natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
28) Gadījumos, kad atļauju skaits darbībai ir ierobežots dabas resursu vai tehnisko iespēju ierobežotības dēļ, kā tas var būt, piemēram, attiecībā uz analogo radio frekvenču piešķiršanu vai hidroelektrostaciju izmantošanu, ir jāpieņem atlases procedūra, lai pakalpojumu sniedzēju varētu izraudzīties no vairākiem potenciālajiem kandidātiem un, izmantojot atklātu konkursu, attīstīt kvalitāti un nosacījumus saņēmējiem pieejamo pakalpojumu sniegšanai.
(28) In cases where the number of authorisations available for an activity is limited because of scarcity of natural resources or technical capacity, as may be the position, for example, with regard to the award of analogue radio frequencies or the exploitation of hydro-electric plant, a procedure for selection from among several potential candidates must be adopted, with the aim of developing through open competition the quality and conditions for supply of services available to users.
Jo īpaši, piešķirtās atļaujas derīguma termiņš ir jānosaka tādā veidā, lai tas neierobežotu vai nekavētu brīvu konkurenci vairāk nekā tas nepieciešams, lai atgūtu ieguldījumu izmaksas un nestu godīgu peļņu no ieguldītā kapitāla.
In particular, the duration of the authorisation granted must be fixed in such as way that it does not restrict or limit free competition beyond what is necessary to enable the provider to recoup the cost of investment and to make a fair return on the capital invested.
Gadījumos, kad atļauju skaits ir ierobežots nevis dabas resursu vai tehnisko iespēju ierobežotības dēļ, bet gan citu iemeslu dēļ, uz šīm atļaujām jebkurā gadījumā attiecas citi šīs direktīvas noteikumi par atļauju izsniegšanas sistēmām.
Cases where the number of authorisations is limited for reasons other than scarcity of natural resources or technical capacity remain in any case subject to the other provisions of this Directive relating to authorisation schemes.
28) Gadījumos, kad pieejamais atļauju skaits vienai darbībai ir ierobežots dabas resursu nepietiekamības vai tehniskā nodrošinājuma dēļ, kā tas varētu būt, piemēram, attiecībā uz hidroelektrostacijas izmantošanu, ir jāpieņem procedūra, kā izvēlēties vienu no vairākiem potenciālajiem kandidātiem, lai ar atklātu konkurenci uzlabotu lietotājiem pieejamo pakalpojumu kvalitāti un pakalpojumu sniegšanas apstākļus.
(28) In cases where the number of authorisations available for an activity is limited because of scarcity of natural resources or technical capacity, as may be the position, for example, with regard to the exploitation of hydro-electric plant, a procedure for selection from among several potential candidates must be adopted, with the aim of developing through open competition the quality and conditions for supply of services available to users.
Rules on the award of radio frequencies are already laid down in the Community legal framework for electronic communications networks and services.
Rules on the award of radio frequencies are already laid down in the Community legal framework for electronic communications networks and services.
The telecoms package is excluded from the scope of the present directive.
The telecoms package is excluded from the scope of the present directive.
The same should apply to the award of radio frequencies.
The same should apply to the award of radio frequencies.
31) Tiesa konsekventi ir lēmusi, ka brīvības veikt uzņēmējdarbību pamatā, jo īpaši, ir vienlīdzīgas attieksmes princips, kurš paredz ne tikai aizliegumu jebkādai diskriminācijai valstspiederības dēļ, bet arī aizliegumu jebkādai netiešai diskriminācijai citu iemeslu dēļ, kas var radīt tādas pašas sekas.
(31) The Court of Justice has consistently held that the freedom of establishment is predicated, in particular, upon the principle of equal treatment, which entails the prohibition not only of any discrimination on grounds of nationality but also of any indirect discrimination based on other grounds but capable of producing the same result.
Turklāt dalībvalstis nevar piešķirt priekšrocības pakalpojumu sniedzējiem, kuriem ir īpaša saikne ar valsti vai vietējo sociāli ekonomisko situāciju; tā nevar arī, pamatojoties uz reģistrācijas vietu, ierobežot pakalpojumu sniedzēja brīvību iegūt, izmantot vai atsavināt tiesības un preces, vai arī pieeju dažādiem kredītu veidiem vai atrašanās vietai, ciktāl šī izvēle ir noderīga pieejai attiecīgā pakalpojumu sniedzēja darbībai vai tās efektīvai izpildei.
Moreover, a Member State may not confer any advantages on providers having a particular national or local socio-economic link; nor may it restrict, on grounds of place of establishment, the provider’s freedom to acquire, exploit or dispose of rights and goods or to access different forms of credit or accommodation in so far as those choices are useful for access to his activity or for the effective exercise thereof.
Šeit minētais neskar saistības par regulāra ārkārtas palīdzības pakalpojuma sniegšanu, ja šādas saistības ir saskaņā ar citiem Kopienas tiesību aktiem.
The obligation to provide a regular emergency service should be unaffected by this provided that it accords with other Community law.
Universal, high-quality medical care for the population at large is one of the most social achievements of our age.
Universal, high-quality medical care for the population at large is one of the most social achievements of our age.
In the case of health care services, in particular, such care, available everywhere and at all times, can be ensured only if service providers can be compelled to provide an emergency service.
In the case of health care services, in particular, such care, available everywhere and at all times, can be ensured only if service providers can be compelled to provide an emergency service.
As this may entail an obligation for the service provider to be temporarily present, it should be made clear that this is not a 'prohibited requirement' as referred to in Article 14 but should be judged in accordance with the general principles of Community law.
As this may entail an obligation for the service provider to be temporarily present, it should be made clear that this is not a 'prohibited requirement' as referred to in Article 14 but should be judged in accordance with the general principles of Community law.
32) Aizliegums veikt ekonomiskas pārbaudes kā priekšnosacījumu atļaujas izsniegšanai attiecas uz ekonomiskām pārbaudēm kā tādām, bet nevis uz prasībām, kas ir objektīvi pamatotas ar sevišķi svarīgu iemeslu sabiedrības interesēs, piemēram, pilsētvides aizsardzība.
(32) The prohibition of economic tests as a prerequisite for the grant of authorisation covers economic tests as such, but not requirements which are objectively justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest, such as protection of the urban environment.
32) Aizliegums veikt ekonomiskas pārbaudes kā priekšnosacījumu atļaujas izsniegšanai attiecas uz ekonomiskām pārbaudēm kā tādām, bet nevis uz prasībām, kas ir objektīvi pamatotas ar sevišķi svarīgu iemeslu sabiedrības interesēs, piemēram, pilsētvides aizsardzība, sociālā politika un sabiedrības veselības aizsardzības mērķi.
(32) The prohibition of economic tests as a prerequisite for the grant of authorisation covers economic tests as such, but not requirements which are objectively justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest, such as protection of the urban environment, social policy and public health objectives.
The prohibition of economic tests will not prevent national authorities from establishing a high level of protection that it is justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest, such as social policy and public health objectives.
The prohibition of economic tests will not prevent national authorities from establishing a high level of protection that it is justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest, such as social policy and public health objectives.
32.a) Atļauju izsniegšanas aizliegumam konkurējošajiem izpildītājiem tieši vai netieši iesaistīties nav jāattiecas uz konsultēšanos ar organizācijām, piemēram, tirdzniecības palātu, citos jautājumos kā individuālie pieprasījumi pēc atļaujām.
(32a) The prohibition of direct or indirect involvement of competing operators having personal motivations for action in the granting of authorisations should not concern the consultation of organisations such as chambers of commerce or social partners on matters other than individual applications for authorisations.
Tam arī nav jākavē tirdzniecības organizāciju apspriešanās, kuras locekļu vidū ir konkurentu pārstāvji, ja attiecīgās konsultācijas rezultātā netiek izsniegta atļauja vai pieņemts cits individuāls lēmums.
Neither should it preclude the consultation of trade organisations whose members include representatives of competitors provided that the outcome of a given consultation is not determinative of an authorisation or other decision on an individual application.
The prohibition of direct or indirect involvement of competing operators can only relate to decisions concerning individual applications for authorisations.
The prohibition of direct or indirect involvement of competing operators can only relate to decisions concerning individual applications for authorisations.
32.b apsvērums (jauns)
Recital 32 b (new)
32.b) Saistību atcelšanai nodrošināt vai piedalīties finansiālajās garantijās vai atcelt apdrošināšanu nav jāietekmē dalībvalstu iespēja pieprasīt finansiālas garantijas vai apdrošināšanu, kā arī ietekmēt prasības saistībā ar dalību kolektīvās kompensācijas fondā, piemēram, profesionālu iestāžu vai organizāciju locekļiem.
(32b) The lifting of the obligation to provide or participate in a financial guarantee or to take out insurance should not affect the possibility for Member States to require financial guarantees or insurance nor should it affect requirements relating to the participation in a collective compensation fund, for instance for members of professional bodies or organisations.
Tai arī nav jāietekmē dalībvalstu iespēja pieprasīt pakalpojumu sniedzējam piedalīties finansiālajās garantijās ar nozari saistītā sociālajā fondā, kas paredz aizsargāt darba ņēmējus pret viņu darba devēju maksātnespēju.
Neither should it affect the possibility for Member States to require service providers to participate in a financial guarantee to a sector-related social fund which intends to protect workers against the insolvency of their employers.
The prohibition relating to the financial guarantee/insurance should not affect the freedom of Member States to require service providers to participate in a collective compensation fund or in a sector-related fund in order to protect workers against the insolvency of their employers.
The prohibition relating to the financial guarantee/insurance should not affect the freedom of Member States to require service providers to participate in a collective compensation fund or in a sector-related fund in order to protect workers against the insolvency of their employers.
33) Lai koordinētu un modernizētu valsts administratīvos un normatīvos aktus saskaņā ar iekšējā tirgus prasībām, ir jāizvērtē dažas nediskriminējošas valsts prasības, kuras savas būtības dēļ varētu ievērojami ierobežot vai pat liegt pieeju darbībai vai tās izpildei saskaņā ar brīvību veikt uzņēmējdarbību.
(33) In order to coordinate the modernisation of national rules and regulations in a manner consistent with the requirements of the internal market, it is necessary to evaluate certain non-discriminatory national requirements which, by their very nature, could severely restrict or even prevent access to an activity or the exercise thereof under the freedom of establishment.
Dalībvalstīm šīs direktīvas transponēšanas laika posmā jānodrošina, ka šādas prasības ir vajadzīgas un samērīgas, un vajadzības gadījumā tās jāatceļ vai jāgroza.
Member States must ensure, during the transposition period of this Directive, that such requirements are necessary and proportionate and, where appropriate, they must abolish or amend them.
Turklāt šīm prasībām katrā ziņā jābūt saderīgām ar Kopienas konkurences tiesībām.
Moreover, those requirements must in any case be compatible with Community competition law.
Šis novērtēšanas process jāaprobežo ar šo prasību saderību ar Tiesas noteiktajiem kritērijiem attiecībā uz brīvību veikt uzņēmējdarbību.
This evaluation process should be limited to the compatibility of these requirements with the criteria already established by the Court of Justice on the freedom of establishment.
Tam nav jāattiecas uz Kopienas konkurences tiesību piemērošanu.
It should not concern the application of Community competition law.
Gadījumos, kad šādas prasības ir diskriminējošas, nav objektīvi pamatotas uz vissvarīgākajiem ar sabiedrības interesi saistītajiem iemesliem, vai, ja tie nav proporcionāli, tie ir jāatceļ vai jāgroza.
Where such requirements are discriminatory or not objectively justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest or where they are disproportionate, they should be abolished or amended.
Novērtēšanas rezultāts būs atšķirīgs atkarībā no darbību rakstura un sabiedrības skartās intereses.
The outcome of the assessment will be different according to the nature of the activities and the public interest concerned.
Īpaši saskaņā ar tiesas praksi šādas prasības ir pilnībā jāpamato, ja tās būtu saistītas ar sabiedrības veselības vai sociālās politikas mērķiem.
In particular, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, such requirements could be fully justified when they pursue public health or social policy objectives.
Savstarpējās novērtēšanas procesam, kas paredzēts šajā direktīvā, nav jāietekmē dalībvalstu brīvība paredzēt savā likumdošanā sabiedrisko interešu augsta līmeņa aizsardzību, īpaši ar mērķi sasniegt veselības un sociālās politikas mērķus.
The mutual evaluation process provided for in this Directive should not affect the freedom of Member States to provide in their legislation for a high level of protection of public interests, in particular with the aim to achieve health and social policy objectives.
It is important to state that the mutual evaluation process only deals with the question whether these national requirements are compatible with the criteria already established by the Court of Justice on the freedom of establishment.
It is important to state that the mutual evaluation process only deals with the question whether these national requirements are compatible with the criteria already established by the Court of Justice on the freedom of establishment.
It does not concern the application of Community competition law.
It does not concern the application of Community competition law.
This procedure will not prevent national authorities from establishing a high level protection of public interests, particularly to pursue health and social policy objectives.
This procedure will not prevent national authorities from establishing a high level protection of public interests, particularly to pursue health and social policy objectives.
34) Ierobežojumos, kas jāpārbauda, ietilpst valsts noteikumi, kuri, pamatojoties uz iemesliem, kas nav saistīti ar profesionālo kvalifikāciju, noteiktiem pakalpojumu sniedzējiem ierobežo pieeju tādam darbībām kā azartspēles.
(34) The restrictions to be examined include national rules which, on grounds other than those relating to professional qualifications, reserve access to activities such as games of chance to particular providers.
Līdzīgi tam cita starpā ir jāpārbauda noteikumi par obligātu izplatīšanu (“must carry”), kurus piemēro kabeļu operatoriem, kuri, uzliekot pienākumu pakalpojumu sniedzējam - vidutājam dot pieeju dažiem konkrētu pakalpojumu sniedzēju sniegtajiem pakalpojumiem, ierobežo tā izvēles brīvību, pieeju programmām un saņēmēju izvēlei.
Similarly, among the requirements to be examined are "must carry" rules applicable to cable operators which, by imposing an obligation on an intermediary service provider to give access to certain services delivered by specific service providers, affect his freedom of choice, access to programmes and the choice of the recipients.
34) ierobežojumos, kas jāpārbauda, ietilpst valsts noteikumi, kuri, pamatojoties uz iemesliem, kas nav saistīti ar profesionālo kvalifikāciju, noteiktiem pakalpojumu sniedzējiem ierobežo pieeju tādam darbībām kā azartspēles.
(34) The restrictions to be examined include national rules which, on grounds other than those relating to professional qualifications, reserve access to activities such as games of chance to particular providers.
'Must-carry' obligations relating to relaying are already covered by Directive 2002/22/EC (universal service directive).
'Must-carry' obligations relating to relaying are already covered by Directive 2002/22/EC (universal service directive).
As these provisions serve to protect cultural and media diversity, the present directive must not affect them.
As these provisions serve to protect cultural and media diversity, the present directive must not affect them.
35) Tos šīs direktīvas noteikumus, kas attiecas uz brīvību veikt uzņēmējdarbību, ir jāpiemēro tikai tiktāl, ciktāl attiecīgās darbības ir pakļautas konkurencei, lai tie neliktu dalībvalstīm atcelt pastāvošos izložu monopolus vai privatizēt noteiktas jomas .
(35) It is appropriate that the provisions of this Directive concerning freedom of establishment should apply only to the extent that the activities in question are open to competition, so that they do not oblige Member States to abolish existing monopolies, notably those of lotteries , or to privatise certain sectors .
35) Ir atbilstoši, ka šīs direktīvas noteikumi attiecībā uz brīvību veikt uzņēmējdarbību, ir jāpiemēro tikai tādā apjomā, ka apspriežamās darbības ir atvērtas konkurencei, tā lai tās neuzliktu dalībvalstīm pienākumu liberalizēt vispārējās ekonomiskās intereses pakalpojumus, privatizēt sabiedriskos uzņēmumus, kas sniedz šādus pakalpojumus vai likvidēt esošos monopolus, kas nodarbojas ar citām darbībām, it īpaši ar loteriju organizēšanu un konkrētiem izplatīšanas pakalpojumiem .
(35) It is appropriate that the provisions of this Directive concerning freedom of establishment should apply only to the extent that the activities in question are open to competition, so that they do not oblige Member States to liberalise services of general economic interest nor to privatise public entities providing such services nor to abolish existing monopolies for other activities , notably those of lotteries or certain distribution services .
37) Lai nodrošinātu brīvas pakalpojumu aprites efektīvu īstenošanu un lai nodrošinātu to, ka pakalpojumu saņēmēji un sniedzēji var saņemt un sniegt pakalpojumus visā Kopienā, ir jāizveido princips, ka uz pakalpojumu sniedzēju attiecas tikai tās dalībvalsts tiesību akti, kurā tas ir reģistrēts.
(37) In order to secure effective implementation of the free movement of services and to ensure that recipients and providers can benefit from and supply services throughout the Community regardless of frontiers, it is necessary to establish the principle that a provider may be subject only to the law of the Member State in which he is established.
Šis princips ir būtisks, lai pakalpojumu sniedzēji, jo īpaši MVU, ar pilnu juridisku noteiktību varētu izmantot iekšējā tirgus piedāvātās iespējas.
That principle is essential in order to enable providers, especially SMEs, to avail themselves with full legal certainty of the opportunities offered by the internal market.
Šis princips, tādējādi atvieglojot brīvu pakalpojumu apriti starp dalībvalstīm, līdz ar saskaņošanas un savstarpējas palīdzības pasākumiem ļauj patērētājiem arī iegūt pieeju augstas kvalitātes pakalpojumu plašākai izvēlei no citām dalībvalstīm.
By thus facilitating the free movement of services between Member States, that principle, together with harmonisation and mutual assistance measures, also enables recipients to gain access to a wider choice of high quality services from other Member States.
Šis princips ir jāpapildina ar palīdzības mehānismu, kas ļauj jo īpaši pakalpojumu saņēmējam saņemt informāciju par citu dalībvalstu tiesību aktiem, kā arī ar noteikumu par pakalpojumu sniegšanas darbību pārskatāmību saskaņošanu.
That principle should be complemented by an assistance mechanism enabling the recipient, in particular, to be informed about the laws of the other Member States, and by the harmonisation of rules on the transparency of service activities.
The deletion of recitals 37-39 is consistent with the proposed amendment to Article 16.
The deletion of recitals 37-39 is consistent with the proposed amendment to Article 16.
37.a apsvērums (jauns)
Recital 37 a (new)
37.a) Ir būtiski, ka pakalpojumu brīvas aprites šķēršļu likvidēšana iet roku rokā ar dalībvalstu tiesību koordinēšanu.
(37a) It is essential that the elimination of obstacles to the free movement of services goes hand in hand with coordination of the law of the Member States.
Apsvērumu dēļ, kuri ietilpst šīs direktīvas darbības koordinēšanas jomā, dalībvalstīm jānodrošina pakalpojumu sniegšanas brīvība, un tām nav jāierobežo piekļuve un pakalpojumu sniegšanas darbības veikšana ar pakalpojumu sniedzēja palīdzību, kurš ir reģistrēts citā dalībvalstī.
For reasons falling within the fields coordinated by this Directive, Member States should ensure freedom to provide services and should not restrict the access to and the exercise of a service activity by a provider established in another Member State .
Šīs direktīvas koordinētās jomas ir saistītas ar informāciju par pakalpojumu sniedzējiem un viņu pakalpojumiem, profesionālo apdrošināšanu un garantijām, informāciju par garantijām pēc pārdošanas un strīdu atrisināšanu, kā minēts 26. līdz 28. pantā un 32. pantā.
The fields coordinated by this Directive relate to the information on providers and their services, professional insurance and guarantees, information on after-sales guarantees and settlement of disputes as included in Articles 26 to 28 and 32.
Ja – un kādā apmērā – jomas tiek koordinētas ar citu Kopienas tiesību aktu palīdzību, cita starpā, ieviešot pārredzamības prasības un prasības, kas novērš negodīgu komerciālu pieredzi, jāpiemēro arī princips, ka dalībvalstis nedrīkst ierobežot pakalpojumus, kas nāk no citas dalībvalsts.
Provided that -and to the extent that- fields are coordinated by other Community instruments, inter alia through the introduction of transparency requirements and requirements preventing unfair commercial practices, the principle that Member States may not restrict services coming from another Member State should also apply.
This new recital is consistent with the amendment to Article 16.
This new recital is consistent with the amendment to Article 16.
37.b apsvērums (jauns)
Recital 37 b (new)
37.b) Dalībvalsts kompetentās iestādes, kurā pakalpojums tiek sniegts, ir vislabāk izvietotas, lai nodrošinātu pakalpojuma sniedzēja uzraudzības efektivitāti un nepārtrauktību, kā arī nodrošinātu pakalpojumu saņēmēju aizsardzību.
(37b) The competent authorities of the Member State in which the service is provided are best placed to ensure the effectiveness and continuity of supervision of the provider and to provide protection for recipients.
Šo sistēmu var uzlabot, koordinējot uzraudzības noteikumus un izveidojot efektīvu administratīvās sadarbības sistēmu starp dalībvalsti, kurā pakalpojums tiek sniegts, un dalībvalsti, kurā pakalpojuma sniedzējs ir reģistrēts.
This system can be improved by coordinating rules on supervision and by creating an effective system of administrative cooperation between the Member State where the service is provided and the Member State where the service provider is established.
Pamatojoties uz to, un saskaņā ar šīs direktīvas 35. pantu dalībvalstīm jāsniedz savstarpēja palīdzība un jāveic visi iespējamie pasākumi efektīvai sadarbībai, cita starpā, norādot vienu vai vairākus kontaktpunktus, caur kuriem citas dalībvalstis vai Komisija var elektroniski pieprasīt informāciju.
On this basis, and in accordance with Article 35 of this Directive, Member States should give each other mutual assistance and should put in place all possible measures for effective cooperation, inter alia by designating one or more points of contact through which other Member States or the Commission can request information by electronic means.