Je was op zoek naar: ueno (Engels - Lets)

arguments of chisso and ueno
chisso un ueno argumenti

ueno: a reduction of 25 %.
ueno: samazinājums 25 % apmērā.

ltd and ueno fine chemicals industry ltd
ltd un ueno fine chemicals industry ltd

(e) ueno: a reduction of 25 %.
e) ueno: samazinājums 25 % apmērā.

the commission notes that ueno failed to produce consolidated figures.
komisija atzīmē, ka ueno nav iesniedzis konsolidētos rādītājus.

ueno fine chemicals industry ltd: eur 12,3 million
ueno fine chemicals industry ltd: 12,3 miljoni eur

there are no aggravating circumstances relating to the infringement in ueno’s case.
ueno lietā attiecībā uz pārkāpumu nav vainu pastiprinošu apstākļu.

ltd (hereinafter nippon) and ueno fine chemicals industry ltd (hereinafter ueno).
ltd (turpmāk tekstā saukts "nippon") un ueno fine chemicals industry ltd (turpmāk tekstā saukts "ueno").

on 15 july 1999, 24 october 2001 and 21 february 2002 respectively, nippon synthetic, ueno and daicel expressed their willingness to cooperate under the 1996 leniency notice.
1999. gada 15. jūlijā, 2001. gada 24. oktobrī un 2002. gada 21. februārī attiecīgi nippon synthetic, ueno un daicel izteica savu vēlmi sadarboties 1996. gada paziņojuma par sadarbību ietvaros.

at the material time there were seven large suppliers of sorbates at worldwide level: two undertakings were european (hoechst and cheminova a/s); one was in the united states (monsanto, later eastman chemical company); and the remaining four undertakings were japanese (chisso, daicel, nippon synthetic and ueno) (recital 64 to the decision).
faktu laikā pasaulē bija septiņi lieli sorbāta piegādātāji: divi bija eiropas uzņēmumi (hoechst un cheminova a/s); viens bija amerikas uzņēmums (monsanto, pēc tam kļuva par eastman chemical company); atlikušie četri uzņēmumi bija no japānas (chisso, daicel, nippon synthetic un ueno) (lēmuma 64. apsvērums).