natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The complainants did not refer to the deficit cover obligation in Article 46 of the bylaws of the IRIS-H.
Za te naloge se je štelo, da so bile bolnišnicam IRIS naložene z zakonom LCH, zakonom o CPAS, strateškimi načrti združenja IRIS ter sporazumom, ki so ga podpisali bolnišnice IRIS in CPAS.
Finally, the complainants referred to approximately EUR 100 million being awarded via the FRBRTC in the context of the restructuring of the Brussels public hospitals which led to the creation of the IRIS-H (see also Section 2.2).
Komisija je menila tudi, da so bili parametri nadomestila določeni predhodno [77] ter da so bili vzpostavljeni ustrezni načini za preprečevanje in odpravo prekomernih nadomestil [78].
The complainants allege that this operation would have resulted in overcompensation of the IRIS-H.
Prepričala se je, da so bolnišnice IRIS vodile ločene računovodske evidence za bolnišnične in nebolnišnične dejavnosti [79], s čimer se je zagotovilo, da ni bilo navzkrižnega subvencioniranja poslovnih dejavnosti bolnišnic IRIS, ki ne spadajo med storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena [80].
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
Komisija je ocenila tudi, ali so bolnišnice IRIS v preteklosti (tj. v obdobju 1996–2007) prejele prekomerno nadomestilo [81], in ugotovila, da ga niso prejele [82].
The Commission's 2009 decision
Poleg ocene finančnih ukrepov kot celote je proučila tudi domnevni mehanizem predplačil.
As recalled above (see recital 5), on 28 October 2009, the Commission adopted a no objections decision [71], concluding that the public financing of the IRIS-H in the Brussels Capital Region constituted State aid compatible with the internal market as compensation for the provision of services of general economic interest.
Ker se je nadomestilo za primanjkljaj v skladu s členom 109 zakona LCH redno izplačevalo le z dolgo zamudo do deset let, naj bi bolnišnice IRIS prejele predplačilo za ta neporavnana plačila iz sklada FRBRTC.
The Commission based this decision on the 2005 SGEI Decision as well as directly on Article 86(2) EC Treaty (now Article 106(2) TFEU).
Komisija je ugotovila, da bi bilo treba ta domnevna predplačila v vsakem primeru vrniti po plačilu nadomestila za primanjkljaj v skladu s členom 109 zakona LCH, zato zaradi njih bolnišnice IRIS niso mogle prejeti prekomernega nadomestila [83].
In its decision, the Commission considered that the IRIS-H were entrusted with three hospital public service missions: first, the general hospital mission of all hospitals (public and private) under the LCH [72]; second, the obligation to treat any patient in all circumstances, including post-emergency [73]; and third the obligation to provide complete multi-site hospital care [74].
Ničnostna sodba Splošnega sodišča iz leta 2012
In addition, the Commission concluded that the IRIS-H were entrusted with the non-hospital public service mission of providing social assistance together with medical care [75].
Pritožniki so v odziv na odločbo Komisije iz leta 2009 pred Splošnim sodiščem vložili ničnostno tožbo zoper navedeno odločbo [84].
Finally, reference was also made to a bilingualism obligation [76].
Trdili so, da je Komisija kršila pritožnikove procesne pravice, ker ni začela formalnega postopka preiskave, saj bi morala pri zadevni presoji ugotoviti obstoj resnih težav [85].
These missions were considered to have been entrusted to the IRIS-H via the LCH, the Loi CPAS, the IRIS strategic plans, and finally a convention signed by the IRIS-H and the CPAS.
Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 7. novembra 2012 v zadevi T-137/10 razveljavilo odločbo Komisije iz leta 2009, saj je ugotovilo, da bi morala Komisija začeti formalni postopek preiskave [86].
The Commission further considered that the compensation parameters were established ex ante [77] and that sufficient procedures for preventing and correcting overcompensation were in place [78].
Splošno sodišče je najprej proučilo, ali so bile bolnišnice IRIS pooblaščene za opravljanje jasno opredeljenih nalog javne službe [87].
Finally, the Commission was also satisfied that the IRIS-H kept separate accounts for hospital and non-hospital activities [79], which in turn ensured the absence of cross-subsidisation of commercial non-SGEI activities of the IRIS-H [80].
Najprej je ugotovilo, da med strankama ni sporno, da je zakon LCH vsem bolnišnicam, javnim in zasebnim, naložil opravljanje naloge splošne javne službe [88].
The Commission also assessed whether the IRIS-H had been overcompensated in the past (i.e. between 1996 and 2007) [81], reaching the conclusion that this had not been the case [82].
Zato je dvomilo le, ali je Komisija v predhodni preiskavi napačno ugotovila, da so bile bolnišnicam IRIS naložene dodatne bolnišnične in nebolnišnične naloge javne službe [89].
Apart from assessing the financing measures as a whole, the Commission also examined an alleged mechanism of advances.
Sklenilo je, da obstajajo dvomi, ali določbe, na katere se je Komisija sklicevala v svoji odločbi, zadoščajo za naložitev dodatnih nalog bolnišnicam IRIS, da morajo zdraviti vse paciente v vseh okoliščinah [90], da omogočajo popolno večstransko bolnišnično oskrbo [91] in da zagotavljajo dodatne socialne storitve [92].
Since the deficit compensation pursuant to Article 109 LCH was regularly only paid out with a long delay of up to 10 years, the IRIS-H allegedly received an advance on these outstanding payments through the FRBRTC.
Poleg tega je glede domnevne naloge omogočanja večstranske bolnišnične oskrbe poudarilo, da ni jasno, kako se ta naloga razlikuje od splošnih zahtev razporejanja in delovanja, ki veljajo za vse bolnišnice, za katere velja zakon LCH [93].
The Commission concluded that since these alleged advances would in any event have to be repaid once the deficit compensation pursuant to Article 109 LCH was paid, they could not lead to overcompensation of the IRIS-H [83].
Splošno sodišče je proučilo tudi, ali je Komisija dokazala obstoj jasnih parametrov nadomestila [94].
The 2012 annulment judgment of the General Court
Kar zadeva bolnišnične naloge, je obravnavalo mehanizem za nadomestilo primanjkljaja na podlagi člena 109 zakona LCH [95], pri čemer je ugotovilo, da pritožnik temu mehanizmu izrecno ni nasprotoval [96], in domnevni regionalni mehanizem financiranja iz sklada FRBRTC, ki je bil vzpostavljen z namenom, da se začasno vnaprej nakažejo potrebni zneski za izravnavo primanjkljaja bolnišnic IRIS pred njegovim kritjem na podlagi člena 109 zakona LCH [97].
In response to the Commission's 2009 decision, the complainants launched an action for annulment of that decision in front of the General Court [84].
Kar zadeva člen 109, je ugotovilo, da pritožniki niso navedli nobenih trditev, ki bi vplivali na pozitivno oceno, ki jo je glede tega podala Komisija [98].
The complainants argued that the Commission violated the complainant's procedural rights by not opening the formal investigation procedure, as the Commission should have noted serious difficulties in the examination at issue [85].
Vendar je v zvezi z domnevnimi predplačili, ki so se izplačala iz mehanizma FRBRTC, Splošno sodišče ugotovilo, da Komisija ni določila nobenih parametrov za izračun navedenih predplačil [99], zaradi česar jih je nepopolno preizkusila [100].
In its judgment of 7 November 2012 in case T-137/10, the General Court annulled the Commission's 2009 decision, concluding that the Commission was obliged to open the formal investigation procedure [86].
Dodalo je, da je Komisija nasprotovala svoji odločbi, ko je na zaslišanjih trdila, da je sklad FRBRTC le mehanizem, s katerim je regija glavnega mesta Bruselj financirala bruseljske občine, ne pa bolnišnic IRIS [101].
The General Court first considered whether the IRIS-H had been entrusted with clearly-defined public service missions [87].
Kar zadeva javno financiranje v korist domnevne dodatne socialne naloge bolnišnic IRIS [102], je Splošno sodišče ugotovilo, da je tudi to financiranje očitno izhajalo iz sklada FRBRTC, ki je sklenil sporazum z zadevnimi bruseljskimi občinami, da bi se jim lahko dodelila posebna subvencija, ki bi občinam omogočila financiranje socialnih nalog, ki jih opravljajo bolnišnice IRIS [103].
At the outset, the General Court noted that all parties agreed that the LCH entrusted all hospitals, public and private, with a general hospital public service mission [88].
Ugotovilo je tudi, da v tem sporazumu niso bili določeni predhodni parametri nadomestila, povezani z domnevnimi dodatnimi socialnimi nalogami bolnišnic IRIS [104].
It was thus only in doubt whether the Commission had erred in finding, in the preliminary examination, that the IRIS-H were entrusted with additional hospital and non-hospital public service missions [89].
Nato je Splošno sodišče proučilo, ali je Komisija dokazala obstoj metod, ki preprečujejo prekomerno nadomestilo, in neobstoj prekomernega nadomestila [105].
The General Court concluded that there were doubts whether the provisions relied on by the Commission in its decision were sufficient to entrust the IRIS-H with the additional missions to treat all patients in all circumstances [90], to provide multi-site hospital care [91], and to provide additional social services [92].
Najprej je ugotovilo, da zakon LCH zagotavlja zadostne zaščitne ukrepe za zagotavljanje, da se s postopkom v skladu s členom 109 zakona LCH ne dodeli prekomerno nadomestilo [106].
In addition, with respect to the alleged mission to provide multi-site hospital care, the General Court pointed out that it was not clear how that mission differed from the general programming and operational requirements applicable to all hospitals subject to the LCH [93].
Nato je ugotovilo, da Komisija ni preverila, ali obstaja podoben mehanizem, kar zadeva domnevna predplačila občin [107], kar kaže zlasti na očitno pomanjkanje pravne obveznosti bolnišnic IRIS, da vrnejo ta predplačila po prejetju sredstev za kritje primanjkljaja na podlagi člena 109 [108].
Secondly, the General Court examined whether the Commission had demonstrated the existence of clear compensation parameters [94].
Kar zadeva posebno subvencijo, za katero je Komisija navedla, da je namenjena financiranju dodatne socialne naloge, je ugotovilo, da je presoja Komisije glede postopka za preprečitev izplačila prekomernega nadomestila v povezavi s financiranjem socialnih nalog pomanjkljiva [109].
As regards the hospital missions, the General Court addressed the deficit compensation mechanism under Article 109 LCH [95] — while noting that this mechanism was explicitly not challenged by the complainant [96] — and the alleged regional financing mechanism through the FRBRTC established in order to advance temporarily the amounts needed to make up the deficits of the IRIS-H before the deficit cover under Article 109 LCH takes effect [97].
Kar zadeva vprašanje, ali so bolnišnice IRIS prekomerno nadomestilo prejele v praksi [110], je Splošno sodišče le pripomnilo, da je presoja zelo obsežna, saj zajema vse finančne rezultate bolnišnic IRIS v obdobju več kot desetletje [111].
With respect to Article 109, the General Court found that the complainants had not put forward any arguments affecting the Commission's positive assessment thereof [98].
Splošno sodišče je, ne da bi posebej presodilo o ugotovitvi Komisije, da prekomerno nadomestilo ni bilo izplačano, menilo, da sta obsežnost in zapletenost presoj, ki jih je za to opravila Komisija, kazalec, ki potrjuje resničnost trditve tožeče stranke o obstoju resnih težav [112].
Regarding the alleged advances paid out via the FRBRTC mechanism, however, the General Court concluded that the Commission had not identified any parameters for the calculation of those advances [99], thus evincing an incomplete examination of these advances [100].
Nazadnje so pritožniki trdili, da bi morala Komisija pri svoji presoji upoštevati merilo gospodarske učinkovitosti ponudnika storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena [113].
The General Court added that the Commission contradicted its decision when it claimed, in the hearings, that the FRBRTC was only a mechanism by which the Brussels Capital Region financed the Brussels communes, but not the IRIS-H [101].
Splošno sodišče je trditev zavrnilo in sklenilo:
With regards to the public financing in favour of the IRIS-H's alleged additional social mission [102], the General Court observed that this financing apparently again originated from the FRBRTC, which had concluded an agreement with the relevant Brussels communes to grant them a special subsidy with a view to enabling the communes to finance the social missions performed by the IRIS-H [103].
erilo, povezano z gospodarsko učinkovitostjo podjetja pri opravljanju SSGP, ne spada v presojo združljivosti državne pomoči v skladu s členom 86(2) [Pogodbe] ES [zdaj: člen 106(2) PDEU], zato nacionalnim organom v zvezi s tem ni mogoče očitati slabega izbora izvajalca glede na njegovo gospodarsko učinkovitost“ [114].
The General Court concluded that this agreement did not specify the prior compensation parameters relating to the alleged additional social missions of the IRIS-H [104].
(64) V povzetku svojih ugotovitev je Splošno sodišče navedlo:
Next, the General Court considered whether the Commission had demonstrated the existence of procedures for avoiding overcompensation and the absence of overcompensation [105].
„[Pritožnik] je namreč naved[el] sklenjen krog indicev, ki potrjujejo obstoj resnih dvomov o združljivosti preučenih ukrepov ob upoštevanju meril glede uporabe člena 86(2) [Pogodbe] ES [zdaj: člen 106(2) PDEU], ki se nanašajo, prvič, na obstoj jasno opredeljenega pooblastila v zvezi z javno službo za ‚posebne‘ bolnišnične in socialne naloge, značilne za bolnišnice IRIS, drugič, na obstoj predhodno določenih parametrov nadomestila in, tretjič, na obstoj metod, ki omogočajo preprečitev izplačila čezmernega nadomestila v okviru financiranja teh nalog javne službe […]“ [115].
The General Court first found that the LCH provides for sufficient safeguards to ensure that the procedure pursuant to Article 109 LCH does not lead to overcompensation [106].
Sklep Komisije o začetku postopka z dne 1. oktobra 2014 [116]
It concluded further that the Commission had not established that with respect to the alleged advance payments by the municipalities that a similar mechanism existed [107], pointing in particular to the apparent lack of a legal obligation of the IRIS-H to repay these advances once the Article 109 LCH deficit-financing was received [108].
Komisija je morala ob upoštevanju ugotovitev Splošnega Sodišča [117], da bi morala imeti pomisleke glede združljivosti spornega javnega financiranja, dodeljenega bolnišnicam IRIS na podlagi člena 106(2) PDEU, z notranjim trgom, začeti formalni postopek preiskave, kar je tudi storila s sklepom z dne 1. oktobra 2014.
With respect to the special subsidy referred to by the Commission as financing the additional social mission, the General Court concluded that the assessment made by the Commission of the procedure for avoiding overcompensation in connection with the funding of the social missions was inadequate [109].
V sklepu o začetku postopka je ugotovila, da so po navedbah belgijskih organov zadevne bruseljske občine in CPAS javnim bolnišnicam IRIS (ne pa tudi zasebnim bolnišnicam) naložili naslednje dodatne obveznosti [118], ki upravičujejo ukrepe za nadomestilo primanjkljaja, uvedene v korist bolnišnic IRIS:
With respect to the question of whether the IRIS-H had been overcompensated in practice [110], the General Court merely remarked that the scope of the analysis was very broad, covering all the financial results of the IRIS-H over a period of more than a decade [111].
obveznost zagotavljanja zdravstvene oskrbe vsem pacientom v vseh okoliščinah, saj bolnišnice IRIS ne smejo zavrniti zdravljenja pacientov, ki ga ne morejo plačati in/ali niso zavarovani, tudi če ne potrebujejo nujne zdravstvene oskrbe.
Without concluding specifically on the Commission's finding that there had been no overcompensation, the General Court considered that the breadth and complexity of the assessment made by the Commission constituted, in themselves, support for the complainant's arguments alleging the existence of serious difficulties [112].
Zasebne bolnišnice naj bi morale zdraviti le paciente, ki potrebujejo nujno zdravstveno oskrbo, ta obveznost pa ne velja v nenujnih primerih;
Finally, the complainants argued that the Commission should have taken the criterion of economic efficiency of the SGEI provider into account in its assessment [113].
obveznost, da nudijo vse bolnišnične storitve na več lokacijah, zato so se občine in CPAS namerno odločile, da ohranijo več bolnišnic, ki nudijo vse vrste zdravljenj, da bi pacientom zagotovile dostopnost.
The General Court however rejected that argument and concluded that:
Nadomestna možnost združitve postelj in spremljajočih storitev na manj lokacijah, s čimer bi se prihranili stroški, je bila namerno zavrnjena.
he criterion linked to the economic efficiency of an undertaking in supplying the SGEI is unconnected with the assessment of the compatibility of State aid in the light of Article 86(2) EC [now: Article 106(2) TFEU], and the choice made by the national authorities relating to the economic efficiency of the public operator cannot therefore be criticised in that regard’ [114].(64) Summarizing its findings, the General Court stated that:
Ta izbira je zlasti pomembna za prikrajšane paciente in njihove družine, saj so bolnišnice IRIS zlasti blizu sosesk ali v soseskah s številnim prikrajšanim prebivalstvom;
‘The [complainant] has presented a body of consistent evidence showing the existence of serious doubts as to the compatibility of the measures under examination in the light of the criteria relating to the applicability of Article 86(2) EC [now: Article 106(2) TFEU] concerning, first, the existence of a clearly defined mandate relating to the hospital and social public service missions specific to the IRIS hospitals, second, the existence of previously established compensation parameters and, third, the existence of procedures for avoiding overcompensation in the funding of the public service missions […]’ [115].4.3.
obveznost zagotavljanja socialnih storitev za paciente in njihove družine, saj socialni delavci pomagajo prikrajšanim pacientom in njihovim družinam pri reševanju in obvladovanju finančnih, upravnih, medosebnih in socialnih težav.
The Commission's opening decision of 1 October 2014 [116]
Poleg tega pripravijo predhodna poročila o socialnem položaju, da bi spodbudili finančno posredovanje CPAS.
In the light of the GC's conclusions [117] that the Commission should have had doubts as to the compatibility with the internal market of the disputed public financing granted to the IRIS hospitals on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU, the Commission was required to initiate the formal investigation procedure and did so by decision of 1 October 2014 In its opening decision, the Commission noted that according to the Belgian authorities the respective Brussels municipalities and CPAS have chosen to entrust the public IRIS-H but not the private hospitals with the following additional obligations [118], justifying the deficit compensation measures put in place in favour of the IRIS-H:
Čeprav morajo vse javne in zasebne bolnišnice zaposliti socialne delavce za nekatere bolnišnične storitve (kot sta geriatrija in psihiatrija), belgijski organi trdijo, da imajo bolnišnice IRIS posebno dodatno obveznost, iz katere izhajajo precej obsežnejše socialne storitve in stroški, ki so višji od nadomestila v skladu z zakonom LCH.
Obligation to offer medical assistance to all patients in all circumstances: the IRIS-H cannot refuse to treat patients that are not able to pay and/or are uninsured, even if they do not require urgent medical care.
Komisija je na podlagi pomislekov, ki jih je izrazilo Splošno sodišče [119], belgijske organe, pritožnike in vse druge zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj predložijo vse informacije, potrebne za preverjanje združljivosti spornega javnega financiranja, zlasti kar zadeva naslednje točke:
Private hospitals allegedly are only obliged to treat all patients that need urgent medical care, but would not have such an obligation in non-urgent situations.
natančna opredelitev domnevnih dodatnih nalog bolnišnic IRIS in na katerih dokumentih temeljijo akti o pooblastitvi za te domnevne dodatne naloge (glej uvodne izjave od 87 do 89 sklepa o začetku postopka),
Obligation to offer a full range of hospital services at multiple sites: The municipalities and the CPAS have made the deliberate choice to maintain multiple hospital sites that offer a full range of treatments in order to ensure accessibility for patients.
pravna podlaga za nadomestilo primanjkljajev bolnišnic IRIS (h katerim prispevajo stroški vsake od domnevnih dodatnih nalog) (glej uvodno izjavo 91 sklepa o začetku postopka),
The alternative option of regrouping the beds and accompanying services at fewer locations and hence to save costs was deliberately dismissed.
ali obstaja (dovolj) ukrepov za preprečevanje prekomernih nadomestil za domnevne dodatne naloge, zlasti prek mehanizma za nadomestilo primanjkljaja skupaj z vračljivimi predplačili (če so se izplačala), in ali so bolnišnice IRIS pravno zavezane k vračilu vseh predplačil, ki so jih morda prejele, da bi se izognile prekomernemu nadomestilu (glej uvodno izjavo 95 sklepa o začetku postopka),
This choice is especially relevant for disadvantaged patients and their families, since the IRIS hospitals are mainly located close to or in neighbourhoods with a large disadvantaged population.
če se plačila posebnih subvencij v višini do 10 milijonov EUR letno (glej uvodno izjavo 50) lahko štejejo za transakcijo, ki je ločena od nadomestila primanjkljaja bolnišnic IRIS, ali obstajajo ustrezni ukrepi, s katerimi se zagotovi, da nadomestilo ne preseže zneska, potrebnega za kritje stroškov, ki so nastali zaradi opravljanja obveznosti javne službe (glej uvodno izjavo 96 sklepa o začetku postopka),
Obligation to provide social services to patients and their families: social workers assist the disadvantaged patients and their families in solving and managing financial, administrative, interpersonal and social difficulties.
ali bolnišnicam IRIS dejansko ni bilo dodeljeno prekomerno nadomestilo, odkar so začele z delovanjem kot neodvisni pravni subjekti (glej uvodno izjavo 97 sklepa o začetku postopka),
In addition, the social workers draw up prior social reports to facilitate a financial intervention by the CPAS.
kakršne koli dodatne konkretne, posebne in podrobne utemeljitve in dokumentacijo, iz katerih je razvidno ali, zakaj in v kolikšnem obsegu ukrepi javnega financiranja za bolnišnice IRIS spadajo na področje uporabe sklepa o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz leta 2012 ali okvira o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz leta 2012 (glej uvodno izjavo 98 sklepa o začetku postopka) oziroma odločbe o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena iz leta 2005 (glej uvodno izjavo 100 sklepa o začetku postopka) in ali, zakaj in v kolikšnem obsegu bodo vsa merila združljivosti iz teh pravnih aktov izpolnjena.
While all public and private hospitals are required to employ social workers for certain hospital services (such as geriatrics and psychiatry), the Belgian authorities claim that the IRIS hospitals have a specific additional obligation which results in much larger social services and higher costs than are compensated pursuant to the LCH.
Komisija je priložnost pri sprejemanju sklepa o začetku postopka izkoristila, da je zahtevala pojasnilo o naslednjih dodatnih dejstvih:
On the basis of the doubts expressed by the GC [119], the Commission invited the Belgian authorities, the complainants and any other interested parties to provide all relevant information for verifying the compatibility of the disputed public financing, in particular as regards the following points:
ali so se katera sredstva iz sklada FRBRTC oziroma posebne subvencije (glej uvodno izjavo 50) neposredno prenesla na bolnišnice IRIS ali pa so bili skladi FRBRTC in posebne subvencije le mehanizmi financiranja med regijo glavnega mesta Bruselj in bruseljskimi občinami (glej uvodno izjavo 17 sklepa o začetku postopka),