natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
the exact definition of the alleged additional missions of the IRIS-H and on what documents the entrustments of these alleged additional missions are based (see recitals 87-89 of the opening decision),
dejanski naravi zahteve člena 60(6) zakona o CPAS (glej uvodno izjavo 19), možnosti, da se javna bolnišnica zapre, in razliki v primerjavi z mehanizmom bolnišnične organizacije (glej uvodno izjavo (26) sklepa o začetku postopka),
the legal basis for the compensation of the deficits of the IRIS-H (to which the costs of each of the alleged additional missions contribute) (see recital 91) of the opening decision),
ali so dodatne socialne storitve, ki jih opravljajo bolnišnice IRIS, po naravi gospodarske ali negospodarske (glej uvodno izjavo 48 sklepa o začetku postopka),
whether there are (sufficient) measures in place to avoid overcompensation of the alleged additional missions, in particular via the deficit compensation mechanism in combination with the repayable advances (if any), and whether the IRIS-H are under a legal obligation to repay any advances they may have received in order to avoid overcompensation (see recital 95 of the opening decision),
ali se posebne subvencije (ki jih regija glavnega mesta Bruselj dodeli občinam), ki jih občine prenesejo na bolnišnice IRIS, lahko štejejo kot transakcija, ločena od mehanizma za kritje primanjkljaja (glej uvodno izjavo 92 sklepa o začetku postopka), in, če je tako, kakšna pravna podlaga se uporablja za določitev podrobnosti,
in the event that the payments of the special subsidies of up to EUR 10 million annually (see above recital 50) are to be considered as a transaction separate from the compensation of deficits of the IRIS-H, whether there are sufficient measures in place to ensure that the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs occasioned by the performance of public service obligations (see recital 96 of the opening decision),
ali obstaja mehanizem predplačil in na kakšni pravni podlagi temelji ter kako se takšna plačila izvršijo (če obstajajo) in ali se obravnavajo kot ukrep pomoči, ki je ločen od mehanizma za kritje primanjkljaja, ter pojasnilo, ali so se takšna predplačila (če obstajajo) financirala iz sklada FRBRTC (glej uvodno izjavo 93 sklepa o začetku postopka),
whether no overcompensation was in fact granted to the IRIS-H since they started operating as independent legal structures (see recital 97 of the opening decision),
dodatna pojasnila o konceptu pérennité (tj. kontinuiteti in operativnosti javnih bolnišnic, glej tudi uvodno izjavo 91), njegovi pravni podlagi (zlasti na ravni združenja IRIS in bolnišnic IRIS), njegovih posledicah in o tem, kako pérennité upravičuje mehanizme za nadomestilo primanjkljaja, ki koristijo bolnišnicam IRIS (glej uvodni izjavi 102 in 103 sklepa o začetku postopka),
any further concrete, specific and detailed argumentation and documentation whether, why and to what extent the public financing measures for the IRIS-H fall under the 2012 SGEI Decision or the 2012 SGEI Framework (see recital 98 of the opening decision) respectively the 2005 SGEI Decision (see recital 100 of the opening decision) and whether, why and to what extent all the compatibility criteria laid down therein would be fulfilled.
ali obstajajo kateri koli drugi razlogi, razen izrecno navedenih v sklepu o začetku postopka (tj. obstoj dodatnih nalog, ki so storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena in pérennité javnih bolnišnic), ki lahko upravičujejo dodatna finančna sredstva, dodeljena bolnišnicam IRIS (glej uvodno izjavo 103 sklepa o začetku postopka).
The Commission also took the opportunity of adopting the opening decision to seek clarification on the following additional factual matters:
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
whether or not any FRBRTC funds, respectively the special subsidies (see above recital 50), were directly transferred to the IRIS-H or whether the FRBRTC and the special subsidies are merely financing mechanisms between the Brussels Capital Region and the Brussels municipalities (see recital 17 of the opening decision),
Komisija je prejela pripombe štirih zainteresiranih strani (tj. združenja CBI, združenja ABISP, organizacije Zorgnet Vlaanderen in združenja UNCPSY), kot so povzete v nadaljevanju:
the exact nature of the requirement of Article 60(6) of the Loi CPAS (see above recital 19), the possibilities for a public hospital to close down, and the difference with the hospital programming mechanism (see recital 26 of the opening decision),
Združenje CBI, pritožnik, v odgovoru na sklep o začetku postopka ugotavlja, da po njegovem mnenju navedeni sklep ne vsebuje nobenega novega elementa, trditev ali pojasnil za dokaz obstoja posebne naloge, ki je bila naložena bolnišnicam IRIS, ali v zvezi z mehanizmi nadomestil za to navedeno nalogo ali kontrolnimi ukrepi, ki bi se vzpostavili v zvezi s tem.
whether or not the additional social services carried out by the IRIS-H are economic or non-economic in nature (see recital 48 of the opening decision),
Pritožniki se torej zlasti sklicujejo na trditve, ki so jih pojasnili v svojih preteklih predložitvah.
whether or not the passing on of the special subsidies (from the Brussels Capital Region to the municipalities) by the municipalities to the IRIS-H can be considered as a transaction separate from the deficit coverage mechanism (see recital 92 of the opening decision) and, if so, what is the applicable legal basis that sets out its precise modalities,
Združenje CBI potrjuje svoje mnenje, da (1) bolnišnice IRIS niso pooblaščene za opravljanje posebne storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena poleg tistih, ki so naložene vsem belgijskim bolnišnicam (javnim in zasebnim), in, (2) tudi če bi Komisija ugotovila, da take dodatne naloge obstajajo, niso dovolj jasno opredeljene, da bi izpolnjevale zahteve prava Unije v zvezi s tem.
whether or not there is a mechanism of advance payments, on what legal basis and how such payments are made (if any) and whether or not they are considered as an aid measure separate from the deficit coverage mechanism, and to clarify whether such advances (if any) were funded via the FRBRTC (see recital 93 of the opening decision),
Združenje CBI poudarja tudi, da je v predlaganem programu politike nove bruseljske vlade (objavljenim julija 2014) navedeno „preoblikovanje Ordonnance z dne 13. februarja 2003, da se natančno določijo naloge splošnega interesa, ki upravičujejo posebne subvencije občinam“.
further clarification on the concept of pérennité (i.e. the continuity and viability of public hospitals, see also below recital 91), its legal basis (in particular at the level of IRIS and the IRIS-H), its implications and how pérennité justifies the deficit compensation mechanisms that benefit these hospitals (see recitals 102-103 of the opening decision),
Po mnenju pritožnikov je iz tega razvidno, da trenutno ne obstajajo take naloge, ampak se bodo določile v prihodnosti.
whether there are any reasons other than those explicitly mentioned in the opening decision (i.e. the existence of additional SGEI missions and the pérennité of the public hospitals) that may justify the additional financing for the IRIS-H (see recital 103 of the opening decision).
Kar zadeva zahteve iz člena 60(6) zakona o CPAS, združenje CBI meni, da te k zakonu LCH ne prispevajo ničesar glede opredelitve kakršnih koli dodatnih ali posebnih storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, ki bi veljale le za javne bolnišnice, kot so bolnišnice IRIS.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Pritožniki trdijo tudi, da dodatna socialna naloga očitno obsega le večji obseg socialnih storitev, kot ga zagotavljajo druge bolnišnice, za katerega navajajo, da je „osnovna socialna naloga (skupna javnim in zasebnim bolnišnicam)“.
The Commission received comments from four interested parties (i.e. CBI, ABISP, Zorgnet Vlaanderen and UNCPSY), as summarised below:
Združenje CBI meni, da to ne zadošča za ugotovitev, da imajo bolnišnice IRIS dodatno socialno nalogo.
In response to the opening decision, CBI, the complainant, notes that in their view that decision does not contain any new element, arguments or explanations to establish the existence of a specific mission entrusted to the IRIS-H or concerning the compensation mechanisms for this claimed mission or the controls which would be put in place in this respect.
Kar zadeva vprašanje, ali so te storitve po naravi gospodarske, trdi, da dejstvo, da so te storitve brezplačne, ne pomeni, da niso gospodarske.
The complainants therefore mainly refer to the arguments that were developed in their prior submissions.
Poleg tega meni, da dodatnih socialnih storitev ni mogoče ločiti od obširnejše storitve zdravstvenega varstva, ki je nedvomno gospodarska po naravi, o čemer nikoli ni bilo dvoma.
The CBI confirms its position that: (1) the IRIS-H are not entrusted with specific SGEI in addition to those incumbent upon all Belgian hospitals (public and private); and (2) even if the Commission would conclude that such additional missions exist they are not defined sufficiently clearly to meet the requirements of Union law in this respect.
Združenje CBI meni, da imajo tako javne kot zasebne bolnišnice nalogo splošnega zdravstvenega varstva.
The CBI also points out that in the proposed policy program by the new Brussels government (published in July 2014) mention is made of ‘rewording the Ordonnance of 13 February 2003 to specify the missions of general interest which justify specific subsidies to municipalities’.
Po njegovem mnenju ne bi bilo nobene razlike med javnimi in zasebnimi bolnišnicami pri zdravljenju „socialnih pacientov“ v „urgentnih“ in „posturgentnih“ primerih.
The complainants consider this to be an indication that no such missions currently exist but would be defined in the future.
V zvezi s tem navaja sodbo bruseljskega sodišča prve stopnje [120] o nujni zdravstveni oskrbi [121] za tujce, ki nezakonito prebivajo v Belgiji (v nadaljnjem besedilu: migranti brez dokumentov), ki bi dokazala, da lahko v tem okviru tako pomoč zagotovijo javne in zasebne bolnišnice.
With respect to the requirements of Article 60(6) of the Loi CPAS, CBI considers that these add nothing to the LCH in terms of definition of any additional or specific SGEI that would only apply to public hospitals such as the IRIS-H.
Dodaja, da po navedbah publikacije Mutualités Chrétiennes [122] iz februarja 2004 [123] zasebne bolnišnice zdravijo več kot 60 % „socialnih pacientov“ v regiji glavnega mesta Bruselj.
The complainants also argue that the additional social mission only appears to consist of a higher volume of social services than that provided by other hospitals and which they refer to as a ‘basic social mission (common to public and private hospitals)’.
Pritožniki menijo tudi, da v zakonu o CPAS, strateških načrtih združenja IRIS ali sporazumih domicile de secours [124] ni določena nobena dodatna naloga.
CBI is of the opinion that this is insufficient to consider that the IRIS-H have an additional social mission.
Kar zadeva „nalogo glede večstranske oskrbe“, združenje CBI meni, da še vedno ni jasno, kaj obveznost nudenja dejavnosti „večstranske“ bolnišnične oskrbe obsega in koliko ta obveznost bolnišnicam IRIS nalaga dodatna bremena.
Furthermore, with regard to the question whether these services are economic in nature they argue that the fact that these services are provided free of charge does not make them non-economic.
Kar zadeva dodatno socialno nalogo, meni, da člen 57 zakona o CPAS bolnišnicam IRIS ne nalaga dodatnih obveznosti, v nobenem primeru pa jih ne opredeli na razumljiv način (nič bolj kot strateški načrti bolnišnic IRIS ali sporazumi domicile de secours).
Finally, CBI considers that the additional social services are inseparable from a broader healthcare service which is itself indubitably economic in nature as this has never been put into doubt.
Kar zadeva vprašanje jasne opredelitve parametrov nadomestila, združenje CBI poudarja, da po navedbah belgijskih organov bolnišnice IRIS opravljajo posebno nalogo, ki je ločena od naloge zasebnih bolnišnic, in da posebna naloga ni opredeljena v zakonu LCH, ampak ima drugo pravno podlago.
According to CBI, the mission of universal care exists both for public hospitals and for private hospitals.
Po njegovem mnenju je jasno izključeno, da lahko zakon LCH določi parametre nadomestila v zvezi z eno nalogo javne službe ali več, ki jih zakon LCH ne obravnava.
In their view, there would be no difference between public hospitals and private hospitals with regard to the treatment of ‘social patients’, whether in an ‘emergency’ or ‘post emergency’ situation.
Poleg tega ugotavlja, da ni nobene skladnosti med domnevnimi pravnimi podlagami za zadevne posebne naloge in mehanizmi nadomestila.
In this context, CBI refers to a judgment of the Brussels Court of First Instance [120] concerning urgent medical aid [121] for foreigners living illegally in Belgium (hereinafter ‘undocumented migrants’) which would demonstrate that in this context such aid can be provided by both public and private hospitals.
Pritožniki ugotavljajo, da očitno ni nobenega razlikovanja med primanjkljaji, ki so po eni strani posledica stroškov domnevnih posebnih nalog in po drugi strani stroškov osnovne naloge.
The CBI adds that according to a February 2004 publication [122] of the Mutualités Chrétiennes [123], the private hospitals treat more than 60 % of ‘social patients’ in the Brussels Capital Region.
Poleg tega združenje CBI navaja vrsto mnenj inšpektorata belgijskega ministrstva za finance, ki je ugotovil, da ni bilo mogoče spremljati uporabe posebnih subvencij, dodeljenih na podlagi Ordonnance z dne 13. februarja 2003, ker v navedeni Ordonnance niso določene naloge v občinskem interesu, za katere so bile te subvencije dodeljene.
The complainants also consider that no additional mission is laid down in the Loi CPAS, in the strategic IRIS plans nor in ‘domicile de secours’ conventions [124].
Združenje CBI ponavlja tudi svoje prejšnje trditve, da niso vzpostavljeni ukrepi za preprečevanje prekomernih nadomestil.
As regards the ‘multi-site mission’, CBI considers that it is still not explained what the obligation to offer complete ‘multi-site’ hospital care activities comprises, nor to what extent this obligation imposes additional burdens on the IRIS-H.
Dodaja, da posebne naloge, ki jih opravljajo bolnišnice IRIS, niso natančno opredeljene, zato ni mogoče ugotoviti, za katere dejavnosti bi se moralo izplačati nadomestilo.
As regards the additional social mission, CBI is of the opinion that Article 57 of the Loi CPAS does not create additional obligations with respect to the IRIS-H and, in any case, does not define them in an intelligible manner (no more than the strategic IRIS plans or the ‘domicile de secours’ conventions).
Po njegovem mnenju je zato nemogoče preveriti obstoj mehanizma za spremljanje, s katerim bi se preprečila prekomerna nadomestila.
With regard to the question of a clear definition of the compensation parameters CBI points out that, according to the Belgian authorities, the IRIS-H perform a specific mission distinct from that of private hospitals and that specific mission is not defined in the LCH but has another legal basis.
Združenje CBI poudarja tudi, da je pérennité javnih bolnišnic naveden v sporazumu o sodelovanju z dne 19. maja 1994, vendar v tem dokumentu taka naloga ni opredeljena in ta dokument ni pooblastilo.
According to CBI, it is clearly excluded that the LCH can establish the compensation parameters with respect to one or more public service mission(s) for which the LCH does not provide.
Po njegovem mnenju ta sporazum zlasti ne bi nikakor določal, da mora imeti občina ali mesto javno bolnišnico na svojem ozemlju, in prav tako ne bi določil nobenega pravila za bolnišnično organizacijo v Belgiji, v skladu s katerim bi se morala storitev opravljati v javni bolnišnici.
In addition, CBI notes that there is no correspondence between the claimed legal bases for the specific missions in question and the compensation mechanisms.
Združenje Association bruxelloise des institutions de soins privées (ABISP), eden od prvotnih pritožnikov (glej uvodno izjavo 1), v svojih pripombah k sklepu o začetku postopka ugotavlja, da morajo vse belgijske bolnišnice ne glede na njihove statute (statuts) ali lastnike po zakonu opravljati nalogo splošnega interesa.
The complainants observe that it seems that no distinction is made between deficits resulting on the one hand from the costs of the claimed specific missions and on the other hand those resulting from the costs of the basic mission.
V zvezi s tem navaja člen 2 zakona LCH [125].
Finally, CBI makes reference to a series of opinions by the Belgian Inspectorate of Finance which concluded that it was impossible to monitor the use of the special subsidies awarded on the basis of the Ordonnance of 13 February 2003 because that Ordonnance did not specify the tasks of communal interest for which these subsidies were granted.
Poleg tega opozarja, da je umaknilo svojo pritožbo.
CBI also repeats its previous assertions that there are no measures to avoid overcompensation.
Organizacija Zorgnet Vlaanderen zastopa več kot 500 flamskih izvajalcev zdravstvenih storitev (kot so splošne bolnišnice, psihiatrične ustanove in negovalni domovi).
They add that in the absence of a precise definition of the specific missions performed by the IRIS-H, it is impossible to say what activities should be subject to compensation or not.
V svojih pripombah k sklepu o začetku postopka poudarja, da vse belgijske bolnišnice, javne ali zasebne, izpolnjujejo iste obveznosti javne službe v okviru zakona LCH.
In CBI's view, it is consequently impossible to verify the existence of a monitoring mechanism to avoid overcompensations.
Poleg tega poudarja, da zakon LCH ne določa nobenih pogojev glede pravne oblike (tj. javne ali zasebne), ki jo je treba priznati kot bolnišnico.
Finally, CBI points out that while the pérennité of the public hospitals is cited in the cooperation agreement of 19 May 1994, this document does not define such a mission and does not constitute an entrustment.
Ugotavlja tudi, da v opredelitvi obveznosti javne službe bolnišnic ni navedena nobena regionalna posebnost.
In particular, according to CBI this agreement would in no way indicate that a municipality or a city must have a public hospital on its territory and would also not lay down any rule for hospital service programming in Belgium requiring the operation of a service in a public hospital.
Trdi tudi, da bolnišnice v Flandriji in regiji glavnega mesta Bruselj ne opravljajo različne socialne naloge.
The Association bruxelloise des institutions de soins privées (ABISP), one of the initial complainants (see recital 1), notes in its comments on the opening decision that all Belgian hospitals, regardless of their bylaws (statuts) or owners, are required by law to fulfil a mission of general interest.
Union Nationale des Cliniques Psychiatriques Privées (UNCPSY) je združenje zasebnih psihiatričnih klinik v Franciji.
In this context, ABISP makes reference to Article 2 of the LCH [125].
V svojih pripombah k sklepu o začetku postopka trdi, da pri preverjanju, ali javno financiranje ne presega neto stroškov javne službe, ti neto stroški ne morejo biti neomejeni, in da se ne sme spregledati, ali je ponudnik storitve dobro upravljan.
Finally, ABISP recalls that it has withdrawn its complaint.
V zvezi s tem meni, da bi morala Komisija primerjati javne in zasebne bolnišnice in tako ugotoviti, ali je pomoč sorazmerna v smislu člena 106(2) PDEU.
Zorgnet Vlaanderen represents over 500 Flemish care providers (such as general hospitals, psychiatric care institutions, and nursing homes).
Komisija glede tega ugotavlja, da so pripombe združenja UNCPSY v nasprotju z ugotovitvijo Splošnega sodišča v točki 300 sodbe z dne 7. novembra 2012 (zadeva T-137/10), da gospodarska učinkovitost podjetja pri opravljanju storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena ni merilo za presojo združljivosti javnega financiranja, ki ga to podjetje prejme, na podlagi člena 106(2) PDEU (v zvezi s tem glej uvodno izjavo 63).
In its observations on the opening decision, Zorgnet Vlaanderen emphasises that all Belgian hospitals, whether they are public or private, fulfil the same public service obligations in the framework of the LCH.
PRIPOMBE KRALJEVINE BELGIJE
In addition, Zorgnet Vlaanderen points out that the LCH does not set out any conditions regarding the legal form (i.e. public or private) to be recognised as a hospital.
Pripombe Belgije k sklepu o začetku postopka
Furthermore, Zorgnet Vlaanderen observes that the definition of the public service obligations of the hospitals does not refer to a regional specificity.
Belgijski organi v svojem odgovoru na sklep Komisije z dne 1. oktobra 2014 in zlasti uvodno izjavo 17 navedenega sklepa ugotavljajo, da so bila finančna posredovanja regije glavnega mesta Bruselj (tj. posebne subvencije do 10 milijonov EUR letno) in sklada FRBRTC prenosi finančnih sredstev, ki niso bila dodeljena bolnišnicam IRIS, ampak le občinam.
Finally, Zorgnet Vlaanderen claims that hospitals in Flanders and in the Brussels Capital Region do not perform a different social task.
Zato menijo, da so bili to prenosi finančnih sredstev med javnimi organi, ki niso zajeti v členu 107(1) PDEU.
The Union Nationale des Cliniques Psychiatriques Privées (UNCPSY) is the federation of private psychiatric clinics in France.
Po njihovem mnenju bolnišnicam IRIS nista dodelila pomoči niti regija glavnega mesta Bruselj niti sklad FRBRTC.
In its comments on the opening decision, UNCPSY argues that for the check of whether the public funding does not exceed the net costs of the public service, this net cost cannot be without a limit and cannot ignore whether or not the service provider is well managed.
Namesto tega menijo, da so se ti prenosi izvedli v okviru pristojnosti regije v zvezi s splošnim financiranjem občin, ki jim omogoča, da izpolnijo svoje naloge skupnega interesa, vključno z nalogami CPAS.
In this context, UNCPSY is of the opinion that the Commission should compare public and private hospitals to determine whether or not the aid is proportionate within the meaning of Article 106(2) TFEU.
V zvezi s tem se pritožnikova navedba mnenj inšpekcije ministrstva za finance nanaša le na regijo glavnega mesta Bruselj in občine, ne pa na bolnišnice IRIS.
In this context, the Commission observes that UNCPSY's comments run counter to the GC's conclusion in paragraph 300 of its judgment of 7 November 2012 (T-137/10) that economic efficiency of an undertaking in supplying the SGEI is not a criterion for the assessment under Article 106(2) TFEU of the State aid compatibility of the public funding which this undertaking receives (see in this respect recital 63).
Poleg tega belgijski organi trdijo, da lahko regija glavnega mesta Bruselj na podlagi posebnega zakona z dne 8. avgusta 1980 o institucionalnih reformah in mnenja belgijskega Državnega sveta [126] financira le občine in ne bolnišnic IRIS, saj financiranje posebnih bolnišničnih nalog ne spada v pristojnosti regije.
COMMENTS FROM THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM
Kar zadeva pomisleke iz uvodne izjave 26 sklepa o začetku postopka, so belgijski organi pojasnili razliko med, po eni strani, zahtevo iz člena 60(6) zakona o CPAS in možnostjo zaprtja javne bolnišnice in, po drugi strani, mehanizmom bolnišnične organizacije.
Comments from Belgium on the opening decision
Po njihovih navedbah člen 60(6) zakona o CPAS [127] določa pogoje, ki jih mora CPAS izpolniti, da lahko ustanovi bolnišnico.
In their reply to the Commission's decision of 1 October 2014 and in particular to recital 17 of that decision, the Belgian authorities note that the financial interventions by the Brussels Capital Region (i.e. the special subsidies of up to EUR 10 million per year) and by the FRBRTC were financial transfers granted to the municipalities only and not to the IRIS-H.
CPAS mora zlasti proučiti, ali obstaja dejanska potreba po taki bolnišnici, pri čemer mora upoštevati potrebe območja, vključno z zdravstveno-socialnimi potrebami, in prisotnost podobnih ustanov.