natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Verjetno se bo povečalo število zdravstvenih posrednikov, katerih namen bo pacientom neodvisno svetovati o paketih zdravljenja in nege, podobno kot iščejo zavarovalni posredniki v imenu svojih strank najboljše ponudbe, da bi našli takšno, ki najbolj ustreza njihovim potrebam.
It is likely that we will see an increase in the number of ‘health brokers’ setting up to give patients independent advice on packages of treatment and care, in the same way as an insurance broker shops around on behalf of his client to find the best options to meet his or her needs.
Plačilo razlike.
Topping Up.
Verjetno je tudi, da bo v nekaterih državah članicah pacient lahko šel v tujino le, če bo pripravljen sam pokriti razliko med zneskom, ki ga plača domača država, in končnim zneskom.
It is also likely that, in some countries, the option of going abroad will be only possible if the patient is prepared to top up the amount payable by the home country.
Načeloma ni s tem nič narobe.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that.
Nič drugače ni, kot kadar pacienti plačajo za boljšo posteljo v lokalni bolnišnici ali ko starši plačajo za dodatno izobraževanje svojega otroka na šoli.
It is no different from patients paying for an amenity bed in a local hospital or to parents paying for extra tuition for their child at school.
Vendar bo to zgolj možnost.
But it will only be an option.
Pacienta se ne sme siliti, naj plača več, in bolnišnice za isto zdravljenje tujim pacientom ne smejo zaračunavati več kot domačim.
No pressure should be put on the patient to pay more and no hospital should charge more for foreign than domestic patients for the same treatment.
Pričakovati je, da ne bomo priča velikemu številu pacientov, ki bi se odločali za to pot.
The expectation is that we shall not see large numbers of patients seeking to use this route.
Večina ljudi se raje zdravi blizu doma, kjer jih lahko obiskujejo prijatelji in družina.
Most people prefer to have treatment near their home, where friends and family can visit.
Če je potrebno, so pripravljeni iti drugam v svoji domači državi, že zaradi jezika.
If necessary they will go elsewhere within their home country – not least because language.
Kadar se bodo odločili za tujino, bodo njihova prva izbira najbrž uveljavljeni dvostranski ali tristranski organizirani programi med državami članicami, regijami ali mesti.
If they do decide to go abroad, they will probably opt first for the managed arrangements already well established bilaterally and trilaterally between Member States, regions or cities.
Če pa bodo želeli večjo prožnost – morda zato, ker imajo nekje drugje v EU družino in prijatelje, pri katerih bodo med rekonvalescenco po zdravljenju, – ali ker so slišali za posebno dobro bolnišnično ekipo ali drugega izvajalca zdravstvenega varstva, se lahko odločijo za možnost čezmejnih zdravstvenih storitev.
If they want more flexibility however – perhaps because of family or friends in another part of the EU, where they can stay to convalesce after treatment, or because they have heard of a particularly good hospital team or other healthcare provider – then they may choose to use this Cross Border Health opportunity.
Če seveda država članica želi, da državljani ne bi uporabljali te nove možnosti in da viri ne bi odtekali iz države, bo izboljšala standarde zdravstvenega varstva in čakalnih dob, tako da nihče ne bo čutil potrebe, da bi odhajal drugam.
Of course, if a Member State wishes to avoid its citizens using this new opportunity and with it the outflow of resources, it will raise its standards of healthcare and waiting times, so that no one feels the need to go elsewhere.
Če država pritegne paciente iz tujine, morda ker sta nega in zdravljenje cenejša, bo v državo pritegnila vire, ki jih lahko ponovno vloži v zdravstveno varstvo in bodo koristili vsem pacientom.
If it attracts patients from abroad – perhaps because its care and treatment are less expensive – it will attract resources into the country, which can be ploughed back into healthcare for the benefit of all patients.
Po petih letih bi bilo treba pregledati izkušnje odtekanja in pritekanja virov in ugotoviti, kakšen je njihov učinek in ali je treba politiko sprostiti ali zaostriti.
After five years we should review the experience of outflows and inflows to see what the impact has been and whether we need to relax or tighten the policy.
Informacije bodo ključne in od vsake države članice se pričakuje, da bo ustanovila informacijska središča (nacionalne kontaktne službe), v katerih bodo pacienti in njihovi zdravstveni svetovalci izvedeli, katere možnosti imajo na razpolago, ali obstajajo merila o izpolnjevanju pogojev, kateri postopki so potrebni, kakšen je veljavni pritožbeni ali prizivni postopek in kakšna je morebitna pomoč za potne stroške.
Information will be key and each Member State will be expected to establish information centres (national contact points), where the patient and his or her medical advisers can find out what is available, whether eligibility criteria apply, what processes are necessary, what complaints and appeals procedures are in force and what help there may be with travel costs.
Pri tem je pomembno tudi občutljivo vprašanje standardov zdravstvenega varstva.
The sensitive issue of healthcare standards is also relevant in this context.
Jasno je, da ima država članica, ki eksplicitno ali implicitno (s sprejemanjem sodb Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti) dovoljuje svojim državljanom, da gredo na zdravljenje v tujino, do svojih državljanov dolžnost zdravstvene oskrbe.
Clearly, if a Member State authorises, explicitly or implicitly by accepting the ECJ Judgements, its citizens to go abroad for treatment, it has a duty of care to its citizens.
Gotovo bo želela, da se vzpostavijo vzajemna zagotovila glede varnosti pacientov.
It will certainly want to have in place mutual assurances about patient safety.
To lahko na primer ogrozi zdravstveno varstvo slabe kakovosti.
One risk to patient safety can result from poor quality healthcare.
Za zagotavljanje zdravstvenega varstva so odgovorne države članice.
Member States are responsible for their healthcare delivery and no-one suggests the European Union should prescribe standards for this.
Nihče ne predlaga, da bi morala Evropska unija predpisovati standarde zanj.
What the Member State of Treatment can and should do is ensure that such standards are described publicly.
Dolžnost države članice pacientovega zdravstvenega zavarovanja je, da svojim državljanom zagotovi dostop do informacij in da pacienti in njihovi zdravstveni svetovalci lahko izvedo, kakšne standarde pričakovati, če se odločijo za odhod v drugo državo.
The duty of the Member State of Affiliation is to ensure that its citizens have access to information, so that patients and their medical advisers can know what standards to expect, if they choose to go to another country.
Nič več, nič manj.
No more; no less.
Eno od vprašanj, ki se je pojavilo v predlogu, zadeva vzajemno priznavanje receptov.
One issue raised by the proposal concerns the mutual recognition of prescriptions.
Zaželeno bi bilo, da bi lekarna v domači državi priznala recept, ki ga napiše zdravnik v drugi državi, ter v skladu z njim izdala zdravila.
Clearly it is desirable that a pharmacy in the home country should recognise and act upon a prescription issued by a doctor in another.
Za to bo potreben dostop do registra kvalificiranih zdravnikov, ki so usposobljeni za izdajanje receptov in imajo dovoljenje za to.
This will need access to a register of medical practitioners qualified and permitted to issue prescriptions.
Vendar je problem globlji.
The problem however goes deeper.
Na splošno se priznava, da države članice same odločajo, katera zdravila bodo na razpolago na recept.
It is broadly acknowledged that it is for member States to decide what drugs are available on prescription.
Če gre torej pacient v tujino in se mu predpišejo zdravila, ki v domači državi niso na razpolago, se bo moral sprijazniti s tem, kar je na razpolago, ali se vrniti v državo zdravljenja ali tvegati in si priskrbeti zdravila prek interneta.
If therefore a patient goes abroad and is prescribed a course of drugs that are not available in the home country, that patient will either have to make do with what is available or return to the treating country – or, riskily, obtain them over the internet.
Najbrž bi bilo zaželeno, da bi države članice na dodatni seznam zdravil na recept sprejele zdravila, ki bi se predpisovala kot del zdravljenja v okviru čezmejnih zdravstvenih storitev.
It would seem to be preferable that member States should accept, as part of a supplementary prescription list, drugs prescribed as part of treatment within the Cross Border Health context.
Vprašanje je sicer v pristojnosti držav članic, vendar bi bilo lahko v prihodnosti vir izzivov za Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti, če ga ne bomo obravnavali razsodno in rahločutno.
That is a matter for Member States, but could be the source of future challenges to the ECJ, if not handled sensitively and sensibly.
Razsodnost in rahločutnost.
Sense and Sensitivity.
Srž tega poročila je na kratko: razsodnost in rahločutnost; nova priložnost za paciente, s katero je Evropska unija državljanom omogočila korist; jasnost in pravna varnost; pravičnost in enake možnosti namesto reševanja neenakosti zdravstvenega varstva v Evropi ali v državah članicah (to vprašanje je treba nasloviti na ministre v posameznih državah članicah); prožnost namesto birokracije; pripravljenost, da poiščemo pot, kako zadeve izpeljati, namesto da iščemo razloge, zakaj jih ne bi.
And that, in a nutshell, is what this Report is about: sense and sensitivity; a new opportunity for patients; one in which the Europe Union can claim to have benefited it citizens; clarity and legal certainty; not solving the inequalities of healthcare across Europe or within Member States - that is a question to re-direct to the Ministers of respective Member States - but equity and equality of opportunity; flexibility and not bureaucracy; a willingness to look at the 'how shall we?' issues and not the 'why we should not' ones.
Nekaj je vendarle že jasno: vse več naših državljanov se zaveda, da je ta politična priložnost neizbežna.
One thing is already clear: increasing numbers of our citizens are becoming aware of the imminence of this policy opportunity.
Morda je navsezadnje ne bodo uporabili, vendar jo želijo imeti na razpolago.
They may not in the end use it, but they want it to be there.
Izziv za vse tri institucije je, da jo čim prej omogočimo.
The challenge to us in all three institutions is to put it in place as quickly as possible.
MNENJE ODBORA ZA PRAVNE ZADEVE O PRAVNI PODLAGI
OPINION FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS ON THE LEGAL BASIS
Zadeva: Predlog direktive Evropskega parlamenta in sveta o uveljavljanju pravic pacientov na področju čezmejnega zdravstvenega varstva
Subject: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare ( COM(2008)0414 ).
Spoštovani gospod predsednik,
Dear Mr Chair,
Predsednik Odbora za okolje, javno zdravje in varnost hrane je poslal pismo odboru, v katerem se je v skladu s členom 35 poslovnika s pismom posvetoval o pravni podlagi zgoraj omenjenega predloga.
By letter of 29 January 2009, the Chair of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has consulted the committee pursuant to Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure on the legal basis for the above-mentioned proposal.
Odbor je omenjeno vprašanje obravnaval na seji dne 12. februarja 2009.
The committee considered the above question at its meeting of 12 February 2009.
Odbor za okolje je vložil predloge za spremembo pravne podlage iz členov 95 do 152 Pogodbe o ES; členov 16 in 152; členov 42, 152 in 308; členov 137 in 152 ali členov 95 in 152.
Amendments have been tabled in the Environment Committee to change the legal basis from Article 95 of the EC Treaty to Article 152; Articles 16 and 152; Articles 42, 152 and 308; Articles 137 and 152, or Articles 95 and 152.
To vprašanje bo obravnavano v nadaljevanju, začenši z načeli iz sodne prakse Sodišča evropskih skupnosti.
This question may be analysed as follows, starting from the principles set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Kot vemo, mora imeti vsak zakonodajni akt Skupnosti pravno podlago, v kateri so opredeljene pristojnosti Skupnosti in vrsta akta, ki se lahko sprejme, ter postopek sprejemanja, ki mu je treba slediti.
As we know, every Community legislative act has to have a legal basis specifying the competences conferred on the Community and indicating the type of act that may be adopted and the procedure to be followed for its adoption.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v mnenju št. 2/00 z dne 6. decembra 2001
In opinion No 2/00 of 6 December 2001
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&newform=newform&jurcdj=jurcdj&docav=docav&alldocnorec=alldocnorec&docnoj=docnoj&docnoor=docnoor&typeord=ALL&docnodecision=docnodecision&allcommjo=allcommjo&affint=affint&affclose=affclose&numaff=2%2F00&ddatefs=&mdatefs=&ydatefs=&ddatefe=&mdatefe=&ydatefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100&Submit=Submit o izbiri pravne podlage za sklenitev mednarodnega sporazuma (natančneje kartagenskega protokola) jasno povedalo:
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&newform=newform&jurcdj=jurcdj&docav=docav&alldocnorec=alldocnorec&docnoj=docnoj&docnoor=docnoor&typeord=ALL&docnodecision=docnodecision&allcommjo=allcommjo&affint=affint&affclose=affclose&numaff=2%2F00&ddatefs=&mdatefs=&ydatefs=&ddatefe=&mdatefe=&ydatefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100&Submit=Submit on the choice of legal basis for the conclusion of an international agreement (specifically, the Cartagna Protocol), the Court of Justice put the matter clearly as follows:
„ V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da je ustrezna izbira pravne podlage pomembna z ustavnega vidika.
" The choice of the appropriate legal basis has constitutional significance .
Ker ima Skupnost namreč le pristojnosti, ki so ji bile dodeljene, mora pripojiti Protokol določeni določbi Pogodbe, ki jo pooblašča, da odobri ta akt.
Since the Community has conferred powers only, it must tie the Protocol to a Treaty provision which empowers it to approve such a measure.
Izbira napačne pravne podlage lahko torej povzroči neveljavnost samega akta za sklenitev in zato lahko razveljavi privolitev Skupnosti, da jo zavezuje sporazum, ki ga je podpisala.
To proceed on an incorrect legal basis is therefore liable to invalidate the act concluding the agreement and so vitiate the Community's consent to be bound by the agreement it has signed.
Tako je zlasti v primeru, če Pogodba Skupnosti ne daje zadostne pristojnosti za ratifikacijo celotnega sporazuma, kar privede do preučitve delitve pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami za sklenitev načrtovanega sporazuma s tretjimi državami, ali tudi če ustrezna pravna podlaga navedenega akta za sklenitev določa drug zakonodajni postopek od tistega, ki so ga institucije Skupnosti dejansko izvedle.“ (gl. poudarjeno)
That is so in particular where the Treaty does not confer on the Community sufficient competence to ratify the agreement in its entirety, a situation which entails examining the allocation as between the Community and the Member States of the powers to conclude the agreement that is envisaged with non-member countries, or where the appropriate legal basis for the measure concluding the agreement lays down a legislative procedure different from that which has in fact been followed by the Community institutions. " (emphasis supplied)
Sodišče po eni strani poudarja, da ima izbira pravne podlage ustavni vidik, saj Skupnost nima pravnega reda s splošnimi cilji, ampak jo vodi načelo prenosa pristojnosti.
On the one hand, the Court points to the "constitutional significance" of the choice of legal basis given that the Community is not a legal order with general ends, but is governed by the principle of conferral of powers.
Po drugi strani pa Sodišče težko pokaže na primer, pri katerem nobena pravna podlaga ne bi mogla zajeti ukrepov Skupnosti (kjer ni „zadostne pristojnosti“) ali pri katerem bi sprememba pravne podlage imela za posledico spremembo postopka sprejemanja.
On the other hand, the Court is at pains to point to the problem where there is no legal basis capable of covering the Community action (where there is not "sufficient competence") or where changing the legal basis results in a change in the procedure for adoption.
Zgovoren primer je mnenje generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa z dne 12. novembra 2001 pri primeru C-314/99 Nizozemska proti Komisiji
An eloquent example can be found in the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs of 15 November 2001 in Case C-314/99 Netherlands v. Commission
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=353903:cs&lang=it&list=449394:cs,335881:cs,250906:cs,353903:cs,250621:cs,250591:cs,250603:cs,242077:cs,242014:cs,234659:cs,&pos=4&page=1&nbl=26&pgs=10&hwords=base%20giuridica~&checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte , v katerem bi sprememba pravne podlage pomenila, da bi se akt moral sprejeti po postopku, ki je drugačen od tistega, po katerem je akt dejansko bil sprejet.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=353903:cs&lang=it&list=449394:cs,335881:cs,250906:cs,353903:cs,250621:cs,250591:cs,250603:cs,242077:cs,242014:cs,234659:cs,&pos=4&page=1&nbl=26&pgs=10&hwords=base%20giuridica~&checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte , where the change in the legal basis would have meant that the act would have had to have been adopted using a different procedure than the one by which it was actually adopted.
V tem primeru, kot je pravna služba Parlamenta poudarila v primeru British American Tobacco
In that case, as Parliament's Legal Service also pointed out in the British American Tobacco case
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=264374:cs&lang=it&list=405672:cs,287495:cs,264374:cs,132861:cs,&pos=3&page=1&nbl=4&pgs=10&hwords=british%20american%20tobacco~&checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte , je napaka pri pravni podlagi zgolj formalna, ko sproži nepravilnosti pri postopku sprejemanja akta in lahko povzroči njegovo razveljavitev, saj spreminja njegovo vsebino in s tem izniči njegovo zakonitost.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=264374:cs&lang=it&list=405672:cs,287495:cs,264374:cs,132861:cs,&pos=3&page=1&nbl=4&pgs=10&hwords=british%20american%20tobacco~&checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte , an error as to the legal basis is more than a purely formal defect when it gives rise to irregularity in the procedure applicable to the adoption of the act and can result in its annulment, since it partakes of its substance, causing it to be unlawful.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti meni, da izbira pravne podlage ni subjektivna, ampak mora temeljiti na objektivnih dejavnikih, ki so predmet sodnega nadzora
According to the Court of Justice the choice of legal basis is not a subjective one, but "must be based on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review"
Zadeva 45/86 Komisija proti Svetu [1987] ZOdl.
Case 45/86, Commission v. Council [1987] ECR 1439, para.
1439, odstavek 5. , kot sta cilj in vsebina zadevnega ukrepa
5. , such as the aim and content of the measure in question
Zadeva C-300/89 Komisija proti Svetu [1991] ZOdl.
Case C-300/89, Commission v. Council [1991] ECR I-287, para.
Odločilni dejavnik bi nadalje moral biti glavni cilj ukrepa.
Furthermore, the decisive factor should be the main object of a measure.
Zadeva C-377/98 Nizozemska proti Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu [2001] ZOdl.
Case C-377/98, Netherlands v. European Parliament and Council [2001] ECR I-7079, para.
Vendar ob upoštevanju dveh ciljev, ki sta nerazdružljiva, ne da bi eden bil drugotnega pomena ali posreden v primerjavi z drugim, bi se lahko menilo, da je treba uporabiti dve pravni podlagi.
However, if the view were to be taken that the two aims are indissolubly linked with each other without one being secondary and indirect in respect of the others, it might be considered that two legal bases would have to be used
Zadeva C-165/87 Komisija proti Svetu [1988] ZOdl.
Case C-165/87 Commission v. Council [1988] ECR 5545, para.
Sodišče daje prednost eni pravni podlagi, razen ko ima instrument dva enakovredna cilja.
The long and short of all this is that the Court's preference is for a single legal basis, except where a given instrument has two equal-ranking aims.
V tem primeru Komisija izbere pravno podlago v členu 95 Pogodbe o ES
In this case, the legal basis chosen by the Commission is Article 95 of the EC Treaty
Z odstopanjem od določb člena 94 in kadar ta pogodba ne določa drugače, se za doseganje ciljev iz člena 14 uporabljajo v nadaljevanju navedene določbe .
By way of derogation from Article 94 and save where otherwise provided in this Treaty, the following provisions shall apply for the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 14 .
Svet v skladu s postopkom iz člena 251 in po posvetovanju z Ekonomsko-socialnim odborom sprejme ukrepe za približevanje določb zakonov in drugih predpisov v državah članicah, katerih predmet je vzpostavitev in delovanje notranjega trga .
The Council shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market .
Če po tem, ko Svet ali Komisija sprejme usklajevalni ukrep, država članica meni, da mora ohraniti nacionalne določbe zaradi pomembnih potreb iz člena 36 ali določbe, ki zadevajo varstvo okolja ali delovnega okolja, o teh določbah pa tudi o razlogih za njihovo ohranitev uradno obvesti Komisijo.
If, after the adoption by the Council or by the Commission of a harmonisation measure, a Member State deems it necessary to maintain national provisions on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 30, or relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment, it shall notify the Commission of these provisions as well as the grounds for maintaining them.
Če se v skladu z odstavkom 6 državi članici dovoli ohranitev ali uvedba nacionalnih določb, ki odstopajo od usklajevalnega ukrepa, Komisija nemudoma preveri, ali naj predlaga prilagoditev temu ukrepu.
When, pursuant to paragraph 6, a Member State is authorised to maintain or introduce national provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure, the Commission shall immediately examine whether to propose an adaptation to that measure
Z odstopanjem od postopka, določenega v členih 169 in 170, lahko Komisija ali katera koli država članica predloži zadevo neposredno Sodišču, če meni, da druga država članica zlorablja pooblastila iz tega člena.
By way of derogation from the procedure laid down in Articles 226 and 227, the Commission and any Member State may bring the matter directly before the Court of Justice if it considers that another Member State is making improper use of the powers provided for in this Article.
Zgornji usklajevalni ukrepi v ustreznih primerih vključujejo zaščitno klavzulo, ki dovoljuje državam članicam, da zaradi enega ali več neekonomskih razlogov iz člena 36 sprejmejo začasne ukrepe, ki so predmet nadzornega postopka Skupnosti. (poudarek je dan) .
The harmonisation measures referred to above shall, in appropriate cases, include a safeguard clause authorising the Member States to take, for one or more of the non-economic reasons referred to in Article 30, provisional measures subject to a Community control procedure. (emphasis supplied) .
Komisija svojo izbiro opraviči pri natančni obravnavi splošnih pravnih vidikov predloga.
The Commission justifies its choice of legal basis in a detailed discussion of the general legal aspects of the proposal.
Vzpostavi splošni zakonodajni okvir za čezmejno zdravstveno varstvo, ki ga sestavljajo (1) načela, ki so skupna vsem sistemom zdravstvenega varstva v EU, (2) poseben okvir za čezmejno zdravstveno varstvo in (3) oblike evropskega sodelovanja na področju zdravstvenega varstva.
It sets out to establish a general legislative framework for cross-border healthcare consisting of (a) principles common for all the healthcare systems in the EU, (2) a specific framework for cross-border healthcare, and (3) forms of European cooperation on healthcare.