natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(exploitative abuses) and those that harm actual or potential competitors (exclusionary abuses), 47so that any anticompetitive conduct of a dominant undertaking is capable of constituting an abuse, 48 as there is no indi- cation of the relative importance of these two aspects of Article 82 EC, 49 a defence of the dominant company based on economic results obtained might be advocated.
(zlorabe z izkori�čanjem), in zlorabe, ki vplivajo na sedanje ali morebitne konkurente (zlorabe z izključevanjem), 47tako da lahko vsako protikonkurenčno dejanje prevladujočega podjetja pomeni zlorabo, 48ker ne obstaja hierarhična razvrstitev teh dveh vidikov člena 82 ES, 49 bi se bilo treba zavzeti za to, da mora biti prevladujoči družbi omogočeno, da se brani na podlagi doseženih gospodarskih rezultatov.
In accordance with the foregoing, abusive conduct per se does not sit well with Article 82 EC, and consequently the first question put by the Trimeles Efetio Athinon should not be answered in the affirmative.
V skladu s tem, kar sem navedel zgoraj, zlorabe per se niso prilagojene členu 82 ES, tako da na prvo vpra�anje Trimeles Efeteio Athinon ni mogoče odgovoriti pritrdilno.
I therefore recommend that the Court make an unambiguous declaration to the effect that Article 82 EC does not provide a basis for attributing abusive conduct per se to undertakings in a dominant position, even when it is clear from the circumstances of the case that there is both intent and an anticompetitive effect.
Zato Sodi�ču priporočam, naj brez okoli�enja ugotovi, da člen 82 ES ne dovoljuje, da se podjetjem s prevladujočim položajem pripi�ejo dejanja, ki so zlorabe per se, tudi kadar okoli�čine primera ne pu�čajo nobenega dvoma o njihovem namenu in protikonkurenčnem učinku teh dejanj.
In view of the answer to the first question, the second question, which relates to possible objective justification of such conduct, must now be considered.
Glede na re�itev prvega vpra�anja je treba preučiti drugo, ki se nana�a na morebitno objektivno utemeljitev teh dejanj.
A mere comparison of the positive and negative consequences for consumers and for other operators in the same market provides sufficient information to draw the relevant conclusions.
Samo s primerjavo pozitivnih in negativnih posledic za uporabnika in druge gospodarske subjekte na istem trgu je mogoče pridobiti potrebne informacije za izpeljavo ustreznih sklepov.
C — Justifications for conduct normally considered abusive (the second question)
C – Elementi, ki bi lahko upravičili ravnanje, ki običajno velja za zlorabo (drugo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje)
47 — The Commission’s ‘DG Competition discussion paper on the application of Article 82 of the Treaty to exclusionary abuses’ deals only with exclusionary abuses; it can be consulted at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/art82/discpaper2005.pdf.
47 – Dokument za razpravo Evropske komisije z naslovom „DG Competition discussion paper on the application of Article 82 of the Treaty to exclusionary abuses“ se izključno nana�a na zlorabe z izključevanjem; na voljo je na tem naslovu: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/ art82/discpaper2005.pdf. Ta pristop se ni mogel izogniti kritikam: Díez Estella, F., „El Discussion Paper de la Comisión Europea: żreformas en la regulación del artículo 82 del Tratado CE?“, Gaceta Jurídica de la Unión Europea y de la Competencia, �t. 242, maj 2006, str. 24.
49 — The lack of an underlying purpose to which Article 82 EC is expressly directed has been criticised in Whish, R., ‘Rethinking Article 82 EC’, Concurrences: Revue des droits de la concurrence, No 4/2005, p.
49 – Neobstoj cilja, za�čito katerega si izrecno prizadeva doseči člen 82 ES, je kritiziral Whish, R., „Rethinking Article 82 CE“, v Concurences: revue des droits de la concurrence, �t. 4/2005, str.
18, which likens this absence of guidance to leaving Article 82 EC ‘like a ship without a rudder’.
18, ki je ta neobstoj vodilne niti primerjal s tem, da je bil člen 82 ES pu�čen kot „čoln brez vesel“.
On the other hand, Schröter, H., op. cit, p.
Po drugi strani pa Schröter, H., op. cit., str.
813, argues, on the basis of Hoffmann-La Roche, Michelin and L’Oréal, that the provision tends above all to protect competition as an institution, and this indirectly benefits competitors, the dominant undertaking’s trading partners and consumers.
813, iz zgoraj navedenih sodb Hoffmann La Roche, Michelin in L’Oréal sklepa, da je cilj te določbe predvsem za�čititi konkurenco kot institut, za�čita, ki bi bila posredno v korist konkurentov, poslovnih partnerjev prevladujočega podjetja in potro�nikov.
First of all, I should like to call to mind the fact mentioned earlier that part of the first question belongs in the answer to the
Najprej želim spomniti, da je, kot sem že navedel, del prvega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje v odgovoru na drugo zaradi svoje
second because it relates to the grounds for exoneration of the types of practices listed in Article 82 EC.
LÉLOS KAI SIA IN DRUGI povezave z razlogi za oprostitev ravnanj iz člena 82 ES.
As I understand it, it is precisely the criteria for reversing an initial negative finding against an undertaking in a dominant position that the referring court is enquiring about.
Sklicuje se na dva vidika, ki pojasnjujeta omejitve vzporednega izvoza gr�kih trgovcev na debelo: določitev najvi�jih prodajnih cen zdravil, ki je običajna praksa v vseh državah članicah, in obveznost skladi�čenja zadostne količine blaga, da se lahko kadar koli zadovolji nacionalno povpra�evanje.
The appellants in the main proceedings, the Polish Government and the Commission reject this analysis, with certain clarifications.
Tožeče stranke v sporu o glavni stvari, poljska vlada in Komisija zavračajo to analizo, čeprav z nekaterimi razlikami.
Before embarking on an examination of the grounds for justification, it is appropriate to sketch out the distinctive features of the market in question.
Preden se lotim preučitve razlogov za upravičenje, je treba začrtati posebne obrise referenčnega trga.
Dominant undertakings accused of abuse can rely on three grounds to excuse their conduct: grounds relating to the market in which they are operating, 50 the legitimate protection of their business interests and proof of net positive economic effect.
Obstajajo trije razlogi za oprostitev, na katere se lahko podjetja s prevladujočim položajem sklicujejo, kadar se jim očita zloraba: razlogi, ki se nana�ajo na trg, na katerem delujejo, 50obramba svojih zakonitih poslovnih interesov in dokaz o pozitivni gospodarski bilanci.
I will deal with each of these in turn, with reference to the facts before the referring court.
V nadaljevanju jih bom obravnaval ločeno, pri čemer bom vseskozi imel pred očmi dejanske okoli�čine, predstavljene predložitvenemu sodi�ču.
(a) Basic characteristics of the market
Razmere nepopolnega trga a) Temeljne značilnosti trga
GSK has argued that State regulation prevents it from carrying on its business in normal conditions of competition. It cites
Družba GSK je vztrajala, da ji nacionalna zakonodaja preprečuje, svoje dejavnosti razvijati v običajnih konkurenčnih razmerah.
50 — In the discussion paper referred to earlier, at paragraph 80 the Commission requires that the conduct be necessary for reasons of safety or health; this escape route for domin- ant undertakings strikes me as too narrow and I therefore propose a broader one, linked to the market.
50 – V zgoraj navedenem dokumentu za razpravo Komisija zahteva (odstavek 80), da so dejanja podjetja potrebna zaradi varnostnih razlogov ali razlogov javnega zdravja; menim, da je ta razlog za oprostitev za podjetja s prevladujočim položajem preveč omejen, zato predlagam ob�irnej�o možnost, ki pa �e vedno temelji na trgu.
It has been correctly pointed out that the European pharmaceuticals market, defined as the trade in and distribution of products with or without patent protection, is characterised by a low level of harmonisation owing to State price intervention and to the existence of public systems for the reimbursement of patients’ expenditure on medicinal
Upravičeno je bilo navedeno, da je za evropski farmacevtski trg, ki se razume kot trg trgovine s proizvodi in distribucije proiz -vodov, ki so za�čiteni s patentom ali pa ne, značilna omejena stopnja usklajevanja zaradi državne intervencije na področju cen in javnih sistemov povračila stro�kov za zdravila bolnika, zaradi česar je znesek,
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-468/06 TO C-478/06 products, which means that the price paid by the end-user is less important.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-468/06 dujoči položaj, ker se ti monopoli običajno vzpostavijo kot pravne in časovne ovire.
51 of dominance as these monopolies often act as barriers to entry of a legal and temporal nature. 52
52 ki ga plača končni potro�nik, popolnoma nepomemben. 51
In this situation, GSK maintains that Member State price setting as well as the obligation to manage stocks to meet domestic demand constrain it to such an extent that the only means available to it to redress the situation from a business point of view is to make it more difficult for the Greek wholesalers to carry out parallel exports to countries where the amount reimbursed for each product far exceeds that obtainable in Greece.
V teh okoli�činah GSK trdi, da so jo zgornje meje, ki so jih določile države članice na področju cen, in obveznost upravljanja zalog, prilagojenih nacionalnemu povpra�evanju, tako omejile, da ji za normaliziranje svojih dejavnosti ni preostalo nič drugega, kot da je postavila ovire za vzporedni izvoz gr�kih trgovcev na debelo v države, v katerih zneski, povrnjeni za zdravila, zelo presegajo zneske, dosežene v Helenski republiki.
The parties submitting observations in these reference proceedings are in agreement that all the Member States regulate the prices charged to patients by manufacturers in the sector by limiting the amounts reimbursed by the various social insurance bodies, thus containing public spending on health.
Stranke, ki so predložile stali�ča v tem postopku za predhodno odločanje, se strinjajo, da vse države članice določijo znesek, ki ga proizvajalci v sektorju zahtevajo od bolnikov, s tem da določijo zneske, ki jih povrnejo različni organi socialne varnosti, in tako zajezijo javne zdravstvene izdatke.
They also agree that sale prices vary enormously between the Member States.
Strinjajo se tudi, da obstajajo ogromne razlike med prodajnimi cenami v različnih državah članicah.
Alongside this State financing system, there is another entirely private system in which pharmaceutical companies are free to charge the prices they choose for medicinal products: however, I detect a certain consensus that this model represents a very small percentage, although it does vary between countries.
Poleg tega sistema javnega financiranja obstaja �e drugi, popolnoma zaseben, v katerem farmacevtske družbe svobodno določajo ceno zdravil; vseeno opažam določeno strinjanje, da ta zadnji model pomeni samo zelo majhen odstotek, čeprav se razlikuje po posameznih državah.
(b) Analysis of the grounds for justification
b) Preučitev razlogov za upravičenje
Finally, another distinctive feature of this market should be noted, namely the number of patented medicines.
Nazadnje je treba poudariti �e eno značilnost tega trga, to je �tevilne industrijske patente, vložene za zdravila.
Although this is not a reflection of State control, it is significant because the holders of these industrial property rights can more readily assume positions
Čeprav ta element ne izraža nadzora, ki ga izvajajo javni organi, je pomemben, ker imetniki teh pravic industrijske lastnine lažje dosežejo prevla-
Although Community caselaw has never accepted a justification based on the individual characteristics of the regulation of a particular market, I believe that there are circumstances where, on the basis of the effects of State control of the market, it might conceivably do so.
Čeprav v sodni praksi Skupnosti ni bil priznan noben razlog, ki temelji na posebnostih ureditve nekega trga, menim, da si je mogoče zamisliti primere, v katerih bi to storilo glede na učinek državnega nadzora trga.
GSK relies on two fundamental factors: price intervention and the duty to supply.
GSK je navedla dva temeljna dejavnika: intervencijo v zvezi s cenami in obveznost skladi�čenja.
LÉLOS KAI SIA AND OTHERS
LÉLOS KAI SIA IN DRUGI i) Določitev cen s strani držav članic
In any event, the impact of pricing policies is diminished by Article 2(1) and Article 2(2) of Directive 89/105, 56which apply to all forms of State intervention.
Vsekakor je strogost cenovne politike relativizirana s členom 2(1) in (2) Direktive 89/105 56, ki se uporablja za vse vrste državne intervencije.
57It is clear from Article 2(2) that the manufacturers of medicinal products are involved in a dialogue with the authorities responsible for setting prices, which must give reasons based on ‘objective and verifiable criteria’ for any decision not to permit the sale of the medicinal product at the price proposed by the applicant.
57Iz odstavka 2 jasno izhaja, da proizvajalci zdravil sodelujejo v pogovorih z organi, pristojnimi za določitev cen, ki morajo svoje nasprotovanje trženju zdravila po ceni, ki jo predlaga predlagatelj, obrazložiti z „objektivnimi in preverljivimi merili“.
Article 2(1) even contemplates deemed authorisation by administrative silence, as, in the absence of a decision of the Member State within 90 days of the receipt of the application, the applicant is entitled to market the product.
V odstavku 1 je predvideno tudi implicitno dovoljenje, ki izhaja iz pozitivnega molka uprave, ker je podjetje, če država članica odločitve ne sprejme v 90 dneh po vložitvi vloge, upravičeno do trženja zdravila.
On the subject of Member State policies for the reimbursement of the cost of medicines by social insurance bodies, the Court’s judgment in Merck and Beecham 53recog-nised that price setting may distort competition between Member States, but it went on to say that such a distortion brought about by State interference does not justify a derogation from the principle of free movement of goods. 54
V zvezi s politiko, ki jo izvajajo države članice, da organi socialne varnosti povrnejo izdatke za zdravila bolnikov, je Sodi�če v sodbi Merck in Beecham 53 priznalo, da lahko nadzor cen izkrivi konkurenco med državami članicami, vendar je to trditev dodatno pojasnilo z dejstvom, da to izkrivljanje konkurence zaradi vme�avanja države ne upravičuje odstopanja od načel prostega pretoka blaga. 54
However tough the negotiations, we should not forget the position of the pharmaceutical companies, particularly when they hold new patents, which usually mean an improvement for the patient receiving treatment using these medicines.
Ne glede na težavnost pogajanj ne smemo pozabiti na položaj farmacevtskih podjetij, zlasti kadar razpolagajo z novimi patenti, ki na splo�no pomenijo napredek za bolnika, ki se zdravi s temi zdravili.
This point is highly significant as it is in the interests of the Member States, which are under a duty to ensure that a highquality public health system is provided for patients, to have at their disposal the best methods that the market can offer, provided that they can be obtained at a reasonable price. 58
Ta vidik je zelo pomemben, saj država članica, ki mora skrbeti za kakovost zdravstva v službi bolnika, nima interesa, da bi se odrekla najbolj�im sredstvom, ki ji jih ponuja trg, če jih lahko nabavi po razumni ceni. 58
55It is therefore appropriate to mention the caselaw of the Court of Justice on the free movement of goods, at least inasmuch as it concerns the partitioning of national markets.
53 – Sodba z dne 5. decembra 1996 (C-267/95 in C-268/95, Recueil, str.
53 — Joined Cases C-267/95 and C-268/95 [1996] ECR I-6285, paragraph 47.
I-6285, točka 47).
58 — Second and third Directive 89/105.
1869, točka 17.
54 — Ibid.55 — Hugin v Commission, paragraph 17.
56 – Opisana v točki 5 teh sklepnih predlogov.57 – Člen 1(1) Direktive 85/105.58 – Druga in tretja uvodna izjava Direktive 89/105.
I realise that, with the passage of time, the advantage enjoyed by the holder of the pharmaceutical patent diminishes and the prices originally agreed with the health authorities have to be reduced.
Priznavam, da se s časom korist imetnika farmacevtskega patenta zmanj�a, zaradi česar mora znižati cene, ki so mu jih dovolili uporabljati zdravstveni organi.
However, this evolution is quite normal and is due to other manufacturers offering substitutes which are therapeutically more effective, with each new product displacing its predecessor thanks to advances in research.
Vendar ta razvoj ni neobičajen, ker je odvisen od ponudbe nadomestnih proizvodov drugih proizvajalcev, ki so učinkovitej�i pri zdravljenju in sledijo drug drugemu zaradi napredka v raziskavah.
The second market regulation factor which, according to GSK, interferes with its normal activities in Greece and excuses the limitation on parallel trade concerns the duty to keep the Greek market adequately supplied at all times.
Drugi dejavnik ureditve trga, ki naj bi po mnenju družbe GSK oviral njene običajne dejavnosti v Grčiji in upravičeval omejitev vzporedne trgovine, se nana�a na obveznost, da se na gr�kem trgu stalno vzdržujejo zadostne zaloge.
GSK also maintains that this duty prevents it from meeting the orders from the wholesalers as they would like.
Poleg tega ji po njenih trditvah upo�tevanje te obveznosti preprečuje, da bi naročila trgovcev na debelo izpolnjevala v želenih rokih.
Furthermore, the price agreed must not be at a level which would cause companies in the sector to sell at below cost.
Poleg tega dogovorjena cena ne sme doseči ravni, ki bi družbe v sektorju pripravile do tega, da bi svoje proizvode prodajale pod lastno ceno.
The scope of this duty requires some clarification, since some of the appellants in the main proceedings also regard themselves as under a duty to supply the market, and this is supported by the second paragraph of Article 81 of Directive 2001/83, referred to in point 6 of this Opinion.
Področje uporabe te obveznosti zahteva nekatera pojasnila, ker nekatere od tožečih strank v sporu o glavni stvari menijo, da so prav tako dolžne oskrbovati trg, kar naj bi izhajalo iz člena 81(2) Direktive 2001/83/ES, navedene v točki 6 teh sklepnih predlogov.
I cannot therefore see any reason why GSK should plead this duty in its defence.
Zato ne vidim nobenega razloga, zakaj se GSK navaja to obveznost v svojo obrambo.
Undoubtedly, the needs of patients in the Member State are not subject to sudden changes, except when there are epidemics or pandemics, and consequently the figures for numbers of patients suffering from each condition are reliable and give the companies a degree of predictability which allows them to adapt to the market.
Nobenega dvoma ni, da potrebe bolnikov v zadevni državi članici niso podvržene nenadnim spremembam, razen v primeru epidemij ali pandemij, tako da so statistike o bolnikih, ki trpijo zaradi posameznih bolezni, zanesljive in podjetjem omogočajo predvidljivost, da se lahko prilagodijo trgu.
In summary, although the pharmaceuticals market does not operate under normal competitive conditions, the price regulation system is not completely free from the influence of the manufacturers, which negotiate prices with the Member State health authorities, enjoy a degree of strength in the market and are able to adapt easily to the vicissitudes of health policy, at least as far as medicines are concerned.
Skratka, čeprav trg farmacevtskih proiz vodov ne deluje v običajnem sistemu konkurence, se sistem uravnavanja cen ne izogne popolnoma vplivu proizvajalcev teh proizvodov, ki se o cenah pogajajo z zdravstvenimi organi držav članic in imajo težo na trgu, na katerem se zlahka prilagodijo spremenljivosti zdravstvene politike, vsaj na področju zdravil.
LÉLOS KAI SIA AND OTHERS abusive practices and conduct intended to protect legitimate business interests. 59
LÉLOS KAI SIA IN DRUGI katerih cilj je ohraniti zakonite poslovne interese. 59
In short, for the reasons set out above, the duty to supply cannot justify GSK cutting off supplies to its rival Greek wholesalers.
Če povzamem, ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenega jamčenje oskrbe družbi GSK ne omogoča, da bi upravičila omejitve dobave gr�kim trgovcem na debelo, ki so njeni konkurenti.
The refusal to meet fully the requests of the Greek wholesalers amounts to a refusal to supply, albeit partial, and I will therefore restrict myself to the few judgments of the Court relating to that subject.
Zavrnitev izpolnjevanja naročil gr�kih trgovcev na debelo v celoti je enaka zavrnitvi oskrbe, čeprav delno, tako se bom omejil na redke sodbe Sodi�če o tem posebnem vidiku.
Therefore, having rejected the two grounds for exoneration put forward by GSK, we must rule out the idea that there are in this case objective reasons relating to State intervention in the market which would justify its conduct.
Ker sta bila razloga za oprostitev, ki ju je navedla GSK, zavrnjena, je treba zavrniti zamisel, da naj bi v tem primeru obstajali objektivni razlogi v zvezi z državno intervencijo na trgu, ki naj bi upravičevali njeno ravnanje.
Protection of legitimate business interests
Obramba zakonitih poslovnih interesov
United Brands accepted that the protection of legitimate business interests can be a means of defusing suspicions of abuse by an undertaking in a dominant pos -ition, by allowing them to take the necessary steps to protect such interests, provided that the essential proportionality between the reaction of the dominant companies and the attacks on their interests is preserved. 60
Sodi�če je v sodbi United Brands priznalo, da se lahko za�čita zakonitih poslovnih interesov uporabi kot instrument za odpravo sumov o zlorabi podjetij s prevladujočim položajem, s tem da jim omogoča sprejeti ustrezne ukrepe, da si zagotovijo to za�čito, kolikor je ohranjeno nepogre�ljivo načelo sorazmernosti odziva družb s prevladujočim položajem glede na napade, ki so jim izpostavljeni njihovi interesi.
However, the establishment of this principle was of no help to the American
Priznanje tega načela pa ni nič koristilo ameri�ki multinacionalki na trgu banan, kajti
A quick analysis of the caselaw shows that, so far, this is the only category of object- ive justifications to have really taken shape, as the fundamental debate over Article 82 EC has come down to the dichotomy between
Kratka analiza sodne prakse kaže, da je ta kategorija objektivnih utemeljitev edina, ki se je do zdaj izkristalizirala, potem ko se je imanentna dialektika člena 82 ES skrčila na dihotomijo med zlorabami in ravnanji,
60 — United Brands, paragraphs 189 and 190.
60 – Sodba, navedena v opombi 18, točki 189 in 190.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-468/06 TO C-478/06 banana multinational, as the judgment found that the necessary conditions for legitim- ate protection were not present, precisely because the refusal to meet the orders of its customer and competitor Olesen was not proportionate. 61
Sodi�če je v sodbi ravno na podlagi te nesorazmernosti zavrnitve izpolnjevanja naročil stranke in konkurentke, družbe Olesen, zanikalo obstoj zahtev po zakoniti za�čiti. 61
There is discussion among legal writers about other justifications, such as that of the unsatisfactory trading parties, that is to say, a trader who is on the verge of insolvency, commits systematic breaches of contract or is damaging to the image or the quality of the supplier’s goods.
Pravni teoretiki so predvideli druga upravičenja, kot je neustrezen poslovni partner, ki je na pragu stečaja in ki sistematično ne upo�teva sklenjenih pogodb ali ki �koduje podobi ali kakovosti blaga dobavitelja.
65In these circumstances, common sense suggests that the wishes of any dominant undertaking to refuse orders should be respected.
65 V teh primerih zdrava pamet narekuje, da je treba upo�tevati željo vsakega prevladujočega podjetja, da ne izpolni njegovih naročil.