natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A decision of the Epitropi Antagonismou ordering interim measures required GSK to meet the orders of the three products in question pending adoption of a final decision.
Epitropi Antagonismou je v odločbi o začasnih ukrepih družbi GSK naložila, naj izpolnjuje naročila treh spornih proizvodov, dokler ne bo sprejeta dokončna odločba.
However, as it was unsure how national law should be interpreted in the light of Community law, the regulatory body charged with overseeing competition in the Greek market stayed the proceedings and referred certain questions relating to the interpretation of Article 82 EC to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, the reference being lodged at the Court’s Registry under the number C-53/03.
Vendar pa je regulativni organ za svobodno konkurenco na gr�kem trgu zaradi dvomov o razlagi nacionalnega prava glede na pravila Skupnosti ustavil postopke, ki so mu bili predloženi, in Sodi�ču predložil vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje v zvezi z razlago člena 82 ES, ki so bila v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča vpisana pod �tevilko C-53/03.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-468/06 TO C-478/06 and and of First Instance, Athens) on 30 April 930 October 2001, 10and 5 March 1111 November 2002.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-468/06 v Atenah); tožbe so vložile 30. aprila 2001 9in 30. oktobra 2001 10 ter 5. marca 2002 11in 11. novembra 2002 12.
12 of Justice on the questions referred to it by the Epitropi Antagonismou in Case C-53/03, has decided to stay the appeal proceedings and refer identical questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, namely: 13
v zgoraj navedeni zadevi C-53/03, prekinilo odločanje v pritožbenem postopku in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ista vpra�anja, namreč: 13
The appellants argued that GSK’s conduct in interrupting supplies and distributing through Farmacenter constituted acts of unfair competition and an abuse of the dominant position of GSK on the market for the three products in question.
Trdile so, da sta prekinitev dobav družbe GSK in trženje družbe Farmacenter dejanji nelojalne konkurence in pomenita zlorabo prevladujočega položaja družbe GSK na trgu zgoraj navedenih treh zdravil.
The appellants sought an order that the products continue to be supplied to them in the quantities corresponding to the monthly average supplied by GSK to them between 1 January and 31 October 2000, plus 20%, and compensation in respect of the damage caused and loss of profits.
Zahtevale so nadaljevanje oskrbe na podlagi povprečnih mesečnih količin, ki so jih kupovale od družbe GSK med 1. januarjem in 31. oktobrom 2000, povečanih za 20 %, ter nadomestilo za nastalo �kodo in izpad prihodka.
With the exception of the claim for loss of profits, which it held inadmissible, the Court of First Instance, Athens, gave judgment in these actions between January and October 2003, and dismissed them as unfounded, finding that the refusal to supply was justified and that consequently the accusation of abuse of GSK’s dominant position became void.
Sodi�če prve stopnje v Atenah je o teh zahtevah, razen o zahtevi za nadomestilo izgubljenega dobi�ča, ki jo je zavrglo, odločalo med januarjem in oktobrom 2003 ter jih zavrnilo kot neutemeljene, saj je menilo, da je bila zavrnitev oskrbe upravičena in da torej GSK ni zlorabila prevladujočega položaja.
Where the refusal of an undertaking holding a dominant position to meet fully the orders sent to it by pharmaceutical wholesalers is due to its intention to limit their export activity and, thereby, the harm caused to it by parallel trade, does the refusal constitute per se an abuse within the meaning of Article 82 EC?
Ali zavrnitev podjetja, ki ima prevladujoči položaj, da bi v celoti izpolnilo naročila trgovcev na debelo s farmacevtskimi proizvodi, sama po sebi pomeni zlorabo v smislu člena 82 ES, kadar je namen te zavrnitve omejiti dejavnosti izvoza navedenih trgovcev na debelo in s tem �kodo, ki jo povzroča vzporedna trgovina?
Is the answer to that question affected by the fact that the parallel trade is particularly profitable for the wholesalers because of the different prices, resulting from State intervention, in the Member States of the European Union, that is to say by the fact that pure conditions of competition do not prevail in the pharmaceuticals market, but a regime which is governed to a large extent by State intervention?
Ali na odgovor na to vpra�anje vpliva dejstvo, da razlike v ceni znotraj Evropske unije, ki so posledica intervencije države ali, drugače rečeno, podreditve trga farmacevtskih proizvodov sistemu, v katerem ni čiste konkurence, ker ga zaznamuje visoka stopnja državnega intervencionizma, povzročajo vzporedno trgovino, ki je �e posebej donosna za trgovce na debelo?
Is it ultimately the duty of a national court or tribunal to apply Community competition rules in the same way to markets which function competitively and those in which competition is distorted by State intervention?
Nazadnje, ali mora nacionalno sodi�če uporabiti Skupnostna pravila o konkurenci enako za trge, ki delujejo po sistemu konkurence, in trge, na katerih je konkurenca izkrivljena zaradi intervencije države?
The appellants in the national proceedings have appealed against these decisions to the Trimeles Efetio Athinon (Tripartite Court of Appeal, Athens), which, having waited in vain for the opinion of the Court
Tožeče stranke v nacionalnem postopku so se zoper te odločbe pritožile na Trimeles Efeteio Athinon (tripartitno pritožbeno sodi�če v Atenah), in to je po tem, ko je zaman čakalo odgovor Sodi�ča na vpra�anja, ki mu jih je postavila Epitropi Antagonismou
9 — Cases C-468/06, C-470/06, C-472/06, C-474/06, C-475/06, C-476/06 and C-478/06.
9 – Zadeve C-468/06, C-407/06, C-472/06, C-475/06, C-476/06 in C-478/06.
13 — The questions in Cases C-474/06 to C-478/06 are reproduced here, since the questions in the earlier cases (C-468/06 to C-473/06) mistakenly made reference to ‘a national competition authority’ rather than ‘a national court or tribunal’, probably because the questions referred to the Court of Justice by the Epitropi Antagonismou were transcribed literally, as the appellants explain in their observations in Cases C-469/06 to C-476/06.
13 – Prepisal bom vpra�anja, ki so bila postavljena v zadevah od C-474/06 do C-478/06, ker je bil v vpra�anjih predhodnih zadev (C-468/06 in C-473/06) napačno naveden „nacionalni organ na področju konkurence“ namesto „nacionalno sodi�če“, nedvomno zato, ker so bila vpra�anja, ki jih je Sodi�ču predložila Epitroipi Antagonismou, prepisana dobesedno, kot navajajo tožeče stranke v stali�čih, ki so jih predložile v zadevah od C-469/06 do C-476/06.
10 — Case C-473/06.11 — Case C-477/06.12 — Cases C-469/06 and C-471/06.
10 – Zadeva C-473/06.11 – Zadeva C-477/06.12 – Zadevi C-469/06 in C-471/06.
(b) is account to be taken, and to what extent, of the interests of social insurance bodies in cheaper medicinal products?
(b) Ali je treba upo�tevati interese organov socialne varnosti za cenej�a zdravila in koliko?
If the Court holds that limitation of parallel trade, for the reasons set out above, does not constitute an abusive practice in every case where it is engaged in by an undertaking holding a dominant position, how is possible abuse to be assessed? In particular:
Kako je treba presojati morebitno naravo zlorabe, če Sodi�če meni, da omejevanje vzporedne trgovine iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov ne pomeni vedno zlorabe, kadar ga izvaja prevladujoče podjetje?
What other criteria and approaches are considered appropriate in the present case?’
Katera druga merila in pristopi bi se lahko v tem primeru �teli za primerne?“
IV — Procedural steps before the Court of Justice
IV – Postopek pred Sodiščem
If so, how are the level of that percentage and the level of that loss determined (the latter as a percentage of turnover and total profits), above which the conduct in question may be abusive?
Če je odgovor pritrdilen, kako se določita odstotek prekoračitve in odstotek �kode – če je zadnji določen kot odstotek prometa in skupnega dobička – nad katerim bo zadevno ravnanje opredeljeno kot zloraba?
All the orders for reference were lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 21 November 2006.
Vsi sklepi o predložitvi vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje so bili v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča vpisani 21. novembra 2006.
Pursuant to Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the President, by an order of 29 January 2007, ordered the cases to be joined, on account of the objective connection between them.
Predsednik se je 29. januarja 2007 v skladu s členom 43 Poslovnika Sodi�ča odločil, da združi zadeve zaradi medsebojne povezanosti.
Is an approach entailing the balancing of interests appropriate, and, if so, what are the interests to be compared? In particular:
Ali je treba uporabiti uravnoteženje interesov in katerih interesov?
There is settled caselaw on the clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice in Article 234 EC proceedings, to the effect that the assessment of the facts of the case is a matter for the national court. 14
Obstaja ustaljena sodna praksa o jasni ločitvi funkcij med nacionalnimi sodnimi organi in Sodi�čem v postopkih na podlagi člena 234 ES, tako da mora dejanske okoli�čine presoditi nacionalno sodi�če.
As investigating the position of an undertaking in a particular market and defining the relevant market entail an examination of the facts, it must be left to the referring court and there can be no question of the Court of Justice giving its view on the matter.
Ker spada preučitev položaja podjetja na konkretnem trgu, natančneje na zadevnem trgu, na področje dejanskih okoli�čin, mora Sodi�če to preučitev prepustiti avtorju predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe in se ne izreči o tem vidiku.
I have already referred to the decision of the Greek Competition Commission of 1 September 2006, which found that GSK held a dominant position in respect of the medicinal product Lamictal, but not in respect of Imigran or Serevent. GSK,
Zgoraj sem navedel odločbo gr�ke komisije za varstvo konkurence z dne 1. septembra 2006, v kateri je odločila, da ima GSK prevladujoči položaj za zdravilo Lamictal, ne pa tudi za zdravili Imigran in
However, as an appeal is pending against the decision of the Epitropi Antagonismou in the Greek administrative courts, in order to address the concerns of the referring court, we will have to assume that GSK holds a dominant position.
Vendar pa je odločba Epitropi Antagonismou predmet tožbe pred upravnim sodi�čem v Grčiji in bi bilo torej treba izhajati iz hipoteze, da je GSK imela prevladujoči položaj, da bi odgovorili na vpra�anja predložitvenega sodi�ča.
I share the view of the parallel importers that it is appropriate to direct the debate towards the circumstances in which it arose, namely the supply by GSK of the medicinal products in question to these undertakings in the average monthly amounts supplied in the year 2000, plus 20%, as set out in the order for reference, for the following reasons: on the one hand, in Article 234 EC proceedings the facts are provided by the referring court and the Court of Justice should not interfere in this area; and, on the other hand, to depart from this factual framework would render the response less helpful.
Strinjam se z mnenjem vzporednih uvoznikov, da se je treba spora lotiti glede na okoli�čine, v katerih je nastal, to je dobava družbe GSK zadevnih zdravil tem podjetjem v povprečnih mesečnih količinah za leto 2000, povečanih za 20 %, kot izhaja iz predložitvene odločbe, glede na to, da po eni strani predložitveno sodi�če v postopkih, začetih na podlagi člena 234 ES, navaja dejanske okoli�čine, v katere se Sodi�če ne sme vme�avati, in da bi bil, po drugi strani, odgovor popolnoma nekoristen, če bi se oddaljili od tega dejanskega okvira.
(b) Meeting orders ‘in full’
b) Izpolnitev naročil „v celoti“
In its written observations, the appellant in the main proceedings Lelos kai Sia EE is critical of the way the first question is worded in that it uses the expression ‘to meet fully the orders’, which could cause confusion as it moves the debate from the context in which it arose to a more theoretical level on which the basis of any order sent to GSK, however exorbitant or excessive, would have to be assessed.
Tožeča družba v sporu o glavni stvari, Leleos kai Sia EE, v pisnih stali�čih kritizira formulacijo prvega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje zaradi uporabe izraza „v celoti izpolni naročila“, ki naj bi bil zavajajoč, ker razpravo prenese iz okvira, v katerem je nastala, na bolj teoretično raven, na kateri bi bilo treba presoditi utemeljenost vsakega naročila, poslanega družbi GSK, čeprav bi bilo to pretirano in čezmerno.
In the interests of a better understanding of this process, it would seem appropriate to look to the possibility, recognised in the caselaw, 15 of reformulating the questions put by the Trimeles Efetio Athinon, since the first question seeks to establish whether GSK’s refusal to supply, which is motivated by a desire to limit parallel trade, of itself constitutes an abuse of a dominant position when it is aimed exclusively at the elimination of its competitors in the wholesale distribution market.
Da bi bolje razumeli to zadevo, se zdi primerno uporabiti pristojnost, priznano v sodni praksi 15, za preoblikovanje vpra�anj Trimeles Efeteio Athinon, ker želi to s prvim vpra�anjem izvedeti, ali ustavitev oskrbe, ki jo je izvedla družba GSK in ki je utemeljena z namenom, da se omeji vzporedna trgovina, per se pomeni zlorabo prevladujočega položaja, če je ta nameravala izključno odstraniti svoje konkurente na trgu distribucije na debelo.
The other appellants also refer, albeit less emphatically, to the need to redefine the debate in its original terms, as it was presented in the Greek proceedings, given GSK’s tendency to take the complaints of the Greek wholesalers to extremes and to structure its argument as if it were a question of meeting any order, however excessive.
Druge tožeče stranke navajajo, čeprav manj zagrizeno, tudi potrebo, da se spor vrne v okvir, v katerem je nastal in kot se razvija v gr�kih postopkih, ker naj bi GSK pretiravala z naročili gr�kih trgovcev na debelo in svoje trditve oblikovala tako, kot da bi bilo treba upo�tevati katero koli naročilo, ne glede na njegovo pretiranost.
Before addressing the question of whether such conduct should be described as an abuse ‘in itself’ (per se), we must briefly look at how refusals to supply have been treated in Community caselaw and at the effect that a clear intention to block parallel trade has as an aggravating factor in the assessment of the conduct.
Preden preučimo, ali je to ravnanje treba označiti za zlorabo „samo po sebi“ (per se), je treba na kratko preučiti obravnavo zavrnitve oskrbe v sodni praksi Skupnosti in tudi vpliv očitnega namena, da se blokira vzporedna trgovina, kot oteževalne okoli�čine tega ravnanja.
Once some light has been shed on the question of whether or not there is an abuse, our analysis can go on to focus on whether it can be described as an abuse per se.
Ko bo neznanka v zvezi s prisotnostjo zlorabe pojasnjena, se lahko analiza osredotoči na njeno označitev per se.
However, the questions which follow relate to a series of circumstances which belong to the realm of possible justifications for the abuse, and consequently it would be more logical to transfer them to the second question, which asks about the correct criteria for assessing whether the conduct of GSK is excessive.
Vendar pa se vpra�anja, ki jih doda v nadaljevanju, nana�ajo na niz dejanskih elementov, ki spadajo na področje morebitnega upravičenja zlorabe, tako da bi bilo bolj logično, da se prenesejo v drugo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki se nana�a na primerna merila za presojo zlorabe v ravnanju družbe GSK.
Moreover, the written observations submitted in these preliminary ruling proceedings are inspired to a great extent by the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Syfait and Others, which also deals extensively with the grounds for justifying the abuse.
Poleg tega se pisna stali�ča, predložena v tem postopku za predhodno odločanje, pomembno opirajo na sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v zadevi Syfait, v katerih so prav tako ob�irno preučeni razlogi za oprostitev zlorabe.
Refusal to supply as an abuse
Zavrnitev oskrbe kot dejanje zlorabe
This approach to the questions also permits me to address a current doctrinal debate, namely whether there are practices which are of themselves abusive, and to take the analysis of possible justifications further.
Ta način obravnave vpra�anj omogoča tudi, da se izrečemo o dokaj aktualni doktrinalni razpravi, to je o obstoju zlorab per se, in poglobimo razmi�ljanja o njihovem morebitnem upravičenju.
(a) Community caselaw
a) Sodna praksa Skupnosti
B — Abuses per se of a dominant position under Article 82 EC (the first question)
B – Zloraba prevladujočega položaja per se v členu 82 ES (prvo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje)
The factual background to the few judgments of the Court on this subject mean that they are of doubtful relevance to this case, where the wholesalers of the three medicines in question are facing a refusal by their only supplier, which is the holder of the manufacturing patent and a long-standing competitor in the distribution of these medicines.
Redke sodbe Sodi�ča na tem področju so bile izdane v dejanskih okoli�činah, ki vzbujajo dvom o njihovi uporabi za ta primer, v katerem so se podjetja za trgovino na debelo s tremi zgoraj navedenimi zdravili srečala z zavrnitvijo edinega dobavitelja, družbe, imetnice patentov za izdelavo, ki je od nekdaj njihova konkurentka pri trženju teh izdelkov.
Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning a few of the most important decisions on Article 82 EC as they are of general application.
Vseeno pa je treba navesti nekatere najpomembnej�e sodbe v zvezi s členom 82 ES zaradi njihove splo�nosti.
In the main proceedings, GSK is accused of having suspended sales of Imigran, Lamictal and Serevent to the wholesalers on the basis of an alleged shortage; it is also criticised for continuing to supply these competitors but only in quantities tailored to the requirements of the Greek market in order to prevent re-export to other European countries, in particular to Germany and the United Kingdom.
V sporih o glavni stvari se družbi GSK očita, da je prekinila prodajo zdravil Imigram, Lamictal in Severent trgovcem na debelo, pri čemer se je sklicevala na domnevno pomanjkanje; očita se ji tudi, da je �e naprej oskrbovala svoje konkurente, vendar je količine prilagodila potrebam gr�kega trga, da bi preprečila ponoven izvoz proizvodov v druge evropske države, zlasti v Nemčijo in Združeno kraljestvo.
LÉLOS KAI SIA AND OTHERS having taken part in an advertising campaign for its competitor, Dole, was in breach of competition law.
LÉLOS KAI SIA IN DRUGI
In Commercial Solvents, 16Commercial Solvents stopped supplying aminobutanol to the Italian company Zoja, which manufactured ethambutol, a derivative of that raw material, in a market where the two undertakings were in competition with each other.
dobavo aminobutanola italijanski družbi Zoja, ki je izdelovala etambutanol, derivat te surovine, pri čemer sta si podjetji konkurirali na trgu.
The judgment held that the failure to meet orders was contrary to Article 82 EC because the dominant position enjoyed by Commercial Solvents in the manufacture of the substance, which allowed it to control the supply to manufacturers of derivatives, did not permit it to eliminate competition with its former customers simply because it had started to manufacture those derivatives itself. 17
Po mnenju Sodi�ča je ustavitev dobave v nasprotju s členom 82 ES, saj prevladujoči položaj, ki ga je imelo podjetje Commercial Solvents pri izdelavi te snovi in mu je omogočal nadzor oskrbe proizvajalcev derivatov, temu podjetju ni dovoljeval, da odpravi konkurenco svojih predhodnih strank samo zato, ker je samo začelo izdelovati te derivate. 17
On that occasion the Court held that an undertaking in a dominant position for the purpose of marketing a product cannot stop supplying a long-standing customer ‘who abides by regular commercial practice, if the orders placed by that customer are in no way out of the ordinary’. 19
Sodi�če je v zvezi s tem izjavilo, da podjetje, ki ima prevladujoč položaj za distribucijo proizvoda, ne more ustaviti dobave stalni stranki, „ki upo�teva poslovne običaje, če naročila te stranke nikakor niso neobičajna“. 19
There are clear parallels between Commercial Solvents and the present case, since GSK initially stopped supplying the Greek wholesalers with its products with the aim of reorganising sales of the three disputed products through its own exclusive distributor in the country; about three months later it resumed supplies but limited the quantities supplied to the demand on the Greek domestic market.
Obstajajo očitne vzporednice med sodbo Commercial Solvents in to zadevo, ker je GSK najprej prekinila dobavo svojih preparatov gr�kim trgovcem na debelo, da bi reorganizirala svojo prodajo treh spornih zdravil prek svojega izključnega distributerja v državi; po približno treh mesecih je znova začela dobavljati zdravila, vendar je količine omejila na povpra�evanje na nacionalnem trgu Helenske republike.
It is worth stressing the similarities between United Brands and the present case with regard to the dominant position of the undertaking and with regard to the competing wholesalers’ respect for commercial practice or compliance with contracts; on the other hand, in the present case the level of supplies claimed by the appellants before the Trimeles Efetio Athinon, and whether it should be treated as ordinary or excessive, raises different problems.
Poudariti je treba podobnosti zadeve United Brands z obravnavano zadevo, kar zadeva prevladujoči položaj podjetja in upo�tevanje poslovnih običajev – ali izvajanje pogodb – konkurenčnih trgovcev na debelo; nasprotno naj bi v sporih o glavni stvari raven oskrbe, ki so jo tožeče stranke zahtevale pred Trimeles Efeteio Athinon, povzročila drugačne težave glede na njeno označitev za običajno ali pretirano.
In United Brands this was not a matter of dispute and the Court therefore considered that Olesen’s requests were normal.
Ta zadnji vidik v sodbi United Brands ni bil obravnavan, Sodi�če pa je menilo, da so bila naročila podjetja Olesen običajna.
However, the right context for weighing up these matters is that of possible justifications for a refusal to meet all the orders of the parallel trading com -panies and consequently it is not appropriate to take this aspect any further.
Vendar pa način presoje te lastnosti vključuje preučitev mogočih upravičenj zavrnitve, da se v celoti izpolnijo naročila podjetij, ki poslujejo v vzporedni trgovini, tako da ni treba poglobiti tega vidika.
16 — Joined Cases 6/73 and 7/73 Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano and Commercial Solvents v Commission [1974] ECR 223 (‘Commercial Solvents’).
16 – Sodba z dne 6. marca 1974 (združeni zadevi 6/73 in 7/73, Recueil, str. 223).
17 — Commercial Solvents, paragraphs 25 and 26.
17 – Sodba Commercial Solvents, navedena v opombi 16, točki 25 in 26.
18 — Case 27/76 United Brands and United Brands Continentaal v Commission [1978] ECR 207 (‘United Brands’).
18 – Sodba z dne 14. februarja 1978 (27/76, Recueil, str. 207).
19 — United Brands, paragraph 182.
19 – Sodba United Brands, navedena v opombi 18, točka 182.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-468/06 TO C-478/06
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-468/06 b) Namernost kot oteževalna okoli�čina
Our point of departure is that it is an established rule of Community caselaw that the concept of ‘abuse’ in Article 82 EC is an objective concept linked to the activities of undertakings in a dominant position 24and, as such, is unaffected by any considerations relating to the intentions which prompted such behaviour.
Sodna praksa Skupnosti je najprej izhajala iz zamisli, da je pojem „zloraba“ iz člena 82 ES objektiven pojem, povezan z dejavnostmi podjetij, ki imajo prevladujoči položaj, 24in torej nanj ne more vpli- vati nobeno sklicevanje na razloge, zaradi katerih so podjetja ravnala tako.