natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Three of them were granted a reduction of fines, in accordance with point 23 and 26 of the Leniency Notice, namely EKA, Atofina and Solvay.
Trem podjetjem, tj. EKA, Atofina in Solvay, so bile vloge za zmanjšanje globe odobrene, v skladu s točkama 23 in 26 obvestila o prizanesljivosti.
The applications of Kemira and Solexis were rejected.
Vlogi podjetij Kemira in Solexis sta bili zavrnjeni.
The basic amount of the fine is determined according to the gravity and duration of the infringement.
Osnovni znesek globe se določi glede na težo in trajanje kršitve.
In assessing the gravity of the infringement, the Commission takes account of its nature, its actual impact on the market, where this can be measured, and the size of the relevant geographic market.
Pri ocenjevanju teže kršitve Komisija upošteva naravo kršitve, njen dejanski vpliv na trg, kjer je ta vpliv mogoče izmeriti, in velikost upoštevnega geografskega trga.
Taking into account the nature of the infringement committed, the fact that it must have had an impact and the fact that it covered the whole of the EEA, where the HP and PBS market taken together had a total value of around EUR 470 million in 1999, the last full year of the infringement, the Commission considers that the undertakings to which this Decision is addressed have committed a very serious infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
Ob upoštevanju narave izvršene kršitve, dejstva, da je zagotovo imela učinek ter dejstva, da je obsegala celotni EGP, kjer je vrednost skupnega trga vodikovega peroksida in natrijevega perborata znašala okoli 470 milijonov EUR v letu 1999, ki je bilo zadnje celo leto kršitve, Komisija meni, da so podjetja, na katera je naslovljena ta odločba, storila zelo hudo kršitev člena 81 Pogodbe in člena 53 Sporazuma EGP.
Within the category of very serious infringements, the scale of likely fines makes it possible to apply differential treatment to undertakings in order to take account of the effective economic capacity of the offenders, respectively, to cause significant damage to competition.
V kategoriji zelo hudih kršitev razpon možnih glob omogoča uporabo različnega obravnavanja podjetij, da se tako upošteva dejanska gospodarska zmogljivost kršiteljev pri povzročanju precejšnje škode konkurenci.
This is appropriate where, as in this case, there are considerable disparities between the respective market shares of the undertakings participating in the infringement.
To je primerno, kadar obstajajo med podjetji, ki so sodelovala v kršitvi, velike razlike med njihovimi tržnimi deleži, kot je temu tako v tem primeru.
By assessing the turnover in the respective products for each undertaking and setting them off against the total turnover for HP and PBS for the purposes of determining the individual weight, the Commission has taken account of the fact that certain undertakings were only active on the market for one of the two products concerned.
Ob oceni prometa z zadevnimi proizvodi za vsako podjetje in z njegovo primerjavo s celotnim prometom z vodikovim peroksidom in natrijevim perboratom, da se tako določi posamezno težo, je Komisija upoštevala dejstvo, da so nekatera podjetja delovala na trgu le z enim od obeh zadevnih proizvodov.
In doing so the Commission has taken account of the real impact of the unlawful conduct of each undertaking on competition.
S tem je Komisija upoštevala dejanski učinek, ki ga je nezakonito ravnanje vsakega podjetja imelo za konkurenco.
Because of the different varieties in which HP and PBS can be sold, sales based on the total value amount appear a more reliable indicator of operators’ capacities.
Zaradi različnih oblik, v katerih se vodikov peroksid in natrijev perborat lahko prodajata, se zdi, da je obseg celotne vrednosti prodaje najzanesljivejši pokazatelj zmogljivosti podjetij.
These figures show that Solvay was the largest market operator in the EEA, with a share of the combined sales of around [20-30] %.
Te številke kažejo, da je bilo podjetje Solvay največji tržni akter v EGP z deležem skupne prodaje okoli [20–30] %.
It is therefore placed in a first category.
Zato se ga uvrsti v prvo kategorijo.
Degussa, with a market share of [10-20] %, is placed in a second category.
Podjetje Degussa z [10–20] % tržnim deležem se uvrsti v drugo kategorijo.
Foret, EKA, Atofina, Kemira and Ausimont with shares of [5-15] % respectively, are placed in a third category.
Foret, EKA, Atofina, Kemira in Ausimont z deleži [5–15] %, se uvrstijo v tretjo kategorijo.
Finally, Caffaro, with a market share in PBS of around [5-10] % in its last full year, 1998, and a share of sales with regard to the combined HP and PBS market of [1-5] % is placed in a fourth category.
Caffaro, s tržnim deležem pri natrijevem perboratu okoli [5–10] % v zadnjem celotnem letu, letu 1998, ter deležem prodaje glede na skupni trg vodikovega peroksida in natrijevega perborata [1–5] %, se uvrsti v četrto kategorijo.
In the case of Caffaro, the Commission takes into account, despite the several links existing between the two products, that it has not been established that Caffaro was aware or could necessarily have had knowledge of the overall scheme of the anti-competitive arrangements.
V primeru podjetja Caffaro Komisija upošteva, da kljub številnim povezavam, ki obstajajo med obema proizvodoma, ni bilo ugotovljeno, da je podjetje Caffaro vedelo ali bi zagotovo moralo vedeti za splošno shemo protikonkurenčnih dogovorov.
Consequently, given the circumstances of the case, a reduction of 25 % is applied to the starting amount of the fine calculated for Caffaro.
Zato se, glede na okoliščine primera, za podjetje Caffaro začetna globa zmanjša za 25 %.
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.
Znotraj kategorije zelo hudih kršitev stopnja možnih glob omogoča tudi določitev glob na ravni, ki zagotavlja zadosten odvračalni učinek, ob upoštevanju velikosti vsakega podjetja.
In this respect, the Commission notes that in 2005, the most recent financial year preceding this Decision, the world-wide turnover of Total was EUR 143 billion, that of Elf Aquitaine EUR 120 billion, that of Akzo EUR 13,000 million, that of Degussa EUR 11,750 million, that of Solvay EUR 8,560 million and that of Edison EUR 6,650 million. Accordingly, the Commission considers it appropriate to multiply the fine for Total by a factor of 3, that is based on the size of the parent companies, Elf Aquitaine and Total, which each have a turnover well above EUR 100 billion. Akzo and Degussa, with a turnover each of around 10 % of that of Total are still very large undertakings, with a turnover well exceeding EUR 10,000 million. It is therefore considered it appropriate to multiply the fine for these undertakings by a factor of 1,75.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da je v letu 2005, zadnjem finančnem letu pred sprejetjem te odločbe, svetovni promet podjetja Total znašal 143 milijard EUR, podjetja Elf Aquitaine 120 milijard EUR, Akzo 13000 milijonov EUR, Degussa 11750 milijonov EUR, Solvay 8560 milijonov EUR in podjetja Edison 6650 milijonov EUR. Zato Komisija meni, da je primerno globo za podjetje Total pomnožiti s faktorjem 3, ki temelji na velikosti matičnih podjetij Elf Aquitaine in Total, ki imata vsako promet veliko preko 100 milijard EUR. Podjetji AKZO in Degussa, vsako s prometom okoli 10 % prometa podjetja Total, sta kljub temu še vedno zelo veliki podjetji s prometom, ki močno presega 10000 milijonov EUR. Zato se zdi primerno globo za ti podjetji pomnožiti s faktorjem 1,75.
In view of the fact that Solvay had a turnover of EUR 8,560 million, the Commission considers it appropriate to multiply the fine for Solvay by a factor of 1,5.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je promet podjetja Solvay znašal 8560 milijonov EUR, Komisija meni, da je primerno globo za podjetje Solvay pomnožiti s faktorjem 1,5.
In view of the fact that Edison had a turnover of EUR 6,650 million, the Commission considers it appropriate to multiply the fine for this undertaking by a factor of 1,25.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je promet podjetja Edison znašal 6650 milijonov EUR, Komisija meni, da je primerno globo za to podjetje pomnožiti s faktorjem 1,25.
Given that Ausimont was transferred to a different undertaking, in the circumstances of the case, the multiplier applies to the fine to be attributed to Edison only.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je podjetje Ausimont prešlo pod drugo podjetje, okoliščine primera narekujejo, da faktor velja zgolj za globo, naloženo podjetju Edison.
Increase for duration
Povečanje zaradi trajanja
Degussa, Solvay and Kemira participated in the infringement from 31 January 1994 to 31 December 2000, a period of six years and eleven months.
Podjetja Degussa, Solvay in Kemira so pri kršitvi sodelovala od 31. januarja 1994 do 31. decembra 2000, kar je obdobje šestih let in enajstih mesecev.
These undertakings committed an infringement of long duration.
Ta podjetja so storila dolgotrajno kršitev.
The starting amounts of the fines should consequently be increased by 10 % for each full year of infringement.
Zato se začetna vsota poveča za 10 % za vsako polno leto kršitve.
They should be further increased by 5 % for any remaining period of 6 months or more but less than a year.
Nadalje se poveča za 5 % za morebitno preostalo obdobje 6 mesecev ali več, vendar manj kot eno leto.
This leads to a percentage increase of the starting amount for each undertaking of 65 %.
To za vsako podjetje pomeni 65-odstotno povišanje začetne vsote.
EKA participated in the infringement from 31 January 1994 until 31 December 1999, a period of five years and eleven months, while Atofina and Ausimont participated in the infringement from 12 May 1995 until 31 December 2000, a period of five years and seven months.
Podjetje EKA je sodelovalo pri kršitvi od 31. januarja 1994 do 31. decembra 1999, kar je obdobje petih let in enajstih mesecev, podjetji Atofina in Ausimont pa sta pri kršitvi sodelovali od 12. maja 1995 do 31. decembra 2000, kar pomeni obdobje petih let in sedmih mesecev.
This leads to a percentage increase of the starting amount for each undertaking of 55 %.
To za vsako podjetje pomeni 55-odstotno povišanje začetne vsote.
Foret participated in the infringement from 29 May 1997 until 13 December 1999, a period of two years and seven months.
Podjetje Foret je pri kršitvi sodelovalo od 29. maja 1997 do 13. decembra 1999, kar je obdobje dveh let in sedmih mesecev.
This leads to a percentage increase of the starting amount of 25 %.
To pomeni 25-odstotno povišanje začetne vsote.
Caffaro participated in the infringement from 29 May 1997 until 31 December 1998, a period of one year and seven months.
Podjetje Caffaro je pri kršitvi sodelovalo od 29. maja 1997 do 31. decembra 1998, kar je obdobje enega leta in sedmih mesecev.
This leads to a percentage increase of the starting amount of 15 %.
To pomeni 15-odstotno povišanje začetne vsote.
At the time the infringement took place, Atofina, Degussa, Edison and Solvay had already been addressees of previous Commission decisions concerning cartel activities.
V obdobju, ko je kršitev potekala, so podjetja Atofina, Degussa, Edison in Solvay že bila naslovniki prejšnjih odločb Komisije v zvezi s kartelnimi dejavnostmi.
The fact that the undertakings have repeated the same type of conduct either in the same industry or in different sectors from that in which they had previously incurred penalties, shows that the first penalties did not prompt these undertakings to change their conduct.
Dejstvo, da so ta podjetja ponovila enako vrsto dejanja bodisi v enaki industriji bodisi v drugem sektorju od tistega, za katerega so že bila deležna kazni, kaže, da prvotne kazni teh podjetij niso spodbudila k spremembi njihovega ravnanja.
This constitutes for the Commission an aggravating circumstance.
To za Komisijo predstavlja oteževalno okoliščino.
This aggravating circumstance justifies an increase of 50 % in the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on the undertakings mentioned above.
Ta oteževalna okoliščina upravičuje povečanje osnovnega zneska glob, naloženih zgoraj navedenim podjetjem, za 50 %.
In the case of Caffaro, it is appropriate to reduce its fine due to its passive and minor role in the infringement, as compared to the other participants in the cartel, by 50 %.
V primeru podjetja Caffaro je primerno njegovo globo zaradi njegove nedejavne in majhne vloge pri kršitvi, v primerjavi z drugimi udeleženci v kartelu, zmanjšati za 50 %.
Application of the 10 % turnover limit
Uporaba meje 10 % prometa
Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 provides that the fine imposed on each undertaking is not to exceed 10 % of its turnover.
Člen 23(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003 določa, da globa za vsako podjetje ne presega 10 % njegovega prometa.
As regards the 10 % ceiling, if ‘several addressees constitute the “undertaking”, that is the economic entity responsible for the infringement penalised, […] at the date when the decision is adopted, […] the ceiling can be calculated on the basis of the overall turnover of that undertaking, that is to say, of all its constituent parts taken together.
Glede 10 % zgornje meje, če „več naslovnikov sestavlja ‚podjetje‘, ki je gospodarski subjekt, odgovoren za kaznovano kršitev, […] se na dan sprejetja odločbe […] lahko zgornja meja izračuna na podlagi celotnega prometa tega podjetja, kar pomeni vseh njegovih sestavnih delov skupaj.
By contrast, if that economic unit has subsequently broken up, each addressee of the decision is entitled to have the ceiling in question applied individually to it’.
V nasprotju s tem, če je ta gospodarska enota razpadla, ima vsak naslovnik odločbe pravico, da se ta zgornja meja določi posamično zanj“.
The world-wide annual turnover achieved by Solexis in 2005 was EUR 256190307. The fine imposed on Solexis must therefore not exceed EUR 25,619 million.
Svetovni promet, ki ga je v letu 2005 doseglo podjetje Solexis, je znašal 256190307 EUR. Globa podjetju Solexis zato ne sme presegati 25,619 milijona EUR.
Application of the 2002 Leniency Notice
Uporaba obvestila o prizanesljivosti iz leta 2002
Degussa, EKA, Atofina, Solvay, Solexis and Kemira submitted applications under the Leniency Notice.
Podjetja Degussa, EKA, Atofina, Solvay, Solexis in Kemira so podala vloge po določilih obvestila o prizanesljivosti.
They co-operated with the Commission at different stages of the investigation with a view to receiving the favourable treatment provided for in the Leniency Notice.
V različnih stopnjah preiskave so sodelovala s Komisijo, da bi si zagotovila ugodno obravnavo, kot jo določa obvestilo o prizanesljivosti.
Point 8 (a) — Immunity
Točka 8 (a) – Imuniteta
Degussa was the first European producer of HP and persalts to inform the Commission of the existence of a cartel in the HP market as well as in the HP-linked PBS market.
Degussa je bil prvi evropski proizvajalec vodikovega peroksida in peroksidnih soli, ki je Komisijo obvestil o obstoju kartela na trgu vodikovega peroksida ter z vodikovim peroksidom povezanem trgu natrijevega perborata.
Degussa has co-operated fully, on a continuous basis and expeditiously throughout the Commission's administrative procedure and provided the Commission with all evidence available to it relating to the suspected infringement, giving details of meetings between competitors as concerns both products and enabling the Commission to prove the existence of a cartel for both products.
Podjetje Degussa je v celoti, trajno in hitro sodelovalo v celotnem upravnem postopku Komisije ter je Komisiji zagotovilo vse razpoložljive dokaze v zvezi z domnevno kršitvijo, posredovalo podrobnosti o srečanjih konkurentov glede obeh proizvodov ter je tako Komisiji omogočilo dokazati obstoj kartela za oba proizvoda.
Degussa ended its involvement in the suspected infringement no later than the time at which it submitted evidence under point 8 (a) of the Leniency Notice and did not take steps to coerce other undertakings to participate in the infringement.
Podjetje Degussa je svoje sodelovanje v domnevni kršitvi prekinilo najkasneje ob času, ko je zagotovilo dokaze v skladu s točko 8 (a) obvestila o prizanesljivosti, podjetje tudi ni poskušalo prisiliti drugih podjetij v sodelovanje v kršitvi.
Hence, Degussa qualifies for a full immunity from the fine that would otherwise have been imposed on it.
Zato je podjetje Degussa upravičeno do polne imunitete pred globo, ki bi jo bilo sicer deležno.
Point 23 (b), first indent (reduction of 30-50 %)
Točka 23(b), prva alinea (30–50 % zmanjšanje)
EKA was the second undertaking to approach the Commission under the Leniency Notice, on 29 March 2003, and the first undertaking to meet the requirements of point 21 thereof, as it provided the Commission with evidence which represents significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession at the time of its submission.
EKA je bilo drugo podjetje, ki je se je povezalo s Komisijo po določilih obvestila o prizanesljivosti, kar se je zgodilo 29. marca 2003, in je prvo podjetje, ki je izpolnilo zahteve točke 21 tega obvestila, saj je Komisiji zagotovilo dokaze, ki so predstavljali znatno dodano vrednost glede na dokaze, ki jih je Komisija že imela v času njihove predložitve.
The Commission granted EKA a 40 % reduction of the fine.
Komisija je podjetju EKA odobrila 40 % zmanjpanje globe.
EKA's evidence enabled the Commission to trace the existence of the cartel back to 31 January 1994.
Dokazi podjetja EKA so Komisiji omogočili, da je lahko ugotovila obstoj kartela vse od 31. januarja 1994.
EKA's evidence for the period of the infringement before 14 October 1997 related to facts previously unknown to the Commission which had a direct bearing on the duration of the suspected cartel.
Dokazi podjetja EKA za obdobje kršitve pred 14. oktobrom 1997 so se nanašali na dejstva, za katera Komisija prej ni vedela in se neposredno nanašajo na trajanje domnevnega kartela.
In accordance with point 23 of the Leniency Notice, the Commission did not take these elements into account for the purposes of setting the amount of the fine to be imposed on EKA
V skladu s točko 23 obvestila o prizanesljivosti Komisija teh elementov ni upoštevala pri določanju globe, ki se naloži podjetju EKA.
Point 23 (b), second indent (reduction of 20-30 %)
Točka 23(b), druga alinea (20–30 % zmanjšanje)
Atofina, (now Arkema), was the second undertaking to meet the requirements of point 21 of the Leniency Notice, as it provided the Commission with evidence which represents significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession at the time of its submission and, to the Commission's knowledge, Atofina terminated its involvement in the infringement no later than the time at which it submitted the evidence.
Atofina (sedaj Arkema) je bilo drugo podjetje, ki je izpolnilo določbe točke 21 obvestila o prizanesljivosti, saj je Komisiji zagotovilo dokaze, ki so predstavljali znatno dodano vrednost glede na dokaze, ki jih je Komisija že imela v času njihove predložitve, poleg tega je podjetje Atofina, kolikor je znano Komisiji, svoje sodelovanje v kršitvi prekinilo najkasneje ob času, ko je zagotovilo dokaze.
It qualifies, therefore, under the second indent of point 23 (b) of the Leniency Notice, for a reduction of 20-30 % of the fine.
Zato je po določbah druge alinee točke 23(b) obvestila o prizanesljivosti upravičeno do 20–30 % zmanjšanja globe.
In the assessment of the level of reduction within the band of 20-30 %, the Commission took into account the time at which the evidence of significant added value was submitted and the extent to which it represents such value.
Pri določanju ravni znižanja znotraj razpona 20–30 % je Komisija upoštevala čas, v katerem so bili predloženi dokazi z znatno dodano vrednostjo, in obseg, v kolikšnem ti predstavljajo takšno vrednost.
The Commission granted Atofina a 30 % reduction of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed on it.
Komisija je podjetju Atofina odobrila 30 % zmanjšanje globe, ki bi mu bila sicer naložena.
Point 23 (b), third indent (reduction of up to 20 %)
Točka 23 (b), tretja alinea (do 20 % zmanjšanje)
Solvay was the third undertaking to meet the requirements of point 21 of the Leniency Notice.
Solvay je bilo tretje podjetje, ki je izpolnilo zahteve točke 21 obvestila o prizanesljivosti.
On 4 April 2003, also soon after its premises had been inspected under Article 14 of Regulation No 17, on 25 March 2003, Solvay submitted an application under the Leniency Notice.
Četrtega aprila 2003, kmalu po tem, ko je bil 25. marca 2003 v prostorih podjetja opravljen inšpekcijski pregled na podlagi člena 14 Uredbe št. 17, je podjetje Solvay podalo vlogo po določilih obvestila o prizanesljivosti. Sestanek 4. aprila 2003 se je odvijal na zahtevo podjetja Solvay, podano 3. aprila 2003 (po tem, ko je svojo vlogo podalo podjetje Atofina).
The submission on 4 April 2003 met the requirements of point 21 of the Leniency Notice, as Solvay provided the Commission with evidence representing significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession.
Vloga z dne 4. aprila 2003 je izpolnjevala zahteve točke 21 obvestila o prizanesljivosti, saj je podjetje Solvay Komisiji predložilo dokaze, ki so predstavljali znatno dodano vrednost glede na dokaze, ki jih je Komisija že imela.
To the Commission's knowledge, Solvay terminated its involvement in the infringement no later than the time at which it submitted the evidence.
Podjetje Solvay je, kolikor je znano Komisiji, svoje sodelovanje v kršitvi prekinilo najkasneje ob času, ko je zagotovilo dokaze.
Solvay submits that it contacted the Commission by telephone on the morning of 3 April 2003 to inform it that Solvay wished to make an application under the Leniency Notice.
Podjetje Solvay trdi, da je 3. aprila 2003 zjutraj po telefonu vzpostavilo stik s Komisijo, da bi jo obvestilo, da želi Solvay podati vlogo po določilih obvestila o prizanesljivosti.
The application by Atofina, made on 3 April 2003 at 15:50hrs enclosed thirteen documents which, according to Solvay, were illegible and/or unintelligible without a transcript or other form of explanation, so that the Commission was unable to make use of any of these documents until a full explanation was provided, on 26 May 2003, in any case after Solvay's leniency application was made.
Vloga podjetja Atofina, ki je bila podana 3. aprila 2003 ob 15:50 uri, je vključevala trinajst dokumentov, ki so bili, po trditvah podjetja Solvay, neberljivi in/ali nerazumljivi brez prepisa ali druge razlage, zato Komisija ni mogla uporabiti nobenega od teh dokumentov, dokler ni bila 26. maja 2003 zagotovljena polna razlaga, kar pa je v vsakem primeru po tem, ko je svojo vlogo za prizanesljivost podalo podjetje Solvay.
Solvay submits that a decisive factor in determining whether an application for leniency qualifies for a reduction under the Leniency Notice is the objective quality of the information submitted in terms of the extent to which it is useful to the Commission.
Podjetje Solvay trdi, da je odločilni dejavnik pri odločanju, ali je vloga za prizanesljivost upravičena do zmanjšanja globe po določilih obvestila o prizanesljivosti, objektivna kvaliteta posredovanih informacij glede na obseg, v kolikšnem so te koristne za Komisijo.
Solvay submits that its application for leniency was properly made on the morning of 3 April 2003 and provided significant added value in relation to both HP and PBS.
Podjetje Solvay trdi, da je bila njegova vloga za prizanesljivost ustrezno podana 3. aprila 2003 zjutraj in je predstavljala znatno dodano vrednost tako glede vodikovega peroksida kot natrijevega perborata.
It therefore qualifies for the maximum reduction (50 %) of any fine imposed in relation to the two products.
Zato je upravičena do največjega zmanjšanja (50 %) glede na globo, ki bi bila sicer naložena za ta dva proizvoda.