natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The principle of equal treatment requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (see, inter alia, Case C-248/04 Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun [2006] ECR I-10211, paragraph 72 and the caselaw cited there).
Spo�tovanje načela enakega obravnavanja zahteva, naj se primerljivi položaji ne obravnavajo različno in naj se različni položaji ne obravnavajo enako, razen če je tako obravnavanje objektivno utemeljeno (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 26. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun, C-248/04, ZOdl., str. I-10211, točka 72, in navedena sodna praksa).
It is apparent that in the main proceedings the undertakings in the first category and those in the second category were not in a comparable situation as regards the requirement that State aid be necessary, which is set out inter alia in the third subparagraph of point 4.2 of the guidelines.
Vendar je treba ugotoviti, da glede na zahtevo nujnosti državnih pomoči, izraženo zlasti v točki 4.2, tretji odstavek, Smernic, podjetja iz prve skupine in podjetja iz druge skupine v sporu o glavni stvari niso bila v primerljivem položaju.
A finding that an aid measure is not necessary can arise in particular from the fact that the aid project has already been started, or even completed, by the undertaking concerned prior to the application for aid being submitted to the competent authorities. In such a case, the aid concerned cannot operate as an incentive.
Ugotovitev neobstoja nujnosti pomoči bi lahko izhajala predvsem iz dejstva, da je zainteresirano podjetje podprti projekt že začelo izvajati ali ga celo končalo, preden je pro�njo za pomoč predložilo pristojnim organom, kar izključuje možnost, da bi zadevna pomoč imela spodbujevalno vlogo.
Under the 1997-1999 aid scheme, undertakings in the second category had an absolute right to have their application included automatically, without amendment of any kind, in the list relating to the appropriate invitation to apply immediately following the invitation under which it had first been submitted. No action on their part was required in this regard.
V okviru sheme pomoči 1997–1999 so imela podjetja iz druge skupine absolutno pravico, da se njihova pro�nja samodejno in brez sprememb uvrsti na seznam, sestavljen na podlagi prvega ustreznega razpisa, ki je neposredno sledil razpisu, na katerega je bila prvotno vložena, ne da bi se od teh podjetij zahtevalo kakr�no koli ravnanje.
Conversely, the undertakings in the first category had to submit an application under the first appropriate invitation to apply following the invitation in respect of which they had waived automatic inclusion of their original application.
Nasprotno, podjetja iz prve skupine so morala vložiti pro�njo na prvi ustrezni razpis po razpisu, na katerem so se odrekla samodejni uvrstitvi svoje prve pro�nje.
The application in question was, moreover, a reformulated one.
Poleg tega je �lo za spremenjeno pro�njo.
It is true, as Nuova Agricast claims, that the original application and the amended application both sought to obtain funding in respect of the same project and that the reformulation could not relate to the essential elements of the project but only to the elements taken into account by the indicators, which served to establish the ranking of the application in the list drawn up under the invitation to apply under which it was lodged.
Prvotna pro�nja in spremenjena pro�nja sta bili, kot navaja družba Nuova Agricas, res namenjeni pridobitvi financiranja za isti projekt, poleg tega pa se sprememba ni smela nana�ati na bistvene dejavnike navedenega projekta, temveč le na dejavnike, ki so jih upo�tevali kazalci in ki so bili namenjeni določitvi mesta uvrstitve pro�nje na seznam, sestavljen na podlagi razpisa, na katerega je bila vložena.
However, the indicators were themselves representative of significant elements contained in the application.
Vendar pa so kazalci sami predstavljali pomembne dejavnike za pro�njo.
In particular, they related to the share of own funds invested by the undertaking concerned, by comparison with the total investment, to the number of jobs created by the project by comparison with the total investment and by comparison with the amount of the grant applied for and the maximum grant that could be awarded.
Nana�ali so se namreč zlasti na delež lastnih sredstev, ki jih je zadevno podjetje glede na celotno naložbo vložilo v projekt, na �tevilo delovnih mest, ki jih je ustvaril projekt, glede na celotno naložbo, ter na razmerje med vi�ino zapro�ene pomoči in največjo pomočjo, ki jo je bilo mogoče dodeliti.
Moreover, the mere fact that the amendment of the factors taken into account by the indicators increases the possibility of the aid applied for being granted suffices to show that the true position was that the reformulation of the application resulted in the application being a different one from that which was originally lodged.
Sicer pa že dejstvo, da sprememba dejavnikov, ki so jih upo�tevali kazalci, zvi�a možnost dejanske dodelitve zapro�ene pomoči, zadostuje kot dokaz, da je bila posledica spremembe v bistvu vložitev pro�nje, ki je bila drugačna od prvotne.
In addition, in so far as, by changing the information that would be reflected in the indicators, the reformulation was designed to improve the ranking of the amended application in order for it to be included in the list with a ranking that would enable it to be successful when the funds were allocated to the invitation to apply concerned in descending order, the result of extending the benefit of the transitional provision to the undertakings in the first category would be that the chances of those undertakings’ projects of obtaining the aid applied for would be better than those of undertakings competing for the first time, for which the necessity of the aid was not in doubt.
Poleg tega, ker je bil namen spremembe, da se s spremembo dejavnikov, ki so jih upo�tevali kazalci, izbolj�a uvrstitev spremenjene pro�nje, da bi bila ob delitvi razpoložljivih sredstev uvr�čena na ustrezno mesto zadevnega razpisa po padajočem vrstnem redu, bi raz�iritev ugodnosti iz prehodne določbe na podjetja iz prve skupine povzročila, da bi imeli projekti teh podjetij večje možnosti za pridobitev zapro�ene pomoči, kot projekti podjetij, ki so na razpisu sodelovala prvič in za katere ni bilo dvoma o nujnosti pomoči.
Conversely, such a result could not arise with the automatic inclusion in the list under the eighth invitation to apply of applications already made under the fourth invitation by undertakings in the second category because, there being no possibility of those applications being amended, the indicators remained unchanged.
Nasprotno pa taka posledica ni bila možna na podlagi samodejne uvrstitve pro�enj, ki so jih podjetja iz druge skupine vložila na četrti razpis, na seznam, sestavljen na podlagi osmega razpisa, saj so kazalci ostali nespremenjeni, ker ni bilo nobene možnosti za spreminjanje teh pro�enj.
In the light of the above, it must be held that the undertakings in the first category and those in the second category were not in a comparable situation.
Glede na navedeno je treba ugotoviti, da podjetja iz prve skupine in podjetja iz druge skupine niso v primerljivem položaju.
Accordingly, it does not appear that, in authorising the 20002006 aid scheme, the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da Komisija, s tem da je odobrila shemo pomoči 2000–2006, vključno s prehodno določbo, ni kr�ila načela enakega obravnavanja.
The validity of the contested decision in the light of the obligation to state reasons
Veljavnost sporne odločbe z vidika obveznosti obrazložitve
As is clear from established caselaw, the statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and un -equivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community Court to exercise its power of review.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso mora biti obrazložitev, ki se zahteva v členu 253 ES, prilagojena vrsti obravnavanega akta ter mora jasno in nedvoumno izražati razlogovanje institucije, ki je akt izdala, tako da se lahko stranke seznanijo z utemeljitvijo sprejetega ukrepa in da lahko pristojno sodi�če izvede nadzor.
The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees
Zahtevo po obrazložitvi je treba presojati glede na okoli�čine posameznega primera, zlasti glede na vsebino zadevnega akta, lastnosti podanih razlogov in interes za pojasnitev, ki ga imajo lahko naslovniki akta ali druge osebe, ki jih ta neposredno in posamično
2008 — CASE C-390/06 of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations.
2008 – ZADEVA C-390/06 zadeva.
As the national court points out, it is impossible to discern any criterion in the contested decision for distinguishing between the different categories of undertakings which had made an application for aid under the 1997-1999 aid scheme and had a legal interest in having their application entered on the list under the next invitation to apply.
Kot je poudarilo predložitveno sodi�če, iz sporne odločbe ne izhaja nobeno merilo razlikovanja med različnimi skupinami podjetij, ki so vložila pro�njo za pomoč v okviru sheme pomoči 1997–1999 in so izkoristila pravni interes, da se njihova pro�nja uvrsti na seznam, sestavljen na podlagi naslednjega razpisa.
However, the obligation to state reasons is in principle restricted to the reasons for which a given category of operators is to benefit from a given measure and does not mean that it is necessary to justify the exclusion of all other operators which are not in a comparable situation.
Vendar pa je obveznost obrazložitve načeloma omejena na razloge, zaradi katerih je določena skupina subjektov upravičena do določenega ukrepa, in ne pomeni, da je treba utemeljiti izvzetje vseh drugih subjektov, ki niso v primerljivem položaju.
As regards the transitional provision, the reasoning on the basis of which the Commission authorised a transitional regime in favour of the undertakings in the second category is apparent to the requisite legal standard from the background to the contested decision and all of the legal rules governing the matter in question.
V zvezi s prehodno določbo razlogovanje, na podlagi katerega je Komisija odobrila prehodno ureditev za podjetja iz druge skupine, dovolj verjetno izhaja iz okoli�čin sporne odločbe ter celote pravnih pravil, ki urejajo zadevno področje.
The transitional provision refers by implication to the possibility given to undertakings under the 1997-1999 aid scheme of obtaining automatic inclusion of their application for aid in the appropriate list immediately following the invitation to apply in respect of which the application was first submitted.
Prehodna določba se namreč posredno nana�a na možnost, dano podjetjem v okviru sheme pomoči 1997–1999, da pridobijo samodejno umestitev svoje pro�nje za pomoč na seznam, sestavljen na podlagi ustreznega razpisa, ki je neposredno sledil razpisu, na katerega je bila prvotno vložena.
The national legislation providing for that possibility is not only expressly referred to in the section of the contested decision entitled ‘legal basis’ but was also known to all the parties concerned.
Nacionalno ureditev pa so, poleg tega, da je bila izrecno določena v delu sporne odločbe z naslovom „Pravna podlaga“, poznale vse zainteresirane osebe.
Thus, in the context of the contested decision, the wording of the transitional provision is sufficient to show that the Italian State intended to introduce, for the benefit of the undertakings which had competed in the last invitation to apply published under the 1997-1999 aid scheme, transitional measures between that aid scheme and the 20002006 aid scheme, and that the Commission found that measure to be compatible with the common market.
V okoli�činah, v katerih je bila izdana sporna odločba, besedilo prehodne določbe torej zadostuje, da se razume, da je italijanska država podjetjem, ki so sodelovala na zadnjem razpisu v okviru sheme pomoči 1997–1999, želela zagotoviti prehod med to shemo pomoči in shemo pomoči 2000–2006 ter da je Komisija presodila, da je ta ukrep združljiv s skupnim trgom.
On the other hand, as was held in paragraphs 67 to 77 of this judgment, the undertakings in the first category and those in the second category were not in a comparable situation.
Nasprotno, kot je bilo navedeno v točkah od 67 do 77 te sodbe, podjetja iz prve skupine in podjetja iz druge skupine niso bila v primerljivem položaju.
Thus, although it did not state the reasons for which the benefit of the transitional provision was not extended to the undertakings in the first category, the Commission did not fail to comply with the duty to state reasons.
Zato Komisija, čeprav ni navedla razlogov, zaradi katerih ugodnost iz prehodne določbe ni bila raz�irjena na podjetja iz prve skupine, ni kr�ila obveznosti obrazložitve.
In the light of the above, the answer must be that examination of the question submitted has revealed nothing which might affect the validity of the contested decision.
Treba je torej odgovoriti, da pri preučitvi zastavljenega vpra�anja ni bil ugotovljen noben dejavnik, ki bi vplival na veljavnost sporne odločbe.
Examination of the question submitted has revealed nothing which might affect the validity of the decision of the Commission of 12 July 2000 not to raise objections against an aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy until 31 December 2006 (State aid No N 715/99 — Italy).
Pri preučitvi zastavljenega vprašanja ni bil ugotovljen noben dejavnik, ki bi vplival na veljavnost odločbe Komisije z dne 12. julija 2000 o tem, da do 31. decembra 2006 ne bo vložila ugovora zoper shemo pomoči za naložbe v manj razvitih regijah Italije (državna pomoč št. N 715/99 – Italija).
Case C-197/06
Zadeva C-197/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Voorzitter van de rechtbank van koophandel te Hasselt)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo voorzitter van de rechtbank van koophandel te Hasselt)
(Recognition of diplomas — Directive 89/48/EEC — Estate agent)
„Priznavanje diplom – Direktiva 89/48/EGS – Nepremičninski posrednik“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 17 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 17. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide ser -vices — Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration — Directive 89/48
Prosto gibanje oseb – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Svobodno opravljanje storitev – Priznavanje visokošolskih diplom, pridobljenih s poklicnim izobraževanjem in usposabljanjem, ki traja najmanj tri leta – Direktiva 89/48
SUMMARY — CASE C-197/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-197/06
Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19, preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the performance, on its territory, of certain activities falling within the scope of the regulated profession of estate agent by a service provider established in another Member State who has concluded a cooperation agreement with an estate agent who is duly authorised in the host Member State, subject to obtaining an authorisation the grant of which is conditional upon success in an aptitude test in law.
Člena 3 in 4 Direktive 89/48 o splo�nem sistemu priznavanja visoko�olskih diplom, pridobljenih s poklicnim izobraževanjem in usposabljanjem, ki traja najmanj tri leta, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2001/19, nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, ki pogojuje opravljanje dejavnosti, ki pripadajo reguliranemu poklicu nepremičninskega posrednika, na njenem ozemlju s strani osebe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, ki je sklenila sporazum o sodelovanju z nepremičninskim posrednikom, ki ima v skladu s predpisi licenco v državi članici gostiteljici, s pridobitvijo dovoljenja, katerega podelitev je odvisna od uspeha na preizkusu usposobljenosti s pravnega področja.
As regards professions ‘whose practice requires precise knowledge of national law and in respect of which the provision of advice and/or assistance concerning national law is an essential and constant aspect of the professional activity’, the host Member State may, by derogation from the principle laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19, stipulate either an adaptation period or an aptitude test.
Za poklice, „katerih opravljanje zahteva posebna znanja s področja državne zakonodaje in pri katerih je bistven in stalni element dela svetovanje in/ali pomoč, ki zadeva državno zakonodajo“, lahko država članica gostiteljica kljub načelu, določenemu v členu 4(1)(b), tretji pododstavek, Direktive 89/48 o splo�nem sistemu priznavanja visoko�olskih diplom, pridobljenih s poklicnim izobraževanjem in usposabljanjem, ki traja najmanj tri leta, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2001/19, predpi�e ali prilagoditveno obdobje ali preizkus usposobljenosti.
The content of the education and training required by a Member State which regulates a profession is a criterion which is especially relevant in order to establish the requirements connected to the practice thereof. Consequently, a profession which is open to persons who have not received significant education and training in law cannot be considered to be one ‘whose practice requires precise knowledge of national law’.
Vsebina izobraževanja, ki jo predpi�e država članica, ki regulira poklic, je posebno pomembno merilo za določitev zahtev, ki so povezane z opravljanjem tega poklica, zato ni mogoče trditi, da poklic, do katerega dostop je odprt za osebe, ki nimajo pomembne pravne izobrazbe, pomeni poklic, „katerega opravljanje zahteva posebna znanja s področja državne zakonodaje“.
Where it is proven, which it is for the national court to verify, that, following the conclusion of such a cooperation agreement, the service provider does not exercise all the aspects of the regulated profession of estate agent, as it is defined in the host Member State, but only certain of the professional activities which constitute that profession, without being involved in the legal aspects of
Če obstajajo namreč okoli�čine, kar mora preveriti nacionalno sodi�če, v katerih se izkaže, da po sklenitvi tega sporazuma o sodelovanju navedeni izvajalec storitve ne opravlja več vseh vidikov reguliranega poklica nepremičninskega posrednika, kot je opredeljen v državi
(see paras 36, 38)
(Glej točki 36 in 38.)
(see paras 40, 41, 43, operative part) sales, the requirement imposed on him to comply with compensatory measures relating to his knowledge of the law of the Member State in question goes manifestly beyond what is necessary in order to protect the recipients of services against the risk of inadequate assistance with regard to the legal aspects of the sale.
članici gostiteljici, ampak samo določene regulirane poklicne dejavnosti, ki so sestavni del tega poklica, ne da bi posegal v pravne vidike prodaje, je njegova obveznost, da se podredi izravnalnim ukrepom v zvezi s poznavanjem zakonodaje zadevne države članice, presega to, kar je potrebno za varstvo naslovnikov
JUDGMENT OF 17. 4.
SODBA Z DNE 17. 4.
2008 — CASE C-197/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-197/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat) z dne 17. aprila 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Voorzitter van de rechtbank van koophandel te Hasselt (Belgium), made by decision of 28 April 2006, received at the Court on 3 May 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-197/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložil voorzitter van de rechtbank van koophandel te Hasselt (Belgija) z odločbo z dne 28. aprila 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 3. maja 2006, v postopku
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi, Registrar: M.-A. Gaudissart, Head of Unit, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 6 September 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Mengozzi, sodni tajnik: M.-A. Gaudissart, vodja oddelka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 6. septembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Netherlands Government, by C. Wissels, acting as Agent,
— za nizozemsko vlado C. Wissels, zastopnica,
2008 — CASE C-197/06 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-197/06 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago Direktive Sveta z dne 21. decembra 1988 o splo�nem sistemu priznavanja visoko�olskih diplom, pridobljenih s poklicnim izobraževanjem in usposabljanjem, ki traja najmanj tri leta (UL 1989, L 19, str.
16), as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 (OJ 2001 L 206, p.
16), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2001/19/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 14. maja 2001 (UL L 206, str.
1) (‘Directive 89/48’), and Article 49 EC.
1, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 89/48) ter člena 49 ES.
The reference has been made in proceedings seeking a declaration of non-compli-ance with a prohibition order made by decision delivered on 10 January 2003 by the Voorzitter van de rechtbank van koophandel te Hasselt zetelend zoals in kortgeding (President of the Commercial Court of Hasselt, hearing an application for interim relief), brought by the Confederatie van Immobiliën-Beroepen van België VZW (Confederation of Estate Agents of Belgium, a non-profit making association, ‘the CIB’) and by the Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars (Professional Institute of Estate Agents, ‘the BIV’) against Mr Van Leuken concerning the latter’s exercise in Belgium of certain professional activities falling within the scope of the regulated profession of estate agent.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru postopka na ugotovitev, da se ni spo�tovalo začasne odredbe o prenehanju, ki jo je voorzitter van de rechtbank van koophandel te Hasselt zetelend zoals in kortgeding (predsednik sodi�ča za gospodarske zadeve Hasselt, ki je odločil o izdaji začasne odredbe) odredil v sodbi z dne 10. januarja 2003 na predlog Confederatie van Immobiliën-Beroepen van België VZW (konfederacija nepremičninskih posrednikov Belgije ASBL, v nadaljevanju: CIB) ter Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars (poklicni in�titut nepremičninskih posrednikov, v nadaljevanju: BIV) zoper W. Van Leukena, in ki se je nana�ala na to, da je slednji v Belgiji opravljal določene poklicne dejavnosti, ki pripadajo reguliranemu poklicu nepremičninskega posrednika.
It is apparent from the third and fourth recitals in the preamble to Directive 89/48 that the purpose of that directive is to introduce a general system for the recognition of diplomas to enable nationals of Community countries to pursue all those professional activities which are dependent, in a host Member State, on the completion of post-secondary education and training.
Iz tretje in četrte uvodne izjave Direktive 89/48 izhaja, da je njen cilj vzpostavitev splo�nega sistema priznavanja diplom, ki bo evropskim državljanom olaj�al opravljanje vseh poklicnih dejavnosti, ki so v neki državi članici gostiteljici podvržene zahtevi po izobrazbi, vi�ji od srednje�olske.