natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
13It noted that, for a national measure to be categorised as discriminatory or protective for the purposes of the rules on the free movement of goods, it is not necessary for it to have the effect of favouring national products as a whole or of placing only imported products at a disadvantage and not national products. 14
13Spomnilo je, da za to, da se državni ukrep opredeli kot diskriminatoren ali za�čiten v smislu predpisov v zvezi s prostim pretokom blaga, ni nujno, da ta ukrep daje prednost vsem domačim proizvodom ali da postavlja v slab�i položaj samo uvožene proizvode, domačih pa ne. 14
That argument does not seem to me to be acceptable either.
Menim, da se tudi s to razlago ni mogoče strinjati.
Certainly, at the present state of Community law no industrially produced medicinal product may be placed on the market of a Member State unless a marketing authorisation has been issued by the competent authorities of that State or by the European Medicines Agency (formerly the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products).
Seveda se v skladu s pravom Skupnosti z nobenim industrijsko proizvedenim zdravilom v državi članici ne more trgovati, če pristojen organ te države ali Evropska agencija za zdravila zanj nista dodelila dovoljenja za dajanje v promet.
16In order for a pharmacy located in another Member State to be able to supply medicinal products to a German hospital, that pharmacy must, therefore, stock a sufficient quantity of medicinal products authorised in Germany.
16 Oskrba nem�ke bolni�nice z zdravili pri lekarni iz druge države članice posledično pomeni, da ima ta lekarna na voljo zadostno količino zdravil, ki so odobrena v Nemčiji.
In other words, the contested requirements, like the legislation at issue in TK-Heimdienst, constitute a restriction within the meaning of Article 28 EC because they have the effect of partitioning the market concerned, which is, by nature, contrary to the common market, that is to say, an internal market characterised in particular by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods. 15
Povedano drugače, sporni pogoji enako kot sporna zakonodaja v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba TK-Heimdienst, pomenijo omejitev v smislu člena 28 ES, ker posledično zapirajo zadevni trg, kar je po naravi v nasprotju s skupnim trgom, torej prostorom, za katerega je značilna odprava ovir za prosti pretok blaga med državami članicami. 15
13 — The legislation provided that bakers, butchers and grocers could make sales on rounds in a given administrative district only if they also traded from a permanent establishment where they offered for sale the same goods as they did on rounds, located in that administrative district or an adjacent municipality or, in some circumstances, in another Member State.
13 – Šlo je za uredbo, ki je predvidevala, da lahko peki, mesarji in trgovci z živili opravljajo potujočo prodajo v danem upravnem okrožju le, če poslovno dejavnost opravljajo v stalni poslovni enoti, v kateri prodajajo isto blago, ki ga ponujajo v potujoči prodaji, in ki mora biti v tem istem upravnem okrožju ali v bližnji občini, ki je lahko, če je treba, v drugi državi članici.
However, the fact that foreign pharmacies do not, as a rule, stock a sufficient quantity of such medicinal products does not remove the restriction in question.
Vendar dejstvo, da naj tuje lekarne na splo�no ne bi imele zadostne količine takih zdravil, ni dovolj, da bi zadevno omejitev odpravili.
14 — TK-Heimdienst, paragraph 27.
14 – Zgoraj navedena sodba TK-Heimdienst (točka 27).
That interpretation of the scope of Article 28 EC had already been given in Joined Cases C-1/90 and C-176/90 Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivía [1991] ECR I-4151, paragraph 24.
Ta razlaga razsežnosti člena 28 ES je bila navedena že v sodbi z dne 25. julija 1991 v zadevi Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior in Publivía (C-1/90 in C-176/90, Recueil, str. I-4151, točka 24).
15 — Article 3(1)(c) EC.
15 – Člen 3(1)(c) ES.
16 — Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2001/83.
16 – Člen 2 in člen 6(1) Direktive 2001/83.
It is settled caselaw that Article 28 EC applies to measures that are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intraCommunity trade.
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da se člen 28 ES uporablja za ukrepe, ki bi lahko neposredno ali posredno, dejansko ali morebitno ovirali trgovino znotraj Skupnosti.
17Clas-sification of a measure as a measure having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports does not therefore require verification that a foreign undertaking has actually been prevented from exporting its products to the Member State concerned.
17 Za opredelitev ukrepa, ki ima enak učinek kot količinska omejitev pri uvozu, torej ni treba preveriti, ali se je tujemu podjetju dejansko preprečilo njegove proizvode izvažati v zadevno državo članico.
It is sufficient that the contested measure is capable of hindering intraCommunity trade without it being necessary to prove that it has had an appreciable effect on trade within the Union. 18
Dovolj je ugotovitev, da bi sporni ukrep lahko oviral trgovino znotraj Skupnosti, ne da bi bilo treba dokazati, da je znatno vplival na blagovno menjavo znotraj Skupnosti. 18
Lastly, the Federal Republic of Germany denies the existence of a barrier to the intraCommunity trade in medicinal products on the ground that a foreign pharmacy could perfectly well deliver medicinal products to a hospital’s internal pharmacy or to an external pharmacy meeting the contested requirements.
Končno, Zvezna republika Nemčija zanika tudi to, da bi bila znotraj Skupnosti trgovina z zdravili ovirana, saj naj bi lahko tuja lekarna brez vsakih težav dobavljala zdravila interni bolni�nični lekarni ali zunanji lekarni, ki izpolnjuje sporne pogoje.
According to that Member State, Article 28 EC does not require that pharmacies of other Member States should be able to deliver medicinal products directly to the hospitals of another Member State.
Člen 28 ES naj po mnenju te države članice ne bi predpisoval, da lahko lekarne iz drugih držav članic neposredno dobavljajo zdravila bolni�nicam druge države članice.
That view, it says, is in contradiction to the fact that in many Member States only an internal pharmacy is allowed to supply a hospital with medicinal products and to the caselaw whereby a State monopoly in the trade in medicinal products may be compatible with Community law.
Ta analiza naj bi nasprotovala dejstvu, da v �tevilnih državah članicah bolni�nice oskrbuje z zdravili interna lekarna, in tudi sodni praksi, po kateri je monopol države pri trgovanju z zdravili lahko združljiv s pravom Skupnosti.
That caselaw is relevant in the present case because, although medicinal products are not ordinary products in view of their effects on human health, they none the less constitute goods for the purposes of Article 28 EC, that is to say, products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions.
Ta sodna praksa je v zadevnem primeru pomembna, saj kljub temu, da zdravila zaradi učinkov na zdravje ljudi niso običajen proizvod, vseeno pomenijo blago v smislu člena 28 ES, torej so blago, ocenljivo v denarju, in kot tako predmet poslovnih transakcij.
19 The scope of that article, in so far as they are concerned, is no less than with regard to any other goods within the meaning of that article.
19 Ta člen se na zdravila ne nana�a nič manj kot na vse drugo blago v smislu tega člena.
17 — See, in particular, Deutscher Apothekerverband, paragraph 66 and caselaw cited.
17 – Glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Deutscher Apothekerverband (točka 66 in navedena sodna praksa).
Those arguments do not seem to me to be well founded.
Ta trditev se mi ne zdi utemeljena.
Certainly, Article 28 EC does not in my view preclude the hospitals of Member States being supplied with medi -cinal products exclusively by an internal pharmacy.
Seveda člen 28 ES po mojem mnenju ne nasprotuje temu, da bi bolni�nice držav članic z zdravili oskrbovala izključno interna lekarna.
It does not in itself require Member States to provide that their hospitals should also be able to obtain supplies of medicinal products directly from pharmacies located in other Member States.
Prav tako sam po sebi državam članicam ne predpisuje, da morajo tudi lekarne s sedežem v drugih državah članicah imeti možnost, da neposredno oskrbujejo njihove bolni�nice z zdravili.
However, the situation is different when a Member State provides in its legislation that its hospitals may also obtain such supplies from an external pharmacy, that is to say, from a pharmacy that is a third party in relation to the hospital.
Vendar je drugače, če država članica v zakonodaji predpi�e, da lahko njene bolni�nice oskrbuje tudi zunanja lekarna, torej tretja oseba v razmerju do ustanove.
From the time that a Member State, in the exercise of its sovereign powers, decides that supplies of medicinal products for hospitals may be obtained under a contract with a person who is a third party in relation to a hospital, it opens up that activity to the market.
Od trenutka, ko se država članica v okviru svoje suverene oblasti odloči, da je oskrba bolni�nic z zdravili lahko tudi predmet pogodbe v razmerju do ustanove tretjo osebo, to dejavnost po�lje na trg.
It is therefore required to comply with the Community rules relating to the common market and, in particular, the fundamental freedoms of movement.
Od takrat mora upo�tevati predpise Skupnosti, ki se nana�ajo na skupni trg, in posebej temeljne svobo�čine prostega pretoka.
This view also conforms to settled case-law.
To stali�če je prav tako v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso.
That does not mean, however, that that Member State is deprived of its regulatory powers and that any restriction on the exercise of those fundamental freedoms is necessarily contrary to the Treaty.
To ne pomeni, da ta država članica nima zakonodajne pristojnosti in da bi bila vsaka omejitev izvajanja teh temeljnih svobo�čin nujno v nasprotju s Pogodbo.
In other words, the Member State is not left in an all or nothing situation where either medicinal products must be supplied by an internal pharmacy or they may be supplied from a source left to the discretion of each hospital.
Z drugimi besedami, država članica se ne sooča z možnostjo „vse ali nič“, kar bi pomenilo le oskrbo pri interni lekarni ali oskrbo, o kateri bi vsaka bolni�nična ustanova odločala sama.
According to that caselaw, since harmon -isation of national laws with regard to the distribution of medicinal products remains incomplete, Member States are entitled to adopt measures in this field designed to protect public health.
Glede na to sodno prakso imajo namreč države članice, če uskladitev nacionalnih zakonodaj v zvezi z distribucijo zdravil ni popolna, pravico predpisati ukrepe, ki so utemeljeni z vidika varstva javnega zdravja.
However, the Court has consistently held that national rules or practices liable to have a restrictive effect, or having such an effect, on imports of medicin- al products are compatible with the Treaty only to the extent to which they are necessary for the effective protection of human health and life. 20
Vendar je Sodi�če stalno opominjalo, da so nacionalni predpisi ali praksa, ki imajo ali bi lahko imeli restriktivni učinek na uvoz zdravil, s Pogodbo skladni samo, če so potrebni za učinkovito varstvo zdravja in življenja ljudi. 20
The rules surrounding the exercise of its reserved powers mean that if its legislation causes a restriction of one of the fundamental freedoms of movement it must be in a position to provide a legitimate reason, given in the Treaty or recognised as an overriding reason of public interest, to justify this.
Ograditev izvajanja njene pristojnosti vključuje to, da mora država, če njena zakonodaja omejuje eno od temeljnih svobo�čin prostega pretoka, to utemeljiti z legitimnim razlogom, ki je naveden v Pogodbi ali se ga priznava kot nujen razlog v splo�nem interesu.
A Member State which provides that supplies of medicinal products for hospitals may also be obtained from an external pharmacy, and which imposes requirements in
Država članica, ki predpisuje, da oskrbo bolni�nic z zdravili lahko zagotavlja tudi zunanja lekarna in ki za to oskrbo določi pogoje, katerih posledica je zapiranje trga,
Lastly, this view does not conflict with the exercise by Member States of their reserved powers in public health matters and the provisions of Article 152 EC.
Ta analiza ni v nasprotju z izvajanjem pristojnosti držav članic v zvezi z javnim zdravjem in določbami iz člena 152 ES.
it may only complement the Member States’ action and that its action must fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the delivery of health services and medical care.
členu predvidele, da Komisija lahko ukrepa le skupaj z državami članicami in da mora v celoti spo�tovati odgovornosti teh držav na področju opravljanja zdravstvenih storitev in zdravstvene oskrbe.
No effect on the reserved powers of the Member States in public health matters and the provisions of Article 152 EC
Neobstoj poseganja v izključno pristojnost držav članic na področju javnega zdravja in v določbe člena 152 ES
However, that limitation on the Community’s legislative powers in the field of public health does not affect the Member States’ obligation, confirmed by settled caselaw, to comply with the Treaty rules, in particular the freedoms of movement, when they exercise their reserved powers.
Zato ta omejitev zakonodajne pristojnosti Skupnosti na področju javnega zdravja držav članic ne odre�uje obveznosti, potrjene v sodni praksi, da spo�tujejo predpise iz Pogodbe, �e posebno prosti pretok, ko izvajajo svoje pristojnosti.
21 In other words, Article 152 EC cannot have the effect of excluding public health from the scope of the Treaty rules on freedom of movement.
21 Z drugimi besedami, člen 152 ES ne more izključiti področja javnega zdravja s področja uporabe predpisov Pogodbe, ki se nana�ajo na prosti pretok.
I cannot agree with the Federal Republic of Germany when it argues that the Commission’s action seeking a declaration that the contested requirements are contrary to Article 28 EC is a way of circumventing the limits of Community action in the field of public health laid down in Article 152 EC.
Z Zvezno republiko Nemčijo se ni mogoče strinjati, ko meni, da naj bi Komisija z ukrepom, s katerim bi sporne pogoje opredelila kot nasprotne določbam iz člena 28 ES, želela zaobiti omejitve ukrepov Skupnosti na področju javnega zdravja, določenih v členu 152 ES.
The Commission, which has the task under Article 211 EC of ensuring that the provisions of the Treaty are applied, is therefore acting quite correctly if it brings proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations, where it considers that the legislation of that State concerning the
Iz tega sledi, da ima Komisija, katere naloga je v skladu s členom 211 ES nadzirati uporabo določb Pogodbe, vso pravico, da proti državi članici začne postopek zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, če meni, da zako-
That article determines the legislative powers of the Community in public health matters.
Ta člen namreč določa zakonodajno pristojnost Skupnosti na področju javnega zdravja.
As the Community only has the powers that have been conferred on it, the High Contracting Parties limited its powers in that field by providing in that article that
Ker ima Skupnost le stvarno pristojnost, so visoke pogodbenice omejile njeno pristojnost na tem področju in v navedenem
23 In particular, it is in that context that the Federal Republic of Germany’s argument that in a number of Member States medicinal products are supplied to hospitals exclusively by internal pharmacies will be taken into consideration. 24
23 Zlasti pri tem se bo upo�tevala trditev te države članice, ki navaja, da v �tevilnih državah članicah zagotavlja oskrbo bolni�nic z zdravili izključno interna lekarna. 24
Such action does not constitute misuse of Article 152 EC because it does not allow the Commission or the Court to take the place of the Member State concerned and impose one outcome rather than another on the latter.
Tak ukrep ne pomeni izogibanja členu 152 ES, ker niti Komisiji niti Sodi�ču ne omogoča, da nadomesti zadevno državo članico in ji narekuje prej prvo kot drugo re�itev.
It cannot therefore be compared to the exercise of a legislative power.
Torej ni primerljiv z izvajanjem zakonodajne pristojnosti.
It merely has the effect of circumscribing the exercise by that State of its reserved powers in public health matters by specifying the limits which stem from the freedoms of movement which all the Member States have undertaken to respect by entering into and then ratifying the Treaty. 22
Njegov učinek je samo to, da državo članico omejuje pri izvajanju njene izključne pristojnosti na področju javnega zdravja tako, da določi omejitve, ki izhajajo iz prostega pretoka, ki so se ga s sklenitvijo in nato ratifikacijo Pogodbe zavezale upo�tevati vse države članice. 22
Therefore, as the Commission contends, since the contested requirements constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods within the meaning of Article 28 EC they should be declared incompatible with Community law if that restriction is not justified on one of the grounds laid down in Article 30 EC or by an overriding reason of public interest.
Iz tega sledi, kot trdi Komisija, da bi sporni pogoji, če pomenijo omejitev prostega pretoka blaga v smislu člena 28 ES, morali biti razgla�eni za nezdružljive s pravom Skupnosti, če ta omejitev ni utemeljena z enim od razlogov iz člena 30 ES ali z nujnim razlogom v splo�nem interesu.
I shall now demonstrate why that restriction is justified.
Zdaj bom dokazal, da je ta omejitev utemeljena.
23 — See, to that effect, Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivía, paragraph 16.
23 – Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior in Publivía (točka 16).
It is in the context of examining the justification for the contested requirements that the powers of the Federal Republic of Germany in public health matters will be taken into account, in particular under the caselaw whereby, in the absence of common or harmonised rules, it is for each Member State to decide on the degree of protection which it wishes to afford to public health and on the way in which that protection is to be achieved, while observing the principle of pro -
Pri presojanju upravičenosti spornih pogojev se bo upo�tevala pristojnost Zvezne republike Nemčije na področju javnega zdravja, posebno v skladu s sodno prakso, po kateri se mora, če ni skupnih ali usklajenih predpisov, vsaka država članica v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti odločiti, na kateri ravni namerava zagotoviti varstvo javnega
For example, in the field of betting the Court accepted that moral, religious or cultural factors, as well as the morally and financially harmful consequences for the individual and for society associated with betting and gaming, might serve to justify a margin of discretion for the national authorities, sufficient to enable them to determine what is required in order to ensure consumer protection and the preservation of public order.
24 – Ta način razmi�ljanja velja za ves prosti pretok in za vse gospodarske dejavnosti. Tako je na primer na področju igralni�tva Sodi�če dopustilo, da moralne, verske ali kulturne posebnosti in �kodljive moralne in finančne posledice za posameznika in za družbo, ki so lastne igram in stavam, lahko upravičijo obstoj dovolj velike diskrecijske pravice nacionalnih organov, da lahko določijo zahteve, ki jih zajemata varstvo potro�nikov in družbeni red.
However, it was in the context of considering justification of the restriction on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services caused by the national legislation in question that the Court took into consideration that discretion of the Member States (Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04 Placanica and Others [2007] ECR I-1891, paragraphs 47 and 48).
V okviru presojanja upravičenosti obstoja omejitve svobode ustanavljanja in prostega pretoka storitev, ki jo povzroča zadevna nacionalna zakonodaja, je Sodi�če upo�tevalo to diskrecijsko pravico držav članic (sodba z dne 6. marca 2007 v zadevi Placanica in drugi (C-338/04, C-359/04 in C-360/04, Recueil, str. I-1891, točki 47 in 48)).
C — Justification for the restriction
C – Utemeljenost omejitve
The first of these requirements does not raise any difficulties.
Prvi od teh pogojev ne povzroča težav.
The protection of public health ranks foremost among the interests protected by Article 30 EC.
Varstvo javnega zdravja je namreč na prvem mestu med interesi, varovanimi s členom 30 ES.
26Moreover, the Commission does not dispute that the contested requirements, which are designed to assign to a single supplier all aspects of supplying medicinal products to hospitals, are appropriate for ensuring reliable and highquality supplies and hence for protecting public health.
26 Poleg tega Komisija ne ugovarja, da so sporni pogoji, pod katerimi se dodeljujejo vse komponente oskrbe bolni�nice z zdravili le enemu dobavitelju, primerni za zagotavljanje zanesljive in kakovostne oskrbe in potemtakem tudi za varstvo javnega zdravja.
The Federal Republic of Germany contends that the restriction on intraCommunity trade in medicinal products caused by the contested requirements is justified in order to protect public health.
Zvezna republika Nemčija trdi, da je omejitev pri trgovanju z zdravili znotraj Skupnosti, ki nastane zaradi spornih pogojev, utemeljena z varstvom javnega zdravja.
Those requirements are designed to ensure that the provision of supplies of medicinal products to hospitals from external pharmacies is reliable and of high quality.
Ti pogoji naj bi zagotovili, da zunanja lekarna oskrbuje bolni�nice z zdravili zanesljivo in kakovostno.
The second requirement is the one at the centre of this dispute.
Drugi pogoj je jedro tega spora.
I consider that justification to be acceptable in the light of the arguments put forward by the parties.
Na podlagi trditev strank menim, da se je s tem mogoče strinjati.
A restriction on intraCommunity trade in medicinal products can be justified in order to protect public health only if the measure in question observes the principle of proportionality.
Omejitev prostega pretoka zdravil znotraj Skupnosti je lahko utemeljena z varstvom javnega zdravja samo, če zadevni ukrep upo�teva načelo sorazmernosti.
Under that principle, in order for the ground of justification to apply, it is necessary that the protection of human health and life cannot be achieved by less extensive prohibitions or restrictions, or by prohibitions or restrictions having less effect on intraCommunity trade.
Da se lahko uporablja razlog za upravičenost, je v skladu s tem načelom pomembno, da se varstva zdravja in življenja ljudi ne zagotavlja s prepovedmi ali milej�imi omejitvami oziroma omejitvami, ki manj prizadenejo trgovino v Skupnosti.
27 Moreover, as the Commission quite rightly points out, it
27 Poleg tega mora, kot
According to caselaw, a restriction on the free movement of goods may be justified on one of the grounds referred to in Article 30 EC or by an overriding reason of public interest, provided that the measure concerned is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. 25
V skladu s sodno prakso je lahko omejitev prostega pretoka blaga utemeljena z enim od razlogov iz člena 30 ES ali z nujnim razlogom v splo�nem interesu, če zadevni ukrep zagotavlja uresničevanje zasledovanega cilja in ne sme presegati tistega, kar je potrebno za doseganje tega cilja. 25
25 — Case C-254/05 Commission v Belgium [2007] ECR I-4269, paragraph 33 and caselaw cited.
25 – Sodba z dne 7. junija 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji (C-254/05, Recueil, str.
26 — Deutscher Apothekerverband, paragraph 103.27 — Rosengren and Others, paragraph 43.
27 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Rosengren in drugi (točka 43).
is for the Member State whose legislation is at issue to demonstrate that that principle is observed. 28
upravičeno navaja Komisija, država članica, ki sprejema sporno zakonodajo, dokazati, da upo�teva omenjeno načelo. 28