natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Applying its ‘Magill’ case-law, the Court also took the view that ‘the refusal by an undertaking which holds a dominant position and owns an intellectual property right in a brick structure indispensable to the presentation of regional sales data on pharmaceutical products in a Member State to grant a licence to use that structure to another undertaking which also wishes to provide such data in the same Member State, constitutes an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 EC where the following conditions are fulfilled: – the undertaking which requested the licence intends to offer, on the market for the supply of the data in question, new products or services not offered by the owner of the intellectual property right and for which there is a potential consumer demand; – the refusal is not justified by objective considerations; – the refusal is such as to reserve to the owner of the intellectual property right the market for the supply of data on sales of pharmaceutical products in the Member State concerned by eliminating all competition on that market’ (paragraph 52).
Euroopa Kohus langetas järjekordselt otsuse, mille kohaselt ebaseaduslikult antud riigiabi tagasimaksmist ei saa põhimõtteliselt pidada asutamislepingu riigiabi käsitlevate eesmärkide suhtes ebaproportsionaalseks meetmeks ega komisjonipoolseks kaalutlusõiguse piiride ületamiseks, kuivõrd sellise meetmega püütakse vaid taastada endine olukord. Vastuseks Itaalia viimasele argumendile kinnitas Euroopa Kohus, et kuigi ebaseadusliku abi saaja võib toetuda erakorralistele asjaoludele, mille alusel ta võis õiguspäraselt eeldada abi seaduslikkust ja seega keelduda selle abi tagasimaksmisest, ei saa liikmesriik, kelle ametiasutused andsid abi EÜ artiklis 88 ettenähtud protseduurireegleid rikkudes, viidata sellele õiguspärasele ootusele, et vältida kohustust võtta vajalikke meetmeid rakendamaks komisjoni otsust, millega nõutakse abi tagasimaksmist.
The other four cases which deserve mention in regard to the rules on competition concern State aid.
Seetõttu jättis Euroopa Kohus selle osa Itaalia Valitsuse esitatud hagist rahuldamata, mis ei olnud oma tähtsust kaotanud.
In Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, the Court delivered its ruling on an application brought by the Italian Republic seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision 98/182/EC of 30 July 1997, which had found that aid granted between 1981 and 1995 by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region to road haulage companies in that region was in part incompatible with the common market and ordered its partial recovery.
Teine kohtuasi Itaalia v. komisjon (Euroopa Kohtu 29. aprilli 2004. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-298/00 P, EKL 2004, lk I-4087) tõusetus samuti Friuli-Venezia Giulia maakonna poolt autoveoettevõtjatele aastatel 1981–1995 antud riigiabi andmisega seotud vaidlusest.
The Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region successively adopted two laws, which were essentially identical, one replacing the other, concerning action to promote and develop transport of concern to the Region and the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward.
Täpsemalt oli selle kohtuasja aluseks Itaalia Vabariigi apellatsioonkaebus, kes oli hagejate toetuseks astunud menetlusse esimeses astmes ning kes vaidlustas esimese astme kohtu eespool nimetatud 15. juuni 2000. aasta otsuse kohtuasjas Alzetta jt v. komisjon, milles see kohus jättis osaliselt rahuldamata mitmete abisaajate ettevõtjate esitatud taotlused komisjoni 30. juuli 1997. aasta otsuse 98/182/EÜ osaliseks tühistamiseks.
Court of Justice of financing of interest on loans contracted for the purpose of developing infrastructure and purchasing equipment, financing for the cost of leasing vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers, together with the installations for the maintenance and repair of vehicles and for the handling of goods, and, finally, financing, for groups and other forms of association, of up to 50% of investment to be used for the construction or purchase of installations and equipment.
Kohtuasja sisu osas tuli Euroopa Kohtul otsustada eelkõige selle üle, millises ulatuses võib vaidlustatud abi mõjutada ühendusesisest kaubandust ja konkurentsi. Kohus pidi ka välja selgitama, kas õiguspärase ootuse kaitse ja proportsionaalsuse põhimõte välistavad abi tagasimaksmise.
In its appraisal of the disputed aid in the light of Article 87(1) EC, the Commission decision drew a distinction between aid granted to undertakings which were engaged in international transport, on the one hand, and, on the other, aid to undertakings exclusively engaged in transport operations at local, regional or national level.
Esimese küsimuse osas märkis Euroopa Kohus, et „uue abi, millest tuleb EÜ artikli 88 lõike 3 kohaselt abi rakendamisele eelnevalt informeerida, hindamise käigus ei pea komisjon kindlaks tegema selle abi tegelikku mõju liikmesriikidevahelisele kaubandusele, vaid seda, kas kõnealune abi võib nimetatud kaubandust kahjustada” ning rõhutas, et „kui komisjon peaks oma otsuses tõendama juba antud abi tegelikku mõju, siis eelistatakse selle tulemusena liikmesriike, kes annavad abi EÜ artikli 88 lõikes 3 sätestatud teatamiskohustust rikkudes, ja kahjustatakse neid liikmesriike, kes annavad teavet abi kohta selle kavandamise perioodil” (punkt 49).
In the latter case, the decision drew a further distinction according to whether the aid had been granted before or after 1 July 1990, the date on which Regulation No 4059/89, which opened up that second market to Community competition, entered into force.
Kohus leidis taas kord, et „abi suhteliselt tagasihoidlik summa või abisaaja ettevõtja suhteline väiksus ei välista põhimõtteliselt võimalust, et ühendusesisest kaubandust võidakse kahjustada” ning et „suhteliselt tagasihoidlik abisumma võib kahjustada liikmesriikidevahelist konkurentsi ja kaubandust, kui sektoris, kus abisaajad ettevõtjad tegutsevad, esineb tugev konkurents” (punkt 54).
However, as the contested decision had in the interim been partially annulled by the Court of First Instance following application by a number of the recipient companies (judgment of 15 June 2000 in Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 Alzetta and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-2319), and the application for annulment in the present case to some extent no longer served any purpose, in view of the fact that the Commission had accepted the interpretation of the Court of First Instance regarding the aid granted after 1 July 1990 to undertakings engaged exclusively in local, regional or national transport, the Court was ultimately required to assess that decision only to the extent to which it declared illegal the contested aid granted to undertakings engaged in international road transport operations.
Lõpetuseks kohus kinnitas oma seisukohta, et „liikmesriigi taotlus ühtlustada ühepoolsete meetmete abil teatavas majandussektoris konkurentsitingimusi teistes liikmesriikides valitsevate tingimustega ei võta neilt meetmetelt riigiabi iseloomu” (punkt 61).
The Italian Republic raised several pleas in law or arguments designed to minimise the significance of the aid thus granted, whether with regard to the paucity of its amount or to the mainly local nature of the operations engaged in by most of the recipients of the aid.
Apellatsioonkaebuse teise osa suhtes märkis Euroopa Kohus, et kuna ebaseadusliku abi keelustamine tagasimaksmise kaudu on abi ebaseaduslikkuse loogiline tagajärg, „ei saa ebaseaduslikult antud riigiabi tagasimaksmist eelneva olukorra taastamiseks pidada põhimõtteliselt asutamislepingu riigiabi käsitlevate eesmärkide suhtes ebaproportsionaalseks meetmeks” (punkt 75).
From this it inferred that the aid had minimal impact on intraCommunity trade and competition, with a view to establishing that the aid did not come under the prohibition laid down in Article 87(1) EC.
Kohus leidis, et asjaolusid, millega põhjendati otsust eelnimetatud kohtuasjas, ei esinenud käesolevas asjas.
The Court rejected all of those submissions, reaffirming a number of principles derived from its case-law.
Nii nagu komisjoni esitatud vastuapellatsioonkaebuse, jättis kohus seetõttu rahuldamata ka Itaalia Vabariigi apellatsioonkaebuse.
Whereas the Italian Republic argued that the Commission had not demonstrated the existence of a real, concrete risk of distortion of competition, the Court thus pointed out that, where aid has been granted by a Member State without having been notified to the Commission beforehand at the planning stage, the decision finding that aid to be incompatible with the common market did not have to demonstrate the real effect which the aid might have on competition or trade between Member States. The Court also reaffirmed that the fact that the aid was relatively small in amount or that the recipient undertaking was relatively small in size did not as such exclude the possibility that intraCommunity trade might be affected.
Kohtuasjas Saksamaa v. komisjon (Euroopa Kohtu 29. aprilli 2004. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-277/00, EKL 2004, lk I-3925) tegi Euroopa Kohus otsuse Saksamaa Liitvabariigi esitatud hagiavalduse alusel, milles viimane taotles komisjoni 11. aprilli 2000. aasta otsuse 2000/567/EÜ tühistamist seoses riigiabi andmisega endises Saksa Demokraatlikus Vabariigis asutatud äriühingule, mis oli sel ajal turuliider tarbija nõuetele kohandatud lülituse tootmises ja millest sai mitmete restruktureerimiste tulemusena System Microelectronic Innovation GmbH (SMI), milles 51%-list enamusosalust omas Brandenburgi liidumaa ning mille ülejäänud aktsiakapital kuulus Ameerika äriühingule Synergy Semiconductor Corporation (Synergy).
Along the same lines, the Court also recalled that the condition for the application of Article 87(1) EC, namely that the aid must be capable of affecting trade between Member States, did not depend on the local or regional character of the transport services supplied or on the scale of the field of activity concerned.
SMI oli saanud finantsabi Brandenburgi liidumaalt, Treuhandanstalt’ilt (Saksamaa avalik - õiguslik asutus, mille tegevusalaks oli endise Saksa Demokraatliku Vabariigi äriühingute restruktureerimine) ja selle õigusjärglaselt investeeringute või tegevuse lõpetamise toetuste maksmise või laenude kaudu.
The Court further ruled once more that the fact that a Member State sought to approximate, by unilateral measures, the conditions of competition in a particular sector of the economy to those prevailing in other Member States could not deprive the measures in question of their character as State aid.
Pärast SMI tegevuses esinenud raskusi oli ta siiski sunnitud esitama pankrotiavalduse, mille tagajärjel sai tema ärinimeks „SMI iG”, likvideerimisel olev äriühing, ja määrati pankrotihaldur, kes SMI tegevuse jätkamise kindlustamiseks ja 105
The Italian Republic further argued that, as the aid in dispute had an insignificant effect on the position of the recipient undertakings, recovery of that aid would infringe the principle of proportionality.
Kohus jõudis samade põhjendustega samale järeldusele ka Brandenburgi liidumaa poolt SMI-le antud laenude suhtes.
In reply to a final argument by the Italian Republic, the Court concluded by reaffirming that, while a recipient of unlawful aid could rely on exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it had legitimately assumed the aid to be lawful and thus decline to refund that aid, a Member State whose authorities had granted aid contrary to the procedural rules laid down in Article 88 EC could not plead that legitimate expectation in order to circumvent its obligation to take the steps necessary to implement a Commission decision instructing it to recover the aid.
Saksamaa valitsus väitis teise võimalusena ka seda, et EÜ artikli 87 lõike 2 punktis c sätestatud erand, mille kohaselt Saksamaa jagamisest kahjustatud Saksamaa Liitvabariigi teatud piirkondade majandusele antud abi sobib ühisturuga sel määral, mis on vajalik nimetatud jagamisest põhjustatud majandusliku halvemuse korvamiseks, on käesolevas asjas kohaldatav.
The Court thus dismissed that part of the action brought by the Italian Republic which still served a purpose.
Kohus lükkas ka selle seisukoha tagasi põhjendusega, et Saksamaa valitsus ei esitanud ühtegi asjaolu, mis oleks tõendanud, et vaidlusalune abi oli vajalik Saksamaa jagamisest põhjustatud majandusliku halvemuse korvamiseks.
A second case, Case C-298/00 P Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-4087, also arose from the dispute concerning State aid granted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region to road haulage companies between 1981 and 1995.
Kohus juhtis siinjuures tähelepanu sellele, et „kuigi Saksamaa ühendamise järgselt on EÜ artikli 87 lõike 2 punkt c uute liidumaade suhtes rakendatav, saab seda teha vaid samadel tingimustel, mida kohaldati endistes liidumaades enne kõnealuse ühendamise kuupäeva.
More precisely, the case derived from an appeal brought by the Italian Republic, which, having intervened in the proceedings at first instance in support of the form of order sought by the applicants, challenged the abovementioned judgment of the Court of First Instance in Alzetta and Others v Commission, by which that Court partially dismissed the applications brought by a number of recipient undertakings for annulment in part of Commission Decision 98/182/EC of 30 July 1997.
Kuna väljend „Saksamaa jagamine” viitab ajalooliselt 1948. aastal kahe okupeeritud tsooni vahelise eraldusjoone loomisele, võib sellisel juhul „jagamisest põhjustatud majanduslik halvemus” tähendada isoleerimisest tingitud majanduslikku halvemust vaid teatud Saksamaa piirkondades, mida niisuguse füüsilise piiri loomine kaasa tõi, nagu sideühenduse katkemine või turgude kaotamine kaubandussuhete katkestamise tõttu Saksamaa kahe territoriaalse ala vahel.
The Commission itself also lodged a cross-appeal in which it submitted that the application brought by those undertakings before the Court of First Instance was inadmissible on the ground that, even though recovery of the aid was called for in the decision, that decision was addressed to the Italian Republic and concerned a statutory scheme of State aid: it was for those reasons not of individual concern to the recipient undertakings and the Court of First Instance ought for that reason to have examined the issue of admissibility of its own motion.
Seevastu seisukoht, et EÜ artikli 87 lõike 2 punkti c alusel lubati uute liidumaade majandusarengu ilmse mahajäämuse kompenseerimist täies ulatuses, jättis kõrvale nii selle sätte erandlikkuse kui ka tausta ja eesmärgid.
The Court first dismissed the cross-appeal brought by the Commission, ruling that an undertaking which, as in the case of the applicants at first instance, is not only concerned by the decision in question as an undertaking operating in the sector in issue and a potential beneficiary of the disputed aid scheme, but also by virtue of being an actual recipient of individual aid granted under that scheme, the recovery of which has been ordered by the Commission, is in a different position from that of applicants for whom a Commission decision is in the nature of a measure of general application.
Uute liidumaade majanduslik halvemus tervikuna ei olnud otseselt põhjustatud Saksamaa geograafilisest jagamisest EÜ artikli 87 lõike 2 punkti c mõttes ning „arengulisi erinevusi endiste ja uute liidumaade vahel saab põhjendada muude põhjustega kui Saksamaa jagamisest tingitud geograafiliselõhega, eelkõige erinevate poliitilis-majanduslike süsteemide kehtestamisega Saksamaa erinevates osades” (punktid 49–53).
On the substance, the Court had in particular to rule on the question of the degree to which the disputed aid was liable to affect intraCommunity trade and competition.
Lõpetuseks vaidlustas Saksamaa valitsus kõnealuses otsuses sisalduva tagasimaksmise nõude, mille aluseks oli muu hulgas abisaajate ringi ebaseaduslik laiendamine.
It also had to determine whether the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality precluded recovery of the aid.
Euroopa Kohus tühistas vaidlustatud otsuse just nimetatud osas.
The Court concluded by confirming its position that ‘the fact that a Member State seeks to approximate, by unilateral measures, conditions of competition in a particular sector of the economy to those prevailing in other Member States cannot deprive the measures in question of their character as aid’ (paragraph 61).
Vaidlusaluse meetme sisuks oli „kohustuslik sihtotstarbeline makse” optika äriühingute ühise reklaamikampaania rahastamiseks.
Dealing with the second branch of the appeal, the Court pointed out that, as the abolition of unlawful aid by means of recovery was the logical consequence of its illegality, ‘the recovery of State aid unlawfully granted, for the purpose of restoring the previously existing situation, cannot in principle be regarded as disproportionate to the objectives of the Treaty in regard to State aids’ (paragraph 75).
Kolme esimese küsimusega tahtis Hoge Raad der Nederlanden sisuliselt teada, kas HBA poolt optika äriühingute kasuks reklaamikampaaniate rahastamist võib pidada EÜ artikli 87 lõike 1 tähenduses riigiabiks, ning kas, võttes vajadusel arvesse vähese tähtsuse reeglit, oleks pidanud nendest HBA reeglitest, millega kehtestati tema liikmetele maksed nende kampaaniate rahastamiseks, kui abikava elementidest komisjonile teatama EÜ artikli 88 lõike 3 kohaselt.
The Court took the view that the circumstances which had justified such a solution in that case did not obtain in the present case. In the same way as the cross-appeal brought by the Commission, the Court therefore also dismissed the appeal brought by the Italian Republic.
Ta soovis selgitust selle kohta, kas põhikohtuasjas hagejatele kehtestatud kohustuslikud sihtotstarbelised maksed on sel põhjusel, et neil on otsene seos võimaliku mitteteatatud abiga, samuti ebaseaduslikud, mille tulemusena peab nad põhimõtteliselt tagasi maksma.
In Case C-277/00 Germany v Commission [2004] ECR I-3925, the Court ruled on an application by the Federal Republic of Germany for the annulment of Commission Decision 2000/567/EC of 11 April 2000 on the State aid granted to an undertaking established under the former German Democratic Republic which was at the time a market leader in the manufacture of customised circuits and which, following several restructuring stages, became System Microelectronic Innovation GmbH (‘SMI’), in which the majority shareholding of 51% was held by the Land of Brandenburg, the remaining share capital having been acquired by an American company, Synergy Semiconductor Corporation (‘Synergy’).
Neljanda ja viienda küsimusega soovis eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus veel teada, kas sellistel asjaoludel, nagu põhikohtuasjas käsitletakse, on ühenduse õigusega vastuolus asjaomaste kohtute poolt kohaldada Hollandi kohtupraktikas rakendatavat formaalse õigusjõu reeglit, mille kohaselt ei saa nad hinnata HBA otsuste seaduslikkust, millega kehtestatakse põhikohtuasja hagejatele makse, kui nimetatud otsuste aluseks olevad reeglid on vastu võetud vastuolus EÜ artikli 88 lõikega 3.
Proceedings which succeeded the Treuhandanstalt in the form of grants for investments or removal activities or in the form of loans.
Sel põhjusel ei olnud enam vajalik vastata kahele viimasele küsimusele.
The Court also adopted the same solution, on the same grounds, in regard to the loans which the Land of Brandenburg had made to SMI.
Amet keeldus selle registreerimisest põhjusel, et kõnealune tähis vaid kirjeldab postkontoriga seotud kaupu ja teenuseid.
The German Government also submitted in the alternative that the derogation provided for in Article 87(2)(c) EC, under which aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany is compatible with the common market insofar as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division, was applicable in this case.
Muu hulgas tuli kindlaks teha, kas asjaolu, et kaubamärk on ühes liikmesriigis teatavate kaupade ja teenuste tähistamiseks registreeritud, mõjutab teises liikmesriigis sarnase kaubamärgi registreerimistaotluse kontrollimist sarnaste kaupade ja teenuste tähistamiseks.
The Court also rejected that plea on the ground that the German Government had failed to adduce any evidence to show that the disputed aid was required in order to compensate for an economic disadvantage caused by the division of Germany.
Euroopa Kohus vastas sellele küsimusele eitavalt: sellel asjaolul ei ole mingit tähtsust. Pädev ametiasutus on kohustatud kontrollima kaubamärgi eripära eelkõige asjaomaste kaupade ja teenuste suhtes.
The Court pointed out in this regard that ‘although, following the reunification of Germany, Article 87(2)(c) EC falls to be applied to the new Länder, such application can only be on the same conditions as those applicable in the old Länder during the period preceding the date of that reunification’.
Samuti küsis Madalmaade kohus, kas direktiivi artikli 3 lõike 1 punktis c ettenähtud kirjeldatud tähiste keelamine laieneb tähistele või märkidele, mis kirjeldavad asjaomaste kaupade ja teenuste omadusi, kui eksisteerivad levinumad tähised ja märgid samade omaduste kirjeldamiseks.
In that regard, as the phrase ‘division of Germany’ referred historically to the establishment in 1948 of the dividing line between the two occupied zones, the
Esimene nõukogu 21. detsembri 1988. aasta direktiiv 89/104/EMÜ kaubamärke käsitlevate liikmesriikide õigusaktide ühtlustamise kohta (EÜT 1989, L 40, lk 1).
‘economic disadvantages caused by that division’ could mean only the economic disadvantages caused in certain areas of Germany by the isolation which the establishment of that physical frontier entailed, such as the breaking of communication links or the loss of markets as a result of the rupture of commercial relations between the two parts of German territory.
See andis Euroopa Kohtule võimaluse meelde tuletada, et iga selles sättes loetletud registreerimise keeldumispõhjus on teistest sõltumatu ja nõuab eraldi kontrollimist, kuigi asjaomaste sätete kohaldamisalad ilmselt kattuvad. Järelikult asjaolu, et mõni nimetatud põhjustest ei ole kaubamärgi suhtes kohaldatav, ei pruugi välistada, et selle suhtes on kohaldatav muu põhjus.
By contrast, the idea that Article 87(2)(c) EC permitted full compensation for the undeniable lack of economic development suffered by the new Länder disregarded both the nature of that provision as a derogation and its context and aims.
Sel alusel leidis kohus, et pädev ametiasutus ei saa järeldada, et kaubamärgil on eristusvõime teatud kaupade ja teenuste suhtes üksnes põhjusel, et ta on kirjeldav teiste kaupade ja teenuste suhtes, isegi juhul, kui registreerimist taotletakse nende kaupade ja teenuste kohta tervikuna.
The economic disadvantages suffered by the new Länder as a whole were not directly caused by the geographical division of Germany within the meaning of Article 87(2)(c) EC and ‘the differences in development between the original and the new Länder are explained by causes other than the geographical rift caused by the division of Germany and in particular by the different politico-economic systems set up in each part of Germany’ (paragraphs 49 to 53).
Tuleb mainida, et Benelux-Gerechtshof’i esitatud eelotsuse küsimusele seoses vaidlusega, kus amet keeldus registreerimast toiduaineid käsitleva tähise „BIOMILD” selle kirjeldavate omaduste tõttu, andis Euroopa Kohus kohtuasjas C-265/00: Campina Melkunie (Euroopa Kohtu 12. veebruari 2004. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-265/00, EKL 2004, lk I-1699) samasuguse vastuse.
In conclusion, the German Government challenged the recovery order contained in the contested decision, on the basis, inter alia, of an unlawful extension of the status of aid beneficiary.
Euroopa Kohtule esitati nimetatud direktiivi sätete tõlgendamiseks mitu eelotsuse küsimust seoses vaidlustega, kus mõned kihlvedude korraldajad Rootsis, Kreekas, Soomes ja Ühendkuningriigis kasutasid avaldatud teavet, kuid mille haldamine või korraldamine usaldati teistele isikutele – põhikohtuasja hagejatele.