natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
17 By the Law amending the legislation on panel doctors and other laws (Gesetz zur Änderung des Vertragsarztrechts und anderer Gesetze - Vertragsarztänderungsgesetz) of 22 December 2006 (BGBl. 2006, p. 3439), the legislature repealed Paragraph 102 of the SGB V, which laid down quotas for doctors (dentists) depending on regional demand, with effect from 1 January 2007, but retained the age limit at issue in the main proceedings. 
17 Zakonodavac je zakonom o izmjeni zakona o ugovornim liječnicima i drugih zakona (Gesetz zur Änderung des Vertragsarztrechts und anderer Gesetze - Vertragsarztänderungsgesetz) od 22. prosinca 2006. (BGBI. 2006, str. 3439.), s učinkom od 1. siječnja 2007. stavio izvan snage članak 102. SGB-a V., kojim se utvrđuju kvote za liječnike (stomatologe) ovisno o regionalnim potrebama, no zadržao je dobnu granicu o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku.
The main proceedings and the reference for a preliminary ruling 
Glavni postupak i prethodna pitanja
18 Ms Petersen, who was born on 24 April 1939, reached the age of 68 in 2007. 
18 D. Petersen rođena je 24. travnja 1939. i 2007. navršila je 68 godina života.
She was admitted to practise as a panel dentist from 1 April 1974. 
Odobrenje za obavljanje prakse ugovornog stomatologa dobila je 1. travnja 1974.
19 By decision of 25 April 2007, the Zulassungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe (Admissions board for dentists for the district of Westphalia and Lippe) found that Ms Petersen's authorisation to provide panel dental care would expire on 30 June 2007. 
19 Odlukom od 25. travnja 2007. Zulassungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe (povjerenstvo za izdavanje odobrenja stomatolozima iz okruga Westphalia-Lippe) utvrdio je da odobrenje D. Petersen za obavljanje ugovorne prakse pružanja stomatološke skrbi istječe 30. lipnja 2007.
20 Ms Petersen lodged a complaint against that decision, arguing in particular that it was contrary to the Directive and the AGG. 
20 D. Petersen izjavila je prigovor protiv te odluke, navodeći posebno da je ona u suprotnosti s Direktivom i AGG-om.
21 When her complaint was rejected by a decision of the Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe, Ms Petersen brought proceedings against that decision before the Sozialgericht Dortmund (Social Court, Dortmund). 
21 Kada je njezin prigovor odbačen odlukom povjerenstva Berufungsausschuss für Zahnärzte für den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe, D. Petersen je podnijela tužbu protiv te odluke pred Sozialgericht Dortmund (Socijalni sud, Dortmund).
22 That court states that the dismissal of Ms Petersen's complaint is lawful under national law. 
22 Taj sud navodi da je u skladu s nacionalnim pravom odbijanje prigovora D. Petersen zakonito.
It refers in this respect to the positions taken by the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) and the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), which regard the age limit at issue in the main proceedings as justified, albeit for different reasons. 
U tom smislu sud se poziva na analize Bundessozialgerichta (Savezni socijalni sud) i Bundesverfassungsgerichta (Savezni ustavni sud) kojima se dobna granica o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku smatra opravdanom iako su to ti sudovi utvrdili zbog različitih razloga.
The Bundessozialgericht considers that the age limit made it possible to ensure a balanced sharing of burdens between the generations and remains of use for preserving the employment opportunities of young panel dentists. 
Bundessozialgericht smatra da se dobnom granicom omogućuje uravnotežena podjela tereta među generacijama i da je korisna za očuvanje mogućnosti zapošljavanja mladih ugovornih stomatologa.
However, according to the referring court, that justification is no longer valid following the abolition of quotas for panel dentists and the end of excess supply of care. 
Međutim, prema mišljenju suda koji je uputio zahtjev, to opravdanje više ne vrijedi budući da su kvote za ugovorne stomatologe ukinute i da ponuda usluga zdravstvene skrbi više nije prekomjerna.
23 The referring court accepts, on the other hand, the objective referred to by the Bundesverfassungsgericht in a judgment of 7 August 2007. 
23 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev prihvaća, s druge strane, cilj na koji je upozorio Bundesverfassungsgericht u presudi od 7. kolovoza 2007.
According to that judgment, the age limit is justified by the need to protect patients insured under the statutory health insurance scheme against the risks presented by older panel dentists whose work is no longer the best. 
U skladu s tom presudom, dobna granica opravdana je potrebom zaštite pacijenata osiguranih u okviru zakonom propisanog sustava zdravstvenog osiguranja od rizika koje nose stariji ugovorni stomatolozi čiji rad više nije optimalan.
The Bundesverfassungsgericht maintained the position it had adopted in a previous judgment of 1998 and held that the legislature, in view of the discretion available to it, was not required to provide for an individual examination of the physical and mental capacity of every panel doctor who has reached the age of 68. 
Bundesverfassungsgericht je potvrdio analizu koju je izradio već u ranijoj presudi iz 1998. i presudio da zakonodavac, s obzirom na marginu procjenu koja ima, nije obvezan predvidjeti pojedinačnu provjeru fizičke i mentalne sposobnosti svakog ugovornog liječnika koji je navršio 68 godina života.
On the contrary, the legislature was entitled to adopt general rules based on experience. 
Upravno suprotno, zakonodavac na temelju iskustva ima pravo donijeti opće propise.
The Bundesverfassungsgericht also held that the failure to mention the protection of the health of insured persons in the statement of reasons for the law was immaterial, and pointed out that, when it assessed the constitutionality of a rule of law, it took all aspects into account and was not restricted by the statement of reasons. 
Bundesverfassungsgericht je također presudio da nenavođenje zaštite zdravlja osiguranih osoba u obrazloženju zakona nije relevantno i naglasio je da je pri ocjeni ustavnosti zakonske odluke uzeo u obzir sve aspekte i nije bio ograničen tim obrazloženjem.
24 The referring court is uncertain, however, whether that analysis is also valid with respect to the Directive. 
24 Međutim, sud koji je uputio zahtjev nije siguran u valjanost te analize u odnosu na navedenu direktivu.
It considers that the age limit at issue in the main proceedings is not a measure within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the Directive, since the protection of health, as the legislature itself considered, was not the reason for the adoption of the provision concerned. 
On smatra da dobna granica o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku nije mjera u smislu članka 2. stavka 5. Direktive, s obzirom na to da zaštita zdravlja, po mišljenju zakonodavca, nije bila razlog za donošenje dotične odredbe.
Nor does the age limit constitute a genuine and determining occupational requirement within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Directive, in view of the exceptions which were laid down. 
Ni dobna granica ne predstavlja stvarni i odlučujući uvjet za obavljanje određenog zanimanja u smislu članka 4. stavka 1. Direktive, imajući u vidu utvrđene iznimke.
Finally, the referring court is doubtful as to the compatibility of the age limit with Article 6(1) of the Directive. 
I naposljetku, sud koji je uputio zahtjev izražava sumnju u kompatibilnost dobne granice s člankom 6. stavkom 1. Direktive.
25 That court is uncertain whether the protection of the health of insured persons, referred to by the Bundesverfassungsgericht, can constitute a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Directive, given that that aim did not in fact correspond to the intention of the legislature. 
25 Taj se sud pita je li zaštita zdravlja osiguranih osoba, na koju je upozorio Bundesverfassungsgericht, legitiman cilj u smislu članka 6. stavka 1. Direktive, s obzirom na toda taj cilj u stvari ne odgovara namjeri zakonodavca.
26 Finally, the referring court observes that the age limit at issue in the main proceedings has a very punitive effect on panel dentists who wish to continue practising beyond that limit, since 90% of the population are covered by the statutory health insurance scheme based on the panel system. 
26 I konačno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev naglašava da dobna granica o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku ima vrlo penalizirajući učinak na ugovorne stomatologe koji žele nastaviti obavljati praksu nakon te granice, s obzirom na to da je 90 % populacije obuhvaćeno zakonom propisanim sustavom zdravstvenog osiguranja koji se temelji na ugovornom sustavu.
It wonders whether a less restrictive measure such as a case-by-case examination of individual situations would be conceivable. 
Pita se bi li bilo moguće predvidjeti manje restriktivnu mjeru poput pojedinačne provjere svakog pojedinog slučaja.
27 In those circumstances, the Sozialgericht Dortmund decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
27 Pod tim okolnostima Sozialgericht Dortmund odlučio je prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`1. May the statutory regulation of a maximum age limit for admission to practise a profession (in this case, to work as a panel dentist) be an objective and reasonable measure to protect a legitimate aim (in this case, the health of patients insured under the statutory health insurance scheme) and an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim within the meaning of Article 6 of [the Directive] if it is derived solely from an assumption, based on "general experience", that a general drop in performance occurs from a certain age, without any account being taken of the individual capacity of the specific person concerned? 
„1. Može li zakonom utvrđena maksimalna dobna granica za izdavanje odobrenja za obavljanje profesije (u ovom slučaju, za obavljanje prakse ugovornog stomatologa) biti objektivna i opravdana mjera za zaštitu legitimnog cilja (u ovom slučaju, zdravlja pacijenata osiguranih u okviru zakonom propisanog sustava obveznog zdravstvenog osiguranja) i primjereno i potrebno sredstvo za postizanje toga cilja u smislu članka 6. [Direktive] ako se temelji isključivo na pretpostavci koja se zasniva na „općenitom iskustvu" da u određenoj dobi dolazi do općeg umanjena sposobnosti, ne uzimajući u obzir sposobnosti dotične osobe?
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, may a legitimate (legislative) aim within the meaning of Article 6 of [the Directive] (in this case, the protection of the health of patients insured under the statutory health insurance scheme) be taken to exist even where that aim was entirely irrelevant to the national legislature in the exercise of its legislative discretion? 
2. Ako je odgovor na 1. pitanje potvrdan, može li se smatrati da legitimni (zakonski) cilj u smislu članka 6. Direktive [...] (u ovom slučaju, zaštita zdravlja pacijenata osiguranih u okviru zakonom propisanog sustava zdravstvenog osiguranja) postoji i u slučaju kada je taj cilj u potpunosti nevažan za nacionalnog zakonodavca u okviru izvršavanja njegove zakonodavne nadležnosti?
3. If Question 1 or 2 is to be answered in the negative, may a law enacted prior to the adoption of [the Directive] which is incompatible with that directive be disapplied by virtue of the primacy of European law, even where the national law transposing the directive (in this case, the [AGG]) makes no provision for such a legal consequence in the event of a breach of the prohibition of discrimination?' 
3. Ako je odgovor na prvo ili drugo pitanje negativan, može li se zakon koji je donesen prije Direktive [...], a koji s njom nije u skladu, zanemariti na temelju nadređenosti prava Zajednice, čak i u slučaju kada nacionalno pravo kojim se prenosi Direktiva (u ovom slučaju, [AGG]) ne predviđa takvu pravnu posljedicu u slučaju kršenja zabrane diskriminacije?"
28 The German Government submits, in its written observations, that the reference for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible, in view of the imminent change to the German legislation which will have the consequence of abolishing the prohibition of practising as a panel dentist beyond the age of 68. 
28 Njemačka vlada navodi u svojim pisanim očitovanjima da je zahtjev za prethodnu odluku nedopušten zbog skore promjene njemačkog zakonodavstva koja će dovesti do ukidanja zabrane obavljanja prakse ugovornog stomatologa nakon 68. godine života.
29 On this point, suffice it to say that, as the Advocate General observes in point 32 of his Opinion, the circumstance that such a change is about to be made is not relevant. 
29 Što se toga tiče, dovoljno je napomenuti da okolnost, kao što je utvrdio nezavisni odvjetnik u t. 32. svojega mišljenja, da će doći do te promjene nije relevantna.
According to the information in the order for reference, Ms Petersen had her admission to practise as a panel dentist withdrawn and was deprived of the possibility of carrying on that activity from 30 June 2007. 
Kao što proizlazi iz informacija iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku, D. Petersen oduzeto je odobrenje za obavljanje prakse ugovornog stomatologa i lišena je mogućnosti daljnjeg obavljanja te prakse od 30. lipnja 2007.
It follows that the Court's answer to the questions referred will be decisive for the outcome of the main proceedings and that the reference for a preliminary ruling is admissible. 
Iz toga slijedi da će odgovor Suda na postavljena pitanja biti odlučujući za ishod glavnog postupka i da je zahtjev za prethodnu odluku dopušten.
Questions 1 and 2 
Prvo i drugo pitanje
30 By its first and second questions, which should be considered together, the referring court essentially asks whether Article 6(1) of the Directive precludes a national measure setting a maximum age for practising as a panel dentist, in this case 68 years, in order to protect the health of patients insured under the statutory health insurance scheme, since it is thought that the performance of those dentists declines from that age. 
30 Svojim prvim i drugim pitanjem, koje valja razmatrati zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita je li članku 6. stavku 1. Direktive protivna nacionalna mjera kojom se određuje maksimalna dob za obavljanje prakse ugovornog stomatologa, u ovom slučaju 68 godina, radi zaštite zdravlja pacijenata osiguranih u okviru zakonom propisanog sustava zdravstvenog osiguranja jer se smatra da se sposobnost tih stomatologa umanjuje od tog doba.
It wishes to know whether the fact that that aim was not taken into account by the legislature is relevant. 
Nacionalni sud se pita se je li okolnost da zakonodavac nije uzeo u obzir taj cilj relevantna.
31 To answer those questions, it must be examined whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of the Directive, whether it introduces a difference of treatment on grounds of age, and, if so, whether the Directive precludes that difference of treatment. 
31 Kako bi se dobio odgovor na ta pitanja valja ispitati pripada li propis o kojemu je riječ u glavnom postupku u područje primjene Direktive, uvodi li se njime razlika u postupanju na temelju dobi, te ako je tako, je li ta razlika u postupanju protivna Direktivi.
32 In the first place, as regards the scope of the Directive, it follows from Article 3(1)(a) and (c) of the Directive that it applies, within the framework of the areas of competence conferred on the Community, to all persons in relation to conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, and to employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay (see Case C-411/05 Palacios de la Villa [2007] ECR I-8531, paragraph 43, and Case C-388/07 Age Concern England [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 24). 
32 Kao prvo, što se tiče područja primjene Direktive, valja ustvrditi da iz članka 3. stavka 1. točaka (a) i (c) Direktive proizlazi da se ona primjenjuje, u granicama nadležnosti prenesenih na Zajednicu, na sve osobe u vezi s uvjetima za pristup zapošljavanju, samozapošljavanju ili na uvjete za obavljanje zanimanja i na zapošljavanje i uvjete rada, uključujući otkaze i plaće (vidjeti presude od 16. listopada 2007., Palacios de la Villa, C-411/05, Zb., str. I-8531., t. 43. i od 5. ožujka 2009., Age Concern England, C-388/07, Zb., str. I-1569., t. 24.).
33 The measure at issue in the main proceedings lays down a maximum age for practising as a panel dentist within the statutory health insurance scheme. 
33 Mjerom o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku utvrđuje se maksimalna dob za obavljanje stomatološke prakse u okviru zakonom propisanog sustava zdravstvenog osiguranja.
As appears from the information supplied by the referring court, 90% of patients are covered by that scheme. 
Kako proizlazi iz informacija koje je dostavio sud koji je uputio zahtjev, 90 % pacijenata obuhvaćeno je tim sustavom.
It follows that for a dentist to be unable to practise in the panel scheme is liable to limit the demand for the services he offers. 
Iz toga slijedi da okolnost u kojoj se stomatologu onemogućuje obavljanje prakse u okviru ugovornog sustava može ograničiti potražnju za uslugama koje on nudi.
Consequently, by fixing an age above which access to and exercise of the activity of panel dentist are no longer possible, the third sentence of Paragraph 95(7) of the SGB V affects conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) and employment and working conditions within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive. 
Stoga određivanjem dobi iznad koje pristup stomatološkoj praksi i obavljanje stomatološke prakse više nisu mogući, treća rečenica točke 95. stavka 7. SGB-a V. utječe na uvjete za pristup zapošljavanju, samozapošljavanju ili uvjete za obavljanje zanimanja u smislu članka 3. stavka 1. točke (a) i zapošljavanje i uvjete rada u smislu članka 3. stavka 1. točke (c) Direktive.
34 In the second place, as regards the question whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings contains a difference of treatment on grounds of age in relation to employment and occupation, it must be noted that, under Article 2(1) of the Directive, for the purposes of the Directive, the `principle of equal treatment' is to mean that there must be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 of the Directive. 
34 Kao drugo, što se tiče pitanja sadržava li zakonodavstvo o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku razliku u postupanju na temelju dobi u odnosu na zapošljavanje i obavljanje zanimanja, valja utvrditi da, u skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 1. Direktive, za potrebe Direktive, „načelo jednakog postupanja" treba značiti nepostojanje izravne ili neizravne diskriminacije, na bilo kojoj osnovi iz članka 1. Direktive.
Article 2(2)(a) states that, for the purposes of the application of Article 2(1), direct discrimination is to be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another in a comparable situation, on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 of the Directive (see Palacios de la Villa, paragraph 50, and Age Concern England, paragraph 33). 
U članku 2. stavku 2. točki (a) navodi se da se, za potrebe primjene članka 2. stavka 1., smatra da se radi o izravnoj diskriminaciji u slučaju kada se prema jednoj osobi postupa lošije nego prema drugoj osobi ili je došlo do takvog postupanja ili je moglo doći do takvog postupanja u sličnim situacijama, zbog bilo kojeg od razloga iz članka 1. Direktive (vidjeti prethodno navedene presude Palacios de la Villa, t. 50., i Age Concern England, t. 33.).
35 The application of a provision such as the third sentence of Paragraph 95(7) of the SGB V has the consequence that persons, in this case panel dentists, are treated less favourably than other persons practising the same profession on the ground that they have exceeded the age of 68 years. 
35 Primjena odredbe poput one iz treće rečenice točke 95. stavka 7. SGB-a V. ima za posljedicu da se s osobama, u ovom slučaju ugovornim stomatolozima, postupa lošije nego s drugim osobama koje se bave istom profesijom zbog toga što su navršili 68 godina.
Such a provision introduces a difference of treatment on grounds of age within the meaning of the Directive. 
Takva odredba uvodi različito postupanje na temelju dobi u smislu Direktive.
36 In the third place, it must be examined whether the difference of treatment resulting from the application of the third sentence of Paragraph 95(7) of the SGB V is compatible with the Directive. 
36 Kao treće, treba ispitati je li razlika u postupanju koja proizlazi iz primjene treće rečenice točke 95. stavka 7. SGB-a V. u skladu s Direktivom.
37 The aim pursued by the measure at issue in the main proceedings must be identified, in order to determine the provisions of the Directive by reference to which the measure must be examined. 
37 U vezi s tim važno je utvrditi koji se cilj želi postići mjerom o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku, kako bi se utvrdile odredbe Direktive s obzirom na koje treba preispitati tu mjeru.
38 The referring court mentioned several objectives: first, the protection of the health of patients covered by the statutory health insurance scheme, it being thought that the performance of dentists declines after a certain age; second, the distribution of employment opportunities among the generations; and third, the financial balance of the German health system. 
38 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev naveo je nekoliko ciljeva: kao prvo, zaštita zdravlja pacijenata obuhvaćenih zakonom propisanim sustavom zdravstvenog osiguranja s obzirom na to da se smatra da se sposobnost stomatologa umanjuje nakon određene dobi; kao drugo, raspodjela mogućnosti zapošljavanja među generacijama; i kao treće, financijska ravnoteža njemačkog zdravstvenog sustava.
It only relied on one of them however, namely the first, while pointing out that that objective did not correspond to the intention of the legislature. 
No on je uzeo u obzir samo jedan cilj, i to prvi, pri čemu je naglasio da taj cilj nije u skladu s namjerom zakonodavca.
39 It should be noted that the referring court did not refer to travaux préparatoires, Parliamentary debates or a statement of reasons for the law which would explain why the provision laying down the age limit at issue in the main proceedings was retained when the accompanying provision laying down quotas for doctors (dentists) depending on regional demand was repealed. 
39 Valja napomenuti da se sud koji je uputio zahtjev nije pozvao na pripremne dokumente, parlamentarne rasprave ili obrazloženje zakona kojima bi se objasnilo zbog čega je zadržana odredba kojom se propisuje dobna granica o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku kada je popratna odredba kojom se određuju kvote za liječnike (stomatologe) ovisno o regionalnoj potražnji stavljena izvan snage.
40 As the Court has previously held, where the national legislation in question does not specify the aim pursued, it is important that other elements, taken from the general context of the measure concerned, enable the underlying aim of that measure to be identified for the purposes of review by the courts of whether it is legitimate and whether the means put in place to achieve it are appropriate and necessary (see Palacios de la Villa, paragraph 57, and Age Concern England, paragraph 45). 
40 Kao što je Sud već presudio, budući da nacionalnom propisu o kojem se raspravlja u glavnom postupku nedostaje preciznosti u pogledu cilja koji se njime želi postići, potrebno je da drugi elementi koji proizlaze iz općeg konteksta premetne mjere omoguće utvrđivanje cilja kako bi se proveo sudski nadzor njegove legitimnosti, te prikladnosti i nužnosti sredstava upotrijebljenih za njegovo ostvarenje (vidjeti gore navedene presude Palacios de la Villa, t. 57., i Age Concern England, t. 45.).