002 nadomešča Obvestilo iz leta 1996 v vseh primerih, ko nobeno podjetje ni obvestilo Komisije, da bi izkoristilo bolj ugodno obravnavanje, ki je določeno v tem obvestilu.
As in this case several undertakings applied for leniency with the Commission before 14 February 2002, the 1996 Leniency Notice applies.
Ker je v tem primeru več podjetij zaprosilo Komisijo za ugodno obravnavo pred 14. februarjem 2002, velja Obvestilo o ugodni obravnavi iz leta 1996.
Even though the organisation of the cartel may have shifted in the course of its duration, essential features remained the same.
Čeprav je verjetno, da se je organizacija kartela spreminjala tekom njegovega obstoja, pa so bistvene značilnosti ostale enake.
This involved volume and customer allocation in order to maintain market shares.
Te so vključevale dodelitev obsega in strank, da bi se ohranili tržni deleži.
The value of this market was approximately EUR 121 million in 1998, the last full year of the infringement. During the period of investigation, almost every part of the common market and the EEA was under the influence of the cartel.
Vrednost tega trga je bila leta 1998, ki je bilo zadnje polno leto kršitve, približno 121 milijonov EUR. Med obdobjem preiskave je bil skoraj vsak del skupnega trga in EGP pod vplivom kartela.
on the measure implemented by Italy for professional sports clubs (Decreto Salva Calcio)
o ukrepih, ki jih Italija izvaja v zvezi s profesionalnimi športnimi klubi – (Decreto „salva calcio“)
(notified under document number C(2005) 1794)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2005) 1794)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(besedilo velja za EGP)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision cited above and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenim členom in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
The Commission learned through the press that, when Decree-Law No 282 of 24 December 2002 was being converted into statute, the Italian Government adopted a measure on accounting rules for professional sports clubs.
Komisija je preko tiska izvedela, da je italijanska vlada s spremembo zakonskega odloka št. 282 z dne 24. decembra 2002 v zakon določila pravila za vodenje računovodstva profesionalnih športnih klubov.
By letter D/51643 of 12 March 2003, the Commission requested information on the measure in question.
Z dopisom D/51643 z dne 12. marca 2003 je Komisija zahtevala podatke o zadevnem ukrepu.
By letter No 5243 of 22 April 2003, the Italian authorities requested an extension of the deadline for submitting the information to 14 May.
Z dopisom št. 5243 z dne 22. aprila 2003 so italijanski organi zaprosili, da se rok za predložitev podatkov podaljša na 14. maj.
Not having received any reply by the date set, the Commission requested the information by letter of 22 May, in which it reminded the Italian authorities that, according to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, the aid measure may not be put into effect until the Commission has presented its comments on the matter.
Ker do navedenega datuma Komisija ni prejela nobenega odgovora, je 22. maja 2003 poslala opomin z zahtevo po podatkih. Pri tem je opozorila, da v skladu s členom 88(3) Pogodbe ES ni dovoljeno izvajanje ukrepov pomoči, preden Komisija predstavi svoje pripombe o zadevi.
The reply of the Italian authorities was received on 26 June 2003.
Odgovor italijanskih organov je bil prejet 26. junija 2003.
By letter of 11 November 2003, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the measure.
Z dopisom z dne 11. novembra 2003 je Komisija obvestila Italijo o sklepu, da sproži postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe v zvezi z zadevnim ukrepom.
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Sklep Komisije o sprožitvi postopka je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.
Komisija je povabila zainteresirane stranke, da predložijo pripombe v zvezi z zadevno pomočjo.
The Commission received comments from the Italian authorities by letter of 13 February 2004 and from interested parties by letters of 19 January 2004 and 16 February 2004.
Komisija je od italijanskih organov prejela zadevne pripombe z dopisom z dne 13. februarja 2004 ter od zainteresiranih tretjih strank z dopisom z dne 19. januarja 2004 in z dopisom dne 16. februarja 2004.
By letter D/51415 of 25 February 2004, the Commission forwarded the comments of interested parties to Italy, which was given the opportunity to react.
Z dopisom št. D/51415 z dne 25. februarja 2004 je Komisija Italiji poslala pripombe tretjih strank in s tem zagotovila možnost odziva nanje.
By letter No 08/RB/04 of 10 March 2004, the Italian authorities undertook to amend the measure in question with a view to removing any tax effects it might have.
Z dopisom št. 08/RB/04 z dne. 10. marca 2004 so se italijanski organi zavezali k spremembi zadevnih ukrepov z izključitvijo njihovih davčnih učinkov.
In view of the undertaking to render the measure compatible with the Community rules on competition and since the measure had no immediate effect from the point of view of state aid, the Commission suspended the procedure until such time as the measure had been amended.
Ob upoštevanju prizadevanja za uskladitev ukrepov s pravili Skupnosti za konkurenco in ker ukrepi niso imeli neposrednih učinkov z vidika državnih pomoči, je Komisija začasno prekinila postopek v pričakovanju dejanske spremembe zadevnih ukrepov.
By letter No 13346 of 11 November 2004, the Italian authorities submitted to the Commission the text of the amendments to the Legge Comunitaria 2004, which was being examined by the Italian Parliament.
Z dopisom št. 13346 z dne 11. novembra 2004 so italijanski organi poslali Komisiji besedilo sprememb k zakonu „Legge Comunitaria 2004“, ki je bilo predstavljeno v italijanskem parlamentu.
The pre-announced amendments were finally introduced by way of Article 28 of Law No 62 of 18 April 2005 (Disposizioni per l'adempimento di obblighi derivanti dall'appartenenza dell'Italia alle Comunita' europee.
Napovedane spremembe so bile dokončno uvedene s členom 28 zakona št. 62 z dne 18. aprila 2005, „Disposizioni per l'adempimento di obblighi derivanti dall'appartenenza dell'Italia alle Comunità europee.
Legge comunitaria 2004).
Legge comunitaria 2004“ (v nadaljevanju zakon št. 62/2005).