natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kljub temu pa so v splošnih pogojih lahko določene različne tarife in pogoji za opravljanje storitev, če so te tarife ali pogoji neposredno utemeljeni zaradi objektivnih razlogov, kot so dejansko nastali dodatni stroški zaradi razdalje ali tehničnih lastnosti opravljanja storitve, različnih tržnih pogojev ali dodatnih tveganj, če se predpisi razlikujejo od predpisov izvorne države članice.
It does not follow that provision may not be made in such general conditions for variable tariffs and conditions to apply to the provision of a service, where those tariffs and conditions are directly justified for objective reasons such as additional costs effectively incurred because of the distance involved or the technical characteristics of the provision of the service, or different market conditions, or extra risks linked to rules differing from those of the Member State of origin.
(50) Ker namen te direktive ni umetna uskladitev cen v Evropski uniji, zlasti kjer se tržni pogoji razlikujejo od države do države, načelo nediskriminacije nalaga, da se za učinkovito doseganje notranjega območja brez meja državljanom Skupnosti ne sme preprečiti, da imajo koristi od storitve, ki je tehnično dosegljiva na trgu, niti zanje ne smejo veljati različni pogoji in cene zgolj zaradi njihovega državljanstva ali stalnega prebivališča.
(50) Whilst this Directive is not intended to harmonise artificially prices across the European Union, in particular where market conditions vary from country to country, if an internal area without frontiers is to be effectively achieved, the principle of non-discrimination imposes that Community citizens must neither be prevented from benefiting from a service which is technically accessible on the market, nor be made subject to different conditions and tariffs solely by reason of their nationality or place of residence.
Trajna diskriminacija prejemnikov storitev za državljana Skupnosti pomeni, da dejanski notranji trg storitev ne obstaja in da je v splošnem ogroženo povezovanje evropskih narodov.
The persistence of such discrimination with respect to the recipients of services highlights, for the Community citizen, the absence of a genuine internal market in services and, in a more general sense,compromises the integration of the peoples of Europe.
Načelo nediskriminacije na notranjem trgu pomeni, da v splošnih pogojih, ki so dostopni javnosti, ne sme biti merila, ki bi na osnovi državljanstva ali bivališča prejemniku in še zlasti potrošniku preprečevalo dostop do storitve, ki je dostopna javnosti, ali bi ga pri tem oviralo.
The principle of non-discrimination within the internal market means that access by a recipient, and especially by a consumer, to a service on offer to the public may not be denied or hampered by application of a criterion, included in general conditions made available to the public, relating to the recipient’s nationality or place of residence.
Kljub temu pa so v splošnih pogojih lahko določene različne tarife in pogoji za opravljanje storitev, če so te tarife ali pogoji neposredno utemeljeni zaradi objektivnih razlogov, ki so lahko od države do države različni, kot so dejansko nastali dodatni stroški zaradi razdalje ali tehničnih lastnosti opravljanja storitve, različnih tržnih pogojev , kot so večje ali manjše povpraševanje, na katerega vpliva sezonskost, različna obdobja počitnic v državah članicah in cene različnih konkurentov, ali dodatnih tveganj, če se predpisi razlikujejo od predpisov izvorne države članice.
It does not follow that it will be unlawful discrimination if provision were made in such general conditions for different tariffs and conditions to apply to the provision of a service, where those tariffs and conditions are justified for objective reasons that can vary from country to country, such as additional costs effectively incurred because of the distance involved or the technical characteristics of the provision of the service, or different market conditions, such as higher or lower demand influenced by seasonality, different vacation periods in the Member States and pricing by different competitors, or extra risks linked to rules differing from those of the Member State of origin.
Uvodna izjava 51
Recital 51
(51) V skladu z načeli, ki jih je glede svobode opravljanja storitev postavilo Sodišče, se mora bolnikom, ki kot prejemniki storitev koristijo prost pretok storitev, zdravstvenim delavcem ter odgovornim za sisteme socialne varnosti glede povračila stroškov zdravljenja zagotoviti večjo pravno varnost, ne da bi to vplivalo na finančno ravnotežje sistemov socialne varnosti v državah članicah.
(51) In accordance with the principles established by the Court of Justice with regard to the freedom to provide services, and without endangering the financial balance of Member States’ social security systems, greater legal certainty as regards the reimbursement of health costs should be provided for patients, who benefit as recipients from the free movement of services, and for health professionals and managers of social security systems.
Uvodna izjava 52
Recital 52
(52) Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1408/71 z dne 14. junija 1971 o izvajanju sistemov socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo znotraj Skupnosti in še posebej njene določbe glede vključenosti v sistem socialne varnosti velja v celoti za zaposlene in samozaposlene osebe, ki opravljajo ali sodelujejo pri zagotavljanju storitev.
(52) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and, in particular, its provisions regarding affiliation to a system of social security, fully applies to employed and self ‑employed workers who provide or take part in the supply of a service.
Uvodna izjava 53
Recital 53
(53) Člen 22 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1408/71, ki zadeva dovoljenje za prevzem stroškov zdravstvene oskrbe v drugi državi članici, prispeva, kot je poudarilo Sodišče, k lajšanju prostega pretoka bolnikov in opravljanju čezmejnih zdravstvenih storitvev.
(53) Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, which concerns authorisation for assuming the costs of health care provided in another Member State, contributes, as the Court of Justice has emphasised, to facilitating the free movement of patients and the provision of cross-border medical services.
Namen te določbe je zagotoviti, da imajo zavarovane osebe dostop do zdravstvenega varstva druge države članice pod pogoji, ki so glede kritja stroškov enako ugodni kot tisti, ki veljajo za zavarovane osebe v tej državi članici.
The purpose of that provision is to ensure that insured persons possessing an authorisation have access to health care in another Member State under conditions which, as regards the assumption of costs, are as favourable as those applying to insured persons in that Member State.
To podeljuje zavarovanim osebam pravico, ki je drugače ne bi imele, in omogoča prost pretok storitev.
It thus confers on insured persons rights they would not otherwise have and facilitates the free movement of services.
Po drugi strani pa ta določba ne ureja, hkrati pa tudi nikakor ne preprečuje, povračila stroškov zdravstvene oskrbe, opravljene v drugi državi članici, celo brez predhodnega dovoljenja, po cenah, ki veljajo v državi članici, kjer je bolnik zdravstveno zavarovan.
On the other hand, that provision does not seek to regulate, nor in any way to prevent, reimbursement, at the rates applicable in the Member State of affiliation, of the costs of health care provided in another Member State , even in the absence of a prior authorisation.
Uvodna izjava 54
Recital 54
(54) Glede na pravno prakso Sodišča o prostem pretoku storitev je treba odpraviti zahtevo po predhodnem dovoljenju za povračilo s strani sistema socialne varnosti države članice za nebolnišnično oskrbo, opravljeno v drugi državi članici; države članice morajo ustrezno spremeniti svojo zakonodajo.
(54) In the light of the case-law developed by the Court of Justice on the free movement of services, it is necessary to abolish the requirement of prior authorisation for reimbursement by the social security system of a Member State for non-hospital care provided in another Member State , and Member States must amend their legislation accordingly.
Če je povračilo take oskrbe v mejah kritja, ki je zagotovljeno s sistemom zdravstvenega zavarovanja države članice, kjer je zavarovanec vključen v zdravstveno zavarovanje, zahteva po odpravi predhodnega dovoljenja verjetno ne bo hudo prizadela finančnega ravnotežja sistemov socialne varnosti.
In so far as the reimbursement of such care remains within the limits of the cover guaranteed by the sickness insurance scheme of the Member State of affiliation, abolition of the prior authorisation requirement is not likely seriously to disrupt the financial equilibrium of social security systems.
Na podlagi sodne prakse Sodišča se pogoji, v skladu s katerimi države članice odobrijo nebolnišnično oskrbo na svojem ozemlju, uporabljajo tudi v primeru, ko je bila ta oskrba opravljena v drugi državi članici, kjer bolnik ni zdravstveno zavarovan, če so ti pogoji skladni z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
As the Court of Justice has consistently held, the conditions under which Member States grant non-hospital care on their own territory remain applicable in the case of care provided in a Member State other than that of affiliation in so far as those conditions are compatible with Community law.
V isti meri morajo biti tudi sistemi dovoljenj povračila stroškov za zdravstveno oskrbo v drugi državi članici glede pogojev za izdajo dovoljenj in s tem povezanih postopkov skladni s to direktivo.
By the same token, authorisation schemes for the assumption of costs of care in another Member State must comply with this Directive as regards the conditions for granting authorisation and the related procedures.
(55) Na podlagi sodne prakse Sodišča glede prostega pretoka storitev je sistem predhodnih dovoljenj povračila stroškov za bolnišnično oskrbo v drugi državi članici utemeljen s potrebo po načrtovanju bolnišničnih infrastruktur, njihove geografske razporeditve, načina organizacije, opreme, ki jo imajo na voljo, in vrsto zdravstvenih storitev, ki jih lahko nudijo.
(55) As the Court of Justice has consistently held with regard to the free movement of services, a system of prior authorisation for the reimbursement of hospital care provided in another Member State appears justified by the need to plan the number of hospital infrastructures, their geographical distribution, the mode of their organisation, the equipment with which they are provided and even the nature of the medical services which they are able to offer.
Cilji tega načrtovanja so v vsaki državi članici zagotoviti zadovoljiv stalen dostop do uravnoteženega obsega kakovostne bolnišnične oskrbe, učinkovito obvladovati stroške in kolikor je mogoče preprečevati izgube finančnih, tehničnih in človeških virov.
The aims of such planning are to ensure, within each Member State, sufficient permanent access to a balanced range of quality hospital care, to secure efficient cost management and, so far as is possible, to avoid wastage of financial, technical or human resources.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča mora biti pojem bolnišnične oskrbe objektivno opredeljen, sistem predhodnih dovoljenj pa mora biti sorazmeren z zastavljenim ciljem splošnega interesa.
In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, the concept of hospital care must be objectively defined and a system of prior authorisation must be proportionate to the general interest objective pursued.
(56) Člen 22 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 1408/71 določa okoliščine, v katerih pristojna nacionalna ustanova ne sme zavrniti zahtevane dovoljenja na podlagi te določbe.
(56) Article 22 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 specifies the circumstances in which the competent national institution may not refuse an authorisation sought on the basis of that provision.
Države članice ne smejo zavrniti dovoljenja v primerih, kadar zadevno bolnišnično oskrbo, opravljeno na njihovem ozemlju, krije sistem socialne varnosti in se enako ali enako učinkovito zdravljenje ne more nuditi pravočasno na njihovem ozemlju pod pogoji, ki jih določa njihov sistem socialne varnosti.
Member States may not refuse authorisation in cases where the hospital care in question, when provided in their territory, is covered by their social security system, and treatment which is identical or equally effective cannot be obtained in time in their territory under the conditions laid down by their social security system.
Na podlagi sodne prakse Sodišča je treba pogoje v zvezi s sprejemljivim odlogom upoštevati skupaj z vsemi okoliščinami za posamezni primer ob upoštevanju zdravstvenega stanja bolnika v času vloge za dovoljenje, kakor tudi njegovih podatkov o predhodnem zdravljenju ter možnega razvoja bolezni.
The Court of Justice has consistently held that the condition relating to acceptable delay must be considered together with all the circumstances of each case, taking due account not only of the medical condition of the patient at the time when authorisation is requested, but also his medical history and the probable evolution of his illness.
Uvodna izjava 57
Recital 57
(57) Stroški, ki jih krijejo sistemi socialne varnosti držav članic v povezavi z zdravstvenimi storitvami, opravljenimi v drugi državi članici, ne smejo biti nižji od tistih, ki jih zagotavljajo njihovi lastni sistemi socialne varnosti za zdravstvene storitve, opravljene na svojem ozemlju.
(57) The assumption of costs, by the social security systems of the Member States, in respect of health care provided in another Member State must not be lower than that provided for by their own social security system for health care provided in their territory.
Kakor Sodišče dosledno poudarja v zvezi s prostim pretokom storitev, povračilo stroškov nebolnišnične oskrbe brez predhodnega dovoljenja po stopnjah države članice, kjer je bolnik vključen v sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja, ne vpliva bistveno na financiranje njenega sistema socialne varnosti.
As the Court has consistently pointed out with regard to the free movement of services, in the absence of authorisation, the reimbursement of non-hospital care in accordance with the scales of the Member State of affiliation would not have a significant effect on the financing of its social security system.
Če je storitev dovoljena na podlagi člena 22 Uredbe (EGS) št. 1408/71, se stroške povrne glede na stopnje, ki veljajo v državi članici, kjer so opravljene zdravstvene storitve.
In cases where authorisation has been granted, in the framework of Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, the assumption of costs is made in accordance with the rates applicable in the Member State in which the health care is provided.
Če pa je stopnja pokritja stroškov nižja od tiste, do katere bi bil pacient upravičen, če bi prejel enake storitve v državi, kjer je vključen v sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja, mora slednja prevzeti nase razliko do stopnje, ki bi prišla v poštev.
However, if the level of coverage is lower than that to which the patient would have been entitled if he had received the same care in the Member State of affiliation, the latter must assume the remaining costs up to the level which would have applied.
(58) Glede napotitve delavcev v okviru opravljanja storitev v državi članici, ki ni izvorna država članica, je za omogočanje prostega pretoka storitev treba razjasniti delitev vlog in nalog med izvornimi državami članicami in državami članicami napotitve.
(58) As regards the posting of workers in the context of the provision of services in a Member State other than the Member State of origin, it is necessary to clarify the division of roles and tasks between the Member State of origin and the Member State of posting, in order to facilitate the free movement of services.
Ta direktiva ne namerava obravnavati vprašanj delovnega prava kot takega.
The present Directive does not aim to address issues of labour law as such.
Delitev nalog in določanje oblik sodelovanja med izvornimi državami članicami in državami članicami napotitve omogoča prost pretok storitev, predvsem zato ker ukinja določene nesorazmerne upravne postopke ob boljšem spremljanju spoštovanja zaposlitvenih in delovnih pogojev v skladu z Direktivo 96/71/ES.
The division of tasks and the specifying of the forms of cooperation between the Member State of origin and the Member State of posting facilitates the free movement of services, especially by abolishing certain disproportionate administrative procedures, while also improving the monitoring of compliance with employment and working conditions in accordance with Directive 96/71/EC.
Uvodna izjava 59
Recital 59
(59) Za preprečevanje diskriminacijskih in nesorazmernih upravnih formalnosti, ki bi odvrnile zlasti mala in srednje velika podjetja, je treba državam članicam napotitve onemogočiti določene zahteve glede napotitve, kot je obveznost pridobiti dovoljenja pristojnih organov.
(59) In order to avoid discriminatory or disproportionate administrative formalities, which would be a disincentive to SMEs in particular, it is necessary to preclude the Member State of posting from making postings subject to compliance with requirements such as an obligation to request authorisation from the authorities.
Prepovedati je treba obveznost dajanja izjave oblastem države članice napotitve.
The obligation to make a declaration to the authorities of the Member State of posting should also be prohibited.
Vendar pa mora obstajati možnost, da se to obveznost obdrži do 31. decembra 2008 na področju gradbenih del v skladu s prilogo Direktive 96/71/ES.
However, it should be possible to maintain such an obligation until 31 December 2008 in the field of building work in accordance with the Annex to Directive 96/71/EC.
S tem v zvezi skupina strokovnjakov držav članic za uporabo te direktive proučuje načine izboljšanja upravnega sodelovanja med državami članicami, kar bi omogočilo boljši nadzor.
In that connection, a group of Member State experts on the application of that Directive are studying ways to improve administrative cooperation between Member States in order to facilitate supervision.
Poleg tega glede zaposlitvenih in delovnih pogojev, ki niso določeni v Direktivi 96/71/ES, države članice napotitve ne sme biti omogočeno sprejemanje omejevalnih ukrepov zoper ponudnika s sedežem v drugi državi članici.
Furthermore, as regards employment and working conditions other than those laid down in Directive 96/71/EC, it should not be possible for the Member State of posting to take restrictive measures against a provider established in another Member State.
(60) Na podlagi prostega pretoka storitev lahko ponudnik storitev napoti delavce tudi, če ti niso državljani Skupnosti, ampak državljani tretjih držav pod pogojem, da so zakonito navzoči in zaposleni v izvorni državi članici.
(60) By virtue of the free movement of services, a service provider is entitled to post workers even if they are not Community citizens but third country nationals, provided that they are legally present and lawfully employed in the Member State of origin.
Primerno je izvorno državo članico obvezati, da zagotovi, da vsak napoteni delavec, državljan tretje države, izpolnjuje pogoje za bivanje in zakonito zaposlitev, ki jih določa zakonodaja izvorne države članice, vključno s socialno varnostjo.
It is appropriate to place the Member State of origin under an obligation to ensure that any posted worker who is a third country national fulfils the conditions for residence and lawful employment laid down in its legislation, including with regard to social security.
Primerno je tudi državi članici gostiteljici preprečiti preventivne kontrole delavcev ali ponudnikov, še posebej glede pravice vstopa ali dovoljenj za bivanje, z izjemo nekaterih primerov.
It is also appropriate to preclude the host Member State from imposing on the worker or the provider any preventative controls, especially as regards right of entry or residence permits, except in certain cases.
Država članica gostiteljica tudi ne sme nalagati obveznosti, kot je pogodba o zaposlitvi za nedoločen čas ali dokument o prejšnji zaposlitvi v izvorni državi članici ponudnika.
Nor should it be possible for the host Member State to impose any obligations such as possession of an employment contract of indefinite duration or a record of previous employment in the Member State of origin of the provider.
Uvodna izjava 61
Recital 61
(61) Po sprejetju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 859/2003 z dne 14. maja 2003 o razširitvi določb Uredbe (EGS) št. 1408/71 in Uredbe (EGS) št. 574/72 na državljane tretjih držav, ki niso že vključeni v navedene določbe le na podlagi državljanstva, so državljani tretjih držav zavarovani po sistemu socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti, ki ga določa Uredba (EGS) št. 1408/71, po kateri se uporabljajo pravila države, v kateri ima delavec socialno zavarovanje.
(61) Following the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their nationality, third country nationals are covered by a system of cooperation on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, established by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, under which the rules of the country under whose social security scheme the worker is insured are to apply.
(63a) Zavarovanje ali garancija mora ustrezati naravi in obsegu tveganja, kar pomeni, da je čezmejno kritje ponudnikov storitev potrebno le, če dejansko opravljajo storitve v drugih državah članicah.
(63a) The insurance or guarantee must correspond to the nature and extent of the risk, which means that service providers need cross-border coverage only if they actually provide services in other Member States.
Ponudniki storitev in zavarovalnice morajo ohraniti potrebno prožnost pri dogovarjanju o zavarovalnih policah, natančno prilagojenih naravi in stopnji tveganja.
Service providers and insurance companies should maintain the necessary flexibility in negotiating insurance policies specifically geared to the nature and scale of the risk.
Končno se od držav članic ne sme zahtevati, da sprejmejo določila, ki bi od zavarovalnic zahtevala zagotavljanje zavarovalnega kritja.
Lastly, Member States should not be required to stipulate that insurance companies are obliged to provide insurance cover.
Uvodna izjava 66 a (novo)
Recital 66 a (new)
(66a) Sodelovanje med državami članicami zahteva dobro delujoč elektronski informacijski sistem, da se pristojnim organom omogoči preprosto prepoznavanje pomembnih sogovornikov v drugih državah članicah in učinkovito komunikacijo.
(66a) Cooperation between Member States requires a well-functioning electronic information system in order to allow competent authorities easily to identify their relevant interlocutors in other Member States and to communicate in an efficient way.
Uvodna izjava 66 b (novo)
Recital 66 b (new)
(66b) Upravno sodelovanje je bistvenega pomena za pravilno delovanje notranjega trga.
(66b) Administrative cooperation is essential to make the internal market in services function properly.
Pomanjkanje sodelovanja med državami članicami vodi v podvajanje pravil, ki veljajo za ponudnike storitev, ali podvajanje preverjanj za čezmejne dejavnosti in ga lahko uporabijo tudi prevaranti, da se izognejo nadzoru ali obidejo veljavna nacionalna pravila o storitvah.
Lack of cooperation between Member States results in proliferation of rules applicable to service providers or duplication of controls for cross-border activities, and can also be used by rogue traders to avoid supervision or to circumvent applicable national rules on services.
Zato je nujno, da se za učinkovito sodelovanje držav članic predvidijo jasne pravno zavezujoče obveznosti.
It is, therefore, essential to provide for clear, legally binding obligations for Member States to cooperate effectively.
Uvodna izjava 67
Recital 67