natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indeed, it would appear to be obvious that those questions are irrelevant since, according to the information supplied by the referring court, Advertising Media explained that it was impossible for it to fulfil its contractual obligations because of the 1992 Law, in so far as it prohibited the broadcasting of all advertisements for medical and surgical treatments of a cosmetic nature carried out in private health care establishments on national television networks, and not because of the code adopted by FNOMCEO or its practice in applying it.
Ta neobstoj upo�tevnosti se lahko zdi očiten ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da je glede na navedbe, ki jih je posredovalo predložitveno sodi�če, družba Advertising Media razložila, da ni mogla izpolniti pogodbenih obveznosti zaradi zakona iz leta 1992, ker ta prepoveduje vsakr�no ogla�evanje zdravljenja in kirur�kih posegov na področju lepotnih posegov, ki jih opravljajo v zasebnih zdravstvenih ustanovah, na postajah nacionalne televizije, in ne zaradi kodeksa, ki ga je sprejela FNOMCEO, in prakse, ki temelji na njem.
The relevant provisions of Community law
Upo�tevne določbe prava Skupnosti
That is why I propose that the Court should decide that the fourth and fifth questions are manifestly irrelevant to the outcome of the main proceedings and should be declared inadmissible.
Zato predlagam Sodi�ču, naj ugotovi, da sta četrto in peto vpra�anje očitno neupo�tevni za re�itev spora v postopku v glavni stvari, in naj ju razglasi za nedopustni.
Article 14(1) of Directive 89/552 expressly prohibits television advertising for medicinal products and medical treatment available only on prescription in the Member State within whose jurisdiction the broadcaster falls.
Naj spomnim, da člen 14(1) Direktive 89/552 izrecno prepoveduje televizijsko ogla�evanje zdravil in zdravljenja, ki jih je mogoče dobiti le na recept v tisti državi članici, pod katere jurisdikcijo je izdajatelj televizijskega programa.
B — The first three questions
B – Prva tri vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
The directive does not give a more precise definition of the medical treatments which are covered by the ban on television advertising laid down in Article 14(1).
Ta direktiva ne opredeljuje natančneje zdravstvenih storitev, na katere se nana�a prepoved televizijskega ogla�evanja, določenega v členu 14(1).
At the hearing, the Commission stated that the concept of ‘medical treatment’ in that article must be interpreted by analogy with that of ‘medicinal products available only on prescription’.
Komisija je na obravnavi poudarila, da je treba pojem „zdravstvene storitve“, navedene v tem členu, razlagati po analogiji s pojmom „zdravila, ki jih je mogoče dobiti na recept“.
The concept at issue thus corresponds to acts performed by a doctor on the basis of a prescription issued by another doctor.
Zadevni pojem je tako enak dejanjem, ki jih opravi zdravnik na podlagi recepta, ki ga izda drug zdravnik.
In the field of plastic surgery, it covers, for example, operations intended to rectify the consequences of an accident or to correct a congenital deformity.
Na področju lepotne kirurgije bi ta pojem zajemal na primer operacije, katerih namen je odpraviti posledice nesreče ali popraviti prirojeno deformacijo.
On the other hand, it does not apply to acts performed solely at the patient’s request.
Nasprotno pa naj ta pojem ne bi zajemal dejanj, ki jih opravijo na samo zahtevo pacienta.
If the question whether plastic surgery is or is not covered by Article 14(1) of Dir -ective 89/552 were to be decided on the basis of whether the operation was prescribed by another doctor or decided upon by the patient himself, it would not be possible to determine in advance in every case whether the treatment is covered by the prohibition in that article.
Odločitev, ali člen 14(1) Direktive 89/552 zajema lepotni kirur�ki poseg ali ne, glede na to, ali je ta poseg predpisal drug zdravnik ali pa se je zanj odločil pacient sam, ne omogoča, da bi se v vseh primerih vnaprej določilo, ali je storitev zajeta v prepovedi iz tega člena ali ne.
An operation, such as the re-modelling of the nose or the breasts, could be prescribed by a doctor in order to rectify the consequences of an accident or following an illness.
Kirur�ki poseg, kot je preoblikovanje nosu ali prsi, lahko namreč zdravnik predpi�e kot odpravo posledic nesreče ali bolezni.
It could also be performed solely at the request of the patient, because that person has decided, for purely aesthetic reasons, to alter his face or that part of his anatomy and, in that case, the doctor’s role is to ascertain whether the operation is in fact compatible with the patient’s state of health.
Poseg se lahko opravi tudi na samo zahtevo pacienta, ker se je iz popolnoma estetskih razlogov odločil, da spremeni svoj obraz ali določen del svojega telesa, in v tem primeru je naloga zdravnika, da preveri, ali je ta poseg združljiv z zdravstvenim stanjem pacienta.
For its part, the Netherlands Government argues that, by definition, all medical treatment requires the intervention of a doctor, with the result that the words ‘available only on prescription’ adds nothing to the concept of medical treatment.
Nizozemska vlada trdi, da pojmovno vse zdravstvene storitve potrebujejo posredovanje zdravnika, tako da del stavka „ki jih je mogoče dobiti le na recept“ ne doda ničesar k pojmu zdravstvenih storitev.
It also points out that the Member States may adopt stricter rules than those provided for in Article 14 of Directive No 89/552.
Ta vlada poudarja tudi, da lahko države članice sprejmejo strožje ukrepe, kot so predvideni s členom 14 Direktive 89/552.
Unlike the Netherlands Government, I am of the opinion that the words ‘available only on prescription’ are totally relevant for the purpose of determining the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 14(1) of Directive 89/552.
V nasprotju z nizozemsko vlado menim, da je del stavka „ki jih je mogoče dobiti le na recept“ vsekakor upo�teven za določitev obsega prepovedi iz člena 14(1) Direktive 89/552.
In addition, I do not believe that the criterion of a prescription should be interpreted as the Commission proposes.
Poleg tega ne verjamem, da je treba merilo recepta razlagati tako, kot predlaga Komisija.
The criterion of a prescription, as presented by the Commission, does not therefore permit a correct implementation of the prohibition laid down in Article 14(1) of Directive 89/552.
Merilo zdravni�kega recepta, kot ga je predstavila Komisija, torej ne omogoča pravilnega izvajanja prepovedi iz člena 14(1) Direktive 89/552.
Implementation of the prohibition requires the types of treatment for which television advertising is prohibited to be identified in advance.
Izvajanje te prepovedi namreč pomeni, da je vnaprej znano, za katere vrste zdravstvenih storitev je prepovedano televizijsko ogla�evanje.
The concept of ‘medical treatment’ within the meaning of Article 14(1) of the directive, in the same way as that of ‘medicinal product’ in the same article must, in my opinion, be understood as covering treatments in respect of which, as such, all forms of television advertising are prohibited.
Pojem „zdravstvene storitve“ v smislu člena 14(1) te direktive, tako kot pojem „zdravila“ iz tega istega člena, po mojem mnenju zajema vse storitve, ki so kot take izključene iz vsakega televizijskega ogla�evanja.
In order to determine the scope of that provision, the criterion of a prescription must therefore be interpreted differently.
Določitev področja uporabe navedenega člena zahteva torej drugačno razlago merila zdravni�kega recepta.
The prohibition of television advertising for medicinal products and medical treatment available only on prescription is explained by the fact that they must be consumed or carried out only in case of necessity, as determined by a doctor, for strictly therapeutic purposes and under conditions determined by the therapist.
Prepoved televizijskega ogla�evanja zdravil in zdravljenja, ki jih je mogoče dobiti le na recept, se razloži s tem, da se jih lahko jemlje oziroma izvaja samo v primeru nujnosti, ki jo ugotovi zdravnik, v strogo terapevtske namene in v pogojih, ki jih določi terapevt.
That view is confirmed by the 30th recital in the preamble to Directive No 89/552 which, in the French-language version, states that television advertising for medicinal products and medical treatment available ‘only’ on prescription in the Member State concerned must be prohibited.
To analizo potrjuje trideseta uvodna izjava Direktive 89/552, v skladu s katero je treba prepovedati televizijsko ogla�evanje zdravil in zdravljenja, ki jih je mogoče dobiti „le“ na recept v zadevni državi članici.
I deduce from this that the Community legislature intended to limit the prohibition of television advertising to medical treatments which can be carried out only on a doctor’s instructions.
Iz tega sklepam, da je zakonodajalec Skupnosti želel omejiti prepoved televizijskega ogla�evanja zdravstvenih storitev, ki jih je mogoče izvajati le na podlagi recepta zdravnika.
It follows that, if a medical treatment can be carried out solely at the request of a patient, as the re-modelling of the nose or the breasts can be in the case of cosmetic surgery and under Italian law, I am of opinion that it does not fall within the scope of Article 14(1) of Directive 89/552.
Zato menim, da če se zdravstvena storitev lahko opravi na samo zahtevo pacienta, kot na primer – na področju lepotne kirurgije in v skladu z italijansko zakonoda- jo – preoblikovanje nosu ali prsi, potem ne sodi na področje uporabe člena 14(1) Direktive 89/552.
The prohibition of television advertising laid down in the 1992 Law is thus much wider than that laid down in Directive No 89/552.
Prepoved televizijskega ogla�evanja, predvidena z zakonom iz leta 1992, je torej precej �ir�a od prepovedi iz Direktive 89/552.
The 1992 Law prohibits the broadcasting on national television networks of advertisements relating to the medical profession and ancillary medical professions and for private clinics.
Dejansko zakon iz leta 1992 prepoveduje ogla�evanje na postajah nacionalne televizije za zdravstvene poklice in pomožne zdravstvene poklice ter zasebne klinike.
In particular, according to the first three questions, the effect of the law is to prohibit all advertising on national television networks for medical and surgical
Natančneje, v skladu s prvim, drugim in tretjim vpra�anjem, ki jih je zastavilo predložitveno sodi�če, ima za posledico prepoved vsakr�nega ogla�evanja storitev zdravljenja
It is also supported by the reasons which underlie such a prohibition.
Potrjujejo jo tudi razlogi, ki so podlaga za to prepoved.
The prohibition of advertising for medicinal products and medical treatment laid down in Article 14(1) of Directive 89/552 follows a prohibition of all forms of advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products, laid down in Article 13 of the directive, and precedes the provisions governing television advertising for alcoholic beverages, set out in Article 15 of the directive.
Prepoved ogla�evanja zdravil in zdravljenja iz člena 14(1) Direktive 89/552 se nahaja za prepovedjo vsakr�nega ogla�evanja cigaret in drugih tobačnih izdelkov, določeno v členu 13 te direktive, in pred določbami, ki se nana�ajo na televizijsko ogla�evanje alkoholnih pijač, v členu 15 navedene direktive.
The purpose of all of those provisions is to protect public health.
Predmet vseh teh določb je varstvo javnega zdravja.
exercise of the powers reserved to them, the Member States must not inhibit freedom of movement.
natančnej�a in strožja pravila, tako kot pri izvajanju svojih pridržanih pristojnosti, ne kr�ijo svobode prostega pretoka.
It is settled caselaw that, where the conditions for the exercise of a profession have not been harmonised, Member States remain competent to define the conditions for the exercise of the profession, but must, when exercising their powers in that area, respect the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty. 21
Dejansko je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, da čeprav pogoji za opravljanje poklicne dejavnosti niso usklajeni, ostanejo države članice pristojne za določitev opravljanja te dejavnosti, ampak morajo svoje pristojnosti na tem področju izvajati ob spo�tovanju temeljnih svobo�čin, ki jih zagotavlja Pogodba. 21
However, the fact that those provisions in the 1992 Law introduced a wider prohibition of television advertising than that imposed in Directive No 89/552 does not make those provisions contrary to Community law.
Vendar pa zaradi dejstva, da te določbe iz zakona iz leta 1992 uvajajo �ir�o prepoved televizijskega ogla�evanja, kot je določena v Direktivi 89/552, te niso v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
Whether the contested provisions of the 1992 Law are compatible with Community law must therefore be considered in the light of the freedoms of movement established in the Treaty.
Združljivost spornih določb zakona iz leta 1992 s pravom Skupnosti je treba torej presojati glede na svobodo prostega pretoka, ki ga je uvedla Pogodba.
The Giudice di Pace di Genova considers that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, that assessment must be carried out in the light of both freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da je treba v okoli�činah zadeve v postopku v glavni stvari to presojo opraviti glede na svobodo ustanavljanja in na svobodno opravljanje storitev.
I agree with that analysis.
Strinjam se s tem mnenjem.
As the Netherlands Government pointed out, Article 3(1) of that directive permits Member States to lay down more detailed and stricter rules in the areas covered by it.
Kot je poudarila nizozemska vlada, daje člen 3(1) te direktive državam članicam možnost, da določijo natančnej�a in strožja pravila na področjih, ki jih ta pokriva.
That provision has been interpreted as applying to all the provisions in Chapter IV of the directive, 20 which includes Article 14(1).
To določbo je treba razlagati tako, da se uporablja za vse določbe iz naslova IV navedene direktive 20, katerega del je člen 14(1).
The Member States are therefore entitled to lay down more restrictive rules than those laid down in Article 14(1) regarding television advertising for medicinal products and medical treatment.
Države članice imajo torej pravico, da predvidijo bolj omejujoče ukrepe glede televizijskega ogla�evanja zdravil in zdravljenja, kot so ukrepi, predvideni v tem členu.
However, in the exercise of that power to adopt stricter or more detailed rules, as in the
Vendar je pomembno, da države članice pri izvajanju tega pooblastila, da sprejmejo
The dispute in the main proceedings arises from the failure to perform a contract entered into by Advertising Media and Dermoestética, a company constituted under Spanish law, for the purpose of broadcasting advertisements on an Italian television station.
Spor o glavni stvari izvira iz neizpolnitve pogodbe, ki jo je z družbo Advertising Media sklenila družba Dermoestética, družba �panskega prava, pri čemer je bil predmet pogodbe predvajanje oglasnih sporočil na postaji italijanske televizije.
21 — Case C-294/00 Gräbner [2002] ECR I-6515, paragraph 26 and the caselaw cited.
21 – Sodba z dne 11. julija 2002 v zadevi Gräbner (C-294/00, Recueil, str. I-6515, točka 26, in navedena sodna praksa).
20 — Case C-412/93 Leclerc-Siplec [1995] ECR I-179, paragraphs 37 to 44.
20 – Sodba z dne 9. februarja 1995 v zadevi Leclerc-Siplec (C-412/93, Recueil, str. I-179, točke od 37 do 44).
Dermoestética’s legal position appears to me to be covered by Article 43 EC, read together with Article 48 EC, since the purpose of the advertising contract concluded with Advertising Media was to promote Dermoestética’s activities in Italy through its secondary establishments. 22
Zdi se mi, da pravni položaj družbe Dermoestética sodi na področje uporabe člena 43 ES v povezavi s členom 48 ES, saj je bil namen sklenitve pogodbe o ogla�evanju z družbo Advertising Media predstavitev dejavnosti te družbe v Italiji prek njenih podružnic. 22
By its first three questions, the Giudice di Pace di Genova asks, essentially, whether Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 48 EC and 55 EC, are to be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State which prohibits the broadcasting of advertisements for medical and surgical treatments of a cosmetic nature carried out in private health care establishments on national television networks, while at the same time permitting such advertisements, under certain conditions, on local television networks.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim, drugim in tretjim vpra�anjem tako spra�uje, ali je treba člena 43 ES in 49 ES v povezavi s členoma 48 ES in 55 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, ki prepoveduje ogla�evanje estetskih zdravstvenih in kirur�kih storitev, ki jih opravljajo v zasebnih zdravstvenih ustanovah, na postajah nacionalne televizije, dopu�ča pa pod določenimi pogoji tako ogla�evanje na postajah lokalne televizije.
Similarly, Dermoestética is clearly the party for which the services requested from Advertising Media were intended and may therefore, as such, rely on the provisions of Article 49 EC. 23
Prav tako se zdi, da je družba Dermoestética prejemnik storitev, ki so bile naročene pri družbi Advertising Media, in se lahko zato na podlagi tega statusa sklicuje na določbe člena 49 ES.
I am of the opinion that the answer to that question should be in the affirmative on the grounds, first, that such a prohibition on advertising constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services within the meaning of Art -icles 43 EC and 49 EC and, secondly, that that restriction is not justified, since such advertising is permitted, under certain conditions, on local television networks.
Menim, da je treba na to vpra�anje odgovoriti pritrdilno, ker, prvič, taka prepoved ogla�evanja pomeni omejevanje svobode ustanavljanja in svobodnega opravljanja storitev v smislu členov 43 ES in 49 ES in ker, drugič, se taka omejitev ne zdi utemeljena, saj je tako ogla�evanje mogoče pod določenimi pogoji na postajah lokalne televizije.
I shall examine each of those points.
Preučil bom vsako točko posebej.
The existence of a restriction
Obstoj omejitve
I am inclined to think that the centre of gravity of the present case is more in the direction of freedom of establishment, bearing in mind the objective which Dermoestética was seeking to achieve in its contract with Advertising Media and the effects of the 1992 Law on competition.
Nagibam se k stali�ču, da je osrednja točka te zadeve bližje svobodi ustanavljanja ob upo�tevanju cilja, ki ga zasleduje družba Dermoestética s pogodbo, ki jo je sklenila z družbo Advertising Media, in učinkov zakona iz leta 1992 na konkurenco.
None the less, since the referring court also raises questions as to the scope of freedom to provide services in this case and since the Court, in its judgment in Gourmet Inter -national Products, 24considered legislation on advertising for alcoholic beverages in the light not only of the articles of the treaty on free movement of goods but also of Article 49 EC, I will also analyse, briefly, the interpretation of that article.
Vendar ker se predložitveno sodi�če v tej zadevi spra�uje tudi o obsegu svobode opravljanja storitev in ker je Sodi�če v sodbi Gourmet International Products 23 preučilo zakonodajo o ogla�evanju alkoholnih pijač tako glede na člene Pogodbe v zvezi s prostim pretokom blaga kot tudi glede na člen 49 ES, bom preučil na kratko tudi razlago tega člena.
22 — See, to that effect, Case C-79/01 Payroll and Others [2002] ECR I-8923, paragraph 25.
22 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 17. oktobra 2002 v zadevi Payroll in drugi (C-79/01, Recueil, str.
23 — Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone [1984] ECR 377, paragraph 10.
I-8923, točka 25).
The freedom of establishment established in Articles 43 EC and 48 EC confers upon companies or firms in accordance with the law of a Member State the right to pursue an independent activity in another Member State and to exercise that activity permanently under the same conditions as compan- ies or firms whose registered office is in that
Svoboda ustanavljanja, uvedena s členom 43 ES in 48 ES, podeljuje družbam, ustanovljenim v skladu z zakonodajo posamezne države članice, pravico dostopa do samostojne dejavnosti v drugi državi članici in pravico do stalnega opravljanja te dejavnosti v tej državi pod istimi pogoji kot družbam, ki
24 — Case C-405/98 [2001] ECR I-1795.
23 – Sodba z dne 8. marca 2001 (C-405/98, Recueil, str. I-1795).
OPINION OF BOT — CASE C-500/06
BOTA – ZADEVA C-500/06 imajo sedež v tej državi.
effectively with professionals already established in the host Member State. 29
gospodarskim subjektom, ki že imajo sedež v državi članici gostiteljici. 28
In accordance with the Court’s caselaw, all measures which prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of that freedom are also to be regarded as constituting restrictions on freedom of establishment.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča se kot omejitve svobode ustanavljanja v smislu tega člena �tejejo vsi ukrepi, ki prepovedujejo, motijo ali zmanj�ujejo privlačnost izvr�evanja te svobode.
25Among those measures are those which, even though they apply without distinction, affect the conditions for pursuing the activity concerned and have the effect of depriving an economic operator of an effective means of competing with a view to penetrating a market. 26
24 Med temi ukrepi so tudi ukrepi, ki – četudi se uporabljajo brez razlike – vplivajo na način opravljanja zadevne dejavnosti in ki gospodarskemu subjektu odvzemajo učinkovito sredstvo konkurence za njegov prodor na trg. 25
It is therefore the effects which they have on market access which make it possible for such measures to be classified as ‘restrictions’ within the meaning of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Torej gre za učinke teh ukrepov na dostop do trga, ki omogočajo, da se te ukrepe opredeli kot „omejujoče“, v smislu členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
Those measures constitute restrictions on the freedoms of movement because, by hindering access by new operators to the market in question, they constitute, from an objective point of view, barriers to the freedoms of movement.
Navedeni ukrepi pomenijo omejitve prostega pretoka, ker z oviranjem dostopa do zadevnega trga za nove gospodarske subjekte pomenijo objektivno oviro za prosti pretok.
Measures which prohibit or render more difficult access to the market by new economic operators freeze the market concerned in its present state and are therefore, by their nature, incompatible with the freedoms of movement and free competition on which the common market is based.
Ukrepi, ki prepovedujejo ali ki otežujejo dostop do trga novim gospodarskim subjektom, ohromijo zadevni trg v trenutnem stanju in so torej po naravi v nasprotju s prostim pretokom in konkurenco, na katerih temelji skupni trg.
Remuneration of sight accounts by credit institutions and freedom to fix fees have thus been held to be legitimate means of competition necessary in order to have access to the market of the host Member State. In my
Obrestovanje vlog na vpogled s strani kreditnih institucij ter prosto določanje nagrad se je tako obravnavalo kot legitimna sredstva konkurence, ki so potrebna za pridobitev dostopa na trg države članice
The Court has decided that that is so in the case, for example, a measure which prohibits a credit institution which is in receipt of funds from the public from remunerating sight accounts.
Sodi�če je razsodilo, da je bilo tako na primer pri ukrepu, ki vsem kreditnim institucijam, ki prejemajo sredstva od javnosti, prepoveduje obrestovanje vlog na vpogled.
27It adopted the same analysis, in the context of freedom to provide services, in regard to legislation containing an absolute prohibition of derogation by lawyers from minimum scale fees.
26Enako stali�če je zavzelo v okviru svobodnega opravljanja storitev glede zakonodaje, ki odvetnikom absolutno prepoveduje, da bi odstopili od najnižjih nagrad, določenih z odvetni�ko tarifo.