natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
41 The Commission of the European Communities takes the view that the legislative amendments effected by Law No 388/00 merely make explicit what was already contained in Law No 401/89 and do not introduce a genuinely new category of offences. The public-order grounds for limiting the damaging effects of betting activities relating to football matches which are relied on to justify the fact that the national legislation reserves the right to collect those bets to certain organisations are the same regardless of the Member State in which those activities take place. The fact that the sporting events to which the bets related in the case of Zenatti took place abroad whereas in the main proceedings here the football matches take place in Italy is irrelevant. The Commission adds that Directive No 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ( Directive on electronic commerce) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) does not apply to bets, so that the outcome should be no different to that in Zenatti .
41 Komisija Europskih zajednica smatra da zakonske promjene koje proizlaze iz Zakona br. 388/00 samo izričito navode ono što je već sadržano u Zakonu br. 401/89, bez stvarnog uvođenja nove kategorije prekršaja. Razlozi socijalnog poretka prema kojima se ograničavaju štetni učinci djelatnosti klađenja na nogometne utakmice i kojima se opravdava činjenica da je nacionalnim zakonodavstvom određenim subjektima dana ovlast prikupljanja oklada ostaju isti bez obzira na to u kojoj se državi članici odvijaju takve manifestacije. Činjenica da su se u presudi Zenatti sportski događaji na koje se oklade odnose odvijali u inozemstvu dok se u glavnom postupku radi o nogometnim utakmicama koje su se održavale u Italiji je nebitna. Komisija dodaje da se Direktiva 2000/31/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 8. lipnja 2000. o određenim pravnim aspektima usluga informacijskog društva na unutarnjem tržištu, posebno elektroničke trgovine (Direktiva o elektroničkoj trgovini) (SL L 178, str. 1.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 13., svezak 39., str. 58.), ne primjenjuje na oklade te ishod ne bi trebao biti drukčiji od onoga u navedenoj presudi.
42 The Commission considers that the issue is not to be examined from the point of view of freedom of establishment because the agencies run by the defendants in the main proceedings are independent and act as collection centres for bets and as intermediaries in relations between their Italian customers and Stanley, and are not in any way subordinate to the latter. However, even if the right of establishment were to apply, the restrictions in the Italian legislation are justified on the same grounds of social policy as those accepted by the Court in Schindler , Läärä and Zenatti with regard to the restriction on the freedom to provide services.
42 Komisija smatra da predmet ne treba preispitivati sa stajališta slobode poslovnog nastana, s obzirom da su agencije kojima upravljaju tuženici u glavnom postupku neovisne i djeluju kao centri za prikupljanje oklada i posrednici u odnosima između njihovih talijanskih klijenata i Stanleyja, pri čemu nikako nisu podređene tom društvu. Međutim, čak i da se zadrži pretpostavka primjenjivosti prava na poslovni nastan, ograničenja utvrđena talijanskim zakonodavstvom opravdana su iz istih razloga socijalne politike koje je Sud priznao u pogledu ograničenja slobodnog pružanja usluga u presudama Schindler, Läärä i dr. i Zenatti.
43 At the hearing the Commission informed the Court that it had initiated the procedure against the Italian Republic for failure to fulfil obligations in regard to the liberalisation of the horse-race betting sector managed by the UNIRE. As regards the lottery sector, which is liberalised, the Commission referred to the judgment in Case C-272/91 Commission v Italy [1994] ECR I-1409, in which the Court held that by restricting participation in an invitation to tender for the concession of a lottery computerisation system to bodies, companies, consortia and groupings the majority of whose capital, considered individually or in aggregate, was held by the public sector, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations inter alia under the EC Treaty.
43 Tijekom rasprave Komisija je obavijestila Sud da je pokrenula postupak protiv Talijanske Republike zbog neispunjavanja obaveza u vezi s liberalizacijom u sektoru klađenja na konjske utrke kojima upravlja UNIRE. U pogledu sektora loto igara na sreću, koji je liberaliziran, Komisija je podsjetila na presudu od 26. travnja 1994., Komisija/Italija (C-272/91, Zb., str. I-1409.) u kojoj je Sud odlučio da je, ograničavajući sudjelovanje u javnom natječaju za koncesiju za sustav automatizacije igara loto samo tijelima, društvima, konzorcijima ili udruženjima čiji je kapital, gledajući pojedinačno ili ukupno, većinom javan, Talijanska Republika nije ispunila svoje obveze koje ima posebno na temelju Ugovora o EZ-u.
47 Furthermore, in reply to the questions put to it by the Court at the hearing, the Italian Government acknowledged that the Italian legislation on invitations to tender for betting activities in Italy contains restrictions. According to that Government, the fact that no entity has been licensed for such activities apart from the monopoly-holder is explained by the fact that the way in which the Italian legislation is conceived means that the licence can only be awarded to certain persons.
47 Nadalje, u odgovoru na pitanja koja je tijekom rasprave postavio Sud, talijanska vlada priznala je da talijanski propisi u vezi s javnim natječajima za djelatnosti klađenja u Italiji sadržavaju ograničenja. Prema mišljenju te vlade, činjenica da niti jedan subjekt nije dobio homologaciju za obavljanje takvih djelatnosti osim onog koji drži monopol u tom području, može se objasniti okolnošću da je talijansko zakonodavstvo zamišljeno na način da koncesija može biti dodijeljena samo određenim osobama.
51 Article 49 EC prohibits restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Community for nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended. Article 50 EC defines services as services which are normally provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement of goods, capital and persons.
51 Člankom 49. UEZ-a zabranjuju se ograničenja slobodne pružanja usluga unutar Zajednice u odnosu na državljane država članica s poslovnim nastanom u državi članici koja nije država osobe kojoj su usluge namijenjene. Članak 50. UEZ-a definira usluge kao one „usluge” koje se uobičajeno obavljaju uz naknadu, u mjeri u kojoj nisu uređene odredbama koje se odnose na slobodu kretanja robe, kapitala i osoba.
52 The Court has already held that the importation of lottery advertisements and tickets into a Member State with a view to the participation by residents of that State in a lottery operated in another Member State relates to a service ( Schindler , paragraph 37). By analogy, the activity of enabling nationals of one Member State to engage in betting activities organised in another Member State, even if they concern sporting events taking place in the first Member State, relates to a service within the meaning of Article 50 EC.
52 Sud je već presudio da se uvoz reklamnih letaka i lutrijskih listića u državu članicu kako bi državljani te države sudjelovali u lutriji organiziranoj u drugoj državi članici povezuje s djelatnosti „usluga” (presuda Schindler, t. 37.). Analogijom, djelatnost kojom se državljanima države članice omogućuje sudjelovanje u igrama klađenja organiziranima u drugoj državi članici, čak i ako se odnose na sportske događaje organizirane u prvoj državi članici, povezuje se s djelatnosti „usluga” u smislu članka 50. UEZ-a.
62 As stated in paragraph 36 of the judgment in Zenatti , the restrictions must in any event reflect a concern to bring about a genuine diminution of gambling opportunities, and the financing of social activities through a levy on the proceeds of authorised games must constitute only an incidental beneficial consequence and not the real justification for the restrictive policy adopted.
62 Kako proizlazi iz t. 36. navedene presude Zenatti, ograničenja u svakom slučaju moraju odražavati brigu o stvarnom smanjenju prilika za igre na sreću, a financiranje socijalnih aktivnosti putem naplate prihoda dobivenih od dozvoljenih igara mora predstavljati samo dodatnu korisnu posljedicu, a ne stvarno opravdanje za uvedenu restriktivnu politiku.
65 According to those decisions, the restrictions must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest, be suitable for achieving the objective which they pursue and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. They must in any event be applied without discrimination.
65 Iz te sudske prakse proizlazi da navedena ograničenja moraju biti opravdana važnim razlozima u općem interesu, moraju biti prikladna za ostvarenje cilja kojem teže i ne smiju ići dalje od onoga što je potrebno za ostvarenje tog cilja. U svakom slučaju, moraju se primjenjivati na nediskriminirajući način.
66 It is for the national court to decide whether in the main proceedings the restriction on the freedom of establishment and on the freedom to provide services instituted by Law No 401/89 satisfy those conditions. To that end, it will be for that court to take account of the issues set out in the following paragraphs.
66 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev treba odlučiti zadovoljavaju li u glavnom postupku ograničenja slobode poslovnog nastana i slobodnog pružanja usluga uvedena Zakonom br. 401/89 te uvjete. Pri tome treba voditi računa o elementima navedenim u sljedećim točkama.
71 It is for the national court to consider whether the manner in which the conditions for submitting invitations to tender for licences to organise bets on sporting events are laid down enables them in practice to be met more easily by Italian operators than by foreign operators. If so, those conditions do not satisfy the requirement of non-discrimination.
71 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev treba razmotriti jesu li uvjeti sudjelovanja u javnim natječajima za koncesije za provođenje klađenja na sportske događaje utvrđeni na način da ih talijanski gospodarski subjekti mogu ispuniti lakše nego strani gospodarski subjekti. Ako je tako, ti uvjeti ne zadovoljavaju kriterij nediskriminacije.
72 Finally, the restrictions imposed by the Italian legislation must not go beyond what is necessary to attain the end in view. In that context the national court must consider whether the criminal penalty imposed on any person who from his home connects by internet to a bookmaker established in another Member State is not disproportionate in the light of the Court's case-law (see Case C-193/94 Skanavi and Chryssanthakopoulos [1996] ECR I-929, paragraphs 34 to 39, and Case C-459/99 MRAX [2002] ECR I-6591, paragraphs 89 to 91), especially where involvement in betting is encouraged in the context of games organised by licensed national bodies.
72 Naposljetku, ograničenja određena talijanskim zakonodavstvom ne smiju prelaziti ono što je nužno za postizanje postavljenog cilja. U tom pogledu, sud koji je uputio zahtjev trebat će ispitati ne predstavlja li kaznena sankcija određena za svaku osobu koja iz svog doma u Italiji putem interneta ulaže oklade kod kladionice s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici neproporcionalnu sankciju u svijetlu sudske prakse Suda (vidjeti presude od 29. veljače 1996., Skanavi i Chryssanthakopoulos, C-193/94, Zb., str. I-929., t. 34. do 39. i od 25. srpnja 2002., MRAX, C-459/99, Zb., str. I-6591., t. 89. do 91.), osim ako se sudjelovanje u klađenju odvija u kontekstu igara na sreću koje organiziraju ovlaštena nacionalna tijela.
75 It is for the national court to determine whether the national legislation, taking account of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the aims which might justify it, and whether the restrictions it imposes are disproportionate in the light of those aims.
75 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev treba utvrditi, uzimajući u obzir konkretna pravila primjene, odgovara li nacionalni propis zaista ciljevima kojima ga je moguće opravdati i jesu li ograničenja koja nameće neproporcionalna u pogledu tih ciljeva.
76 In the light of all those considerations the reply to the question referred must be that national legislation which prohibits on pain of criminal penalties the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or authorisation from the Member State concerned constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services provided for in Articles 43 and 49 EC respectively. It is for the national court to determine whether such legislation, taking account of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the aims which might justify it, and whether the restrictions it imposes are disproportionate in the light of those aims.
76 Uzimajući u obzir sva ova razmatranja, na postavljeno pitanje valja odgovoriti da nacionalni propis koji zabranjuje - pod prijetnjom kaznenih sankcija - obavljanje djelatnosti prikupljanja, prihvaćanja, upisa i prijenosa ponuda za oklade, osobito na sportske događaje, bez koncesije ili dozvole koju izdaje dotična država članica, predstavlja ograničenje slobode poslovnog nastana i slobodnog pružanja usluga predviđenih u člancima 43. UEZ-a odnosno 49. UEZ-a. Sud koji je uputio zahtjev treba utvrditi, uzimajući u obzir konkretna pravila primjene, odgovara li takav propis zaista ciljevima kojima ga je moguće opravdati i jesu li ograničenja koja nameće neproporcionalna u pogledu tih ciljeva.
77 The costs incurred by the Italian, Belgian, Greek, Spanish, French, Luxembourg, Portuguese, Finnish and Swedish Governments and the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. 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.
77 Troškovi talijanske, belgijske, grčke, španjolske, francuske, luksemburške, portugalske, finske i švedske vlade, kao i Komisije, koje su sve podnijele očitovanja Sudu, ne nadoknađuju se. Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, na tom je sudu da odluči o troškovima postupka.
in answer to the question referred to it by the Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno by an order of 30 March 2001, hereby rules:
odlučujući o pitanju koje je rješenjem od 30. ožujka 20013. uputio Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno, odlučuje:
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 November 2003.
Objavljeno na javnoj raspravi u Luxembourgu, 6. studenoga 2003.
Language of the case: Italian.
Jezik postupka: talijanski.
16 March 2004(1)
16. ožujka 2004.*
(Competition – Undertakings – Sickness funds – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC – Decisions of groups of sickness funds determining maximum amounts paid in respect of medicinal products)
„Tržišno natjecanje - Poduzetnici - Fondovi za zdravstveno osiguranje - Sporazumi, odluke i usklađena djelovanja - Tumačenje članaka 81. UEZ-a, 82. UEZ-a i 86. UEZ-a - Odluke udruženja fondova za zdravstveno osiguranje, kojima se utvrđuju najviši iznosi koji se plaćaju za lijekove”
REFERENCES to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) and by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before those courts between
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a koji su uputili Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Njemačka) i Bundesgerichtshof (Njemačka), u sporu koji se pred tim sudovima vodi između
AOK Bundesverband,Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK),Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen,Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen,Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV,Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen,Bundesknappschaft,See-Krankenkasse
AOK Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK), Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV, Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, Bundesknappschaft, See-Krankenkasse
Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. (C-264/01),Mundipharma GmbH (C-306/01),Gödecke GmbH (C-354/01),Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH (C-355/01),
Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. (C-264/01), Mundipharma GmbH (C-306/01), Gödecke GmbH (C-354/01), Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH (C-355/01),
on the interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC,
o tumačenju članaka 81. UEZ-a, 82. UEZ-a i 86. UEZ-a
Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
tajnik: H. A. Rühl, glavni administrator
– the AOK Bundesverband, the Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK), the Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, the Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, the Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV, the Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, the Bundesknappschaft and the See-Krankenkasse, by C. Quack, Rechtsanwalt (C-264/01 and C-306/01), and A. von Winterfeld, Rechtsanwalt (C-354/01 and C-355/01),
– za AOK Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK), Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV, Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, Bundesknappschaft i See-Krankenkasse, C. Quack, Rechtsanwalt (C-264/01 i C-306/01), i A. von Winterfeld, Rechtsanwalt (C-354/01 i C-355/01),
– Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. and Mundipharma GmbH, by U. Doepner, Rechtsanwalt,
– za Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. i Mundipharma GmbH, U. Doepner, Rechtsanwalt,
– Gödecke GmbH and Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH, by U. Reese, Rechtsanwalt,
– za Gödecke GmbH i Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH, U. Reese, Rechtsanwalt,
– the Commission of the European Communities, by W. Wils and S. Rating, acting as Agents,
– za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, W. Wils i S. Rating, u svojstvu agenata,
"after hearing the oral observations of the AOK Bundesverband, the Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK), the Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, the Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, the Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV, the Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, the Bundesknappschaft and the See-Krankenkasse, represented by C. Quack (C-264/01 and C-306/01) and A. von Winterfeld (C-354/01 and C-355/01); Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. and Mundipharma GmbH, represented by U. Doepner; Gödecke GmbH and Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH, represented by U. Reese; the German Government, represented by W.-D. Plessing, acting as Agent; and the Commission, represented by S. Rating, at the hearing on 14 January 2003,"
"uzimajući u obzir izvještaj za raspravu, saslušavši usmena očitovanja koja su podnijeli za AOK Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK), Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV, Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, Bundesknappschaft i See-Krankenkasse, C. Quack (C-264/01 i C-306/01) i A. von Winterfeld (C-354/01 i C-355/01); za Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. i Mundipharma GmbH, U. Doepner; za Gödecke GmbH i Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH, U. Reese; za njemačku vladu, W.-D. Plessing, u svojstvu agenta; i za Komisiju, S. Rating, na raspravi održanoj 14. siječnja 2003.,"
1 The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf) and the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) have referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 234 EC a number of questions on the interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC. The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf has referred four questions, by two orders of 18 May 2001 and 11 July 2001, received at the Court on 5 July 2001 and 6 August 2001 respectively. The Bundesgerichtshof has referred three questions, by two orders of 3 July 2001, received at the Court on 20 September 2001.
1 Na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf i Bundesgerichtshof postavili su više prethodnih pitanja o tumačenju članaka 81. UEZ-a, 82. UEZ-a i 86. UEZ-a. Dvama rješenjima, od 18. svibnja 2001. i 11. srpnja 2001., koje je Sud zaprimio 5. srpnja 2001. i 6. kolovoza 2001., Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf postavio je četiri pitanja. Dvama rješenjima od 3. srpnja 2001., koje je Sud zaprimio 20. rujna 2001., Bundesgerichtshof postavio je tri pitanja.
2 Those questions were raised in a number of actions between the AOK Bundesverband, the Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK), the Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, the Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, the Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV, the Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, the Bundesknappschaft and the See-Krankenkasse (hereinafter ‘the fund associations’) and pharmaceutical companies producing medicinal products, namely Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. (Case C-264/01), Mundipharma GmbH (Case C-306/01), Gödecke GmbH (Case C-354/01) and Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH (Case C-355/01) (hereinafter ‘the pharmaceutical companies’), concerning the determination of fixed maximum amounts payable by sickness funds towards the cost of medicinal products and treatment materials.
2 Predmetna su pitanja postavljena u više sporova između AOK Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK), Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV, Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, Bundesknappschaft i See-Krankenkasse (u daljnjem tekstu: udruženja fondova) i farmaceutskih poduzetnika za proizvodnju lijekova: Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. (C-264/01), Mundipharma GmbH (C-306/01), Gödecke GmbH (C-354/01) i Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH (C-355/01) (u daljnjem tekstu: farmaceutski poduzetnici), koji se odnose na određivanje fiksnih najviših iznosa koje fondovi za zdravstveno osiguranje plaćaju u odnosu na troškove lijekova i sredstava za liječenje.