natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
COMMISSION v FRANCE in particular selfemployed veterinary surgeons, that certificate is issued on the signing of an agreement between the managing director of the insemination centre and the person concerned, which must set out the technical, administrative and financial conditions in which that person will carry out insemination in accordance with the legislation in force.
KOMISIJA PROTI FRANCIJI pogodbe, ki jo sklenejo s predsednikom osemenjevalnega sredi�ča, v kateri morajo biti opredeljeni tehnični, upravni in finančni pogoji, ki jih bo moral osemenjevalec v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo izpolnjevati pri opravljanju storitev osemenjevanja.
In response to a complaint referred to it, the Commission, on 3 April 2003, sent the French Republic a letter of formal notice drawing to its attention the incompatibility of the relevant national legislation with the provisions of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Komisija je po pritožbi, ki jo je prejela, 3. aprila 2003, na Francosko republiko naslovila pisni opomin, s katerim je zadnjenavedeno opozorila na nezdružljivost upo�tevne nacionalne ureditve z določbami členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
After examining the observations submitted by the French Republic in its reply of 27 June 2003 to that letter of formal notice, the Commission, on 19 December 2003, sent that Member State a reasoned opinion in which it concluded that the national legislation at issue was incompatible with those articles of the Treaty articles.
Komisija je, potem ko je pregledala pripombe, ki jih je Francoska republika 27. junija 2003 podala v svojem odgovoru na navedeni pisni opomin, 19. decembra 2003 na to državo članico naslovila obrazloženo mnenje, v katerem je ugotovila, da je zadevna ureditev nezdružljiva z navedenima členoma Pogodbe ES.
Taking the view that the explanations given by the French Republic in its response of 17 March 2004 to that reasoned opinion were unsatisfactory, the Commission brought this action.
Ker je Komisija menila, da pojasnila Francoske republike, ki jih je ta v odgovoru na navedeno obrazloženo mnenje podala 17. marca 2004, niso zadovoljiva, je vložila to tožbo.
The existence of obstacles to the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services
Obstoj omejitve svobode ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev
The Commission alleges that the French Republic has infringed Articles 43 EC and 49 EC by hindering the exercise of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the field of artificial insemination of bovine animals on account of, first, the exclusive rights over a defined geographical area conferred on authorised artificial insemination centres as regards carrying out the distribution and artificial insemination of semen and, secondly, the restrictive and discretionary conditions to which the issue of an inseminator’s licence is subject.
Komisija Francoski republiki očita, da je kr�ila člena 43 ES in 49 ES s tem, da je ovirala izvr�evanje svobode ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev v sektorju osemenjevanja goveda zaradi, prvič, geografskega monopola na področju storitev distribucije semena in osemenjevanja, ki ga je država članica dodelila odobrenim osemenjevalnim sredi�čem, in, drugič, omejevalnih in samovoljno določenih pogojev za pridobitev licence za osemenjevalca.
First, as regards freedom of establishment, the Commission submits that conferring on authorised insemination centres only, for an unlimited period, the right to carry out, in a defined geographical area, the distribution and artificial insemin ation of semen prevents or renders extremely difficult the exercise of that freedom in France for the purpose of carrying on those activities.
Prvič, kar zadeva svobodo ustanavljanja, Komisija meni, da dodelitev časovno neomejene in geografsko določene pravice do izvajanja dejavnosti distribucije in osemenjevanja le odobrenim osemenjevalnim sredi�čem onemogoča ali izredno otežuje izvr�evanje te svobo�čine v Franciji z namenom opravljanja teh dejavnosti v tej državi.
The Commission maintains, in the light of the judgment in Case C-19/92 Kraus [1993] ECR I-1663, that the French legislation, without being expressly discriminatory, nevertheless constitutes an obstacle to the right of establishment.
Komisija glede na sodbo z dne 31. marca 1993 v zadevi Kraus (C-19/92, Recueil, str. I-1663) zatrjuje, da francoska ureditev, čeprav formalno ni diskriminatorna, pomeni kr�itev pravice do ustanavljanja.
The Commission does not dispute the justification for the system for ascertaining ability established by the French legislation or even the fact that objective evidence of qualifications is legitimately required in order for a person to be authorised to carry out artificial insemination of bovine semen.
Komisija ne izpodbija utemeljenosti mehanizma preverjanja usposobljenosti, ki ga vzpostavlja francoska ureditev, niti dejstva, da se legitimno zahteva objektiven dokaz poklicne kvalifikacije, zato da se osebi dovoli opravljanje osemenjevanja goveda.
However, it submits that the restriction
Vendar pa po njenem mnenju zadevna omejitev temelji na geografsko opredeljenih
COMMISSION v FRANCE at issue is based on exclusive authorisations over defined geographical areas prohibiting the activity of any other service provider.
KOMISIJA PROTI FRANCIJI izključnih dovoljenjih, s katerimi je vsem drugim ponudnikom storitev prepovedano opravljanje dejavnosti.
The Commission claims that it would be prepared to accept the reasons set out by the French Republic to justify the obstacle to the freedom of establishment if the national measures were to be restricted to requiring private operators to provide information and to undergo checks.
Komisija je pripravljena sprejeti razloge, ki jih Francoska republika navaja v utemeljitev kr�itve svobode ustanavljanja, če bi morali zasebni subjekti na podlagi nacionalnih ukrepov izpolnjevati le zahteve po obve�čanju in nadzoru.
Such measures could be regarded as legitimate, whereas the grant of the exclusive rights in question is unjustified and, in any event, disproportionate in relation to the objectives in the public interest relied upon.
Take ukrepe bi lahko �teli za legitimne, medtem ko bi bila podelitev zadevnih izključnih pravic neupravičena in vsekakor nesorazmerna z navedenimi cilji splo�nega interesa.
In addition, the Commission submits that freedom of establishment is also hindered by the fact that veterinary surgeons cannot obtain an inseminator’s licence to carry out the artificial insemination of semen in a selfemployed capacity until they have concluded an agreement with the managing director of an artificial insemination centre.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da uresničevanje pravice do ustanavljanja preprečuje dejstvo, da so lahko veterinarji, ki so želeli izvajati storitve osemenjevanja v okviru svoje samostojne poklicne dejavnosti, pridobili licenco za osemenjevalca le na podlagi pogodbe, predhodno sklenjene s predsednikom osemenjevalnega sredi�ča.
Secondly, the Commission claims that the legislation at issue undermines the freedom to provide services, namely the freedom to provide distribution and insemination services.
Drugič, Komisija trdi, da zadevna ureditev �koduje svobodi opravljanja storitev, in sicer distribucije in osemenjevanja.
According to the Commission, the restriction on the freedom to provide the distribution service consists in the obligation to store semen in authorised artificial insemination centres, which alone may deliver it to breeders.
Po mnenju Komisije je omejitev svobode opravljanja storitev distribucije pomenila obveznost shranjevanja semena pri sredi�čih z dovoljenjem za osemenjevanje, ki so to seme edina dostavljala rejcem.
The distribution services are hampered by the prohibition of any action not authorised by the insemination centre, which enjoys an exclusive right of action.
Za storitve distribucije naj bi obstajala prepoved vsakr�nega nepoobla�čenega opravljanja dejavnosti osemenjevalnega sredi�ča, ki ima izključno pravico opravljanja dejavnosti.
The Commission maintains that that obstacle to the provision of cross-border services may affect all the activities of the service providers.
Poudarja, da lahko oviranje zagotavljanja čezmejnih storitev vpliva na vse dejavnosti ponudnikov storitev.
It claims that, even if a reason based on the protection of public health were relevant in the present case, the French rules go too far.
Zatrjuje, da čeprav bi bil lahko razlog v zvezi z varstvom javnega zdravja v obravnavanem primeru upo�teven, se zdi francoska ureditev pretirana.
The Commission states that the obligation to store semen intended for intraCommunity trade, imposed by Directive 88/407 on health grounds, concerns only
Komisija natančno navaja, da se obveznost v zvezi s shranjevanjem semena, namenjenega izmenjavam med državami članicami Skupnosti, ki je bila z Direktivo
2008 — CASE C-389/05 frozen semen and the stage prior to its dispatch from the place of production, whereas the objection against the French Republic concerns the storage requirement during the stage after that dispatch.
88/407 predvidena iz zdravstvenih razlogov, nana�a le na globoko zamrznjeno seme in na fazo v postopku pred po�iljanjem semena iz kraja pridelave v namembni kraj, medtem ko se očitek Francoski republiki nana�a na obveznost shranjevanja, ki sledi fazi tega po�iljanja.
As regards the insemination service, the Commission submits that the freedom to provide that service is hindered because of the obligation on persons wishing to carry on that activity to sign a prior agreement with the managing director of an authorised insemination centre in order to obtain the required inseminator’s licence.
Komisija meni, da je storitev osemenjevanja ovirana zaradi obveznosti, v skladu s katero morajo vsi, ki želijo opravljati to dejavnost, s predsednikom odobrenega osemenjevalnega sredi�ča skleniti pogodbo, da bi lahko pridobili zahtevano licenco za osemenjevalca.
The Commission points out that the conclusion of those agreements is in fact left to the discretion and good will of the managing directors of the insemination centres, who refuse, however, to enter into such agreements with some independent inseminators.
Komisija poudarja, da je odločitev o sklenitvi teh pogodb dejansko prepu�čena prostemu preudarku in dobri volji predsednikov osemenjevalnih sredi�č, ki pa lahko zavrnejo sklenitev takih pogodb z določenimi neodvisnimi osemenjevalci.
The Commission does not dispute the legitimacy of an authorisation scheme for carrying out artificial insemination, but provided that it is only a means, for the inseminator, of demonstrating his abilities to the competent veterinary authority.
Komisija ne izpodbija legitimnosti sistema dovoljenj za izvajanje dejavnosti na področju osemenjevanja, vendar samo, če je ta sistem le sredstvo, s katerim osemenjevalec pristojnemu veterinarskemu organu dokaže svojo usposobljenost.
By contrast, it does not accept that that authorisation should be granted only under an agreement with an authorised artificial insemination centre, a condition which has nothing to do with the inseminator’s competence.
Nasprotno, zavrača, da se to dovoljenje podeli le v okviru pogodbe z odobrenim sredi�čem za osemenjevanje, kar je pogoj, ki v ničemer ne zadeva usposobljenosti osemenjevalca.
The Commission invokes as a further obstacle the fact that service providers from other Member States wishing to distribute and inseminate semen are prevented from offering both those services together, because of the requirement to deposit the semen with the centres which alone may deliver it to breeders.
Komisija kot dodatno oviro navaja dejstvo, da ponudniki storitev iz drugih držav članic, ki želijo zagotavljati distribucijo semena in osemenjevanje, tega ne morejo ponujati skupaj zaradi zahteve, naj se seme shranjuje v osemenjevalni sredi�čih, ki lahko edina dostavljajo semena rejcem.
The French Republic contends, first of all, that the French legislation was fundamentally amended from 1 January 2007 and that, inter alia, the amended legislation provides for the abolition of exclusive rights over geographically defined areas.
Francoska republika zatrjuje, najprej, da je bila francoska ureditev temeljito spremenjena od 1. januarja 2007 in predvsem da je bila predvidena ukinitev geografsko opredeljene izključne pravice.
It points out, however, that that reform is not concerned with removing an alleged incompatibility of the legislation which is the subject of this action with Community law.
Poudarja pa, da namen te reforme ni končati domnevno nezdružljivost ureditve, ki je predmet te tožbe, s pravom Skupnosti.
Concerning the legislation at issue, the French Republic does not dispute that that legislation constitutes an obstacle to the freedom of establishment.
Francoska republika ne prereka, da zadevna ureditev ovira svobodo ustanavljanja.
However, that restriction is not discriminatory, since it allows nationals from other Member States to open and operate an insemination centre in French territory, under the same conditions as those required so far as French nationals are concerned.
Kljub temu naj ta omejitev ne bi bila diskriminatorna, ker naj bi državljanom drugih držav članic omogočala začetek in opravljanje dejavnosti osemenjevalnega sredi�ča na francoskem ozemlju pod enakimi pogoji, kot so tisti, ki se zahtevajo od francoskih državljanov.
In any event, according to that Member State, that legislation is justified by overriding interests relating to the public interest.
Po mnenju te države članice to ureditev vsekakor upravičujejo nujni razlogi splo�nega interesa.
The French Republic submits that the aim of granting exclusive territorial rights is not to delimit a determined geographical area, but to collect information.
Francoska republika trdi, da geografsko opredeljena izključna pravica ni namenjena razmejitvi določenega geografskega območja, ampak zagotavljanju zbiranja podatkov.
It is therefore possible to amend the extent of the areas and approximately 30 transfers have been made since the entry into force of Law No 66-1005.
Mogoča je torej prilagoditev obsega območij in od začetka veljavnosti zakona �t. 66-1005 naj bi nastalo približno trideset sprememb.
That Member State submits that the authorisations granting exclusive rights for an unlimited duration to providers already in the area does not prevent new centres from being established.
Po mnenju te države članice dovoljenja, s katerimi so ponudnikom storitev osemenjevalnih sredi�č podeljene časovno neomejene izključne pravice, ne izključujejo možnosti ustanavljanja novih sredi�č.
As regards the distribution service, the French Republic accepts that the sale, in France, of semen originating from an operator located in another Member State may include not only frozen semen but also fresh semen.
Kar zadeva storitev distribucije, Francoska republika priznava, da se v Franciji prodaja semena, ki izvira od gospodarskega subjekta s sedežem v drugi državi članici, lahko nana�a ne samo na globoko zamrznjeno seme, ampak tudi na sveže seme.
However, according to that Member State, such transactions concerning fresh semen, where they are not prohibited, are of no economic interest and are almost non-existent.
Vendar po mnenju te države članice taki postopki v zvezi s svežim semenom, če niso prepovedani, nima nobenega gospodarskega interesa in dejansko ne obstajajo.
So far as the insemination service is concerned, the French Republic concedes that the insemination of semen can be carried out only by licensed managers of insemin -ation centres or licensed inseminators.
Francoska republika je v zvezi s storitvijo osemenjevanja priznala, da tega lahko izvedejo le imetniki licence vodje osemenjevalnega sredi�ča ali osemenjevalca.
It adds that, in respect of operators who
Dodaja, da se gospodarskim subjektom, ki niso zaposleni v takem sredi�ču, zlasti neodvisnim
2008 — CASE C-389/05 are not official employees of such a centre, in particular selfemployed veterinary surgeons, that licence is issued after the signature of an agreement between the managing director of the centre and those operators.
2008 – ZADEVA C-389/05 veterinarjem, to dovoljenje izda po podpisu pogodbe med predsednikom sredi�ča in temi gospodarskimi subjekti.
That Member State observes, however, that that obligation on the independent operator does not amount to prohibiting the practice of insemination by a veterinary surgeon acting in a selfemployed capacity.
Vendar ta država članica opozarja, da ta obveznost, naložena neodvisnemu gospodarskemu subjektu, ne prepoveduje opravljanja storitev osemenjevanja veterinarju, ki opravlja samostojno poklicno dejavnost.
The French Republic claims that that agreement ensures the applicable rules are observed and guarantees that the centre manager will be properly informed of the nature and content of the services provided.
Francoska republika namreč trdi, da ta pogodba zagotavlja spo�tovanje veljavne ureditve in dejstvo, da bo vodja sredi�ča pravilno obve�čen o naravi in vsebini opravljenih storitev.
That Member State admits that, like veterinary surgeons, breeders must request a special temporary inseminator’s licence for the purposes of the insemination of females from their own livestock population and that they must obtain an agreement from the territorially competent insemination centre.
Ta država članica priznava, da morajo poleg veterinarjev tudi rejci zaprositi za posebno in začasno licenco za osemenjevalca za osemenjevanje samic njihove črede in da morajo pridobiti soglasje teritorialno pristojnega osemenjevalnega sredi�ča.
It adds that the breeders must prove their ability or professional experience of farming or, if they do not, must receive training in the insemination of the bovine species.
Dodaja, da morajo rejci upravičiti svojo usposobljenost ali svoje strokovne izku�nje kot nosilca kmetijskega gospodarstva ali, če teh nimajo, da se morajo udeležiti izobraževanja o osemenjevanju goveda.
That Member State concludes that any operator who has the qualifications or training required can apply for the licence necessary to carry out artificial insemination.
Navedena država članica iz tega sklepa, da lahko vsak gospodarski subjekt, ki ima zahtevane poklicne kvalifikacije ali izobrazbo, zaprosi za izdajo licence, ki je potrebna za opravljanje dejavnosti osemenjevanja.
First of all, it is settled caselaw that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, inter alia, Case C-168/03 Commission v Spain [2004] ECR I-8227, paragraph 24, and Case C-23/05 Commission v Luxembourg [2005] ECR I-9535, paragraph 9).
Uvodoma je po eni strani treba navesti, da se mora v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso obstoj neizpolnitve obveznosti presojati glede na položaj zadevne države članice, kot je obstajal v okviru roka, določenega v obrazloženem mnenju (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 14. septembra 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, C-168/03, ZOdl., str. I-8227, točka 24, in z dne 27. oktobra 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Luksemburgu, C-23/05, ZOdl., str.
Secondly, it must be observed that the Court has not yet ruled on the compatibility of the French legislation at issue with the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services.
Po drugi strani je treba spomniti, da Sodi�če �e ni odločalo o združljivosti zadevne francoske ureditve z določbami Pogodbe na področju svobode ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev.
The exclusive rights of those centres were examined only from the point of view of the free movement of goods.
2057), se je nacionalno sodi�če spra�evalo samo glede tega, ali so bila osemenjevalna sredi�ča tržna v smislu člena 37 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 31 ES), pri čemer je menilo, da monopolnost teh sredi�č ni sporna.
The case giving rise to the judgment in Case C-323/93 Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle [1994] ECR I-5077 dealt with the compatibility of the French legislation with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of goods (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC)) and with the rules on competition set out in that treaty (Articles 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC)) and not the compatibility of that legislation with freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.
Predmet zadeve Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle, v kateri je bila izrečena sodba z dne 5. oktobra 1994 (C-323/93, Recueil, str. I-5077), je bila združljivost francoske ureditve z določbami Pogodbe o prostem pretoku blaga (člena 30 in 36 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postala člena 28 ES in 30 ES)) in s pravili o konkurenci, ki jih določa ista pogodba (člena 86 in 90(1) Pogodbe ES (postala člena 82 ES in 86(1) ES)), in ne združljivost te ureditve s svobodo ustanavljanja in svobodo opravljanja storitev.
As regards the case at the origin of the judgment in Case C-17/94 Gervais and Others [1995] ECR I-4353, the Court held that the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services do not apply to purely internal situations in a Member State (paragraphs 24, 28 and 39).
V zvezi s sodbo z dne 7. decembra 1995 v zadevi Gervais in drugi (C-17/94, Recueil, str. I-4353) je treba opozoriti, da je Sodi�če razsodilo, da se določbe Pogodbe na področju svobode ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev ne uporabljajo za dejavnosti, katerih vsi elementi so združeni v eni državi članici (točke 24, 28 in 39).
It also examined the compatibility of the national legislation only with Directives 77/504 and 87/328 (paragraph 33).
Poleg tega je preizkusilo združljivost nacionalne ureditve samo z direktivama 77/504 in 87/328 (točka 33).
In contrast to the cases mentioned above, these proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations raise the question whether the French rules, which confer on authorised centres the exclusive right to provide the service of artificial insemination of bovine animals in a determined territory and make the issue of an inseminator’s licence subject to concluding an agreement with one of those centres, infringe Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
V tem postopku zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti se v nasprotju z zgoraj omenjenimi zadevami postavlja vpra�anje, ali je francoska ureditev, ki odobrenim sredi�čem podeljuje geografsko določeno izključno pravico zagotavljanja storitev osemenjevanja goveda in izdajo licenc za osemenjevalca pogojuje s sklenitvijo pogodbe z enim od teh sredi�č, v nasprotju s členoma 43 ES in 49 ES.
First, so far as the restriction of the freedom of establishment is concerned, it must be stated at the outset that the French Republic accepts that the exclusive rights over defined geographical areas established to the benefit of insemination centres and the condition making the issue of an inseminator’s licence subject to the conclusion of an agreement with the territorially competent insemination centre hamper that freedom, although it submits that those measures do not totally prevent operators from other Member States from carrying out in France the artificial insemination of bovine animals.
Prvič, kar zadeva omejitev svobode ustanavljanja, je treba najprej ugotoviti, da Francoska republika priznava, da geografsko določena izključna pravica, odobrena osemenjevalnim sredi�čem, in pogojevanje izdajanja licence za osemenjevalca s sklenitvijo pogodbe z osemenjevalnim sredi�čem, pristojnim za določeno območje, ovirata to svobo�čino, čeprav meni, da ti ukrepi gospodarskim subjektom drugih držav članic ne onemogočata vseh možnosti za opravljanje storitev osemenjevanja goveda v Franciji.