European competition policy's first interactions with national healthcare systems emerged after 2000 without much controversy as only those healthcare regimes with clear market-orientated elements were subject to EU competition rules. After 2010 however, this began to be challenged as a result of pressures from the private sector, various marketization reforms in Europe as well as pressures from within the EU itself. The question therefore re-emerged: would EU competition law, and its ‘state aid law’ part especially, now be pushed into social solidarity-orientated healthcare, including those that were subject to some degree of marketisation? This article examines this question through two important recent competition law cases from Belgium and Slovakia, but with a focus on the latter. Despite the apparent limits placed on European competition law's place in healthcare in the 2000s, European Commission and the Court of Justice were called upon to reassert some limits on its role in healthcare and social solidarity-based regimes in particular. Together, the Iris-H and Dôvera cases resolve those political and institutional problems that such a competition policy-based intrusion into healthcare would have created.

中文翻译：

---

重新建立所需的限制：欧洲竞争政策在欧洲医疗保健系统中的作用以及 Dôvera 案例的教训

欧洲竞争政策与国家医疗保健系统的首次互动出现在 2000 年之后，没有太多争议，因为只有那些具有明确市场导向要素的医疗保健制度才受欧盟竞争规则的约束。然而，在 2010 年之后，由于私营部门的压力、欧洲的各种市场化改革以及欧盟内部的压力，这开始受到挑战。因此，问题再次出现：欧盟竞争法，尤其是其“国家援助法”部分，现在是否会被推向以社会团结为导向的医疗保健，包括那些受到一定程度市场化的医疗保健？本文通过比利时和斯洛伐克最近两个重要的竞争法案例来研究这个问题，但重点关注后者。尽管 2000 年代欧洲竞争法在医疗保健领域的地位受到明显限制，但欧盟委员会和欧洲法院被要求重申其在医疗保健和社会团结制度中的作用的一些限制。Iris-H 和 Dôvera 案共同解决了这种基于竞争政策的对医疗保健的入侵可能造成的政治和制度问题。