Grounds
|
|
1. This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 34 TFEU.
|
1. Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nanaša na razlago člena 34 PDEU.
|
|
2. The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Asociación Nacional de Expendedores de Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT) and Administración del Estado concerning national legislation which prohibits licensed tobacco and stamp outlets (‘tobacco retailers’) from importing tobacco products from other Member States.
|
2. Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med Asociación Nacional de Expendedores de Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT) in Administración del Estado zaradi nacionalnih določb, ki imetnikom prodajaln tobaka in kolkov (v nadaljevanju: trgovci na drobno s tobakom) prepovedujejo uvoz tobačnih proizvodov iz drugih držav članic.
|
|
The national legal framework
|
Nacionalni pravni okvir
|
|
3. As set out in Article 1(1) and (2) of Law No 13/1998 organising the Tobacco Market and Taxation Regulations (Ley 13/1998 de Ordenación del Mercado de Tabacos y Normativa Tributaria), of 4 May 1988 (BOE No 107 of 5 May 1998, p. 14871) as amended (‘Law No 13/1998’):
|
3. Člen 1(1) in (2) zakona št. 13/1998 o ureditvi tobačnega trga in davčnih predpisih (Ley 13/1998 de Ordenación del Mercado de Tabacos y Normativa Tributaria) z dne 4. maja 1998 (BOE št. 107 z dne 5. maja 1998, str. 14871), kakor je bil spremenjen (v nadaljevanju: zakon št. 13/1998), določa:
|
|
‘1. The market in tobacco is liberalised, subject to the limitations set out in the present Law, and consequently, the monopoly over the manufacture, importation and wholesale of non-community manufactured tobacco products … are abolished on the territory of the peninsula, the Balearic Islands, Ceuta and Melilla.
|
„1. Tobačni trg je liberaliziran, razen če ta zakon določa drugače, zato je monopol nad proizvodnjo, uvozom in trgovino na debelo s tobačnimi proizvodi, ki niso iz Skupnosti […], na ozemlju polotoka, Balearskih otokov, Ceute in Mellile odpravljen.
|
|
2. Any natural or legal person having the legal capacity to carry on a trade may engage in the activities referred to in paragraph 1, in the manner and according to the conditions provided in Articles 2 and 3 of the present Law. However, persons involved in one of the situations listed below, or who become so involved, may not engage in the abovementioned activities:
|
2. Vsaka fizična ali pravna oseba, ki je pravno sposobna za izvajanje trgovinske dejavnosti, lahko opravlja dejavnosti iz odstavka 1, na način in pod pogoji, določenimi v členih 2 in 3 tega zakona. Vendar osebe, ki spadajo oziroma bodo spadale v enega od spodaj navedenih primerov, zgoraj navedenih dejavnosti ne morejo opravljati, in sicer osebe, ki:
|
|
...
|
[…]
|
|
c) being a [tobacco retailer], having a point of sale subject to a surcharge or being the owner of one of the tobacco outlets under the special regime...’
|
(c) so [trgovci na debelo s tobakom], imajo dovoljenje za prodajno mesto, ki je dodatno obdavčeno, ali so imetniki ene od prodajaln tobaka, za katero velja posebna ureditev […]“.
|
|
4. Article 2(3) of the Law states:
|
4. Člen 2(3) navedenega zakona določa:
|
|
‘Manufacturers and, where appropriate, importers shall ensure that their [manufactured tobacco products] are available throughout the national territory referred to in Article 1(1), where there is demand for those products.’
|
„Proizvajalci in glede na okoliščine primera uvozniki morajo, če obstaja povpraševanje po tobačnih proizvodih, zagotavljati, da so njihovi proizvodi dostopni na celotnem ozemlju, določenem v členu 1(1).“
|
|
5. Article 3(1) of the same Law provides::
|
5. Člen 3(1) tega zakona določa:
|
|
‘There shall be no restrictions on the importing and wholesale distribution of manufactured tobacco products, irrespective of their origin, save for the requirement to submit an undertaking of compliance [with the applicable rules] to the Tobacco Market Commission … ‘
|
„Uvoz tobačnih proizvodov in njihova prodaja na debelo sta svobodna ne glede na njihov izvor, vendar pod pogojem, da se komisiji za tobačni trg predloži izjava o zavezi k spoštovanju veljavnih pravil […].“
|
|
6. Article 4 of Law No 13/1998 states:
|
6. Člen 4 zakona št. 13/1998 določa:
|
|
‘1. The retail trade of manufactured tobacco products in Spain, with the exception of the Canary Islands, shall remain a monopoly owned by the State, operated through the network of tobacco and stamp outlets.
|
„1. Trgovina na drobno s tobačnimi proizvodi, ki so iz Španije, razen s Kanarskih otokov, ostane monopol države, ki ga izvaja z mrežo prodajaln tobaka in kolkov.
|
|
2. The retail selling prices of the various types, brands and forms of tobacco product intended for sale in Spain, with the exception of the Canary Islands, shall be determined by manufacturers or, where applicable, their representatives or agents in the European Union …
|
2. Maloprodajne cene različnih vrst, znamk in oblik tobaka, namenjenega trženju v Španiji, razen na Kanarskih otokih, določijo proizvajalci ali glede na okoliščine primera njihovi zastopniki ali pooblaščeni posredniki v Evropski uniji […].
|
|
3. [Tobacco retailers], who must necessarily be natural persons, having the nationality of any of the States of the European Union, are classified as licensees of the State. … [They] shall not be licence holders of any other outlet or point of sale subject to surcharge, or have any professional or working relationship with any importers, manufacturers or wholesalers on the tobacco market, unless that relationship ends prior to the definitive grant of the outlet licence.
|
3. Trgovci [na drobno s tobakom in kolki], ki so nujno fizične osebe, državljani ene od države Evropske unije, so državni koncesionarji. […] Prodajalci ne smejo biti imetniki druge prodajalne ali prodajnega mesta, ki je dodatno obdavčeno, niti ne smejo biti poslovno ali delovno povezani z uvozniki, proizvajalci ali trgovci na debelo na tobačnem trgu, razen če ta povezava preneha pred dokončno podelitvijo koncesije za prodajalno tobaka.
|
|
4. An outlet licence shall be granted after a call for tenders ...
|
4. Koncesija za prodajalno tobaka se podeli na podlagi javnega razpisa […]
|
|
The licence shall be granted for a period of twenty-five years. ...
|
Koncesija je podeljena za obdobje petindvajsetih let. […]
|
|
...
|
[…]
|
|
7. The [tobacco retailer’s] profit margin on the sale of manufactured tobacco products, which must be acquired from an authorised wholesaler, is fixed at 8.5% of the retail sale price, regardless of the product’s price, type, or origin, or the wholesaler who supplied it Nevertheless, for the sale of cigars, the [tobacco retailer] shall, in any event, receive a profit margin of 9%.
|
7. Marža trgovcev na drobno s tobačnimi proizvodi, ki morajo biti nujno kupljeni pri pooblaščenih trgovcih na debelo, je določena na 8,5 % maloprodajne cene ne glede na ceno ali vrsto proizvoda, njegovo poreklo ali trgovca na debelo, ki ga je dobavil. Za prodajo cigar pa trgovec na drobno vsekakor prejme 9 % maržo.
|
|
...’
|
[…]“
|
|
7. Article 1(1) of Royal Decree No 1199/1999 of 9 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Law No 13/1998 (BOE No 166 of 13 July 1999, p. 26330; ‘Royal Decree 1199/1999) states:
|
7. Člen 1(1) kraljeve uredbe št. 1199/1999 z dne 9. julija 1999 o izvajanju zakona št. 13/1998 (BOE št. 166 z dne 13. julija 1999, str. 26330, v nadaljevanju: kraljeva uredba št. 1199/1999) določa:
|
|
‘In accordance with Article 1 of Law [13/1998], any natural or legal person having the legal capacity to carry on a trade may engage in the activities of manufacture, importation and wholesale of manufactured tobacco products, regardless of their origin, under the conditions set out in the present regulation.’
|
„V skladu s členom 1 zakona [št. 13/1998] lahko vsaka fizična ali pravna oseba, ki je pravno sposobna za izvajanje trgovinske dejavnosti, ob upoštevanju pogojev iz te uredbe opravlja dejavnosti proizvodnje, uvoza in trgovine na debelo s tobačnimi proizvodi, ne glede na njihovo poreklo.“
|
|
8. Article 2(1) of the royal decree provides:
|
8. Člen 2(1) te kraljeve uredbe določa:
|
|
‘Persons involved in one of the situations listed below may not engage in the activities referred to in Article 1(1):
|
„Osebe, ki spadajo v enega od spodaj navedenih primerov, ne morejo opravljati dejavnosti iz člena 1(1), in sicer osebe, ki:
|
|
...
|
[…]
|
|
c) being a [tobacco retailer], having an outlet subject to a surcharge or being the owner of one of the tobacco outlets under the special regime ...’
|
(c) so [trgovci na drobno s tobakom], imajo dovoljenje za prodajno mesto, ki je dodatno obdavčeno, ali so imetniki ene od prodajaln tobaka, za katero velja posebna ureditev […]“.
|
|
9. Royal Decree No 1199/1999 was amended by Royal Decree No 1/2007 of 12 January 2007 (BOE No 18 of 20 January 2007, p.2845; ‘Royal Decree No 1/2007’).
|
9. Kraljeva uredba št. 1199/1999 je bila spremenjena s kraljevo uredbo št. 1/2007 z dne 12. januarja 2007 (BOE št. 18 z dne 20. januarja 2007, str. 2845, v nadaljevanju: kraljeva uredba št. 1/2007).
|
|
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
|
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
|
|
10. By an action brought before the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), ANETT requested that several provisions of Royal Decree No 1/2007 be annulled, on the ground that they modified Royal Decree No 1199/1999 without resolving an alleged contradiction between European Union law and the rules governing the tobacco market and the monopoly over tobacco distribution in Spain.
|
10. ANETT je s tožbo, vloženo pri Tribunal Supremo, temu predlagalo, naj več določb kraljeve uredbe št. 1/2007 razglasi za nične, ker spreminjajo kraljevo uredbo št. 1199/1999, ne da bi se razrešila zatrjevana protislovnost med pravom Unije in pravili, ki urejajo tobačni trg in monopol nad njegovo distribucijo v Španiji.
|
|
11. ANETT claimed, inter alia, that the prohibition of tobacco retailers from importing tobacco was contrary to the principles of the free movement of goods, as provided by Article 34 TFEU, since this prohibition constituted a quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent effect.
|
11. ANETT med drugim zatrjuje, da je prepoved za trgovce na drobno s tobakom, da opravljajo dejavnosti uvoza tobačnih proizvodov, v nasprotju z načelom prostega pretoka blaga, kot ga zagotavlja člen 34 PDEU, ker ta prepoved pomeni količinsko omejitev oziroma ukrep z enakim učinkom.
|
|
12. In those circumstances, the Tribunal Supremo decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
|
12. V teh okoliščinah je Tribunal Supremo prekinilo odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje:
|
|
‘Should Article 34 [TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that Spanish national law prohibiting tobacco [retailers] from importing manufactured tobacco products from other Member States constitutes a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having equivalent effect as prohibited by the [FEU] Treaty?’
|
„Ali je mogoče člen 34 [PDEU] razlagati tako, da prepoved iz španskega nacionalnega prava, naložena [trgovcem na drobno s tobakom], in sicer uvoza tobačnih proizvodov iz drugih držav članic, pomeni količinsko omejitev pri uvozu ali ukrep z enakim učinkom, prepovedan s [PDEU]?“
|
|
The admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling
|
Dopustnost predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe
|
|
13. At the hearing, the Spanish Government challenged the admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling, maintaining that the Court’s response served no purpose in relation to the outcome of the main proceedings since those proceedings concern the validity of Royal Decree 1/2007.
|
13. Španska vlada je na obravnavi ugovarjala dopustnosti predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, pri tem pa zatrjevala, da odgovor Sodišča ne bi prispeval ničesar k razrešitvi spora o glavni stvari, ker se ta nanaša na zakonitost kraljeve uredbe št. 1/2007.
|
|
14. That decree modified certain provisions of Royal Decree 1199/1999 without governing or even mentioning the prohibition of tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products. This prohibition arises from Article 4 of Law No 13/1998 and Article 2 of Royal Decree No 1199/1999, which are not affected by Royal Decree 1/2007. It follows that, in the main proceedings, the referring court may not annul any provision connected to the aforementioned prohibition.
|
14. S to uredbo naj bi bile namreč nekatere določbe kraljeve uredbe št. 1199/1999 spremenjene, ne da bi bila urejena ali omenjena prepoved za trgovce na drobno s tobakom, da opravljajo dejavnost uvoza tobaka. Ta prepoved naj bi izhajala iz člena 4 zakona št. 13/1998 in člena 2 kraljeve uredbe št. 1199/1999, na katera kraljeva uredba št. 1/2007 ne vpliva. Iz tega je razvidno, da predložitveno sodišče v sporu o glavni stvari ne bi moglo razglasiti za nično nobene določbe, ki bi bila povezana z navedeno prepovedjo.
|
|
15. Moreover, ANETT has already brought an action against Royal Decree No 1199/1999 which lays downs this same prohibition, without challenging that prohibition, and this action has been rejected by the Tribunal Supremo. In light of the principles of legal certainty and res judicata , the national court cannot thereby revaluate the prohibition in question in the main proceedings.
|
15. Poleg tega naj bi ANETT že vložilo tožbo zoper kraljevo uredbo št. 1199?1999, ki določa to prepoved, ne da bi tej prepovedi ugovarjalo, to tožbo pa naj bi Tribunal Supremo zavrnilo. Ob upoštevanju načela pravne varnosti in res iudicata nacionalno sodišče zato ne more ponovno presojati prepovedi v zadevi v glavni stvari.
|
|
16. In this respect, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of European Union law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-222/05 to C-225/05, van der Weerd and Others [2007] ECR I-4233, paragraph 22, and Case C-158/08 Pometon [2009] ECR I‑4695, paragraph 13).
|
16. V zvezi s tem je treba navesti, da se domneva upoštevnost vprašanj v zvezi z razlago prava Unije, ki jih postavi nacionalno sodišče v normativnem in dejanskem okviru, ki ga opredeli v okviru lastne odgovornosti in katerega pravilnosti Sodišče ne preizkuša. Zavrnitev predloga nacionalnega sodišča je mogoča samo, če je očitno, da zahtevana razlaga prava Unije nima nobene zveze z dejanskim stanjem ali predmetom spora v postopku v glavni stvari, če je problem hipotetičen ali če Sodišče nima na voljo pravnih in dejanskih elementov, ki so potrebni za to, da bi lahko na zastavljena vprašanja dalo koristne odgovore (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 7. junija 2007 v združenih zadevah Van der Weerd in drugi, od C‑222/05 do C-225/05, ZOdl., str. I‑4233, točka 22, in z dne 4. junija 2009 v zadevi Pometon, C‑158/08, ZOdl., str. I‑4695, točka 13).
|
|
17. In the main proceedings, it is admittedly not certain that an incompatibility of the prohibition in question with EU law will affect the validity of Royal Decree 1/2007, since that decree does not govern the prohibition and since an action against Royal Decree 1199/1999 which lays down this prohibition has already been rejected by the Tribunal Supremo.
|
17. V zadevi v glavni stvari sicer ni gotovo, da bi morebitna nezdružljivost zadevne prepovedi s pravom Unije vplivala na zakonitost kraljeve uredbe št. 1/2007, ker ta uredba ne ureja prepovedi in ker je Tribunal Supremo tožbo zoper kraljevo uredbo št. 1199/1999, ki določa navedeno prepoved, že zavrnilo.
|
|
18. However, when the decision to refer is considered in its entirety, it cannot be completely excluded that the response of the Court may serve a purpose in relation to the outcome of the main proceedings. In those circumstances, the abovementioned elements do not suffice, in themselves, to reverse the presumption of relevance evoked in paragraph 16 of the present judgment.
|
18. Vendar ob upoštevanju predložitvene odločbe v celoti ni mogoče dokončno izključiti, da bi bil lahko odgovor Sodišča koristen za rešitev spora o glavni stvari. V teh okoliščinah zgoraj navedeni elementi sami po sebi ne zadostujejo za ovrženje domneve upoštevnosti, navedene v točki 16 te sodbe.
|
|
19. Consequently, the reference for a preliminary ruling must be held to be admissible.
|
19. Zato je treba šteti, da je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe dopusten.
|
|
The question referred for a preliminary ruling
|
Vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
|
|
20. By its question, the national court essentially asks whether Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes prohibitions on tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products from other Member States.
|
20. Predložitveno sodišče v bistvu sprašuje, ali je treba člen 34 PDEU razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ki trgovcem na drobno s tobakom prepoveduje opravljati dejavnost uvoza tobačnih proizvodov iz drugih držav članic.
|
|
Applicable Legislation
|
Veljavne določbe
|
|
21. The European Commission, in its written observations, and the Spanish Government, at the hearing, claimed that, contrary to what the referring court stated in its reference for a preliminary ruling, the national legislation must be assessed in the light of Article 37 TFEU and not of Article 34 TFEU. The legislation in question concerns the operation of a monopoly of a commercial character within the meaning of Article 37 TFEU and gives rise to restrictions on trade which are inherent in the existence of such a monopoly.
|
21. Evropska komisija je v pisnih stališčih, španska vlada pa na obravnavi zatrjevala –nasprotno, kot je navedlo predložitveno sodišče v vprašanju za predhodno odločanje – da je treba nacionalno ureditev preizkusiti glede na člen 37 PDEU, in ne člen 34 PDEU. Ta ureditev naj bi se namreč nanašala na delovanje monopola tržne narave v smislu člena 37 PDEU in naj bi povzročala omejevalne učinke na trgovanje, ki so neločljivo povezani z obstojem takega monopola.
|
|
22. In this respect, according to the case-law of the Court, the rules relating to the existence and the operation of a monopoly must be examined in the light of the provisions of Article 37 TFEU, which are specifically applicable to the exercise, by a domestic commercial monopoly, of its exclusive rights (see, inter alia, Case C-189/95 Franzén [1997] ECR I-5909, paragraph 35, and Case C-170/04 Rosengren and Others [2007] ECR I-4071, paragraph 17).
|
22. V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča je treba pravila o obstoju in delovanju navedenega monopola preizkusiti glede na določbe člena 37 PDEU, ki se še posebej nanaša na primer, v katerem se z državnim monopolom tržne narave izvajajo ekskluzivne pravice (glej med drugim sodbi z dne 23. oktobra 1997 v zadevi Franzén, C‑189/95, Recueil, str. I‑5909, točka 35, in z dne 5. junija 2007 v zadevi Rosengren in drugi, C‑170/04, ZOdl., str. I‑4071, točka 17).
|
|
23. However, the effect on trade within the Union of the other provisions of the domestic legislation, which are separable from the operation of the monopoly although they have a bearing upon it, must be examined in the light of Article 34 TFEU (see, inter alia, Franzén , paragraph 36, and Rosengren and Others , paragraph 18).
|
23. Nasprotno pa je treba učinke drugih določb nacionalne zakonodaje na trgovanje znotraj Unije, ki jih je mogoče ločiti od delovanja monopola, čeprav naj bi učinkovale nanj, preizkusiti glede na člen 34 PDEU (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi Franzén, točka 36, in Rosengren in drugi, točka 18).
|
|
24. In those circumstances, it is necessary to check whether the prohibition at issue in the main proceedings amounts to a rule relating to the existence or the operation of the monopoly.
|
24. Zato je treba preveriti, ali ukrep prepovedi, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, pomeni pravilo o obstoju oziroma delovanju monopola.
|
|
25. In this regard, it must be borne in mind that, firstly, the specific purpose of the monopoly in question is to reserve the exclusive right of sale of tobacco products at retail level to authorised retailers, which does not imply that they should be prohibited from importing such products.
|
25. V zvezi s tem je treba po eni strani opozoriti, da je posebna vloga zadevnega monopola v pridržanju ekskluzivne pravice do prodaje na drobno tobačnih proizvodov koncesionarjem, ne da bi jim bil uvoz teh proizvodov prepovedan.
|
|
26. Hence, by preventing tobacco retailers from importing those products on to the Spanish territory, the prohibition at issue in the main proceedings affects the free movement of goods within the European Union, and does not govern the exercise of the exclusive right relating to the monopoly in question.
|
26. Ukrep prepovedi v zadevi v glavni stvari zato, ker trgovcem na drobno s tobakom onemogoča uvoz navedenih proizvodov na špansko ozemlje, vpliva na prosti pretok blaga v Uniji, ne da bi urejal izvajanje ekskluzivne pravice, ki izhaja iz zadevnega monopola.
|
|
27. Consequently, this prohibition does not concern the exercise of the specific purpose of the monopoly in question and thus cannot be considered as relating to the very existence of the monopoly (see, by analogy, Rosengren and Others , paragraph 22).
|
27. Ta ukrep se zato ne nanaša na izvajanje posebne funkcije zadevnega monopola in ga torej ni mogoče šteti za ukrep, ki vpliva na sam obstoj monopola (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Rosengren in drugi, točka 22).
|
|
28. Secondly, it must be noted that the prohibition imposed on retailers’ importing tobacco products has the effect of forcing those tobacco retailers to procure their supplies from authorised wholesalers. On that basis, the prohibition in question is capable of having an impact on the operation of the monopoly.
|
28. Po drugi strani je treba spomniti, da prepoved za trgovce na drobno s tobakom, da uvažajo tobačne proizvode, povzroča usmerjanje teh trgovcev, da nabavljajo od pooblaščenih trgovcev na debelo. Ukrep prepovedi v postopku v glavni stvari lahko s tega vidika vpliva na delovanje navedenega monopola.
|
|
29. However, and even if, in contrast to the legislation at issue in the proceedings which gave rise to the judgment in Rosengren and Others , the prohibition at issue in the main proceedings does not affect private individuals but rather the licensees under the monopoly in question, namely the tobacco retailers, such a prohibition is separable from the operation of the monopoly as it relates not to the selling arrangements for retail sale of tobacco products on the Spanish territory but to the upstream market in those products. It does not aim to organise the monopoly’s system of product selection. Likewise, the prohibition does not target either the sale network of the monopoly in question or the marketing or advertising of the products distributed by the monopoly (see, by analogy, Rosengren and Others, paragraph 24).
|
29. Vendar tudi če se ukrep v postopku v glavni stvari, drugače kot v ureditvi v zadevi, v kateri je bila sprejeta zgoraj navedena zadeva Rosengren in drugi, ne bi nanašal na posameznike, ampak na koncesionarje, ki uživajo zadevni monopol, in sicer trgovce na drobno s tobakom, bi bilo mogoče tak ukrep ločiti od delovanja monopola, saj se ne nanaša na način prodaje na drobno tobačnih proizvodov na španskem ozemlju, temveč na trgu, ki je višje v prodajni verigi teh proizvodov. Njegov namen namreč ni organizirati sistem monopolne izbire proizvodov. Namen navedenega ukrepa ni niti ureditev prodajne mreže zadevnega monopola niti ureditev trženja ali oglaševanja proizvodov, ki se prodajajo na debelo v okviru tega monopola (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Rosengren in drugi, točka 24).
|
|
30. In those circumstances, the prohibition cannot be regarded as a rule relating to the existence or the operation of the monopoly. Accordingly, Article 37 TFEU is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether such a prohibition is compatible with EU law, in particular with the provisions of the Treaty relating to free movement of goods.
|
30. V teh okoliščinah ukrep prepovedi, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, ne pomeni pravila o obstoju oziroma delovanju monopola. Člen 37 PDEU se zato pri preverjanju, ali je tak ukrep združljiv s pravom Unije, predvsem z določbami Pogodbe v zvezi s prostim pretokom blaga, ne upošteva.
|
|
31. Consequently, national legislation prohibiting tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be assessed in the light of Article 34 TFEU.
|
31. Nacionalno ureditev, ki določa prepoved za trgovce na drobno s tobakom, da uvažajo tobačne proizvode, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, je treba zato presojati ob upoštevanju člena 34 PDEU.
|
|
The existence of a restriction on the free movement of goods
|
Obstoj omejitve prostega pretoka blaga
|
|
32. According to settled case-law, all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade within the European Union are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU (see, inter alia, Case 8/74 Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5, and Case C‑110/05 Commission v Italy [2009] ECR I‑519, paragraph 33).
|
32. V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je treba vse trgovinske predpise držav članic, ki bi lahko neposredno ali posredno in dejansko ali morebitno ovirali trgovino znotraj Unije, šteti za ukrepe z enakim učinkom, kot ga imajo količinske omejitve v smislu člena 34 PDEU (glej med drugim sodbi z dne 11. julija 1974 v zadevi Dassonville, 8/74, Recueil, str. 837, točka 5, in z dne 10. februarja 2009 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, C‑110/05, ZOdl., str. I‑519, točka 33).
|
|
33. It is also apparent from settled case-law that Article 34 TFEU reflects the obligation to comply with the principles of non-discrimination and of mutual recognition of products lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States, as well as the principle of ensuring free access of EU products to national markets (see Commission v Italy , paragraph 34, and Case C-108/09 Ker-Optika [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 48).
|
33. Iz ustaljene sodne prakse je razvidno tudi, da člen 34 PDEU določa obveznost spoštovanja načel prepovedi diskriminacije in medsebojnega priznavanja proizvodov, ki se zakonito proizvajajo in tržijo v drugih državah članicah, in načela zagotavljanja prostega dostopa do nacionalnih trgov za proizvode Unije (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Italiji, točka 34, in sodbo z dne 2. decembra 2010 v zadevi Ker-Optika, C‑108/09, še neobjavljena v ZOdl., točka 48).
|
|
34. Accordingly, measures adopted by a Member State the object or effect of which is to treat goods coming from other Member States less favourably are to be regarded as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions, as are rules that lay down requirements to be met by such goods, even if such rules apply to all products alike (see Commission v Italy , paragraphs 35 and 37 and Ker-Optika , paragraph 49).
|
34. Ukrepe države članice, katerih cilj ali učinek je manj ugodno obravnavanje proizvodov iz drugih držav članic, in pravila o pogojih, ki jih mora izpolnjevati to blago, čeprav se ta pravila brez kakršnega koli razlikovanja uporabljajo za vse proizvode, je treba tako šteti za ukrepe z enakim učinkom, kot ga imajo količinske omejitve (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Italiji, točki 35 in 37, in Ker-Optika, točka 49).
|
|
35. Any other measure which hinders access of products originating in other Member States to the market of a Member State is also covered by that concept ( Commission v Italy , paragraph 37, and Ker-Optika , paragraph 50).
|
35. Tako je treba obravnavati tudi vse druge ukrepe, ki ovirajo dostop do trga države članice za proizvode druge države članice (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Italiji, točka 37, in Ker-Optika, točka 50).
|
|
36. In the main proceedings, nothing indicates that the national legislation at issue has the object or effect of treating tobacco coming from other Member States less favourably. Nor does it concern the requirements that those products must meet.
|
36. V postopku v glavni stvari nič na kaže na to, da je cilj ali učinek zadevne nacionalne ureditve manj ugodno obravnavanje tobačnih proizvodov iz drugih držav članic. Niti se ne nanaša na pravila o pogojih, ki jih morajo izpolnjevati ti proizvodi.
|
|
37. However, it is still necessary to examine whether this legislation hinders the access of tobacco products coming from other Member States to the Spanish market.
|
37. Vendar je treba preveriti še, ali ta ureditev ovira dostop tobačnim proizvodom iz drugih držav članic do španskega trga.
|
|
38. In this respect, it should be noted that, by prohibiting tobacco retailers from directly importing such products from other Member States, the legislation in question forces them to procure their supplies from authorised wholesalers. Such a procurement method is likely to present various disadvantages which the retailers would not encounter if they carried out the importation themselves.
|
38. V zvezi s tem je treba navesti, da s tem, da je trgovcem na drobno s tobakom prepovedan neposredni uvoz teh proizvodov iz drugih držav članic, navedena ureditev te trgovce zavezuje, da nabavljajo od pooblaščenih trgovcev na debelo. Tako nabavljanje pa bi lahko imelo več slabosti, s katerimi se ti trgovci na drobno ne bi srečevali, če bi uvažali sami.
|
|
39. In particular, the retailers in question can only sell a tobacco product coming from another Member State if such a product is included in the range of products offered by the authorised wholesalers in Spain and if those wholesalers have the product in stock. Hence, where the range of products offered by those wholesalers does not include a specific product, the tobacco retailers have no direct, flexible and quick means of meeting the demands of their own customers who are interested in this product.
|
39. Natančneje, zadevni trgovci na drobno lahko tržijo tobačni proizvod iz druge države članice le, če je ta proizvod na voljo v paleti proizvodov pooblaščenega trgovca na debelo v Španiji in če ga ima ta na zalogi. Kadar proizvoda v paleti proizvodov ni, trgovci na drobno s tobakom nimajo nobene neposredne, prilagodljive in hitre možnosti, s katero bi odgovorili na povpraševanje strank, ki se zanimajo za ta proizvod.
|
|
40. This finding is not called into question by the importers’ obligation to guarantee the availability of tobacco products throughout the national territory, where demand for these products exists, as the national legislation provides. The importers may choose to avoid importing certain products where demand is judged to be insufficient, or to delay the importation of such products. On the other hand, any tobacco retailer would undoubtedly be able to react, in the place of the importers, more flexibly and quickly to the demands of its customers with whom it is in direct and frequent contact.
|
40. Ta ugotovitev se komajda lahko izpodbija z obveznostjo uvoznika, da zagotavlja dostopnost do tobačnih proizvodov na celotnem nacionalnem ozemlju, kadar obstaja povpraševanje po teh proizvodih, kot ga določa nacionalna zakonodaja. Ti uvozniki se lahko namreč odločijo, da ne bodo uvažali nekaterih proizvodov, za katere povprašuje premalo posameznikov, ali pa jih uvozijo prepozno. Nasprotno pa bi se lahko vsak trgovec na drobno s tobakom namesto uvoznikov zagotovo bolj prilagodljivo in hitreje odzval na povpraševanje strank, s katerimi je v neposrednem in pogostem stiku.
|
|
41. Moreover, the tobacco retailers are prevented from procuring supplies in other Member States, even if the manufacturers and wholesalers located there could offer more advantageous procurement conditions, particularly in border areas, either because of their geographic proximity or because of the specific delivery methods they offer.
|
41. Poleg tega je trgovcem na drobno s tobakom preprečeno, da bi nabavljali v drugih državah članicah, čeprav bi lahko proizvajalci in trgovci na debelo, ki imajo tam sedež, zlasti v obmejnih regijah, ponudili ugodnejše pogoje nabave bodisi zaradi njihove geografske bližine bodisi zaradi posebnega načina dostave, ki jo ponujajo.
|
|
42. All of these elements are capable of having a negative effect on the choice of products that the tobacco retailers include in their range of products and, ultimately, on the access of various products coming from other Member States to the Spanish market.
|
42. Vsi ti elementi imajo lahko negativen učinek na izbiro proizvodov, ki jih trgovci na drobno s tobakom vključujejo v svojo paleto proizvodov, in nazadnje na dostop do različnih proizvodov iz drugih držav članic na španskem trgu.
|
|
43. In those circumstances, it must be held that the prohibition at issue hinders the access of these products to the market.
|
43. V teh okoliščinah je treba ugotoviti, da ukrep prepovedi v postopku v glavni stvari ovira dostop teh proizvodov do trga.
|
|
44. It follows that the legislation at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU.
|
44. Iz tega je razvidno, da navedena zakonodaja pomeni ukrep z enakim učinkom, kot ga imajo količinske omejitve v smislu člena 34 PDEU.
|
|
Justification for the restriction on the free movement of goods
|
Utemeljitev omejitve prostega pretoka blaga
|
|
45. According to settled case-law, an obstacle to the free movement of goods may be justified on one of the public interest grounds set out in Article 36 TFEU or in order to meet overriding requirements. In either case, the national provision must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, inter alia, Commission v Italy , paragraph 59, and Ker-Optika , paragraph 57).
|
45. V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je oviro za prosti pretok blaga mogoče upravičiti z razlogi splošnega interesa iz člena 36 PDEU ali z nujnimi zahtevami. V obeh primerih mora nacionalni ukrep zagotavljati uresničitev cilja, ki se mu sledi, in ne sme presegati tega, kar je nujno potrebno, da bi bil dosežen (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Italiji, točka 59, in Ker-Optika, točka 57).
|
|
Observations submitted to the Court
|
Stališča, predložena Sodišču
|
|
46. The Spanish and Italian Governments claim, first, that the prohibition at issue in the main proceedings may be justified by the necessity of guaranteeing fiscal and customs control of tobacco products and ensuring their control of health-related aspects.
|
46. Španska in italijanska vlada, prvič, navajata, da je mogoče zadevni ukrep prepovedi v postopku v glavni stvar utemeljiti s potrebo po zagotovitvi davčnega in carinskega nadzora tobačnih proizvodov in njihovega zdravstvenega nadzora.
|
|
47. Second, those governments claim that the abovementioned prohibition is necessary to achieve the objective of protecting consumers. If tobacco retailers were authorised to import tobacco products, they might be tempted to favour certain products over others, to the detriment of the neutrality of the tobacco market.
|
47. Drugič, ti vladi zatrjujeta, da je navedeni ukrep potreben za uresničevanje cilja varstva potrošnikov. Če bi bilo namreč trgovcem na drobno s tobakom dovoljeno uvažati tobačne proizvode, bi lahko nekaterim proizvodom dajali prednost pred drugimi v škodo nevtralnosti tobačnega trga.
|
|
48. Third, the Spanish Government considers that the prohibition at issue in the main proceedings is justified by the fact that allowing tobacco retailers to import these products would amount to giving them an excessive competitive advantage.
|
48. Tretjič, španska vlada meni, da je zadevni ukrep prepovedi v postopku v glavni stvari utemeljen, ker bi imeli trgovci na drobno s tobakom čezmerno konkurenčno prednost, če bi jim bilo dovoljeno uvažanje teh proizvodov.
|
|
49. Fourth, the Spanish Government is of the opinion that, in any event, a restriction on the free movement of goods should be removed only if doing so would present an advantage for consumers such as, in particular, a decline in prices. However, given that tobacco is a monopolised product, sold at fixed prices, the removal of the prohibition of importation by tobacco retailers could not have any benefit for consumers; the only possible beneficiary being the retailers themselves.
|
49. Četrtič, španska vlada meni, da je treba omejitev prostega pretoka blaga vsekakor odpraviti le, če bi ta odprava pomenila prednost za potrošnike, in sicer predvsem znižanje cen. Vendar ker je tobak monopolni proizvod, ki se prodaja po fiksnih cenah, odprava prepovedi uvoza za trgovca na drobno s tobakom ne bi pomenila nobene prednosti za potrošnike; od tega bi lahko imeli korist samo trgovci na drobno.
|
|
The Court’s Reply
|
Odgovor Sodišča
|
|
50. With regard, first of all, to the argument of the Spanish and Italian Governments, based on the necessity of ensuring fiscal, customs, and health control of tobacco products, it should be noted that it is for the national authorities, where they adopt a measure derogating from a principle enshrined by European Union Law, to show in each individual case that that measure is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective relied upon and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it. The reasons invoked by a Member State by way of justification must thus be accompanied by an analysis of the appropriateness and proportionality of the measure adopted by that State and by specific evidence substantiating its arguments (see Case C-8/02 Leichtle [2004] ECR I-2641, paragraph 45, and Case C-73/08 Bressol and Others [2010] ECR I-2735, paragraph 71).
|
50. Najprej je treba glede trditve španske in italijanske vlade v zvezi z zagotavljanjem davčnega, carinskega in zdravstvenega nadzora tobačnih proizvodov spomniti, da morajo nacionalni organi, kadar sprejmejo ukrep, ki odstopa od načela, ki ga uvaja pravo Unije, v vsakem posameznem primeru dokazati, da je ta ukrep primeren za zagotovitev uresničitve cilja, na katerega se sklicuje, in da ne presega tega, kar je potrebno, da se ta cilj doseže. Utemeljitvene razloge, na katere se lahko država članica sklicuje, je torej treba podpreti z analizo primernosti in sorazmernosti ukrepa, ki ga je sprejela, ter z natančnimi dejstvi, ki bi podkrepila njene trditve (glej sodbi z dne 18. marca 2004 v zadevi Leichtle, C‑8/02, Recueil, str. I‑2641, točka 45, in z dne 13. aprila 2010 v zadevi Bressol in drugi, C‑73/08, ZOdl., str. I‑2735, točka 71).
|
|
51. However, the Spanish and Italian Governments do not substantiate their argument with any evidence which satisfies the requirements referred to in the previous paragraph. In particular, they have not explained in what respect offering tobacco retailers the possibility of importing tobacco products themselves would constitute an obstacle to the application of fiscal, customs, and health control measures to those products.
|
51. Vendar španska in italijanska vlada svojih trditev nista podkrepili z nobenim dokazom, ki bi izpolnjeval pogoje, opredeljene v prejšnji točki. Natančneje, nista pojasnili, zakaj naj bi možnost, da bi trgovci na drobno s tobakom sami uvažali tobačne proizvode, ovirala izvajanje davčnega, carinskega in zdravstvenega nadzora nad temi proizvodov.
|
|
52. Moreover, the argument based on the protection of consumers must be rejected. Even if the requirement to ensure a uniform range of products constituted an legitimate public interest objective which merited being pursued by legislation, rather than the law of the market, compliance with such a requirement could, in any event, be achieved by less restrictive measures, such as the imposition of an obligation on tobacco retailers to stock a predefined minimum range of products.
|
52. Poleg tega je treba zavrniti trditev v zvezi z varstvom potrošnikov. Tudi če bi zahteva po splošni zagotovitvi enotne palete proizvodov pomenila legitimni cilj v splošnem interesu, ki ga morajo uresničevati prej pravna pravila kot pa tržni zakon, bi bilo mogoče spoštovanje te zahteve vsekakor doseči z manj omejevalnimi ukrepi, na primer z naložitvijo obveznosti, da imajo trgovci na drobno s tobakom na zalogi vnaprej določeno minimalno paleto proizvodov.
|
|
53. Next, the Spanish Government cannot claim that the restriction in question may be justified on the ground that the possibility of importing tobacco products would create an excessive competitive advantage for tobacco retailers. Such a consideration is of a purely economic dimension. However, according to settled case-law, grounds of a purely economic nature cannot constitute overriding reasons in the public interest justifying a restriction of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty (see Case C-254/98 TK-Heimdienst [2000] ECR I-151, paragraph 33, and Case C-109/04 Kranemann [2005] ECR I-2421, paragraph 34).
|
53. Dalje, španska vlada ne more zatrjevati, da je mogoče omejitev utemeljiti s tem, da bi možnost uvoza za trgovce na drobno s tobakom pomenila konkurenčno prednost. Tako stališče bi bilo namreč samo gospodarsko. V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso popolnoma gospodarski razlogi ne morejo biti višji razlogi v splošnem interesu, ki bi lahko upravičili omejitev temeljne svoboščine, zagotovljene s Pogodbo (glej sodbi z dne 13. januarja 2000 v zadevi TK-Heimdienst, C‑254/98, Recueil, str. I‑151, točka 33, in z dne 17. marca 2005 v zadevi Kranemann, C‑109/04, ZOdl., str. I‑2421, točka 34).
|
|
54. Finally, the Spanish Government’s argument that the removal of a restriction on the free movement of goods is only justified if it leads to an advantage for consumers must be rejected. It suffices to point out that, in the present case, the removal of the prohibition at issue in the main proceedings is capable of benefiting consumers by allowing tobacco retailers to expand the range of products available.
|
54. Nazadnje je treba zavrniti trditev španske vlade, da je odprava omejitev prostega pretoka blaga utemeljena le, če bi ta odprava pomenila prednost za potrošnike. V zvezi s tem v obravnavani zadevi zadostuje navesti, da odprava zadevnega ukrepa prepovedi v postopku v glavni stvari pomeni korist za potrošnike, ker bi omogočala, da bi trgovci na drobno s tobakom razširili paleto proizvodov, ki jo imajo na voljo.
|
|
55. In light of all the foregoing, it must be held that the restriction arising from the legislation at issue in the main proceedings cannot be justified by the achievement of the objectives invoked.
|
55. Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega je treba ugotoviti, da omejitve, ki izhaja iz ureditve v postopku v glavni stvari, ni mogoče utemeljiti z uresničevanjem navedenih ciljev.
|
|
56. Consequently, the answer to the question referred is that Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products from other Member States.
|
56. Odgovor na postavljeno vprašanje je zato, da je treba člen 34 PDEU razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ki trgovcem na drobno s tobakom in kolki prepoveduje opravljati dejavnost uvoza tobačnih proizvodov iz drugih držav članic.
|
|
Costs
|
Stroški
|
|
57. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
|
57. Ker je ta postopek za stranke v postopku v glavni stvari ena od stopenj v postopku pred predložitvenim sodiščem, to odloči o stroških. Stroški, priglašeni za predložitev stališč Sodišču, ki niso stroški omenjenih strank, se ne povrnejo.
|