natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Even though, as I have observed above, no obligation to submit image storage media for examination and classification by the competent German authority and to label them accordingly can be deduced from the German rules in question, it cannot be excluded either that the marketing restrictions under Paragraph 12(3) are viewed by suppliers as so stringent that they are nevertheless induced to opt for examination and classification of their products, and a consequent change in labelling.
Po drugi strani ni mogoče izključiti niti – čeprav, kot sem poudaril zgoraj, iz zadevne nem�ke zakonodaje ne izhaja nobena obveznost za dobavitelje, da nosilce slike predložijo nacionalnemu organu, ki opravi postopek preizkusa in razvrstitve posnetih vsebin ter označevanja nosilcev glede na to razvrstitev – da zaznavajo dobavitelji omejitve trženja, določene v členu 12(3), kot tako stroge, da se v vsakem primeru raje odločijo za postopek preizkusa in razvrstitve ter za posledično spremembo oznake na njihovih proizvodih.
33 In those circumstances, imported products that have already undergone similar formalities in the Member State of export would be burdened with duplicate checks and costs to which domestic products would not be subject for marketing on national territory. 34
33V takih okoli�činah bi bili za uvožene proizvode, v zvezi s katerimi so že bile izpolnjene enake formalne zahteve v državi članici izvoza, postopki preizkusa in stro�ki podvojeni, medtem ko te obveznosti ne bi bremenile domačih proizvodov, trženih na nacionalnem ozemlju. 34
33 — No information on this point has been provided to the Court in connection with the present proceedings for a preliminary ruling.
33 – V zvezi s tem ni bila Sodi�ču v okviru tega postopka za predhodno odločanje predložena nobena informacija.
For example, it cannot be excluded that the prohibition on offering and transferring to young persons image storage media that have not been examined by the competent German authority and the prohibition on ‘unprotected’ mail order sales of such products — which ultimately prevents young persons from making direct purchases of such products by mail order — may in fact be such as to impede access to the market, within the meaning of paragraph 17 of Keck and Mithouard (see point 53 above), 32at least for image storage media aimed at adolescents.
Ni mogoče, na primer, izključiti, da je lahko posledica prepovedi ponudbe in prodaje mladoletnikom nosilcev slike, ki jih ni preizkusil pristojni nem�ki organ, in prepovedi „neza�čitene“ prodaje po po�ti teh proizvodov – ki v bistvu preprečuje njihov neposredni nakup po po�ti mladoletnikom – celo preprečevanje dostopa do trga v smislu točke 17 sodbe Keck in Mithouard (glej točko 53 zgoraj) 32 vsaj za tiste nosilce, ki so namenjeni mladostnikom.
The latter generally have sufficient money and ability to purchase a DVD or video cassette themselves, without the need to involve a parent or other adult.
Ti imajo običajno dovolj denarja in so sposobni osebno, brez posredovanja star�ev ali odrasle osebe, kupiti DVD ali videokaseto.
In other words, the abovementioned prohibi-
Navedeni prepovedi bi torej lahko preprečili možnost nakupa
32 — I concur with Advocate General Kokott where, in the Opinion delivered on 14 December 2006 in Case C-142/05 Mickelsson and Roos pending before the Court, footnote 31, she interprets the concept of an obstacle to market access broadly to include not only measures that ‘prevent’ but also those that ‘significantly impede’ access to the market.
34 – Z drugačnega vidika bi lahko potrebo na gospodarski ravni, da so uvoženi proizvodi preizku�eni in razvr�čeni z nacionalnim postopkom in v skladu s tem opremljeni z oznakami, namesto ob uporabi drugega pogoja iz sodbe Keck in Mithouard obravnavali v smislu prave in dejanske pravne obveznosti, s čimer bi zadevno nem�ko zakonodajo kvalificirali kot ureditev, ki se nana�a na lastnosti proizvodov in ki nalaga, da se ti za namene trženja na nem�kem ozemlju prilagodijo.
34 — From another perspective, the economic need to subject imported products to the national examination and classification procedure and to provide for labelling to be modified accordingly could, instead of being assessed in relation to the second condition laid down in Keck and Mithouard, be treated as a genuine legal obligation, leading to the German rules in question being classified as regulations on the characteristics of the product entailing an adaptation of the product for marketing on German territory.
V tem primeru bi �lo za pristop, alternativen tistemu, ki sem ga predstavil v točki 50 teh sklepnih predlogov. V obeh primerih pa bi bil rezultat preučitve enak, saj bi bilo treba �teti, da sodi zadevna zakonodaja – če je taka, da se gospodarski subjekti vendarle odločijo za to, da bodo uvožene proizvode predložili nacionalnemu organu za preizkus in razvrstitev zaradi prilagoditve navedb na proizvodu, čeprav jih k temu nacionalni predpisi ne zavezujejo na formalni ravni – med ukrepe z enakim učinkom v smislu člena 28 ES.
In that case, the analysis would be different from the one I have set out in point 50 above, but the outcome would be the same, in that if it were found that the rules in question induced traders to submit the products they imported to the national examination and classification procedure and to change its labelling, but without formally requiring them to do so, the legislation would have to be classified as a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 28 EC.
32 – Sogla�am s stali�čem generalne pravobranilke Kokott, predstavljenim v sklepnih predlogih z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Mickelsson in Roos (C-142/05, �e nere�ena zadeva pred Sodi�čem, opomba 31), v delu, v katerem razlaga pojem prepovedi dostopa do trga v �irokem smislu, ki torej vključuje ne le „izključitev“, ampak tudi „znatno oteževanje“ dostopa do trga.
D — The possible justification of the prohibition on mail order sales under Paragraph 12(3)(2) of the JuSchG
D – Morebitna utemeljitev prepovedi prodaje po pošti iz člena 12(3), točka 2, JuSchG
The information available to the Court does not enable it to establish with certainty whether the prohibition on mail order sales under Paragraph 12(3)(2) of the JuSchG affects the marketing of products from Member States other than Germany to any greater degree than that of products from the latter State.
Podatki, ki so na voljo Sodi�ču, ne omogočajo, da bi z gotovostjo ugotovili, ali lahko prepoved prodaje po po�ti iz čle -na 12(3), točka 2, JuSchG bolj prizadene trženje proizvodov iz drugih držav članic kot trženje proizvodov iz Nemčije.
Where there is doubt of that kind, the Court leaves it to the court of reference to determine whether the condition laid down in Keck and Mithouard has been met. 35
V teh okoli�činah mora Sodi�če preizkus, ali je zadevni pogoj iz sodbe Keck in Mithouard izpolnjen, prepustiti predložitvenemu sodi�ču. 35
In the second part of the question submitted to the Court for a preliminary ruling, the court of reference asks whether the prohibition on mail order sales under Paragraph 12(3)(2) of the JuSchG can be considered to be justified under Article 30 EC and Directive 2000/31, even if the image storage medium has already been examined as to its suitability for young persons in another Member State and has been labelled accordingly.
Predložitveno sodi�če v drugem delu vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje Sodi�ču predlaga, naj pojasni, ali je lahko prepoved prodaje po po�ti iz člena 12(3), točka 2, JuSchG utemeljena na podlagi člena 30 ES in Direktive 2000/31, tudi če je bila primernost nosilca slike za mladoletnike že preizku�ena v drugi državi članici in če je to navedeno na proizvodu.
In points 23 to 32 above I have already dealt with the aspects relating to Directive 2000/31, which require no further consideration on my part.
Vidike v zvezi z Direktivo 2000/31 sem že obravnaval v točkah od 23 do 32 teh sklepnih predlogov in menim, da nadaljnja pojasnila niso potrebna.
The reply to the first part of the question from the Landgericht Koblenz should therefore be that a prohibition on mail order sales of image storage media that have not been examined and classified by the competent national authority for the purpose of protecting young persons, such as the prohibition under Paragraph 12(3)(2) of the JuSchG, regulates a selling arrangement and, since it applies to all traders operating on the territory of the State concerned, does not constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC, on condition that it affects in the same way the marketing of products originating in that State and the marketing of products from other Member States.
Zato bi bilo treba na prvi del vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je zastavilo Landgericht Koblenz, odgovoriti, da prepoved prodaje po po�ti nosilcev slike, ki jih pristojni nacionalni organ ni preizkusil in razvrstil z namenom varstva mladoletnikov, kot je prepoved iz člena 12(3), točka 2, JuSchG, ureja način prodaje in je glede na to, da se uporablja za vse gospodarske subjekte, ki opravljajo dejavnost na ozemlju zadevne države, ni treba �teti za ukrep z enakim učinkom, kot ga imajo količinske omejitve pri uvozu v smislu člena 28 ES, če enako prizadene trženje proizvodov iz te države in trženje proizvodov iz drugih držav članic.
As to the remainder, the question of the possible justification of the prohibition in question obviously arises only if it is concluded that this constitutes a measure having equivalent effect prohibited under Article 28 EC (for example, in the approach
Sicer pa se vpra�anje o morebitni utemeljitvi zadevne prepovedi seveda zastavlja le, če se izkaže, da gre za ukrep z enakim učinkom, ki je prepovedan s členom 28 ES (na primer v domnevnih okoli�činah, ki sem jih opisal zgoraj, če se izkaže, da ne prizadene
I have followed above, if it is found not to impinge in the same way on the marketing of domestic products and that of products from Member States other than Germany).
DYNAMIC MEDIEN enako trženja domačih proizvodov in trženja proizvodov iz drugih držav članic in ne iz Nemčije).
notes, however, that in the present case the image storage media imported by Avides and sold by that undertaking in Germany via the internet had been examined in the United Kingdom by the BBFC as to their suitability for young persons.
primerni“. Vendar ugotavlja, da je v obravnavanem primeru nosilce slike, ki jih je uvozila in v Nemčiji po internetu prodajala družba Avides, glede primernosti za mladoletnike v Združenem kraljestvu že preizkusil BBFC.
As it considered that such an examination did not constitute a lower level of protection for young persons than that provided by the examination by the competent German authority, the court of reference asks ‘whether the purpose of the protection of young persons can and must be achieved by less severe means, namely by the recognition of the examination as to suitability for young persons by [an authority in] another Member State’.
Ker predložitveno sodi�če meni, da ta preizkus ne znižuje ravni varstva mladoletnikov glede na raven varstva, zagotovljeno s postopki preizkusa pristojnega nem�kega organa, se spra�uje „ali je lahko in ali mora biti cilj varstva mladoletnikov dosežen z manj omejevalnim ukrepom, to je s priznanjem preizkusa primernosti za mladoletnike [ki ga je opravil organ] druge države članice“.
According to settled case-law, an impediment to intra-Community trade contrary to Article 28 EC may be justified only by the publicinterest grounds listed in Article 30 EC — which include public morality, public policy, public security and the protection of health and life of humans — or, if the legislation creating such an impediment is applicable without distinction, by one of the overriding publicinterest requirements within the meaning of the caselaw flowing from the abovementioned Cassis de Dijon judgment relating, inter alia, to consumer protection.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je mogoče omejevanje trgovine znotraj Skupnosti, ki je prepovedano s členom 28 ES, utemeljiti le z razlogi splo�nega interesa, na�tetimi v členu 30 ES, med katerimi so javna morala, javni red, javna varnost ter varovanje zdravja in življenja ljudi, ali – če se predpisi, s katerimi je določeno omejevanje, uporabljajo brez razlikovanja – z eno od nujnih zahtev splo�nega interesa v smislu sodne prakse, ki izhaja iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Cassis de Dijon, med katere sodi varstvo potro�nikov.
In either case, the national provision must be appropriate for securing attainment of the objective which it pursues and must not go beyond what is necessary for attaining it. 36
V obeh primerih morajo biti ti predpisi primerni za uresničitev zasledovanega cilja in ne smejo presegati okvirov, ki so potrebni za njegovo doseganje. 36
The court of reference considers that the need to protect young persons constitutes a relevant justification, within the meaning of Article 30 EC, of the prohibition on mail order sales in question.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da je potreba po varovanju mladoletnikov ustrezna utemeljitev v smislu člena 30 ES zadevne prepovedi prodaje po po�ti.
In its view, the prohibition is ‘in principle both generally appropriate and necessary to ensure the protection of young persons from image storage media that are not suitable for them’. It
Po njegovem mnenju je navedena prepoved „načeloma ustrezna in celo nujna za zagotavljanje varstva mladoletnikov v zvezi z nosilci slike, ki zanje niso
In its written observations, the German Government maintained that if the prohibition on mail order sales were regarded as a measure having equivalent effect prohibited by Article 28 EC, it would nevertheless be justified by the need to protect young persons, which in its opinion constitutes a ground of public policy within the meaning of Article 30 EC.
Nem�ka vlada je v pisnih stali�čih zatrjevala, da je zadevna prepoved prodaje po po�ti, če bi bilo treba �teti, da gre za ukrep z enakim učinkom, ki je prepovedan s členom 28 ES, utemeljena z zahtevo varstva mladoletnikov, saj naj bi ta sodila med razloge javnega reda v smislu člena 30 ES.
It adds that the protection of young persons is closely linked to the safeguards to ensure respect for human dignity — which is a general principle of Community law 37— and therefore represents a legitimate interest such as to justify a restriction on fundamental freedoms.
Dodaja �e, da je varstvo mladoletnikov tesno povezano z zagotavljanjem spo�tovanja člove�kega dostojanstva – ki naj bi bilo eno izmed splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti 37– in da gre zato za legitimen interes, ki upravičuje omejevanje temeljnih svobo�čin.
37 — The German Government refers in this regard to Case C-36/02 Omega [2004] ECR I-9609, paragraph 34.
37 – V zvezi s tem se nem�ka vlada sklicuje na sodbo z dne 14. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Omega (C-36/02, ZOdl., str. I-9609, točka 34).
United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity’.
Ustanovni listini Združenih narodov, in �e posebej v duhu miru, dostojanstva, strpnosti, svobode, enakosti in solidarnosti“.
None of the other intervening parties in these proceedings for a preliminary ruling disputes in substance that the purpose of the German rules in question is to protect young persons and that such protection constitutes a legitimate interest that may be relied upon to justify a restriction on the free movement of goods.
Nobena od intervenientk v tem postopku za predhodno odločanje v bistvu ni oporekala stali�ču, da je zadevna nem�ka zakonodaja koristna za varstvo mladoletnikov in da je to varstvo legitimen interes, na katerega se je mogoče sklicevati pri utemeljevanju omejevanja prostega pretoka blaga.
Moreover, Avides points out that there is no provision either for image storage media that have already been examined and classified for the protection of young persons in the Member State of export and are labelled accordingly to undergo a simplified procedure of examination and classification by the competent German authority, such as that to which certain types of image storage media are subject (such as music, documentaries and animated cartoons).
Družba Avides poudarja, da za nosilce slike, ki so že bili predmet preizkusa in razvrstitve z namenom varstva mladoletnikov v državi članici izvoza in ki so temu ustrezno označeni, ni določen niti poenostavljen postopek preizkusa in razvrstitve pred pristojnim nem�kim organom, ki se uporablja za določene vrste nosilcev slik (na primer za tiste z glasbeno ali dokumentarno vsebino ali za tiste, ki vsebujejo risane filme).
However, Avides maintains that those rules are contrary to the principle of proportionality, since they also apply to image storage media which have already been subject to examination and classification for the purpose of protecting young persons by the competent authority in the Member State of export and are labelled accordingly, as is the case of those imported into Germany from the United Kingdom.
Vendar družba Avides meni, da ta zakonodaja ni v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti, saj se uporablja tudi za nosilce slike, ki so že bili predmet preizkusa in razvrstitve z namenom varstva mladoletnikov pristojnega organa države članice izvoza in ki so temu ustrezno že označeni, kot ti, ki jih je navedena družba v Nemčijo uvažala iz Združenega kraljestva.
Avides points out in this regard that the examination criteria for the protection of young persons used by the competent British and German authorities are equivalent, since both the United Kingdom and Germany have signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted in New York on 20 November 1989, in the preamble to which the States Parties recognise ‘that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the
V zvezi s tem družba Avides trdi, da so merila za preizkus, ki jih za namene varstva mladoletnikov uporabljajo pristojni britanski in nem�ki organi, enaka, saj sta Združeno kraljestvo in Nemčija podpisala in ratificirala Konvencijo o otrokovih pravicah, sprejeto v New Yorku 20. novembra 1989, v preambuli katere je določeno, da morajo države pogodbenice zagotoviti, da je „otrok povsem pripravljen na samostojno življenje v družbi in vzgojen v duhu idealov, razgla�enih v
The German Government notes that the proportionality of restrictive national measures must be assessed in the light of the objectives pursued by the national authorities of the Member State concerned and the level of protection which they seek to provide.
Nem�ka vlada navaja, da je treba o sorazmernosti omejevalnih nacionalnih ukrepov presojati glede na cilje, ki jih zasledujejo nacionalni organi zadevne države članice, in glede na raven varstva, ki se jo želi s temi ukrepi zagotoviti.
The level of protection of young persons as regards the content of image storage media is, in the view of the German Government, necessarily dependent, in particular, on the moral and cultural concepts of each country and on its history.
Raven varstva mladoletnikov v zvezi z vsebinami nosilcev slike naj bi bila odvisna zlasti od moralnih in kulturnih načel in zgodovinskih izku�enj vsake posamezne države.
Hence, what is considered acceptable in one Member State for a given group of young persons may be deemed unacceptable for the same group in another
Kar se v eni državi članici �teje za sprejemljivo za določeno skupino mladoletnikov, je lahko v drugi državi članici za enako skupino �teto kot
Member State. 38The German Government therefore submits that mutual recognition by Member States of the procedures for examining image storage media for the purpose of protecting young persons is not an adequate means of achieving the degree of protection of young persons which the German authorities seek to provide.
38 Navedena vlada torej trdi, da vzajemno priznanje med državami članicami postopkov preizkusa in razvrstitve nosilcev slike z namenom varstva mladoletnikov ni ustrezno sredstvo, ki bi dovolj zagotavljalo uresničevanje tiste stopnje varstva mladoletnikov, ki jo želijo doseči nem�ki organi.
For my part, I consider that, provided the principle of proportionality is respected, the protection of young persons with regard to the content of image storage media that have not been examined and classified by the competent German authority undoubtedly constitutes an appropriate justification, within the meaning of Article 30 EC, for the obstacles to intra-Community trade that may result from such rules.
Sam menim, da je varstvo mladoletnikov v zvezi z vsebinami nosilcev slike, ki jih pristojni nem�ki organ ni preizkusil in razvrstil, brez dvoma primeren razlog, ki upravičuje – v smislu člena 30 ES in pod pogojem, da je spo�tovano načelo sorazmernosti – ovire, ki bi iz te zakonodaje morebiti izhajale za trgovanje znotraj Skupnosti.
As argued by the Commission, the protection of young persons may be one aspect of the defence of public morality or public policy, or of the protection of the health of humans.
Varstvo mladoletnikov namreč lahko, kot je pojasnila Komisija, sodi na področje varstva javne morale ali javnega reda oziroma varovanja zdravja ljudi.
The exposure of young persons to images deemed improper for them (for example, because their content is violent, vulgar or sexual) may be considered by each Member State to be morally unacceptable, dangerous on account of the copycat effects to which it may give rise, or harmful to the psychological and physical development of the young persons concerned.
Države članice lahko �tejejo, da je izpostavljanje mladoletnikov prizorom, za katere menijo, da zanje niso primerni (ker so nasilni, vulgarni ali ker gre za prizore spolnosti), moralno nedopustno, nevarno, ker bi lahko mladoletnike napeljevalo k posnemanju, ali �kodljivo za njihov psihofizični razvoj.
According to the German Government, the German legislature limited the scope of the prohibition on mail order sales of image storage media not examined by the competent national authority to a level compatible with the overriding need to ensure adequate protection of young persons.
Nem�ki zakonodajalec naj bi obseg prepovedi prodaje po po�ti nosilcev slike, ki jih ni preizkusil pristojen nacionalni organ, omejil, saj naj bi veljala le v tolik�ni meri, ki je sorazmerna z zahtevo po zagotavljanju zadostnega varstva mladoletnikov.
It points out that mail order sales of such merchandise are permitted where there is direct contact between the person delivering the goods in question and the person receiving them or where it is ensured, for example by means of appropriate technical measures, that young persons will not take delivery of the goods.
Končno, nem�ka vlada poudarja, da je prodaja tega blaga po po�ti dovoljena, kadar sta oseba, ki blago dobavi, in oseba, ki ga prejme, v neposrednem stiku ali kadar je zagotovljeno – na primer z ustreznimi tehničnimi re�itvami – da blago ne bo dobavljeno mladoletnikom.
Both the prohibition on offering and transferring image storage media not examined by the competent German authority to young persons and the prohibition on ‘unprotected’ mail order sales of such media appear to be obviously appropriate to ensure attainment of the objective of protecting young persons.
Tako prepoved ponudbe in prodaje mladoletnikom kot prepoved „neza�čitene“ prodaje nosilcev slike, ki jih ni preizkusil pristojni nem�ki organ, sta očitno ustrezna ukrepa za zagotavljanje uresničevanja zasledovanega cilja varstva mladoletnikov.
The Commission, Ireland, the United Kingdom Government and Dynamic Medien essentially share the views of the German Government, holding that the German rules in question comply with the principle of proportionality.
Komisija, irska vlada, vlada Združenega kraljestva in družba Dynamic Medien v bistvu sogla�ajo z ugotovitvami nem�ke vlade in menijo, da z zadevno nem�ko zakonodajo ni kr�eno načelo sorazmernosti.