natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Accordingly, the Commission has allowed Member States to provisionally apply or to conclude such agreements, inter alia on condition that the provisions breaching Articles 10 and 81 EC are brought into conformity with EU law within 12 months of the date of notication of the decisions.
Zato je Komisija dovolila državam članicam, da začasno uporabljajo ali sklenejo takšne sporazume, med drugim pod pogojem, da se določbe, ki kršijo člena 10 in 81 ES, v 12 mesecih od dneva priglasitve odločb uskladijo z zakonodajo EU.
EU–US negotiations on an open aviation area
Pogajanja med EU in ZDA o odprtem letalskem prostoru
See also the ‘International activities’ section, part IV.B.2. below, for the details.
Za podrobnejše informacije glej del IV.B.2 spodaj.
Previous proposals had been introduced in 2000 and 2002, but they did not receive the necessary approval by the European Parliament and the Council. e proposal introduces the requirement for public service contracts on the provision of passenger transport between authorities and operators, thereby subjecting public service routes to certain rules, such as transparency of parameters for the award of compensation for public services obligations, cost equivalence and certain publication requirements.
Evropski parlament in Svet nista odobrila. Predlog prinaša zahtevo za pogodbe javne službe za zagotavljanje potniškega prevoza med organi oblasti in prevozniki, s čimer za proge javnih služb uvaja nekatera pravila, kot so preglednost parametrov za dodeljevanje nadomestila za obveznosti javnih storitev, izenačitev stroškov in določene zahteve za objavo.
It drew on the results of an extensive stocktaking exercise the Competition DG had undertaken of Member States’ regulation in this sector, focusing on six professions — lawyers, notaries, engineers, architects, pharmacists and accountants (including the neighbouring profession of tax advisers) — and analysed in detail ve key restrictions on competition: (i) fixed prices, (ii) recommended prices, (iii) advertising regulations, (iv) entry requirements and reserved rights, and (v) regulations governing business structure and multidisciplinary practices.
Temeljilo je na rezultatih obširnih ugotovitvenih dejavnosti o ureditvi tega področja v državah članicah, ki jih je izvedel GD za konkurenco in so bile osredotočene na šest poklicev – pravniki, notarji, inženirji, arhitekti, farmacevti in računovodje (vključno s sorodnim poklicem davčnih svetovalcev) – in v njem je podrobno analiziranih pet ključnih omejitev konkurence: (i) fiksne cene, (ii) priporočene cene, (iii) pravila o oglaševanju, (iv) zahteve za vstop in rezervirane pravice in (v) pravila, ki urejajo strukturo dejavnosti in multidisciplinarne dejavnosti.
Examples include outdated price-xing regulations, advertising bans and bans on interprofessional cooperation. e 2004 report urged all involved to make a joint eort to reform or eliminate those rules which are unjustied.
Primeri vključujejo zastarele uredbe o določanju cen, prepovedi oglaševanja in prepovedi sodelovanja med različnimi poklici. Poročilo iz leta 2004 je pozvalo vse vpletene, da si skupaj prizadevajo za preoblikovanje ali odstranitev pravil, ki so neutemeljena.
Regulatory authorities in the Member States and professional bodies were invited to voluntarily review existing rules taking into consideration whether those rules are necessary for the public interest, whether they are proportionate and justied, and whether they are necessary for the good practice of the profession. e report promised to report on progress in 2005.
Regulativni organi v državah članicah in poklicni organi so bili povabljeni, naj na lastno pobudo pregledajo obstoječa pravila in pri tem pretehtajo, ali so ta pravila potrebna za javni interes, ali so
The report is available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52004 DC0083:EN:NOT (This was supplemented by the stocktaking exercise on regulation of professional services in the 10 new EU Member States, published in November 2004, which can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/liberalization/conference/overview_of_regulation_in_the_eu_professions.pdf).
1).Poročilo je na voljo na: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= CE L EX : 5 2004 D C 00 8 3: EN:NOT (To je nadomestila ugotovitvena dejavnost o ureditvi poklicnih storitev v desetih novih državah članicah EU, objavljeno novembra 2004, na voljo na: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ liberalization/conference/overview_of_regulation_in_the_eu_professions.pdf).
I — Antitrust — Articles 81, 82 and 86 EC
I – Protimonopolna zakonodaja – členi 81, 82 in 86 ES sorazmerna in ali so utemeljena ter potrebna za poklicno dobro prakso.
2005 report ‘Professional services — scope for more reform’
Poročilo iz leta 2005 „Poklicne storitve – prostor za več reform“
77), and the second, annexed to the communication, a Com-
Prvi je sporočilo Komisije „Poklicne storitve – prostor za več reform“(77) in drugi, ki je priložen sporočilu, je delovni dokument službe Komisije z naslovom „Napredek po državah članicah pri pregledovanju in odpravljanju nepotrebnih omejevanj konkurence na področju poklicnih storitev“.
135. e Communication gives an overview of progress made by individual Member States in the review and removal of unjustied regulatory restrictions since the issue of the 2004 report.
Sporočilo vsebuje pregled napredka posameznih držav članic pri pregledovanju in odpravljanju neupravičenih regulativnih omejitev od izida poročila za leto 2004.
It also provides details of enforcement action in this sector by national competition authorities and the Commission.
Podrobno tudi predstavlja izvršilne ukrepe nacionalnih organov za konkurenco in Komisije v tem sektorju.
It draws conclusions about the pace of reform and proposes a way forward. e Commission staff working document underpins the Communication and provides a detailed analysis of the information collected from Member States on reforms undertaken.
Predstavlja sklepe o hitrosti reform in predlaga, kako naprej. Delovni dokument služb Komisije podpira sporočilo in zagotavlja podrobno analizo informacij o uvedenih reformah, ki so bile zbrane v državah članicah.
It provides a critique of the justica-tions put forward by Member States for their continuing maintenance of restrictive rules, and highlights best practice.
Kritično obravnava utemeljitve, ki so jih podale države članice za to, da še naprej ohranjajo omejevalna pravila, in opozarja na najboljšo prakso.
A range of work is being undertaken, including bilateral discussions with national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and professional bodies, stocktaking exercises and sector studies. e NCAs are also actively applying the EU competition rules to cases in their countries.
Začela se je vrsta dejavnosti, vključno z dvostranskimi pogovori z nacionalnimi organi za konkurenco in strokovnimi organi, ugotovitvenimi dejavnostmi in sektorskimi študijami. Nacionalni organi za konkurenco tudi dejavno uporabljajo pravila konkurence EU v primerih v svojih državah.
In order to drive reform the report suggests that the issue of modernising the rules aecting the professions should be built into the national reform programmes for implementing the Lisbon strategy. e report leaves open the possibility of the Com-
Da bi spodbudili reformo, poročilo predlaga, da bi bilo treba vključiti vprašanje posodobitve pravil, ki vplivajo na poklice, v nacionalne programe reform za uresničevanje lizbonske strategije. Poročilo pušča odprto možnost, da lahko Komisija sprejme
The follow-up report is available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX: 52005DC0405:EN:NOT
Poročilo o spremljanju je na voljo na: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= CELEX:52005DC0405:EN:NOT
Report on Competition Policy 2005 mission taking further appropriate enforcement action using the EU competition rules, including the possible use of Article 86 EC where appropriate.
Poročilo o politiki konkurence za leto 2005 dodatne ustrezne izvršilne ukrepe z uporabo pravil konkurence EU, vključno z morebitno uporabo člena 86 ES, kjer je to primerno.
In 2003, the Competition DG decided to enter into a comprehensive dialogue process with the NCAs to identify key competition issues in the field of waste management systems and to ensure a coherent competition policy by the Commission and the NCAs in this area.
GD za konkurenco se je leta 2003 odločil, da bo začel postopek izčrpnih pogovorov z nacionalnimi organi za konkurenco, s čimer bi opredelil ključna vprašanja konkurence na področju sistemov ravnanja z odpadki in zagotovil usklajeno politiko konkurence Komisije in nacionalnih organov za konkurenco na tem področju.
Discussions concerned in particular three types of waste which are dealt with by the corresponding EC directives, namely: (i) packaging waste (packaging
Razpravljalo se je predvsem o treh vrstah odpadkov, ki jih obravnavajo ustrezne direktive EU, in sicer: (i) odpadna embalaža (Direktiva o embalaži(78)), (ii) izrabljena vozila oziroma „avtomobilske razbitine“ (Direktiva o izrabljenih vozilih(79)) in (iii) odpadna električna in elektronska oprema (Direktiva OEEO(80
As a first step, a questionnaire was sent to the NCAs in 2003.
Najprej je bil v letu 2003 nacionalnim organom za konkurenco razposlan vprašalnik.
A discussion paper was draed in 2004 by the Competition DG on the basis of the Commission decisional practice(81) and on the basis of the replies received from the NCAs. e dra paper was circulated for consultation to the NCAs in December 2004.
V letu 2004 je GD za konkurenco na podlagi dotedanje prakse Komisije(81) in odgovorov, ki jih je dobil od nacionalnih organov za konkurenco, pripravil osnutek dokumenta za razpravo.
A meeting took place in February with 20 NCAs to discuss the dra paper and to learn from the NCAs’ experiences.
Osnutek dokumenta je bil razposlan v razpravo nacionalnim organom za konkurenco decembra 2004.
Following a second round of consultation in May, the dra paper was nal-ised and published on the Competition DG’s website in September(82).
Po drugem krogu posvetovanj v maju je bila pripravljena dokončna različica osnutka dokumenta, ki je bil septembra objavljen na spletni strani GD za konkurenco(82).
In applying competition policy to the waste management sector, the overall objective is to achieve the implementation of competition and environment policies in a mutually reinforcing way in order to best contribute to the Lisbon strategy goal of making the EU the world’s most dynamic, competitive and sustainable economy by 2010, while at the same time improving the welfare of consumers. e application of competition policy is important in the field of waste management since the markets for recycled materials will become a major resource market of the future.
Pri uporabi politike konkurence v sektorju ravnanja z odpadki je skupni cilj doseči takšno izvrševanje politike konkurence in okoljske politike, da se medsebojno krepita, s čimer bi najbolje prispevali k cilju lizbonske strategije, da bo EU do leta 2010 postala najbolj dinamično, konkurenčno in trajnostno gospodarstvo na svetu, pri čemer se bo tudi izboljševala blaginja potrošnikov. Uporaba politike konkurence na področju ravnanja z odpadki je pomembna, ker bo trg recikliranih snovi v prihodnosti postal pomemben trg virov.
As regards ELVs and WEEE, the markets in most countries are either in the process of being created or will be created in the future.
Na področju izrabljenih vozil in odpadne električ-
( waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p.
34).Direktiva 2002/96/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 27. januarja 2003 o odpadni električni in elektronski opremi (OEEO) (UL L 37, 13.2.2003, str.
24).Commission decision of 16.10.2003 (OJ L 75, 12.3.2004, p.
24).Odločba Komisije z dne 16.10.2003 (UL L 75, 12.3.2004, str.
59; ARA, ARGEV, ARO, concerning Article 81 EC) — appeal pending; Commission decision of 17.9.2001 (OJ L 319, 4.12.2001, p.
59; ARA, ARGEV, ARO, v zvezi s členom 81 ES) – v pritožbenem postopku; Odločba Komisije z dne 17.9.2001 (UL L 319, 4.12.2001, str.
1; DSD, concerning Article 81 EC) — appeal pending; Commission decision of 15.6.2001 (OJ L 233, 31.8.2001, p.
1; DSD, v zvezi s členom 81 ES) – v pritožbenem postopku; Odločba Komisije z dne 15.6.2001 (UL L 233, 31.8.2001, str.
37; Eco Emballages, concerning Article 81 EC); and Commission decision of 20.4.2001 (OJ L 166, 21.6.2001, p.
37; Eco Emballages, v zvezi s členom 81 ES) in Odločba Komisije z dne 20.4.2001 (UL L 166, 21.6.2001, str.
1; DSD, concerning Article 82 EC) — appeal pending.The paper is available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/others/waste.pdf
1; DSD, v zvezi s členom 82 ES) – v pritožbenem postopku.Dokument je na voljo na: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/others/waste.pdf
I — Antitrust — Articles 81, 82 and 86 EC
I – Protimonopolna zakonodaja – členi 81, 82 in 86 ES ne in elektronske opreme so trgi v večini držav na stopnji razvoja ali pa se bodo razvili v prihodnosti.
First, anticompetitive practices such as market sharing, price fixing and the exchange of other sensitive information need to be prevented.
Prvič, treba je preprečiti protikonkurenčna ravnanja, kot so delitev trgov, določanje cen in izmenjava drugih občutljivih informacij.
Finally, exclusive arrangements of all kinds are to be avoided without solid and convincing economic justication thus allowing for increased competition and lower prices.
Končno, treba se je izogibati vsem vrstam izključnih ureditev brez trdne in prepričljive ekonomske utemeljitve, s čimer bi lahko okrepili konkurenco in znižali cene.
Cases in the waste management sector are likely to be dealt with mainly at the national level as most of the relevant markets would appear to be national.
Primeri v sektorju ravnanja z odpadki bodo verjetno obravnavani predvsem na nacionalni ravni, saj bo večina zadevnih trgov domnevno nacionalnih.
Consumer goods and foodstus
Potrošno blago in prehrambni proizvodi
On the 22nd June, the Commission adopted a commitment decision pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, based on Article 82 EC and Article 54 EEA and addressed to e Coca-Cola Company (TCCC) and its three anchor bottlers, Bottling Holdings (Luxembourg) sarl, Coca-Cola Erfrischungsgetränke AG and Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company SA (referred to collectively as ‘Coca-Cola’). e subject matter of the decision was certain business practices of TCCC and its respective bottlers in the supply of carbonated so drinks (‘CSDs’) in the EU, Norway and Iceland.
Komisija je 22. junija v skladu s členom 9 Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003 sprejela odločbo o zavezi, ki je temeljila na členu 82 ES in členu 54 EGS in je bila naslovljena na družbo Coca-Cola (e Coca-Cola Company, „TCCC“) in tri njene glavne polnilnice, Bottling Holdings (Luksemburg) sarl, Coca-Cola Erfrischungsgetränke AG in Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company SA (v nadaljnjem besedilu skupaj poimenovane „CocaCola“). Predmet odločbe so bila nekatera poslovna ravnanja družbe Coca-Cola in njenih zadevnih polnilnic pri dobavi brezalkoholnih gaziranih pijač v EU, Norveški in Islandiji.
In its preliminary assessment addressed to Coca-Cola on the 15th October 2004, the Commission expressed concerns that TCCC and its respective bottlers may have abused their joint dominant position in the national CSD markets by pursuing certain practices in the distribution channels for consumption at home (‘take-home channel’) and for consumption on premise (‘on-premise channel’) in the EU, Norway and Iceland.
Komisija je v svoji predhodni oceni, ki jo je 15. oktobra 2004 naslovila na Coca-Colo, izrazila pomisleke, da so družba Coca-Cola in njene zadevne polnilnice mogoče zlorabile svoj skupni prevladujoči položaj na nacionalnih trgih brezalkoholnih gaziranih pijač z nekaterimi ravnanji v distribucijskih poteh za uživanje doma („maloprodaja“) in za uživanje v lokalu („gostinstvo“) v EU, Norveški in Islandiji.
Observations from interested third parties supported the Commission’s preliminary competition concerns.
Pripombe zainteresiranih tretjih strani so začetne pomisleke Komisije o konkurenci podprle.
With respect to both distribution channels, the Commission’s preliminary concerns related to exclusivity requirements, rebates granted on condition that the clients reached, on a quarterly basis, individually specied purchase thresholds separately set for colas and non-colas, tying arrangements and arrangements requiring the clients to carry for sale a range of cola stock keeping units (‘SKUs’) and/or non-cola SKUs.
Pri obeh distribucijskih poteh so se pomisleki Komisije nanašali na zahteve po izključnosti, popuste, do katerih so bile stranke upravičene, če so v četrtletju dosegle individualno določeno mejo nakupov, ki je bila posebej postavljena za kole in druge pijače, na vezano prodajo in ureditve, ki so zahtevale od strank, da ponujajo vrsto embalažnih enot za kole in/ali embalažne enote za druge pijače.
Furthermore, in the take-home channel, TCCC and its bottlers applied shelf space arrangements whereby the supermarkets reserved a large part of their CSD shelf space for
Poleg tega so družba Coca-Cola in njene polnilnice pri poti maloprodaja uporabile ureditve o prostoru na policah,
Case COMP/39.116 — Coca-Cola (OJ L 253, 29.9.2005, p.
Zadeva COMP/39116 – Coca-Cola (UL L 253, 29.9.2005, str. 21, in UL C 239, 29.9.2005, str. 19). Glej tudi http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/index/by_nr_78.html#i39_116
Report on Competition Policy 2005
Poročilo o politiki konkurence za leto 2005 pri čemer so supermarketi velik del svojih polic za brezalkoholne gazirane pijače rezervirali za proizvode z znamko družbe Coca-Cola v korist slabše prodajanih brezalkoholnih gaziranih pijač znamke Coca-Cola.
In the on-premise channel, customers received up-front nancing and repaid the loan by purchasing TCCC-branded products over a number of years.
Pri poti gostinstvo so stranke lahko izkoristile vnaprejšnje nanciranje in so odplačevale dolg z večletno nabavo proizvodov znamk družbe Coca-Cola.
Finally, TCCC and its bottlers also attached certain exclusivity-related restrictions to the installation of technical sales equipment, such as beverage coolers and fountain dispensers.
Končno so družba Coca-Cola in njene polnilnice uvedle nekatere omejitve izključne narave na vgradnjo tehnične opreme za prodajo, kot so hladilniki pijač in avtomati za pijače.
In response to the preliminary assessment, Coca-Cola submitted commitments which took into account the competition issues identied.
Coca-Cola se je odzvala na predhodno oceno s predložitvijo zavez, ki so upoštevale navedene konkurenčne pomisleke.
On 26 November 2004 the Commission published a notice pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003(84), inviting interested third parties to submit their observations on Coca-Cola’s proposed commitments. e observations received were, on the whole, positive while indicating how the eectiveness of the commitments could be further improved (e.g. tightened wording, monitoring).
Komisija je 26. novembra 2004 objavila obvestilo v skladu s členom 27(4) Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003(84), s katerim je pozvala zainteresi- rane strani, naj podajo pripombe na predlagane zaveze Coca-Cole. Pripombe, ki jih je dobila, so bile na splošno pozitivne, pri čemer so tudi navajale, kako bi bilo mogoče dodatno povečati učinkovitost zavez (npr. strožje oblikovano besedilo, spremljanje).
In response to these observations, Coca-Cola submitted an amended commitment proposal.
Coca-Cola je nato predložila spremenjeni predlog zavez.
In particular, Coca-Cola will refrain from concluding exclusivity agreements save in specic circumstances and from granting growth and target rebates.
Coca-Cola se bo, razen v posebnih okoliščinah, zlasti vzdržala sklepanja izključnih sporazumov, in podeljevanja popustov za rast in ciljnih popustov.
In the preliminary assessment these practices were regarded as possibly making it more dicult for third parties to compete on their merits.
Glede na predhodno oceno bi ta ravnanja lahko otežila tretjim stranem, da konkurirajo na podlagi lastnih proizvodov.
By providing that requirements concerning assortment and shelf space must be dened separately for certain categories of brands, the commitments address the concern identied in the preliminary assessment that strong brands might be leveraged in favour of weaker brands.
Ker morajo biti zahteve glede razporejanja in prostora na policah opredeljene posebej za določene kategorije znamk, zaveze odgovarjajo na pomislek iz predhodne ocene, da se lahko močne znamke neupravičeno izrabljajo v korist šibkejših znamk družbe Coca-Cola.
With regard to nancing and technical equipment, the commitments reduce contract duration, give customers the option of repayment and termination without penalties and free up a certain share of cooler space, thus addressing the preliminary concerns that the pre-existing arrangements unduly bound customers and led to outlet exclusivity.
Kar zadeva nanciranje in tehnično opremo, zaveze krajšajo trajanje pogodb, ponujajo strankam možnost odplačila in odpovedi brez kazni in sproščajo določen del prostora v hladilniku, s čimer odgovarjajo na predhodne pomisleke, da so prejšnji pogoji neupravičeno zavezovali stranke in da zaradi njih postajajo prodajna mesta ekskluzivna.
In light of the commitments oered, the decision concluded that there were no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without reaching a finding as to whether or not there was or had been an infringement.
V odločbi je bilo glede na zaveze sklenjeno, da ni več razlogov za ukrepanje Komisije, ne da bi se pri tem dokončno ugotovilo, ali se je dejansko zgodila kršitev ali ne.
By adopting the decision the Commission made Coca-Cola’s commitments binding upon it until 31 December 2010.
Komisija je sprejela odločbo, s katero so postale zaveze za Coca-Colo obvezujoče do 31. decembra 2010.
On 5 October, the Commission imposed a ne of EUR 49.5 million on Automobiles Peugeot SA and its wholly owned importer Peugeot Nederland NV, for having obstructed, from January 1997 until September 2003, exports of new cars from the
Komisija je 5. oktobra podjetju Automobiles Peugeot SA in uvozniku v njegovi 100-odstotni lasti Peugeot Nederland N.V. naložila globo 49,5 milijona EUR, ker sta od januarja 1997 do septembra 2003 ovirala izvoz novih avtomobilov iz Nizozemske za potrošnike s stalnim bivališčem v drugih državah članicah.
10.Cases COMP/36.623, COMP/36.820 and COMP/37.275.
10.Zadeve COMP/36.623, COMP/36.820 in COMP/37.275.
In the Netherlands, prices before taxes were generally substantially lower than in other Member States such as Germany and France.
Nemčija in Francija.
By implementing a strategy designed to prevent dealers from selling cars to consumers in other Member States, so as to curb exports by Dutch Peugeot dealers, the companies committed a very serious infringement of the prohibition on restrictive agreements set out in Article 81 EC.
Podjetji sta z uporabo strategije, s katero naj bi preprečili trgovcem, da bi prodajali avtomobile potrošnikom v drugih državah članicah in tako omejili izvoz nizozemskih trgovcev Peugeota, zelo resno kršili prepoved omejevalnih sporazumov iz člena 81 ES.
e infringement by Peugeot consisted of two measures.
Kršitev Peugeota je bila sestavljena iz dveh ukrepov.
In particular, performance bonuses were refused if dealers sold cars which were subsequently registered outside the Netherlands.
Zlasti so se zavračali dodatki za uspešnost, če so trgovci prodajali avtomobile, ki so bili nato registrirani zunaj Nizozemske.
However, the bonus system implemented by Peugeot in agreement with its Dutch dealer network went further than what was necessary to encourage Dutch dealers to devote their best sales eorts to their contract territory.
Vseeno pa je sistem dodatkov, ki ga je Peugeot uporabil v sporazumu s svojim nizozemskim trgovcem, presegel stopnjo, ki je potrebna za spodbujanje nizozemskih trgovcev, da usmerijo svoja prodajna prizadevanja na pogodbeno ozemlje.