natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
128 That analysis holds good even if the law governing the sale of the products at issue in the main proceedings, namely medicinal products, is not harmonised at Community level, with the result that a product which comes from the importing State may, in principle, by virtue of its movement across borders, enjoy the protection of Community law.
128 Ta analiza ostaje valjana čak i ako zakon koji uređuje prodaju proizvoda u predmetu u glavnom postupku, odnosno lijekova, nije usklađen na razini Zajednice, tako da proizvod koji dolazi iz države uvoza može, načelno, na temelju prekograničnog kretanja, uživati zaštitu prava Zajednice.
129 However, the Court has accepted, in relation to the free movement of goods, that that finding does not apply where, on the basis of objective factors, it is established that the products concerned were exported for the sole purpose of reimportation in order to circumvent legislation such as that in the main proceedings (see Leclerc , paragraph 27).
129 Međutim, Sud je u pogledu slobodnog kretanja robe prihvatio da se ta tvrdnja ne primjenjuje kad se na temelju objektivnih faktora ustanovi da su dotični proizvodi bili izvezeni isključivo zbog ponovnog uvoza kako bi se zaobišlo zakonodavstvo kao što je ono u glavnom postupku (vidjeti navedenu presudu Leclerc i dr., t. 27.).
130 In the case before the referring court, since the trader which exported the medicinal products was not involved in their reimportation, the reimportation of the products by the defendants in the main action cannot be found to be an abuse of the free movement of goods.
130 Ako u predmetu pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev gospodarski subjekt koji je izvozio lijekove nije bio uključen u njihov ponovni uvoz, ponovni uvoz lijekova od strane tuženika u glavnom postupku ne može se definirati kao zlouporaba slobodnog kretanja robe.
131 Consequently, since a provision such as Paragraph 43(1) of the AMG could restrict the marketing of medicinal products from other Member States, the finding that such a provision constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction cannot be confined to medicinal products originating in Member States other than the importing Member State but also relates to medicinal products which were purchased from wholesalers established in the importing Member State.
131 Budući da bi odredba kao što je članak 43. stavak 1. AMG-a mogla ograničiti stavljanje u promet lijekova iz drugih država članica, analiza da bi takva odredba trebala biti definirana kao mjera s istovrsnim učinkom ne može se ograničiti samo na lijekove koji nisu iz države članice uvoza, već se također odnosi i na lijekove koji su bili kupljeni od trgovaca na veliko sa sjedištem u potonjoj državi članici.
Whether there is justification
Postojanje opravdanja
132 In answering the question whether the prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products is justified, it is appropriate again to draw a distinction between prescription and non-prescription medicines.
132 Glede odgovora na pitanje je li zabrana prodaje lijekova poštanskom narudžbom opravdana, primjereno je ponovo ukazati na razliku između lijekova koji se izdaju na liječnički recept i onih koji se izdaju bez recepta.
In relation to the first category, the considerations underpinning the finding, in paragraphs 112 to 116 of this judgment, that the prohibition is not warranted apply in the same way to reimported products.
U pogledu prve kategorije, razmatranja na temelju kojih je u točkama 112. do 116. ove presude ustanovljeno da navedena zabrana nije utemeljena vrijede jednako za ponovno uvezene proizvode.
There is thus no need to modify the answer to Question 1(b) in the light of Article 28 EC.
Stoga s obzirom na članak 28. UEZ-a nema potrebe mijenjati odgovor na točku (b) prvog pitanja.
133 Given that considerations relating to the reimportation of prescription medicines ─ in particular the fact that any such reimported medicines will not be subject to the APO since they have been purchased over the internet ─ have already been taken into account in the context of the answer to Question 1(b), there is no need to modify that answer either.
133 Budući da su razmatranja o ponovnom uvozu lijekova koji se izdaju na liječnički recept ─ a posebno činjenica da za takve ponovno uvezene lijekove ne vrijedi APO, jer su kupljeni preko interneta ─ već bila obuhvaćena u okviru odgovora na točku (b) prvog pitanja, nema potrebe mijenjati niti taj odgovor.
134 The answer to Question 1(c) must therefore be that Questions 1(a) and 1(b) do not need to be assessed differently where medicinal products are imported into a Member State in which they are authorised, having been previously obtained by a pharmacy in another Member State from a wholesaler in the importing Member State.
134 Stoga na prvo pitanje točku (c) valja odgovoriti da pitanja 1(a) i 1(b) ne zahtjevaju različitu procjenu ako se lijekovi uvoze u državu članicu u kojoj su odobreni, iako ih je ljekarna sa sjedištem u drugoj državi članici prethodno kupila od trgovca na veliko u toj državi članici uvoza.
135 By the first part of its second question, the national court is asking essentially whether, in the context of a national prohibition on advertising the sale by mail order of medicinal products, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC preclude a broad interpretation of advertising, whereby a number of features of the internet portal of a pharmacy established in a Member State are classed as prohibited advertising, making cross-border ordering of medicines over the internet appreciably more difficult.
135 Prvim dijelom svog drugog pitanja nacionalni sud u biti pita je li člancima 28. i 30. UEZ-a, u okviru nacionalne zabrane oglašavanja prodaje lijekova poštanskom narudžbom, protivno široko tumačenje pojma „oglašavanje", kojim bi više aspekata internetskog portala ljekarne sa sjedištem u državi članici bilo definirano kao „zabranjeno oglašavanje", tako da je prekogranično naručivanje lijekova putem interneta bitno otežano.
136 The question presupposes the co-existence of a lawful internet sale of medicinal products with a lawful prohibition on the advertising of those products, which might adversely affect the sale.
136 To pitanje pretpostavlja da istovremeno postoji zakonita prodaja lijekova putem interneta i zakonita zabrana oglašavanja tih proizvoda, što može otežati tu prodaju.
Accordingly, it should be made clear that two distinct questions are being raised: first, whether national prohibitions on advertising the sale by mail order of medicinal products are compatible with Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, and second whether, in so far as those prohibitions (or some of them) are found compatible, a broad interpretation of advertising, which would make internet selling more difficult, would also be compatible with Articles 28 EC and 30 EC.
Zato je potrebno pojasniti da su postavljena dva različita pitanja, tj. kao prvo, jesu li nacionalne zabrane oglašavanja prodaje lijekova poštanskom narudžbom u skladu s člancima 28. UEZ-a i 30. UEZ-a i, kao drugo, ukoliko se ustanovi da se te zabrane (ili neke od njih) mogu takvima smatrati, je li široko tumačenje pojma „oglašavanje", koje bi otežalo prodaju putem interneta, također u skladu s člancima 28. UEZ-a i 30. UEZ-a.
137 It is only when a prohibition on advertising which is compatible with Community law coincides with an internet sale which is also compatible with Community law that it will be necessary to consider how broadly the concept of advertising should be interpreted, as well as Questions 2(a) and 2(b).
137 Samo ako se zabrana oglašavanja koja je u skladu s pravom Zajednice preklapa s internetskom prodajom koja je također u skladu s pravom Zajednice, bit će potrebno proučiti pitanje o tome koliko široko treba tumačiti pojam „oglašavanje", kao i točke (a) i (b) drugog pitanja.
Whether the prohibitions on advertising are compatible with Community law
O sukladnosti zabrane oglašavanja s pravom Zajednice
138 As explained in paragraphs 31 to 33 of this judgment, the German legislation provides for three kinds of prohibition on the advertising of medicinal products.
138 Kako je bilo objašnjeno u točkama 31. do 33. ove presude, njemačko zakonodavstvo predviđa tri vrste zabrane oglašavanja lijekova.
It is necessary to ascertain whether each of those prohibitions complies with Community law.
Potrebno je utvrditi je li svaka od tih zabrana u skladu s pravom Zajednice.
First, as regards Paragraph 3 of the HWG, which in essence lays down a prohibition on advertising medicinal products which require authorisation but have not been authorised, it is sufficient to note that such a prohibition is in conformity with the prohibition referred to in Article 2(1) of Directive 92/28, replaced by Article 87(1) of the Community Code.
Prvo, u pogledu članka 3. HWG-a, koji u biti utvrđuje zabranu oglašavanja lijekova za koje se zahtijeva odobrenje, ali koji nisu odobreni, dovoljno je konstatirati da je takva zabrana u skladu sa zabranom iz članka 2. stavka 1. Direktive 92/28, koji je zamijenjen člankom 87. stavkom 1. zakonika Zajednice.
Thus there is no reason to examine the compatibility of such a prohibition with the Treaty.
Stoga ispitivanje sukladnosti takve zabrane s odredbama Ugovora nije potrebno .
139 Second, Paragraph 10(1) of the HWG provides, in general, for a prohibition on advertising prescription medicines.
139 Drugo, članak 10. stavak 1. HWG-a načelno predviđa zabranu oglašavanja lijekova koji se izdaju na liječnički recept.
As was stated in connection with Paragraph 3 of the HWG, a prohibition of the kind in Paragraph 10(1) of that law is compatible, as the Commission has observed, with Article 3(1) of Directive 92/28, replaced by Article 88(1) of the Community Code, which lays down a corresponding prohibition at Community level.
Kako je navedeno u vezi s člankom 3. HWG-a, zabrana kako je određena u članku 10. stavku 1. tog zakona je prema mišljenju Komisije u skladu s člankom 3. stavkom 1. Direktive 92/28, zamijenjenim člankom 88. stavkom 1. zakonika Zajednice, koji takvu zabranu uvodi na razini Zajednice.
Accordingly, since a domestic prohibition of that kind constitutes a national measure implementing a Community harmonising measure, its compatibility with the Treaty cannot be called in question either.
S obzirom da nacionalna zabrana takve vrste predstavlja nacionalnu mjeru kojom se nacionalno pravo usklađuje s pravom Zajednice, njezina sukladnost s Ugovorom također ne može biti dovedena u pitanje.
140 Third, Paragraph 8(1) of the HWG lays down a prohibition on advertising the sale by mail order of medicinal products which may be supplied exclusively in pharmacies.
140 Treće, članak 8. stavak 1. HWG-a utvrđuje zabranu oglašavanja prodaje lijekova poštanskom narudžbom koji se mogu nabavljati isključivo u ljekarnama.
Paragraph 8(2) also prohibits advertising in connection with the sale of medicinal products by way of individual import as described in Paragraph 73(2), point 6a, and Paragraph 73(3) of the AMG.
Članak 8. stavak 2. također zabranjuje oglašavanje prodaje lijekova putem pojedinačnog uvoza u skladu s člankom 73. stavkom 2. točkom 6.a i člankom 73. stavkom 3. AMG-a.
According to the observations of the German Government, that prohibition, read with Paragraph 73(1) of the AMG, seeks to prevent individual imports of unauthorised medicinal products becoming so extensive, as a result of advertising, as to undermine the system of authorisation, whereas under the AMG individual imports are possible only in exceptional cases.
U skladu s očitovanjima njemačke vlade cilj takve zabrane u vezi s člankom 73. stavkom 1. AMG-a je zabraniti da se mogući pojedinačni uvoz neodobrenih lijekova radi takvog oglašavanja toliko poveća da bi ugrozio sustav izdavanja odobrenja, dok je u skladu s AMG-om takva mogućnost predviđena samo u iznimnim slučajevima.
In any event, as the Advocate General has noted in point 171 of her Opinion, according to the documents provided to the Court by the national court, the latter considers that only the prohibition laid down in Paragraph 8(1) of the HWG applies in relation to the sale by mail order of medicinal products.
Kako je primijetila nezavisna odvjetnica u točki 171. svojeg mišljenja, iz spisa koji je Sudu dostavio nacionalni sud, svakako je razvidno da se prema njegovom mišljenju za prodaju lijekova putem poštanske narudžbe primjenjuje samo zabrana utvrđena u članku 8. stavku 1. HWG-a.
Thus, the provisions of Paragraph 8(2) of the HWG do not form part of the legal and factual framework of the dispute in the main proceedings.
Stoga odredbe članka 8. stavka 2. HWG-a nisu dio pravnog i činjeničnog okvira spora u glavnom postupku.
141 The prohibition in Paragraph 8(1) of the HWG has no precise corollary at Community-law level.
141 S obzirom na zabranu iz članka 8. stavka 1. HWG-a valja utvrditi da ona nema pravu protutežu na razini zakonodavstva Zajednice.
Article 88(1) of the Community Code prohibits advertising of prescription medicines, whilst Article 88(2) permits, as a general rule, advertising for medicines intended and designed for use without the intervention of a medical practitioner, but with the advice of the pharmacist, if necessary.
U vezi s time članak 88. stavak 1. zakonika Zajednice zabranjuje oglašavanje lijekova koji se izdaju na liječnički recept, dok članak 88. stavak 2. dozvoljava, kao opće pravilo, oglašavanje lijekova namijenjenih i osmišljenih za uporabu bez intervencije liječnika, ali uz savjet ljekarnika, ukoliko je potrebno.
142 The Austrian Government relies on that provision to observe that even if that type of advertising is permissible in principle, and given that Article 88 of the Code does not state to what extent the pharmacist's advice is deemed necessary, it must be assumed that the Member States have some latitude in this sphere.
142 Na temelju te odredbe zakonika Zajednice austrijska vlada smatra da čak i u slučaju da je takvo oglašavanje načelno dozvoljeno, i s obzirom da članak 88. predmetnog zakonika ne navodi u kojem se opsegu savjetovanje s ljekarnikom smatra potrebnim, valja pretpostaviti da države članice u tom području imaju diskrecijsko pravo.
The Austrian Government concludes that a prohibition on internet advertising is also justified for medicinal products which may be sold only in pharmacies and for which a prescription is not required.
Austrijska vlada zaključuje da je zabrana oglašavanja putem interneta također opravdana za lijekove koji se smiju prodavati isključivo u ljekarnama i za koje nije potreban liječnički recept.
143 In that regard, it is appropriate to bear in mind the answer to Question 1(b), in paragraphs 112 to 116 of this judgment, concerning justification for the prohibition on the sale by mail order of non-prescription medicines.
143 U vezi s tim potrebno je upozoriti na odgovor na točku (b) prvog pitanja u točkama 112. do 116. ove presude u pogledu opravdanja zabrane prodaje putem poštanske narudžbe lijekova koji se izdaju bez recepta.
In its reply, the Court held that the prohibition cannot be justified, in relation to those medicines, by the alleged need for a pharmacist to be physically present when medicines of that type are purchased.
Tim je odgovorom presuđeno da se zabranu u vezi s navedenim lijekovima ne može opravdati navodnom potrebom da ljekarnik bude fizički prisutan pri kupnji te vrste lijekova.
144 It follows that Article 88(2) of the Community Code, which allows medicinal products not subject to prescription to be advertised to the general public, cannot be interpreted as precluding advertising for the sale by mail order of medicines on the basis of the alleged need for a pharmacist to be physically present.
144 Proizlazi da se članak 88. stavak 2. zakonika Zajednice, koji dozvoljava javno oglašavanje lijekova koji se ne izdaju na recept, ne može tumačiti tako da isključuje oglašavanje prodaje lijekova poštanskom narudžbom na temelju navodne potrebe da ljekarnik bude fizički prisutan.
Accordingly, Article 88(1) of the Community Code, which prohibits advertising for prescription medicines, precludes a prohibition such as that laid down in Paragraph 8(1) of the HWG in so far as that prohibition covers non-prescription medicines.
Stoga je članku 88. stavku 1. zakonika Zajednice, kojim se zabranjuje oglašavanje lijekova koji se izdaju na liječnički recept, protivna zabrana kako je određena u članku 8. stavku 1. HWG-a, ako se ta zabrana odnosi na lijekove koji se izdaju bez liječničkog recepta.
Scope of the concept of advertising to the general public under Article 1(3), first indent, and Article 3(1) of Directive 92/28
Opseg pojma „oglašavanje prema stanovništvu" u smislu članka 1. stavka 3. prve alineje i članka 3. stavka 1. Direktive 92/28
145 It is apparent from the foregoing that only prohibitions on advertising such as those in Paragraphs 3a and 10 of the HWG, namely those concerning unauthorised medicinal products and prescription medicines respectively, are compatible with Community law.
145 Iz prethodno navedenog očito je da su samo zabrane oglašavanja kao što su one iz članka 3.a i članka 10. HWG-a, odnosno one koje se odnose na neodobrene lijekove i lijekove koji se izdaju na liječnički recept, u skladu s pravom Zajednice.
Accordingly, the Court must consider whether the scope of either of those prohibitions is such as may prevent internet sales of medicinal products, in order to ascertain whether it is necessary to give an interpretation of the term advertising to the general public and, in particular, to state how broadly that term should be interpreted.
Stoga valja ispitati bi li opseg svake od ovih zabrana mogao spriječiti prodaju lijekova putem interneta, kako bi se ustanovilo je li tumačenje pojma „oglašavanje prema stanovništvu" potrebno, posebno u odnosu na širinu tog pojma.
146 As regards a prohibition of the kind referred to in Paragraph 3a of the HWG, it suffices to observe that the very placing on the market of medicinal products within the territory of a Member State in which they are subject to authorisation but have not been authorised is prohibited at Community level.
146 U pogledu zabrane kako je određena u članku 3.a HWG-a, dovoljno je podsjetiti da je samo stavljanje u promet lijekova na državnom području države članice u kojoj je za njih potrebno odobrenje, iako ga nisu dobili, zabranjeno na razini Zajednice.
Accordingly, it cannot be maintained that a prohibition of that kind prevents the lawful sale of medicines over the internet.
Stoga nije moguće tvrditi da takva zabrana sprečava zakonitu prodaju lijekova putem interneta.
147 Community law does not preclude a prohibition on mail-order selling of prescription medicines, which means that a prohibition on advertising the sale by mail order sale of that class of medicinal products cannot be found to prevent a lawful method of selling medicinal products.
147 U pogledu prodaje lijekova na liječnički recept putem poštanske narudžbe, pravu Zajednice nije protivna zabrana takve prodaje, što znači da se niti za zabranu oglašavanja prodaje putem poštanske narudžbe za tu vrstu lijekova ne može smatrati da sprečava zakoniti način prodaje lijekova.
148 In light of the foregoing, the answer to the first part of the second question must be that Article 88(1) of the Community Code precludes a national prohibition on advertising the sale by mail order of medicinal products which may be supplied only in pharmacies in the Member State concerned, such as the prohibition laid down in Paragraph 8(1) of the HWG, in so far as the prohibition covers medicinal products which are not subject to prescription.
148 S obzirom na gore navedeno, na prvi dio drugog pitanja valja odgovoriti da je članku 88. stavku 1. zakonika Zajednice protivna nacionalna zabrana oglašavanja prodaje poštanskom narudžbom lijekova koji se u dotičnoj državi članici mogu nabavljati isključivo u ljekarnama, kao što je zabrana utvrđena u članku 8. stavku 1. HWG-a, ako se ta zabrana odnosi na lijekove koji se ne izdaju na liječnički recept.
149 Consequently, and in light of the answer to Question 1(b), the Court finds that in the main case there is no prohibition on advertising compatible with Community law which is such as may prevent the lawful sale of medicinal products over the internet.
149 U skladu s time i s obzirom na odgovor na točku (b) prvog pitanja, valja utvrditi da u predmetu u glavnom postupku ne postoji zabrana oglašavanja u skladu s pravom Zajednice koja bi mogla spriječiti zakonitu prodaju lijekova putem interneta.
Accordingly, there is no need to answer Question 2(a) and (b).
Zato na točke (a) i (b) drugog pitanja nije potrebno odgovoriti.
150 Given the answer to the second question, there is no need to reply to the third question.
150 S obzirom na odgovor na drugo pitanje, na treće pitanje nije potrebno odgovoriti.
151 The costs incurred by the German, Greek, French, Irish and Austrian Governments and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.
151 Troškovi njemačke, grčke, francuske, irske i austrijske vlade i Komisije, koje su podnijele očitovanja Sudu, ne nadoknađuju se.
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. On those grounds,
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.
THE COURT, in answer to the questions referred to it by the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of 10 August 2001, hereby rules:
Slijedom navedenog, Sud, kao odgovor na pitanja koja mu je Landgericht Frankfurt am Main uputio rješenjem od 10. kolovoza 2001., odlučuje:
1 (a) A national prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products the sale of which is restricted to pharmacies in the Member State concerned, such as the prohibition laid down in Paragraph 43(1) of the Arzneimittelgesetz (Law on medicinal products) in the version of 7 September 1998, is a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction for the purposes of Article 28 EC.
1 (a) Nacionalna zabrana prodaje poštanskom narudžbom lijekova čija je prodaja ograničena na ljekarne u dotičnoj državi članici, kao što je zabrana utvrđena u članku 43. stavku 1. Arzneimittelgesetza (zakona o lijekovima), u inačici od 7. rujna 1998., mjera je s istovrsnim učinkom količinskom ograničenju u smislu članka 28. UEZ-a.
(b) Article 30 EC may be relied on to justify a national prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products which may be sold only in pharmacies in the Member State concerned in so far as the prohibition covers medicinal products subject to prescription.
(b) Članak 30. UEZ-a može se smatrati uporištem za opravdanje nacionalne zabrane prodaje poštanskom narudžbom lijekova čija je prodaja u dotičnoj državi članici ograničena isključivo na ljekarne, ako se ta zabrana odnosi na lijekove koji se izdaju na liječnički recept.
(c) Questions 1(a) and 1(b) do not need to be assessed differently where medicinal products are imported into a Member State in which they are authorised, having been previously obtained by a pharmacy in another Member State from a wholesaler in the importing Member State.
(c) Pitanje 1. točke (a) i (b) nije potrebno procijeniti različito ako se radi o uvozu lijekova u državu članicu u kojoj su odobreni, iako ih je prethodno kupila ljekarna sa sjedištem u drugoj državi članici od trgovca na veliko u državi članici uvoza.