natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Alternatively, the Federal Republic of Germany contends that those provisions are justified on grounds of protection of public health within the meaning of Article 30 EC and do not undermine the principle of proportionality.
Zvezna republika Nemčija podredno trdi, da so te določbe utemeljene z razlogi varovanja javnega zdravja v smislu člena 30 ES in ne posegajo v načelo sorazmernosti.
Indeed they are such as to guarantee that the supply of products is reliable and of high quality, since everything relating to the provision of medicinal products to a hospital is the responsibility of one pharmacist.
Zagotavljajo namreč zanesljivo oskrbo in visoko stopnjo kakovosti, saj naj bi celotna oskrba bolni�nice z zdravili temeljila na odgovornem lekarnarju.
The Federal Republic of Germany contends in particular that the separation of the standard provision of supplies from the emergency provision of supplies is a measure which is impracticable and lacking in any objectivity.
V zvezi s tem ta država zlasti navaja, da je ločitev med osnovno oskrbo in nujno oskrbo nepraktičen in nesmiseln ukrep.
Further, to separate the standard provision of supplies from the selection of medicinal products is neither truly suited to the overall needs of the hospital nor economically viable.
Poleg tega naj ločitev med osnovno oskrbo in izbiro zdravil ne bi bila niti resnično prilagojena potrebam vseh bolni�ničnih služb niti donosna.
Personal contact between the pharmacist who is supplying the medicinal products and the hospital staff also contributes to improving the reliability of the supply.
Ravno tako naj ločitev med nalogami, povezanimi z osnovno oskrbo, in tistimi, povezanimi s kakovostjo in dobrim ohranjanjanjem zalog zdravil, ne bi zagotavljala najbolj�e oskrbe.
Lastly, the principle that the products should be provided by one single supplier makes possible an optimal synergy between the supply of medicinal products, advice and monitoring.
Osebni stik med lekarnarjem, ki dobavlja zdravila, in ekipami v bolni�nici naj bi omogočal najustreznej�o sinergijo med dostavo zdravil, nasvetom in nadzorom.
First, it is necessary to address the argument of the Federal Republic of Germany that the Commission’s action seeking a declaration that the contested provisions are contrary to Article 28 EC is a way of circumventing the limits on Community action in the field of public health.
Uvodoma je treba odgovoriti na trditev Zvezne republike Nemčije, da je tožba Komisije, s katero naj bi se ugotovilo, da so sporne določbe v nasprotju s členom 28 ES, način, da se obide omejitve ukrepov Skupnosti na področju javnega zdravja.
However, in exercising that power, the Member States must comply with Community law, in particular the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of goods (see Case C-120/95 Decker [1998] ECR I-1831, paragraphs 23 to 25).
Vendar pa morajo države članice pri izvr�evanju te pristojnosti spo�tovati pravo Skupnosti, predvsem Pogodbine določbe o prostem pretoku blaga (glej sodbo z dne 28. aprila 1998 v zadevi Decker, C-120/95, Recueil, str. I-1831, točke od 23 do 25).
Accordingly, this action brought by the Commission, as part of the performance of its tasks, which, under Article 211 EC, include ensuring that the provisions of the Treaty are applied, is restricted to determining whether the Member States have acted in compliance with the rules of that Treaty relating to the free movement of goods.
Tako se ta tožba Komisije v okviru izpolnjevanja njenih nalog, ki na podlagi člena 211 ES med drugim vključujejo skrb glede uporabe določb Pogodbe, omejuje na preverjanje, ali so države članice delovale skladno s pravili te pogodbe, ki se nana�ajo na prosti pretok blaga.
It should be noted that, as Community law stands at present, since there has been no harmonisation at Community level of the rules on the provision of medicinal products to hospitals, the Member States continue to be empowered to lay down rules on that subject, subject to compliance with the provisions of the Treaty, in particular the provisions on the free movement of goods (see, to that effect, Case C-369/88 Delattre [1991] ECR I-1487, paragraph 48).
Med drugim je treba pojasniti, da je v sedanjem stanju prava Skuposti, v katerem oskrba bolni�nic z zdravili ni predmet usklajevanja na ravni Skupnosti, določitev pravil na tem področju pristojnost držav članic, če so spo�tovane določbe Pogodbe in zlasti tiste o prostem pretoku blaga (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 21. marca 1991 v zadevi Delattre, C-369/88, Recueil, str. I-1487, točka 48).
It is necessary therefore to examine the compatibility of the contested provisions with Articles 28 and 30 EC.
Zato je treba preučiti združljivost spornih določb s členoma 28 ES in 30 ES.
Whether there is a restriction on intraCommunity trade
Obstoj ovire za trgovino znotraj Skupnosti
The free movement of goods is a fundamental principle of the Treaty which is expressed in the prohibition, set out in Article 28 EC, on quantitative restrictions on imports between Member States and all measures having equivalent effect (Case C-170/04 Rosengren and Others [2007] ECR I-4071, paragraph 31).
Prosti pretok blaga je temeljno načelo Pogodbe, ki je izraženo v prepovedi količinskih omejitev pri uvozu in vseh ukrepov z enakim učinkom med državami članicami, določeni v členu 28 ES (sodba z dne 5. junija 2007 v zadevi Rosengren in drugi, C-170/04, ZOdl,. str. I-4071, točka 31).
According to settled caselaw, the prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions which is set out in Article 28 EC covers all legislation of the
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se prepoved ukrepov z enakim učinkom kot količinske omejitve, navedena v členu 28 ES, nana�a na vse predpise držav članic, ki bi
Member States that is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intraCommunity trade (see, in particular, Case 8/74 Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5; Deutscher Apothekerverband, paragraph 66; Rosengren and Others, paragraph 32; Case C-297/05 Commission v Netherlands [2007] ECR I-7467, paragraph 53; and Case C-143/06 Ludwigs-Apotheke [2007] ECR I-9623, paragraph 26).
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI lahko neposredno ali posredno, dejansko ali potencialno ovirali trgovino znotraj Skupnosti (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 11. julija 1974 v zadevi Dassonville, 8/74, Recueil, str.
The Court of Justice has none the less made clear that national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements which, first, apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and, second, affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and those from other Member States are not liable to hinder, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States within the meaning of the Dassonville line of caselaw (see, to that effect, Keck and Mithouard, paragraph 16).
837, točka 5; zgoraj navedeni sodbi Deutscher Apothekerverband, točka 66, in Rosengren in drugi, točka 32, ter sodbi z dne 20. septembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Nizozemski, C-297/05, ZOdl., str.
In the present case, it must be recalled that Paragraph 14 of the ApoG lays down the requirements which external pharmacies must meet if they are to be eligible to supply medicinal products to hospitals in Germany.
I-7467, točka 53, in z dne 8. novembra 2007 v zadevi Ludwigs-Apotheke, C-143/06, ZOdl., str. I-9623, točka 26).
However, the contested provisions do not concern the characteristics of the medicinal products, but concern solely the arrangements permitting their sale (see, to that effect, Case C-244/06 Dynamic Medien [2008] ECR I-505, paragraph 31). Consequently, they must be regarded as concerning selling arrangements within the meaning of Keck and Mithouard, which is moreover not disputed by the parties to these proceedings.
Vendar je Sodi�če pojasnilo, da nacionalne določbe, ki omejujejo ali prepovedujejo določene načine prodaje, ki se nana�ajo na vse zadevne subjekte, ki opravljajo dejavnost na nacionalnem ozemlju, in ki pravno in dejansko enako prizadenejo trženje nacionalnih proizvodov in trženje proizvodov iz drugih držav članic, ne omejujejo neposredno ali posredno, dejansko ali potencialno trgovine med državami članicami v smislu sodne prakse, ki se je začela z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Dassonville (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Keck in Mithouard, točka 16).
As is made clear in Keck and Mithouard, however, such a selling arrangement can fall outside the prohibition laid down in Article 28 EC only if it satisfies the two conditions stated in paragraph 29 above.
Kot izhaja iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Keck et Mithouard, pa se tak način prodaje izogne prepovedi iz člena 28 ES, le če sta izpolnjena pogoja, navedena v točki 29 te sodbe.
As regards the first of those conditions, it is clear that the contested provisions apply indiscriminately to all the operators concerned who carry out their business on German territory, since they apply to all pharmacies which wish to supply medicinal products to German hospitals, whether they are established in Germany or in another Member State.
Glede prvega pogoja je treba poudariti, da se sporne določbe uporabljajo brez razlikovanja za vse zadevne subjekte, ki opravljajo dejavnost na nem�kem ozemlju, saj se uporabljajo za vse lekarne, ki želijo nem�kim bolni�nicam nuditi oskrbo z zdravili, pa naj bodo ustanovljene v Nemčiji ali drugi državi članici.
As regards the second of those conditions, it is undisputed that the contested provisions lay down a series of cumulative criteria which in practice require, as the Federal Republic of Germany moreover expressly acknowledges, a degree of geographical proximity between the pharmacy supplying the medicinal products and the hospital for which those products are intended.
Glede drugega od omenjenih pogojev ni sporno, da se s spornimi določbami uvaja niz kumulativnih pogojev, s katerimi se de facto zahteva – to je Zvezna republika Nemčija med drugim tudi izrecno priznala – določena geografska bližina med lekarno, ki dobavlja zdravila, in bolni�nico, ki so ji namenjena.
It follows that the contested provisions are such as to make the supply of medicinal products to German hospitals more difficult and more costly for pharmacies established in Member States other than the Federal Republic of Germany than for pharmacies established in the latter State.
Treba je ugotoviti, da so sporne določbe take, ki lekarnam, ustanovljenim v drugih državah članicah, ne v Zvezni republiki Nemčiji, povzročajo težavnej�o in dražjo oskrbo nem�kih bolni�nic z zdravili kot lekarnam, ustanovljenim v Zvezni republiki Nemčiji.
Pharmacies established in other Member States, unless they are in a border region and near to the German hospital concerned, which wish to conclude a supply contract with such a hospital must either transfer their dispensary to the vicinity of the hospital concerned or open another pharmacy near to the hospital.
Lekarne, ustanovljene v drugih državah članicah, razen tistih, ki so v mejni regiji v bližini zadevne nem�ke bolni�nice, in ki želijo skleniti pogodbo o oskrbi s tako bolni�nico, morajo ali prenesti svojo podružnico v bližino zadevne bolni�nice ali v njeni bližini odpreti drugo lekarno.
Consequently, as regards the supply of medicinal products to German hospitals, those provisions do not affect in the same way products marketed by pharmacies established in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany and those marketed by pharmacies situated in another Member State.
Zato te določbe glede oskrbe nem�kih bolni�nic z zdravili ne prizadenejo enako trženja proizvodov, ki ga izvajajo lekarne, ustanovljene na ozemlju Zvezne republike Nemčije, in trženja proizvodov, ki ga izvajajo lekarne, ki so v drugi državi članici.
That conclusion cannot be rebutted by the circumstance, relied on by the Federal Republic of Germany, that, in relation to the sale of medicinal products to German hospitals, the contested provisions do not place pharmacies established outside that Member State at any greater disadvantage than pharmacies situated in Germany which have their dispensaries situated at some distance from the hospital for which the medicinal products are intended.
Tega sklepa ni mogoče ovreči z dejstvom, na katerega se sklicuje Zvezna republika Nemčija, da sporne določbe glede prodaje zdravil v nem�kih bolni�nicah niso manj ugodne za lekarne, ustanovljene zunaj te države članice, kot za lekarne, ki so v Nemčiji in katerih podružnica je oddaljena od bolni�nice, ki so ji ta zdravila namenjena.
Those provisions cannot cease to be restrictive merely because in one part of the territory of the Member State concerned, namely that part that is distant from the hospital concerned, those provisions affect in the same way the marketing of medicinal products by pharmacies established in Germany and by pharmacies established in other Member States (see, to that effect, Case C-254/98 TK-Heimdienst [2000] ECR I-151, paragraph 28).
Omejujoč značaj teh določb namreč ne more izginiti samo iz razloga, da na enem delu ozemlja zadevne države članice, in sicer tistem, ki je oddaljen od oskrbovane bolni�nice, te določbe enako prizadenejo trženje zdravil, ki ga izvajajo lekarne, ustanovljene v Nemčiji, in ki ga izvajajo lekarne, ustanovljene v drugih državah članicah (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 13. januarja 2000 v zadevi TK-Heimdienst, C-254/98, Recueil, str. I-151, točka 28).
Nor can it be maintained that the marketing of medicinal products from other Member States is no more affected than the marketing of medicinal products from regions of Germany which are remote from the hospital to be supplied.
Ravno tako ni mogoče pritrditi temu, da trženje zdravil iz drugih držav članic ni bolj prizadeto kot trženje zdravil iz nem�kih regij, ki so oddaljene od oskrbovane bolni� -nice.
For a national measure to be characterised as discriminatory or protective within the meaning 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 (Joined Cases C-1/90 and C-176/90 Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivía [1991] ECR I-4151, paragraph 24, and TK-Heimdienst, paragraph 27).
Da se lahko 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 nacionalnim proizvodom ali da je manj ugoden samo za uvožene proizvode, za nacionalne pa ne (sodba 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, in zgoraj navedena sodba TK-Heimdienst, točka 27).
Equally irrelevant is the circumstance, relied on by the Federal Republic of Germany, that a pharmacy established in another Member State has the opportunity to supply medicinal products to the hospital’s internal pharmacy or to an external pharmacy which satisfies the cumulative conditions laid down in the contested provisions.
Ravno tako ni pomembna okoli�čina, na katero se sklicuje Zvezna republika Nemčija, da ima lekarna, ustanovljena v drugi državi članici, ne v Zvezni republiki Nemčiji, možnost dostave zdravil notranji lekarni bolni�nice ali zunanji lekarni, ki izpolnjuje kumulativne pogoje iz spornih določb.
As pointed out by the Advocate General in point 81 of his Opinion, although the Community rules on the free movement of goods do not require that it should be possible for hospitals situated in Member States to obtain supplies of medicinal products from external pharmacies, when a Member State provides for such a possibility, it opens that activity to the market and is accordingly bound to comply with the Community rules.
Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točki 81 sklepnih predlogov, čeprav predpisi Skupnosti o prostem pretoku blaga ne zahtevajo, da mora za bolni�nice, ki so v državah članicah, obstajati možnost dostave zdravil s strani zunanjih lekarn, pa država članica, kadar predvidi tako možnost, to dejavnost odpre trgu in mora od takrat upo�tevati te predpise.
The Court must also reject the argument of the Federal Republic of Germany that the contested provisions are not the cause of there being a lesser quantity of medicinal products supplied to German hospitals by pharmacies situated outside that Member State, because, as a general rule, adequate quantities of medicinal products authorised in Germany are not available in such pharmacies.
Prav tako ni mogoče sprejeti trditve Zvezne republike Nemčije, da dejstva, da lekarne, ki so zunaj te države članice, dostavljajo manj zdravil nem�kim bolni�nicam, ne gre pripisati spornim določbam z obrazložitvijo, da tak�ne lekarne na splo�no ne razpolagajo z zadostno količino zdravil, odobrenih v Nemčiji.
Since the contested provisions are liable to hinder intraCommunity trade, they must be considered as a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC, without it being necessary to prove that they have had an appreciable effect on such trade (see Case C-166/03 Commission v France [2004] ECR I-6535, paragraph 15).
Ker sporne določbe lahko ovirajo trgovino znotraj Skupnosti, jih je tako treba �teti za ukrep z enakim učinkom kot količinska omejitev pri uvozu v smislu člena 28 ES, ne da bi bilo treba dokazati, da so imele znaten vpliv na to trgovino (glej sodbo z dne 8. julija 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, C-166/03, ZOdl., str. I-6535, točka 15).
It follows from all of the foregoing that the contested provisions are liable to hinder intraCommunity trade and constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports prohibited by Article 28 EC.
Iz vseh navedenih ugotovitev izhaja, da sporne določbe lahko ovirajo trgovino znotraj Skupnosti in da pomenijo ukrep z enakim učinkom kot količinska omejitev pri uvozu, prepovedan s členom 28 ES.
In those circumstances, it must be examined whether the contested provisions can be justified on grounds such as those relied on by the Federal Republic of Germany relating to the protection of public health.
V teh okoli�činah je treba preučiti, ali je sporne določbe mogoče utemeljiti z razlogi, na katere se je sklicevala Zvezna republika Nemčija in ki so namenjeni varovanju javnega zdravja.
Whether there is justification in the protection of public health
Obstoj utemeljitve, ki se nana�a na varovanje javnega zdravja
It must be recalled that the health and life of humans rank foremost among the assets or interests protected by Article 30 EC and it is for the Member States, within the limits imposed by the Treaty, to decide on the degree of protection which they wish to afford to public health and on the way in which that degree of protection is to be achieved (Deutscher Apothekerverband, paragraph 103; Case C-262/02 Commission v France [2004] ECR I-6569, paragraph 24; Rosengren and Others, paragraph 39; and Ludwigs-Apotheke, paragraph 27).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da sta zdravje in življenje ljudi najpomembnej�a med dobrinami ali interesi, varovanimi s členom 30 ES, in da države članice v mejah, določenih s Pogodbo, določijo raven, na kateri želijo zagotoviti varovanje javnega zdravja, in kako naj se ta raven doseže (zgoraj navedena sodba Deutscher Apothekerverband, točka 103; sodba z dne 13. julija 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, C-262/02, ZOdl., str. I-6569, točka 24; zgoraj navedeni sodbi Rosengren in drugi, točka 39, in Ludwigs-Apotheke, točka 27).
It is common ground that the contested provisions, which, according to the Federal Republic of Germany, have the objective of ensuring that the supply to hospitals of medicinal products by an external pharmacy is reliable and of good quality, reflect concerns for public health which are within the ambit of Article 30 EC and that, consequently, they are, in principle, capable of justifying a restriction on the free movement of goods.
Res je, da sporne določbe, katerih cilj je po mnenju Zvezne republike Nemčije zagotoviti, da je oskrba bolni�nic z zdravili s strani zunanje lekarne neprekinjena in kakovostna, ustrezajo skrbem za javno zdravje, kakr�ne so tiste iz člena 30 ES, in da se torej s spornimi določbami načeloma lahko utemelji oviro prostemu pretoku blaga.
First, in relation to whether the contested provisions are appropriate, it must be observed that in so far as they require that all the services associated with the supply contract must be entrusted to a pharmacist in the vicinity, those provisions are such as to achieve the objective of ensuring that the supply of products to German hos -pitals is reliable and of good quality and therefore of protecting public health, which the Commission does not dispute.
Po eni strani je glede primernosti spornih določb in ob upo�tevanju zahteve, da se vse storitve v povezavi s pogodbo o oskrbi zaupa lekarnarju v bližini, treba ugotoviti, da se s tak�nimi določbami uresničuje cilj zagotovitve zanesljive in kakovostne oskrbe nem�kih bolni�nic in zato varuje javno zdravje, česar Komisija tako ali tako ne izpodbija.
In accordance with settled caselaw of the Court, set out in paragraph 46 of this judgment, when assessing whether the principle of proportionality has been observed in the field of public health, account must be taken of the fact that a Member State has the power to determine the degree of protection which it wishes to afford to public health and the way in which that degree of protection is to be achieved.
Na podlagi stalne sodne prakse Sodi�ča, navedene v točki 46 te sodbe, je treba pri presoji spo�tovanja načela sorazmernosti na področju javnega zdravja upo�tevati dejstvo, da države članice lahko določijo raven, na kateri želijo zagotoviti varovanje javnega zdravja, in kako naj se ta raven doseže.
In this case, it must be recalled that, pursuant to Paragraph 14 of the ApoG, German hospitals have the choice of entrusting the provision of their supplies of medicinal products either to a pharmacy operating within the hospital premises (‘internal provision of supplies’), or to the pharmacy of another hospital or to an external pharmacy (‘external provision of supplies’).
V obravnavani zadevi je treba opozoriti, da lahko nem�ke bolni�nice na podlagi člena 14 ApoG svojo oskrbo z zdravili zaupajo ali lekarni, ki posluje v prostorih bolni�nice (v nadaljevanju: sistem z interno oskrbo), ali lekarni druge bolni�nice ali zunanji lekarni (v nadaljevanju: sistem z zunanjo oskrbo).
In the system of internal provision of supplies, the pharmacist of the hospital is responsible for all the services linked to the supply of medicinal products.
V sistemu z interno oskrbo je lekarnar bolni�nice odgovoren za vse storitve, ki so povezane z oskrbo z zdravili.
Since he is based in the hospital premises, he is generally and quickly available to the hospital.
Ker je v bolni�nici, je ta zadostno in hitro na voljo.
The various elements of that system have not been challenged by the Commission.
Komisija ni izpodbijala različnih elementov tega sistema.
When a hospital selects the system of external provision of supplies, it must conclude a contract with the pharmacy which it has chosen, a contract which is subject to the cumulative conditions laid down in Paragraph 14 of the ApoG, which also require that all of the services linked to that type of provision of supplies are provided by a contracting pharmacist who must be generally and quickly available in situ.
Če se bolni�nica odloči za sistem z zunanjo oskrbo, mora z izbrano lekarno skleniti pogodbo, za katero veljajo kumulativni pogoji iz člena 14 ApoG, s katerimi se predpisuje tudi, da celota storitev, povezanih s tak�nim načinom oskrbe, sloni na pogodbenem lekarnarju, ki bo na kraju samem zadostno in hitro na voljo.
Accordingly, the fact of the matter is that the contested provisions transpose to the system of external provision of supplies requirements analogous to those which characterise the system of internal provision of supplies.
Tako se s spornimi določbami v resnici v sistem z zunanjo oskrbo prena�ajo zahteve, analogne tistim, ki so značilne za sistem z interno oskrbo.