natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De støtter sig på en ordlydsfortolkning af dette begreb, og har anført, at en sammenligning af alle sprogudgaverne heraf viser, at der i de udtryk, der anvendes i de respektive udgaver, lægges vægt på påbegyndelsen af forsendelsesproceduren, og at det ikke forudsættes, at leverandøren skal have foretaget en fysisk fuldstændig transport af goderne uden for medlemsstaten.
First, it was not a case of an actual refusal inasmuch as, apart from a period of a few weeks between November 2000 and February 2001, GSK AEVE was always prepared to supply the wholesalers with sufficient quantities. Second, it did not put the wholesalers at risk of being eliminated from the market, since its supplies enabled them to cover all the requirements of the Greek market, and even requirements that went beyond those of that market.
Teleos m.fl. har således anført, at der er tale om levering inden for Fællesskabet af goder, når leverandøren har stillet goderne til rådighed for køberen i medfør af »ab fabrik«-klausulen, hvorved sidstnævnte forpligter sig til at transportere dem til en anden medlemsstat, og når der er beviser for, at parternes hensigt er, at goderne herefter transporteres til et sted i en anden medlemsstat, også selv om de endnu ikke fysisk har forladt leveringsmedlemsstatens område.
According to GSK AEVE, the decisive factors for the question whether the conduct of a company that refuses to supply certain goods is abusive depend on the economic and regulatory context of the situation in question. Thus, in the case of a supply restriction in medicinal products in order to limit parallel trade, it is necessary to take into account the omnipresent regulation of prices and distribution in the pharmaceuticals sector, the negative consequences of an unlimited parallel trade upon the investments of pharmaceuticals companies in the field of research and development, and the minimal benefit of that trade for the final consumers of those products.
De medlemsstater, der har afgivet indlæg for Domstolen, og Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber har derimod anført, at udtrykket »forsendes« indebærer, at goderne fysisk har forladt forsendelsesmedlemsstatens område, og at de er ankommet på bestemmelsesmedlemsstatens område.
By contrast, the appellants in the main proceedings, as well as the Italian and Polish Governments and the Commission of the European Communities, maintain in their observations that the refusal by an undertaking in a dominant position to supply medicinal products to wholesalers with the aim of restricting parallel trade constitutes in principle an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 EC.
Selv om en ordlydsfortolkning af udtrykket »forsendes eller transporteres til en anden medlemsstat« i sjette direktivs artikel 28a, stk. 3, første afsnit, tilsyneladende lægger vægt på påbegyndelsen af forsendelses- eller transportproceduren, således som Teleos m.fl. har anført, forhold er det sig imidlertid således, som flertallet af de medlemsstater, der har afgivet indlæg for Domstolen, har fremført, at udtrykket »forsendes eller transporteres til steder uden for [medlemsstatens] område« i samme direktivs artikel 28c, punkt A, litra a), første afsnit, forudsætter, at goderne faktisk har forladt leveringsmedlemsstaten.
Article 82 EC prohibits any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant pos -ition within the common market or in a substantial part of it as incompatible with the common market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. According to point (b) of the second paragraph of that article, such abuse may, in particular, consist in limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers.
Under disse betingelser og henset til den nødvendige sammenhæng mellem levering og erhvervelse inden for Fællesskabet, skal de to bestemmelser, der er nævnt i præmissen ovenfor, fortolkes således, at de har en identisk betydning og rækkevidde.
The established caselaw of the Court shows that the refusal by an undertaking occupying a dominant position on the market of a given product to meet the orders of an existing customer constitutes abuse of that dominant position under Article 82 EC where, without any objective justification, that conduct is liable to eliminate a trading party as a competitor (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 6/73 and 7/73 Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano and Commercial Solvents v Commission [1974] ECR 223, paragraph 25, and Case 27/76 United Brands and United Brands Continentaal v Commission [1978] ECR 207, paragraph 183).
Stillet over for flere forskellige mulige ordlydsfortolkninger af et begreb skal der, med henblik på at fastlægge rækkevidden heraf, tages hensyn til den sammenhæng, hvori det indgår, under hensyn til sjette direktivs formål og opbygning (jf. i denne retning dom af 26.6.1990, sag C-185/89, Velker International Oil Company, Sml. I, s. 2561, præmis 16 og 17, af 5.6.1997, sag C-2/95, SDC, Sml.
With regard to a refusal by an undertaking to deliver its products in one Member State to wholesalers which export those products to other Member States, such an effect on competition may exist not only if the refusal impedes the activities of those wholesalers in that first Member State, but equally if it leads to the elimination of effective competition from them in the distribution of the products on the markets of the other Member States.
Det følger af det formål, der forfølges med overgangsordningen, der er fastsat i sjette direktivs afsnit XVIa, nemlig at afgiftsprovenuet overflyttes til den medlemsstat, hvor det endelige forbrug af de leverede goder finder sted (jf. EMAG Handler Ederdommen, præmis 40), at denne ordning bl.a. blev indført for at regulere varebevægelserne inden for Fællesskabet.
In this case it is common ground between the parties in the main proceedings that, by refusing to meet the Greek wholesalers’ orders, GSK AEVE aims to limit parallel exports by those wholesalers to the markets of other Member States in which the selling prices of the medicinal products in dispute are higher.
Da denne ordninger trådt i stedet forordningen med ind- og udførsel mellem medlemsstaterne, således som det er angivet i denne doms præmis 21, adskiller den sig klart fra den ordning, der gælder for transaktioner, der udføres internt i landet. Den forudgående betingelse for anvendelsen af en sådan ordning er, at transaktionen har fællesskabskarakter og navnlig, at goderne fysisk flyttes fra en medlemsstat til en anden .
In respect of sectors other than that of pharmaceutical products, the Court has held that a practice by which an undertaking in a dominant position aims to restrict parallel trade in the products that it puts on the market constitutes abuse of that dominant position, particularly when such a practice has the effect of curbing parallel imports by neutralising the more favourable level of prices which may apply in other sales areas in the Community (see, to that effect, Case 26/75 General Motors Continental v Commission [1975] ECR 1367, paragraph 12) or when it aims to create barriers to re-importations which come into competition with the distribution network of that undertaking (Case 226/84 British Leyland v Commission [1986] ECR 3263, paragraph 24).
Denne betingelse vedrørende grænsepassage mellem to medlemsstater er et afgørende element i en fællesskabstransaktion, der adskiller den fra de transaktioner, der finder sted internt i et land.
Indeed, parallel imports enjoy a certain amount of protection in Community law because they encourage trade and help reinforce competition (Case C-373/90 X [1992] ECR I-131, paragraph 12).
I modsætning til hvad Teleos m.fl. har hævdet, hvorefter det er tilstrækkeligt, at leverandøren og køberen har til hensigt at gennemføre en transaktion inden for Fællesskabet for at kvalificere transaktionen som sådan, skal det fastslås, at det fremgår af Domstolens praksis, at en forpligtelse for afgiftsmyndigheden til at gennemføre undersøgelser med henblik på at fastlægge den afgiftspligtige persons hensigt ville stride mod merværdiafgiftssystemets formål, som er at sikre retssikkerheden og lette de handlinger, som er forbundetmed afgiftens anvendelse, ved — bortset fra undtagelsestilfælde — at lægge vægt på den pågældende transaktions objektive karakter (jf. dom af 6.4.1995, sag C-4/94, BLP Group, Sml. I, s. 983, præmis 24, og dommen i sagen Optigen m.fl., præmis 45, samt Kittel og Recolta Recycling-dommen, præmis 42).
In order to determine whether the refusal by a pharmaceuticals company to supply medicinal products to such wholesalers indeed falls within the prohibition laid down in Article 82 EC, in particular at point (b) of the second paragraph of that article, it must be examined whether, as GSK AEVE maintains, there are objective considerations based on which such a practice cannot be regarded as an abuse of the dominant position occupied by that undertaking (see, to that effect, United Brands and United Brands Continentaal v Commission, paragraph 184, and Case C-95/04 P British Airways v Commission [2007] ECR I-2331, paragraph 69).
Følgelig skal kvalifikationen af en levering eller erhvervelse inden for Fællesskabet ske på grundlag af objektive elementer, såsom den fysiske flytning af de berørte goder mellem medlemsstater.
As a preliminary point, GSK AEVE observes, citing United Brands Continentaal v Commission, that a dominant undertaking is not under an obligation to honour orders that are out of the ordinary and that it may take reasonable steps in order to protect its legitimate commercial interests.
Denne fortolkning støttes ligeledes af den sammenhæng, hvori leveringen og erhvervelsen af goder inden for Fællesskabet indgår. Det fremgår nemlig allerede af ordlyden af sjette direktivs afsnit XVIa, at overgangsordningen finder anvendelse på samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
With regard more specifically to the pharmaceuticals sector, GSK AEVE argues, first, that the general logic behind protecting competition within a brand does not function in that sector, where the intervention of the public authorities of Member States prevents the manufacturers of medicines from developing their activities in normal competitive conditions.
Henset til ovenstående bemærkninger skal det første og det andet forelagte spørgsmål besvares med, at sjette direktivs artikel 28a, stk. 3, første afsnit, og artikel 28c, punkt A, litra a), første afsnit, med hensyn til begrebet »forsendes« i disse to bestemmelser, skal fortolkes således, at der først er sket erhvervelse inden for Fællesskabet af et gode, og fritagelsen for levering inden for Fællesskabet først kan bringes i anvendelse, når retten til som ejer at råde over godet er overdraget køberen, og leverandøren har godtgjort, at godet er blevet forsendt eller transporteret til en anden medlemsstat, og efter denne forsendelse eller transport fysisk har forladt leveringsmedlemsstatens område.
On the one hand, the pharmaceuticals companies do not control the prices of their products, those prices being fixed at various levels by the public authorities, which are, at the same time, the buyers of the medicines wherever there are national health systems. Even where those prices are the result of negotiations between the authorities and the pharmaceuticals companies, the fact that those companies accept them does not in itself imply that the prices cover all the fixed costs connected with the
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at selv om levering og erhvervelse inden for Fællesskabet af goder er underlagt den objektive betingelse om fysisk fjernelse af goderne fra leveringsmedlemsstaten, således som det fremgår af besvarelsen af de to første spørgsmål, er det vanskeligt for afgiftsmyndighederne på grund af afskaffelsen af grænsekontrollen mellem medlemsstaterne at afgøre, om goderne fysisk har forladt den pågældende medlemsstats område.
Second, GSK AEVE points out that parallel trade in medicines reduces the profits that pharmaceuticals companies can invest in research and development activities on which they depend in order to remain competitive and attractive to investors.
Af denne grund er det hovedsageligt på
By contrast, distributors which profit from parallel trade make no contribution to pharmaceutical innovation.
grundlag af de beviser, der fremlægges af de afgiftspligtige personer, og de selvangivelser, som disse afgiver, at afgiftsmyndighederne foretager en sådan undersøgelse.
In such circumstances, those companies would have an interest in delaying the launch of new products in Member States where the prices are low.
Som det fremgår af sjette direktivs artikel 28c, punkt A, første punktum, fastsætter medlemsstaterne betingelserne for anvendelsen af fritagelsen af en levering inden for Fællesskabet.
Third, GSK AEVE contends that parallel trade provides no genuine benefit to the ultimate consumers.
Det skal imidlertid understreges, at medlemsstaterne med udøvelsen af de beføjelser, fællesskabsdirektiverne tillægger dem, skal overholde de almindelige retsprincipper, der er en del af Fællesskabets retsorden, herunder bl.a. retssikkerhedsprincippet og proportionalitetsprincippet (jf. i denne retning dom af 18.12.1997, forenede sager C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 og C-47/96, Molenheide m.fl., Sml. I, s. 7281, præmis 48, og af 11.5.2006, sag C-384/04, Federation of Technological Industries m.fl., Sml.
Since the greater part of the price difference which makes the business profitable is taken up by intermediaries, parallel trade does not result in genuine pressure on the prices of medicines in the Member States where those prices are higher.
I, s. 4191, præmis 29 og 30).
JUDGMENT OF 16. 9.
Det fremgår ligeledes af Domstolens praksis om efterfølgende opkrævning af moms, at de foranstaltninger, som medlemsstaterne kan træffe for at sikre en nøjagtig opkrævning af afgiften og for at undgå svig, ikke må anvendes på en sådan måde, at de anfægter princippet om momsens neutralitet (jf. i denne retning dom af 21.3.2000, forenede sager C-110/98 — C-147/98, Gabalfrisa m.fl., Sml.
While recognising that the prohibition in Article 82 EC does not apply when the conduct of an undertaking in a dominant position is objectively justified, the Polish Government and the Commission point out that it is for that undertaking to establish that there are circumstances that are capable of justifying its practice.
Teleos m.fl. har anført, at den omstændighed, at afgiftsmyndighederne i en medlemsstat lægger hele bevisbyrden samt pligten til at betale moms på leverandøren af et gode, der er solgt inden for rammerne af ordningen med levering inden for Fællesskabet, idet tilfælde, hvor det efter erhvervelsen viser sig, at køberen har begået svig, og goderne faktisk ikke har forladt leveringsmedlemsstatens område, er uforenelig med principperne om retssikkerhed, proportionalitet og
The appellants in the main proceedings, as well as the Polish Government and the Commission, consider that Article 82 EC cannot be applied differently in the pharmaceuticals sector simply because the prices in that sector are directly or indirectly fixed by the public authorities. Even in the Member States where prices are low, the price of a medicinal product is the result of negotiations with the pharmaceuticals companies, which will not put their products on the market if the prices proposed are not acceptable to them.
DOM AF 27.9.2007 — SAG C-409/04 momsens neutralitet.
Furthermore, there is no causal link between the repercussions of parallel trade on the revenues of pharmaceuticals companies and those companies’ investments in research and development.
De har ligeledes anført, at de foranstaltninger, der er truffet over for dem af afgiftsmyndighederne, påvirker det fælles markeds funktion og hindrer de frie varebevægelser.
Finally, parallel trade in medicinal products brings clear advantages to patients and is likely to enable national social security systems to make savings.
Det følger heraf, at det er påkrævet, således som Teleos m.fl. samt Kommissionen med rette har anført, at de afgiftspligtige personer får kendskab til deres afgiftsmæssige forpligtelser, inden de indgår en handelsaftale.
The appellants in the main proceedings add that taking into account the justifications advanced by GSK AEVE would run counter to the Court’s caselaw relating to the free movement of goods, which accepts only the justifications listed in Article 30 EC.
I hovedsagen fremgår det såvel af sagsakterne som af de indlæg, der er afgivet for Domstolen, at der tilsyneladende hverken findes nogle håndgribelige beviser for, at de pågældende goder er blevet fjernet fra leveringsmedlemsstatens område, eller for at udelukke, at der skulle være begået forfalskninger og svig.
It should be recalled that in paragraph 182 of its judgment in United Brands and United Brands Continentaal v Commission the Court held that an undertaking in a dominant position for the purpose of marketing a product — which cashes in on the reputation of a brand name known to and valued by consumers — cannot stop supplying a long-standing customer who abides by regular commercial practice, if the orders placed by that customer are in no way out of the ordinary.
Det er imidlertid påkrævet for at sikre den korrekte og enkle anvendelse af fritagelserne, at de nationale myndigheder fastsætter de betingelser, hvorunder de fritager leveringer inden for Fællesskabet.
In paragraph 183 of the same judgment, the Court held that such conduct is inconsistent with the objectives laid down in Article 3(f) of the EEC Treaty (Article 3(g) of the EC Treaty, and now Article 3(1)(g) EC), which are set out in detail in Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (Article 86 of the EC Treaty, and now Article 82 EC), particularly in points (b) and (c) of the second paragraph of that article, since the refusal to sell would limit the
Det vil således være i strid med princippet om retssikkerhed, at en medlemsstat, der har fastsat betingelser for anvendelsen af fritagelsen for en levering inden for Fællesskabet ved bl.a. at udarbejde en liste over dokumenter, der skal fremlægges for de kompetente myndigheder, og som i første omgang har accepteret de dokumenter, der er fremlagt af leverandøren som bevis for retten til fritagelse, efterfølgende forpligter denne leverandør til at betale moms vedrørende denne levering, når det viser sig, at goderne på grund af svig begået af køberen, som leverandøren ikke
In paragraph 189 of the judgment in United Brands and United Brands Continentaal v Commission, the Court stated that, although the fact that an undertaking is in a dominant position cannot deprive it of its right to protect its own commercial interests if they are attacked, and that such an undertaking must be conceded the right to take such reasonable steps as it deems appropriate to protect those interests, such behaviour cannot be accepted if its purpose is specifically to strengthen that domin- ant position and abuse it.
havde og ikke kunne have kendskab til, ikke faktisk har forladt leveringsmedlemsstatens område.
The consequences of parallel trade for the ultimate consumers
En pligt for den afgiftspligtige person til at fremlægge et afgørende bevis for, at goderne fysisk har forladt leveringsmedlemsstaten, garanterer imidlertid ikke en korrekt og enkel anvendelse af fritagelserne.
The first thing to consider is GSK AEVE’s argument that parallel trade in any event brings only few financial benefits to the ultimate consumers.
For det andet bemærkes for så vidt angår proportionalitetsprincippet, at Domstolen i præmis 46 i dommen i sagen Molenheide m.fl., fastslog, at i overensstemmelse med dette princip skal medlemsstaterne anvende midler, som — idet de gør det muligt effektivt at nå det mål, der forfølges med national ret — indebærer det mindste indgreb i de af den pågældende fællesskabslovgivning opstillede formål og principper.
In that connection, it should be noted that parallel exports of medicinal products from a Member State where the prices are low to other Member States in which the
Det Forenede Kongeriges regering og den italienske regering har herved anført, at der i denne sag kan anvendes den retspraksis, hvorefter den omstændighed, at det påhviler en importør i god tro at betale den told, der opkræves for indførsel af en vare, i forbindelse med hvilken eksportøren har begået en toldovertrædelse, selv om importøren ikke har medvirket hertil, hverken er uforholdsmæssig eller i strid med almindelige retsprincipper, hvis overholdelse Domstolen sikrer (jf. dom af 14.5.1996,
It is true, as GSK AEVE has pointed out, that, for medicines subject to parallel exports, the existence of price differences between the exporting and the importing Member States does not necessarily imply that the final consumer in the importing Member State will benefit from a price corresponding to the one prevailing in the exporting Member State, inasmuch as the wholesalers carrying out the exports will themselves make a profit from that parallel trade.
DOM AF 27.9.2007 — SAG C-409/04 forenede sager C-153/94 og C-204/94, Faroe Seafood m.fl., Sml.
Nevertheless, the attraction of the other source of supply which arises from parallel trade in the importing Member State lies precisely in the fact that that trade is capable of offering the same products on the market of that Member State at lower prices than those applied on the same market by the pharmaceuticals companies.
Således som Teleos m.fl. samt Kommissionen med rette har anført, og som generaladvokaten har fastslået i punkt 7882 i forslaget til afgørelse, er opkrævning af told på import fra lande uden for Den Europæiske Union og momsbelægning af en erhvervelse inden for Fællesskabet ikke sammenlignelige transaktioner.
At the same time, as the Commission notes, parallel trade in medicines from one Member State to another is likely to increase the choice available to entities in the latter Member State which obtain supplies of medicines by means of a public procurement procedure, in which the parallel importers can offer medicines at lower prices.
Det følger heraf, at den retspraksis, der er citeret i denne doms præmis 54, ikke kan overføres på den sag, som den forelæggende ret skal afgøre.
The impact of State price and supply regulation in the pharmaceuticals sector
Ganske vist begrunder formålet om forebyggelse af svig, at der undertiden stilles høje krav for så vidt angår leverandørernes forpligtelser . Enhver risikofordeling mellem leverandøren og afgiftsmyndigheden som følge af svig begået af tredjemand skal imidlertid være i overensstemmelse med proportionalitetsprincippet.
Turning, next, to the argument based on the degree of regulation of the pharmaceuticals markets in the Community, it must first be examined whether State regulation of the prices of medicinal products has an impact on the assessment of whether a refusal to supply those products constitutes abuse.
Hvad endelig for det tredje angår princippet om afgiftsneutralitet påpeges, at dette princip bl.a. er til hinder for, at sammenlignelige ydelser, som således konkurrerer indbyrdes, behandles forskelligt med hensyn til momsen (jf. dom af 7.12.2006, sag C-240/05, Eurodental, Sml. I, s. 11479, præmis 46).
The price differences between Member States for certain medicines are thus the result of the different levels at which the prices and/or the scales to be applied to those medicines are fixed.
Derfor vil afgiftspligtige personer, der foretager en transaktion inden for Fællesskabet, under omstændigheder som dem, der foreligger i hovedsagen, befinde sig i en mindre fordelagtig situation end afgiftspligtige personer, der foretager en intern transaktion (jf. i denne retning for så vidt angår fradragsretten Eurodental-dommen, præmis 47).
The main proceedings relate to a non-harmonised area in which the Community legislature has limited itself, in adopting Directive 89/105, to placing Member States under a duty to guarantee that decisions in respect of the regulation of prices and reimbursement are taken with complete transparency, without discrimination and within certain specific time-limits.