natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
41 that national rules restricting the right to engage in certain activities to certain legal entities meeting strict conditions constituted a restriction of freedom of establishment, since they were liable to make more difficult, or even completely prevent, the exercise by economic operators from other Member States of their right to establish themselves in the Member State concerned, with the aim of providing the services in question.
41 nacionalna zakonodaja, na podlagi katere je pravica do opravljanja storitev svetovanja in pomoči na davčnem področju pridržana izključno določenim subjektom, ki izpolnjujejo zakonske pogoje, omejuje svobodo ustanavljanja, ker gospodarskim subjektom drugih držav članic vsaj otežuje uresničevanje pravice do ustanavljanja in torej opravljanja navedenih storitev v zadevni državi.
As Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer explained, 43those national rules involved such a restriction because, inter alia, they granted those organisations an exclusive right to provide certain types of advice, creating two sectors, one with open access and the other restricted to those organisations and denied to other operators with the relevant professional qualifications, whether they were national operators or operators from other Member States.
Kot je razložil generalni pravobranilec Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, 43 so bile tak�ne ovire med drugim posledica dejstva, da je bila z navedeno nacionalno zakonodajo za določene subjekte predvidena odobritev izključnih pravic za opravljanje storitev svetovanja, kar je povzročilo oblikovanje dveh sektorjev, pri čemer je bil prvi prosto dostopen, drugi, na katerega ne domači ne tuji gospodarski subjekti iz drugih držav članic, čeprav z ustreznimi strokovnimi kvalifikacijami, niso smeli vstopiti, pa pridržan navedenim subjektom.
The French Government, although taking the view, contrary to the assumption made by the Commission, that the exclusive rights over a defined geographical area in favour of the AICs and the fact that the issue of an inseminator’s licence is conditional upon the conclusion of an agreement with the territorially competent AIC do not constitute a complete barrier to access for operators from other Member States to the
Francoska vlada – čeprav v nasprotju s Komisijo meni, da geografsko določena izključna pravica, odobrena OS, in pogojevanje izdajanja licence za osemenjevalca s sklenitvijo pogodbe z OS, pristojnim za določeno območje, gospodarskim subjektom drugih držav članic ne onemogočata vseh možnosti za opravljanje storitev
42 — Case C-451/03 [2006] ECR I-2941, paragraph 34.
42 – Sodba z dne 30. marca 2006 (C-451/03, ZOdl., str. I-2941, točka 34).
43 — Opinion of 28 June 2005 in Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, cited in footnote 42, points 42 and 44.
41 – Sodba z dne 5. oktobra 2004 v zadevi CaixaBank (C-442/02, ZOdl., str. I-8961, točka 11, in tam navedena sodna praksa).
41 — Case C-442/02 CaixaBank France [2004] ECR I-8961, paragraph 11, and the caselaw cited therein.
43 – Sklepni predlogi, predstavljeni 28. junija 2005 v zadevi, zaključeni z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti (točki 42 in 44).
44 The fact that there was no discrimination depending on the operator’s Member State of origin is actually relevant only in the sense that it makes it possible to take into consideration, for the purposes of assessing the compatibility of the national rules at issue with Article 43 EC, reasons in the public interest, other than those set out in Article 46(1) EC, to justify the restriction which has been established.
44To, da gospodarski subjekti niso bili obravna -vani diskriminatorno glede na državo izvora, je namreč pomembno le v smislu, da dopu�ča upo�tevanje – za namene presoje skladnosti sporne nacionalne ureditve s členom 43 ES – razlogov splo�nega interesa, tudi različnih od tistih, navedenih v členu 46(1) ES, ki naj bi upravičevali ugotovljeno omejevanje svobode.
The fact that the authorised AICs had exclusive rights within a defined geographical area limited the total number of operators allowed to open and operate such centres in French territory, restricting it to just one in the part of that territory identified in the ministerial authorisation.
Geografsko določena izključna pravica, podeljena odobrenim OS, je bila namreč predvidena za zelo majhno �tevilo gospodarskih subjektov, saj je bilo na posameznih območjih francoskega ozemlja, opredeljenih v dovoljenjih ministra, dovoljeno ustanoviti in upravljati le eno samo sredi�če.
The fact that the exclusive rights were of unlimited duration, which the French Government has not disputed, hampered the access of such operators, including those from other Member States, to the market in artificial insemination, reinforcing and protecting the position of the national operators who were already operating on that market.
Neomejeno trajanje izključne pravice, česar francoska vlada ne zanika, je dodatno oviralo druge gospodarske subjekte, ki bi želeli vstopiti na trg storitev osemenjevanja, skupaj s tistimi iz drugih držav članic, medtem ko je domačim gospodarskim subjektom, že dejavnim na tem trgu, omogočalo utrditev in za�čito položaja.
(c) The freedom to provide services
c) Svoboda opravljanja storitev
Any opportunity to become established in France in order to exercise the activity of independent inseminator was made impossible by the conferring of exclusive rights on the authorised AICs to provide insemination services and the related requirement that inseminators who were not on the staff of an authorised AIC had to engage in their activity under the management and control of the territorially competent AIC, and subject to the technical responsibility of the manager of the AIC, and because they were therefore unable independently to determine with the breeder the methods and financial terms of the service, which had to form the subjectmatter of an agreement with the AIC.
Uresničevanje pravice do ustanavljanja z namenom opravljanja samostojne dejavnosti osemenjevalca je bilo onemogočeno zaradi izključne pravice za opravljanje storitev osemenjevanja, podeljene odobrenim OS, in zaradi zahteve, v skladu s katero so morali osemenjevalci, ki niso bili zaposleni pri odobrenih OS, dejavnost opravljati pod vodstvom in nadzorom OS, pristojnih za določeno območje, kar jim je onemogočalo, da bi skupaj s stranko – to je z rejcem – samostojno opredelili način in ekonomske pogoje storitve, saj so bili ti predmet pogodbe med osemenjevalcem in OS.
It is settled caselaw that Article 49 EC requires not only the elimination of all discrimination against a person providing services on the ground of his nationality but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States, when it is liable to prohibit or otherwise impede the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services. 45
V skladu z razlago, ki izhaja iz ustaljene sodne prakse, je s členom 49 ES predpisana ne le prepoved kakr�ne koli diskriminacije izvajalcev storitev na podlagi državljanstva, temveč tudi prepoved kakr�nega koli omejevanja, čeprav se uporablja brez razlikovanja med domačimi izvajalci storitev in tistimi iz drugih držav članic, ki izvajalcu storitev s sedežem ali prebivali�čem v drugi državi članici, kjer zakonito opravlja enako dejavnost, preprečuje ali ga ovira pri opravljanju teh storitev v zadevni državi, ali povzroči, da postane to zanj manj privlačno. 45
44 — Kraus, cited in footnote 24, paragraph 32.
44 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Kraus, točka 32.
The exclusive rights in question over a specific geographical area and the related requirement to conclude an agreement with the AIC in order to obtain an inseminator’s licence therefore constituted, in my view, a
Zato menim, da sta zadevna geografsko določena izključna pravica in z njo povezani pogoj za izdajo licence za osemenjevalca, ki se nana�a na sklenitev pogodbe z OS, resno
It is apparent from the description of the national rules at issue set out above that a transfrontier service provider wishing to engage, in French territory, in artificial insemination, in accordance with the freedom to provide services, would have had necessarily to apply for and obtain an inseminator’s licence in France.
Iz opisa sporne nacionalne ureditve izhaja, da je moral čezmejni izvajalec storitev, ki bi želel na francoskem ozemlju opravljati postopke osemenjevanja v smislu svobodnega opravljanja storitev, v Franciji nujno zaprositi in pridobiti licenco za osemenjevalca.
Even setting aside the conditions governing the issue of such a licence, it must be pointed out that the actual requirement of a licence, viewed in and of itself, constituted, in accordance with the Court’s settled caselaw, 46a restriction on the freedom to provide services in so far as it is liable to prohibit or otherwise impede the provision of insemination services in France by operators established in other Member States where they lawfully provide similar services.
Ob tem je treba opozoriti, da iz ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča 46izhaja, da že ta zahteva sama po sebi in ne glede na pogoje za pridobitev licence omejuje svobodo opravljanja storitev, saj gospodarske subjekte s sedežem ali prebivali�čem v drugi državi članici, kjer zakonito opravljajo enako dejavnost, ovira pri opravljanju storitev osemenjevanja v Franciji ali povzroči, da je to zanje manj privlačno.
related requirement to enter into an agreement with the AIC in order to obtain an inseminator’s licence constituted a serious obstacle to the freedom to provide insemination services in France, within the meaning of Article 49 EC, notwithstanding the fact that those measures applied without distinction to national operators and operators from other Member States.
pogoj za izdajo licence za osemenjevalca, ki se nana�a na sklenitev pogodbe z OS, resno ovirala svobodno opravljanje storitev osemenjevanja v Franciji v smislu člena 49 ES, pri čemer te ugotovitve ne more omajati dejstvo, da so se ti ukrepi uporabljali brez razlikovanja med domačimi gospodarskimi subjekti in gospodarskimi subjekti iz drugih držav članic.
The fact that there was no discrimination according to the operator’s Member State of origin is actually relevant only so far as it makes it possible to take into consideration, for the purposes of assessing the compatibility of the national rules at issue with Article 49 EC, reasons in the public interest, other than those set out in Article 46(1) EC — applicable also in the sphere of freedom to provide services by virtue of the reference made by Article 55 EC — to justify the restriction which has been established.
To, da gospodarski subjekti niso bili obravnavani diskriminatorno glede na državo članico izvora, je namreč pomembno le v smislu, da dopu�ča upo�tevanje – za namene presoje skladnosti sporne nacionalne ureditve s členom 49 ES – razlogov splo�nega interesa, tudi različnih od tistih, navedenih v členu 46(1) ES, ki se na podlagi sklica v členu 55 ES uporablja tudi za področje svobodnega opravljanja storitev, ki naj bi upravičevali ugotovljeno omejevanje svobode.
B — The justifications put forward by the French Government
B – Utemeljitve, ki jih navaja francoska vlada
A further dissuasive effect resulted from the requirement that the insemination ser -vices be provided under the management and subject to the control of the territorially competent authorised AIC, and under the technical responsibility of the manager of that AIC, as well as that the methods, including the financial methods, of those operations had to be agreed with the AIC itself, so that it was impossible to engage in artificial insemination activities independently in competition with the AICs.
Dodaten razlog za odvračanje teh subjektov od opravljanja zadevnih storitev v Franciji je povezan z zahtevami, naj se postopki osemenjevanja izvajajo pod vodstvom in nadzorom odobrenega OS, pristojnega za določeno območje, ter pod tehnično odgovornostjo vodje tega OS in da se sklene pogodba z OS, v kateri se opredelijo načini in pogoji, tudi finančnei, opravljanja teh storitev, s čimer je bilo navedenim subjektom posledično onemogočeno neodvisno opravljanje storitev osemenjevanja in konkurenčno nastopanje na trgu v razmerju do OS.
In my view, it follows that the exclusive geographical rights in question and the
Zato menim, da sta zadevna geografsko določena izključna pravica in z njo povezani
It is clear from settled caselaw that when national measures liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services apply without distinction to all persons or undertakings exercising an activity in the territory of the host Member State, they may be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest,
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da je mogoče ukrepe, ki bi lahko ovirali ali odvračali od uresničevanja pravice do ustanavljanja in svobodnega opravljanja storitev, pod pogojem, da se ti uporabljajo brez razlikovanja za vse osebe ali podjetja, ki opravljajo dejavnost na ozemlju države članice gostiteljice, upravičiti, če so uvedeni zaradi nujnih razlogov splo�nega interesa, če so primerni in ne presegajo tistega, kar je nujno potrebno
provided that they are suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it, 47so long as there are no Community harmonising measures providing for measures necessary to ensure that those interests are protected. 48
Varstvo genetskega bogastva goveda za dosego zasledovanega cilja, 47in sicer le v okoli�činah, kadar ni ustreznih uskladitvenih ukrepov Skupnosti, s katerimi bi bili določeni posegi, potrebni za zagotovitev varstva teh interesov. 48
The case-file does not contain evidence to show that the restrictive measures at issue have been applied in a discriminatory fashion.
V spisu ni elementov, na podlagi katerih bi lahko sklepali, da so bili obravnavani omejevalni ukrepi uporabljeni diskriminatorno.
The Commission has not challenged the French Government’s argument that they applied without distinction to national operators and operators from other Member States.
Komisija ni ugovarjala stali�ču francoske vlade, da so se ti ukrepi uporabljali brez razlikovanja med domačimi gospodarskimi subjekti in tistimi iz drugih držav članic.
The French Government maintains that the national rules at issue were designed to improve bovine stock and that the Court has already recognised, in its judgment in Nilsson and Others, 49that the protection of bovine stock constitutes an overriding reason relating to the public interest.
Francoska vlada trdi, da je sku�ala s sporno nacionalno ureditvijo za�čititi genetsko bogastvo goveda, pri čemer se sklicuje na sodbo v zadevi Nilsson in drugi, 49v kateri je Sodi�če potrdilo, da je varstvo tak�nega bogastva nujen razlog splo�nega interesa.
It adds that, while Directives 77/504 and 87/328 har -monised the conditions governing the movement within the Community of purebred breeding animals of the bovine species, they did not harmonise the conditions governing the insemination of female animals of the bovine species.
Dodaja �e, da sta direktivi 77/504 in 87/328 sicer uskladili pogoje za promet s čistopasemskim plemenskim govedom in z njihovim semenskim materialom znotraj Skupnosti, nista pa enotno uredili področja in pogojev glede osemenjevanja goveda.
I shall therefore now turn to consider whether the reasons the French Government has invoked to justify the national rules at issue meet the criteria referred to in point 64 above.
Zato bom v nadaljevanju preveril, ali razlogi, na katere se sklicuje francoska vlada, da bi opravičila sporno nacionalno ureditev, ustrezajo merilom, navedenim v točki 64 teh sklepnih predlogov.
In its rejoinder, the French Government has referred to the protection of bovine stock, the requirements of land-use planning and the protection of public health.
Ta vlada se je namreč v odgovoru na tožbo sklicevala na varstvo genetskega bogastva goveda, na zahteve v zvezi s prostorskim načrtovanjem in na varstvo javnega zdravja.
Referring to the implementation in its territory of programmes of selection for progeny and stock conservation, the French Government points out that the exclusive rights over a defined geographical area conferred on the authorised AICs and the conditions governing the issue of an inseminator’s licence were the only way of guaranteeing accurate and comprehensive genetic information on cattle, which was essential to the continued genetic improvement of the species.
Francoska vlada ob opozorilu, da so se na francoskem ozemlju izvajali selekcijski programi, testiranje na potomcih in programi genetskega ohranjanja, poudarja, da je bila uvedba izključne pravice v korist odobrenim OS in spornih pogojev za izdajo licence za osemenjevalca edini način, ki je zagotavljal, da se bodo genetski podatki o govedu zbirali natančno in popolno, kar je nujno za dosego cilja, to je genetskega izbolj�anja te vrste.
Those measures in fact made it possible to centralise within a single body all the data on the breeding carried out by means of the insemination undertaken in
Le s tak�nimi ukrepi naj bi bilo namreč mogoče pri enem samem subjektu centralizirano zbrati vse podatke o osemenitvah, opra-
49 — Case C-162/97 [1998] ECR I-7477.
49 – Sodba z dne 19. novembra 1998 (C-162/97, Recueil, str. I-7477).
COMMISSION v FRANCE a given area over which exclusive rights existed.
KOMISIJA PROTI FRANCIJI vljenih na določenem območju, za katero je bila odobrena izključna pravica.
other Member States in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the directive’, and that ‘Article 2 of Directive 91/174 [ 51] provides that marketing of semen of purebred animals may not be prohibited, restricted or impeded on pedigree grounds’.
semenskega materiala, uvoženega iz drugih držav članic pod pogoji iz člena 4“, in da „je v členu 2 Direktive 91/174 51določeno, da trgovanje s semenom plemenskih živali ne sme biti prepovedano, omejeno ali ovirano zaradi razlogov genealo�ke narave“.
The Court concluded that ‘[i]t follows from those provisions that zootechnical and pedigree requirements have been fully harmonised at Community level’.
Sodi�če je sklenilo, da iz teh določb izhaja, da „je bila glede zootehni�kih in genealo�kih pogojev na ravni Skupnosti uveljavljena popolna harmonizacija“.
The Commission replies that the object- ive of protecting bovine stock falls within a sphere, namely zootechnical and pedigree requirements, which, as the Court recognised in its judgment in Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle, 50 has been fully harmonised at Community level.
Komisija odgovarja, da spada cilj varstva genetskega bogastva goveda na področje zootehni�kih in genealo�kih pogojev, ki je bilo – kot naj bi potrdilo tudi Sodi�če v sodbi Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle 50– predmet popolne harmonizacije na ravni Skupnosti.
It maintains that there is in fact no relationship between that object- ive and the conditions governing the act of insemination, which has no effect on the quality or provenance of the semen and, at most, involves considerations relating to health.
Komisija trdi, da med navedenim ciljem in pogoji za postopek osemenjevanja ni nobene povezave, saj sam postopek ne more vplivati na kakovost in izvor semenskega materiala, posebne zahteve bi se lahko nana�ale kvečjemu na zdravstvene razloge.
The reference to the full harmonisation which, according to the abovementioned judgment, has been achieved at Community level in terms of zootechnical and pedigree requirements does not seem to me to be relevant.
Menim, da sklicevanje na popolno harmonizacijo, ki je bila, kot izhaja iz navedene sodbe, uveljavljena na ravni Skupnosti v zvezi z zootehničnimi in genealo�kimi pogoji, v obravnavanem primeru ni ustrezno.
52 Furthermore, in its judgments in both Gervais and Others 53and Nilsson and Others, 54the Court pointed out that Directives 77/504 and 87/328 are designed to harmonise the conditions governing the admission to reproduction of purebred bovine breeding animals and their sperm, with a view to removing the zootechnical obstacles to the free movement of bovine semen.
Po drugi strani je Sodi�če tako v sodbi Gervais in drugi 53kot v sodbi Nilsson in drugi 54ugotovilo, da sta direktivi 77/504 in 87/328 namenjeni uskladitvi pogojev za sprejetje čistopasemskih bikov za osemenjevanje znotraj ozemlja držav članic ali uporabe njihovega semena s ciljem odpraviti zootehni�ke ovire za prost pretok semenskega materiala goveda.
The Court concluded from this both that ‘a requirement whose purpose or effect is to control or verify imports of bovine semen by reference to zootechnical or pedigree considerations could be laid down
Na tej podlagi je Sodi�če sklenilo, prvič, da „bi lahko bila kakr�na koli zahteva s ciljem ali učinkom nadzora ali preverjanja uvozov semena govedi zaradi zootehničnih ali genealo�kih pogojev
51 — Council Directive 91/174/EEC of 25 March 1991 laying down zootechnical and pedigree requirements for the marketing of purebred animals and amending Directives 77/504/EEC and 90/425/EEC (OJ 1991 L 85, p. 37).
51 – Direktiva Sveta 91/174/EGS z dne 25. marca 1991 o določitvi zootehni�kih in genealo�kih pogojev za promet s čistopasemskimi živalmi, s katerimi sta bili spremenjeni direktivi 77/504/EGS in 90/425/EGS (UL L 85, str. 37).
In paragraph 33 of Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle, the Court noted that ‘[a]s regards the reasons relating to the genetic improvement of bovine stock’, ‘Article 2(1) of Directive 87/328, which is designed to remove zootechnical obstacles to intraCommunity trade in bovine semen, requires Member States to remove all barriers to entry into, or use within, their territory of bovine semen imported from
V točki 33 sodbe Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle je Sodi�če v zvezi z razlogi glede genetskega izbolj�anja zootehni�kega bogastva goveda ugotovilo, da „Direktiva 87/328, katere namen je bil odpraviti zootehni�ke ovire za promet s semenskim materialom znotraj Skupnosti, državam članicam v členu 2(1) nalaga, da morajo znotraj svojega ozemlja odpraviti ovire za sprejetje in uporabo znotraj svojega ozemlja
52 — Furthermore, as the French Government points out and the Commission itself acknowledges, this concerns only semen extracted from purebred breeding animals of the bovine species; consequently, the harmonisation in question would not, in any event, encompass semen from cross-bred bulls.
52 – Poleg tega – kot poudarja francoska vlada in kot priznava tudi Komisija – gre le za semenski material čistopasemskih bikov, zato se zadevna harmonizacija kakor koli ne bi nana�ala na ukrepe v zvezi s semenskim materialom drugih bikov.
53 — Cited in footnote 3, paragraph 32.54 — Cited in footnote 49, paragraph 29.
53 – Navedena zgoraj, točka 32.54 – Navedena zgoraj, točka 29.
50 — Cited in footnote 4, paragraph 33.
50 – Navedena zgoraj, točka 33.
A further issue is whether the conditions governing the act of insemination may in fact affect the conservation and improvement of bovine stock.
Ali so pogoji v zvezi s postopkom osemenjevanja dejansko lahko vplivali na ohranjanje in izbolj�anje genetskega materiala govedi, je drugo vpra�anje.
The positions of the parties on that point are diametrically opposed, with the Commission taking a negative and the French Government a positive view.
V zvezi s tem sta stranki zavzeli nasprotni stali�či, Komisija je trdila, da niso vplivali, medtem ko je francoska vlada odgovarjala pritrdilno.
It does not, however, seem to me that the Court need resolve the dispute, which is of a rather technical nature.
Vendar menim, da Sodi�ču o tem vpra�anju, razmeroma tehničnem, ni treba presojati.