natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Measures which restricted the freedom to provide services could, however, be justified on public policy grounds only if they were necessary for the protection of the interests which they were intended to guarantee and only in so far as those objectives could not be attained by less restrictive measures.
Možne težave pri določitvi predmetnega davka ne morejo upravičiti ovire prostega pretoka kapitala, kot je ovira, ki je posledica finskeureditve.
None the less, it stressed, the need for, and proportionality of, the provisions adopted could not be excluded merely because one Member State had chosen a system of protection different from that adopted by another State.
3.7 Pri pravilih o konkurenci priteguje pozornost devet zadev, med njimi štiri združene zadeve.
In other words, therefore, Germany could prohibit that which the United Kingdom authorised if it could be established that the measure imposing the prohibition was both necessary and proportionate, which, as the Court observed, was indeed the situation in the case under examination.
V združenih zadevah AOK-Bundesverband in drugi (sodba z dne 16. marca 2004, C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 in C-355-01, Recueil, str.
In the first place, the prohibition of the commercial exploitation of games involving the simulation of acts of violence against persons, in particular the representation of acts of homicide, corresponded to the level of protection of human dignity which the national constitution sought to guarantee within the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.
I-2493) sta Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf in Bundesgerichtshof v postopkih med združenjem zdravstvenih zavarovanj in farmacevtskimi družbami glede določitve najvišjih zneskov, ki jih zdravstvena zavarovanja prispevajo k stroškom zdravil in materiala za nego in ki jih je nemški zakonodajalec določil kot ukrep za odpravo primanjkljaja na področju obveznega zdravstvenega zavarovanja, na Sodišče naslovili več predhodnih vprašanj o razlagi členov 81, 82 in 86 Pogodbe ES.
Second, by prohibiting only the variant of the laser game the object of which was to fire on human targets, the contested order did not go beyond what was necessary in order to attain the objective pursued.
Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf in Bundesgerichtshof Sodišče po vsebini sprašujeta, ali je v nasprotju s pravili o konkurenci, določenimi s Pogodbo ES, če skupine zdravstvenih zavarovanj, kot je združenje zavarovanj, določijo najvišje zneske, ki jih prevzamejo zdravstvena zavarovanja in ki ustrezajo zgornji meji cene zdravil.
For those reasons, the Court concluded, that order could not be regarded as a measure unjustifiably undermining the freedom to provide services.
Bundesgerichtshof poleg tega sprašuje, ali v primeru pritrdilnega odgovora obstaja po eni strani pravica do odstranitve škodnega dejstva in po drugi strani do povračila škode, ki je nastala zaradi uporabe določenih najvišjih zneskov, ki se uporabljajo za navedene skupine.
In the area of the free movement of capital‚ mention should be made of Case C-319/02 Manninen (judgment of 7 September 2004, not yet published in the ECR),
Sodišče je štelo, da je tako tudi v primeru zdravstvenih zavarovanj, ki morajo, čeprav jim je zakonodajalec zato, da bi prispeval k dobremu poslovodenju, podelil določeno svobodo pri določanju prispevnih
Proceedings which concerned the Finnish legislation on the taxation of dividends.
Dejavnost stopenj, v skladu z zakonom svojim članom ponuditi v bistvenem enake obvezne storitve, ki so neodvisne od zneska prispevkov.
Under that legislation a person holding shares in a domestic company receives, in addition to the dividend, a tax credit in proportion to the corporation tax paid by the undertaking. The tax credit is offset against tax on the dividend, so that in practice the shareholder has no further tax to pay on his dividend.
Zato je v konkretnem primeru razsodilo, da morajo „pri določanju najvišjih zneskov združenja zavarovanj [morajo] zgolj izpolniti določeno nalogo upravljanja z zakonom določenega nemškega sistema socialne varnosti in ne delujejo kot podjetja, ki opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost“ (točka 64).
By contrast, the right to benefit from a tax credit is excluded in the case where the company is established in another Member State.
Za navedene ukrepe se torej ne uporabljata člena 81 in 82.
That derogation, the Court pointed out, had to be interpreted strictly and was itself limited by Article 58(3) EC, which is directed at arbitrary discrimination and disguised restrictions.
V postopku za sprejem predhodne odločbe v zadevi IMS Health (sodba z dne 29. aprila 2004, C-418/01, Recueil, str.
In order for a difference in treatment to be capable of being classified as unequal treatment which is permitted under Article 58(1) EC rather than as arbitrary discrimination which is prohibited by Article 58(3) EC, that difference in treatment must also concern situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest, such as the need to safeguard the cohesion of the tax system. In addition, it must comply with the principle of proportionality.
I-5039) je Landgericht Frankfurt am Main v okviru spora med družbama, specializiranima za tržne raziskave v sektorju farmacevtskih proizvodov in proizvodov za nego zdravja, v zvezi z zahtevo prve, da bi lahko za dajanje podatkov o regionalni prodaji farmacevtskih proizvodov v Nemčiji uporabljala modularno strukturo, ki jo je razvila druga, na Sodišče naslovilo predhodno vprašanje o razlagi člena 82 Pogodbe.
The Court began by discounting the argument that the situations were not comparable. In view of the purpose of the Finnish tax legislation, namely to prevent double taxation – corporation tax and income tax – of the profits distributed by the company in which the investment is made, shareholders who are fully taxable in Finland find themselves in a comparable situation, whether they receive dividends from a national company or from a company established in another Member State inasmuch as, in the two cases, the dividends are, apart from the tax credit, liable to be subjected to double taxation.
Ker je Landgericht Frankfurt am Main menilo, da določeno podjetje ne more uveljaviti svoje pravice s prepovedjo katere koli nezakonite uporabe svojega dela, če ravna tako, da pravico zlorablja, v smislu člena 82 Pogodbe ES, tako da drugemu podjetju noče podeliti licence pod razumnimi pogoji, je na Sodišče naslovil tri vprašanja v zvezi z razlago navedene določbe Pogodbe.
The judgment in Manninen provided the Court with a fresh opportunity to point out that, for an argument based on such justification to succeed, a direct link had to be established between the tax advantage concerned and the offsetting of that advantage by a particular tax deduction.
Štiri druge zadeve, ki so vredne omembe v zvezi s pravili konkurence, se nanašajo na državne pomoči.
In this case, the legislation was designed to prevent double taxation; while there was indeed a link between the tax advantage (tax credit) and the offsetting tax deduction (corporation tax paid by the company established
I-3679) se je Sodišče izreklo o tožbi Italijanske republike za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije 98/182/ES z dne 30. julija 1997 v delu, v katerem je štela, da so bile pomoči, ki jih je
Court of Justice in Finland), that legislation was not necessary in order to preserve the cohesion of the tax system.
Sodišče dežela Furlanija – Julijska krajina med letoma 1981 in 1995 dodelila cestnim prevozniškim podjetjem iz navedene dežele, delno nezdružljive s skupnim trgom, in v delu, v katerem je določila delno povračilo.
Granting to a shareholder in a company established in another Member State a tax credit calculated by reference to the corporation tax paid by that company in that Member State would, the Court held, constitute a less restrictive measure while at the same time not threatening the cohesion of the tax system.
Dežela Furlanija – Julijska krajina je dejansko postopoma sprejela dva, v bistvenem enaka, zakona, kjer je eden nadomestil drugega, o intervencijah za pospeševanje in razvoj prevozov, zanimivih tako za deželo kot tudi za cestni prevoz blaga za račun tretjih.
It was in those circumstances appropriate, the Court went on, to take account, in the calculation of the tax credit to be granted to a shareholder who had received dividends from a company established in another Member State, of the tax actually paid by that company in that other Member State.
Odločba Komisije je pri presoji sporne ureditve pomoči s stališča člena 87(1) ES razlikovala, prvič, med pomočmi, dodeljenimi podjetjem, ki se ukvarjajo z mednarodnim prevozom, in, drugič, pomočmi, dodeljenimi podjetjem, ki se ukvarjajo izključno z lokalnim prevozom, regionalnim ali nacionalnim, in v primeru slednjih, če so bile pomoči dodeljene pred vključno 1. julijem 1990, to je pred datumom, ko je začela veljati Uredba št. 4059/89, ki je nacionalni trg odprla za konkurenco Skupnosti.
Possible difficulties in determining the tax actually paid could not, in that regard, justify an obstacle to the free movement of capital such as that which arose from the Finnish legislation.
Ker je v tem času zaradi tožb določenih podjetij, upravičenih do pomoči, izpodbijano odločbo delno razglasilo za nično že Sodišče prve stopnje (sodba z dne 15. junija 2000, Alzetta in drugi proti Komisiji, T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, od T-600/97 do T-607/97, T-1/98, od T-3/98 do T-6/98 in T-23/98, Recueil, str.
In Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355-01 AOK Bundesverband and Others [2004] ECR I-2493 , several questions on the interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC were referred to the Court for preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf) and the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) in disputes between associations of sickness and health insurance funds and pharmaceutical companies concerning the fixed maximum amounts payable by sickness funds towards the cost of medicinal products and treatment materials which had been established by the German legislature with a view to addressing the deficit in the statutory health insurance scheme.
Italijanska republika je navedla več razlogov, s katerimi je hotela zmanjšati pomembnost tako dodeljenih pomoči, bodisi glede neznatnosti njihovega zneska ali predvsem regionalnega značaja dejavnosti upravičencev do pomoči, iz katere je sklepala o njihovem neznatnem vplivu na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti in na konkurenco, da bi dokazala, da niso predmet prepovedi, uzakonjene v členu 87(1) ES.
The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf and the Bundesgerichtshof essentially asked the Court whether the competition rules laid down by the EC Treaty precluded groups of sickness funds, such as the fund associations, from determining fixed maximum amounts corresponding to the upper limit of the price of medicinal products whose cost is borne by sickness funds.
Sodišče jih je vse zavrnilo, pri tem pa potrdilo določeno število načel, ki izhajajo iz njegove sodne prakse.
The Bundesgerichtshof also asked whether, if that question was to be answered in the affirmative, there was a right against those groups to an injunction remedying the situation and to compensation for the loss suffered by reason of the introduction of the fixed maximum amounts.
Medtem ko je Italijanska republika zatrjevala, da Komisija ni dokazala obstoja resnične in konkretne grožnje za izkrivljanje konkurence, je Sodišče opozorilo, da v primeru, ko država članica dodeli določeno državno pomoč, ne da bi o tem med načrtovanjem obvestila Komisijo, v odločbi, v kateri se ugotovi nezdružljivost navedene pomoči s skupnim trgom, ni treba obrazložiti resničnega učinka navedene pomoči na konkurenco ali na trgovino med državami članicami.
The Court adopted the solution set out in its ‘Poucet and Pistre’ case-law, to the effect that the concept of an undertaking, within the context of Community competition law, does not cover bodies entrusted with the management of statutory health insurance and old-age insurance schemes which pursue an exclusively social objective and do not engage in economic activity.
Prav tako je Sodišče znova potrdilo, da sorazmerno majhen pomen, ki ga ima pomoč, oziroma sorazmerno skromna velikost upravičenega podjetja vnaprej ne izključujeta možnosti, da je prizadeta trgovina med državami članicami.
The Court took the view in Poucet and Pistre that this was the position with regard to sickness funds, which, even though the legislature had given them a degree of latitude in setting contribution rates in order to promote sound management, were compelled by law to offer to their members essentially identical obligatory benefits which do not depend on the amount of the contributions.
V istem smislu je Sodišče poleg tega poudarilo, da pogoj za uporabo člena 87(1) ES, v skladu s katerim mora biti pomoč take narave, da prizadene trgovino med državami članicami, ni odvisen od tega, ali so opravljene prevozne storitve lokalne ali regionalne, oziroma od obsega področja zadevne dejavnosti.
The Court accordingly ruled in the present cases that ‘in determining the fixed maximum amounts, the fund associations merely perform a task for management of the German social security system which is imposed upon them by legislation and they do not act as undertakings engaging in economic activity’ (paragraph 64).
Sodišče je v preostalem ponovno presodilo, da okoliščina, da bi določena država članica želela z enostranskimi ukrepi približati pogoje konkurence, ki obstajajo v določeni gospodarski dejavnosti, pogojem, ki prevladujejo v drugih državah članicah, tem ukrepom ne more odvzeti značilnosti državnih pomoči.
In Case C-418/01 IMS Health [2004] ECR I-5039, the questions put to the Court in a preliminary reference by the Landgericht (Regional Court) Frankfurt am Main (Germany) concerned the interpretation of Article 82 EC in the context of a dispute between two companies specialising in market studies in the pharmaceutical products and health care sectors centring on the claim by one of them that it was entitled to use a brick structure developed by the other for the provision of data on regional sales of pharmaceutical products in Germany.
Dejavnost bi se morala Komisija tudi v določenih primerih, ko je mogoče že na podlagi okoliščin, v katerih je bila dodeljena državna pomoč, sklepati, da lahko prizadene trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja, ali bi lahko izkrivljala, konkurenco, v obrazložitvi svoje odločbe sklicevati najmanj na te okoliščine.
As it took the view that one company could not exercise its right to obtain an injunction prohibiting all unlawful use of its work if it acted in an abusive manner, within the meaning of Article 82 EC, by refusing to grant a licence to another company on reasonable terms, the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main accordingly referred to the Court three questions on the interpretation of that Treaty provision.
Sodišče opozarja, da je pri presoji vplivov pomoči na konkurenco in na trgovino med državami članicami Komisija zavezana tudi tehtanju ugodnih učinkov pomoči in njenih negativnih učinkov na pogoje trgovanja in na ohranitev neizkrivljene konkurence, sodna presoja, ki se uporablja za izvrševanje tega pooblastila za odločanje po prostem preudarku, pa je omejena na nadzor, ali so bili spoštovani pravila postopka in dolžnost obrazložitve, kot tudi na nadzor vsebinske pravilnosti upoštevanih dejstev in da ni bilo pravnih napak, očitne napake pri presoji dejstev oziroma zlorabe oblasti.
The Court first took the view that ‘for the purposes of examining whether the refusal by an undertaking in a dominant position to grant a licence for a brick structure protected by an intellectual property right which it owns is abusive, the degree of participation by users in the development of that structure and the outlay, particularly in terms of cost, on the part of potential users in order to purchase studies on regional sales of pharmaceutical products presented on the basis of an alternative structure are factors which must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the protected structure is indispensable to the marketing of studies of that kind’ (paragraph 30).
Italijanska republika je prav tako navedla, da bi glede na neznaten vpliv spornih pomoči na položaj upravičenih podjetij njihovo povračilo kršilo načelo sorazmernosti. Sodišče je še enkrat presodilo, da povračila nezakonito dodeljene državne pomoči načeloma ne gre šteti za nesorazmeren ukrep glede na namen pogodbenih določil na področju državnih pomoči za kršitev pooblastila za odločanje po prostem preudarku, ki ga ima Komisija, saj se s takim ukrepom zgolj vzpostavi prejšnje stanje.
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).
V odgovoru na zadnjo navedbo Italijanske republike je Sodišče na koncu potrdilo, da se v primeru, če se lahko prejemnik nezakonite državne pomoči sklicuje na izjemne okoliščine, na katerih je lahko legitimno utemeljil svoje zaupanje v pravilnost navedene pomoči, in se tako posledično upre vračilu, država članica, katere organi so dodelili pomoč s kršitvijo pravil postopka, določenih v členu 88 ES, v izogib dolžnosti sprejetja potrebnih ukrepov za izvršitev odločbe Komisije, s katero ji je bila naložena izterjava pomoči, na to legitimno pričakovanje ne more sklicevati. Sodišče je tako tožbo Italijanske republike v delu, v katerem ni postala brezpredmetna, delno zavrnilo.
The other four cases which deserve mention in regard to the rules on competition concern State aid.
Druga zadeva, Italija proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 29. aprila 2004, C-298/00 P, Recueil, str.
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. 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.
Sodišče je najprej zavrnilo stransko pritožbo Komisije, saj je štelo, da zadevna odločba določenega podjetja, kot so v tem primeru tožeče stranke na prvi stopnji, ne zadeva morebitnega upravičenca do pomoči na podlagi sporne ureditve zgolj kot podjetja predmetnega sektorja, pač pa tudi kot dejanskega upravičenca do posamezne pomoči, dodeljene na podlagi te ureditve, katere vračilo je zahtevala Komisija, ki je zato v drugačnem položaju kot prosilci, za katere ima odločba Komisije naravo ukrepa splošnega pomena.
Those laws provided for three measures in favour of undertakings operating in that sector and established in the Region: these consisted
Vsebinsko je moralo Sodišče odločiti predvsem o vprašanju, koliko so sporne pomoči lahko vplivale na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti in na konkurenco. Poleg tega je moralo
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.
Glede prvega vprašanja Sodišče opozarja, da je „v okviru presoje novih pomoči, o katerih jo je treba obvestiti na podlagi […] člena 88(3) ES, preden se začnejo izvajati, Komisija dolžna ugotoviti, ali bi zadevne pomoči lahko prizadele trgovino, ne pa tega, ali zadevne pomoči resnično prizadevajo trgovino med državami članicami in konkurenco“, in poudarja, da bi v primeru, če „bi morala Komisija v svoji odločbi dokazovati resnični učinek že dodeljenih pomoči, to vodilo do ugodnejšega obravnavanja držav članic, ki so plačale pomoči s kršitvijo dolžnosti obveščanja iz člena [88](3) [ES] na škodo tistih, ki o načrtih za dodelitev pomoči obvestijo Komisijo“.
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.
Sodišče je ob tem še enkrat presodilo, da „relativno majhen pomen, ki ga ima pomoč, oziroma relativno skromna velikost upravičenega podjetja vnaprej ne izključujeta možnosti, da bi bila prizadeta trgovina med državami članicami“ in da „pomoč relativno majhnega pomena lahko prizadene konkurenco in trgovino med državami članicami, kjer sektor, katerega del so podjetja, ki so upravičena do pomoči, pozna učinkovito konkurenco“ (točka 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.
Nazadnje je Sodišče potrdilo svoje stališče, po katerem „okoliščina, da bi določena država članica želela z enostranskimi ukrepi približati pogoje konkurence, ki obstajajo v določeni gospodarski dejavnosti, pogojem, ki prevladujejo v drugih državah članicah, tem ukrepom ne more odvzeti značilnosti državnih pomoči“ (točka 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.
O drugem delu pritožbe je Sodišče po eni strani opozorilo, da je odpoved nezakonite pomoči na način povračila logični nasledek ugotovitve, da je nezakonita, zato „povračila nezakonito dodeljene državne pomoči z namenom vzpostavitve prejšnjega stanja načeloma ne gre šteti za nesorazmeren ukrep glede na namen pogodbenih določil s področja državnih pomoči“ (točka 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.
Po drugi strani je Sodišče v konkretnem primeru odklonilo uporabo rešitve, ki jo je sprejelo v svoji sodbi RSV proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 24. novembra 1987, 223/85, Recueil, str.
The Court rejected all of those submissions, reaffirming a number of principles derived from its case-law.
Pravzaprav je Sodišče štelo, da pogoji, ki so upravičevali tako rešitev v zgoraj navedenem primeru, niso izpolnjeni.