natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this regard the Court clarified that, while Article 4(2) of Directive 89/105 requires Member States to provide for the possibility to apply for an exemption from a price freeze, this ‘possibility is without prejudice to the ascertainment, by the competent authorities of the Member States, that it is an exceptional case and that there are particular reasons, within the meaning of that provision.’ [18]
Ta člen je državam članicam zagotovil samo določeno diskrecijsko pravico glede oblikovanja pogojev za izvajanje tega izvzetja [19], saj določa, da lahko države članice odobrijo oprostitev plačila usklajene trošarine „pod pogoji, ki jih določijo za zagotovitev pravilne in enostavne uporabe takih oprostitev in za preprečevanje izmikanj, davčnih utaj ali zlorab“.
It follows that it is for the Member States to establish when particular reasons are given and that they, therefore, have considerable discretion in defining under what conditions to grant exemptions.
Vendar v obravnavanem primeru člen 4(2) Direktive 89/105/EGS ne opredeljuje izraza „določeni razlogi“ in s tem državam članicam daje precejšnjo diskrecijsko pravico glede pogojev, pod katerimi bodo odobrile izvzetja iz zamrznitve cen.
Thus, the term ‘particular reasons’ laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 89/105 is not sufficiently clear and precise enough to be able to reach the same conclusion as in Deutsche Bahn, i.e. that the national measure does nothing more than to give form in the national legal order to an obligation imposed by the Union legislature.
Ta diskrecijska pravica presega zgolj manevrski prostor pri oblikovanju izvedbenih ukrepov;
In Deutsche Bahn the relevant provision of Union law, namely Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 92/81, laid down a clear and precise obligation not to levy the harmonised excise duty on fuel used for the purpose of commercial air navigation.
države članice imajo pravico do odločanja, pod katerimi pogoji bodo odobrile izvzetja [20].
This Article left the Member States only certain discretion as to the wording of the conditions implementing this exemption [19], as it provided that exemptions from the excise duty are to be granted by Member States ‘under conditions which they shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of such exemptions and of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse’.
Medtem ko je ustrezna direktiva v zadevi Deutsche Bahn jasno določila, kdaj se odobrijo izvzetja, in sicer v zvezi z gorivom, ki se uporablja za komercialno zračno plovbo, v obravnavanem primeru člen 4(2) Direktive 89/105/EGS odločitev o odobritvi izvzetij prepušča državam članicam.
However, in the present case, Article 4(2) of Directive 89/105 does not define the term ‘particular reasons’ and, thereby, gives Member States a wide margin of discretion under what conditions to grant exemptions from price freezes.
Iz tega sledi, da imajo države članice v skladu s členom 4(2) Direktive 89/105/EGS diskrecijsko pravico pri določanju vsebine področja uporabe izvzetij.
This discretion goes beyond a mere discretion as to the wording of the implementing measures but rather leaves it for the Member States to decide under what conditions to grant exemptions [20].
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je zaradi tega nemogoče sprejeti enak sklep kot v zadevi Deutsche Bahn.
Thus, while in Deutsche Bahn the relevant Directive clearly identified when exemptions are to be granted, namely with regard to fuel used for commercial air navigation, in the present case Article 4(2) of Directive 89/105 leaves the decision when to grant exemptions to the Member States.
Zato Komisija sklepa, da je ta ukrep mogoče pripisati Nemčiji.
It follows that under Article 4(2) of Directive 89/105 Member States enjoy discretion as to the substance of the scope of exemptions.
Selektivna prednost za podjetje
As stated above, this makes it impossible to draw the same conclusions as in Deutsche Bahn.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da so potencialni upravičenci farmacevtske družbe, ki očitno opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost.
The Commission, therefore, concludes that the measure is imputable to Germany.
Zato je treba upravičence šteti za podjetja v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Selective advantage to an undertaking
Nadalje Komisija ugotavlja, da odobritev izvzetja iz zamrznitve cen povečuje promet in prihodek podjetij, ki izkoriščajo ugodnosti izvzetja.
At the outset the Commission observes that the eligible beneficiaries are pharmaceutical undertakings that are clearly engaged in an economic activity.
Izvzetje je torej treba obravnavati kot dajanje prednosti upravičencem v primerjavi z njihovimi konkurenti.
As such, the beneficiaries are to be regarded as undertakings in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
V zvezi s selektivnostjo ukrepa je jasno, da bo po postopku za predložitev zahtevkov, tj. oceni posameznih primerov in sklepu BAFA, ukrep koristil samo omejenemu številu podjetij, ki delujejo v posebnem sektorju (farmacevtski izdelki) in izpolnjujejo posebna merila (so v finančnih težavah).
Furthermore, the Commission notes that the grant of an exemption from the price freeze leads to increased turnover and income for the undertakings benefitting from it.
V tem smislu ukrepa ni mogoče obravnavati kot zgolj uravnavanje cen, saj ustvarja cene, ki nekaterim podjetjem z odstopanjem od splošnega uravnavanja cen prinašajo ugodnosti v obliki zamrznitve cen.
The exemption must, therefore, be seen as granting an advantage to the beneficiaries as compared to their competitors.
Zato je treba ukrep šteti za selektiven.
As to the selectivity of the measure, it is clear that, following an application process, a case-by-case assessment and a decision by the BAFA only a limited number of undertakings operating in a specific sector (for pharmaceutical products) and fulfilling specific criteria (of being in financial difficulties) benefit from the measure.
V zvezi s tem ni mogoče sprejeti navedbe BPI, po kateri pogoj selektivnosti ni izpolnjen, saj je treba ukrep obravnavati kot splošni ukrep v skladu z nemškim (ustavnim) pravom.
In this sense, it cannot be seen as a mere price regulation, as it leads to prices beneficial for certain companies in deviation of the general price regulation in form of the price freeze.
Da bi podprlo to navedbo, se združenje BPI sklicuje na sodno prakso Sodišča, v skladu s katero ukrep, s katerim se odobri izvzetje od uporabe splošnega davčnega sistema države članice, ni selektiven in tako ne pomeni pomoči, čeprav podjetju zagotavlja prednost, če „ta ukrep neposredno izhaja iz temeljnih ali usmerjevalnih načel [zadevnega] davčnega sistema“ [21].
The measure must, therefore, be seen as selective.
V obravnavanem primeru BPI zlasti trdi, da prednost, zagotovljena upravičenim podjetjem, izhaja neposredno iz temeljnih ali usmerjevalnih načel nemške ustave.
In this regard the arguments put forth by the BPI, according to which the condition of selectivity is not fulfilled as the measure must be seen as a general measure under German (constitutional) law cannot be upheld.
V zvezi s tem Komisija opaža, da je referenčni okvir za ugotavljanje, ali zadevna izvzetja nekaterim podjetjem zagotavljajo selektivno prednost, sistem zamrznitve cen, od katerega odstopajo, in ne splošna načela nemške ustave.
To support this argument the BPI points at case law in which the Court held that a measure granting an exception to the application of the general tax system of a Member State is not selective and, thus, does not constitute aid even though conferring an advantage on an undertaking, if that measure ‘results directly from the basic or guiding principles’ of said ‘tax system’ [21].
Vendar združenje BPI ni niti trdilo niti nakazalo, da zadevna izvzetja izhajajo neposredno iz temeljnih ali usmerjevalnih načel sistema zamrznitve cen.
In the present case, the BPI essentially argues that the advantage conferred to the beneficiary undertakings results directly from the basic or guiding principles of the German constitution.
V vsakem primeru je Sodišče v sodbi, ki jo je navedlo združenje BPI, odločilo, da se izvzetja iz davčnih ukrepov, za katera je treba izvesti postopek odobritve, štejejo za neselektivna samo, če je diskrecijska pravica pristojnih nacionalnih organov omejena na preverjanje, ali so izpolnjeni določeni zakonski pogoji [22].
In this regard, the Commission observes that the point of reference to establish whether the exceptions in question grant a selective advantage to certain undertakings is the price freeze system, from which they derogate, and not the general principles of the German constitution.
Vendar v obravnavanem primeru nemška ustava na noben način ne določa, kdaj se odobrijo izvzetja.
However, the BPI did not argue, nor a fortiori show, that the exceptions in question result directly from the basic or guiding principles of the price freeze system.
Zato tudi ne določa pogojev za odobritev izvzetij iz zamrznitev cen in ne omejuje diskrecijske pravice BAFA zgolj na preverjanje, ali so ti pogoji izpolnjeni.
In any event, in the judgment invoked by the BPI the Court ruled that exemptions from tax measures subject to an authorisation procedure are only regarded as not being selective if the latitude of the competent national authorities is limited to verifying that certain conditions laid down by law are fulfilled [22].
Na podlagi tega Komisija sklepa, da ukrep daje selektivno prednost podjetjem.
However, in the present case the German constitution does not define in any way when exemptions are to be granted.
Izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino znotraj Unije
As such, it does not define any conditions for granting exemptions to price freezes and does not limit BAFA's discretion to merely verifying that these conditions are fulfilled.
Ukrep spada v opredelitev državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, če izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
In the light of the above the Commission concludes that the measure grants a selective advantage to undertakings.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da upravičenci v okviru sheme trgujejo s farmacevtskimi izdelki in da med udeleženci na trgu v farmacevtskem sektorju vlada močna konkurenca.
Distortion of competition and intra-Union trade
Zato je verjetno, da bo prednost, zagotovljena upravičencem v okviru sheme, izkrivila konkurenco.
Lastly, in order to fall under the definition of State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the measure must distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between the Member States.
Poleg tega je treba po mnenju Sodišča, če prednost, ki jo je zagotovila država članica, krepi položaj skupine podjetij v primerjavi s podjetji, ki konkurirajo v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti, slednjo obravnavati, kot da nanjo vpliva omenjena prednost [23].
In this regard the Commission notes that the beneficiaries under the scheme trade with pharmaceutical products and that there is strong competition among market participants in the pharmaceutical sector.
Zadostuje, da prejemnik prednosti konkurira drugim podjetjem na trgih, odprtih za konkurenco.
As such, the advantage granted to the beneficiaries under the scheme is likely to distort competition.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da med državami članicami poteka obsežna trgovina s farmacevtskimi izdelki in da je farmacevtski trg odprt za konkurenco.
In addition, according to the Court, when an advantage granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with that of other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid [23].
Komisija zato sklepa, da obstaja vsaj nevarnost, da bo ukrep izkrivljal konkurenco in vplival na trgovino med državami članicami.
It is sufficient that the recipient of the advantage competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition.
Sklepna ugotovitev glede obstoja pomoči
In this regard the Commission observes that pharmaceutical products are widely traded between Member States and that the pharmaceutical market is open to competition.
Na podlagi tega Komisija sklepa, da izvzetja iz zamrznitev cen, odobrena v okviru zadevne sheme, pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Hence, the Commission concludes that the measure at least threatens to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States.
Združljivost z notranjim trgom
Conclusion on the existence of aid
Ker ukrep pomeni državno pomoč, je treba proučiti njegovo združljivost z notranjim trgom.
In light of the above the Commission concludes that exemptions from price freezes granted under the scheme at stake constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, se izvzetja iz zamrznitve cen odobrijo, če obvezni rabat naloži podjetju nesprejemljivo finančno breme.
Compatibility with the internal market
Finančno breme se šteje za nesprejemljivo, če zadevno podjetje ne more preprečiti nelikvidnosti z lastnimi sredstvi, prispevki delničarjev ali drugimi ukrepi.
Since the measure constitutes State aid it is necessary to examine its compatibility with the internal market.
Ta pojem nesprejemljivega finančnega bremena je podoben opredelitvi „podjetja v težavah“ v skladu s smernicami za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, ki določajo, da se podjetje „šteje za podjetje v težavah, ko ni zmožno z lastnimi sredstvi ali s sredstvi, ki jih lahko pridobi od svojih lastnikov/delničarjev ali upnikov, preprečiti izgube, ki bi brez zunanjega posredovanja državnih organov kratkoročno ali srednjeročno skoraj gotovo ogrozile obstoj družbe“ [24].
As stated above, the exemptions from the price freeze are granted if an undertaking is, due to the mandatory rebate, subject to an unacceptable financial burden.
Če se bo uporabila opredelitev nesprejemljivega bremena na podlagi sheme, bodo podjetja v težavah v smislu smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje verjetno upravičena do izvzetja, kar bi načeloma zahtevalo oceno pomoči v skladu s temi smernicami.
A financial burden is assumed to be unacceptable if the company in question is unable to avoid illiquidity through its own resources, contributions of its shareholders or other measures.
Vendar Komisija upošteva edinstvene okoliščine obravnavanega primera.
This concept of an unacceptable financial burden is similar to the definition of firms in difficulty under the R&R Guidelines, which provide that a firm is regarded as being in difficulty if ‘it is unable, whether through its own resources or with the funds it is able to obtain from its owner/shareholders or creditors, to stem losses which, without outside intervention by the public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to going out of business in the short or medium term.’ [24]
V skladu z Direktivo 89/105/EGS lahko države članice uvedejo zamrznitve cen, če so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz Direktive.
Thus, by applying the definition of unacceptable burden laid down in the scheme it is likely that firms in difficulty in the meaning of the R&R Guidelines will be eligible for an exemption, which would, in principle, make it necessary to assess the aid under these Guidelines.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, člen 4(2) Direktive določa, da lahko podjetja, ki jih je prizadela zamrznitev cen, v izjemnih primerih zaprosijo za odstopanje, če to upravičujejo določeni razlogi.
However, the Commission takes note of the unique circumstances of the present case.
Sodišče je v sodbi Menarini in drugi pojasnilo, da je treba člen 4(2) Direktive 89/105/EGS razlagati v naslednjem smislu:„države članice morajo za podjetje, ki ga zadeva ukrep zamrznitve ali znižanja cen vseh zdravil ali določenih kategorij zdravil, vedno predvideti možnost, da zaprosi za odstopanje od predpisane cene v skladu s temi ukrepi“ [25].
Under Directive 89/105 Member States are allowed to introduce price freezes if all conditions under said Directive are fulfilled.
V skladu s členom 4(2) Direktive 89/105/EGS morajo torej države članice zagotoviti možnost vložitve zahtevka za odstopanje od zamrznitve cen (tudi če, kot je navedeno zgoraj, taka obveznost ni dovolj jasna in natančna, da bi upravičevala sklep, da njenega izvajanja ni mogoče pripisati državi).
As stated above, Article 4(2) of the Directive provides that undertakings affected by a price freeze may, in exceptional cases, apply for a derogation if this is justified by particular reasons.
Nemčija je uvedla ocenjevano shemo ob upoštevanju te obveznosti.
In its judgment in Menarini and Others the Court clarified that Article 4(2) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as meaning that: Member States must, in all cases, provide for the possibility for an undertaking, which is concerned by a measure freezing or reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products, of applying for a derogation from the price imposed pursuant to such measure [25].
Komisija v zvezi s tem opozarja zlasti na dejstvo, ki je bilo poudarjeno tudi v pripombah, ki jih je med formalnim postopkom preiskave prejela od zainteresiranih strani in Nemčije, in sicer, da so do pomoči v okviru sheme upravičena samo podjetja, ki lahko dokažejo neposredno vzročno zvezo med svojimi finančnimi težavami in zamrznitvijo cen, uvedeno z nemško zakonodajo.
Thus, Article 4(2) of Directive 89/105 lays down an obligation for Member States to provide for a possibility to apply for a derogation from a price freeze (even if, as noted above, such obligation is not clear and precise enough to come to the conclusion that its implementation is not imputable to the State).
Povedano drugače, brez zamrznitve cen upravičenci v okviru sheme ne bi bili podjetja v težavah, kar pomeni, da bi brez izvzetja zamrznitev cen in s tem nemška zakonodaja v stečaj prisilili sicer uspešna podjetja.
Germany introduced the scheme under assessment in implementation of this obligation.
Vodilno načelo smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje je zagotoviti, da se neučinkovita podjetja ne ohranjajo umetno na trgu.
In this regard the Commission, in particular, points to the fact, which was also emphasised by the submissions received by interested parties and by Germany in the course of the formal investigation procedure, that only undertakings that can prove a direct causal link between their financial difficulties and the price freeze introduced by German legislation are eligible for aid under the scheme.
Smernice temeljijo na predpostavki, da je izstop neučinkovitih podjetij običajen del delovanja trga in mora zato ostati običajen, medtem ko mora reševanje ali prestrukturiranje takih podjetij ostati izjema [26].
In other words, without the price freeze the beneficiaries under the scheme would not be firms in difficulty, meaning that without the exemption, the price freeze, and thus German legislation, would force otherwise healthy undertakings into bankruptcy.
Neučinkovita podjetja ne morejo preživeti (tj. pokrivati stroškov in dosegati zadostne stopnje dobička) na podlagi tržnih cen.
The guiding principle of the R&R Guidelines is to ensure that inefficient firms are not artificially kept on the market.
Vendar v obravnavanem primeru ter glede na neposredno in strogo vzročno zvezo med težavami upravičencev in zamrznitvijo cen teh upravičencev ni mogoče šteti za neučinkovita podjetja.
As such, the Guidelines are based on the premise that the exit of inefficient firms is a normal part of the operation of the market and must, as such, remain the norm, whereas rescuing or restructuring such firms must remain the exception [26].
Njihovega preživetja na trgu ne ogroža njihova nesposobnost pokrivanja stroškov na podlagi tržnih cen, ampak posredovanje države v obliki zamrznitve cen, ki jim preprečuje zaračunavanje takih tržnih cen.
Inefficient firms cannot survive (i.e. cover their costs and a sufficient profit margin) on the basis of market prices.
Izvzetja iz zamrznitve cen, uvedena z ocenjevano shemo, zato niso namenjena umetnemu ohranjanju neučinkovitih podjetij na trgu in torej ne nasprotujejo temeljnim načelom smernic za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
However, in the present case and given the direct and strict causal link between the difficulties of the beneficiaries and the price freeze, these beneficiaries cannot be regarded as inefficient firms.
Zato Komisija na podlagi tega in glede na posebnosti obravnavanega primera izjemoma šteje za ustrezno, da se združljivost pomoči oceni neposredno na podlagi PDEU.
Their survival on the market is not threatened by their inability to cover their costs on the basis of market prices but rather by the State intervention in the form of the price freeze, which prevents them from charging such market prices.
Ta sklep torej ocenjuje združljivost posebnih izvzetij, določenih v nemški shemi, ocenjevani v obravnavanem primeru, z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU.
As such, the exemptions from the price freeze introduced by the scheme under assessment therefore do not aim at keeping inefficient firms artificially on the market and thus do not run counter to the underlying principles of the R&R Guidelines.
V členu 107(3)(c) PDEU je predvidena odobritev pomoči za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
In the light of the above and under the specific circumstances of the present case the Commission considers it, therefore, exceptionally appropriate to assess the compatibility of the aid directly under the Treaty.
Ukrep pomoči je združljiv v skladu s členom 107(3)(c) PDEU, če izpolnjuje dobro opredeljen cilj skupnega interesa, je ustrezno oblikovan za doseganje zadevnega cilja ter ne vpliva na konkurenco in trgovino znotraj EU v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.
This decision, therefore, assesses the compatibility of the particular exemptions, as defined in the German scheme under assessment in the present case, with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Dobro opredeljen cilj skupnega interesa
Article 107(3)(c) TFEU provides for the authorisation of aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Tretja uvodna izjava Direktive 89/105/EGS priznava pospeševanje javnega zdravja z zagotavljanjem razpoložljivosti ustrezne preskrbe s farmacevtskimi izdelki po razumni ceni kot prvotni cilj zamrznitve cen.
In order to be compatible under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, an aid measure must meet a clearly defined objective of common interest, must be well designed to deliver said objective and must not affect competition and intra-EU trade to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Potrebo po vzdržnih zdravstvenih sistemih, zlasti v gospodarskem ozračju v Evropi v zadnjih letih, sta poudarila tudi Svet ministrov za zdravje decembra 2013 [27] in Letni pregled rasti za leto 2014 [28], v katerem je bila poudarjena potreba po izboljšanju finančne vzdržnosti zdravstvenih sistemov.
Well-defined objective of common interest
Zamrznitve cen, kot jih je uvedla Nemčija, so namenjene ohranjanju vzdržne ravni stroškov v javnem zdravstvenem sistemu za spodbujanje javnega zdravja.
Recital 3 of Directive 89/105 recognises the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost as the primary objective of price freezes.
Vendar zamrznitve cen povzročajo izkrivljanje prostega trga [29], zato so lahko v posebnih okoliščinah potrebna izvzetja, zlasti kadar bi bilo izkrivljanje zaradi zamrznitve cen tako, da uvedba zamrznitve cen že od vsega začetka ne bi bila izvedljiva.
The need for sustainable health systems, especially in the economic climate in Europe during the recent years, has also been stressed by the Council of Health Ministers in December 2013 [27] and the 2014 Annual Growth Survey [28], which emphasised the need to improve financial sustainability of healthcare systems.
V tem smislu člen 4(2) Direktive 89/105/EGS določa, da morajo ukrepi, ki so jih uvedle države članice za doseganje cilja skupnega interesa, tj. ohranjanja vzdržne ravni stroškov v javnem zdravstvenem sistemu, upoštevati to dejstvo in zagotavljati možnost izvzetij iz zamrznitve cen na podlagi določenih razlogov.