natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, according to the Court, that is not the case if the issue of authorisation to set up a new outpatient dental clinic is subject to the criterion of the number of patients per doctor, which is not ¤xed or brought in advance to the notice of the persons concerned in any way, or if the prior administrative authorisation scheme is based on a method which is liable to a¥ect the objectivity and impartiality of the treatment of the application for authorisation.
Po mnenju Sodišča pa ni tako, kadar je za izdajo dovoljenja za ustanovitev nove zobozdravstvene ambulante določeno merilo, ki temelji na številu pacientov na zobozdravnika, ki ni določeno niti niso zadevne osebe o njem kakor koli vnaprej obveščene, ali kadar sistem predhodnega upravnega dovoljenja temelji na metodi, ki lahko ogrozi objektivnost in nepristranskost obravnavanja vloge za izdajo zadevnega dovoljenja.
As regards the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, Case C-518/06 Commission v Italy (judgment of 28 April 2009) concerns Italian legislation requiring all insurance undertakings, including those which have their head oce in another Member State but which pursue their business in Italy, to provide third-party liability motor insurance at the request of any potential customer.
Na področju svobode ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev je treba navesti zadevo Komisija proti Italiji (sodba z dne 28. aprila 2009, C-518/06), ki se nanaša na italijansko ureditev, ki za vsa zavarovalna podjetja, vključno s podjetji z glavnim sedežem v drugi državi članici, ki opravljajo dejavnosti v Italiji, določa obveznost, da na zahtevo vseh potencialnih strank zagotovijo zavarovanje avtomobilske odgovornosti.
The Court held that, by maintaining such legislation in force, the Italian Republic had not failed to ful¤l its obligations under Articles 43°EC and 49°EC.
Sodišče je presodilo, da Italijanska republika z ohranitvijo take zakonodaje v veljavi ni kršila obveznosti iz členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
It is true that such an obligation to contract restricts the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.
Taka obveznost sklepanja pogodb sicer omejuje svobodo ustanavljanja in svobodo opravljanja storitev.
However, according to the Court, that restriction is justi¤ed by a social protection objective, which amounts, essentially, to ensuring that victims of road trac accidents will be adequately compensated.
Vendar je po mnenju Sodišča ta omejitev upravičena s ciljem socialnega varstva, ki pomeni v bistvu jamstvo za primerno odškodnino oškodovancem prometnih nesreč.
As regards, in particular, the proportionality of the legislation concerned, the Court noted that it is not essential that a restrictive measure laid down by the authorities of a Member State should correspond to a view shared by all the Member States concerning the means of protecting the legitimate interest at issue.
Natančneje v zvezi s sorazmernostjo zadevne ureditve je Sodišče opozorilo, da ni nujno potrebno, da omejevalni ukrep, ki so ga določili organi države članice, ustreza ideji, ki je skupna vsem državam članicam glede načina varstva legitimnega interesa.
Therefore, the fact that some Member States have chosen to establish a di¥erent system to ensure that every vehicle owner is able to take out third-party liability motor insurance for a premium that is not excessive does not indicate that the obligation to contract goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued.
Zato z dejstvom, da so nekatere države članice izbrale drugačen sistem za zagotavljanje, da lahko vsak lastnik vozila za premijo, ki ni pretirano visoka, sklene pogodbo o zavarovanju avtomobilske odgovornosti, ni mogoče dokazati, da obveznost sklepanja pogodb presega to, kar je nujno za doseganje zastavljenega cilja.
It will be noted that, in the same judgment, the Court also examined Article 9 of Directive 92/49/EEC (12), ¤nding that it de¤nes the scope of home Member State supervision in a nonexhaustive way by providing that ¤nancial supervision is to ‘include’ the state of solvency and the establishment of technical provisions.
Opozoriti je treba še, da je Sodišče v isti sodbi obravnavalo tudi člen 9 Direktive 92/49/EGS12in presodilo, da v tem členu področje uporabe načela nadzora v matični državi članici ni izčrpno opredeljeno, saj je navedeno, da nančni nadzor „vključuje“ preverjanje stanja solventnosti in oblikovanje tehničnih rezervacij.
Nevertheless, that provision cannot be interpreted as meaning that the home Member State should have exclusive supervisory competence extending to the commercial conduct of insurance undertakings.
Vendar te določbe ni mogoče razlagati tako, da ima matična država članica izključno pristojnost nadzora, ki zajema poslovna ravnanja zavarovalnih podjetij.
It follows that that provision does not preclude the possibility of controls being exercised by the host Member State over the detailed rules according to which insurance undertakings, operating in that Member State under the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services, calculate their insurance premiums, together with the imposition of penalties.
Iz tega je razvidno, da ta določba ne izključuje možnosti nadzora, ki ga izvaja država članica gostiteljica nad podrobnimi pravili, v skladu s katerimi zavarovalna podjetja, ki opravljajo svoje dejavnosti v tej državi na podlagi svobode ustanavljanja ali svobode opravljanja storitev, izračunavajo svoje zavarovalne premije, in nalaganja kazni.
As regards the freedom to provide services, Case C-42/07 Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Prossional and Baw International (judgment of 8 September 2009) gave the Court an opportunity to clarify its case-law concerning gaming and betting legislation in the Member States.
V zvezi s svobodo opravljanja storitev je Sodišče v zadevi Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Prossional in Baw International (sodba z dne 8. septembra 2009, C-42/07) pojasnilo svojo sodno prakso glede ureditve iger in stav v državah članicah.
In that judgment, the Court held that Article 49°EC does not preclude legislation of a Member State which prohibits private operators which are established in other Member States, in which they lawfully provide similar services, from o¥ering games of chance via the Internet within the territory of that Member State.
V tej sodbi je Sodišče presodilo, da člen 49 ES ne nasprotuje ureditvi države članice, s katero je zasebnim gospodarskim subjektom s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, kjer zakonito ponujajo podobne storitve, prepovedano ponujati igre na srečo prek interneta na ozemlju navedene države članice.
According to the Court, while such legislation gives rise to a restriction of the freedom to provide services, in the light of the speci¤c features associated with the provision of games of chance via the Internet that restriction may, however, be regarded as justi¤ed by the objective of combating tax evasion and crime.
Sodišče je menilo, da čeprav taka ureditev omejuje svobodo opravljanja storitev, pa jo je mogoče ob upoštevanju posebnosti v zvezi s ponudbo iger na srečo prek interneta šteti za upravičeno zaradi cilja boja proti davčni goljuji in kaznivim
) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provi- sions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (OJ 1992 L°228, p.°1).
Direktiva Sveta 92/49/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992 o spremembah direktiv 73/239/EGS in 88/357/EGS in o uskladitvi zakonov in drugih predpisov o neposrednem zavarovanju razen življenjskega zavarovanja (UL L 228, str. 1).
Court of Justice of Community harmonisation.
Sodišče dejanjem. V zvezi s preizkusom nujnosti zadevnega sistema je Sodišče poudarilo, da sektor iger na srečo, ki se ponujajo prek interneta, ni predmet usklajevanja na ravni Skupnosti.
A Member State is therefore entitled to take the view that the mere fact that a private operator lawfully o¥ers services in that sector via the Internet in another Member State, in which it is established and where it is in principle already subject to statutory conditions and controls on the part of the competent authorities in that State, cannot be regarded as amounting to a sucient assurance that national consumers will be protected against the risks of fraud and crime, in the light of the diculties liable to be encountered in such a context by the authorities of the Member State of establishment in assessing the professional qualities and integrity of operators.
Država članica lahko torej upravičeno meni, da samega dejstva, da zasebni gospodarski subjekt prek interneta zakonito ponuja storitve iz tega sektorja v drugi državi članici – kjer ima sedež in kjer zanj načeloma že veljajo pravni pogoji in ga nadzorujejo pristojni organi te države – ni mogoče šteti za zadostno jamstvo, da bodo nacionalni potrošniki zavarovani pred tveganji goljuje in kaznivih dejanj, če se upoštevajo težave, ki jih lahko imajo v takih okoliščinah organi države članice, v kateri je sedež, pri presoji poklicne usposobljenosti in poštenosti gospodarskih subjektov.
In addition, because of the lack of direct contact between consumer and operator, games of chance accessible via the Internet involve di¥erent and more substantial risks of fraud by operators to the detriment of consumers compared with the traditional markets for such games.
Poleg tega igre na srečo, ki so dostopne prek interneta, zaradi neobstoja neposrednega stika med potrošnikom in gospodarskim subjektom vključujejo drugačna in večja tveganja v zvezi z morebitnimi goljujami gospodarskih subjektov v škodo potrošnikom, kot jih vključujejo te igre na zanje običajnih trgih.
Moreover, the possibility cannot be ruled out that an operator which sponsors some of the sporting competitions on which it accepts bets and some of the teams taking part in those competitions may be in a position to inªuence their outcome directly or indirectly, and thus increase its pro¤ts.
Poleg tega ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da bi bili gospodarski subjekt, ki je sponzor nekaterih športnih tekmovanj, za katere sprejema stave, in nekatera moštva, ki se udeležujejo teh tekmovanj, v položaju, v katerem bi lahko neposredno ali posredno vplivali na izid teh tekmovanj in tako povečali svoje dobičke.
With regard to the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, attention should be drawn to Joined Cases C-155/08 and C-157/08 X and Passenheim-van Schoot (judgment of 11 June 2009) concerning the recovery period provided for under Netherlands legislation where savings balances and income from those balances are concealed from the national tax authorities.
S področja svobode opravljanja storitev in prostega pretoka kapitala je treba opozoriti na združeni zadevi X in Passenheim-van Schoot (sodba z dne 11. junija 2009, C-155/08 in C-157/08) v zvezi z¥rokom za dodatno odmero davka, ki je določen v nizozemski zakonodaji za primer, da so prihranki in dohodki od njih prikriti nacionalnim davčnim organom.
The Court held that Articles 49°EC and 56°EC do not preclude the application by a Member State, where the tax authorities of that Member State have no evidence of the existence of such assets which would enable an investigation to be initiated, of a longer recovery period when the balances are held in another Member State than when they are held in the ¤rst Member State.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče presodilo, da člena 49 ES in 56 ES ne nasprotujeta temu, da država članica – kadar davčni organi te države članice nimajo nobenih dokazov o obstoju takega premoženja, na podlagi katerih bi lahko začeli preiskavo – uporabi daljši rok za dodatno odmero davka, če je to premoženje v drugi državi članici, kot če je v prvi državi članici.
The fact that that other Member State applies banking secrecy is not relevant in that regard.
Okoliščina, da v tej drugi državi članici velja bančna tajnost, za to ni pomembna.
Nor, according to the Court, do Articles 49°EC and 56°EC preclude in such cases the ¤ne imposed for concealment of the foreign assets and income from being calculated as a proportion of the amount to be recovered and over that longer period.
Po mnenju Sodišča ta člena ne nasprotujeta niti temu, da se v takem primeru globa, naložena zaradi prikrivanja tega premoženja in dohodkov v tujini, izračuna v sorazmerju z¥zneskom dodatne odmere in za to daljše obdobje.
The Court found that, while such legislation constitutes a restriction both of the freedom to provide services and of the free movement of capital, it may nevertheless be justi¤ed by the need to ensure e¥ective ¤scal supervision and to prevent tax evasion, subject to compliance with the principle of proportionality.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da čeprav je taka ureditev ovira tako za svobodo opravljanja storitev kot za prosti pretok kapitala, pa jo je mogoče upravičiti s potrebo po zagotovitvi učinkovitega davčnega nadzora in z bojem proti davčnim utajam ob upoštevanju načela sorazmernosti.
In relation to that last point, the Court noted that, in the absence of evidence of the existence of items which would enable the tax authorities of a Member State to initiate an investigation, that Member State is unable to request the competent authorities of the other Member State to communicate to it the information necessary to establish correctly the amount of tax due.
V zvezi z zadnjenavedenim je Sodišče poudarilo, da kadar davčni organi države članice nimajo nobenega dokaza o obstoju premoženja, na podlagi katerega bi lahko začeli preiskavo, ta država članica od pristojnih organov druge države članice ne more zahtevati, naj ji pošljejo podatke, potrebne za ugotovitev natančnega zneska davka.
By contrast, where the tax authorities of a Member State had evidence enabling them to turn to the competent authorities of other Member States, the mere fact that the taxable items concerned are located in another Member State does not justify the general application of an additional recovery period which is in no way based on the time needed to have e¥ective recourse to those mechanisms of mutual assistance.
Kadar pa imajo davčni organi države članice dokaze, ki jim omogočajo, da to od pristojnih organov druge države članice zahtevajo, samo dejstvo, da je zadevno obdavčljivo premoženje v drugi državi članici, ne utemeljuje splošne uporabe dodatnega roka za dodatno odmero davka, ki nikakor ne temelji na času, potrebnem za koristno uporabo mehanizmov medsebojne pomoči.
With regard, ¤nally, to the principle of the free movement of capital, the Court delivered two judgments which are particularly noteworthy.
Končno, treba je posebej omeniti sodbi, ki ju je Sodišče izdalo v zvezi z načelom prostega pretoka kapitala.
The cases concerned are, ¤rst of all, Case C-318/07 Persche (judgment of 27 January 2009), which relates to the delicate issue of gifts to charitable bodies.
Najprej je treba navesti zadevo Persche (sodba z dne 27. januarja 2009, C-318/07), ki se nanaša na občutljivo problematiko donacij subjektom, ki delujejo v splošnem interesu.
Having stated that such gifts come within the compass of the provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of capital, even if they are made in kind in the form of everyday consumer goods, the Court held that Article 56°EC precludes legislation of a Member State by virtue of which, as regards gifts made to bodies recognised as having charitable status, the bene¤t of a deduction for tax purposes is allowed only for gifts made to bodies established in that Member State, without any possibility for the taxpayer to show that a gift made to a body established in another Member State satis¤es the requirements imposed by that legislation for the grant of such a bene¤t.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da se za take donacije uporabljajo določbe Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala, čeprav gre za donacije v blagu v obliki predmetov za vsakdanjo uporabo, in nato presodilo, da člen 56 ES nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, v skladu s katero se glede donacij v korist subjektov, ki delujejo v splošnem interesu, upravičenje do davčnega odbitja dodeli le v zvezi z donacijami v¥korist subjektov s sedežem na nacionalnem ozemlju, ne da bi imel davčni zavezanec kakršno koli možnost dokazati, da donacija v korist subjekta s sedežem v drugi državi članici izpolnjuje pogoje, ki jih navedena zakonodaja določa za dodelitev takega upravičenja.
According to the Court, it is indeed permissible for a Member State, as part of its legislation relating to the deduction for tax purposes
Po mnenju Sodišča država članica sicer lahko v okviru zakonodaje o možnosti davčnega odbitja donacij določi
Proceedings of gifts, to apply a di¥erence in treatment between national bodies recognised as charitable and those established in other Member States if the latter bodies pursue objectives other than those advocated by its own legislation.
Razvoj in dejavnost različno obravnavanje nacionalnih subjektov, ki jim je priznano, da delujejo v splošnem interesu, in subjektov s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, če ti sledijo ciljem, ki jih njena zakonodaja ne spodbuja.
However, a body which is established in one Member State but satis¤es the requirements imposed for that purpose by another Member State for the grant of tax advantages is, in respect of the grant by the latter Member State of tax advantages intended to encourage the charitable activities concerned, in a situation comparable to that of bodies recognised as having charitable purposes which are established in the latter Member State.
Vendar pa je subjekt, ki ima sedež v državi članici in izpolnjuje pogoje, ki jih druga država članica določi za dodelitev davčnih ugodnosti, glede davčnih ugodnosti, ki jih dodeljuje ta druga država članica in katerih namen je spodbujati zadevne dejavnosti v splošnem interesu, v položaju, ki je primerljiv s položajem subjektov, ki jim je priznano, da delujejo v splošnem interesu, in imajo sedež v tej drugi državi članici.
According to the Court, the di¥erence in treatment introduced by the aforementioned legislation constitutes, therefore, a restriction on the free movement of capital.
Različno obravnavanje iz navedene zakonodaje je tako po mnenju Sodišča omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala.
That restriction cannot be justi¤ed by the need to safeguard the e¥ectiveness of ¤scal supervision or by the ¤ght against tax evasion.
Te omejitve ni mogoče upravičiti niti z nujnostjo ohranitve učinkovitosti davčnega nadzora niti z bojem proti davčni utaji.
In respect of that last point, the Court nevertheless stated that, as regards charitable bodies in a non-member country, it is, as a rule, legitimate for the Member State of taxation to refuse to grant such deductibility if, in particular because that non-member country is not under any international obligation to provide information, it proves impossible to obtain the necessary information from that country.
V zvezi z¥zadnjenavedenim je Sodišče vseeno pojasnilo, da lahko država članica obdavčitve glede subjektov, ki delujejo v splošnem interesu in imajo sedež v tretji državi, načeloma legitimno zavrne odobritev takega odbitja, če se pridobitev potrebnih informacij iz te države izkaže za nemogočo, predvsem ker za to tretjo državo ne obstaja obveznost iz konvencije, da mora predložiti informacije.
The second case is Case C-567/07 Woningstichting Sint Servatius (judgment of 1 October 2009), which arose from a request for interpretation of the Treaty provisions relating to the free movement of capital with a view to assessing whether Netherlands legislation to promote adequate housing is compatible with them.
Nato je treba navesti še zadevo Woningstichting Sint Servatius (sodba z dne 1. oktobra 2009, C-567/07), izdano v zvezi z vprašanji glede razlage določb Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala zaradi presoje združljivosti nizozemske zakonodaje, namenjene prizadevanju za večjo ponudbo na stanovanjskem področju, s temi določbami.
Under that legislation, Netherlands approved housing institutions are required to submit their crossborder property investment projects to a prior administrative authorisation procedure and to demonstrate that the investments concerned are in the interests of housing in the Netherlands.
V skladu s to zakonodajo morajo nizozemska združenja, pooblaščena na stanovanjskem področju, predložiti svoje projekte čezmejnih investicij v nepremičnine v upravni postopek predhodne odobritve in dokazati, da so zadevne investicije v skladu z interesi stanovanjske politike na Nizozemskem.
According to the Court, such an obligation constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital.
Po mnenju Sodišča taka obveznost pomeni omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala.
The Court accepted that requirements related to public housing policy in a Member State and to the ¤nancing of that policy can constitute overriding reasons in the public interest and therefore justify such a restriction.
Sodišče je priznalo, da lahko zahteve v zvezi s socialno stanovanjsko politiko države članice in njenim nanciranjem pomenijo nujne razloge v splošnem interesu ter zato tako omejitev upravičijo.
The Court stated, however, that a scheme of prior administrative authorisation cannot render legitimate discretionary conduct on the part of the national authorities which is liable to negate the e¥ectiveness of provisions of Community law.
Vendar je pojasnilo, da sistem predhodne odobritve s strani upravnega organa ne more vzpostaviti legitimnosti diskrecijskega ravnanja nacionalnih organov, zaradi katerega je določbam Skupnosti odvzet polni učinek.
Therefore, if such a scheme is to be justi¤ed, it must be based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria known in advance, in such a way as adequately to circumscribe the exercise of the national authorities’discretion, a matter which falls to be determined by the national court.
Da bi bil tak sistem utemeljen, mora zato temeljiti na objektivnih, nediskriminatornih in vnaprej znanih merilih, ki zagotavljajo, da se ustrezno omeji izvajanje diskrecijske pravice nacionalnih organov, kar pa mora preveriti nacionalno sodišče.
In Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others (judgment of 19 November 2009) the Court was called upon to rule on the concept of a delayed ªight in connection with Regulation (EC)
V združenih zadevah Sturgeon in drugi ter Böck in Lepuschitz (sodba z dne 19. novembra 2009, C-402/07 in C-432/07) je moralo Sodišče v okviru Uredbe (ES) št. 261/200413 presojati pojem leta, ki ima zamudo.
Actions were brought before the national courts by passengers claiming such ªat-rate compensation on the ground that they had arrived at their airports of destination 22 and 25 hours after the scheduled arrival times.
Potniki so pri predložitvenih sodiščih zahtevali to pavšalno odškodnino, ker so na namembno letališče prispeli z dvaindvajset- oziroma petindvajseturno zamudo glede na prihod po voznem redu.
The Court observed, ¤rst of all, that the duration of a delay, even if it is long, is not sucient for a ªight to be regarded as cancelled.
Sodišče je najprej ugotovilo, da trajanje zamude, pa čeprav je velika, ni dovolj, da bi bilo mogoče let šteti za odpovedan.
A ªight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, cannot be regarded as cancelled where, apart from the departure time, all the other elements of the ªight as originally planned, including in particular the itinerary, remain unchanged.
Ni mogoče šteti, da je let, ki ima zamudo, ne glede na njeno trajanje, odpovedan, kadar razen ure odhoda vsi drugi elementi leta, kot je bil prvotno načrtovan, med katerimi je zlasti pot, ostanejo nespremenjeni.
) Regulation (EC) No°261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of ªights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No°295/91 (OJ 2004 L°46, p.°1).
Uredba (ES) št. 261/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. februarja 2004 o določitvi skupnih pravil glede odškodnine in pomoči potnikom v primerih zavrnitve vkrcanja, odpovedi ali velike zamude letov ter o¥razveljavitvi Uredbe (EGS) št. 295/91 (UL L 46, str. 1).
Court of Justice
Sodišče v primerljivem položaju, zaradi česar različno obravnavanje ni upravičeno.