natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
25 Neither is it necessary that the abuse be blameworthy in order to fall within the scope of Article 82 EC. 26
25 Kot pogoj za uporabo člena 82 ES zloraba tudi ne sme izhajati iz napake. 26
In other cases, the Court of Justice has ruled on such a refusal, although this has been either in relation to factual situations which are too dissimilar to the present case or in a very different legal context.
Sodi�če je v drugih zadevah izrazilo svoje stali�če o tej zavrnitvi, vendar v okoli�činah, ki se preveč razlikujejo od okoli�čin tega primera, ali v zelo različnem pravnem okviru.
In the first category, it is worth mentioning the judgment in CBEM, 20which extended to the services sector the prohibition on undertakings in a dominant position reserving to themselves, or to another company in the same group, the market for an ancillary activity carried out by another undertaking in a neighbouring but separate market; in the second category are judgments which deal with access to an essential facility, such as Bronner, 21 or which relate to a refusal to grant an intellectual or industrial property licence, such as Magill 22and IMS Health, 23which are all very far removed from the circumstances of the present reference.
V prvem primeru je treba navesti sodbo v zadevi CBEM 20, s katero je bila prepoved za podjetja, ki imajo prevladujoči položaj, da zase ali za drugo družbo iz skupine pridržijo trg pomožne dejavnosti, ki jo izvaja tretje podjetje na podobnem, a vendar ločenem trgu, raz�irjena na trg storitev; v drugem primeru najdemo zadeve, ki so načele vpra�anje dostopa do bistvene strukture („essential facility“), kot je sodba v zadevi Bronner 21, ali zadeve v zvezi z zavrnitvijo dodelitve licence za intelektualno ali industrijsko lastnino, kot sta sodbi v zadevah Magill 22in IMS Health 23, ki se vse zelo razlikujejo od okoli�čin, ki so podlaga tega predloga za predhodno odločanje.
None the less, two important points should be borne in mind, which refine the above statements.
Vseeno pa je treba upo�tevati dva pomembna vidika, ki pojasnjujeta zgornje trditve.
On the one hand, the possibility that subjective elements of the breach can often indicate that an anticompetitive outcome is being sought or even that they can constitute the abusive act itself cannot be entirely ruled out. 27
Po eni strani se ne sme popolnoma izključiti, da so subjektivni elementi kr�itve pogosto znak, da si gospodarski subjekt prizadeva doseči cilj, ki je v nasprotju s konkurenco, in da lahko sami pomenijo zlorabo. 27
In short, the Commercial Solvents and United Brands cases show that a dominant undertaking which avoids supplying goods, particularly when there are no substitutes, as in the case of Lamictal, and reserves to itself the parallel export market, is committing an abuse under Article 82 EC.
Skratka, iz sodb Commercial Solvents in United Brands je mogoče sklepati, da prevladujoče podjetje, ki ustavi oskrbo, zlasti če ne obstajajo alternativni proizvodi, kot v primeru zdravila Lamictal, in si pridrži trg vzporednega izvoza, zlorablja položaj v smislu člena 82 ES.
It now remains to be determined whether the intention to eliminate such parallel trade means that such an abuse can be designated an abuse per se under Community competition law.
Ugotoviti je �e treba, ali želja po izločitvi te vzporedne trgovine omogoča, da se ta zloraba označi za zlorabo per se v smislu prava Skupnosti o konkurenci.
20 — Case 311/84 [1985] ECR 3261 (‘Telemarketing’).21 — Case C-7/97 [1998] ECR I-7791.
21 – Sodba z dne 26. novembra 1998 (C-7/97, Recueil, str. I-7791).
26 — Case 6/72 Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission [1973] ECR 215 (‘Continental Can’), paragraphs 25 to 27.
26 – Sodba z dne 21. februarja 1973 v zadevi Europemballage in Continental Can proti Komisiji, (6/72, Recueil, str.
22 — Joined Cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P RTE and ITP v Commission [1995] ECR I-743 (‘Magill’).
22 – Sodba z dne 6. aprila 1995 v zadevi RTE in IPT proti Komisiji (združeni zadevi C-241/91 P in C-242/91 P, Recueil, str.
23 — Case C-418/01 [2004] ECR I-5039.
23 – Sodba z dne 29. aprila 2004 (C-418/01, Recueil, str. I-5039).
LÉLOS KAI SIA AND OTHERS purpose behind it, contravenes the first paragraph of Article 82 EC. 29
LÉLOS KAI SIA IN DRUGI na katerem temelji, kr�i prvi odstavek te določbe. 29
On the other hand, the Court of Justice has confirmed the thesis developed by the Court of First Instance that, in view of the difference between Article 81(1) EC and Article 82 EC, which contains no reference to the anticompetitive effect of the abuse in question, in order to demonstrate that a breach of Article 82 EC has taken place it is sufficient to prove that the abusive conduct of the dominant undertaking tends to restrict competition or, in other words, is capable of having such an effect. 28
Po drugi strani je Sodi�če potrdilo trditev, ki jo je razvilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, da ob upo�tevanju razlike med členom 81(1) ES in členom 82 ES, ki ne vsebuje nikakr�nega sklicevanja na protikonkurenčni učinek zadevnega ravnanja, za ugotovitev kr�itve člena 82 ES zadostuje dokaz, da je cilj zlorabe prevladujočega podjetja omejiti konkurenco, ali z drugimi besedami, da ima lahko tak učinek. 28
It is evident that the intention of GSK is contrary to the objectives of the Treaty, since it affects freedom of trade between Member States to an extent which might harm the attainment of a single market, as this is understood in the caselaw and in Article 3(1)(g) EC, since it undoubtedly partitions national markets and impairs the structure of competition within the common market. 30
Nobenega dvoma ni, da je namen družbe GSK v nasprotju s cilji Pogodbe, ker tako resno ovira svobodno trgovino med državami članicami, da lahko vpliva na uresničevanje enotnega trga v smislu sodne prakse in člena 3(1)(g) ES, ker nedvomno deli nacionalne trge in spreminja konkurenco na skupnem trgu. 30
Therefore, the closer the undertaking in a dominant position is to hindering competition in the market, the stronger the presumption of abuse.
Zato čim bolj ko si podjetje s prevladujočim položajem prizadeva ovirati prosto konkurenco na trgu, tem očitnej�a postaja domneva o zlorabi. Obravnavani spor je eden od takih primerov.
Not even GSK has denied that its real aim is to eliminate the parallel exports by the wholesalers of the three medicines in dispute from Greece to other countries in the Community.
GSK ni zanikala, da je resnično želela odpraviti vzporedni izvoz treh spornih zdravil iz Grčije v druge države Skupnosti, ki ga opravljajo podjetja za trgovino na debelo.
In summary, the foregoing analysis shows that GSK has committed a serious infringement of the Treaty, which would merit being treated as an abuse per se, since it is difficult to identify any economic motive other than the elimination of the parallel trade of its competitors, the Greek wholesalers.
Če povzamem, zgornji razmisleki potrjujejo trditev, da je GSK zagre�ila resno kr�itev Pogodbe, ki bi jo lahko označili za zlorabo per se, ker ni mogoče odkriti nobenega drugega gospodarskega razloga za odpravo vzporedne trgovine njenih konkurentov, to je gr�kih trgovcev na debelo.
31However, I have some doubts of a methodological nature about how the conduct of dominant undertakings should be evaluated, and it is therefore worth taking the analysis further.
31Vseeno imam nekaj metodolo�kih dvomov o stopnjevanju ravnanja prevladujočih podjetij, in zdi se mi ga primerno podrobno analizirati.
Moreover, as such restrictions on the volume of sales of the other distributors limit its rivals’ market, within the meaning of subparagraph (b) of the second paragraph of Article 82 EC, there is a very strong indication that this conduct, and therefore the
Poleg tega, ker te omejitve količine prodaje drugih distributerjev zmanj�ujejo trg njenih konkurentov v smislu člena 82, drugi odstavek, točka (b), ES, obstaja močna domneva, da to ravnanje in torej cilj,
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
Loyalty rebates constitute the second of the practices which are always presumed to be abuses, since, unlike quantity discounts, which are linked solely to the volume of purchases from the manufacturer concerned, loyalty rebates, by offering customers financial advantages, tend to prevent them from obtaining their supplies from competing manufacturers. 33
Popusti na zvestobo so drugo od teh ravnanj, ki nedvomno vedno pomenijo zlorabo, glede na to, da je v nasprotju s popusti na količino, vezanimi izključno na količino nakupov, opravljenih pri zadevnih proizvajalcih, njihov cilj z zagotavljanjem finančnih ugodnosti preprečiti oskrbovanje strank pri konkurenčnih proizvajalcih. 33
Before setting out the arguments against accepting abuses per se, it is appropriate to address the development of the concept in Community case-law.
Preden na�tejem utemeljitve zoper sprejetje zlorabe per se, je treba preučiti razvoj pojma v sodni praksi Skupnosti.
(a) Caselaw of the Court of Justice
a) Sodna praksa Sodi�ča
The third practice which is considered abusive per se concerns predatory pricing.
Tretje tako ravnanje, ki velja za zlorabo per se, se nana�a na predatorske cene.
According to the Court of Justice, prices below average variable costs (those which vary depending on the quantities produced) have no economic basis and therefore can only indicate an intention to eliminate a competitor and must consequently be regarded as abusive.
Sodi�če meni, da cene, ki so nižje od povprečnih variabilnih stro�kov (stro�kov, ki se spreminjajo glede na proizvedene količine) in so gospodarsko nesmotrne, kažejo čisti namen, izločiti konkurenta, zaradi česar se �tejejo za zlorabo.
34By contrast, prices below average total costs (fixed costs plus variable costs), but above average variable costs must be regarded as abusive if they are part of a plan for eliminating a competing undertaking. 35
34 Nasprotno je treba cene, nižje od povprečnih skupnih stro�kov (ki vključujejo fiksne in variabilne stro�ke), a vi�je od povprečnih variabilnih stro�kov, �teti za zlorabo, če so določene na podlagi načrta, katerega cilj je izločiti konkurenta. 35
To date the Court has identified three practices which, when carried out by undertakings in a dominant position, would inevitably constitute an abuse of their strength in the market, seemingly without any possibility of adducing evidence to the contrary by way of justification.
Do danes je Sodi�če opredelilo tri vrste ravnanj, ki – če jih izvajajo podjetja s prevladujočim položajem – neizogibno vodijo do zlorabe njihovega položaja na trgu, ne da bi očitno priznalo nasprotni dokaz za upravičenje tak�nega ravnanja.
The reasoning in these judgments left no room for any justification on the part
Sklepanje, uporabljeno v teh sodbah, je izključevalo vsakr�no opravičilo prevla-
The Court had ruled to this effect in respect of exclusive supply obligations imposed on purchasers by a dominant company, whether stipulated without further qualification or in consideration for the grant of rebates. 32
Tako se je opredelilo o obveznostih izključne dobave, ki jih kupcem naloži prevladujoča družba, ne glede na to, ali so obveznosti določene brez nadaljnjega ali proti odobritvi popusta. 32
33 — Joined Cases 40/73 to 48/73, 50/73, 54/73 to 56/73, 111/73, 113/73 and 114/73 Suiker Unie and Others [1975] ECR 1663, and Michelin v Commission, paragraph 71.
33 – Sodbi z dne 16. decembra 1975 v zadevi Suiker Unie in drugi (združene zadeve od 40/73 do 48/73, 50/73, od 54/73 do 56/73, 111/73, 113/73 in 114/73, Recueil, str. 1663) in Michelin, navedena v opombi 24, točka 71.
34 — AKZO v Commission, paragraph 71, and Case C-333/94 P Tetra Pak v Commission [1996] ECR I-5951, paragraph 41.
34 – Sodba AKZO, navedena v opombi 24, točka 71, in sodba z dne 14. novembra 1996 v zadevi Tetra Pak proti Komisiji (C-333/94 P, Recueil, str. I-5951, točka 41).
35 — AKZO v Commission, paragraph 72.
35 – Sodba AKZO, navedena v opombi 24, točka 72.
(b) Abuses per se unsuited to Article 82 EC
LÉLOS KAI SIA IN DRUGI b) Neustreznost člena 82 ES za zlorabe per se
For both legal and economic reasons, Article 82 EC is not appropriate to govern conduct branded as abusive per se.
Člen 82 ES iz pravnih in ekonomskih razlogov ni prilagojen normativnim zahtevam zlorab per se.
of the dominant undertaking.
dujočega podjetja.
36However, more recent caselaw, also relating to loyalty rebates, does not confirm the idea that these must always be regarded as abusive.
36Vendar pa v nedavni sodni praksi tudi pri popustih na zvestobo ni potrjena zamisel, da jih je nujno treba �teti za zlorabo.
Thus, in relation to discounts linked to individual sales targets in commercial passenger avi -ation granted to travel agencies by an undertaking in a dominant position on the United Kingdom market for air travel, the Court allowed the undertaking to demonstrate that its bonus system, which had the effect of eliminating competition, was economically justified. 37
V zvezi s popusti, povezanimi z uresničevanjem posameznih prodajnih ciljev v komercialnem potni�kem letalstvu, ki jih potovalnim agencijam priznava podjetje s prevladujočim položajem na anglosa�kem trgu zračnega prevoza, je Sodi�če zadevnemu podjetju dovolilo, da gospodarsko utemelji svoj sistem premij, katerega učinek je bil izrinjenje konkurence.
The structure of Article 82 EC, particularly in comparison with the preceding article of the Treaty, falls to be considered here.
Tu je treba navesti strukturo člena 82 ES, zlasti v primerjavi s strukturo predhodnega člena v Pogodbi.
The Court is therefore prepared to allow dominant undertakings to defend themselves, even in areas where it seemed to accept the existence of possible abuses per se, and in doing so it is in reality following the more traditional caselaw developed independently of this line of decisions which establish a category of automatically abusive practices.
Sodi�če torej dopu�ča nekatera ravnanja prevladujočih podjetij tudi na področjih, na katerih se zdi, da je sprejelo morebitni obstoj zlorabe per se, in tako v resnici sledi klasični sodni praksi, ki se je utrdila neodvisno od sodb, s katerimi je bila potrjena zgoraj navedena kategorija ravnanj, ki samodejno pomenijo zlorabo.
38However, apart from specific statements focusing on the circumstances of each individual case, the Court has not given any general rules indicating that abuses per se do not fall within the article of the Treaty dealing with abuse of a dominant position.
38 Vendar pa razen konkretnih navedb, povezanih z okoli�činami vsakega posameznega primera, ni zagotovilo nobenega splo�nega merila za izključitev, da morebitne zlorabe per se spadajo na področje uporabe člena Pogodbe, ki ureja zlorabo prevladujočega položaja.
It might therefore be helpful to suggest some rules of this nature.
Zato bi bilo torej treba predstaviti nekatera od teh meril.
Article 81 EC comprises three paragraphs which cover, respectively, the principle that collusive practices are prohibited, a statement that the main consequence of infringing the prohibition contained in paragraph 1 is that the agreement or decision is void and the possibility of obtaining an exemption, assuming that none has been obtained by virtue of a block exemption regulation adopted pursuant to Article 83(2)(b) EC in conjunction with Article 83(1) EC.
Člen 81 ES je sestavljen iz treh odstavkov, v katerih so urejeni načelo prepovedi skrivoma dogovorjenih ravnanj, ničnost kot glavna posledica dejstva, da prepoved iz odstavka 1 ni bila upo�tevana, in možnost oprostitve, če ta ni bila dosežena z nobeno uredbo o skupinskih izjemah, sprejeto v skladu s členom 83(2)(b) ES v povezavi z njegovim odstavkom 1.
37 — Case C-95/04 paragraph 69.
38 – Sodba Tetra Pak, navedena v opombi 34, točka 37; sodbi z dne 15. decembra 1994 v zadevi DLG (C-250/92, Recueil, str. I-5641, točka 52) in z dne 13. novembra 1975 v zadevi General Motors proti Komisiji (26/75, Recueil, str. 1367, točki 20 in 22).
The examples of anticompetitive agreements listed in Article 81(1)(a) to (e) EC are
Primeri protikonkurenčnih dogovorov, na�teti v točkah od (a) do (e) člena 81(1) ES,
Drafted as it is, without a provision dealing with exemptions for certain abuses, an analysis of conduct requires undertakings holding a dominant position on a particular market to engage in a dialectical debate with the competition authorities, whether national or Community, and with the affected parties.
Ob upo�tevanju formulacije člena 82 ES, to je brez odstavka, v katerem bi bila določena oprostitev nekaterih zlorab, analiza ravnanj zahteva dialektično razpravo gospodarskih subjektov, ki imajo prevladujoč položaj na določenem trgu, z nacionalnimi ali skupnostnimi organi za konkurenco ter s prizadetimi stranmi.
Although very problematic, there is still a possibility that such agreements can remain valid thanks to an individual exemption if the parties can show that their agreements meet the conditions set out in Article 81(3) EC.
39 Čeprav je to zelo težavno, niso popolnoma prepovedani, kajti mogoče jih je obdržati zaradi posamične izjeme, če zainteresirani dokažejo, da njihovi sporazumi izpolnjujejo pogoje iz člena 81(3) ES.
In this context, the United States Supreme Court has recently aligned its approach to resale price maintenance in vertical agreements with the proposition that they should be subject to the ‘rule of reason’, 40thus departing from the rigour of its well-estab-lished caselaw which, ever since a precedent laid down in 1911, 41had held that such a practice was illegal per se because it contravened Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
V tem okviru je vrhovno sodi�če Združenih držav Amerike nedavno spremenilo sodno prakso o določitvi najnižjih cen pri nadaljnji prodaji („Resale price maintenance“) v vertikalnih sporazumih, tako da jo je oprlo na „rule of reason“ 40, s čimer se je oddaljilo od strogosti ustaljene sodne prakse, v kateri je bilo to ravnanje od precedenčnega primera iz leta 1911 41označeno za nezakonito ravnanje per se, ker je kr�ilo razdelek 1 Sherman Act.
Each of these participants in the rhetorical debate brings evidence of its assertions, in accordance with the old Latin adage ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on him who alleges and not on him who denies).
Vsak udeleženec te retorične razprave navede dokaz za svoje trditve v skladu s tradicionalnim latinskim pregovorom ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.
In short, the provision itself offers undertakings various routes for challenging any assertion that the clauses of their agreements constitute infringements per se.
Skratka, s to določbo imajo podjetja različne možnosti, da izpodbijajo kakr�no koli označitev določb, ki jih vstavijo v svoje pogodbe, za kr�itev per se.
This is not so in the case of dominant companies under the article of the Treaty relevant to them.
To pa ne velja za prevladujoča podjetja v okviru ustreznega člena Pogodbe.
39 — Hence Article 4, relating to ‘black’ clauses, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21).
39 – Tako člen 4, ki vsebuje „črni“ seznam, Uredbe Komisije (ES) �t. 2790/1999 z dne 22. decembra 1999 o uporabi člena 81(3) Pogodbe za skupine vertikalnih sporazumov in usklajenih ravnanj (UL L 336, str. 21).
41 — Decision of 3 April 1911, Dr. Miles Medical Co. v John D. Park & Sons Co. (220 U.S. 373). 69.
41 – Sodba z dne 3. aprila 1911 v zadevi Dr. Miles Medical Co. proti John D.
LÉLOS KAI SIA AND OTHERS form-based, a defect criticised by some very informed commentators who advocate an alternative approach to Article 82 EC, which would focus on the effects of each abuse and involve a consideration of the specific circumstances by applying an ‘analysis of the
LÉLOS KAI SIA IN DRUGI formalizma, zoper katerega so dvignili glas strokovnjaki, zagovorniki drugega pristopa k členu 82 ES, ki je osredotočen na posledice vsake zlorabe, tako da se z razumno analizo 43(„rule of reason“) pretehtajo posebne okoli�čine. 44
Furthermore, the examples listed in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of the second paragraph of Article 82 EC do not operate as legal presumptions, unlike those in Article 81(1)(a) to (e).
Poleg tega primeri, na�teti v točkah od (a) do (d) člena 82 ES, drugi odstavek, niso pravne domneve v nasprotju z domnevami iz člena 81(1), od (a) do (e), ES.
At most they should be understood, due to their underlying economic logic, as rebuttable presumptions which lighten the burden of proof for the party relying on them, 42but never as substitutes for the dialectical debate which I have referred to above.
Kvečjemu jih je treba razumeti kot domneve iuris tantum, ki nalagajo dokazno breme tistim, ki se nanje sklicujejo zaradi gospodarske logike, na kateri temeljijo, 42vendar nikoli kot zamenjavo za dialektično razpravo, ki sem jo navedel v prej�njih točkah.
In the same way that collusive practices per se under Article 81 EC were redeemed by Article 81(3) EC, the option of accommodating certain types of abuse under Article 82 EC by means of objective justification should remain open.
Prav tako kot so skrivoma dogovorjena ravnanja per se iz člena 81 ES dovoljena na podlagi odstavka 3 te določbe, je treba pustiti odprto možnost, da se na podlagi člena 82 ES ne prepovejo nekatere zlorabe zaradi svoje objektivne utemeljitve.
Allowing preconceived and formalistic ideas on abuse of a dominant position to prevail would mask the fact that sometimes dominance can benefit consumers.
Dajanje prednosti vnaprej ustvarjenim in formalističnim zamislim na področju zlorab prevladujočega položaja naj bi zakrivalo dejstvo, da se lahko v nekaterih primerih obrnejo tudi v korist potro�nika.
45 This is the case when the strength of one operator reduces competition in a particular market, given that Article 82 EC does not include any provision whereby such operators can successfully defend themselves against the accusation of abuse by demonstrating the economic efficiency of their conduct, an absence which has been justly criticised. 46
45 To velja, kadar moč enega od gospodarskih subjektov zmanj�a konkurenco na referenčnem trgu, ker kot je bilo pravilno kritizirano, člen 82 ES ne vsebuje nobene določbe, na podlagi katere bi se ti gospodarski subjekti lahko uspe�no branili zoper očitek zlorabe, tako da bi dokazali učinkovitost svojega ravnanja v gospodarskem smislu. 46
Thirdly and lastly, if, as has been said, it is common to divide the circumstances in which Article 82 EC applies into two cat -egories, namely those that harm consumers
Tretjič in zadnjič, če je, kot je že bilo navedeno, običajno, da se primeri uporabe člena 82 ES razdelijo na dve kategoriji, namreč na zlorabe, ki �kodijo potro�nikom
44 — Report by the Economic Advisory Group on Competition Policy (EAGCP) ‘An Economic Approach to Article 82’, July 2005, available at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/publications/studies /eagcp_july_21_05.pdf, pp. 5 and 6.
44 – Poročilo EAGCP „An Economic Approach to Article 82“ iz julija 2005, na voljo na spletnem naslovu http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/publications/studies /eagcp_july_21_05.pdf, str. 5 in 6.
Secondly, from a purely economic perspective, the approach per se is too
Drugič, pristop per se naj bi s čisto gospodarskega vidika trpel zaradi pretiranega
214, points out the risk associated with the abuse per se rule, also outside the context of the dominant position.
214, opozarja na tveganje, ki ga skriva pravilo o zlorabah per se, zlasti zunaj prevladujočega položaja.
42 — On the use of such presumptions of fact, see Paulis, E., ‘The burden of proof in Article 82 cases’, in Hawk, B.E., Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Competition Law Institute, Juris Publishing, Inc., New York, 2007, p. 470.
42 – V zvezi z uporabo teh dejanskih domnev glej Paulis, E., „The burden of proof in Article 82 cases“, v Hawk, B. E., Annual Proceedings of the Fordham Competition Law Institute, založba Juris Publishing, Inc., New York, 2007, str. 470.
Proposed answer to the first question
Predlog odgovora na prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje