natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal 
Postupak pred Prvostupanjskim sudom i pobijana presuda
6 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 10 November 1999, FENIN brought an action for annulment of the contested decision. 
6 FENIN je 10. studenoga 1999. tajništvu Prvostupanjskog suda podnio tužbu za poništenje sporne odluke.
7 In support of its action, FENIN put forward three pleas: (i) infringement of its rights of defence by the Commission, (ii) error in law or manifest error of assessment in the application of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC, and (iii) an inadequate statement of reasons and lack of transparency in the contested decision. 
7 U prilog svojoj tužbi FENIN je naveo tri tužbena razloga: (i) pravo na obranu koje mu je povrijedila Komisija, (ii) pogrešku u pravu ili očitu pogrešku u ocjeni primjene članaka 82. UEZ-a i 86. UEZ-a i (iii) neodgovarajuće obrazloženje te nedostatak transparentnosti sporne odluke.
8 The Court of First Instance first dismissed the second plea, relating to the application of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC, holding, in paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal, that the SNS management bodies do not act as undertakings when purchasing from the members of FENIN the medical goods and equipment which they require in order to provide free services to SNS members. The Court of First Instance held that that conclusion follows from the situation described in paragraph 39 of the judgment under appeal, that the SNS operates according to the principle of solidarity in that it is funded from social security contributions and other State funding and provides services free of charge to its members on the basis of universal cover, and that the SNS management bodies do not, therefore, act as undertakings in their activity of managing the health system. 
8 Prvostupanjski sud prvo je odbio drugi tužbeni razlog, koji se odnosi na primjenu članaka 82. UEZ-a i 86. UEZ-a, zaključivši, u točki 40. pobijane presude, da tijela koja upravljaju SNS-om ne nastupaju kao poduzetnici kada od članova FENIN-a kupuju medicinske proizvode i opremu koju trebaju kako bi članovima SNS-a pružili besplatne usluge. Prvostupanjski sud primijetio je da taj zaključak proizlazi iz situacije opisane u točki 39. spomenute presude, da SNS funkcionira prema načelu solidarnosti po tome što se financira iz doprinosa za socijalno osiguranje i drugih sredstava državnog financiranja i svojim članovima usluge pruža besplatno, na temelju općeg pokrića, pa da, stoga, tijela koja upravljaju SNS-om u svojoj djelatnosti upravljanja zdravstvenim sustavom ne nastupaju kao poduzetnici.
9 The Court of First Instance stated, in paragraphs 41 to 44 of the judgment under appeal, that the argument that Spanish public hospitals do, at least on occasion, provide care for which patients not covered by the SNS, such as foreign visitors, are charged had not been made to the Commission and was mentioned before the Court for the first time only in the reply. It held, therefore, that that argument could not be taken into consideration for the purposes of reviewing the legality of the contested decision. 
9 Prvostupanjski sud naveo je, u točkama od 41. do 44. pobijane presude, da argument da španjolske javne bolnice, barem povremeno, pacijentima koji nisu obuhvaćeni SNS-om, npr. stranim posjetiteljima, zaista pružaju usluge koje se naplaćuju, nije bio podnesen Komisiji nego je na Sudu prvi put spomenut tek u replici. Stoga je primijetio da se taj argument ne može uzeti u obzir za potrebe nadzora zakonitosti sporne odluke.
10 Next, as regards the first plea, alleging infringement of the rights of defence, the Court of First Instance dismissed it after holding, in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission was entitled to dismiss the complaint referred to it on the ground that the SNS management bodies do not act as undertakings within the meaning of Article 82 EC. The Court held that there was therefore no need for the Commission to consider the other aspects of the complaint. 
10 Nadalje, što se tiče prvog tužbenog razloga, koji se temelji na povredi prava na obranu, Prvostupanjski sud odbio ga je nakon što je zaključio, u točkama 49. i 50. pobijane presude, da je prigovor koji joj je upućen Komisija imala pravo odbiti zbog činjenice da tijela koja upravljaju SNS-om ne nastupaju kao poduzetnici u smislu članka 82. UEZ-a. Sud je zaključio da stoga nije bilo potrebe da Komisija razmatra ostale aspekte prigovora.
11 Finally, as regards the third plea, alleging an inadequate statement of reasons and lack of transparency in the contested decision, it is clear from paragraphs 58 and 59 of the judgment under appeal that, in the view of the Court of First Instance, the Commission set out the legal considerations fundamental to the logic of that decision. Having recalled that the Commission was not obliged to adopt a position on all the arguments put forward in support of the complaint, the Court of First Instance held that that decision was not vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons. As far as concerns the allegation that the decision lacked transparency, the Court of First Instance held, in paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission discharged the only obligation upon it in this case, namely to allow FENIN to submit written observations on the position initially adopted by the Commission. 
11 Konačno, što se tiče trećeg tužbenog razloga, koji navodi neodgovarajuće obrazloženje i nedostatak transparentnosti sporne odluke, iz točaka 58. i 59. pobijane presude jasno je, po mišljenju Prvostupanjskog suda, da je Komisija navela pravne tvrdnje bitne za logiku te odluke. Podsjetivši da Komisija nije bila dužna usvojiti stajalište o svim argumentima istaknutima u prilog prigovora, Prvostupanjski sud smatrao je da se kod te odluke ne radi o neodgovarajućem obrazloženju. Što se tiče navodnog nedostatka transparentnosti odluke, Prvostupanjski sud zaključio je, u točki 63. spomenute presude, da je Komisija izvršila svoju jedinu obvezu koju je u tom slučaju imala, a to je da je dozvolila FENIN-u da kao odgovor na prvo stajalište Komisije podnese svoja pisana očitovanja.
12 Since the three pleas relied on by FENIN in support of its action were thus dismissed, the action was dismissed in its entirety by the Court of First Instance. 
12 Budući da su tri tužbena razloga na koja se FENIN poziva u prilog svojoj tužbi tako odbijena, Prvostupanjski sud u potpunosti je odbio tužbu.
The appeal 
Žalba
Forms of order sought by the parties and the plea for annulment 
Žalbeni zahtjevi stranaka i razlog za ukidanje
13 FENIN claims that the Court should: 
13 FENIN traži od Suda da:
"– set aside the judgment under appeal; and" 
– ukine pobijanu presudu i
– order the Commission to pay the costs of both these proceedings and those before the Court of First Instance. 
– naloži Komisiji da snosi troškove obaju postupaka, ovog i postupka pred Prvostupanjskim sudom.
14 The Commission contends that the Court should: 
14 Komisija traži od Suda da:
"– declare the appeal partly inadmissible;" 
"– proglasi žalbu djelomično nedopuštenom;"
"– dismiss the remainder of the appeal; and" 
– odbije žalbu u preostalom dijelu i
– order FENIN to pay the costs. 
– naloži FENIN-u da snosi troškove.
15 The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain, which were given leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission by order of the President of the Court of Justice of 17 October 2003, contend that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that it is partly inadmissible and partly unfounded, and that FENIN should be ordered to pay the costs. 
15 Ujedinjena Kraljevina Velike Britanije i Sjeverne Irske i Kraljevina Španjolska, kojima je intervencija na strani Komisije odobrena rješenjem predsjednika Suda od 17. listopada 2003., traže da se žalba odbije kao djelomično nedopuštena i djelomično neosnovana i da se FENIN-u naloži da snosi troškove.
16 FENIN puts forward a single plea in support of its appeal, alleging that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the definition of ‘undertaking’ for the purposes of the EC Treaty rules on competition. That plea has two parts. 
16 U prilog svojoj žalbi FENIN iznosi jedini žalbeni razlog, koji se temelji na tome da je Prvostupanjski sud pojam ,poduzetnikʼ u smislu pravila tržišnog natjecanja iz Ugovora o EZ-u pogrešno protumačio. Taj žalbeni razlog ima dva dijela.
17 By the first part, FENIN submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to consider whether purchasing activity is in itself an economic activity which may be dissociated from the service subsequently provided and, therefore, that the SNS management bodies must be subject to the competition rules. 
17 U prvom dijelu FENIN tvrdi da je Prvostupanjski sud pogrešno propustio razmotriti je li djelatnost kupnje sama po sebi gospodarska djelatnost koju se može odvojiti od naknadno pružene usluge i da slijedom toga tijela koja upravljaju SNS-om trebaju podlijegati pravilima tržišnog natjecanja.
18 By the second part, on which it relies in the alternative, FENIN maintains that the Court of First Instance should have considered whether purchasing activity is economic in nature and, therefore, whether it is subject to the competition rules, on the ground that the subsequent activity, namely the provision of medical treatment, is itself economic in nature. 
18 U drugom dijelu, na koji se poziva alternativno, FENIN smatra da je Prvostupanjski sud trebao razmotriti je li djelatnost kupnje gospodarske naravi i, stoga, podliježe li pravilima tržišnog natjecanja, na temelju toga što je naknadna djelatnost, odnosno pružanje usluge liječenja, sama po sebi gospodarska.
19 The Commission raises a plea of inadmissibility which refers only to the second part of the plea relied on by FENIN. 
Komisija je podnijela prigovor nedopuštenosti koji se odnosi samo na drugi dio žalbenog zahtjeva na koji se poziva FENIN.
20 The Commission submits, first of all, that the allegation on which the second part of the plea is based, which was submitted for the first time at the appeal stage, is out of time. Next, it submits that FENIN has always acknowledged that the activities of the SNS management bodies are of a purely social nature. Finally, the Commission takes the view that the second part of the plea gives rise to a question of assessment of the facts, which cannot be put before the Court during its examination of the appeal. 
20 Komisija tvrdi, prije svega, da je navod na kojem se zasniva drugi dio žalbenog razloga, koji je prvi put bio istaknut u fazi žalbe, zastario. Nadalje, ona tvrdi da je FENIN uvijek priznavao da su djelatnosti tijela koja upravljaju SNS-om čisto socijalne naravi. Konačno, Komisija zauzima stajalište da drugi dio žalbenog razloga dovodi do pitanja ocjene činjenica, koje pitanje Sud ne bi trebao raspravljati u okviru preispitivanja žalbe.
21 It must be held, as the Commission rightly observed, that the economic nature of the activity of provision of medical treatment by the SNS management bodies, the connection between the purchase of goods and equipment and their subsequent use, and the consequences which flow from that for the nature of that purchasing activity were put forward by FENIN for the first time at the appeal stage. 
21 Treba utvrditi, kao što je Komisija pravilno primijetila, da je gospodarski karakter djelatnosti usluge liječenja koju pružaju tijela koja upravljaju SNS-om, vezu između kupnje robe i opreme s jedne strane i njezine kasnije uporabe s druge strane, i posljedice koje za prirodu te djelatnosti kupnje iz toga proizlaze FENIN prvi put naveo u fazi žalbe.
22 It follows that the second part of the single plea relied on by FENIN must be dismissed as inadmissible. 
22 Proizlazi da drugi dio jedinog žalbenog razloga na koji se poziva FENIN treba odbiti kao nedopušten.
– Arguments of the parties 
– Argumentacija stranaka
23 In support of the first part of its plea, FENIN argues that the Court of First Instance adopted a definition of economic activity which is too narrow, holding that that activity necessarily consists of the offer of goods or services on a given market and excluding all purchasing activity from that definition. FENIN submits that the approach of the Court of First Instance would enable many bodies to avoid the competition rules of the Treaty, even though competition is affected by the conduct of such bodies. 
23 U prilog prvom dijelu svojeg žalbenog razloga, FENIN tvrdi da je Prvostupanjski sud, smatrajući da se ta djelatnost nužno sastoji od nuđenja robe ili usluga na danom tržištu i isključujući iz te definicije svaku djelatnost kupnje, usvojio preusku definiciju pojma „gospodarska djelatnost”. FENIN tvrdi da bi takav pristup Prvostupanjskog suda mnogim subjektima omogućio da izbjegnu pravila tržišnog natjecanja iz Ugovora, bez obzira na to što ponašanje tih subjekata ima određenog utjecaja na tržišno natjecanje.
24 The Commission submits that it precisely the act of placing goods or services on a given market which characterises the concept of economic activity and not purchasing activity as such. Accordingly, there is no need to dissociate the purchase from the use to which the purchased goods are put. 
24 Komisija tvrdi da je za pojam gospodarske djelatnosti karakterističan upravo čin nuđenja robe ili usluga na danom tržištu, a ne djelatnost kupnje kao takva. Stoga postupak kupnje ne treba odvajati od uporabe kojoj je kupljena roba namijenjena.
– Findings of the Court 
– Ocjena Suda
25 The Court of First Instance rightly held, in paragraph 35 of the judgment under appeal, that in Community competition law the definition of an ‘undertaking’ covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of that entity and the way in which it is financed (Case C-41/90 Höfnerand Elser [1991] ECR I-1979, paragraph 21, and Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01 AOK-Bundesverband and Others [2004] ECR I-2493, paragraph 46). In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance also stated, in paragraph 36 of the judgment under appeal, that it is the activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market that is the characteristic feature of an economic activity (Case C-35/96 Commission v Italy [1998] ECR I-3851, paragraph 36). 
25 Prvostupanjski sud s pravom je primijetio, u točki 35. pobijane presude, da u pravu Zajednice u području tržišnog natjecanja pojam „poduzetnik” odnosi na svakog subjekta koji se bavi gospodarskom djelatnošću, neovisno o pravnom statusu tog subjekta i načinu njegova financiranja (presuda od 23. travnja 1991., Höfner i Elser, C-41/90, Zb., str. I-1979., t. 21. i presuda od 16. ožujka 2004., AOK-Bundesverband i drugi, spojeni predmeti C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 i C-355/01, Zb., str. I-2493., t. 46.). U skladu sa sudskom praksom Suda, Prvostupanjski sud također je naveo, u točki 36. spomenute presude, da je za pojam gospodarske djelatnosti karakteristično upravo to da je to djelatnost koja obuhvaća nuđenje robe ili usluga na danom tržištu (presuda od 18. lipnja 1998., Komisija/Italija, C-35/96, Zb., str. I-3851., t. 36.).
26 The Court of First Instance rightly deduced, in paragraph 36 of the judgment under appeal, that there is no need to dissociate the activity of purchasing goods from the subsequent use to which they are put in order to determine the nature of that purchasing activity, and that the nature of the purchasing activity must be determined according to whether or not the subsequent use of the purchased goods amounts to an economic activity. 
26 Prvostupanjski sud s pravom je zaključio, u točki 36. pobijane presude, da za određivanje prirode djelatnosti kupnje ne treba djelatnost kupnje robe odvajati od kasnije uporabe kupljene robe i da se karakter djelatnosti kupnje nužno određuje prema tome je li kasnija uporaba kupljene robe gospodarskog karaktera ili ne.
27 It follows that the first part of the single plea raised by FENIN in support of its appeal, that the purchasing activity of the SNS management bodies constitutes an economic activity in itself, dissociable from the service subsequently provided and which, as such, should have been examined separately by the Court of First Instance, must be dismissed as unfounded. 
27 Proizlazi da prvi dio jedinog žalbenog razloga koji je FENIN istaknuo u prilog svojoj žalbi, a to je da djelatnost kupnje koju obavljaju tijela koja upravljaju SNS-om sama po sebi predstavlja gospodarsku djelatnost odvojivu od usluge koja se pruža naknadno i koju je kao takvu Prvostupanjski sud trebao ispitati odvojeno, treba odbiti kao neosnovan.
28 Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the appeal must be dismissed as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded. 
28 S obzirom na gore navedeno, žalbu treba odbaciti kao djelomično nedopuštenu i odbiti kao djelomično neosnovanu.
29 Under the first subparagraph of Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which applies to appeal proceedings pursuant to Article 118 of those rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. As the Commission has applied for costs against FENIN and the latter has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings. Under the first subparagraph of Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. 
29 U skladu s prvim podstavkom članka 69. stavka 2. Poslovnika, koji se na temelju članka 118. tog Poslovnika primjenjuje na žalbeni postupak, stranka koja ne uspije u postupku dužna je, na zahtjev protivne stranke, snositi troškove. Budući da je Komisija podnijela zahtjev da FENIN snosi troškove i da FENIN nije uspio u postupku, treba mu naložiti da snosi troškove postupka. Sukladno stavku 4. prvom podstavku članka 69. Poslovnika, države članice i institucije koje su intervenirale u postupak snose vlastite troškove.
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby: 
Slijedom navedenoga, Sud (veliko vijeće) proglašava i presuđuje:
"1. Dismisses the appeal;" 
1. Žalba se odbija.
"2. Orders the Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) to pay the costs of these proceedings;" 
2. Troškove ovog postupka snosi Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN).
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs. 
3. Ujedinjena Kraljevina Velike Britanije i Sjeverne Irske i Kraljevina Španjolska snose vlastite troškove.
* Language of the case: Spanish. 
* Jezik postupka: španjolski.
Case C-209/03 
Predmet C-209/03
The Queen, on the application of Dany Bidar 
The Queen, prema zahtjevu Danyja Bidara
v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
protiv London Borough of Ealing i Secretary of State for Education and Skills
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)) 
(Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku koji je uputio High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina))
(Citizenship of the Union – Articles 12 EC and 18 EC – Assistance for students in the form of subsidised loans – Provision limiting the grant of such loans to students settled in national territory) 
„Građanstvo Unije – Članci 12. i 18. UEZ-a – Pomoć studentima u obliku subvencioniranih zajmova – Odredba o ograničenju takvih zajmova na studente nastanjene na državnom području“
Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 11 November 2004 
Mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika Geelhoeda izneseno 11. studenoga 2004.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 15 March 2005 
Presuda Suda (veliko vijeće), 15. siječnja 2005.
15 March 2005(1) 
15. ožujka 2005.(1)
In Case C-209/03,REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), made by decision of 12 February 2003, received at the Court on 15 May 2003, in the proceedings 
U predmetu C-209/03, povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina), odlukom od 12. veljače 2003., koju je Sud zaprimio 15. svibnja 2003., u postupku
The Queen(on the application of Dany Bidar) 
The Queen, prema zahtjevu Danyja Bidara
v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
protiv
London Borough of Ealing,Secretary of State for Education and Skills, 
London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills,
Advocate General: L.A.Geelhoed, 
nezavisni odvjetnik: L. A. Geelhoed,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 28 September 2004,after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: 
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 28. rujna 2004., uzimajući u obzir očitovanja koja su podnijeli:
– Mr Bidar, by R. Scannell and M. Soorjoo, Barristers, and J. Luqmani, Solicitor, 
– za D. Bidara, R. Scannell i M. Soorjoo, barristers, i J. Luqmani, solicitor,
– the United Kingdom Government, by R. Caudwell, acting as Agent, E. Sharpston QC and C. Lewis, Barrister, 
– za vladu Ujedinjene Kraljevine, R. Caudwell, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju E. Sharpston, QC, i C. Lewisa, barrister,
– the Danish Government, by J. Molde, acting as Agent, 
– za dansku vladu, J. Molde, u svojstvu agenta,
– the German Government, by C. D. Quassowski and A. Tiemann, acting as Agents, 
– za njemačku vladu, C.-D. Quassowski i A. Tiemann, u svojstvu agenata,
– the French Government, by G. de Bergues and C. Bergeot-Nunes, acting as Agents, 
– za francusku vladu, G. de Bergues i C. Bergeot-Nunes, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Netherlands Government, by C.M. Wissels and H.G. Sevenster, acting as Agents, 
– za nizozemsku vladu, C. M. Wissels i H. G. Sevenster, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Commission of the European Communities, by N. Yerrell and M. Condou, acting as Agents, 
– za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, N. Yerrell i M. Condou, u svojstvu agenata,
‘Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.’ 
„Svaki građanin Unije ima pravo slobodno se kretati i boraviti na državnom području država članica, podložno ograničenjima i uvjetima utvrđenima u ovom Ugovoru i u mjerama usvojenima radi njegove provedbe.”
‘1. The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity. 
„1. Zajednica doprinosi razvoju kvalitetnog obrazovanja poticanjem suradnje među državama članicama te, ako je to potrebno, podupiranjem i dopunjavanjem njihovih aktivnosti, pri čemu u potpunosti poštuje odgovornost država članica za nastavni sadržaj i ustroj obrazovnih sustava te njihovu kulturnu i jezičnu raznolikost.
– developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States, 
– razvoj europske dimenzije u obrazovanju, osobito nastavom i popularizacijom jezika država članica,
– encouraging mobility of students and teachers, by encouraging inter alia, the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study, 
– poticanje mobilnosti studenata i nastavnika, između ostalog, poticanjem akademskog priznavanja istovrijednosti diploma i trajanja studija,
– promoting cooperation between educational establishments, 
– promicanje suradnje između obrazovnih ustanova,
– developing exchanges of information and experience on issues common to the education systems of the Member States, 
– razvoj razmjene informacija i iskustava u vezi s pitanjima koja su zajednička obrazovnim sustavima država članica,