natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Although such a company, in a Member State where prices are relatively low, cannot be allowed to cease to honour the ordinary orders of an existing customer for the sole reason that that customer, in addition to supplying the market in that Member State, exports part of the quantities ordered to other Member States with higher prices, it is none the less permissible for that company to counter in a reasonable and proportionate way the threat to its own commercial interests potentially posed by the activities of an undertaking which wishes to be supplied in the first Member State with significant quantities of products that are essentially destined for parallel export.
Čeprav takemu podjetju s prevladujočim položajem v državi članici, v kateri so cene sorazmerno nizke, ni dovoljeno, da preneha izpolnjevati običajna naročila stalne stranke iz edinega razloga, da ta stranka poleg oskrbovanja trga navedene države članice izvaža določene naročene količine v druge države članice z vi�jimi cenami, pa je vendarle dovoljeno, da se to podjetje razumno in sorazmerno zoperstavi grožnji za njegove lastne interese, ki jo pomenijo dejavnosti podjetja, ki želi biti oskrbovano v prvi državi članici z znatnimi količinami proizvodov, ki so v bistvu namenjeni vzporednemu izvozu.
It cannot be ignored that, in Member States with a system of price regulation in the pharmaceuticals sector, such State intervention is one of the factors liable to create opportunities for parallel trade.
Ni mogoče spregledati, da je v primeru držav članic s sistemom ureditve cen v sektorju farmacevtskih proizvodov to državno posredovanje dejavnik, ki lahko ustvari priložnosti za vzporedno trgovino.
Furthermore, in the light of the Treaty objectives to protect consumers by means of undistorted competition and the integration of national markets, the rules on competition are incapable of being interpreted in such a way that, in order to defend its own commercial interests, the only choice left for a pharmaceuticals company in a dominant position is not to place its medicines on the market at all in a Member State where the prices of those products are set at a relatively low level.
Dalje, pravil Skupnosti o konkurenci z vidika ciljev Pogodbe glede varstva potro�nika z neizkrivljeno konkurenco ter s povezovanjem nacionalnih trgov niti ni mogoče razlagati tako, da je za namene varstva lastnih trgovskih interesov edina možnost farmacevtskega podjetja s prevladujočim položajem, da svojih zdravil sploh ne da na trg v državi članici, kjer so cene teh proizvodov določene sorazmerno nizko.
Article 82 EC must therefore be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking occupying a dominant position on the relevant market for medicinal products which, in order to put a stop to parallel exports carried out by certain wholesalers from one Member State to other Member States, refuses to meet ordinary orders from those wholesalers, is abusing its dominant position.
Člen 82 ES je treba torej razlagati tako, da podjetje, ki ima prevladujoči položaj na zadevnem trgu zdravil in ki – da bi preprečilo vzporedni izvoz, ki ga opravljajo nekateri trgovci na debelo iz ene države članice v druge države članice – zavrne izpolnitev običajnih naročil teh trgovcev na debelo, zlorablja svoj prevladujoči položaj.
It is for the national court to ascertain whether the orders are ordinary in the light of both the size of those orders in relation to the requirements of the market in the first Member State and the previous business relations between that undertaking and the wholesalers concerned.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora odločiti o običajnosti teh naročil glede na njihov obseg v razmerju do potreb na trgu navedene države članice in glede na obstoječa trgovska razmerja med tem podjetjem in zadevnimi trgovci na debelo.
(see paras 67-71, 73, 77, operative part)
(Glej točke od 67 do 71, 73, 77 in izrek.)
II — The legislative framework .....................................................
II — Pravni okvir .................................................................
A — Community law ........................................................
A — Pravo Skupnosti ........................................................
B — National legislation .....................................................
B — Nacionalna zakonodaja ..................................................
III — The facts in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling ..
III — Dejanske okoli�čine spora o glavni stvari in vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje ......
IV — Procedural steps before the Court of Justice .....................................
IV — Postopek pred Sodi�čem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V — Analysis of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling ........................
V — Analiza vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje .......................................
Objections to the formulation of the questions ..........................
Ugovori zoper oblikovanje vpra�anj ....................................
I - 7152
I - 7152 a) Prevladujoči položaj ...............................................
I - 7152
I - 7152 b) Izpolnitev naročil „v celoti“ ........................................
Approach ..........................................................
Pristop .............................................................
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 vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje) .......................................................
Refusal to supply as an abuse .........................................
Zavrnitev oskrbe kot dejanje zlorabe ...................................
I - 7154
I - 7154 a) Sodna praksa Skupnosti ...........................................
I - 7154
I - 7154 b) Namernost kot oteževalna okoli�čina ................................
LÉLOS KAI SIA AND OTHERS
LÉLOS KAI SIA IN DRUGI
Recognition of abuses per se in the context of Article 82: a problem of methodology ............................................................
Priznanje zlorabe per se na podlagi člena 82 ES: metodolo�ki problem .....
I - 7158
I - 7158 a) Sodna praksa Sodi�ča .............................................
(b) Abuses per se unsuited to Article 82 EC .............................
I - 7158 b) Neustreznost člena 82 ES za zlorabe per se ...........................
I - 7159
I - 7159 i) Razlogi pravne narave ..........................................
I - 7159
I - 7159 ii) Razlogi gospodarske narave .....................................
Proposed answer to the first question ..................................
Predlog odgovora na prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje .............
C — Justifications for conduct normally considered abusive (the second question) ...
C — Elementi, ki bi lahko upravičili ravnanje, ki običajno velja za zlorabo (drugo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje) .......................................
Market imperfections ................................................
Razmere nepopolnega trga ............................................
I - 7163
I - 7163 a) Temeljne značilnosti trga ..........................................
I - 7163
I - 7163 b) Preučitev razlogov za upravičenje ...................................
I - 7164
I - 7164 i) Določitev cen s strani držav članic ...............................
Protection of legitimate business interests ..............................
Obramba zakonitih poslovnih interesov ................................
I - 7167
I - 7167 a) Preučitev na podlagi sodne prakse ..................................
Net positive economic effect ..........................................
Pozitivna gospodarska bilanca .........................................
Proposed answer to the second question ...............................
Predlog odgovora na drugo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje ............
I — Introduction sible a couple of years ago 2 have now come back to it.
I – Uvod že pred nekaj leti zavrglo kot nedopustna.
A Greek court, the Trimeles Efetio Athinon (Court of Appeal, Athens), is seeking a reply to some fundamental ques-
2Gr�ko sodi�če Trimeles Efeteio Athinon
Like a boomerang, questions referred to the Court of Justice and ruled inadmis -
Sodi�ču se kot bumerang znova vračajo vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki jih je
2 — Case C-53/03 Syfait and Others [2005] ECR I-4609.
2 – Sodba z dne 31. maja 2005 v zadevi Syfait (C-53/03, ZOdl., str. I-4609).
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-468/06 TO C-478/06 any of the resentment which seems to have driven Avellaneda’s plagiarism.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-468/06 veri ter brez trohice zamere, ki je, tako kaže, navdihnila plagiat Avellanede 4.
4 tions of Community competition law relating to abuse of a dominant position, which is prohibited by Article 82 EC, and parallel imports of medicinal products from the Hellenic Republic to other Member States, where the reimbursement of the price paid for medicinal products dispensed under prescription is appreciably higher than that in Greece.
konkurenčnega prava Skupnosti, povezana z zlorabo prevladujočega položaja, ki je prepovedana s členom 82 ES, in vzpored - nim uvozom zdravil iz Helenske republike v druge države članice, v katerih je povračilo cen, plačanih za zdravila, izdana na zdravni�ki recept, bistveno vi�je kot v Grčiji.
II — The legislative framework
II – Pravni okvir
The reason for the dismissal of the reference did not preclude the Advocate General appointed on that occasion preparing an Opinion, 3to which the parties in the proceedings before the referring court make extensive reference, almost to the point of turning it into the main focus of the debate.
Razlog za zavrženje predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe ni oviral takrat pristojnega generalnega pravobranilca pri pripravi sklepnih predlogov 3, na katere se stranke v sporu, ki teče pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, sklicujejo tako ob�irno, da te postanejo skoraj osrednja tema razprave.
The EC Treaty contains two rules of competition law which are fundamental to the operation of the common market.
Pogodba ES vsebuje določbe s področja konkurence, ki so temeljne za delovanje skupnega trga.
While Article 81 EC prohibits collusion between rival companies, the first paragraph of Article 82 EC prohibits any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or a substantial part of it.
Medtem ko so v členu 81 ES prepovedani sporazumi med konkurenčnimi podjetji, je v prvem odstavku člena 82 ES prepovedana zloraba prevladujočega položaja enega ali več podjetij na skupnem trgu ali njegovem znatnem delu.
The second paragraph sets out a non-exhaustive list of typical examples of such arbitrary conduct.
V njegovem drugem odstavku so na�teti samo nekateri značilni primeri teh samovoljnih ravnanj.
4 — Writing under the pseudonym Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda, who was probably a little known priest named Alonso Fernández Zapata, in 1614 he published the ‘Segundo tomo del ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha’ (‘Second book of the ingenious knight Don Quixote of La Mancha’), understandably provoking the wrath of Cervantes who, in the real sequel to his tale, attacked the clumsy imitation.
4 – Pod psevdonimom Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda je verjetno neznani duhovnik z imenom Alonso Fernández Zapata leta 1614 objavil „Segundo tomo del ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha“, s čimer je sprožil razumljivo jezo Cervantesa, ki je pri pisanju avtentičnega nadaljevanja svoje zgodbe vključil napade zoper to robato posnemanje. Literarna kakovost nezakonito prila�čene različice je bila daleč od različice, ki jo je hotela posnemati, tako da jo je Fernando García Salinero v „Introducción crítica sobre la obra y su autor“ v Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda, El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha, založba Castalia, Madrid, 2005, str.
24, to describe it as ‘a mockery of a book without the ingenuities of the picaresque, perhaps born out of personal spite’.
24, označil za „knjigo neumnosti brez domiselnosti pikaresknega dela, katere stvaritev gre nedvomno pripisati osebni mržnji“.
Article 2(1) and (2) provides that:
V členu 2(1) in (2) je določeno:
‘The following provisions shall apply if the marketing of a medicinal product is permitted only after the competent authorities of the Member State concerned have approved the price of the product: which provides that:
Čeprav ratione temporis ne vpliva na dejanske okoli�čine, ki jih preučuje predložitveno sodi�če, je treba ob upo�tevanju morebitnih posledic pro futuro sodbe, ki jo izreče Sodi�če, navesti drugi odstavek člena 81 Direktive 2001/83/ES 6, s katero je bila razveljavljena Direktiva 92/25/EGS 7, v katerem je določeno:
‘The holder of a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product and the distributors of the said medicinal product actually placed on the market in a Member State shall, within the limits of their responsibilities, ensure appropriate and continued supplies of that medicinal product to pharmacies and persons authorised to supply medicinal products so that the needs of patients in the Member State in question are covered.’
„Imetnik dovoljenja za promet z zdravilom in distributerji omenjenega zdravila, ki je dejansko na trgu v državi članici, v okviru svojih pristojnosti zagotovijo ustrezno in neprekinjeno dobavo tega zdravila farmacevtom in osebam, ki imajo dovoljenje za prodajo zdravil, tako da so pokrite potrebe bolnikov v zadevni državi članici.“
The third paragraph of Article 81 makes it clear that the measures put in place for
V tretjem odstavku člena 81 se vztraja, da morajo biti načini izvajanja tega člena
Member States shall ensure that a decision on the price which may be charged for the medicinal product concerned is adopted and communicated to the applicant within 90 days of the receipt of an application submitted, in accordance with the requirements laid down in the Member State concerned, by the holder of a marketing authorisation.
Države članice zagotovijo, da se odločitev o ceni, ki jo je mogoče zaračunati za zadevno zdravilo, sprejme in sporoči predlagatelju v 90 dneh od prejema vloge, ki jo je predložil imetnik odobritve za trženje, v skladu z zahtevami, določenimi v zadevni državi članici.
The applicant shall furnish the competent authorities with adequate information. … the competent authorities shall … take their final decision within 90 days … In the absence of such a decision within the abovementioned period or periods, the applicant shall be entitled to market the product at the price proposed.
Predlagatelj pristojnim organom zagotovi ustrezne podatke. […] [P]ristojni organi […] sprejmejo končno odločitev v 90 dneh […] Če se tak�na odločitev ne sprejme v zgoraj navedenem obdobju ali obdobjih, je predlagatelj upravičen do trženja izdelka po predlagani ceni.
6 — Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p.
6 – Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 6. novembra 2001 o zakoniku Skupnosti o zdravilih za uporabo v humani medicini (UL L 311, str.
67), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34).
67), kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2004/27/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 (UL L 136, str. 34).
5 — Council directive of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8).
5 – Direktiva Sveta z dne 21. decembra 1998 v zvezi s pregled -nostjo ukrepov, ki urejajo določanje cen zdravil za člove�ko uporabo in njihovo vključitev v področje nacionalnih sistemov zdravstvenega zavarovanja (UL L 40, str. 8).
III — The facts in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a prelim -inary ruling implementing this article must be justified on grounds of public health protection and be proportionate to the objective of such protection, ‘in compliance with the Treaty rules, particularly those concerning the free movement of goods and competition’.
III – Dejanske okoliščine spora o glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje utemeljeni z varovanjem javnega zdravja, v sorazmerju s ciljem takega varovanja „in v skladu z določbami Pogodbe, zlasti z določbami glede prostega pretoka blaga in konkurence“.
GlaxoSmithKline plc, a pharmaceutical research and manufacturing company established in the United Kingdom, distributes and warehouses its products in Greece through its subsidiary GSK AEVE (hereinafter col -lectively referred to as ‘GSK’), which holds the parent company’s marketing author -isation for the products in Greece.
Družba za raziskave in izdelavo farmacevtskih proizvodov GlaxoSmithKline plc s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu se ukvarja z distribucijo in skladi�čenjem svojih preparatov v Grčiji prek svoje podružnice GSK AEVE (v nadaljevanju obe družbi skupaj: GSK), ki ima dovoljenje matične družbe za njihovo trženje na gr�kem ozemlju.
GSK AEVE therefore distributes goods bearing the trade marks Imigran, for migraine, Lamictal, for epilepsy, and Serevent, for asthma, which are all prescription medicines for which GSK holds the patent.
Svoje proizvode tako prodaja pod znamkami Imigran za migreno, Lamictal za epilepsijo in Serevent za astmo, vsi pa se izdajajo samo na podlagi zdravni�kega recepta, pri čemer je GSK imetnica patentov.
Article 2 of Law No 703/1977 on the control of monopolies and oligopolies and the protection of free competition (‘Greek Law on competition’) essentially corresponds to Article 82 EC.
Člen 2 zakona �t. 703/1977 o nadzoru monopolov in oligopolov ter varstvu svobodne konkurence (v nadaljevanju: gr�ki zakon o varstvu konkurence) se v bistvu ujema z določbami člena 82 ES.
The appellants in the main proceedings had for a number of years acquired these medicines in various forms as intermediary wholesalers in order to supply them both to the Greek and to other markets, particularly Germany and the United Kingdom.
Tožeče stranke v sporih o glavni stvari so več let kot trgovci na debelo kupovale zgoraj navedena zdravila v različnih oblikah in nato z njimi oskrbovale hkrati gr�ki trg in trg v drugih državah, zlasti v Nemčiji in Združenem kraljestvu.
Under the second paragraph of Article 29 of Law No 1316/1983, amending Article 8 of Legislative Decree 96/1973, holders of an authorisation to market medicines are required to supply the market regularly with the goods which they manufacture or import.
Na podlagi člena 29(2) zakona �t. 1316/1983, s katerim je bil spremenjen člen 8 zakonodajnega odloka 96/1973, je obveznost vsakega imetnika dovoljenja za dajanje farmacevtskih proizvodov v promet, da redno oskrbuje trg z zdravili, ki jih proizvaja ali uvaža.
Citing a shortage of the three medicinal products referred to above, for which it declined to take any responsibility, GSK changed its system of distribution in Greece at the end of October 2000.
GSK, ki se je sklicevala na pomanjkanje zgoraj navedenih treh zdravil, za katero je zavrnila vsakr�no odgovornost, je konec oktobra 2000 spremenila svoj distribucijski sistem v Grčiji.
It stopped meeting the appellants’ orders from 6 November of that year and supplied the products to hospitals and pharmacies through the company Farmacenter AE.
Od 6. novembra 2000 ni izpolnjevala naročil tožečih strank, ampak je bolni�nice in lekarne oskrbovala prek družbe Farmacenter AE.
When, in February 2001, GSK reinstated normal supplies it resumed supplying Imigran, Lamictal and Serevent to the wholesalers, albeit to a limited extent, but ended its involvement with Farmacenter AE.
Februarja 2001 je GSK znova privzela svoj običajni način oskrbe, tako da je trgovcem na debelo dobavljala, čeprav v omejenih količinah, zdravila Imigran, Lamictal in Serevent, vendar pa je opustila sodelovanje z družbo Farmacenter AE.
This conduct on the part of GSK angered the appellants and resulted in their bringing two types of legal action: an administrative action and a civil action.
Ta odločitev družbe GSK je ujezila tožeče stranke, ki so vložile dve tožbi, upravno in civilno.
The Court’s judgment did not address the substance of the dispute because it found that the Court had no jurisdiction to answer questions referred by a body which is not a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC, 8but the Epitropi Antagonismou issued its decision on the appellants’ complaints on 1 September 2006 and made the following findings: that GSK occupied a dominant position only in respect of Lamictal, since epilepsy sufferers found it difficult to adjust to other similar medication; that the GSK group of undertakings had infringed Article 2 of the Greek Law on competition only during the period from November 2000 to February 2001 but not subsequently; and that it had not infringed Article 82 EC.
Sodi�če se v sodbi ni izreklo o temelju spora, ker se je razglasilo za nepristojno za odgovor organu, ki ni sodi�če v skladu s členom 234 ES 8, vendar pa je Epitropi Antagonismou 1. septembra 2006 odločila o pritožbah tožečih strank, pri čemer je ugotovila, da je GSK imela prevladujoč položaj samo za Lamictal, ker so se epileptični bolniki srečevali s težavami pri prilagajanju drugim podobnim zdravilom; poleg tega je menila, da je skupina podjetji GSK člen 2 gr�kega zakona o varstvu konkurence kr�ila samo v obdobju med novembrom 2000 in februarjem 2001, ne pa tudi pozneje, in da ni kr�ila člena 82 ES.
GSK started administrative proceedings when the Epitropi Antagonismou (Greek Competition Commission) dismissed the complaints concerning the changes in its distribution policy for medicinal products; for their part, the appellants in the main proceedings, which are associations of Greek pharmacists and other wholesalers, instituted proceedings on the same facts, seeking to establish that GSK had committed an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 2 of the Greek Law on competition and Article 82 EC.
GSK je vložila upravno pravno sredstvo in Epitropi Antagonismou (gr�ko komisijo za konkurenco) zaprosila za negativni izvid v zvezi s spremembami svoje politike distribucije zdravil; tožeče stranke v sporih o glavni stvari, nekatera gr�ka združenja lekarnarjev in drugi trgovci na debelo pa so zahtevali uvedbo preiskave v zvezi z istimi dejanskimi okoli�činami, da bi bila GSK obsojena zaradi zlorabe prevladujočega položaja v smislu člena 2 gr�kega zakona o varstvu konkurence in člena 82 ES.
The validity of the decision of the Epitropi Antagonismou has been challenged by the appellants before the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon (Administrative Court of Appeal, Athens), whose judgment is pending.
Tožeče stranke so veljavnost odločitve Epitropi Antagonismou izpodbijale pred Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon (upravno pritožbeno sodi�če v Atenah), zadeva pa do danes �e ni bila re�ena.
The civil proceedings were commenced when the current appellants filed petitions at the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Court
Tožeče stranke so s tožbami sprožile civilni postopek pred Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (sodi�če prve stopnje
8 — Thus distancing itself from the decision in Joined Cases C-110/98 to C-147/98 Gabalfrisa and Others [2000] ECR I-1577, which I have always considered to be wrong, and tending more towards the view which I advocate in my Opinion in the De Coster case (Case C-17/00 [2001] ECR I-9445); my Opinion of 22 November 2007 in Case C-393/06 Ing.
8 – Tako se je oddaljilo od sodbe z dne 21. marca 2000 v zadevi Gabalfrisa in drugi (od C-110/98 do C-147/98, Recueil, str. I-1577), ki sem jo vedno �tel za napačno, in se bolj približalo trditvi, ki jo zagovarjam od sklepnih predlogov, ki sem jih predstavil v zadevi De Coster, ki je privedla do sodbe z dne 29. novembra 2001 (C-17/00, Recueil, str.
Aigner, Wasser-Wärme-Umwelt (pending before the Court) discusses the current state of this debate.
Aigner, Wasser-Wärmer-Umwelt (C-393/06, �e nere�ena zadeva pred Sodi�čem).