natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
After taking receipt of a payment on account of EUR 2 000, To Me Group informed Dermoestética that, in view of the provisions of Law No 175/1992, it would not be possible to broadcast the television advertisements envisaged on the national television network and at the same time stated that it was prepared to secure advertising slots on local stations.
Potem ko je dobila predplačilo v vi�ini 2000 EUR, je družba To Me Group obvestila družbo Dermoestética, da glede na zakon �t. 175/1992 na nacionalnih televizijskih postajah ni mogoče predvajati predvidenih televizijskih oglasov, in navedla, da bi lahko poiskala ogla�evalski prostor na lokalnih postajah.
Since To Me Group refused to refund the payment on account it had received on the ground that the sum in question did not even cover the hourly charges incurred in launching the advertising campaign, Dermoestética brought proceedings before the Giudice di Pace di Genova for termination of the contested contract as a result of To Me Group’s non-performance of the contract.
Ker je družba To Me Groupe zavrnila vračilo prejetega predplačila, ker naj ta znesek ne bi pokrival niti urnih stro�kov za lansiranje ogla�evalske kampanje, je družba Dermoestética pri predložitvenem sodi�ču vložila predlog za razvezo sporne pogodbe, ker je družba To Me Group ni izpolnila.
The applicant in the main proceedings also made an application for To Me Group to be ordered to refund the payment on account.
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari je prav tako vložila predlog, naj se družbi To Me Group naloži vračilo navedenega predplačila.
In the main proceedings, Dermoestética and Cliniche Futura Srl have argued that Italian legislation on advertising health care establishments, in particular the provisions prohibiting the broadcasting of such advertisements on national television networks, is incompatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Družbi Dermoestética in Cliniche Futura Srl sta se v postopku v glavni stvari sklicevali na nezdružljivost italijanske ureditve na področju ogla�evanja zdravstvenih ustanov, zlasti določb glede prepovedi predvajanja takih oglasov na nacionalnih televizijskih postajah, s členoma 43 ES in 49 ES.
The Giudice di Pace di Genova states that the ban on the advertising of medical services on national television channels is incompatible with Community law.
Predložitveno sodi�če v zvezi s tem poudarja, da prepoved ogla�evanja zdravstvenih storitev na nacionalnih televizijskih postajah ni v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
In its view, it constitutes an unjustified restriction in the light of both Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC.
Meni namreč, da gre za neupravičeno omejitev tako glede na člen 43 ES kot na člen 49 ES.
It is in those circumstances that the Giudice di Pace di Genova decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Giudice di Pace di Genova prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
(3) Is it contrary to Articles 43 EC and/or 49 EC for the broadcasting of advertisements providing information on medical and surgical treatments of a cosmetic nature in private health care establishments, duly authorised for that purpose, to be made subject to additional prior authorisation by the local administrative authorities and/or professional associations?
3) Ali člena 43 ES in/ali 49 ES nasprotujeta temu, da se za predvajanje informativnega oglasa o estetskih zdravstvenih in kirur�kih storitvah, ki se opravljajo v zasebnih zdravstvenih ustanovah, ki imajo za to dovoljenje, zahteva dodatno predhodno dovoljenje lokalnih upravnih organov in/ali zbornic?
(4) By adopting a code of conduct which imposes limits on the advertising of professional health care services and by construing the legislation in force concerning the advertising of medical services in a manner which considerably restricts the right of doctors to advertise their own activities, both measures being binding on all doctors, have the Federazione Nazionale degli Ordini dei Medici (National Federation of Associations of Doctors, Surgeons and Dentists) (Fnomceo) and the associations of group practices restricted competition beyond what
4) Ali so Federazione nazionale degli ordini dei medici (Fnomceo) (nacionalna zveza zdravni�kih zbornic) in z njo povezane zdravni�ke zbornice, s tem da so sprejele etični kodeks, ki določa omejitve pri ogla�evanju zdravstvenih poklicev, in razlagalno prakso veljavnih določb o ogla�evanju zdravstvenih storitev, tako da omejujejo pravico zdravnikov do ogla�evanja njihovih dejavnosti – oboje pa je zavezujoče za vse zdravnike –, omejile konkurenco, tako da so presegle to,
CORPORACIÓN DERMOESTÉTICA is permitted under the relevant national legislation and in breach of Article 81(1) EC?
CORPORACIÓN DERMOESTÉTICA kar je dovoljeno na podlagi upo�tevnega nacionalnega prava in je v nasprotju s čle nom 81(1) ES?
(5) In any event, is the interpretative practice adopted by Fnomceo incompatible with Articles 3(1)(g), 4, 98, 10, 81 and, possibly, Article 86 of the EC Treaty, in so far as the practice is permitted by a national law which requires the competent provincial professional associations to verify that advertisements by medical practitioners are transparent and accurate without indicating the criteria and procedures to be applied in exercising that authority?’
5) Ali je v vsakem primeru razlagalna praksa, ki jo je sprejela Fnomceo, v nasprotju s členi 3(1)(g) ES, 4 ES, 98 ES, 10 ES, 81 ES in morebiti 86 ES, če tako prakso dovoljuje nacionalno pravo, ki od pristojnih pokrajinskih zbornic zahteva, da preverijo preglednost in resničnost oglasov, ne da bi bila navedena merila in podrobna pravila za izvajanje takega pooblastila?“
The Italian Government raises the objection that the reference for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible in its entirety.
Italijanska vlada se sklicuje na ugovor nedopustnosti celotnega predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
The Commission contends that the fourth and fifth questions are inadmissible.
Komisija pa se sklicuje na nedopustnost četrtega in petega vpra�anja.
In the procedure laid down by Article 234 EC, the functions of the Court of Justice and those of the referring court are clearly separate, and it falls exclusively to the latter to interpret national legislation (see, to that effect, Case C-295/97 Piaggio [1999] ECR I-3735, paragraph 29 and the caselaw cited).
V okviru postopka iz člena 234 ES so namreč naloge Sodi�ča in naloge predložitvenega sodi�ča jasno ločene in izključno slednjemu pripada naloga razlage nacionalne zakonodaje (v tem smislu glej sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 17. junija 1999 v zadevi Piaggio, C-295/97, Recueil, str. I-3735, točka 29 in navedena sodna praksa).
Consequently, the Court cannot rule on whether Decree Law No 223/2006 is applicable to the case in the main proceedings.
Sodi�če se zato v obravnavanem primeru v postopku v glavni stvari ne sme izreči o uporabljivosti uredbe-zakona �t. 223/2006.
However, that is not the case with regard to the first three questions referred for a preliminary ruling, since the difficulties of interpreting the contested provisions of Law No 175/1992 in the light of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC are at the heart of the main action.
To pa ni tako pri prvih treh vpra�anjih za predhodno odločanje, saj so težave z razlago spornih določb zakona �t. 175/1992 glede na člena 43 ES in 49 ES bistvo spora o glavni stvari.
Accordingly, the Italian Government’s argument must be rejected in so far as it contends that those questions are inadmissible.
Zato je treba zavrniti utemeljitev italijanske vlade glede nedopustnosti navedenih vpra�anj.
On the other hand, with regard to the fourth and fifth questions, the Giudice di Pace di Genova does not explain in what way the Court’s examination of either the code of conduct for medical practitioners or the practice adopted by Fnomceo in interpreting the laws on advertising would be of assistance in resolving the dispute in the main proceedings.
Nasprotno, glede četrtega in petega vpra�anja predložitveno sodi�če ne razloži, zakaj naj bi bil preizkus etičnega kodeksa zdravnikov in razlagalne prakse na področju ogla�evanja, ki jo je sprejela Fnomceo, s strani Sodi�ča koristna za re�itev spora o glavni stvari.
Nor does it state what the connection is between those aspects of national law and the provisions of Community law which it asks the Court to interpret.
Prav tako ne navaja, kaj naj bi bila zveza med elementi nacionalnega prava in določbami prava Skupnosti, za razlago katerih prosi.
In any event, the order for reference does not set out either the relevant provisions of the code of conduct in question or a description of the interpretative practice adopted by Fnomceo (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04 Placanica and Others [2007] ECR I-1891, paragraph 34).
Predložitvena odločba v nobenem primeru ne vsebuje ne določb zadevnega etičnega kodeksa ne opisa razlagalne prakse Fnomceo (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 6. marca 2007 v združenih zadevah Placanica in drugi, C-338/04, C-359/04 in C-360/04, ZOdl., str. I-1891, točka 34).
Consequently, the fourth and fifth questions are inadmissible.
Zato je treba četrto in peto vpra�anje razglasiti za nedopustni.
Questions 1 to 3
Prva tri vprašanja
By its first three questions, which it is appropriate to consider together, the Giudice di Pace di Genova asks, in essence, whether Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as its effect is to prohibit advertising for medical and surgical treatments carried out in private health care establishments on national television networks.
S prvimi tremi vpra�anji, ki jih je treba obravnavati skupaj, predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali člena 43 ES in 49 ES nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, kot je ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari, ker ta prepoveduje ogla�evanje zdravljenja in kirur�kih posegov, ki se opravljajo v zasebnih zdravstvenih ustanovah, na nacionalnih televizijskih postajah.
It is apparent from the order for reference that, under Law No 175/1992, the broadcasting on television of advertisements for medical and surgical treatments carried out in private health care establishments is permitted, after first obtaining authorisation from the local administrative authorities and the opinion of professional associations, and subject to a ceiling on expenditure of 5% of declared income for the preceding year, only on local television networks, which, according to the Giudice di Pace di Genova, effectively prohibits such advertising on national television networks.
Iz predložitvene odločbe namreč izhaja, da je na podlagi zakona �t. 175/1992 televizijsko ogla�evanje storitev zdravljenja in kirur�kih posegov, ki se opravljajo v zasebnih zdravstvenih ustanovah, dovoljeno zgolj na lokalnih televizijskih postajah, če je pridobljeno dovoljenje lokalnih upravnih organov in mnenje poklicnih zbornic ter če je spo�tovana omejitev izdatkov v vi�ini 5 % izkazanih dohodkov prej�njega leta, s čemer je po mnenju predložitvenega sodi�ča tako ogla�evanje prepovedano na nacionalnih televizijskih postajah.
As the Advocate General observes at point 58 of his Opinion, rules on advertising such as those laid down by Law No 175/1992 entail a prohibition on advertising which goes beyond that laid down in Article 14(1) of Directive 89/552.
Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točki 58 sklepnih predlogov, ureditev ogla�evanja, kot je določena v zakonu �t. 175/1992, vsebuje prepoved ogla�evanja, ki presega prepoved, ki je določena v členu 14(1) Direktive 89/552.
Although, pursuant to Article 3(1) of that directive, the Member States remain free to lay down more detailed or stricter rules in the areas covered by the directive, when exercising
Čeprav člen 3(1) te direktive državam članicam daje možnost, da določijo natančnej�a in strožja pravila na področju, ki ga pokriva, je tako pristojnost treba izvajati ob spo�tovanju temeljnih
2008 — CASE C-500/06 that right, they must respect the basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty (see, to that effect, Case C-6/98 ARD [1999] ECR I-7599, paragraph 49).
2008 – ZADEVA C-500/06 svobo�čin, ki jih jamči Pogodba ES (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 28. oktobra 1999 v zadevi ARD, C-6/98, Recueil, str. I-7599, točka 49).
Rules on advertising such as those laid down in Law No 175/1992, in so far as they permit, subject to certain conditions, broadcasting on local television networks of advertisements for medical and surgical treatments provided by private health care establishments and which effectively prohibit such advertising on national television networks constitute, for companies established in Member States other than the Italian Republic, such as Dermoestética, a serious obstacle to the pursuit of their activities by means of a subsidiary established in that Member State.
Ker pa ureditev ogla�evanja, kot je ureditev, ki je določena v zakonu �t. 175/1992, pod določenimi pogoji dovoljuje predvajanje oglasov glede storitev zdravljenja in kirur�kih posegov, ki se opravljajo v zasebnih zdravstvenih ustanovah, na lokalnih televizijskih postajah, s čemer je prepovedano tako ogla�evanje na nacionalnih televi -zijskih postajah, za družbe, ustanovljene v drugih državah članicah kot v Italijanski republiki, kot je družba Dermoestética, pomeni resno oviro za izvajanje njihovih dejavnosti s strani hčerinske družbe v slednji državi članici.
Moreover, in so far as they prohibit companies such as Dermoestética from using services for broadcasting television advertisements, rules on advertising such as those laid down by Law No 175/1992 constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services.
Poleg tega, ker ureditev ogla�evanja, kot je ureditev, določena v zakonu �t. 175/1992, družbam, kot je družba Dermoestética, onemogoča, da imajo koristi od storitev predvajanja televizijskih oglasov, pomeni omejitev svobodnega opravljanja storitev.
The rules on advertising laid down in the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings must therefore be regarded as constituting a national measure which is liable to impede or render less attractive the exercise of the basic freedoms guaranteed by Articles 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty.
Prav tako je treba ugotoviti, da je ureditev ogla�evanja, kot je določena v nacionalni ureditvi, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, nacionalni ukrep, ki lahko prepoveduje, moti ali zmanj�uje privlačnost izvr�evanja temeljnih svobo�čin, ki jih zagotavlja Pogodba v členih 43 ES in 49 ES.
However, according to the caselaw of the Court, such measures may be justified if they fulfil four conditions: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner;
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�če kljub temu izhaja, da je take ukrepe mogoče upravičiti samo, če izpolnjujejo �tiri pogoje: da se uporabljajo nediskriminatorno, da odgovarjajo
It should be noted, first of all, that the rules on advertising at issue in the main proceedings apply without distinction as to the Member State in which the undertaking at which those rules are directed is established.
V zvezi s tem je najprej treba ugotoviti, da se ureditev ogla�evanja, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, uporablja neodvisno od države članice, v kateri imajo sedež podjetja, na katera se ta ureditev nana�a.
In second place, the protection of public health is one of the overriding reasons based on the general interest which can, by virtue of Article 46(1) EC and that article read in conjunction with Article 55 EC, justify restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, respectively.
Drugič, varovanje javnega zdravja je en od nujnih razlogov splo�nega interesa, ki lahko na podlagi člena 46(1) ES in istega člena v povezavi s členom 55 ES upravičijo omejitve svobode ustanavljanja oziroma svobodnega opravljanja storitev.
Thus, rules regulating television advertising for medical and surgical treatments provided by private health care establishments can be justified in the light of the objective of protection of public health.
Ureditev televizijskega ogla�evanja storitev zdravljenja in kirur�kih posegov, ki se opravljajo v zasebnih zdravstvenih ustanovah, je tako lahko upravičena zaradi cilja varovanja javnega zdravja.
With regard, in third place, to the extent to which it is possible for a set of rules, such as those laid down in the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, to guarantee that the objective of protection of public health is attained, by introducing a measure resulting in a prohibition on advertising medical and surgical treatments on national television networks while at the same time making it possible to broadcast such advertisements on local television networks, such rules exhibit an inconsistency which the Italian Government has not attempted to justify and cannot therefore properly attain the public health objective which they seek to pursue.
Tretjič, glede zmožnosti ureditve, kot je ureditev, ki izhaja iz obravnavane zakonodaje v postopku v glavni stvari, da zagotovi uresničitev cilja varovanja javnega zdravja, je treba poudariti, da ta ureditev z uvedbo določbe o prepovedi ogla�evanja zdravljenja in kirur�kih posegov na nacionalnih televizijskih postajah, s tem da omogoča predvajanje takih oglasov na lokalnih televizijskih postajah, pomeni neskladnost, ki jo italijanska vlada ni poskusila upravičiti, in torej ne služi zgoraj navedenemu cilju, ki ga zasleduje.
Consequently, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, cannot be regarded as being appropriate for the purpose of securing the attainment
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da nacionalna zakonodaja, kot je zakonodaja, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, ne more zagotoviti uresničitve cilja javnega zdravja in pomeni neupravičeno omejitev v smislu členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
2008 — CASE C-500/06 of the objective of public health and constitutes an unjustified restriction for the purposes of Article 43 EC and 49 EC.
2008 – ZADEVA C-500/06
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first three questions must be that Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 48 EC and 55 EC, must be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits the broadcasting of advertisements for medical and surgical treatments provided by private health care establishments on national television networks while at the same time permitting such advertisements, subject to certain conditions, on local television networks.
Glede na zgoraj navedene ugotovitve je treba na prva tri vpra�anja odgovoriti, da je treba člena 43 ES in 49 ES v povezavi s členoma 48 ES in 55 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta zakonodaji, kot je zakonodaja, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, ki prepoveduje ogla�evanje zdravljenja in kirur�kih posegov, ki se opravljajo v zasebnih zdravstvenih ustanovah, na nacionalnih televizijskih postajah, pod določenimi pogoji pa dovoljuje tako ogla�evanje na lokalnih televizijskih postajah.
Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 48 EC and 55 EC, must be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it prohibits the broadcasting of advertisements for medical and surgical treatments provided by private health care establishments on national television networks while at the same time permitting such advertisements, subject to certain conditions, on local television networks.
Člena 43 ES in 49 ES v povezavi s členoma 48 ES in 55 ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta zakonodaji, kot je zakonodaja, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, ki prepoveduje oglaševanje zdravljenja in kirurških posegov, ki se opravljajo v zasebnih zdravstvenih ustanovah, na nacionalnih televizijskih postajah, pod določenimi pogoji pa dovoljuje tako oglaševanje na lokalnih televizijskih postajah.
Case C-521/06 P
Zadeva C-521/06 P
Athinaïki Techniki A Ev Commission of the European Communities
Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti
(Appeal — State aid — Aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium — Complaint — Decision to take no further action on the complaint — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 4, 13 and 20 — Concept of ‘act open to challenge’ for the purposes of Article 230 EC)
„Pritožba – Državna pomoč – Pomoč, ki jo je Helenska republika dodelila konzorciju Hyatt Regency – Pritožba – Odločba o ustavitvi postopka s pritožbo – Uredba (ES) �t. 659/1999 – Členi 4, 13 in 20 – Pojem ‚izpodbojni akt‘ v smislu člena 230 ES“
Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Acts open to challenge by a complainant alleging State aid — Commission decision to take no further action on the complaint — Included
Ničnostna tožba – Izpodbojni akti – Akti, ki jih izpodbija vlagatelj pritožbe, v kateri je prijavil državno pomoč – Odločba Komisije, da ustavi postopek s pritožbo, s katero je bil končan predhodni postopek – Vključitev
(Arts 87 EC, 88(2) EC and 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 4)
(členi 87 ES, 88(2) ES in 230, četrti odstavek, ES; Uredba Sveta št. 659/1999, člen 4)
SUMMARY — CASE C-521/06 P in Article 88(2) EC. In such a situation, the persons to whom the procedural guarantees under that provision apply may ensure that they are observed only if they are able to challenge that decision before the Community judicature in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-521/06 P do postopkovnih jamstev, predvidenih v tej določbi, te uveljavljajo le, kadar imajo možnost, da to odločbo izpodbijajo pred sodi�čem Skupnosti v skladu s členom 230, četrti odstavek, ES.
That principle applies both when a decision is taken on the ground that the Commission considers that the aid is compatible with the common market, and when it takes the view that the existence of aid should be ruled out.
To načelo velja tako takrat, kadar je odločba sprejeta zato, ker Komisija meni, da je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom, kot takrat, kadar Komisija meni, da pomoč ne obstaja.
To determine whether an act in matters of State aid constitutes a decision within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 EC, it is necessary to ascertain whether, taking account of the substance of that act and the Commission’s intention, that institution has, at the end of the preliminary examination stage, definitively established its position on the measure under review and, therefore, whether it has decided that that measure constituted aid or not and whether it had no doubts as regards its compatibility with the common market, or that it did have such doubts.
Za ugotovitev, ali je akt na področju državnih pomoči odločba v smislu člena 4 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 88 ES, je treba preveriti, ali je, ob upo�tevanju njegove vsebine in namena Komisije, ta institucija na koncu predhodne faze preučitve z obravnavanim aktom dokončno izoblikovala svoje stali�če o spornem ukrepu, torej ali je ugotovila, ali je ta ukrep pomoč ali ne, in ali ima dvome glede njegove združljivosti s skupnim trgom ali ne.
A letter by which the Commission informs a complainant seeking a declaration of infringement of Articles 87 and 88 EC, that ‘in the absence of additional information to justify continuing the investigation, the Commission has, for the purposes of administrative action, closed the file …’ indicates that the Commission actually closed the file for the purposes of administrative action.
Dopis, s katerim je Komisija vlagatelja pritožbe zaradi kr�itve členov 87 ES in 88 ES, obvestila, da „je zato, ker ni imela dodatnih podatkov, ki bi upravičili izvedbo preiskave, ustavila upravni postopek […]“, kaže na to, da je Komisija dejansko sprejela akt o ustavitvi upravnega postopka v zadevi.
It is apparent from the substance of that act and from the intention of the Commission that it has thus decided to bring to an end the preliminary examination procedure initiated by the complainant.
Iz vsebine tega akta in iz namena Komisije izhaja, da se je Komisija odločila končati predhodni postopek preučitve, ki ga je sprožil vlagatelj pritožbe.