natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Case C-95/01 Greenham and Abel [2004] ECR I-1333 the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (Regional Court, Paris, France), which was hearing criminal proceedings against the joint directors of a company distributing foodstuffs, asked the Court pursuant to Article 234 EC whether a Member State may prohibit the marketing on its territory without prior authorisation of foodstuffs lawfully manufactured and marketed in another Member State, on the ground that they contain nutrients whose addition is not authorised for human consumption by the national rules and vitamins in quantities exceeding the recommended daily intake or the safety limits laid down at national level.
V zadevi Greenham in Abel (sodba z dne 5. februarja 2004, C-95/01, Recueil, str. I-1333) je Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (Francija), ki je odločal v kaznovalnem postopku proti skupnim poslovodjem družbe za distribucijo živil, na Sodišče na podlagi člena 234 ES naslovil vprašanje, ali lahko država članica brez predhodnega dovoljenja na svojem ozemlju prepove dajati na trg živila, ki so zakonito proizvedena in dana na trg v drugi državi članici, zato ker vsebujejo hranilne snovi, ki jih v skladu z nacionalno ureditvijo ni dovoljeno dodajati človeški prehrani, in vitamine, katerih količina presega priporočene dnevne vrednosti ali celo varnostne omejitve, določene na nacionalni ravni.
After noting that national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction, the Court stated that they could nevertheless be justified, under certain conditions, under Article 30 EC.
Potem ko je Sodišče poudarilo, da lahko nacionalna ureditev, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, pomeni ukrep, ki ima enak učinek kot količinska omejitev, je ugotovilo, da je lahko kljub temu pod določenimi pogoji upravičena na podlagi člena 30 ES.
First, such rules must make provision for a procedure enabling economic operators to have a nutrient included on the national list of authorised substances.
Prvič, navedena ureditev mora določiti tudi postopek, ki gospodarskim subjektom omogoča, da se hranilna snov vpiše na nacionalni seznam dovoljenih snovi.
The procedure must be one which is readily accessible and can be completed within a reasonable time, and is open, if necessary, to challenge before the courts.
Predmetni postopek mora biti zlahka dostopen, mogoče ga je izvesti v razumnem roku in je lahko, v okoliščinah posameznega primera, predmet sodnega nadzora.
Second, an application to have a nutrient included on the national list of authorised substances may be refused by the competent national authorities only if the substance poses a genuine risk to public health.
Drugič, predlog za vpis hranilne snovi na nacionalni seznam dovoljenih snovi lahko pristojni nacionalni organi zavrnejo le, če ta snov pomeni resnično tveganje za zdravje ljudi.
Such a risk must be assessed, stated the Court, on the basis of the most reliable scientific data available and the most recent results of international research.
Sodišče pojasnjuje, da se to lahko presodi le na podlagi najzanesljivejših dostopnih znanstvenih podatkov in najnovejših znanstvenih raziskav.
Finally, since such rules derogate from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community, they must be confined to what is actually necessary to ensure the safeguarding of public health and must be proportionate to the aim thus pursued.
Sodišče na koncu opozarja na to, da mora ureditev, ki odstopa od načela prostega pretoka blaga znotraj Skupnosti, vsebovati le nujno potrebne omejitve za varovanje zdravja, ki morajo biti sorazmerne z zasledovanim ciljem.
In a judgment of the same date in Case C-24/00 Commission v France [2004] ECR I-1277, it was precisely because France had failed either to provide for a procedure for including nutrients on the list of authorised substances which was accessible, transparent, and could be completed within a reasonable time or to justify refusals on the basis of a detailed assessment of the genuine risk to public health that the Court held that that State had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.
V sodbi, razglašeni istega dne (zadeva C-24/00, Komisija proti Franciji, Recueil, str. I-1277), je Sodišče ravno zato, ker Francija ni določila postopka za vpis na seznam dovoljenih hranilnih snovi, ki bi bil dostopen, transparenten in izvedljiv v razumnem roku, in zavrnitve za vpis ni upravičila na podlagi poglobljene presoje dejanskega tveganja za varovanje zdravja, ugotovilo, da Francija ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 28 ES.
Page 21
Dejavnost
Proceedings automatically classifying as medicinal products preparations based on certain vitamins and/or minerals lawfully marketed as food supplements in the Member State from which they are imported, where those substances are present in amounts exceeding the recommended daily intake (Case C-150/00) or exceed it by three times (Case C-387/99), that the Commission brought two actions before the Court of Justice against those Member States for infringement of the principle of the free movement of goods laid down in Article 28 EC.
I-3751) in Komisija proti Avstriji (sodba z dne 29. aprila 2004, C-150/00, Recueil, str. I-3887) je Komisija zoper navedeni državi članici pri Sodišču vložila tožbo zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti zaradi kršitve načela prostega pretoka blaga, uzakonjenega v členu 28 ES, ker je bila v prijavah večkrat opozorjena na upravno prakso v Nemčiji in Avstriji, v skladu s katero so bili kot zdravila samodejno razvrščeni pripravki na bazi določenih vitaminov in/ali določenih mineralov, ki so bili zakonito dani na trg kot dopolnila k prehrani v državi članici, iz katere so bili uvoženi, če so vsebovali navedene snovi v prevelikih količinah v primerjavi s priporočljivo dnevno vrednostjo (zadeva C-150/00) ali pa so to vrednost trikratno presegli (zadeva C-387/99).
In support of those actions, the Commission argued essentially that the classification of each vitamin or mineral as a medicinal product must be carried out case by case, having regard to the pharmacological properties which it was recognised as having in the present state of scientific knowledge.
V podporo navedenima tožbama Komisija po vsebini zatrjuje, da je treba opredelitev vsakega vitamina ali mineralne soli kot zdravila presojati za vsak primer posamezno, glede na farmakološke lastnosti, ki mu jih trenutna znanstvena dognanja priznavajo kot zanj značilna.
The harmfulness of vitamins and minerals varied.
Stopnja škodljivost vitaminov in mineralnih soli je bila dejansko spremenljiva.
It argued that a single general and abstract approach for all those substances thus went beyond what was necessary for achieving the objective of the protection of health laid down in Article 30 EC, so that that approach was not proportionate.
Enak splošen in abstrakten pristop za vse snovi je torej presegel mejo, ki je nujna za dosego cilja, to je varovanja zdravja, določenega v členu 30 ES, in sicer zato, ker naj ta pristop ne bi bil sorazmeren.
The barrier to the free movement of goods resulting from the contested practices could not therefore be justified, even though it pursued a legitimate aim.
Omejitve prostega pretoka blaga, ki naj bi izhajala iz spornih praks, četudi je zasledovala legitimni cilj, posledično ne bi bilo mogoče upravičiti.
The Court, upholding the Commission’s argument, held that, to determine whether vitamin preparations or preparations containing minerals should be classified as medicinal products within the meaning of Directive 65/65 on proprietary medicinal products, the national authorities, acting under the control of the court, must work on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the characteristics of those preparations, in particular their composition, their pharmacological properties, the manner in which they are used, the extent of their distribution, their familiarity to consumers and the risks which their use may entail.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, potrjujoč analizo Komisije, da morajo pri odločanju o tem, ali je treba vitaminske pripravke oziroma pripravke, ki vsebujejo mineralne soli, opredeliti kot medicinske proizvode v smislu Direktive 65/65 o zaščitenih medicinskih proizvodih, nacionalni organi, ki delujejo pod nadzorom sodišča, odločati za vsak primer posamezno upoštevaje celoto lastnosti navedenih pripravkov, med njimi predvsem njihove sestavo, farmakološke lastnosti, načine uporabe in razširjenost, ter poznavanje potrošnikov le-teh in tveganje ob njihovi uporabi.
Classification as a medicinal product of a vitamin preparation or a preparation containing minerals which is based solely on the recommended daily amount of the nutrient it contains does not fully satisfy the requirement for a classification on the basis of the pharmacological properties of each preparation.
Sodišče je navedlo, da zahteva po razvrstitvi, ki bi bila odvisna od farmakoloških značilnosti vsakega pripravka, z razvrstitvijo vitaminskega pripravka ali pripravka, ki vsebuje mineralne soli, med zdravila zgolj na podlagi priporočene dnevne vrednosti, ki jo vsebuje hranilna snov, očitno ni izpolnjena.
Even though it is true that the concentration of vitamins or minerals above which a preparation is classified as a medicinal product varies according to the vitamin or mineral in question, it does not necessarily follow that all preparations containing more than once – or three times – the recommended daily intake of one of those substances come within the definition of a medicinal product for the purposes of Directive 65/65. 3
Čeprav je res, da je koncentracija v vitaminih ali mineralih, pri kateri je mogoče pripravek razvrstiti kot zdravilo, različna pri zadevnem vitaminu ali mineralu, pa iz tega nujno ne sledi, da je vsak pripravek, ki vsebuje enkrat – ali trikrat – več navedenih snovi, kot je njihova priporočena dnevna vrednost, po definicijimedicinski proizvod v smislu Direktive 65/653.
In those circumstances, the Court then said, it was clear that the contested practices create a barrier to trade, since such preparations lawfully marketed or produced in other Member States as food supplements cannot be marketed in Germany or Austria until they have been subject to the marketing authorisation procedure for medicinal products.
Sodišče nadaljuje, da je v navedenih okoliščinah treba ugotoviti, da sporne prakse ustvarjajo trgovinsko oviro, saj z navedenimi zakonito proizvedenimi pripravki, s katerimi se trguje v drugi državi članici kot z dopolnili k prehrani, ni mogoče trgovati v Nemčiji in v Avstriji, preden se v zvezi z njimi ne izvede postopek odobritve za dajanje na trg, ki velja za zdravila.
That barrier cannot be justified on the basis of Article 30 EC.
Te ovire ni mogoče upravičiti na podlagi člena 30 ES.
While that provision allows Member States a certain discretion relating to the protection of public health, the means used must be proportionate to the objective pursued, which it must not be possible to attain by measures less restrictive of intraCommunity trade.
Če imajo države članice na podlagi te presoje še določeno pooblastilo za odločanje po prostem preudarku na področju varovanja zdravja, morajo biti sredstva, s katerimi se uveljavlja, sorazmerna z zasledovanim ciljem, ki ga ni mogoče doseči z ukrepi, ki manj omejujejo promet znotraj Skupnosti.
In this respect, stated the Court, the systematic nature of the contested practices does not make it possible to
Sodišče poudarja, da v tem pogledu dosledna narava spornih praks ne
Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).
Direktiva Sveta 65/65/EGS z dne 26. januarja 1965 o približevanju določb zakonov in drugih predpisov v zvezi z zaščitenimi medicinskimi proizvodi (UL 1965, L 22, str. 369).
Court of Justice identify and assess a real risk to public health, which requires a detailed assessment on a case-by-case basis of the effects which the addition of the vitamins and minerals in question could entail.
Dejavnost omogoča, da bi se ugotovilo in presodilo resnično tveganje za zdravje ljudi, kar bi pomenilo poglobljeno analizo za vsak primer posamezno, s katero bi se ocenili učinki predmetnih dodanih vitaminov in mineralnih soli.
A preparation which would not pose a real risk to public health thus also requires a marketing authorisation as a medicinal product.
Tako bi bil predmet dovoljenja za promet kot zdravilo tudi pripravek, katerega trženje za zdravje ljudi ne bi pomenilo resničnega tveganja.
In the light of those considerations, the Court held that Germany and Austria had failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 28 EC.
Na podlagi navedenih ugotovitev je Sodišče zaključilo, da Nemčija in Avstrija nista izpolnili obveznosti, ki jih imata na podlagi člena 28 ES.
In two separate cases, Case C-463/01 Commission v Germany (judgment of 14 December 2004, not yet published in the ECR) and Case C-309/02 Radlberger Getränke and S. Spitz (judgment of 14 December 2004, not yet published in the ECR), the Court was called on to rule on the permissibility with respect to the Community rules of measures adopted in Germany to cope with the environmental problem created by drinks packaging.
Sodišče se je v dveh različnih zadevah, Komisija proti Nemčiji (sodba z dne 14. decembra 2004, C-463/01, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) in Radlberger Getränke in S. Spitz (sodba z dne 14. decembra 2004, C-309/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.), izreklo o dopustnosti ukrepov, ki jih je sprejela Nemčija za reševanje okoljskega problema, ki ga povzročajo embalaže pijač, z vidika pravil Skupnosti.
In that Member State, producers and distributors of drinks in nonreusable packaging are subject in principle to the obligation to charge a deposit and take back packaging.
V navedeni državi članici so proizvajalci in distributerji pijač, ki so pakirane za enkratno uporabo, načeloma zavezani k zbirnemu sistemu in k sistemu vračanja.
They may, however, comply with this by participating in a global collection system.
V vsakem primeru lahko navedeno obveznost izpolnijo tudi tako, da sodelujejo v skupnem zbirnem sistemu.
That option is withdrawn if, for two years in a row, the percentage of drinks marketed in reusable packaging in Germany falls below a certain threshold.
Opisano možnost izgubijo, če odstotek pijač, danih na nemški trg v embalažah, primernih za novo uporabo, pade pod določen prag.
Case C-463/01 concerned an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission against Germany.
Zadeva C-463/01 se nanaša na tožbo zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, ki jo je Komisija vložila proti Nemčiji.
According to the guardian of the treaties, the above rules constitute a barrier to trade.
Po mnenju varuhinje Pogodb je zgoraj navedena ureditev ovirala trgovanje.
Producers of mineral water, who all have to bottle at source under a Community directive, are subject to a particular burden if they are established in other Member States.
Dejansko proizvajalci mineralnih vod s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, ki morajo v skladu z direktivo Skupnosti vse ustekleničiti pri izviru, nosijo posebno breme.
The judgment giving a preliminary ruling in Case C-309/02 concerned the same basic problem.
Predhodna odločba, izdana v zadevi C-309/02, je obravnavala enak temeljni problem.
The Austrian undertakings Radlberger and Spitz export soft drinks to Germany and belong to a global system of waste collection, ‘Der Grüne Punkt’.
Avstrijski podjetji Radlberger in Spitz, ki sta v Nemčijo izvažali osvežilne pijače, sta bili vključeni v skupni zbirni sistem odpadkov, in sicer „Der Grüne Punkt“.
Those two undertakings brought proceedings in the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Administrative Court, Stuttgart), arguing that the German rules on quotas for reusable packaging and the related obligations were contrary to Directive 94/62 4 and the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of goods.
Obe podjetji sta pri Verwaltungsgerichtu Stuttgart vložili tožbo, v kateri sta zatrjevali, da so nemški sistem kvot za embalaže, primerne za novo uporabo, in njemu pripadajoče obveznosti v nasprotju z Direktivo 94/624in določbami Pogodbe o prostem pretoku blaga.
The German court decided to stay the proceedings and make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Nemško sodišče je odločilo, da prekine postopek in na Sodišče naslovi predhodno vprašanje.
According to the Court, since Directive 94/62 does not carry out a complete harmonisation of national systems for the reuse of packaging, the German legislation must be capable of assessment in the light of the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the free movement of goods.
Po mnenju Sodišča je treba nemško zakonodajo v delu, v katerem Direktiva 94/62 popolnoma ne usklajuje nacionalnih sistemov ponovne uporabe embalaž, presojati z določbami Pogodbe ES o prostem pretoku blaga.
Although applying without distinction, the national legislation does not affect the marketing of drinks produced in Germany and that of drinks from other Member States in the same manner.
Čeprav se predmetna nacionalna ureditev uporablja brez razlikovanja, ta ne vpliva v enaki meri na trženje pijač, proizvedenih v Nemčiji, in pijač iz drugih držav članic.
The changeover from a global system of waste collection to a deposit and return system results generally in additional costs for all producers.
Prehod s skupnega zbirnega sistema embalaž na individualni zbirni sistem in sistem vračanja na splošno prinaša dodatne stroške vsem proizvajalcem.
However, producers established outside Germany use considerably more nonreusable packaging than German producers.
Kakor koli, proizvajalci s sedežem zunaj Nemčije uporabijo veliko več embalaž za enkratno uporabo kot nemški proizvajalci.
Those measures are therefore such as to hinder the marketing of water from other Member States.
Zato so lahko predmetni ukrepi taki, da ovirajo trženje vod iz drugih držav članic.
Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10).
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 94/62/ES z dne 20. decembra 1994 o embalaži in odpadni embalaži (UL 1994, L 365, str. 10).
Moreover, the probability of a change of system to a deposit obligation contributes to reducing waste by encouraging undertakings to make use of reusable packaging.
Sodišče odpadkov, s tem da podjetja spodbuja k uporabi embalaž, primernih za novo uporabo.
The national legislation is thus necessary for attaining the objectives pursued.
Nacionalna zakonodaja je torej potrebna za dosego zastavljenih ciljev.
However, the legislation, which makes the establishment of a deposit and return system dependent on a reuse rate, must still be proportionate.
Kljub temu pa mora ostati navedena ureditev, v skladu s katero je uporaba zbirnega sistema in sistema vračanja odvisna od stopnje ponovne uporabe, sorazmerna.
That is the case, said the Court, only if there is a reasonable transitional period to adapt, which thus ensures that every producer or distributor concerned can actually participate in an operational system.
Tako je po mnenju Sodišča le v primeru, če obstaja primeren prehoden rok za prilagoditev, ki vsakemu prizadetemu proizvajalcu ali distributerju zagotavlja, da lahko učinkovito sodeluje pri sistemu, ki se izvaja.
In Case C-309/02 the Court held that it was for the national court to assess whether that requirement was satisfied.
V zadevi C-309/02 je Sodišče odločilo, da mora nacionalno sodišče presoditi, ali je navedena zahteva izpolnjena.
In Case C-463/01, in the case of mineral water which must be bottled at source, the Court held that the national legislation did not comply with the principle of proportionality, since the transition period allowed by the authorities was only six months.
V zadevi C-463/01, ki se nanaša na mineralne vode, ustekleničene pri izviru, je Sodišče presodilo, da nacionalna zakonodaja v delu, v katerem so nacionalni organi določili prehodni rok zgolj šestih mesecev, ni skladna z načelom sorazmernosti.
The first, Case C-138/02 Collins [2004] ECR I-2703, was a reference in a dispute before a tribunal in the United Kingdom.
Prva med njimi, zadeva Collins (sodba z dne 23. marca 2004, C-138/02, Recueil, str. I-2703), se je nanašala na spor pred sodiščem Združenega kraljestva.
In that Member State, the grant of a ‘jobseeker’s allowance’ to persons seeking employment is subject to a condition of habitual residence or to the condition that the person is a worker for the purposes of Regulation No 1612/68 5 or a person with a right to reside in the United Kingdom pursuant to Directive 68/360.
V navedeni državi članici lahko iskalci zaposlitve dobijo „pomoč iskalcem zaposlitve“ samo v primerih, če tam stalno prebivajo, če jih je mogoče šteti za delavce v smislu Uredbe št. 1612/685 ali pa imajo pravico do prebivanja v Združenem kraljestvu v skladu z Direktivo 68/360.
Brian Francis Collins was born in the United States and has dual American and Irish nationality.
Brian Francis Collins, rojen v Združenih državah, je imel dvojno državljanstvo, ameriško in irsko.
Having spent one semester in the United Kingdom in 1978 as part of his university studies and having worked for 10 months in 1980 and 1981 on a part-time and casual basis in bars and the sales sector, he returned to the United Kingdom in 1998 for the purpose of seeking employment.
Potem ko je leta 1978 med univerzitetnim študijem en semester prebival v Združenem kraljestvu, in za tem 10 mesecev v letih 1980 in 1981, ko je priložnostno delal v barih in v sektorju prodaje, se je leta 1998 vrnil, da bi si poiskal zaposlitev.
He applied for a jobseeker’s allowance but was refused on the grounds that he was not habitually resident in the United Kingdom and was not a worker for the purposes of Regulation No 1612/68 or entitled to reside in that State pursuant to Directive 68/360.
Vložil je prošnjo za pomoč iskalcem zaposlitve, ki je bila zavrnjena, zato ker v Združenem kraljestvu ni navadno prebival in zato ni bil delavec za namene Uredbe št. 1612/68 ter ni imel več pravice do prebivanja v navedeni državi v smislu Direktive 68/3606.
6 Three questions were referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling in this connection, the first two of which concerned respectively the regulation and the directive, while the third, phrased in an open manner, asked whether there might be some provision or principle of Community law capable of assisting the applicant in his claim.
V zvezi s tem so bila Sodišču postavljena tri predhodna vprašanja: prvi dve sta se nanašali na uredbo oziroma na direktivo, tretje, odprto vprašanje, pa na obstoj določbe ali načela prava Skupnosti, s katerim bi bilo mogoče podpreti zahtevke tožeče stranke.
On the question whether Mr Collins was a worker within the terms of Regulation No 1612/68, the Court took the view that, as 17 years had elapsed since he had last been engaged in an occupational activity in the United Kingdom, Mr Collins did not have a sufficiently close connection with the employment market in that Member State.
Glede opredelitve delavca v smislu Uredbe št. 1612/68 je Sodišče štelo, da po sedemnajstih letih, ki so pretekla od zadnje poklicne dejavnosti v Združenem kraljestvu, ni dovolj tesne povezave s trgom delovne sile v tej državi članici. Položaj g.
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475).
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1612/68 z dne 15. oktobra 1968 o prostem gibanju delavcev v Skupnosti (UL 1968, L 257, str. 2).
Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 485).
Direktiva Sveta 68/360/EGS z dne 15. oktobra 1968 o odpravi omejitev gibanja in prebivanja v Skupnosti za delavce držav članic in za njihove družine (UL 1968, L 257, str. 13).
Court of Justice situation of Mr Collins, the Court ruled, was comparable to that of any person seeking his first employment.
Dejavnost stranka v konkretnem primeru ni delavec v smislu, v katerem se ta termin nanaša na osebe, ki so že postale del trga delovne sile.