natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The question referred is therefore entirely relevant to the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings.
zakona iz leta 1958, je treba opozoriti, da so v okviru postopka sodelovanja med sodi�či, določenega v členu 234 ES, naloge Sodi�ča in naloge predložitvenega sodi�ča jasno ločene, in izključno slednjemu pripada naloga razlage svoje nacionalne zakonodaje. 27
The Court of Justice must therefore take account of the legislative context in which the question referred to it arises, as described by the national court, even if that regulatory context is contested by the very State in which that court is located in the observations which it submits to the Court. 28
Sodi�če mora torej upo�tevati pravni okvir, v katerega se uvr�ča vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, kot ga je opredelilo predložitveno sodi�če, in to celo, če ta zakonodajni okvir izpodbija država tega sodi�ča v stali�čih, ki jih je predložila Sodi�ču. 28
Next, were it the case that Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, did not apply to such a law, that would not make the question under consideration hypothetical.
Dalje, okoli�čina, da se člen 81 ES v povezavi s členoma 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES, morda ne bi uporabil za ta zakon, ne more povzročiti, da bi postalo obravnavano vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje hipotetično.
The referring court has set out the reasons for its uncertainty as to the application of that article in the present case, and those reasons are based on points of fact and law which are consistent with the legal and factual context described by that court.
Predložitveno sodi�če je navedlo razloge, zaradi katerih dvomi glede uporabe tega člena v tem primeru in te razloge opira na dejanske in pravne elemente, ki ustrezajo pravnemu in dejanskemu okviru, ki ga je opisalo to sodi�če.
Since the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles stated, in its order for reference, that the Law of 1958 was to be understood as prohibiting advertising of any kind in the dental care sector, it is not for the Court or the Italian Government to call that interpretation into question.
Tribunal de première instance iz Bruslja je v svoji predložitveni odločbi navedlo, da je treba zakon iz leta 1958 razumeti tako, da prepoveduje vsakr�no ogla�evanje na področju zobozdravstva, zato niti Sodi�če niti italijanska vlada ne moreta izpodbijati te razlage.
Whether Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10, does or does not apply to national legislation such as the Law of 1958 is a question of interpretation of those provisions and that fact cannot call into question the admissibility of the question referred.
Dejstvo, da se člen 81 ES v povezavi s členoma 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES morda ne uporablja za nacionalno zakonodajo, kot je zakon iz leta 1958, izhaja iz razlage teh določb in ne more omajati dopustnosti vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
That is why I take the view that the question under consideration is admissible and that it is necessary to reply to it.
Zato menim, da je obravnavano vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje dopustno in da je treba nanj odgovoriti.
27 — See, in particular, Case C-295/97 Piaggio [1999] ECR I-3735, paragraph 29 and the caselaw cited.
27 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 17. junija 1999 v zadevi Piaggio (C-295/97, Recueil, str. I-3735, točka 29 in navedena sodna praksa).
As regards, next, the Italian Government’s argument that the question referred for a preliminary ruling is hypothetical because it does not relate to the substance of the Law of 1958, it should be noted that, in the context of the procedure established by Article 234 EC providing for cooperation between courts, the functions of the Court and those of the referring court are clearly
Dalje, glede trditve italijanske vlade, da naj bi bilo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje hipotetično, ker naj ne bi ustrezalo vsebini
B — The question referred for a preliminary ruling
B – Vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
It should be stated at this point, in response to the position adopted by the Belgian Government, that the fact that the Law of 1958, in prohibiting dental care providers from advertising their services, seeks to protect public health is no justification for the fact that that law may undermine the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty.
Na tem mestu je treba v odgovor na stali�če belgijske vlade navesti, da dejstvo, da je namen zakona iz leta 1958, ki ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev prepoveduje ogla�evanje svoje dejavnosti, varovanje javnega zdravja, ne upravičuje možnega poseganja tega zakona v uresničevanje ciljev Pogodbe.
Although, pursuant to Article 152 EC, measures in the health sector fall principally within the competence of the Member States, the Community’s power in that sector being confined to supplementing such measures, the Member States must none the less, when exercising their powers, comply with Community law. 31
Če namreč ukrepi na področju zdravja v skladu s členom 152 ES sodijo zlasti v pristojnost držav članic, je Skupnost na tem področju pristojna le za dopolnitev njihovih ukrepov, pri čemer morajo države članice v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso svoje pristojnosti izvajati v skladu s pravom Skupnosti. 31
By its question, the referring court asks whether Article 81 EC, Article (3)(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, read in conjunction, must be interpreted as precluding a national law which prohibits dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind of their services , whether directly or indirectly, to the general public.
Predložitveno sodi�če z vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje spra�uje, 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 ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev prepoveduje, da svoje storitve v okviru zasebne zobozdravstvene dejavnosti ali zobozdravstvene ordinacije kakor koli, posredno ali neposredno, ogla�ujejo v javnosti.
Medical or paramedical work such as the provision of dental care is an economic activity subject to the rules of the internal market.
Medicinska ali paramedicinska dejavnost, kot je opravljanje zobozdravstvenih storitev, pomeni gospodarsko dejavnost, za katero veljajo pravila notranjega trga.
The measures adopted in a Member State to regulate the advertising in which dental care providers may engage must not therefore infringe the Treaty rules on competition.
Ukrepi, sprejeti v državi članici, ki urejajo ogla�evanje, ki ga lahko izvajajo ponudniki zobozdravstvenih storitev, ne smejo posegati v pravila Pogodbe na področju konkurence.
Nor must they be contrary to the freedoms of movement. 32
Prav tako ne smejo biti v nasprotju s pravicami o prostem pretoku. 32
To date, the Community legislature has not adopted any measure regulating or harmonising the possibility of advertising for the healthcare professions, in particular as regards dental care.
Normodajalec Skupnosti do sedaj ni sprejel akta, ki bi za zdravstvene poklice, med drugim v zvezi z zobozdravstvenimi storitvami, uredil ali uskladil možnost ogla�evanja.
Directive 78/686, the purpose of which is to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services in respect of the activities of dental practitioners, 29contains no provision on that point.
Direktiva 78/686, katere namen je zobozdravnikom olaj�ati učinkovito izvajanje pravice do ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev, 29o tem ne vsebuje nobene določbe.
30It is therefore indeed the case that the question whether a national law such as the Law of 1958 is compatible with Community law must be examined in the light of the provisions of the Treaty.
30Zato je treba v takem primeru glede na določbe Pogodbe preučiti, ali je nacionalna zakonodaja, kot je zakon iz leta 1958, združljiva s pravom Skupnosti.
The objective pursued by the Law of 1958 cannot therefore, as such, exclude it
Cilj zakona iz leta 1958 kot tak torej tega zakona ne more izključiti iz področja uporabe
31 — See, to that effect, Case C-56/01 Inizan [2003] ECR I-12403, paragraphs 16 and 17.
31 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 23. oktobra 2003 v zadevi Inizan (C-56/01, Recueil, str. I-12403, točki 16 in 17).
30 — The sixth recital in the preamble to Directive 2005/36, which repealed and replaced Directive 78/686, states that ‘[t]he facilitation of service provision has to be ensured in the context of strict respect for public health and safety and consumer protection.
30 – Direktiva 2005/36, ki je razveljavila in nadomestila Direktivo 78/686, v �esti uvodni izjavi določa, da je treba „[o]laj�anje opravljanja storitev […] zagotoviti ob strogem spo�tovanju javnega zdravja in varnosti ter varstva potro�nikov.
Therefore, specific provisions should be envisaged for regulated professions having public health or safety implications, which provide cross-frontier services on a temporary or occasional basis’.
Zato je treba predvideti posebne določbe za opravljanje občasnih ali priložnostnih čezmejnih storitev za regulirane poklice, ki vplivajo na javno zdravje ali varnost“.
32 — See, to that effect, Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925, paragraph 12.
32 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 18. junija 1991 v zadevi ERT (C-260/89, Recueil, str.
Whether the Law of 1958 is compatible with Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC from the scope of Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC.
Združljivost zakona iz leta 1958 s čle -nom 81 ES v povezavi s členoma 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES člena 81 ES v povezavi s členo ma 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES. Glede na značilnosti tega zakona in okoli�čine spora o glavni stvari je treba presoditi ali ta sodi na področje uporabe teh določb.
The purpose of Article 81 EC is to regulate the conduct of undertakings and not that of the Member States.
Opozoriti je treba, da je namen čle -na 81 ES ureditev ravnanja podjetij in ne ravnanja držav članic.
It prohibits agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices by economic operators which may affect trade between Member States and which are incompatible with competition.
Prepoveduje sporazume med podjetji, sklepe podjetni�kih združenj in usklajena ravnanja teh gospodarskih subjektov, ki bi lahko vplivali na trgovino med državami članicami in ki so v nasprotju s konkurenco.
On the other hand, the ban prohibiting dental care providers from advertising their services to the general public is, in my opinion, a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.
Vendar pa prepoved ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev, da ogla�ujejo svoje storitve, po mojem mnenju pomeni omejevanje pravice do ustanavljanja kot tudi svobode opravljanja storitev.
I shall, however, say that such a ban may be justified on the ground of the protection of public health and indicate the extent to which it is, in my view, proportionate to that objective.
Vendar moram pojasniti, da je tako prepoved mogoče upravičiti z varovanjem javnega zdravja in mora biti po mojem mnenju sorazmerna s tem ciljem.
The Court has acknowledged that that article, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC, may be relied on against a legislative measure adopted by a Member State.
Sodi�če je res priznalo, da se je mogoče na ta člen v povezavi s členom 10 ES sklicevati zoper normativni akt, ki ga je sprejela država članica.
Thus, according to settled caselaw, while Article 81 EC is, in itself, concerned solely with the conduct of undertakings and not with laws or regulations emanating from the Member States, that article, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC, none the less requires the 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. 33
Čeprav je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso res, da se člen 81 ES nana�a le na ravnanje podjetij in ne na zakonske ali podzakonske ukrepe držav članic, to ne spremeni dejstva, da ta člen v povezavi s členom 10 ES državam članicam nalaga, naj ne sprejemajo ali ohranjajo v veljavi ukrepov, tudi zakonskih ali podzakonskih, ki bi lahko odpravili polni učinek konkurenčnih pravil, ki se uporabljajo za podjetja. 33
33 — Case C-198/01 CIF [2003] ECR I-8055, paragraph 45 and the caselaw cited.
33 – Sodba z dne 9. septembra 2003 v zadevi CIF (C-198/01, Recueil, str. I-8055, točka 45 in navedena sodna praksa).
I shall examine each of those points in turn.
Zaporedoma bom obravnaval vsako izmed teh točk.
DOULAMIS the penalties under that article solely because of their legal form. 35
DOULAMIS svoje pravne oblike izognil sankcijam, ki izhajajo iz tega člena. 35
However, by extending the scope of Article 81 EC to measures emanating from a Member State, it was not intended to extend it to any State measure which may have adverse effects on competition.
Vendar ta raz�iritev področja uporabe člena 81 ES na ukrepe države članice nima namena raz�iriti tega člena na vse državne ukrepe, ki bi lahko imeli protikonkurenčne učinke.
It none the less remains the case that Article 81 EC, in conjunction with Article 10 EC, applies to a legislative or regulatory measure adopted by a Member State only if that measure encourages, reinforces or codifies a measure attributable to undertakings.
Ostaja dejstvo, da se člen 81 ES v povezavi s členom 10 ES za zakonski ali podzakonski ukrep države članice uporablja le, če ta ukrep spodbuja, krepi ali predpisuje ravnanje podjetij.
The Court has held that Articles 10 EC and 81 EC are infringed in two situations: first, where a Member State requires or encourages the adoption of agreements, decisions or concerted practices contrary to Article 81 EC or reinforces their effects, and, second, 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. 34
Sodi�če je namreč 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 sprejetje odločitev, ki posegajo v gospodarsko sfero, na zasebne subjekte. 34
The fact that the two situations referred to above are not exhaustive, because they are preceded by the adverbial phase ‘in particular’ in a number of the Court’s decisions, 36does not in my view call that analysis into question.
Dejstvo, da obe zgoraj navedeni hipotezi nista izčrpni, ker je pred njima v več odločbah Sodi�ča prislov „zlasti“, 36 naj ne bi izpodbijalo te analize.
For confirmation that this is the case, it is sufficient to examine the Court’s interpretation of those two situations, which shows that, on the contrary, it sought to contain the scope of the combined application of Articles 81 EC and 10 EC within the narrow limits I have just set out.
Da bi se o tem prepričali, zado�ča preučitev razlage Sodi�ča glede obeh hipotez, da bi ugotovili, da je Sodi�če želelo, nasprotno, obseg uporabe povezanih členov 81 ES in 10 ES ohraniti v ozkih mejah, ki sem jih pravkar navedel.
Thus, in Arduino, 37 the Court was faced with a measure adopted by a Member State which, on the basis of a draft produced by a professional body of members of the Bar, approved a tariff fixing minimum and maximum fees for members of the profession.
Tako je Sodi�če v sodbi z dne 19. februarja 2002 v zadevi Arduino 37obravnavalo ukrep države članice glede potrditve – na podlagi osnutka, ki ga pripravi odvetni�ka zbornica – tarife, ki določa minimalne in
In those two situations, a State measure is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Article 81 EC, by application of Article 10 EC, because it provides for or validates in law a concerted practice or a decision by undertakings which is contrary to the provisions of Article 81 EC.
V teh dveh primerih je bilo odločeno, da je državni ukrep zaradi člena 10 ES v nasprotju z določbami člena 81 ES, ker določa oziroma dopu�ča omejevalni sporazum oziroma sklep podjetij, ki je v nasprotju z določbami tega prvega člena.
The combined application of Articles 81 EC and 10 EC to State measures which fall into either of those situations thus serves to ensure that a State measure does not undermine the prohibitions laid down in Article 81 EC with regard to undertakings.
Uporaba člena 81 ES v povezavi s členom 10 ES glede državnih ukrepov, ki ustrezajo eni ali drugi izmed teh hipotez, tako preprečuje, da bi državni ukrep izničil ali oslabil obseg prepovedi iz člena 81 ES v zvezi s podjetji.
It also has the effect of preventing a concerted practice or decision by undertakings which have anti-competitive effects from escaping
Prav tako želi preprečiti, da bi se omejevalni sporazum ali sklep podjetij, ki ima protikonkurenčne učinke, zgolj zaradi
35 — See the Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04 Cipolla and Others [2006] ECR I-11421, point 32.
35 – Glej sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Poiaresa Madura v združenih zadevah Cipolla in drugi, v kateri je bila sodba izdana 5. decembra 2006 (C-94/04 in C-202/04, ZOdl., str. I-11421, točka 32).
36 — See, in particular, the order in Case C-250/03 Mauri [2005] ECR I-1267, paragraph 30, and Cipolla and Others, paragraph 47.
36 – Glej zlasti sklep z dne 17. februarja 2005 v zadevi Mauri (C-250/03, ZOdl., str. I-1267, točka 30) in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Cipolla in drugi (točka 47).
34 — Ibid., paragraph 46.
34 – Ibidem (točka 46).
Nor is there any evidence in the documents before the Court to suggest that the law in question reinforces a pre-existing agreement.
Poleg tega v spisu ni dokaza, na podlagi katerega bi lahko sklepali, da navedeni zakon krepi že obstoječi omejevalni sporazum.
Finally, the referring court provides no indication as to the circumstances in which the Law of 1958 was adopted, which would support the assumption that the Kingdom of Belgium had delegated to economic operators responsibility for taking a decision on advertising in the dental care sector and that the Law of 1958 simply codified that decision.
Nazadnje, predložitveno sodi�če ni navedlo ničesar glede okoli�čin, v katerih je bil sprejet zakon iz leta 1958, na podlagi česar bi bilo mogoče domnevati, da je Kraljevina Belgija na gospodarske subjekte prenesla odgovornost sprejetja odločitve glede ogla�evanja na področju zobozdravstva, kar naj bi bilo z zakonom iz leta 1958 samo uzakonjeno.
After establishing that that national measure may affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 81 EC, 38it held that the measure in question did not fall within the scope of that provision in conjunction with Article 10 EC.
maksimalne honorarje za člane odvetni�ke zbornice. Ko je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da bi lahko ta nacionalni ukrep vplival na trgovino med državami članicami v smislu člena 81 ES, 38je razsodilo, da navedeni ukrep ne sodi na področje uporabe te določbe v povezavi s členom 10 ES.
The Court held that the Member State concerned, on the one hand, could not be said to have delegated to private economic operators responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere, which would have the effect of depriving the national measure at issue of the character of legislation, or, on the other hand, to have required or encouraged the adoption of agreements, decisions or concerted practices contrary to Article 81 EC or to have reinforced their effects. 39
Sodi�če je menilo, da ni mogoče sprejeti, prvič, da je zadevna država članica na zasebne subjekte prenesla odgovornost za sprejetje odločitev, ki posegajo v ekonomsko sfero, kar bi zadevnemu nacionalnemu ukrepu odvzelo naravo državnega ukrepa, in drugič, da je predpisala ali spodbujala sklepanje omejevalnih sporazumov v nasprotju s členom 81 ES oziroma da je krepila njihove učinke. 39
Clearly, there is no evidence in this case to show that the Law of 1958 encourages, reinforces or codifies concerted practices or decisions by undertakings.
Ugotoviti je treba, da v tej zadevi ni mogoče dokazati, da zakon iz leta 1958 spodbuja, krepi ali predpisuje sklepanje omejevalnega sporazuma ali sklep podjetij.
It should be noted, in this regard, that the grounds on which the national court referred the question for a preliminary ruling under consideration to the Court are unrelated to either of the situations for the combined application of Articles 10 EC and 81 EC which have been established by case-law.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da se razlogi, zaradi katerih je predložitveno sodi�če Sodi�ču postavilo obravnavano vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, nikakor ne nana�ajo na eno izmed hipotez glede povezane uporabe členov 10 ES in 81 ES, ki ju je postavila sodna praksa.
It should be recalled that the referring court has questioned whether those articles are applicable in the main proceedings because of the possible effects of the Law of 1958 on competition between the Member States and the fact that Mr Doulamis may be deemed to be an undertaking according to the definition of the term ‘undertaking’ given in case-law.
Naj opozorim, da se je predložitveno sodi�če v sporu o glavni stvari spra�evalo o uporabi teh členov zaradi morebitnih učinkov zakona iz leta 1958 na konkurenco med državami članicami in zato, ker bi bilo I. Doulamisa v skladu z opredelitvijo pojma „podjetje“, ki ga je vzpostavila sodna praksa, mogoče �teti za podjetje.
Thus, as the Commission observes, that law, in prohibiting advertising of any kind in the dental care sector, neither requires nor encourages the adoption of agreements, decisions or concerted practices contrary to Article 81 EC.
Kot trdi Komisija, ta zakon, ki prepoveduje sleherno ogla�evanje na področju zobozdravstva, tako ne predpisuje niti ne spodbuja sklepanja omejevalnih sporazumov, ki bi bili v nasprotju s členom 81 ES.
38 — Paragraph 33.39 — Paragraph 43.
38 – Točka 33.39 – Točka 43.
That is why I am of the opinion that the Law of 1958 does not fall within the scope of Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC.
Zato menim, da zakon iz leta 1958 ne sodi na področje uporabe člena 81 ES v povezavi s členom 10 ES.
I therefore propose that the Court’s answer to the referring court should be that Article 81 EC, Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, read in conjunction, must be interpreted as
Sodi�ču torej predlagam, naj predložitvenemu sodi�ču odgovori, da je treba člen 81 ES v povezavi s členoma 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES razlagati tako,
DOULAMIS meaning that they do not preclude a national law which prohibits dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind of their services, whether directly or indirectly, to the general public.
DOULAMIS da ne nasprotuje nacionalnemu zakonu, ki ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev v okviru svobodnega poklica ali zobozdravstvene ordinacije prepoveduje kakr�no koli posredno ali neposredno ogla�evanje svojih storitev.
crossborder element. It is settled caselaw that those provisions cannot be applied to situations which are confined in all respects within a single Member State.
sodno prakso se te določbe ne uporabljajo za situacijo, v kateri so vsi dejavniki znotraj ene same države članice.
42Thus, a national of a Member State cannot rely on Community law if he has not exercised his profession or acquired his training in another State of the European Union. 43
42 Tako se državljan ene države članice ne more sklicevati na pravo Skupnosti, če svojega poklica ni opravljal v drugi državi Evropske unije oziroma če v njej ni pridobil izobrazbe. 43
Whether the Law of 1958 is compatible with the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services
Združljivost zakona iz leta 1958 s pravico do ustanavljanja in svobodo opravljanja storitev