natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Slovakia, there were indications that the transaction would strengthen Tesco’s position as the leading retailing company at the national level.
V Slovaški so obstajala znamenja, da bi transakcija okrepila položaj Tesca kot vodilne družbe za maloprodajo na nacionalni ravni. Poleg tega bi imel združeni subjekt v mestih Bratislava, Košice in Žilina visok tržni delež in število drugih prodajaln bi se zmanjšalo.
Each of these local markets constitutes less than 0.1 % of the total grocery sales in the common market and cannot be regarded as a substantial part of the common market.
Zato je Komisija sklenila, da transakcija vpliva na konkurenco na teh treh lokalnih trgih. Vsak od teh lokalnih trgov predstavlja manj kot 0,1 % skupne prodaje živil na skupnem trgu, tako da jih ne moremo obravnavati kot pomembne dele skupnega trga.
In line with the merger regulation, the Commission thus referred the assessment of the Slovak part of the transaction to the Slovak NCA. is was the first time that a transaction had been referred to a competition authority in a new Member State.
Komisija je tako v skladu z Uredbo o združitvah oceno slovaškega dela napotila na slovaški nacionalni organ za konkurenco. To je bil prvi primer, da se je transakcija napotila na organ za konkurenco v novi državi članici.
As regards the Czech Republic, the Commission’s investigations indicated that the merged entity would still only be the fourth largest retailing group on a national basis.
Glede Češke pa so preiskave Komisije pokazale, da bi bil združeni subjekt še vedno le četrta največja maloprodajna skupina na nacionalni ravni.
Even within individual local markets the parties would still face competition from a number of other strong retailers such as Lidl & Schwarz, Ahold or Rewe.
Celo na posameznih lokalnih trgih bi se stranki še vedno srečevali s konkurenco vrste drugih močnih maloprodajnih trgovcev, kot so Lidl & Schwarz, Ahold ali Rewe.
On the 12th July 2004, Microso and Time Warner notied to the Commission the operation by which they had acquired from Xerox a number of shares in a US company called ContentGuard and that, following this acquisition, they each held 48 % of the voting rights (prior to this transaction Microso already had a 25 % stake).
Microso in Time Warner sta 12. julija 2004 Komisiji priglasila transakcijo, s katero sta od Xeroxa dobila vrsto delnic v podjetju iz ZDA, imenovanem ContentGuard, in priglasila sta, da imata po tem dejanju vsak 48 % glasovalnih pravic (Microso je pred to transakcijo že imel 25-odstotni delež).
In addition, they entered into a stockholder voting agreement giving them joint control over ContentGuard.
Poleg tega sta sklenila glasovalni sporazum delničarjev, ki jima je omogočil skupni nadzor nad ContentGuardom.
ContentGuard is active in the development and licensing of intellectual property rights (IPRs) relating to digital rights management (DRM) solutions.
ContentGuard se ukvarja z razvojem in podeljevanjem pravic intelektualne lastnine, povezanih z rešitvami digitalnega upravljanja pravic.
DRM technology consists of soware solutions that enable digital content of any type (e.g. audio, films, documents) to be transmitted securely over an open network e.g. to end-users or exchanged between devices.
Tehnologija digitalnega upravljanja pravic sestoji iz programskih rešitev, ki omogočajo, da se raznovrstne digitalne vsebine (npr. avdio, filmi, dokumenti) varno prenašajo prek odprtega omrežja, npr. h končnim uporabnikom ali izmenjujejo med napravami.
Microso is currently the leading, and possibly dominant, supplier of DRM solutions.
Microso je trenutno vodilni, in najbrž prevladujoči, dobavitelj rešitev digitalnega upravljanja pravic.
Aer a routine, Phase I, review, the Commission opened an indepth investigation on 25 August 2004 and sent the parties a statement of objections on 29 November 2004.
Komisija je po rutinskem pregledu v Fazi I 25. avgusta 2004 odprla poglobljeno preiskavo in strankama poslala obvestilo o nasprotovanju 29. novembra 2004.
One of the Commission’s main concerns was that the operation could have buttressed Microso’s monopoly in the market for PC operating systems.
Eden od poglavitnih pomislekov Komisije je bil, da bi transakcija okrepila Microsoov monopol na trgu operacijskih sistemov za osebne računalnike.
Indeed, under Microso’s and Time Warner’s joint ownership, ContentGuard could have had both the incentives and the ability to use its IPR portfolio to put Microso’s rivals in the DRM solutions market at a competitive disadvantage.
Skupno lastništvo Microsoa in Time Warnerja v ContentGuardu bi bila prav lahko mamljiva in dejanska priložnost, da bi s portfeljem pravic intelektualne lastnine postavili konkurente Microsoa na trgu rešitev digitalnega upravljanja v konkurenčno slabši položaj.
DRM could have been used as a gatekeeper technology, because Microso controls on which PC operating system its DRM soware could be used.
Digitalno upravljanje pravic bi lahko uporabili kot stražarsko tehnologijo, saj Microso nadzoruje, na katerem operacijskem sistemu osebnih računalnikov bi se lahko uporabilo digitalno upravljanje pravic.
Following the Commission’s objections, Microso and Time Warner informed the Commission that omson was acquiring a 33 % stake in ContentGuard.
Službe Komisije so podrobno preučile, ali se transakcija, v katero je vključen omson, lahko uvrsti pod Uredbo o združitvah.
Sasol Wax International AG (Sasol), Germany, which belongs to the South African Sasol Group, is a specialised company active in the field of petroleum-based waxes, in particular in paran and micro waxes.
Sasol Wax International AG („Sasol“), Nemčija, ki je del južnoafriške skupine Sasol Group, je specializirano podjetje dejavno na področju voskov iz nanih derivatov, zlasti parana in mikro voskov. Total France S.A.
In addition to the production of paran and micro waxes, Total produces necessary raw materials for their production: slack wax and bright stock slack wax.
Total poleg parana in mikro voskov proizvaja potrebne surovine za njihovo proizvodnjo: paranski vosek in svetli paranski vosek.
Slack wax and bright stock slack wax are produced in reneries as by-products of the oil rening process. ey can be used captively, sold directly to third parties or further rened into paran waxes or micro waxes.
Paranski vosek in svetli paranski vosek se pridobivata v ranerijah kot stranski proizvod raniranja nae. Lahko se uporabljata interno, prodata neposredno tretjim strankam ali dodatno ranirata v paranske voske ali mikro voske.
Paran waxes and micro waxes are used in a variety of end applications such as candles, rubber, packaging, cable, chewing gum or adhesives.
Paranski voski in mikro voski se uporabljajo v vrsti končnih proizvodov, kot so sveče, guma, embalaža, kabli, žvečilni gumiji ali lepila.
376. e Commission opened an indepth investigation into the proposed joint venture on the 13th April because it had serious concerns that the transaction could signicantly impede eective competition in the common market.
Komisija je 13. aprila začela poglobljeno preiskavo predlaganega skupnega podjetja, ker je imela resne pomisleke, da bo transakcija pomembno ovirala učinkovito konkurenco na skupnem trgu.
In particular, the initial market investigation had found that the combination of Total’s and Sasol’s commercial activities, the supply of raw material from Total to the joint venture and the increase in the capacity constraints resulting from the transaction could signicantly strengthen Sasol’s leading position in the markets for paran and micro waxes.
Posebno, ker je bilo pri začetni preiskavi trga ugotovljeno, da bi kombinacija trgovinskih dejavnosti Totala in Sasola, dejstvo, da bi Total dobavljal surovine za skupno podjetje, in povečanje omejitev zmogljivosti zaradi transakcije pomembno okrepili prevladujoči položaj Sasola na trgih parana in mikro voskov.
However, the Commission, following a market test, had found that the dra remedy was too complex while not addressing the serious concerns as regards paran waxes.
Vendar pa je Komisija po tržnem preverjanju ugotovila, da je osnutek protiukrepa prezapleten, pri čemer ne odpravlja resnih pomislekov glede paranskih voskov.
On the 20th April, the parties communicated to the Commission the termination of the joint venture agreement and the withdrawal of the notication.
Stranke so 20. aprila Komisijo obvestile o preklicu sporazuma o skupnem podjetju in priglasitve.
On the 18th October, the Commission opened an indepth (Phase II) investigation into the proposed acquisition of the Italian engineering company Eurotecnica by the Austrian company Agrolinz Melamine International (AMI). e Commission had been referred the case by the German and the Polish NCAs.
Komisija je 18. oktobra odprla poglobljeno (Faza II) preiskavo predlagane pripojitve italijanske inženirske družbe Eurotecnica k avstrijski družbi Agrolinz Melamine International (AMI). Na Komisijo sta primer napotila nemški in poljski nacionalni organ za konkurenco. Priglasiteljici sta 20. decembra posel preklicali.
AMI is active in the production of melamine, a specialty chemical which is used in a wide range of applications such as surface applications, adhesives and glues, and as a flame retardant.
AMI se ukvarja s proizvodnjo melamina, posebne kemikalije, ki ima široko področje uporabe, kot so površinski premazi, veziva in lepila, uporablja se tudi kot zaviralec gorenja.
AMI also has its own melamine production technologies which it has not licensed to third parties in the last 10 years.
AMI ima tudi lastno tehnologijo za proizvodnjo melamina, za katero v zadnjih desetih letih ni izdajala dovoljenj tretjim strankam.
Furthermore, the elimination of these competitive constraints could have increased the likelihood of coordinated commercial behaviour in the already concentrated melamine market.
II – Nadzor združevanja lahko oviral nadaljnje vstopanje na trg in nadziral projekte širitve svojih tekmecev. Poleg tega bi lahko odprava teh konkurenčnih pritiskov povečala možnost za usklajeno tržno vedenje na že tako koncentriranem trgu melamina.
Commission case( tration between Tetra Laval and Sidel to be incompatible with the common market pur-
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je 15. februarja zavrnilo pritožbo Komisije zoper sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi Tetra Laval proti Komisiji(150), s katero je razvelja- vilo Odločbo Komisije, ki koncentracijo med Tetra Laval in Sidel razglaša za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 8(3) Uredbe o združitvah(151).
151). e judgment claries three issues of suant to Article 8(3) of the merger regulation( particular importance: the standards of proof and of judicial review in merger control; the relationship between the merger regulation and Article 82 EC; and the acceptability of behavioural commitments.
Sodba pojasnjuje tri vprašanja, ki so posebej pomembna: dokazne standarde in standarde sodnega nadzora pri nadzoru združevanja; razmerje med Uredbo o združitvah in členom 82 ES ter sprejemljivost zavez glede ravnanja.
As regards the standard of proof required, the ECJ’s judgment underlines that the prospective analysis of the kind necessary in merger control involves a prediction of events which are more or less likely to occur in future and that such an analysis makes it necessary to envisage various chains of cause and eect with a view to ascertaining which of them is the most likely. e ECJ’s judgment thus upholds the Commission’s view that the requisite standard of proof in all merger cases is that of a balance of probabilities.
Kar zadeva zahtevani dokazni standard, je v sodbi Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti poudarjeno, da prospektivna analiza, ki je potrebna pri nadzoru združevanja, vključuje napoved dogodkov, ki se bolj ali manj verjetni v prihodnosti, in da si je treba za tako analizo zamisliti različen niz vzrokov in učinkov zato, da se ugotovi, kateri izmed njih je najbolj verjeten. Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti tako podpira stališče Komisije, da gre pri zahtevanem dokaznem standardu v vseh primerih združitev za ravnotežje verjetnosti.
As regards the prospective analysis of conglomerate mergers, the ECJ found that the question whether a conglomerate merger will permit the merged entity to leverage its strength in order to gain a dominant position over time involves ‘chains of cause and eect which are dimly discernible, uncertain and dicult to establish’.
V zvezi s prospektivno analizo konglomeratnih združitev je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti ugotovilo, da vprašanje, ali bo konglomeratna združitev omogočila združenemu podjetju, da okrepi svojo moč, da bi sčasoma prevzelo prevladujoči položaj, vključuje „nize vzrokov in učinkov, ki so komaj kaj opazni, nezanesljivi in težko ugotovljivi“.
Consequently, the quality of the evidence justifying prohibition of such mergers is particularly important in order to support the view that this economic development would be ‘plausible’.
Zato je kakovost dokazov, ki bi utemeljevali prepoved takih združitev, posebej pomembna, da se podpre stališče, da bi bil ta gospodarski razvoj „verjeten“.
As regards judicial review of such findings, the ECJ held that the Commission has a margin of discretion with regard to economic matters but that the courts must establish whether the evidence relied upon is factually accurate, reliable and consistent, whether it contains all the information that must be taken into account and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it.
V zvezi s sodnim nadzorom takih ugotovitev je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti trdilo, da ima Komisija manevrski prostor pri gospodarskih zadevah, vendar pa morajo sodišča ugotoviti, ali dokazi, na katera se opirajo, odražajo resnična, zanesljiva in skladna dejstva, ali vsebujejo vse informacije, ki jih je treba upoštevati, in ali lahko utemeljijo iz njih izvedene sklepe.
Report on Competition Policy 2005 penalties. is would be too speculative and would not allow the Commission to base its assessment on all of the relevant facts.
To bi bilo preveč špekulativno in bi Komisiji preprečilo, da bi svojo presojo utemeljila na vseh ustreznih dejstvih.
However the ECJ found that this error of law was not sucient to lead to the annulment of the judgment.
Vendar pa je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti ugotovilo, da ta napačna uporaba prava ne zadostuje za razglasitev ničnosti sodbe.
Concerning behavioural commitments, the CFI held that the Commission had failed to take into account a number of possible behavioural commitments when assessing the leveraging behaviour which would be open to the merged entity. e Commission argued on appeal that it had in fact considered the commitments but had found them unacceptable, principally because of the diculty in monitoring them.
V zvezi z zavezami glede ravnanja je Sodišče prve stopnje trdilo, da Komisija ni upoštevala številnih možnih zavez glede ravnanja pri presoji učinka prenosa, ki bi ga lahko uporabilo združeno podjetje. Komisija je v pritožbi trdila, da je namreč upoštevala zaveze, vendar je ugotovila, da so nesprejemljive, zlasti zaradi težav pri njihovem nadzoru.
In its judgment, the ECJ draws a distinction between cases where there is an immediate structural change in the market and those where dominance may only be achieved in due course, through leveraging.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti v svoji sodbi loči med primeri, pri katerih gre za takojšnjo strukturno spremembo na trgu, in tistimi, pri katerih se lahko prevladujoči položaj doseže sčasoma z učinkom prenosa.
Consequently, the ECJ found that the CFI’s judgment annulling the Commission’s decision had to be upheld despite the CFI’s error of law regarding the deterrent eect of Article 82 EC.
Zato je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti ugotovilo, da je treba sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje, ki razveljavlja odločbo Komisije, potrditi, kljub napačni uporabi prava s strani Sodišča prve stopnje v zvezi z odvračilnim učinkom člena 82 ES.
On the 21st September, the CFI dismissed EDP’s action for annulment of the Commission decision of 9 December 2004, which declared the joint acquisition of Gás de Portugal (GDP), the incumbent Portuguese gas company, by Energias de Portugal (EDP), the incumbent Portuguese electricity company, and Eni SpA, an Italian energy company, incompatible with the common market pursuant to Article 8(3) of the merger regulation(153).
Sodišče prve stopnje je 21. decembra zavrnilo tožbo družbe EDP za razglasitev ničnosti Odločbe Komisije z dne 9. decembra 2004, s katero je razglasila pridobitev skupnega nadzora portugalske elektroenergetske družbe Energias de Portugal (EDP) in italijanske elektroenergetske družbe Eni Spa nad portugalsko plinsko družbo Gás de Portugal (GDP) za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 8(3) Uredbe o združitvah(153).
In its decision, the Commission had concluded that, in spite of the commitments proposed by the parties, the concentration would strengthen EDP’s dominant positions on the electricity markets in Portugal as well as GDP’s dominant positions on the Portuguese gas markets, as from when they were opened to competition, with the consequence that competition would be signicantly impeded in a substantial part of the common market.
Komisija je v svoji odločbi ugotovila, da bi koncentracija kljub zavezam, ki so jih predlagale stranke, okrepila prevladujoče položaje družbe EDP na trgih z električno energijo na Portugalskem ter prevladujoče položaje družbe GDP na portugalskih trgih plina, od takrat, ko bi postali odprti za konkurenco, kar bi povzročilo, da bi bila konkurenca bistveno ovirana na večjem delu skupnega trga.
Case T-87/05 EDP-Energias de Portugal SA v Commission.Case COMP/M.3440 ENI/EDP/GDP, adopted under the former merger regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 4064/89.
Zadeva T-87/05 EDP, Energias de Portugal SA proti Komisiji.Zadeva COMP/M.3440, ENI/EDP/GDP, sprejeta v skladu s predhodno Uredbo o združitvah, Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 4064/89.
2009 at the latest for non-residential customers and in 2010 at the latest for residential customers.
Drugi trgi plina naj bi se odprli najpozneje leta 2009 za tuje porabnike in najpozneje leta 2010 za domače porabnike.
With regard to commitments presented aer the deadline imposed by the various regulations, the CFI indicated that the Commission had correctly applied its notice on remedies when assessing both the electricity and the gas commitments.
V zvezi z zavezami, ki so bile predstavljene po roku, določenem v različnih uredbah, je Sodišče prve stopnje navedlo, da je Komisija pravilno uporabila svoje obvestilo o protiukrepih, ko je presojala zaveze na področju električne energije in plina.
With respect to the latter, which were presented in full only three working days before the Commission decision, the CFI also underlined that the Commission was right to reject them on the sole ground of their ‘extreme lateness’.
V zvezi s slednjimi, ki so bile v celoti predstavljene šele tri delovne dni pred odločbo Komisije, je Sodišče prve stopnje prav tako poudarilo, da je Komisija ravnala prav, ko jih je zavrnila izključno na podlagi njihove „skrajne zamude“.
As regards the substantive assessment of the merger, the CFI considered that the Commission erred in law when it concluded that the concentration would strengthen GDP’s dominant positions and give rise to a signicant impediment to competition on the gas markets. e CFI recalled that, as a result of the derogation provided for in the second gas directive, the gas markets in Portugal were not open to competition on the date of adoption of the decision.
V zvezi z vsebinsko oceno združitve je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da je Komisija napačno uporabila pravo, ko je sklenila, da bi koncentracija okrepila prevladujoče položaje družbe GDP in povzročila bistveno oviranje konkurence na trgih plina. Sodišče prve stopnje je opozorilo, da trgi plina na Portugalskem zaradi odstopanja, predvidenega v drugi direktivi o plinu, na dan sprejetja odločbe niso bili odprti za konkurenco.
According to the CFI, it follows that, in the total absence of competition, there was no competition that could be signicantly impeded by the concentration on the date of the adoption of the contested decision. e CFI then went on to rule that, by assessing only the future eects of the concentration on the gas markets when these markets were to be open to competition, the Commission had wrongly refrained from taking into account the immediate eects of the concentration on those markets.
Na podlagi navedb Sodišča iz tega sledi, da v popolni odsotnosti konkurence ni bilo konkurence, ki bi lahko bila na dan sprejetja izpodbijane odločbe zaradi koncentracije bistveno ovirana. Sodišče prve stopnje je nato odločilo, da je Komisija s tem, da je ocenila samo prihodnje učinke koncentracije na trgih plina, ko bi naj bili ti trgi odprti za konkurenco, ravnala napačno, ker ni upoštevala takojšnjih učinkov koncentracije na navedene trge.
In that respect, the Court referred to the fact that the situation on the gas markets would be distinctly improved by the concentration as modied by the gas commitments mentioned above.
V zvezi s tem se je Sodišče sklicevalo na dejstvo, da bi se položaj na trgih plina izrazito izboljšal s koncentracijo, kot je bila spremenjena z zgoraj navedenimi zavezami glede plina.
However, despite that error, the CFI recalled that there is no reason to annul a decision prohibiting a concentration if certain grounds of that decision which are not vitiated by illegalities, in particular those concerning one of the relevant markets, are sucient to justify its operative part.
Vendar pa je Sodišče prve stopnje kljub tej napaki opozorilo, da ni nobenega razloga za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe, ki prepoveduje koncentracijo, če nekateri razlogi navedene odločbe, ki niso razveljavljeni zaradi nezakonitosti, zlasti tisti v zvezi z upo-
Report on Competition Policy 2005 the electricity markets. at fact would entail the strengthening of EDP’s dominant positions on each of the electricity markets, with the consequence that eective competition would be signicantly impeded. at conclusion was in itself sucient to justify the Commission’s decision. ere was no need to also consider the vertical eects of the merger.
Poročilo o politiki konkurence za leto 2005 števanimi trgi, zadostujejo za utemeljitev njenega operativnega dela. V tej zadevi je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da Komisija ni naredila očitne napake pri presoji, ko je menila, da bi koncentracija povzročila, da bi pomemben morebitni tekmec (GDP) izginil z vseh trgov električne energije.
On the 14th December, the CFI upheld the Commission’s decision to prohibit the merger between the General Electric Company (GE) and Honeywell Inc.
Sodišče prve stopnje je 14. decembra potrdilo odločbo Komisije, da se prepove združitev med General Electric Company („GE“) in Honeywell Inc. („Honeywell“).
Honeywell’s application was dismissed on procedural grounds, as it focused on only one aspect of the decision (i.e. the conglomerate eects) and could not thus lead to an annulment of the decision.
Tožba Honeywella je bila zavrnjena na postopkovni podlagi, ker se je osredotočala samo na en vidik odločbe (tj. konglomeratne učinke) in tako ne bi mogla pripeljati do razglasitve ničnosti odločbe.
In relation to GE’s application, the CFI upheld the decision on the basis of the horizontal eects of the transaction on the markets for jet engines for large regional jets, corporate jet aircra and small marine gas turbines, finding that the proposed commitments submitted by the parties were rightly rejected by the Commission.
V zvezi s tožbo družbe GE je Sodišče prve stopnje potrdilo odločbo na podlagi horizontalnih učinkov posla na trgih reaktivnih motorjev za velika regionalna letala, motorjev za poslovna letala in majhnih ladijskih plinskih turbin ter ugotovilo, da je Komisija pravilno zavrnila predlagane zaveze, ki so jih predložile stranke.
It also con-rms the Commission’s conclusion that GE’s market share for large commercial jet air-cra engines is indicative of pre-merger dominance and reinforced through GE’s vertical integration and the characteristics of the industry.
Prav tako potrjuje sklep Komisije, da tržni delež družbe GE na področju reaktivnih motorjev za velika komercialna letala kaže na prevladujoči položaj pred združitvijo ter je okrepljen z vertikalno integracijo družbe GE in značilnostmi dejavnosti.