natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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 točke 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.
63 On the other hand, as the governments which submitted observations and the Commission pointed out, the Court stated in Schindler , Läärä and Zenatti that moral, religious and cultural factors, and the morally and financially harmful consequences for the individual and society associated with gaming and betting, could serve to justify the existence on the part of the national authorities of a margin of appreciation sufficient to enable them to determine what consumer protection and the preservation of public order require. 
63 Suprotno tome, kako su podsjetile vlade koje su podnijele svoja očitovanja i Komisija, Sud je u navedenim presudama Schindler, Läärä i dr. i Zenatti naveo da bi moralne, vjerske ili kulturne posebnosti kao i moralne i financijske štetne posljedice za pojedinca i društvo povezane s igrama na sreću i klađenjem, mogle opravdati postojanje dovoljnih diskrecijskih ovlasti nacionalnih tijela za utvrđivanje zahtjeva zaštite potrošača i očuvanja socijalnog poretka.
64 In any event, in order to be justified the restrictions on freedom of establishment and on freedom to provide services must satisfy the conditions laid down in the case-law of the Court (see, inter alia, Case C-19/92 Kraus [1993] ECR I-1663, paragraph 32, and Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, paragraph 37). 
64 U svakom slučaju, da bi bila opravdana, ograničenja slobode poslovnog nastana i slobodnog pružanja usluga moraju zadovoljavati uvjete koji proizlaze iz sudske prakse Suda (vidjeti osobito presude od 31. ožujka 1993., Kraus, C-19/92, Zb., str. I-1663., t. 32. i od 30. studenoga 1995., Gebhard, C-55/94, Zb., str. I-4165., t. 37.).
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. 
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.
They must in any event be applied without discrimination. 
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. 
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.
To that end, it will be for that court to take account of the issues set out in the following paragraphs. 
Pri tome treba voditi računa o elementima navedenim u sljedećim točkama.
67 First of all, whilst in Schindler , Läärä and Zenatti the Court accepted that restrictions on gaming activities may be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest, such as consumer protection and the prevention of both fraud and incitement to squander on gaming, restrictions based on such grounds and on the need to preserve public order must also be suitable for achieving those objectives, inasmuch as they must serve to limit betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner. 
67 Kao prvo, iako je u presudama Schindler, Läärä i dr. i Zenatti Sud prihvatio činjenicu da se ograničenja djelatnosti igara na sreću mogu opravdati važnim razlozima u općem interesu, poput zaštite potrošača i sprečavanja prijevare i poticanja građana na pretjeranu potrošnju povezanu s igrama na sreću, je li potrebno da ograničenja temeljena na takvim razlozima i na potrebi očuvanja socijalnog poretka također budu prikladna za ostvarivanje navedenih ciljeva u smislu da ta ograničenja trebaju ograničavanju djelatnosti klađenja doprinositi na dosljedan i sustavan način.
68 In that regard the national court, referring to the preparatory papers on Law No 388/00, has pointed out that the Italian State is pursuing a policy of substantially expanding betting and gaming at national level with a view to obtaining funds, while also protecting CONI licensees. 
68 U tom pogledu, pozivajući se na pripremne dokumente u vezi sa Zakonom br. 388/00, sud koji je uputio zahtjev istaknuo je da talijanska država nastoji ostvariti na nacionalnoj razini politiku znatnog širenja igara na sreću i klađenja s ciljem pribavljanja sredstava, a time posljedično štiti koncesionare CONI-a.
69 In so far as the authorities of a Member State incite and encourage consumers to participate in lotteries, games of chance and betting to the financial benefit of the public purse, the authorities of that State cannot invoke public order concerns relating to the need to reduce opportunities for betting in order to justify measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings. 
69 Ako tijela država članica potiču i ohrabruju potrošače na sudjelovanje u lutrijama, igrama na sreću ili igrama klađenja kako bi osigurala priljev financijskih sredstava u državnu blagajnu, tijela te države ne mogu se pozvati na brigu o javnom socijalnom poretku u vezi s potrebom smanjenja prilika za klađenje kako bi opravdala mjere poput onih u predmetu u glavnom postupku.
70 Next, the restrictions imposed by the Italian rules in the field of invitations to tender must be applicable without distinction: they must apply in the same way and under the same conditions to operators established in Italy and to those from other Member States alike. 
70 Nadalje, ograničenja određena talijanskim propisima u području javnog natječaja trebaju se primjenjivati bez razlike, u smislu da se trebaju primjenjivati na isti način i na temelju istih kriterija za gospodarske subjekte s poslovnim nastanom u Italiji i one iz drugih država članica.
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. 
71 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev dužan je 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.
If so, those conditions do not satisfy the requirement of non-discrimination. 
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. 
72 Naposljetku, ograničenja određena talijanskim zakonodavstvom ne smiju prelaziti ono što je nužno za postizanje postavljenog cilja.
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. 
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.
73 The national court will also need to determine whether the imposition of restrictions, accompanied by criminal penalties of up to a year's imprisonment, on intermediaries who facilitate the provision of services by a bookmaker in a Member State other than that in which those services are offered by making an internet connection to that bookmaker available to bettors at their premises is a restriction that goes beyond what is necessary to combat fraud, especially where the supplier of the service is subject in his Member State of establishment to a regulation entailing controls and penalties, where the intermediaries are lawfully constituted, and where, before the statutory amendments effected by Law No 388/00, those intermediaries considered that they were permitted to transmit bets on foreign sporting events. 
73 Osim toga, sud koji je uputio zahtjev treba utvrditi predstavlja li nametanje ograničenja, u smislu kaznenih sankcija od maksimalno jedne godine zatvora za posrednike koji pružanje usluga kladionice s poslovnim nastanom u drugoj državi članici koja nije država u kojoj se usluge nude olakšavaju time što stavljaju na raspolaganje kladioničarima svoje prostore za internetsko povezivanje s tom kladionicom, ograničenje koje prelazi ono što je nužno za suzbijanje prijevare, osobito ako pružatelj usluga u svojoj državi članici poslovnog nastana podliježe zakonski utvrđenom sustavu nadzora i sankcija, ako su posrednici zakonito osnovani i ako su, prije zakonskih promjena koje proizlaze iz Zakona br. 388/00, ti posrednici smatrali da im je dozvoljeno prenošenje oklada na strane sportske događaje.
74 As to the proportionality of the Italian legislation in regard to the freedom of establishment, even if the objective of the authorities of a Member State is to avoid the risk of gaming licensees being involved in criminal or fraudulent activities, to prevent capital companies quoted on regulated markets of other Member States from obtaining licences to organise sporting bets, especially where there are other means of checking the accounts and activities of such companies, may be considered to be a measure which goes beyond what is necessary to check fraud. 
74 Što se tiče proporcionalnosti talijanskog zakonodavstva u vezi sa slobodom poslovnog nastana, čak i ako je cilj kojem teže tijela države članice izbjeći rizik da koncesionari u području igara na sreću budu upleteni u kriminalne ili prijevarne aktivnosti, isključiti mogućnost da društva kapitala koja kotiraju na uređenim tržištima drugih država članica dobiju koncesije za organizaciju sportskih klađenja, osobito ako postoje drukčiji načini nadzora računâ i djelatnosti takvih društava, može se smatrati mjerom koja nadilazi ono što je nužno za sprečavanje prijevara.
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 dužan je 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. 
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.
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. 
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. 
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.
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. 
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.
On those grounds, 
Slijedom navedenog,
in answer to the question referred to it by the Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno by an order of 30 March 2001, hereby rules: 
dajući odgovor na pitanje koje mu je rješenjem od 30. ožujka 20013. uputio Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno, odlučuje:
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 on sporting events, without a licence or authorisation from the Member State concerned constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively, which, to be justified, must be based on 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 and be applied without discrimination.In that connection, 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 objectives. 
Nacionalni propis koji zabranjuje - pod prijetnjom kaznenih sankcija - obavljanje djelatnosti prikupljanja, prihvaćanja, upisa i prijenosa ponuda za okladu, osobito na sportske događaje, ako nema koncesija ili dozvola koje izdaje dotična država članica, predstavlja ograničenje slobode poslovnog nastana i slobodnog pružanja usluga predviđenih člancima 43. UEZ-a i 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.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 16 March 2004 
PRESUDA SUDA 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"
In Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01, 
U spojenim predmetima C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 i C-355/01,
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 (Visoki zemaljski sud u Düsseldorfu, Njemačka) i Bundesgerichtshof (Savezni vrhovni sud, 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 and 
AOK Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK), Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen eV, Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, Bundesknappschaft, See-Krankenkasse i
Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. 
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), 
(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.
THE COURT,, 
UEZ-a SUD,
composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges, 
u sastavu: V. Skouris, predsjednik, P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues i A. Rosas, predsjednici vijećâ, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric i S. von Bahr (izvjestitelj), suci,
Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, 
nezavisni odvjetnik: F. G. Jacobs, 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. 
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.
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. 
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.
The Bundesgerichtshof has referred three questions, by two orders of 3 July 2001, received at the Court on 20 September 2001. 
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. 
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.