natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, having invoked the combined provisions of Articles 10 EC and 81 EC, he relied on the judgment in Case 267/86 Van Eycke [1988] ECR 4769 to assert that, in view of the obligation upon the Member States not to introduce or maintain in force measures which may render ineffective the competition rules applicable to undertakings, that part of the criminal proceedings brought against him which relate to advertising in health care matters are unfounded.
4769), da bi dokazal, da je postopek, uveden proti njemu, v zvezi z oglasom s področja zobozdravstva glede na predpisano dolžnost držav članic, da ne sprejmejo ali ohranjajo v veljavi ukrepov, ki bi lahko izničili polni učinek pravil konkurence, ki veljajo za podjetja, neutemeljen.
The national court is inclined to the view that the defendant was engaged in the supply of professional services and in the capacity of operator and proprietor of a dental clinic.
Predložitveno sodi�če se nagiba k ugotovitvi, da je obdolženi deloval v okviru izvajanja svobodnega poklica ter kot podjetnik in lastnik zobne klinike.
The Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles states that Article 3(1)(g), the second paragraph of Article 10 EC and Article 81 EC, read in conjunction, would appear to suggest that a Member State cannot introduce or maintain in force measures likely to undermine the effectiveness of competition rules applicable to undertakings.
Navedeno sodi�če poudarja, da iz povezane razlage členov 3(1)(g) ES, 10, drugi odstavek, ES in 81 ES lahko izhaja, da država članica ne sme sprejeti ali ohranjati v veljavi ukrepov, ki bi lahko izničili polni učinek pravil konkurence, ki veljajo za podjetja.
In that connection, it states that the possibility that the provisions in the Law of 15 April 1958 are liable to undermine free trade between the Member States, in so far as they may jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of a single market between those States, cannot be excluded.
V zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da ni izključeno, da določbe zakona z dne 15. aprila 1958 lahko ogrozijo svobodo trgovine med državami članicami na način, ki lahko �koduje uresničitvi ciljev enotnega trga teh držav.
According to the national court, which refers in that regard to point 89 of the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavlov and Others [2000] ECR I-6451, owing to the heterogeneity of the professions and the specificities of the market in which they operate, it is necessary to assess, on a case by case basis, whether a restriction of conduct leads in fact on the market in issue to a restriction on competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC, when considered in the light of other Treaty provisions, such as Article 152 EC and Article 153 EC on the protection of public health and consumer protection, respectively.
Po mnenju predložitvenega sodi�ča, ki se v zvezi s tem sklicuje na točko 89 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v združenih zadevah Pavlov in drugi, v kateri je bila izdana sodba z dne 12. septembra 2000 (od C-180/98 do C-184/98, Recueil, str. I-6451), se glede na heterogenost svobodnih poklicev in značilnosti trgov, na katerih se ti opravljajo, zdi nujno v vsakem posamičnem primeru presoditi, ali omejevanje svobode delovanja na zadevnem trgu vodi do omejevanja konkurence v smislu člena 81 ES, pri čemer je treba v takem primeru upo�tevati druge določbe Pogodbe ES, kot sta člena 152 ES in 153 ES glede varovanja zdravja in potro�nikov.
Lastly, the national court observes that it is apparent from the Report of the Commission of the European Communities of 9 February 2004 on Competition in Professional Services [COM(2004) 83 final] that restrictions on advertising in that sector constitute interference with free competition.
Predložitveno sodi�če nazadnje ugotavlja, da iz Poročila Komisije Evropskih skupnosti z dne 9. februarja 2004 o konkurenci v sektorju svobodnih poklicev [COM(2004) 83 konč.] izhaja, da omejitve na področju ogla�evanja v okviru teh poklicev pomenijo kr�itev svobodne konkurence.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Must Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, be interpreted as precluding a national law — in the present case the Law of 15 April 1958 — which prohibits (any person or) dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind, whether directly or indirectly, in the dental care sector?’
„Ali je treba člen 81 ES v povezavi s členoma 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalnemu zakonu, ki kot v postopku v glavni stvari [zakon z dne 15. aprila 1958] (vsakemu in) ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev prepoveduje, da v okviru svobodnega poklica ali zobozdravstvene ordinacije kakor koli, posredno ali neposredno, ogla�ujejo na področju zobozdravstva?“
The Belgian and Italian Governments express doubts as to the admissibility of the present request for a preliminary ruling.
Belgijska in italijanska vlada izrazita dvom glede dopustnosti tega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled caselaw, in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts under Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court, before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
Glede tega je treba spomniti, da je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso v okviru sodelovanja med Sodi�čem in nacionalnimi sodi�či, vzpostavljenega na podlagi člena 234 ES, le nacionalno sodi�če – ki odloča v sporu in ki mora prevzeti odgovornost za sodno odločitev, ki jo je treba sprejeti – pristojno za presojo, glede na posebnosti zadeve, o tem, ali potrebuje predhodno odločbo za to, da izda sodbo, in o pomembnosti vpra�anj, ki jih zastavi Sodi�ču.
Nevertheless, in exceptional circumstances, the Court can examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction.
Vendar mora Sodi�če v izjemnih okoli�činah pri preverjanju svoje pristojnosti preizkusiti okoli�čine, v katerih mu je nacionalno sodi�če zadevo predložilo.
The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, inter alia, Arduino, paragraph 25, and Case C-425/06 Part Service [2008] ECR I-897, paragraph 34).
Sprejetje predhodne odločbe o vpra�anju, ki ga postavi nacionalno sodi�če, je mogoče zavrniti le takrat, kadar je očitno, da zahtevana razlaga prava Skupnosti nima nikakr�ne zveze z dejanskim stanjem ali predmetom spora o glavni stvari, kadar gre za hipotetičen problem oziroma kadar Sodi�če nima na voljo potrebnih dejanskih in pravnih elementov, da bi lahko koristno odgovorilo na postavljena vpra�anja (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Arduino, točka 25, in sodbo z dne 21. februarja 2008 v zadevi Part Service, C-425/06, ZOdl., str. I-897, točka 34).
However, none of those conditions is satisfied in this case.
Vendar nobeden od teh pogojev v tej zadevi ni izpolnjen.
It must be noted that the order for reference defines the national factual and legislative context in which the question referred arises.
Treba je namreč poudariti, da predložitvena odločba določa dejanski in nacionalni pravni okvir, v katerem se postavlja zastavljeno vpra�anje.
Moreover, the referring court has set out the precise reasons why it was unsure as to the interpretation of Community law and why it considered it necessary to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Predložitveno sodi�če poleg tega navaja jasne razloge, ki so mu vzbudili dvom o razlagi prava Skupnosti in zaradi katerih meni, da je treba na Sodi�če nasloviti vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje.
The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles is therefore admissible.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je postavilo tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles, dopustno.
By its question, the national court asks, in essence, whether Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, preclude a national law, such as the Law of 15 April 1958, which prohibits any person or dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind in the dental care sector, in so far as such a prohibition is liable to constitute interference with free competition.
Predložitveno sodi�če s svojim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali člen 81 ES, v povezavi s členoma 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES, nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je zakon z dne 15. aprila 1958, ki vsakomur oziroma izvajalcem zobozdravstvenih storitev prepoveduje, da v okviru svobodnega poklica ali zobozdravstvene ordinacije kakor koli ogla�ujejo na področju zobozdravstva, če taka prepoved lahko pomeni kr�itev svobodne konkurence.
According to settled caselaw, although it is true that Articles 81 EC and 82 EC are, in themselves, concerned solely with the conduct of undertakings and not with laws or regulations emanating from Member States, those articles, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC, which lays down a duty to cooperate, none the less require Member States not to introduce or maintain in force measures, even of a legislative or regulatory nature, which may render ineffective the competition rules applicable to undertakings (see Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04 Cipolla and Others [2006] ECR I-11421, paragraph 46).
Čeprav se v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso člena 81 ES in 82 ES sama po sebi nana�ata le na ravnanje podjetij in ne na zakonodajo ali druge predpise, ki jih sprejmejo države članice, to �e ne pomeni, da ta dva člena, v povezavi s členom 10 ES, ki določa dolžnost sodelovanja, držav članic ne zavezujeta k temu, da ne sprejmejo ukrepov ali jih ohranjajo v veljavi, tudi zakonske ali podzakonske narave, ki bi lahko izničili polni učinek pravil konkurence, ki veljajo za podjetja (glej sodbo z dne 5. decembra 2006 v združenih zadevah Cipolla in drugi, C-94/04 in C-202/04, ZOdl., str. I-11421, točka 46).
The Court has held that Articles 10 EC and 81 EC are infringed where a Member State requires or encourages the adoption of agreements, decisions or concerted practices contrary to Article 81 EC or reinforces their effects, or where it divests its own rules of the character of legislation by delegating to private economic operators responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere (Cipolla and Others, paragraph 47).
Sodi�če je �e zlasti razsodilo, da gre za kr�itev členov 10 ES in 81 ES, če država članica bodisi predpi�e ali spodbuja sklepanje sporazumov, ki so v nasprotju s členom 81 ES, ali krepi učinke takih sporazumov bodisi če svojim predpisom odvzame naravo državnega ukrepa s prenosom pristojnosti za sprejem odločitev, ki posegajo v gospodarsko sfero, na zasebne subjekte (zgoraj navedena sodba Cipolla in drugi, točka 47).
It must be noted that a law such as the Law of 15 April 1958, in so far as it prohibits dental care providers from advertising, does not fall within any of the situations for the combined application of Articles 10 EC and 81 EC.
Treba je torej poudariti, da se tak zakon, kot je zakon z dne 15. aprila 1958, s tem, da izvajalcem zobozdravstvenih storitev prepoveduje ogla�evanje, ne nana�a na nobeno izmed hipotez glede povezane uporabe členov 10 ES in 81 ES.
As the Advocate General stated at point 71 of his Opinion, there is no evidence in the case in the main proceedings to show that the Law of 15 April 1958 encourages, reinforces or codifies concerted practices or decisions by undertakings.
Kot je generalni pravobranilec poudaril v točki 71 sklepnih predlogov, v zadevi v glavni stvari namreč ni mogoče dokazati, da zakon z dne 15. aprila 1958 spodbuja, krepi ali predpisuje sklepanje omejevalnih sporazumov ali sklepov podjetij.
Nor is there anything in the order for reference to suggest that the law at issue has been divested of the character of legislation in that the Member State in question has delegated to private economic operators responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere.
Poleg tega iz predložitvene odločbe ne izhaja, da če bi zadevna država članica prenesla pristojnosti za sprejetje odločitev, ki posegajo v gospodarsko sfero, na zasebne subjekte, bi bila zadevni zakonski določbi vzeta narava državnega ukrepa.
The answer to the question referred must therefore be that Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, does
Zato je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti tako, da člen 81 ES, v povezavi s členoma 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES, ne nasprotuje taki nacionalni
2008 — CASE C-446/05 not preclude a national law, such as the Law of 15 April 1958, which prohibits any person or dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind in the dental care sector.
2008 – ZADEVA C-446/05 zakonodaji, kot je zakon z dne 15. aprila 1958, ki vsakomur oziroma ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev prepoveduje, da v okviru svobodnega poklica ali zobozdravstvene ordinacije kakor koli ogla�ujejo na področju zobozdravstva.
Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, does not preclude a national law, such as the Law of 15 April 1958, which prohibits any person or dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind in the dental care sector.
Člen 81 ES, v povezavi s členoma 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES, ne nasprotuje taki nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je zakon z dne 15. aprila 1958, ki vsakomur oziroma ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev prepoveduje, da v okviru svobodnega poklica ali zobozdravstvene ordinacije kakor koli oglašujejo na področju zobozdravstva.
Case C-96/06
Zadeva C-96/06
(Regulation (EC) No 615/98 — Directive 91/628/EEC — Export refunds — Refusal — Noncompliance with Directive 91/628/EEC — Adverse effect on animal welfare — Burden of proof — Lack of evidence)
„Uredba (ES) �t. 615/98 – Direktiva 91/628/EGS – Izvozna nadomestila – Zavrnitev – Kr�itev Direktive 91/628/EGS – Ogroženo dobro počutje živali – Dokazno breme – Neobstoj dokazov“
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 15 November 2007 . .
Mengozzija, predstavljeni 15. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Conditions for granting
Kmetijstvo – Skupna ureditev trgov – Izvozna nadomestila – Pogoji za podelitev
(Commission Regulation No 615/98, Arts 4 and 5(2) and (3); Council Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29)
(Uredba Komisije št. 615/98, člena 4 in 5(2) in (3); Direktiva Sveta 91/628, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 95/29)
SUMMARY — CASE C-96/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-96/06
Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds
Kmetijstvo – Skupna ureditev trgov – Izvozna nadomestila
(Commission Regulation No 615/98, Art. 5(3); Council Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29)
(Uredba Komisije št. 615/98, člen 5(3); Direktiva Sveta 91/628, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 95/29)
Pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, the competent authority may refuse the export refund for failure to comply with the provisions of Directive 91/628 concerning the protection of animals during transport, as amended by Directive 95/29 concerning animal health, even in the absence of evidence showing that the welfare of the animals transported was, in fact, adversely affected.
Pristojni organ lahko na podlagi člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 o podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za dobro počutje živega goveda med prevozom zavrne izvozno nadomestilo zaradi kr�itve določb Direktive 91/628 o za�čiti živali med prevozom, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 95/29, ki se nana�ajo na zdravje živali, kljub temu, da na podlagi nobenega dejstva ni mogoče ugotoviti, da je bilo dobro počutje prevažanih živali v konkretnem primeru ogroženo.
Despite the documents produced by the exporter in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, the competent authority may consider that Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport, as amended by Directive 95/29, has not been complied with pursuant to Article 5(3) of that regulation.
Kljub dokumentom, ki jih je predložil izvoznik v skladu s členom 5(2) Uredbe �t. 615/98 o podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za dobro počutje živega goveda med prevozom, lahko pristojni organ na podlagi člena 5(3) te uredbe oceni, da je bila Direktiva 91/628 o za�čiti živali med prevozom, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 95/29, kr�ena.
However, the competent authority can arrive at that conclusion only if it bases itself on the documents referred to in Article 5 of Regulation No 615/98, on the reports referred to in Article 4 of that regulation concerning animal health, or on any other objective element with implications for the welfare of the animals such as to call into question the documents presented by the exporter, it being for the latter to show, if appropriate, that the elements relied on by the competent authority in substantiation of its finding of noncompliance with Directive 91/628, are not relevant.
Vendar pa lahko pristojni organ do tega zaključka pride le tako, da se opira na dokumente iz člena 5 Uredbe �t. 615/98 in na poročila iz člena 4 te uredbe o zdravju živali ali na vsakr�no drugo objektivno dejstvo, ki vpliva na dobro počutje živali, s katerimi je mogoče izpodbijati dokumente, ki jih je predložil izvoznik, ta pa mora, če je to potrebno, dokazati, zakaj naj dejstva, na katera se sklicuje pristojni organ, da bi dokazal kr�itev Direktive 91/628, ne bi bila upo�tevna.
The Community legislature considered, on the basis of scientific and veterinary studies as well as assessments of the application of Community legislation carried out in the animal protection field, that once the provisions of Direct- ive 91/628 concerning the health of those animals are no longer complied with, the welfare of the animals is liable
Normodajalec Skupnosti je namreč na podlagi znanstvenih in veterinarskih �tudij ter presoj uporabe zakonodaje Skupnosti na področju za�čite živali menil, da bi bilo njihovo dobro počutje lahko ogroženo in ga ni več mogoče
(see paras 36, 39-42, 44, operative part 1)
(Glej točke 36, od 39 do 42, 44 in točko 1 izreka.)
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL as a result of noncompliance with those provisions.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL nespo�tovanja teh določb zares trpele ali bile po�kodovane.
to be endangered and can no longer be guaranteed.
zagotavljati, vse od trenutka, ko določbe Direktive 91/628 o zdravju teh živali niso več spo�tovane.
Such an approach appears moreover to be fully justified by the circumstance that, in practice, it is not always possible for the competent authority to ascertain that the animals have actually suffered, or been injured,
Tak pristop se poleg tega izkaže kot popolnoma upravičen zaradi okoli�čine, da v praksi ni vedno mogoče, da pristojni organ ugotovi, ali so v konkretnem primeru živali zaradi
(see paras 48, 49, 52, operative part 2)
(Glej točke 48, 49, 52 in točko 2 izreka.)
MENGOZZIdelivered on 15 November 2007 with the Community legislation concerning animal welfare and, in particular, the protection of animals during transport.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAPAOLA MENGOZZIJA, predstavljeni 15. novembra 2007 1 dobrim počutjem živali, zlasti določb v zvezi z za�čito živali med prevozom.
In these proceedings, the national court essentially asks the Court of Justice to clarify the relationship between the provisions of Article 5(3) and those of Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 2in relation to proof of compliance with the conditions laid down by that regulation with regard to export refunds.
Predložitveno sodi�če s predlogom za sprejetje predhodne odločbe poziva Sodi�če, naj pojasni razmerje med določbami iz člena 5(3) in (2) Uredbe Komisije (ES) �t. 615/98 2 v zvezi z dokazom, da so bili upo�tevani pogoji iz te uredbe, določeni za izvozna nadomestila.
The second subparagraph of Article 13(9) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the
V členu 13(9), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t.
Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, 3as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2634/97, 4
805/68 z dne 27. junija 1968 o skupni ureditvi trga za goveje in telečje meso, 3kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) �t. 2634/97, 4 je določeno, da je pogoj za
Article 1 of the latter regulation makes it clear that the payment of export refunds for live bovine animals is subject, in particular, to compliance with Council Directive 91/628/EEC 5 during transport of the animals to the first place of unloading in the third country of final destination.
V členu 1 navedene uredbe je določeno, da je pogoj za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil za živo govedo zlasti upo�tevanje določb Direktive Sveta 91/628 5 med prevozom do prvega kraja iztovarjanja v tretji državi namembnega kraja.
makes payment of the refund for exports of live animals conditional upon compliance
izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil za žive živali upo�tevanje zakonodaje Skupnosti v zvezi z
2 — Regulation of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19).
2 – Uredba Komisije (ES) �t. 615/98 z dne 18. marca 1998 o določitvi podrobnih pravil glede zahtev za odobritev izvoznih nadomestil v zvezi z dobrim počutjem živega goveda med prevozom (UL L 82, str. 19).
4 — Council Regulation of 18 December 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1997 L 356, p. 13).
4 – Uredba Sveta (EGS) z dne 18. decembra 1997, ki spreminja Uredbo Sveta (EGS) �t. 805/68 z dne 27. junija 1968 o skupni ureditvi trga za goveje in telečje meso (UL L 356, str. 13).
5 — Directive of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p.
5 – Direktiva Sveta 91/628/EGS z dne 19. novembra 1991 o za�čiti živali med prevozom in o spremembi Direktiv 90/425/EGS in 91/496/EGS (UL L 340, str.
17), as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52).
17), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 95/29/ES z dne 29. junija 1995 (UL L 148, str. 52).
Article 33 of that regulation provides for repeal of the abovementioned directive only from 5 January 2007.
Vendar je v členu 33 te uredbe predvidena razveljavitev le od 5. januarja 2007.