natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Accordingly, Wieland Werke AG and the Buntmetall group were treated as a single undertaking with joint and several liabilities for the infringement only as of 1999.
Zato sta bila Wieland Werke AG in skupina Buntmetall obravnavana kot eno podjetje s skupno in solidarno odgovornostjo za kršitev šele od leta 1999.
In order to ensure that the fines imposed had a sufficient deterrent effect, a multiplying factor of 1,5 was applied to the starting amount of the fine set for Outokumpu.
Za zagotovitev zadostnega svarilnega učinka naloženih glob, se je uporabil množilni faktor 1,5 za začetni znesek globe, določen za Outokumpu.
In this assessment, it was appropriate to take into account the overall worldwide turnover of the group (approximately EUR 5 billion), since the parent company (Outokumpu Oyj) was involved in the infringement in 1988 through its Copper Products Division and thereafter did not instruct its wholly-owned subsidiary OCP to end it.
V tej oceni je bil ustrezno upoštevan celotni svetovni promet skupine (približno 5 milijard EUR), ker je bila matična gospodarska družba (Outokumpu Oyj) vpletena v kršitev v letu 1988 preko Copper Products Division in od takrat ni dala navodil podružnici OCP, ki jo ima v popolni lasti, da preneha s kršitvijo.
With regard to the other parties, Outokumpu is more than twice the size of each of them in terms of the total worldwide turnover.
Kar zadeva ostale stranke, je Outokumpu glede na celotni svetovni promet več kot dvakrat večja od katere koli od ostalih.
Different companies were involved for different periods.
Različne družbe so bile vpletene v različnih obdobjih.
The infringement started at the latest on 3 June 1988 and continued at least until 22 March 2001.
Kršitev se je začela najkasneje 3. junija 1988 in se nadaljevala najmanj do 22. marca 2001.
The following companies committed a continuous infringement for the respective duration indicated:
Naslednje družbe so zakrivile nepretrgano kršitev v posameznih navedenih trajanjih:
Boliden-group 12 years 9 months,
skupina Boliden-group 12 let, 9 mesecev
Buntmetall-group 2 years 6 months,
skupina Buntmetall-group 2 leti, 6 mesecev
Halcor 12 months,
Halcor 12 mesecev
HME 2 years 6 months,
HME 2 leti, 6 mesecev
IMI-group 11 years 5 months,
skupina IMI-group 11 let, 5 mesecev
KME-group 12 years 9 months (in total, split according to the participation of each member company)
skupina KME-group 12 let, 9 mesecev (skupaj, ločeno glede na udeležbo posameznega podjetja, člana skupine)
(KME 12 years 9 months; EM/TMX: 11 years 5 months),
(KME: 12 let, 9 mesecev; EM/TMX: 11 let, 5 mesecev)
Mueller-group 3 years 2 months,
skupina Mueller-group 3 leta, 2 meseca
Outokumpu-group 11 years 5 months,
skupina Outokumpu-group 11 let, 5 mesecev
Wieland Werke 11 years 5 months.
Wieland Werke 11 let, 5 mesecev.
There were periods of different intensity in the cartel discipline.
V kartelni ureditvi so bila obdobja različne intenzivnosti.
The period from mid-1994 until mid-1997 was identified as a ‘quiet period’ by Outokumpu.
Obdobje od sredine 1994 do sredine 1997 je Outokumpu označil kot „tiho obdobje“.
KME and Wieland continued their WICU, Cuprotherm and SANCO cooperation.
KME in Wieland sta nadaljevala sodelovanje z WICU, Cuprotherm in SANCO.
IMI, Wieland, Outokumpu and KME met a number of times in 1996.
IMI, Wieland, Outokumpu in KME so se leta 1996 večkrat sestali.
Although the cartel clearly functioned in a less efficient way, the exchange of confidential information continued at least occasionally.
Čeprav je kartel očitno deloval manj učinkovito, se je izmenjava zaupnih informacij nadaljevala vsaj občasno.
Outokumpu confirmed a period of less intensive contacts.
Outokumpu je potrdil obdobje manj intenzivnih stikov.
For these reasons, this period was characterised as one of reduced cartel activity rather than of complete interruption.
Zaradi tega je bilo to obdobje označeno kot obdobje zmanjšane kartelne dejavnosti in ne kot popolna prekinitev.
The duration of the infringement (12 years and 9 months) as such was therefore not affected by the periods of reduced cartel activity.
Na trajanje kršitve (12 let in 9 mesecev) kot take tako niso vplivala obdobja zmanjšane kartelne dejavnosti.
In Outokumpu's case, the gravity of the infringement was increased by the fact that it had been addressee of a previous Decision finding an infringement of the same type, i.e. Commission Decision 90/417/ECSC [5] relating to a cartel in the sector of rolled stainless steel flat products.
V primeru Outokumpu je bila teža kršitve povečana zaradi dejstva, ker je bilo to podjetje naslovnik prejšnje odločbe o kršitvi istega tipa, t.j. Odločba Komisije št. 90/417/ESPJ Hladno-valjani ploščati izdelki iz nerjavečega jekla [5], ki se je nanašala na kartel v sektorju valjanih ploščatih izdelkov iz nerjavečega jekla.
However, no fine was imposed on Outokumpu in that decision.
Vendar po tej odločbi Outokumpu ni bila naložena globa.
Outokumpu has contested this finding on the grounds that the case involved a very different situation, since (i) Outokumpu was acting under government influence and in the belief that the arrangements were publicly endorsed; (ii) the Commission itself accepted that this was not a straightforward infringement and imposed no fine; (iii) different businesses were concerned, involving different units and employees in different locations, as well as (iv) a different treaty provision (Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty).
Outokumpu je izpodbijal to razsodbo na podlagi tega, da je primer vključeval precej drugačno stanje, ker (i) je Outokumpu deloval pod vplivom vlade in v prepričanju, da so bili dogovori javno odobreni; (ii) je Komisija sama sprejela, da to ni bila neposredna kršitev, in ni določila globe; (iii) je zadeval drugačne posle, vključeval druge enote in zaposlene na različnih lokacijah, kakor tudi (iv) drugo določbo pogodbe (člen 65 Pogodbe ESPJ).
Outokumpu's claim was not acceptable, since one of the functions of Commission decisions addressed to undertakings is to warn and deter them from committing similar infringements in future, even if for some reason no fine is imposed.
Trditev Outokumpu ni bila sprejemljiva, ker je eden izmed namenov odločb Komisije, naslovljenih na podjetja, posvariti in jih odvrniti od podobnih kršitev v prihodnosti, tudi če iz nekega razloga ni naložena nobena globa.
That Outokumpu continued its infringement in the copper plumbing tubes sector after being ordered to end its infringement in the stainless steel sector by a Commission Decision clearly shows that the previous Decision did not have a sufficiently deterrent effect on Outokumpu's market behaviour.
Dejstvo, da je Outokumpu nadaljeval kršitev v sektorju bakrenih cevi za vodovodne in plinske instalacije po tem, ko mu je bilo z odločbo Komisije ukazano končati kršitev v sektorju nerjavečega jekla, jasno kaže na to, da prejšnja odločba ni imela zadostnega svarilnega učinka na tržno obnašanje Outokumpu.
Hence, future deterrence had to be ensured by increasing the amount of the fine in the present case.
Zato je potrebno v tem primeru zagotoviti nadaljnje svarilo s povečanjem zneska globe.
Furthermore, the same type of infringement in this context meant infringement of the same article in the Treaty.
Nadalje je ista vrsta kršitve v tej zvezi pomenila kršitev istega člena Pogodbe.
In this regard, Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty is equivalent to Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.
V tem pogledu je člen 65 Pogodbe ESPJ enak členu 81(1) Pogodbe ES.
This position has been already taken by the Commission in the Industrial Tubes Decision of 16 December 2003.
To stališče je Komisija zavzela že v Odločbi o industrijskih ceveh z dne 16. decembra 2003.
The claim of coercion made by Halcor against KME, Outokumpu, Wieland and Mueller could not be demonstrated.
Zahteve po dokazu prisile, ki jo je podal Halcor proti KME, Outokumpu, Wieland in Mueller, ni bilo mogoče dokazati.
Also Boliden’s claim of coercion against KME was not proven.
Prav tako ni bila dokazana zahteva po dokazu prisile, ki jo je podal Boliden proti KME.
The parties have claimed that a number of factors should be considered attenuating circumstances, including, among others, non-implementation in practice of the arrangements, limited benefit derived from the infringement and economic difficulties in the copper plumbing tube sector.
Stranke so trdile, da je treba za olajševalne okoliščine upoštevati številne dejavnike, med drugim neizvajanje dogovorov v praksi, omejena korist zaradi kršitve in gospodarske težave v sektorju bakrenih cevi za vodovodne in plinske instalacije.
The Commission has rebutted each of these arguments in the Decision and found evidence that the arrangements had effects on prices.
Komisija je v odločbi ovrgla vsakega od teh argumentov in našla dokaz, da so dogovori vplivali na oblikovanje cen.
Hence, no mitigating circumstances apply to any of the undertakings in this case.
Zato se v tem primeru za nobeno podjetje ne uporabijo olajševalne okoliščine.
The 1996 Leniency Notice does not provide for any specific reward to a leniency applicant that discloses facts previously unknown to the Commission and affecting the gravity or duration of the cartel.
Obvestilo o ugodni obravnavi iz leta 1996 ne določa nikakršnih posebnih ugodnosti za prosilca prizanesljivosti, ki Komisiji razkrije prej neznana dejstva, ki vplivajo na pomembnost in trajanje kartela.
Such cooperation has already been recognised as attenuating factors in the Industrial Tubes case.
Tako sodelovanje je bilo že priznano za olajševalno okoliščino v primeru industrijskih cevi.
It was therefore considered that Outokumpu’s cooperation qualified for an attenuating factor in this regard.
Zato je bilo sodelovanje Outokumpu v tem pogledu spoznano kot olajševalna okoliščina.
Outokumpu was the first to disclose the whole duration of the European cartel in the copper plumbing tubes sector, and, in particular, was first in providing decisive evidence and explanations to prove continuity of the infringement during the period from July 1994 until July 1997 (and the period from 1990 until end of 1992).
Outokumpu je bilo prvo podjetje, ki je razkrilo celotno trajanje evropskega kartela v sektorju bakrenih cevi za vodovodne in plinske instalacije, in zlasti prvo, ki je priskrbelo odločilen dokaz in razlage za dokaz nepretrganosti kršitve v obdobju med julijem 1994 in julijem 1997 (in v obdobju med letom 1990 in koncem leta 1992).
Based on the evidence obtained from the immunity applicant and from the inspections prior to Outokumpu’s leniency application, the Commission could have not established the duration and continuity of the infringement from September 1989.
Na podlagi dokazov, pridobljenih s strani prijavitelja, zaščitenega z imuniteto, in na podlagi inšpekcij, izvršenih še pred prošnjo Outokumpu za ugodno obravnavo, Komisija ni mogla dognati trajanja in nepretrganosti kršitve od septembra 1989.
Outokumpu should not be penalised for its cooperation by being imposed a higher fine than the one that it would have had to pay without its cooperation.
Outokumpu naj ne bi bil kaznovan za sodelovanje z določitvijo višje globe od tiste, ki bi jo moral plačati v primeru nesodelovanja.
In the light of the above, the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on Outokumpu was reduced by the lump sum of EUR 40,17 million for effective cooperation outside the scope of the 1996 Leniency Notice.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je bil osnovni znesek globe, naložene podjetju Outokumpu zmanjšan za pavšalni znesek 40,17 milijona EUR za učinkovito sodelovanje izven obsega Obvestila o ugodni obravnavi iz leta 1996.
The Commission also considered that KME’s cooperation qualified for an attenuating factor in this regard.
Komisija je tudi menila, da je bilo sodelovanje KME v tem pogledu spoznano kot olajševalna okoliščina.
Although the Commission had certain isolated indications that the illegal behaviour also concerned plastic-coated tubes and more solid evidence with respect to information exchange concerning plastic-coated tubes at the stage of the Statement of Objections, it was only with KME’s contribution that it was able to establish the existence of a single, continuous and complex infringement with respect to WICU/Cuprotherm tubes starting from at least beginning of 1991.
Čeprav je imela Komisija določena osamljena namigovanja, da je nezakonito obnašanje zadevalo tudi cevi s plastično prevleko, in trdnejše dokaze glede izmenjave informacij v zvezi s cevmi s plastično prevleko na stopnji obvestila o nasprotovanju, je lahko samo s prispevkom KME dokazala obstoj enotne, nepretrgane in obsežne kršitve glede WICU/Cuprotherm cevi, ki se je začela najkasneje v začetku leta 1991.
The Commission considers that the KME group should not be penalised for its cooperation.
Komisija meni, da skupina KME group ne sme biti kaznovana za svoje sodelovanje.
The appropriate point of reference for the reduction of the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on the KME is the relative importance of the plastic-coated tubes sector compared to the plain copper plumbing tubes.
Primerna referenčna točka za znižanje osnovnega zneska globe, ki se določi skupini KME, je ustrezna pomembnost sektorja cevi s plastično prevleko v primerjavi z navadnimi bakrenimi cevmi za vodovodne in plinske instalacije.
Based on this criterion, the basic amount for the fine was reduced by a lump sum of EUR 7,93 million.
Na podlagi tega merila je bil osnovni znesek globe zmanjšan za pavšalni znesek 7,93 milijona EUR.
Application of the 1996 Leniency Notice
Uporaba Obvestila o ugodni obravnavi iz leta 1996
All of the addressees of this Decision cooperated with the Commission at different stages of the investigation for the purpose of receiving the favourable treatment set out in the Commission’s Leniency Notice.
Vsi naslovniki te odločbe so sodelovali s Komisijo na različnih stopnjah preiskave z namenom pridobitve ugodnejše obravnave, določene v Obvestilu Komisije o ugodni obravnavi.
The 1996 Leniency Notice was applied as follows:
Obvestilo o ugodni obravnavi iz leta 1996 je bilo uporabljeno na naslednji način:
Section B of the Leniency Notice: reduction between 75 % and 100 %
Oddelek B Obvestila o ugodni obravnavi: znižanje med 75 % in 100 %
Mueller Industries Inc., (Mueller) was the first undertaking that informed the Commission (in January 2001) about the existence of a cartel in the European Copper Plumbing Tube sector in the 1990s.
Mueller Industries Inc. („Mueller“) je bilo prvo podjetje, ki je obvestilo Komisijo (januarja 2001) o obstoju kartela v evropskem sektorju bakrenih cevi za vodovodne in plinske instalacije v 90-ih letih prejšnjega stoletja.
The evidence Mueller provided, prior to the Commission's investigation, enabled the Commission to establish the existence, content and the participants of a number of cartel meetings held in 1989, 1994, and from 1997 until 2001, as well as to undertake inspections on 22 March 2001 and thereafter.
Mueller je dokaze podal pred preiskavo Komisije, kar je Komisiji omogočilo dognati obstoj, vsebino in udeležence številnih sestankov kartela v letih 1989, 1994 in med leti 1997–2001, kakor tudi izvedbo inšpekcij dne 22. marca 2001 in kasneje.
Mueller immediately ended its involvement and cooperated fully throughout the whole investigation by providing the Commission with numerous submissions and documents further describing the arrangements.
Podjetje Mueller je takoj končalo svojo vpletenost in popolnoma sodelovalo med celotno preiskavo s tem, da je Komisiji priskrbelo številna stališča in dokumente, ki so nadalje opisovali dogovore.
Mueller therefore benefited from a total exemption from any fine.
Zato je bil Mueller oproščen vsakršne globe.
Section C: reduction between 50 % and 75 %
Oddelek C: znižanje med 50 % in 75 %
Mueller provided occasional evidence for the time before 1997 and disclosed the existence of the cartel for 1997 until 2001.
Mueller je predložil priložnostne dokaze za čas pred letom 1997 in razkril obstoj kartela med leti 1997–2001.
Together with the documents collected during the inspections, the Commission had sufficient evidence to initiate the procedure leading to a decision against all parties involved.
Skupaj z dokumenti, zbranimi med inšpekcijami, je imela Komisija zadostne dokaze za začetek postopka, ki je pripeljal do odločbe proti vsem vpletenim strankam.
Therefore none of the other parties qualified for a reduction under Section C of the 1996 Leniency Notice.
Zato nobena od ostalih strank ne izpolnjuje pogojev za znižanje v skladu z oddelkom C Obvestila o ugodni obravnavi iz leta 1996.
Section D: reduction between 10 % and 50 %
Oddelek D: znižanje med 10 % in 50 %
Before the Commission adopted its Statement of Objections (SO), Outokumpu (April 2001), KME (October 2002), Wieland (January 2003) and Halcor (April 2003) provided the Commission with information and documents which contributed to establishing the existence of the infringements.
Preden je Komisija sprejela svoje obvestilo o nasprotovanju („ON“), so Outokumpu (aprila 2001), KME (oktobra 2002), Wieland (januarja 2003) in Halcor (aprila 2003) Komisiji predložili informacije in dokumente, ki so pripomogli dokazati obstoj kršitve.
None of them contested substantially the facts on which the Commission based its SO, with the exception of those not upheld in the Decision.
Nihče od njih ni bistveno izpodbijal dejstev, na podlagi katerih je Komisija osnovala svoj ON, z izjemo tistih, ki jih v odločbi niso podprli.
These companies therefore qualified for a reduction between 10 % and 50 % under Section D of the Leniency Notice.
Ta podjetja so tako izpolnila pogoje za znižanje med 10 % in 50 % v skladu z oddelkom D Obvestila o ugodni obravnavi.
Outokumpu was the first to submit decisive evidence for the period from 1989 to mid-1997.
Outokumpu je bilo prvo podjetje, ki je predložilo odločilne dokaze za obdobje med 1989 in sredino 1997.
The period from mid-1997 until March 2001 had already been covered by Mueller and material collected during the inspections.
Obdobje med sredino 1997 in marcem 2001 sta že pokrivala podjetje Mueller in gradivo, zbrano med inšpekcijami.
In particular, Outokumpu’s contribution was crucial for establishing the continuity of the infringement.
Zlasti je bil za ugotovitev nepretrganosti kršitve odločilen prispevek podjetja Outokumpu.
Outokumpu was therefore rewarded with the biggest possible reduction, a 50 % reduction of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed had it not cooperated with the Commission.
Zato je bilo slednje nagrajeno z največjim možnim znižanjem, 50 % znižanjem globe, ki bi mu bila naložena v primeru nesodelovanja s Komisijo.
It was considered appropriate to grant a lower reduction compared to Outokumpu, but a similar reduction compared to each other, to KME and Wieland (including Buntmetall).
Zdelo se je primerno, da se za KME in Wieland (vključno z Buntmetall) odobri nižje znižanje v primerjavi z Outokumpu, vendar podobno z vidika medsebojne primerjave.
While Wieland was the first to disclose a detailed list of meetings for the period of 1993 until 2001 and provided explanations that allowed the Commission to use as proof a large number of contemporaneous documents, KME was the first to provide complete explanations with respect to all aspects of the infringement (SANCO meetings, European-wide meetings).
Medtem ko je bilo podjetje Wieland prvo, ki je razkrilo podrobni seznam sestankov v obdobju med leti 1993–2001 in predložilo pojasnila, ki so Komisiji omogočila uporabo velikega števila sočasnih dokumentov kot dokaz, je bilo podjetje KME prvo, ki je predložilo popolna pojasnila vseh vidikov kršitve (SANCO sestanki, vseevropski sestanki).
Accordingly, KME benefited from a 35 % reduction of the fine that would have been imposed if it had not cooperated with the Commission.
Zato je bilo podjetju KME odobreno 35 % znižanje globe, ki bi mu bila naložena v primeru nesodelovanja s Komisijo.
The Commission granted Wieland (including Buntmetall) a 35 % reduction of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed.
Komisija je podjetju Wieland (vključno z Buntmetall) odobrila 35 % znižanje globe, ki bi mu bila naložena sicer.
Halcor provided a number of contemporaneous documents for the period of its participation (August 1998 until August 1999).
Podjetje Halcor je predložilo številne sočasne dokumente za obdobje njegove udeležbe (avgust 1998 do avgusta 1999).
However, the period for which Halcor provided documents was already well documented.
Vendar je bilo obdobje, za katerega je Halcor predložilo dokumente, že zadostno dokumentirano.
In addition, Halcor did not clarify its cooperation in cartel arrangements before August 1998.
Poleg tega podjetje Halcor ni razjasnilo svojega sodelovanja v kartelnih dogovorih pred avgustom 1998.
It therefore qualifies only for a substantially smaller reduction than Outokumpu, KME or Wieland.
Zato izpolnjuje pogoje samo za znatno nižje znižanje v primerjavi z Outokumpu, KME ali Wieland.
At the same time, the Commission has had to take into consideration that Halcor offered its cooperation immediately after having received an information request and that no investigations were carried out at the premises of Halcor.
Obenem je Komisija morala upoštevati dejstvo, da je Halcor ponudil sodelovanje takoj po prejemu prošnje po informacijah in da v prostorih podjetja Halcor niso bile izvedene nobene preiskave.
Therefore Halcor qualified for a 15 % reduction of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed.
Zato je Halcor izpolnil pogoje za 15 % znižanje globe, ki bi mu bila naložena sicer.
After having received the SO, the Boliden group applied for leniency.
Po prejemu ON je skupina Boliden group zaprosila za ugodno obravnavo.
Boliden admitted the infringement and did not contest the facts.
Skupina je priznala kršitev in ni izpodbijala dejstev.
In addition, Boliden clarified certain factual details.
Poleg tega je razjasnila določene podrobnosti dejstev.
However, given the prior cooperation of Mueller, Outokumpu, the KME-group, Wieland and Halcor, as well as the inspections, the infringement had already been established in its entirety.
Vendar je bila na podlagi prejšnjega sodelovanja Mueller, Outokumpu, KME-group, Wieland in Halcor, kakor tudi inšpekcij, že ugotovljena kršitev v celoti.
The Commission consequently granted Boliden a 10 % reduction of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed if it had not cooperated with the Commission.
Zato je Komisija Boliden group odobrila 10 % znižanje globe, ki bi ji bila naložena v primeru nesodelovanja s Komisijo.
After having received the SO, the IMI group applied for leniency.
Po prejemu ON je skupina IMI group zaprosila za ugodno obravnavo.
IMI admitted the infringement and did not contest the facts.
Skupina je priznala kršitev in ni izpodbijala dejstev.
Given the cooperation of Mueller, Outokumpu, the KME-group, Wieland and Halcor, as well as the inspections, the infringement had already been established in its entirety.
Vendar je bila na podlagi sodelovanja Mueller, Outokumpu, KME-group, Wieland in Halcor, kakor tudi inšpekcij, že ugotovljena kršitev v celoti.
The Commission as a result granted the IMI group a 10 % reduction of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed.
Komisija je kot rezultat tega skupini IMI group odobrila 10 % znižanje globe, ki bi ji bila naložena sicer.
The following fines were imposed:
Naložene so bile naslednje globe:
Boliden AB, Outokumpu Copper Fabrication AB (formerly: Boliden Fabrication AB) and Outokumpu Copper BCZ SA (formerly: Boliden Cuivre & Zinc SA) jointly and severally EUR 32,6 million;
Boliden AB, Outokumpu Copper Fabrication AB (prej Boliden Fabrication AB) in Outokumpu Copper BCZ SA (prej: Boliden Cuivre & Zinc SA) skupaj in solidarno 32,6 milijona EUR
Austria Buntmetall AG and Buntmetall Amstetten Ges.m.b.H. jointly and severally EUR 0,6695 million;
Austria Buntmetall AG in Buntmetall Amstetten Ges.m.b.H. skupaj in solidarno 0,6695 milijona EUR
Austria Buntmetall AG, Buntmetall Amstetten Ges.m.b.H. and Wieland Werke AG jointly and severally EUR 2,43 million;
Austria Buntmetall AG, Buntmetall Amstetten Ges.m.b.H. in Wieland Werke AG skupaj in solidarno 2,43 milijona EUR
Halcor SA individually EUR 9,16 million;
Halcor SA posamezno 9,16 milijona EUR
HME Nederland BV individually EUR 4,49 million;
HME Nederland BV posamezno 4,49 milijona EUR