natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
111 On the other hand, the situation in other regions may be that all their geographical areas already have the minimum number of pharmacies required and - under the alternative `minimum number' system described in paragraph 105 above - pharmacists would thus be free to set up anywhere in the regional territory, including the more attractive areas. 
111 S druge strane, situacija u drugim regijama može biti takva da na svim njihovim zemljopisnim područjima već postoji minimalni broj ljekarni te bi, prema alternativnom sustavu „minimalnog broja", opisanom u točki 105. ove presude, ljekarnici mogli otvarati ljekarne bilo gdje na tom regionalnom području, uključujući i najprivlačnija područja.
However, that situation might run counter to the national objective, as it follows from Law 16/1997, of channelling pharmacists towards areas where there are no pharmacies, in whatever region: it is possible that the pharmacists concerned would tend to swell the numbers of pharmacists in regions where the minimum number has already been reached - and where, as a consequence, there are no restrictions on the opening of pharmacies - instead of setting up in areas where there are no pharmacies, in the regions where the minimum number has not been reached. 
Međutim, takva situacija može biti u suprotnosti s nacionalnim ciljem koji proizlazi iz Zakona 16/1997 da se ljekarnike usmjeri prema područjima u kojima nema ljekarni, bez obzira na regiju. Nije isključeno da bi se predmetni ljekarnici nastojali pridružiti ljekarnicima u regijama u kojima je minimalni broj već dostignut i u kojima, posljedično, ne postoje ograničenja za osnivanje novih ljekarni, umjesto da svoju djelatnost započinju u dijelovima u kojima ljekarni nema, u regijama u kojima minimalni broj nije dostignut.
112 Accordingly, it cannot be held that the legislation at issue in the cases before the referring court goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued. 
112 Prema tome, ne može se zaključiti da propis o kojemu je riječ u predmetima pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev prelazi ono što je nužno za ostvarivanje postavljenog cilja.
113 Having regard to the above, the answer to the first part of the questions referred is that Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases before the referring court, which imposes restrictions on the issue of licences for the opening of new pharmacies, by providing that: 
113 Uzimajući u obzir gore navedeno, na prvi dio postavljenih pitanja valja odgovoriti da članak 49. UFEU-a treba tumačiti smislu da mu u načelu nije protivan nacionalni propis, poput onog o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku koji nameće ograničenja pri izdavanju dozvola za otvaranje novih ljekarni, prema kojem:
a supplementary pharmacy may not be opened until that threshold has been exceeded, that pharmacy being established for the fraction above 2 000 inhabitants; and 
se dodatna ljekarna ne može otvoriti dok se ne premaši navedeni prag, odnosno da se takva ljekarna otvara za broj iznad 2000 stanovnika.
114 Nevertheless, Article 49 TFEU precludes such national legislation in so far as the basic `2 800 inhabitants' and `250 metres' rules prevent, in any geographical area which has special demographic features, the establishment of a sufficient number of pharmacies to ensure adequate pharmaceutical services, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain. 
114 No, takav nacionalni propis protivan je članku 49. UFEU-a ako osnovna pravila „2800 stanovnika" i „250 m" u bilo kojem zemljopisnom području s posebnim demografskim obilježjima onemogućuju otvaranje dovoljnog broja ljekarni koji bi osigurao odgovarajuću ljekarničku uslugu, što je na nacionalnom sudu da utvrdi.
The second part of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, relating to the selection criteria for licensees for new pharmacies, as set out in points 4, 6 and 7(a) to (c) of the Annex to Decree 72/2001 
Drugi dio pitanja postavljenih u zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku u vezi s kriterijima za odabir nositelja dozvola za nove ljekarne, kako su navedeni u točkama 4., 6., i 7. od (a) do (c) Priloga Dekretu 72/2001
115 By the second part of its questions, the referring court essentially inquires whether Article 49 TFEU precludes criteria, such as those set out in points 4, 6 and 7(a) to (c) of the Annex to Decree 72/2001, under which licensees for new pharmacies are to be selected. 
115 Drugim dijelom pitanja sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita jesu li članku 49. UFEU-a protivni kriteriji, poput onih navedenih u točkama 4., 6., i 7. (a) do (c) Priloga Dekretu 72/2001 na temelju kojih se odabiru nositelji dozvole za nove ljekarne.
116 As regards the criteria provided for in points 4 and 7(a) and (b) of that annex, the considerations set out in paragraphs 86, 87, 92 and 93 above show that they contribute, in accordance with Article 49 TFEU, to achieving the general interest objective referred to. 
116 Što se tiče kriterija utvrđenih točkama 4., 6., i 7. (a) do (c) tog Priloga, iz razmatranja navedenih u točkama 86., 87., 92. i 93. ove presude proizlazi da oni doprinose, u skladu s člankom 49. UFEU-a, postizanju cilja od općeg interesa na koji se poziva.
117 In those circumstances, it remains to be considered whether Article 49 TFEU precludes the criteria provided for in points 6 and 7(c) of that annex, given that Article 49 TFEU requires, in particular, that the criteria applicable in the context of an administrative authorisation scheme not be discriminatory (see Hartlauer, paragraph 64). 
117 U tim okolnostima još treba razmotriti jesu li članku 49. UFEU-a protivni kriteriji predviđeni u točkama 6. i 7.(c) tog Priloga, s obzirom na to da članak 49. UFEU-a posebno zahtjeva da kriteriji koji se primjenjuju u kontekstu sustava administrativnog odobrenja ne smiju biti diskriminatorni (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Hartlauer, t. 64. ).
118 In this connection, it should be borne in mind that the principle of non-discrimination prohibits not only direct or overt discrimination on grounds of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead to the same result (see Case C-212/99 Commission v Italy [2001] ECR I-4923, paragraph 24, and Case C-224/00 Commission v Italy [2002] ECR I-2965, paragraph 15). 
118 S tim u vezi valja podsjetiti da načelo nediskriminacije ne zabranjuje samo izravnu ili otvorenu diskriminaciju na temelju državljanstva već i sve oblike prekrivene diskriminacije koji, kroz primjenu drugih kriterija razlikovanja, vode do istog učinka (vidjeti presude od 26. lipnja 2001., Komisija/Italija, C-212/99, Zb., str. I-4923., t. 24. i od 19. ožujka 2002., Komisija/Italija, C-224/00, Zb., str. I-2965., t. 15.).
119 Thus, unless objectively justified and proportionate to its aim, a provision of national law must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory if it is intrinsically liable to affect the nationals of other Member States more than the nationals of the State whose legislation is at issue and if there is a consequent risk that it will place the former at a particular disadvantage (Case C-212/05 Hartmann [2007] ECR I-6303, paragraph 30). 
119 Tako, osim ako je objektivno opravdana i proporcionalna cilju koji teži postići, odredbu nacionalnog prava, iako je ista primjenjiva bez obzira na državljanstvo, treba smatrati neizravno diskriminirajućom ako je po samoj svojoj prirodi podobna više oštetiti državljane ostalih država članica nego državljane države o čijem se propisu radi i ako stoga postoji opasnost da državljane ostalih država članica stavlja u osobito nepovoljan položaj (presuda od 18. srpnja 2007., Hartmann, C-212/05, Zb., str. I-6303., t. 30.)
120 In the present case, point 6 of the Annex to Decree 72/2001 states that a further 20% is to be added for professional qualifications for professional experience obtained within the Autonomous Community of Asturias. 
120 U ovom predmetu, točka 6. Priloga Dekretu 72/2001 kaže da stručne kvalifikacije na temelju stručnog iskustva stečenog u autonomnoj zajednici Asturiji broj bodova uvećavaju za 20 %.
121 Secondly, it emerges from point 7(c) of that annex that, in the event that several candidates score an equal number of points on the scale, licences are to be granted in accordance with an order of priority in which precedence is given, after the categories of pharmacist described in point 7(a) and (b), to pharmacists who have pursued their professional activities within the Autonomous Community of Asturias. 
121 Kao drugo, iz točke 7.(c) tog Priloga proizlazi da se, u slučaju da nekoliko kandidata ostvari jednaki broj bodova na ljestvici, dozvole po prioritetnom redu dodjeljuju, nakon kategorija ljekarnika opisanih u točkama 7.(a) i (b), ljekarnicima koji su svoju profesionalnu djelatnost obavljali u autonomnoj zajednici Asturiji.
122 Thus, by dint of those two criteria, the selection process favours pharmacists who have pursued their activities on part of the national territory. 
122 Tako, na temelju ta dva kriterija, izborni postupak daje prednost ljekarnicima koji su svoju djelatnost obavljali na dotičnom državnom području.
Obviously, such a criterion can be more easily met by national pharmacists, who more often pursue their economic activities on the national territory, than by pharmacists who are nationals of other Member States, who more frequently pursue those activities in another Member State (see, by analogy, Hartmann, paragraph 31). 
Očito je da te kriterije lakše mogu ispuniti domaći ljekarnici koji svoju gospodarsku djelatnost puno češće obavljaju na državnom području nego ljekarnici koji su državljani drugih država članica i koji puno češće tu djelatnost obavljaju u drugoj državi članici (vidjeti po analogiji gore navedenu presudu Hartmann, t. 31.).
123 The Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios and the Principado de Asturias contend, however, that the difference in treatment can be justified by the need to maintain a level of quality in the pharmaceutical service, given that its quality would be impaired if pharmacists who had set up in business were not immediately capable of providing pharmaceutical services. 
123 Međutim, Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios i Principado de Asturias tvrde da se razlika u postupanju može opravdati potrebom održavanja razine kvalitete ljekarničkih usluga s obzirom na to da bi kvaliteta bila umanjena kad ljekarnici koji su već pokrenuli posao ne bi mogli odmah početi pružati ljekarničke usluge.
If pharmacists are to be able to operate immediately in this way, they need, in particular, to be acquainted with the health programmes provided for by the regional administration, and the way in which the pharmacies in that region operate. 
Ako ljekarnici moraju odmah biti u stanju započeti raditi na taj način, oni prije svega trebaju biti upoznati sa zdravstvenim programima koje propisuje regionalna uprava i s načinom na koji ljekarne u dotičnoj regiji rade.
124 Such arguments cannot be upheld since, under Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 85/432 and Article 45(2)(e) and (g) of Directive 2005/36, holders of evidence of formal qualifications in pharmacy at university level must be able to gain access to the activities of preparation, testing, storage and supply of medicinal products in pharmacies open to the public and the activities of provision of information and advice on medicinal products. 
124 Takve argumente nije moguće prihvatiti budući da na temelju članka 1. stavaka 1. i 2. Direktive 85/432 i članka 45. stavka 2. točaka (e) i (g) Direktive 2005/36, osobe koje posjeduju dokaze o formalnoj osposobljenosti iz farmacije sveučilišnog stupnja moraju imati pristup djelatnostima pripreme, testiranja, skladištenja i nabavke lijekova u ljekarnama javnim ljekarnama te djelatnostima informiranja i savjetovanja o lijekovima.
In those circumstances, the requirements referred to in paragraph 123 above cannot be relied upon to justify unequal treatment such as that at issue in the cases before the referring court. 
U tim okolnostima nije se moguće pozivati na zahtjeve iz prethodne točke da bi se opravdalo nejednako postupanje poput onoga o kojem je riječ u predmetima pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev.
125 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second part of the questions referred is that Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 85/432 and Article 45(2)(e) and (g) of Directive 2005/36, must be interpreted as precluding criteria, such as those set out in points 6 and 7(c) of the Annex to Decree 72/2001, under which licensees for new pharmacies are to be selected. 
125 S obzirom na gore navedeno, na drugi dio postavljenih pitanja valja odgovoriti da članak 49. UFEU-a, u vezi s člankom 1. stavcima 1. i 2. Direktive 85/432 i člankom 45. stavkom 2. točkama (e) i (g) Direktive 2005/36, treba tumačiti u smislu da su mu protivni kriteriji, poput onih utvrđenih točkama 6. i 7. (c) Priloga Dekretu 72/2001, na temelju kojih se odabiru nositelji dozvola za nove ljekarne.
1. Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases before the referring court, which imposes restrictions on the issue of licences for the opening of new pharmacies, by providing that: 
1. Članak 49. UFEU-a treba tumačiti u smislu da mu u načelu nije protivan nacionalni propis, poput onog o kojem je riječ u predmetima pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, a koji nameće ograničenja u izdavanju dozvola za otvaranje novih ljekarni, prema kojem:
Nevertheless, Article 49 TFEU precludes such national legislation in so far as the basic `2 800 inhabitants' and `250 metres' rules prevent, in any geographical area which has special demographic features, the establishment of a sufficient number of pharmacies to ensure adequate pharmaceutical services, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain. 
Međutim, takav nacionalni propis protivan je članku 49. UFEU-a ako osnovna pravila „2800 stanovnika" i „250 m" u bilo kojem zemljopisnom području s posebnim demografskim obilježjima onemogućuju otvaranje dovoljnog broja ljekarni koji bi osigurao odgovarajuću ljekarničku uslugu, što je na nacionalnom sudu da utvrdi.
2. Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 85/432/EEC of 16 September 1985 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy, and Article 45(2)(e) and (g) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications must be interpreted as precluding criteria, such as those set out in points 6 and 7(c) of the Annex to Decree 72/2001 of 19 July 2001, regulating pharmacies and dispensaries in the Principality of Asturias (Decreto 72/2001 regulador de las oficinas de farmacia y botiquines en el Principado de Asturias), under which licensees for new pharmacies are to be selected. 
2. Članak 49. UFEU-a, u vezi s člankom 1. stavcima 1. i 2. Direktive Vijeća 85/432/EEZ od 16. rujna 1985. o usklađivanju odredaba utvrđenih zakonom i drugim propisima u pogledu određenih djelatnosti u području farmacije i člankom 45. stavkom 2. točkama (e) i (g) Direktive 2005/36/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 7. rujna 2005. o priznavanju stručnih kvalifikacija treba tumačiti u smislu da su mu protivni kriteriji poput onih utvrđenih točkama 6. i 7. (c) Priloga Dekretu 72/2001 koji uređuje pitanje ljekarni i ljekarničkih depoa u kneževini Asturiji, (Decreto 72/2001 regulador de las oficinas de farmacia y botiquines en el Principado de Asturias), na temelju kojih se odabiru nositelji dozvola za nove ljekarne.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 
PRESUDA SUDA (drugo vijeće)
(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"
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 (Vrhovni sud Nizozemske), odlukom od 13. lipnja 2008., koju je Sud zaprimio 18. lipnja 2008., u postupku
Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd, 
Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd,
Ladbrokes International Ltd 
Ladbrokes International Ltd
v Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator, 
protiv Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator,
composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Lindh, A. Rosas, U. Lõhmus and A. Arabadjiev, Judges, 
u sastavu: J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (izvjestitelj), predsjednik vijeća, P. Lindh, A. Rosas, U. Lõhmus i A. Arabadjiev, suci,
Registrar: R. Şereş, Administrator, 
tajnik: R. Şereş, administratorica,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 12 November 2009, 
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 12. studenoga 2009.,
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 Finnish Government, by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent, 
za finsku vladu, A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, 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,
1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 49 EC. 
1 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku odnosi se na tumačenje članka 49. UEZ-a.
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; [...]"
4 Article 16 of the Wok is worded as follows: 
4 Članak 16. Woka glasi:
`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. [...]"
5 Article 21 of the Wok states: 
5 Članak 21. Woka propisuje:
1. The Ministers referred to in Article 16 shall lay down rules concerning licences for the organisation of sports-related prize competitions. 
„1. Ministri iz članka 16. utvrđuju pravila u vezi s odobrenjima za priređivanje nagradnih igara povezanih sa sportskim događajima.
2. Those rules relate, inter alia, to: 
2. Ta se pravila osobito odnose na: