natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
40 However, as regards the term which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, it should be borne in mind that, in Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores, paragraphs 21 to 24, the Court has held that, in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier within the meaning of the Directive, a term, drafted in advance by the seller or supplier – which was not subject to individual negotiation – the purpose of which is to confer jurisdiction in respect of all disputes arising under the contract on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller has his principal place of business, satisfies all the criteria necessary for it to be judged unfair for the purposes of the Directive.
40 Međutim, što se tiče odredbe koja je predmetom glavnog postupka, treba podsjetiti da je u točkama od 21. do 24. prethodno citirane presude Océano Grupo Editorial i Salvat Editores Sud utvrdio da odredba koju je u ugovor sklopljen između potrošača i prodavatelja robe ili pružatelja usluge u smislu Direktive prethodno unio prodavatelj robe ili pružatelj usluge, a koja nije bila predmetom pojedinačnog dogovora i u skladu s kojom je za sve sporove koji proizlaze iz ugovora nadležan sud na čijem području prodavatelj robe ili pružatelj usluge ima glavno mjesto poslovanja zadovoljava sve kriterije da bi se u smislu Direktive mogla kvalificirati nepoštenom.
41 As the Court stated in Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores, paragraph 22, a term of this kind obliges the consumer to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a court which may be a long way from his domicile. This may make it difficult for him to enter an appearance. In the case of disputes concerning limited amounts of money, the costs relating to the consumer’s entering an appearance could be a deterrent and cause him to forgo any legal remedy or defence. The Court therefore concluded that such a term falls within the category of terms which have the object or effect of excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action, a category referred to in subparagraph (q) of paragraph 1 of the Annex to the Directive.
41 U stvari, kao što je Sud istaknuo u točki 22. prethodno citirane presude Océano Grupo Editorial i Salvat Editores, takva odredba obvezuje potrošača da se podredi isključivoj nadležnosti suda koji je možda vrlo udaljen od njegova prebivališta, što može otežati njegovo pojavljivanje pred sudom. U slučaju sporova manje vrijednosti, troškovi vezani uz potrošačevo pojavljivanje pred sudom mogli bi na potrošača djelovati odvraćajuće te ga navesti da odustane od pravnog sredstva ili obrane. Stoga je Sud u navedenoj točki 22. zaključio da takva odredba spada u kategoriju odredaba iz točke 1.(q) Priloga Direktivi čiji je predmet ili svrha isključenje ili ograničenje prava potrošača na tužbu.
42 While it is true that the Court, in exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 234 EC, in Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores, paragraph 22, interpreted the general criteria used by the Community legislature in order to define the concept of unfair terms, it cannot however rule on the application of those general criteria to a particular term, which must be considered in the light of the particular circumstances of the case in question (see Freiburger Kommunalbauten, paragraph 22).
42 Iako je točno da je Sud, izvršavajući nadležnost koja mu je dodijeljena člankom 234. UEZ-a, u točki 22. prethodno citirane presude Océano Grupo Editorial i Salvat Editores protumačio opće kriterije koje zakonodavac Zajednice koristi kako bi definirao pojam nepoštene odredbe, on ne može odlučivati o primjeni tih općih kriterija na određenu odredbu koja treba biti razmotrena u svjetlu posebnih okolnosti konkretnog predmeta (vidjeti prethodno citiranu presudu Freiburger Kommunalbauten, t. 22.).
43 It is for the national court, in the light of the foregoing, to assess whether a contractual term may be categorised as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive.
43 S obzirom na navedeno, na nacionalnom je sudu da ocijeni može li se ugovorna odredba kategorizirati kao nepoštena u smislu članka 3. stavka 1. Direktive.
44 In those circumstances, the reply to the third question is that it is for the national court to determine whether a contractual term, such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, satisfies the criteria to be categorised as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive. In so doing, the national court must take account of the fact that a term, contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which has been included without being individually negotiated and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business may be considered to be unfair.
44 Pod tim okolnostima, na treće pitanje treba odgovoriti da je na nacionalnom sudu da odluči zadovoljava li ugovorna odredba, poput one koja je predmetom glavnog postupka, kriterije potrebne da bi se kvalificirala kao nepoštena u smislu članka 3. stavka 1. Direktive. Pritom nacionalni sud mora voditi računa o činjenici da se odredba ugovora sklopljenog između potrošača i prodavatelja robe ili pružatelja usluge koja je unesena u ugovor, a nije bila predmetom pojedinačnog dogovora te kojom se isključiva nadležnost dodjeljuje sudu na čijem području prodavatelj robe ili pružatelj usluge ima glavno mjesto poslovanja može smatrati nepoštenom.
1. Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, and it is not necessary, in that regard, for that consumer to have successfully contested the validity of such a term beforehand.
1. Članak 6. stavak 1. Direktive 93/13/EEZ od 5. travnja 1993. o nepoštenim uvjetima u potrošačkim ugovorima treba tumačiti tako da nepoštena ugovorna odredba ne obvezuje potrošača i da u tom pogledu nije potrebno da je potrošač prethodno uspješno ospori.
2. The national court is required to examine, of its own motion, the unfairness of a contractual term where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. Where it considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except if the consumer opposes that non-application. That duty is also incumbent on the national court when it is ascertaining its own territorial jurisdiction.
2. Nacionalni sud dužan je po službenoj dužnosti razmotriti nepoštenost ugovorne odredbe ako raspolaže sa za to potrebnim pravnim i činjeničnim elementima. Ako takvu odredbu smatra nepoštenom, ne primjenjuje je, osim ako se potrošač tomu ne usprotivi. Nacionalni sud dužan je tako postupiti i kada ocjenjuje svoju mjesnu nadležnost.
3. It is for the national court to determine whether a contractual term, such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, satisfies the criteria to be categorised as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13. In so doing, the national court must take account of the fact that a term, contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which has been included without being individually negotiated and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business may be considered to be unfair.
3. Na nacionalnom je sudu da odluči zadovoljava li ugovorna odredba, poput one koja je predmetom glavnog postupka, kriterije potrebne da bi se kvalificirala kao nepoštena u smislu članka 3. stavka 1. Direktive 93/13. Pritom nacionalni sud mora voditi računa o činjenici da se odredba ugovora sklopljenog između potrošača i prodavatelja robe ili pružatelja usluge koja je unesena u ugovor, a nije bila predmetom pojedinačnog dogovora te kojom se isključiva nadležnost dodjeljuje sudu na čijem području prodavatelj robe ili pružatelj usluge ima glavno mjesto poslovanja može smatrati nepoštenom.
* Language of the case: Hungarian.
* Jezik postupka: mađarski.
3 June 2010 (*)
3. lipnja 2010. (*)
(Article 49 EC – Restrictions on the freedom to provide services – Games of chance – Offer of games of chance via the internet – Legislation reserving a licence to a single operator – Refusal to grant an operating licence to an operator who is licensed in other Member States – Justification – Proportionality – Review of each specific measure applying national legislation)
„Članak 49. UEZ-a – Ograničenja slobode pružanja usluga – Igre na sreću – Ponuda igara na sreću na internetu – Propis kojim se odobrenje rezervira za samo jedan subjekt – Odbijanje da se odobrenje za obavljanje djelatnosti dodijeli subjektu koji ima odobrenje u drugim državama članicama – Opravdanost – Proporcionalnost – Ispitivanje svake konkretne mjere za provedbu nacionalnog propisa”
In Case C-258/08,
U predmetu C-258/08,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 13 June 2008, received at the Court on 18 June 2008, in the proceedings
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nizozemska), odlukom od 13. lipnja 2008., koju je Sud zaprimio 18. lipnja 2008., u postupku
– Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd and Ladbrokes International Ltd, by W. Hoyng and M. Meulenbelt, advocaten, instructed by S. Kon and M. Evans, Solicitors,
– za Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd i Ladbrokes International Ltd, W. Hoyng i M. Meulenbelt, advocaten, koje su ovlastili S. Kon i M. Evans, solicitors,
– Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator, by E. Pijnacker Hordijk, J. van Manen and M. van Wissen, advocaten,
– za Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator, E. Pijnacker Hordijk, J. van Manen i M. van Wissen, advocaten,
– the Netherlands Government, by C. Wissels, M. de Grave and Y. de Vries, acting as Agents,
– za nizozemsku vladu, C. Wissels, M. de Grave i Y. de Vries, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Belgian Government, by A. Hubert and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents, and by P. Vlaemminck, advocaat,
– za belgijsku vladu, A. Hubert i L. Van den Broeck, u svojstvu agenata, uz asistenciju P. Vlaemmincka, advocaat,
– the Danish Government, by J. Bering Liisberg and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents,
– za dansku vladu, J. Bering Liisberg i V. Pasternak Jørgensen, u svojstvu agenata,
– the German Government, by M. Lumma and B. Klein, acting as Agents,
– za njemačku vladu, M. Lumma i B. Klein, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Greek Government, by A. Samoni-Rantou, O. Patsopoulou and M. Tassopoulou, acting as Agents,
– za grčku vladu, A. Samoni-Rantou, O. Patsopoulou i M. Tassopoulou, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Spanish Government, by F. Díez Moreno, acting as Agent,
– za španjolsku vladu, F. Díez Moreno, u svojstvu agenta,
– the Austrian Government, by C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent,
– za austrijsku vladu, C. Pesendorfer, u svojstvu agenta,
– the Norwegian Government, by P. Wennerås and K. Moe Winther, acting as Agents,
– za norvešku vladu, P. Wennerås i K. Moe Winther, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Commission of the European Communities, by E. Traversa, A. Nijenhuis and S. Noë, acting as Agents,
– za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, E. Traversa, A. Nijenhuis i S. Noë, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 17 December 2009,
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 17. prosinca 2009.,
2 The reference has been made in proceedings between the Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator, a foundation governed by Netherlands law (‘De Lotto’), and Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd and Ladbrokes International Ltd, companies established in the United Kingdom (‘the Ladbrokes companies’), concerning the possibly unlawful conduct of those companies on the Netherlands market for games of chance.
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator, zaklade koja se ravna prema nizozemskom pravu (u daljnjem tekstu: De Lotto) i Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd i Ladbrokes International Ltd, društava s poslovnim nastanom u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini (u daljnjem tekstu: društva Ladbrokes), u vezi s mogućim nezakonitim postupanjem tih društava na nizozemskom tržištu igara na sreću.
"3 Article 1 of the Law on games of chance (Wet op de kansspelen; ‘the Wok’) provides:"
3 Članak 1. Zakona o igrama na sreću (Wet op de kansspelen, u daljnjem tekstu: Wok) propisuje:
‘Subject to the provisions of Title Va of this Law, the following are prohibited:
„U skladu s odredbama glave V.a ovog zakona, zabranjuje se sljedeće:
"(a) providing an opportunity to compete for prizes if the winners are designated by means of any calculation of probability over which the participants are generally unable to exercise a dominant influence, unless a licence therefor has been granted pursuant to this Law;"
"(a) pružanje mogućnosti za sudjelovanja u igrama na sreću za novčane ili druge dobitke ako se dobitnici određuju samo na temelju slučajnosti na koju sudionici općenito nemaju nikakav prevladavajući utjecaj, osim ako je za to izdano odobrenje na temelju ovog Zakona;"
"(b) promoting participation either in an opportunity as referred to under (a), provided without a licence pursuant to this Law, or in a similar opportunity, provided outside the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Europe, or to maintain a stock of materials intended to publicise or disseminate knowledge of such opportunities; …’"
"(b) poticanje sudjelovanja u priredbama iz točke (a) bez odobrenja izdanog u skladu s ovim Zakonom ili u sličnoj priredbi izvan Kraljevine Nizozemske u Europi, ili pohranjivanje dokumenata za oglašavanje ili objavu u tu svrhu; […]”"
‘1. The Minister for Justice and the Minister for Welfare, Public Health and Culture may grant to one legal person with full legal capacity a licence, for a period to be determined by them, to organise sports-related prize competitions in the interests of bodies operating for public benefit, particularly in the area of sport and physical education, culture, social welfare and public health.
„1. Ministar pravosuđa i ministar socijalne skrbi, javnog zdravlja i kulture mogu potpuno pravno sposobnoj pravnoj osobi dodijeliti na razdoblje koje oni odrede odobrenje za priređivanje nagradnih igara povezanih sa sportom radi promicanja interesa institucija koje djeluju u općem interesu, osobito u području sporta i tjelesnog odgoja, kulture, socijalne skrbi i javnog zdravlja.
2. The proceeds from prize competitions … shall be applied in respect of the interests which the legal person intends to serve by organising and operating sports-related prize competitions.
2. Prihodi od nagradnih igara […] upotrebljavaju se za interese koje pravna osoba namjerava ostvariti priređivanjem nagradnih igara povezanih sa sportskim događajima i njihovim upravljanjem.
3. At least 47.5% of total proceeds from games of chance organised pursuant to this Title and to Title IVa, to be calculated on the basis of a calendar year, shall be allocated to the distribution of prizes. …’
3. Najmanje 47,5 % ukupnih prihoda od igara na sreću koje su priređene u skladu s ovom glavom i glavom IV.a, izračunanih na temelju kalendarske godine, dodjeljuje se za podjelu nagrada. […]”
"a. the number of competitions to be organised;"
"(a) broj nagradnih igara koje će se prirediti;"
"b. the method of determining results and the prize scheme;"
"(b) način određivanja rezultata i sustav nagrada;"
"c. the management and covering of organisational costs;"
"(c) upravljanje troškovima priređivanja i njihovo pokrivanje;"
"d. the allocation of revenue from competitions organised;"
"(d) raspodjelu prihoda od priređenih nagradnih igara;"
"e. the constitution and regulations of the legal person;"
"(e) statut i pravilnik pravne osobe;"
"f. monitoring of compliance with the legislation by the authorities;"
"(f) nadzor usklađenosti s propisom koji provode nadležna tijela;"
g. delivery and publication of the report to be drawn up annually by the legal person concerning its activities and financial results.’
(g) predstavljanje i objavljivanje izvješća o aktivnostima i financijskim rezultatima koje pravna osoba izrađuje svake godine.”
8 De Lotto is a non-profit-making foundation governed by private law which holds a licence for the organisation of sports-related prize competitions, the lottery and numbers games. Its objects, according to its constitution, are the collection of funds by means of the organisation of games of chance and the distribution of those funds among institutions working in the public interest, particularly in the fields of sport, physical education, general welfare, public health and culture.
8 De Lotto je neprofitna zaklada privatnog prava koja ima odobrenje za priređivanje nagradnih igara povezanih sa sportom, lutrijskih igara i brojčanih igara. U skladu s njezinim statutom, cilj je zaklade De Lotto prikupljanje sredstava priređivanjem igara na sreću i raspodjela tih sredstava među institucijama koje djeluju u općem interesu, osobito u području sporta, tjelesnog odgoja, opće socijalne skrbi, javnog zdravlja i kulture.
9 The Ladbrokes companies are engaged in the organisation of sports-related prize competitions and are particularly well known for their bookmaking business. They offer a number of mainly sports-related games of chance on their internet site. They also offer the possibility of participating via a freephone number in the betting activities which they organise. The companies do not physically carry on any activity in the Netherlands.
9 Društva Ladbrokes priređuju nagradne igre povezane sa sportom i osobito su poznata po uslugama prikupljanja oklada („bookmaking”). Na svojoj internetskoj stranici nude brojne igre na sreću koje su uglavnom povezane sa sportom. Jednako tako nude mogućnost sudjelovanja putem besplatnog telefonskog broja u aktivnostima klađenja koje priređuju. Ta društva na nizozemskom državnom području fizički ne obavljaju nikakve djelatnosti.
11 By judgment of 27 January 2003, the Rechtbank judge hearing the application for interim relief allowed the application and ordered the Ladbrokes companies to take steps to block access to their internet site for persons residing in the Netherlands and to make it impossible for such persons to participate in telephone betting. Those measures were confirmed by the judgments of the Gerechtshof te Arnhem (Regional Court of Appeal, Arnhem) and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court) of 2 September 2003 and 18 February 2005, respectively.
11 Presudom od 27. siječnja 2003. sudac privremene pravne zaštite navedenog suda udovoljio je tom zahtjevu i naložio društvima Ladbrokes donošenje mjera kojima će osobama koje su rezidenti Nizozemske blokirati pristup svojoj internetskoj stranici i onemogućiti im sudjelovanje u telefonskom klađenju. Te su mjere bile potvrđene presudama Gerechtshof te Arnhem (Žalbeni sud u Arnhemu) i Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Vrhovni sud) od 2. rujna 2003. odnosno 18. veljače 2005.
"12 On 21 February 2003, De Lotto also issued proceedings against the Ladbrokes companies in a substantive action before the Rechtbank Arnhem. In its application, De Lotto sought confirmation of the coercive measures imposed on those companies by the judge who had heard the application for interim relief. By decision of 31 August 2005, the Rechtbank allowed De Lotto’s application and ordered the Ladbrokes companies, on pain of imposition of a periodic penalty, to maintain the measures blocking access to games of chance via the internet or by telephone for persons residing in the Netherlands. That decision was upheld by the judgment of the Gerechtshof te Arnhem of 17 October 2006; the Ladbrokes companies therefore appealed in cassation to the referring court."
12 De Lotto je 21. veljače 2003. pred Rechtbank Arnhem podigao i tužbu protiv društava Ladbrokes u glavnom postupku. Svojim je zahtjevom De Lotto tražio potvrdu prisilnih mjera koje je tim društvima nametnuo sudac privremene pravne zaštite. Odlukom od 31. kolovoza 2005. Rechtbank je udovoljio tužbi zaklade De Lotto i naložio društvima Ladbrokes, uz prijetnju novčane kazne, da zadrže mjere kojima se osobama koje su rezidenti Nizozemske blokira telefonski ili internetski pristup igrama na sreću. Budući da je Gerechtshof te Arnhem potvrdio tu odluku presudom od 17. listopada 2006., društva Ladbrokes podnijela su žalbu u kasacijskom postupku pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev.
13 The Hoge Raad der Nederlanden took the view that an interpretation of European Union law was required to enable it to determine the dispute before it, and decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
13 Budući da je Hoge Raad der Nederlanden smatrao da je za odlučivanje o sporu koji se pred njim vodi potrebno tumačenje prava Unije, odlučio je prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘(1) Does a restrictive national gaming policy which is aimed at channelling the propensity to gamble and which in fact contributes to the achievement of the objectives pursued by the national legislation in question, namely the curbing of gambling addiction and the prevention of fraud, inasmuch as, by reason of the regulated offer of games of chance, participation in gambling activities occurs on a (much) more limited scale than would be the case if there were no national regulatory system, satisfy the condition set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, particularly in the judgment in Case C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR I-13031, that such restrictions must limit betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner, even where the licence-holder/s is/are permitted to make the games of chance which they offer attractive by introducing new games, to bring the games which they offer to the notice of a wide public by means of advertising and thereby to keep (potential) gamblers away from the unlawful offer of games of chance (see Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04 Placanica and Others [2007] ECR I-1891, paragraph 55, in fine)?
„1. Zadovoljava li restriktivna nacionalna politika igara na sreću, koja za cilj ima usmjeravanje sklonosti igrama na sreću i kojom se stvarno doprinosi ostvarivanju ciljeva predmetnog nacionalnog propisa odnosno sprečavanju ovisnosti o igrama na sreću i borbi protiv prijevare, u mjeri u kojoj je zbog regulirane ponude igara na sreću opseg sudjelovanja u igrama na sreću (mnogo) bolje ograničen nego što bi bio kada ne bi bilo nacionalnog regulatornog sustava, uvjet iz sudske prakse Suda Europskih zajednica, osobito iz presude od 6. studenoga 2003, Gambelli [i dr.] (C-243/01, Zb., str. I-13031.), da, čak i ako je nositelju ili nositeljima odobrenja dopušteno da svoju ponudu igara na sreću učine privlačnom uvođenjem novih igara, da oglašavanjem skrenu pozornost šire javnosti na svoju ponudu igara, se takvim ograničenjima moraju dosljedno i sustavno ograničiti djelatnosti klađenja da tako (potencijalne) igrače odvrate od nezakonite ponude igara na sreću (vidjeti presudu od 6. ožujka 2007., Placanica [i dr.], C-338/04, C-359/04 i C-360/04, Zb., str. I-1891., t. 55., in fine)?