natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It intends to follow the principles and rules laid down in this notice when applying the relevant EEA rules in a particular case.
Pri uporabi pravil EGP v posameznih primerih bo upošteval načela in pravila iz tega obvestila.
D. In particular, this notice sets out the principles for the assessment of technology transfer agreements under Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and provides guidance on their application.
D. To obvestilo zlasti določa načela za presojo sporazumov o prenosu tehnologije na podlagi člena 53 Sporazuma EGP in daje usmeritve glede njihove uporabe.
E. This notice applies to cases where the Authority is the competent surveillance authority under Article 56 of the EEA Agreement.
E. To obvestilo se uporablja za primere, v katerih je Nadzorni organ pristojni nadzorni organ na podlagi člena 56 Sporazuma EGP.
F. This notice replaces the Authority's previous notice of 2005 on the application of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement to technology transfer agreements [2].
F. To obvestilo nadomešča prejšnje obvestilo Nadzornega organa o uporabi člena 53 Sporazuma EGP za sporazume o prenosu tehnologije [2] iz leta 2005.
Article 53 and intellectual property rights
Člen 53 in pravice intelektualne lastnine (5) Cilj člena 53 kot celote je varovati konkurenco na trgu z namenom spodbujanja blaginje potrošnikov in učinkovitega razporejanja virov.
The general framework for applying Article 53
Člen 53(1) prepoveduje sporazume, katerih cilj ali posledica je omejitev konkurence.
The concept of ‘transfer’
Koncept „prenosa“
Agreements between two parties
Sporazumi med dvema pogodbenicama
The Block Exemption Regulations on specialisation and R & D agreements
Uredbi o skupinskih izjemah za sporazume o specializaciji ter sporazume o raziskavah in razvoju
The Block Exemption Regulation on vertical agreements
Uredba o skupinskih izjemah za vertikalne sporazume
The market share thresholds of the safe harbour
Pragovi tržnih deležev za varni pristan
Hardcore restrictions of competition under the Block Exemption Regulation
Nedopustne omejitve konkurence v okviru Uredbe o skupinskih izjemah
Withdrawal and non-application of the Block Exemption Regulation
Odprava ugodnosti izjeme iz Uredbe o skupinskih izjemah in neuporaba navedene uredbe
Non-application of the Block Exemption Regulation
Neuporaba uredbe o skupinskih izjemah
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 53(1) AND 53(3) OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE TTBER
UPORABA ČLENA 53(1) IN (3) ZUNAJ PODROČJA UPORABE TTBER
Positive effects of restrictive licence agreements and the framework for analysing such effects
Pozitivni učinki omejevalnih licenčnih sporazumov in okvir za analizo takih učinkov
Application of Article 53 to various types of licensing restraints
Uporaba člena 53 za različne vrste licenčnih omejitev
Royalty obligations
Obveznosti plačila licenčnin
Exclusive licensing and sales restrictions
Podeljevanje izključnih licenc in omejitve prodaje
Non-compete obligations
Prepoved konkurence
Settlement agreements
Sporazumi o poravnavi
The assessment of the formation and operation of technology pools
Presoja ustanavljanja in delovanja tehnoloških združenj
Assessment of individual restraints in agreements between the pool and its licensees
Presoja posameznih omejitev v sporazumih med združenjem in njegovimi pridobitelji licenc
These guidelines set out the principles for the assessment of technology transfer agreements under Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (‘Article 53’).
Te smernice vsebujejo načela za presojo sporazumov o prenosu tehnologije po členu 53 Sporazuma EGP (v nadaljnjem besedilu: člen 53).
Technology transfer agreements concern the licensing of technology rights where the licensor permits the licensee to exploit the licensed technology rights for the production of goods or services, as defined in Article 1(1)(c) of the act referred to in point 5 of Annex XIV to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EU) No 316/2014 of 21 March 2014 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of technology transfer agreements (‘TTBER’)) [3].
Sporazumi o prenosu tehnologije se nanašajo na podeljevanje licenc za tehnološke pravice, pri čemer dajalec licence pridobitelju licence dovoljuje izkoriščanje licenčnih tehnoloških pravic za proizvodnjo blaga ali storitev, kot je določeno v členu 1(1)(c) akta iz točke 5 v Prilogi XIV k Sporazumu EGP (Uredba Komisije (EU) št. 316/2014 z dne 21. marca 2014 o uporabi člena 101(3) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije za skupine sporazumov o prenosu tehnologije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: TTBER)) [3].
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance on the application of the TTBER as well as on the application of Article 53 to technology transfer agreements that fall outside the scope of the TTBER.
Namen teh smernic je zagotoviti navodila glede uporabe TTBER in uporabe člena 53 za sporazume o prenosu tehnologije, ki ne spadajo na področje uporabe TTBER.
The TTBER and the guidelines are without prejudice to the possible parallel application of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (‘Article 54’) to technology transfer agreements [4].
TTBER in Smernice ne posegajo v morebitno vzporedno uporabo člena 54 Sporazuma EGP (v nadaljnjem besedilu: člen 54) za sporazume o prenosu tehnologije [4].
The standards set forth in these guidelines must be applied in the light of the circumstances specific to each case.
Standarde, ki so opredeljeni v teh smernicah, je treba uporabljati z upoštevanjem posebnih okoliščin vsake posamezne zadeve.
Each case must be assessed on its own facts and these guidelines must be applied reasonably and flexibly.
Treba je presoditi dejstva vsake zadeve in te smernice se morajo uporabljati razumno ter prožno.
Examples given serve as illustrations only and are not intended to be exhaustive.
Navedeni primeri služijo le za ponazoritev in niso izčrpni.
The Authority will keep under review the functioning of the TTBER and the guidelines in the enforcement system created by Chapter II of Protocol 4 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (‘Protocol 4’) [5] to consider whether changes need to be made.
Nadzorni organ bo spremljal delovanje TTBER in izvajanje Smernic v sistemu izvrševanja, vzpostavljenem s poglavjem II Protokola 4 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Protokol 4) [5], da bi presodil, ali so potrebne spremembe.
These guidelines are without prejudice to the interpretation of Article 53 and the TTBER that may be given by the EFTA Court, the Court of Justice and the General Court.
Te smernice ne posegajo v razlago člena 53 in TTBER, ki jo lahko podajo Sodišče Efte, Sodišče in Splošno sodišče.
The aim of Article 53 as a whole is to protect competition on the market with a view to promoting consumer welfare and an efficient allocation of resources.
Člen 53(1) prepoveduje vse sporazume in usklajena ravnanja med podjetji ter sklepe podjetniških združenj [6], ki bi lahko prizadeli trgovino med pogodbenicami (v nadaljnjem besedilu: države EGP) [7] in katerih cilj oziroma posledica je preprečevanje, omejevanje ali izkrivljanje konkurence [8].
Intellectual property laws confer exclusive rights on holders of patents, copyright, design rights, trademarks and other legally protected rights.
Ko imetnik da izdelek, ki vključuje pravico intelektualne lastnine, z izjemo pravic javnega izvajanja [9], na trg znotraj EGP ali je to storjeno z njegovim soglasjem, je pravica intelektualne lastnine izčrpana na celotnem ozemlju EGP, vključno z državami Efte, v smislu, da je imetnik ne more več uporabiti za nadzor prodaje izdelka (načelo izčrpanja pravic v EGP) [10].
The owner of intellectual property is entitled under intellectual property laws to prevent unauthorised use of its intellectual property and to exploit it, for example, by licensing it to third parties.
V skladu z zakoni o intelektualni lastnini imetnik pravice nima pravice pridobiteljem licence ali kupcem preprečiti prodaje takih izdelkov, ki vključujejo licenčno tehnologijo.
Once a product incorporating an intellectual property right, with the exception of performance rights [9], has been put on the market inside the EEA by the holder or with its consent, the intellectual property right is exhausted in the whole territory of the EEA including the EFTA states in the sense that the holder can no longer use it to control the sale of the product (principle of EEA exhaustion) [10].
Načelo izčrpanja pravic v EGP je skladno z osnovno funkcijo pravic intelektualne lastnine, ki je imetniku podeliti pravico, da drugim prepreči izkoriščanje svoje intelektualne lastnine brez svojega soglasja.
The right-holder has no right under intellectual property laws to prevent sales by licensees or buyers of such products incorporating the licensed technology.
Dejstvo, da zakoni o intelektualni lastnini podeljujejo izključne pravice izkoriščanja, ne pomeni, da so pravice intelektualne lastnine izvzete iz uporabe konkurenčne zakonodaje.
The principle of EEA exhaustion is in line with the essential function of intellectual property rights, which is to grant the holder the right to exclude others from exploiting its intellectual property without its consent.
Člen 53 se uporablja zlasti za sporazume, s katerimi imetnik pravic drugemu podjetju podeli licenco za izkoriščanje svojih pravic intelektualne lastnine [11].
The fact that intellectual property laws grant exclusive rights of exploitation does not imply that intellectual property rights are immune from competition law intervention.
To prav tako ne pomeni, da med pravicami intelektualne lastnine in pravili EGP o konkurenci obstaja neizogibno neskladje.
Article 53 is in particular applicable to agreements whereby the holder licenses another undertaking to exploit its intellectual property rights [11].
Oba sklopa predpisov imata dejansko isti osnovni cilj, ki je spodbujanje blaginje potrošnikov in učinkovitega razporejanja sredstev.
Nor does it imply that there is an inherent conflict between intellectual property rights and the EEA competition rules.
Inovativnost je bistveni in dinamični del odprtega ter konkurenčnega tržnega gospodarstva.
Indeed, both bodies of law share the same basic objective of promoting consumer welfare and an efficient allocation of resources.
Pravice intelektualne lastnine pospešujejo dinamično konkurenco, in sicer s spodbujanjem podjetij k nalaganju v razvoj novih ali izboljšanih izdelkov in procesov.
Innovation constitutes an essential and dynamic component of an open and competitive market economy.
Enako velja za konkurenco, ki podjetja sili v inovativnost.
Intellectual property rights promote dynamic competition by encouraging undertakings to invest in developing new or improved products and processes.
Zato so pravice intelektualne lastnine in konkurenca nujne za spodbujanje inovacij in zagotavljanje njihove konkurenčne uporabe.
So does competition by putting pressure on undertakings to innovate.
Pri presoji licenčnih sporazumov po členu 53 je treba upoštevati, da nastanek pravic intelektualne lastnine pogosto vključuje znatne naložbe in je povezan s tveganji.
Therefore, both intellectual property rights and competition are necessary to promote innovation and ensure a competitive exploitation thereof.
Da se ne bi zmanjšala dinamična konkurenca in bi se ohranila spodbuda za inovacije, se izumitelja ne sme neupravičeno omejevati pri izkoriščanju pravic intelektualne lastnine, ki se izkažejo za dragocene.
In the assessment of licence agreements under Article 53 it must be kept in mind that the creation of intellectual property rights often entails substantial investment and that this is often a risky endeavour.
Zato mora imeti izumitelj pravico, da za uspešne projekte zahteva ustrezno plačilo, ki je zadostno, da se ohranijo spodbude za naložbe, pri čemer se upoštevajo tudi neuspeli projekti.
In order not to reduce dynamic competition and to maintain the incentive to innovate, the innovator must not be unduly restricted in the exploitation of intellectual property rights that turn out to be valuable.
Pri podeljevanju licence za tehnološke pravice se od pridobitelja licence prav tako lahko zahteva, da opravi znatne nepovratne naložbe v licenčno tehnologijo in proizvodna sredstva, potrebna za njeno izkoriščanje (to pomeni, da ob opustitvi zadevnega področja dejavnosti pridobitelj licence te naložbe ne more uporabiti za druge dejavnosti ali je prodati brez velikih izgub).
For these reasons the innovator should be free to seek appropriate remuneration for successful projects that is sufficient to maintain investment incentives, taking failed projects into account.
Člena 53 ni mogoče uporabljati brez upoštevanja takih predhodnih naložb pogodbenic in s tem povezanih tveganj.
Technology rights licensing may also require the licensee to make significant sunk investments (that is to say, that upon leaving that particular field of activity the investment cannot be used by the licensee for other activities or sold other than at a significant loss) in the licensed technology and production assets necessary to exploit it.
Tveganje, ki sta mu izpostavljeni pogodbenici, in nepovratna naložba, ki jo je treba opraviti, lahko torej privedeta do tega, da sporazum glede na posamezen primer bodisi ne spada na področje uporabe člena 53(1) bodisi izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 53(3) v obdobju, ki je potrebno, da se naložba povrne.
Article 53 cannot be applied without considering such ex ante investments made by the parties and the risks relating thereto.
Pri presoji licenčnih sporazumov po členu 53 je obstoječi analitični okvir dovolj prožen, da ustrezno upošteva dinamične vidike licenciranja tehnoloških pravic.
The risk facing the parties and the sunk investment that must be committed may thus lead to the agreement falling outside Article 53(1) or fulfilling the conditions of Article 53(3), as the case may be, for the period of time required to recoup the investment.
Ne domneva se, da so pravice intelektualne lastnine in licenčni sporazumi kot taki sporni z vidika konkurence.
In assessing licensing agreements under Article 53, the existing analytical framework is sufficiently flexible to take due account of the dynamic aspects of technology rights licensing.
Večina licenčnih sporazumov ne omejuje konkurence in ustvarja učinkovitosti, ki spodbujajo konkurenco.
There is no presumption that intellectual property rights and licence agreements as such give rise to competition concerns.
Podeljevanje licence kot tako dejansko spodbuja konkurenco, saj pomaga pri razširjanju tehnologije in spodbuja inovativnost imetnika licence in pridobiteljev licence.
Most licence agreements do not restrict competition and create pro-competitive efficiencies.
Poleg tega lahko celo licenčni sporazumi, ki omejujejo konkurenco, pogosto pripomorejo h konkurenci naklonjenim učinkovitostim, ki jih je treba proučiti v okviru člena 53(3) in presoditi glede na negativne učinke na konkurenco [12].
Indeed, licensing as such is pro-competitive as it leads to dissemination of technology and promotes innovation by the licensor and licensee(s).
Velika večina licenčnih sporazumov je zato združljiva s členom 53.
In addition, even licence agreements that do restrict competition may often give rise to pro-competitive efficiencies, which must be considered under Article 53(3) and balanced against the negative effects on competition [12].
Splošni okvir za uporabo člena 53
The great majority of licence agreements are therefore compatible with Article 53.
Člen 53(1) se uporablja za omejevanje konkurence med pogodbenicama sporazuma in tudi za omejevanje konkurence med katero koli od pogodbenic in tretjimi osebami.
Article 53(1) prohibits agreements which have as their object or effect the restriction of competition.
Presoja o tem, ali licenčni sporazum omejuje konkurenco, mora biti opravljena v okviru dejanskih okoliščin, v katerih bi konkurenca obstajala, če ne bi bilo sporazuma in z njim povezanih domnevnih omejitev [13].
Article 53(1) applies both to restrictions of competition between the parties to an agreement and to restrictions of competition between any of the parties and third parties.
Pri tej presoji je treba upoštevati verjetni učinek sporazuma na konkurenco med tehnologijami (torej konkurenco med podjetji, ki uporabljajo konkurenčne tehnologije) in na konkurenco znotraj tehnologije (torej konkurenco med podjetji, ki uporabljajo isto tehnologijo) [14].
The assessment of whether a licence agreement restricts competition must be made within the actual context in which competition would occur in the absence of the agreement with its alleged restrictions [13].
Člen 53(1) prepoveduje omejevanje konkurence med tehnologijami in tudi konkurence znotraj tehnologije.
In making this assessment it is necessary to take account of the likely impact of the agreement on inter-technology competition (that is to say, competition between undertakings using competing technologies) and on intra-technology competition (that is to say, competition between undertakings using the same technology) [14].
Zato je treba presoditi, v kolikšni meri sporazum vpliva ali bo verjetno vplival na ta dva vidika konkurence na trgu.
Article 53(1) prohibits restrictions of both inter-technology competition and intra-technology competition.
Naslednji dve vprašanji ponujata koristen okvir za to presojo.
It is therefore necessary to assess to what extent the agreement affects or is likely to affect these two aspects of competition on the market.
Prvo vprašanje se nanaša na učinek sporazuma na konkurenco med tehnologijami, medtem ko se drugo vprašanje navezuje na učinek sporazuma na konkurenco znotraj tehnologije.
The following two questions provide a useful framework for making this assessment.
Ker lahko omejitve hkrati vplivajo na konkurenco med tehnologijami in na konkurenco znotraj tehnologije, bo morda potrebna analiza omejitve glede na obe vprašanji iz točk (a) in (b), preden se lahko zaključi, ali se omejuje konkurenca v smislu člena 53(1):
The first question relates to the impact of the agreement on inter-technology competition while the second question relates to the impact of the agreement on intra-technology competition.
Ali licenčni sporazum omejuje dejansko ali potencialno konkurenco, ki bi obstajala, če sporazum ne bi bil sklenjen?
As restrictions may be capable of affecting both inter-technology competition and intra-technology competition at the same time, it may be necessary to analyse a restriction in the light of the two questions in points (a) and (b) before it can be concluded whether or not competition within the meaning of Article 53(1) is restricted:
Če je odgovor pritrdilen, je sporazum lahko zajet v prepovedi iz člena 53(1).
Does the licence agreement restrict actual or potential competition that would have existed without the contemplated agreement?
Pri tej presoji je treba upoštevati konkurenco med pogodbenicama in konkurenco s strani tretjih oseb.
Does the licence agreement restrict actual or potential competition that would have existed only in the absence of the contractual restraint(s)?
Take omejitve vključujejo vertikalno določanje cen in prodajne omejitve med pridobitelji licenc, ki so vezane na ozemlje ali kupce.
However, certain restraints may in certain cases not be caught by Article 53(1) when the restraint is objectively necessary for the existence of an agreement of that type or that nature [15].
Trditve, da bi se dobavitelj v odsotnosti omejitve zatekel k vertikalni integraciji, ne zadostujejo.
Such exclusion of the application of Article 53(1) can only be made on the basis of objective factors external to the parties themselves and not the subjective views and characteristics of the parties.
Odločitve glede tega, ali se vertikalno povezovati ali ne, so odvisne od najrazličnejših kompleksnih ekonomskih dejavnikov, od katerih so mnogi del interne politike zadevnega podjetja.
The fact that Article 53(1) distinguishes between those agreements that have a restriction of competition as their object and those agreements that have a restriction of competition as their effect should be taken into account in the application of the analytical framework set out in point (12) of these guidelines.
Poleg tega ni verjetno, da bodo v primeru omejitev po cilju izpolnjeni pogoji iz člena 53(3).
An agreement or contractual restraint is only prohibited by Article 53(1) if its object or effect is to restrict inter-technology competition and/or intra-technology competition.
Ti dejavniki zlasti vključujejo vsebino in objektivne cilje sporazuma.
Restrictions of competition by object are those that by their very nature restrict competition.
Lahko da bo treba upoštevati tudi okoliščine, v katerih se sporazum uporablja (ali se bo uporabljal), ali dejansko ravnanje ter obnašanje pogodbenic na trgu [18].
These are restrictions which in the light of the objectives pursued by the EEA competition rules have such a high potential for negative effects on competition that it is not necessary for the purposes of applying Article 53(1) to demonstrate any effects on the market [17].
Z drugimi besedami, lahko da je potrebna proučitev dejstev, ki so osnova sporazuma, in posebnih okoliščin, v katerih sporazum deluje, preden je mogoče ugotoviti, ali neka omejitev pomeni omejitev konkurence po cilju.
These factors include, in particular, the content of the agreement and the objective aims pursued by it.
Mogoče je šteti, da ima sporazum omejevalen cilj, čeprav njegov edini namen ni omejevanje konkurence, ampak se z njim sledi tudi drugim, legitimnim ciljem [19].
It may also be necessary to consider the context in which it is (to be) applied or the actual conduct and behaviour of the parties on the market [18].
V zvezi z licenčnimi sporazumi Nadzorni organ meni, da so omejitve, zajete v seznamu nedopustnih omejitev konkurence iz člena 4 TTBER, omejevalne po samem cilju [20].
In other words, an examination of the facts underlying the agreement and the specific circumstances in which it operates may be required before it can be concluded whether a particular restriction constitutes a restriction by object of competition.
Če omejevanje konkurence ni cilj sporazuma, je treba proučiti, ali je omejevanje konkurence njegov učinek.
The way in which an agreement is actually implemented may reveal a restriction by object even where the formal agreement does not contain an express provision to that effect.
Pri tem je treba upoštevati dejanske in tudi potencialne učinke [21].
Evidence of subjective intent on the part of the parties to restrict competition is a relevant factor but not a necessary condition.
Z drugimi besedami mora imeti sporazum verjetne protikonkurenčne učinke.
An agreement may be regarded as having a restrictive object even if it does not have the restriction of competition as its sole aim but also pursues other legitimate objectives [19].
Da je licenčni sporazum omejevalen po učinku, mora vplivati na dejansko ali potencialno konkurenco v taki meri, da se na upoštevnem trgu lahko z razumno stopnjo verjetnosti pričakujejo negativni učinki na cene, proizvodnjo, inovativnost ali raznolikost oziroma kakovost blaga in storitev.
For licence agreements, the Authority considers that the restrictions covered by the list of hardcore restrictions of competition set out in Article 4 of the TTBER are restrictive by their very object [20].
Verjetni negativni učinki na konkurenco morajo biti znatni [22].
If an agreement is not restrictive of competition by object it is necessary to examine whether it has restrictive effects on competition.
Znatni protikonkurenčni učinki so verjetni, kadar vsaj ena pogodbenica ima ali doseže določeno stopnjo tržne moči in sporazum prispeva k vzpostavitvi, ohranjanju ali krepitvi te tržne moči oziroma pogodbenicama omogoča izkoriščanje take tržne moči.
Account must be taken of both actual and potential effects [21].
Tržna moč je sposobnost ohranjanja cen nad konkurenčno stopnjo ali ohranjanja proizvodnje v smislu količine, kakovosti in raznolikosti izdelkov ali inovativnosti pod konkurenčno stopnjo v daljšem časovnem obdobju [23].
In other words the agreement must have likely anti-competitive effects.
Stopnja tržne moči, ki je običajno potrebna za ugotovitev kršitve po členu 53(1), je nižja od stopnje tržne moči, ki je potrebna za ugotovitev prevladujočega položaja v smislu člena 54 [24].