natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 19 December 2003, the Commission sent the French Republic a reasoned opinion in which it confirmed, and clarified, the complaints set out in the letter of formal notice, pointing out, more particularly, that the objective of genetically improving and preserving bovine stock could not be relied upon to justify obstacles to freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide ser -vices, in view of the complete harmonisation of national legislation designed to pursue that objective, carried out by certain Community directives and, in relation to the other objectives in the public interest invoked by the French Republic, that the national rules at issue went beyond what was necessary to achieve them.
Komisija je 19. decembra 2003 Francoski republiki poslala obrazloženo mnenje, v katerem je vnovič navedla in obrazložila očitke, vsebovane že v uradnem opominu, ter poudarila zlasti, da se na cilj v zvezi z izbolj�anjem in ohranjanjem genetskega bogastva goveda ni mogoče sklicevati z namenom upravičiti oviranje pravice do ustanavljanja in svobodnega opravljanja storitev, saj se v skladu z direktivami za nacionalne določbe, ki zasledujejo ta cilj, zahteva popolna harmonizacija, in da omejitve, predvidene v nacionalni zakonodaji zaradi ciljev, ki jih navaja država članica, presegajo tisto, kar je nujno potrebno za dosego teh ciljev.
By letter of 8 July 2003, the French Government challenged the foundation of those complaints.
Francoska vlada je v dopisu z dne 8. julija 2003 tem očitkom nasprotovala, ker naj ne bi bili utemeljeni.
It stated that there was no discrimination on grounds of nationality in relation to citizens of the Member States when it came to acquiring a permit to open and operate an AIC or an AIC manager’s
Poudarila je, da je omejitve glede izdajanja dovoljenj za začetek in opravljanje dejavnosti OS ter glede licenc za opravljanje funkcije vodje OS in za opravljanje dejavnosti osemenjevalca uporabljala brez diskriminacije med državljani držav
By letter of 17 March 2004, the French Republic replied to the reasoned opinion, disputing every one of the complaints.
Francoska republika je na obrazloženo mnenje odgovorila z dopisom z dne 17. marca 2004, v katerem je oporekala vsem očitkom Komisije.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 27 October 2005, the Commission brought this action.
Zato je Komisija 27. oktobra 2005 v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča vložila zadevno tožbo.
A preliminary point to be noted is that the Court of Justice has consistently held that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 226 EC must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.
Uvodoma naj spomnim, da je treba v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča o razlogu za ukrepanje Komisije na podlagi člena 226 ES in torej o tem, ali država članica ni izpolnila obveznosti iz Pogodbe, presojati glede na stanje na dan po izteku roka, ki je določen v obrazloženem mnenju, in da Sodi�če ne more upo�tevati poznej�ih sprememb.
23 Consequently, the reform of the legislation on the public artificial reproduction of ruminants, carried out in France in 2006 and entering into force on 1 January 2007, cannot be taken into account for the purposes of these proceedings.
23Zato za namene tega postopka ni upo�tevna reforma zakonodaje v zvezi z umetnim oplojevanjem živine, ki jo je Francija sprejela leta 2006 in ki je začela veljati 1. januarja 2007.
— declare that, by reserving exclusively to AICs authorised in France the exercise of activities related to the artificial insemination of cattle, in particular by establishing a general regime of exclusive rights over defined geographical areas in favour of the AICs and by making the activity of artificial insemination subject to the possession of an inseminator’s licence, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC;
ugotovi, da Francoska republika, s tem da je pravico opravljanja storitev, povezanih z osemenjevanjem goveda, pridržala le OS, odobrenim v Franciji, in sicer zlasti tako, da je v korist OS določila splo�no ureditev dodelitve izključne pravice za posamezna ozemeljska območja, in tako, da je za opravljanje storitev osemenjevanja predpisala licence za osemenje -valce, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov 43 in 49 ES;
A — The existence of obstacles to freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services
A – Oviranje pravice do ustanavljanja in svobodnega opravljanja storitev
(a) Freedom of establishment
Francoska republika Sodi�ču predlaga, naj: a) Pravica do ustanavljanja
The Commission maintains that conferring on authorised AICs only, for an un-
Komisija meni, da je podelitev izključnih pravic za opravljanje storitev distribucije
23 — Case C-347/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-4747, paragraph 40, and Case C-260/04 Commission v Italy [2007] ECR I-7083, paragraph 18, and the caselaw cited therein.
23 – Sodbi z dne 13. decembra 1990 v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji (C-347/88, Recueil, str. I-4747, točka 40) in z dne 13. septembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (C-260/04, ZOdl., str.
The French Government disputes that the exclusive rights over a defined geographical area conferred, for an unlimited period, on authorised AICs were such as de facto to prevent or render extremely difficult the exercise of freedom of establishment by operators from other Member States.
Francoska vlada ugovarja, da geografsko določena izključna pravica, podeljena odobrenim OS za neomejeno časovno obdobje, ni bila tak�na, da bi lahko državljanom drugih držav članic dejansko onemogočila uresničevanje pravice do ustanavljanja ali da bi jih pri njem zelo ovirala.
It maintains, in particular, that there were, in French territory, areas with no authorised AIC in which operators from other Member States could open and operate an AIC by seeking the requisite authorisation, the granting of which was subject to the same conditions for both national operators and operators from other Member States.
V podporo tej trditvi navaja zlasti, da so bila na francoskem ozemlju območja, za katera ni bilo pristojno nobeno OS, in na katerih bi torej lahko osebe iz drugih držav članic začele in opravljale dejavnost OS, če bi zaprosile za izdajo dovoljenja, ki bi jim bilo izdano pod enakimi pogoji, kot so veljali za osebe s sedežem ali prebivali�čem v Franciji.
limited period, exclusive rights to engage, in a defined geographical area, in the distribution of semen and insemination de facto prevents, or renders extremely difficult, the exercise of the right of establishment in France for the purpose of engaging in that activity.
semenskega materiala ter osemenjevanja na določenem območju in za neomejen čas le odobrenim OS dejansko preprečila ali izjemno otežila uresničevanje pravice do ustanavljanja za namene opravljanja teh storitev v Franciji.
The Commission further contends that a similar effect was caused because an inseminator’s licence could not be obtained by veterinary surgeons in order to carry out insemin ation in a selfemployed capacity, unless they had already entered into an agreement with the managing director of an AIC, the content of which agreement was not, moreover, specified from the outset but left as a matter for negotiation between the parties, thus resulting in discretionary practice which discouraged veterinary surgeons from undertaking such activity in that capacity.
Enak učinek naj bi imelo 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 OS; vsebina pogodbe namreč ni bila vnaprej določena, temveč je bila odvisna od pogajanj med pogodbenikoma, s čimer se je v praksi odločanje o tem prepustilo svobodni volji posameznikov, kar je veterinarje odvračalo od opravljanja teh storitev v okviru svoje dejavnosti.
The Commission further points out that, where it was not justified on health grounds in the circumstances in which the service was provided, the obligation to store the semen at an AIC represented a further obstacle to the exercise of freedom of establishment in the semen distribution sector.
Komisija dodaja, da je uresničevanje pravice do svobodnega ustanavljanja v sektorju distribucije semenskega materiala dodatno oviral predpis, ki je nalagal obvezno shranjevanje semenskega materiala pri OS tudi takrat, kadar tega niso upravičevali razlogi sanitarne narave ali okoli�čine opravljanja storitev.
The French Government also contends that to require an independent inseminator to conclude an agreement with an authorised AIC did not prevent veterinary surgeons from carrying out insemination in a selfemployed capacity.
Francoska vlada poleg tega poudarja, da obveznost – naložena neodvisnemu osemenjevalcu – sklenitve pogodbe s poobla�čenim OS, veterinarjem ni preprečevala opravljanja storitev osemenjevanja v okviru samostojne dejavnosti.
It emphasises that this agreement, fixing the technical, administrative and financial conditions in which the independent operator was to carry out insemination, was intended to guarantee observance of the applicable rules and to ensure that the AIC was properly informed of the nature and content of the services provided by that operator.
Namen te pogodbe, v kateri so bile opredeljene tehnične, administrativne in finančne zahteve za izvajanje postopkov osemenjevanja, naj bi bil zagotoviti spo�tovanje pravne ureditve in pravilno poročanje OS o lastnostih in vsebini storitev, ki jih izvaja osemenjevalec.
In principle, therefore, any operator, whether a French national or a national of another Member State, who possessed the necessary professional qualification, could apply for and obtain an inseminator’s licence and compete with the authorised AICs.
Načeloma naj bi torej katera koli oseba ne glede na to, ali ima sedež ali prebivali�če v Franciji ali v drugi državi članici, ki bi izpolnjevala strokovne zahteve, lahko zaprosila in pridobila licenco za osemenjevalca ter na trgu nastopala konkurenčno odobrenim OS.
The Commission recalls that, according to caselaw, the fact that a national measure applies without discrimination on grounds of nationality does not mean that the measure in question may not, in so far as it is liable to hamper or render less attractive the exercise by Community nationals of the freedom of establishment, prove to be incompatible with Article 43 EC. 24
Komisija opozarja, da iz sodne prakse izhaja, da je lahko tudi ukrep države članice, ki se sicer uporablja brez diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo, v nasprotju s čle -nom 43 ES, če državljane Evropske unije ovira ali jih odvrača od uresničevanja pravice do ustanavljanja. 24
24 — Case C-19/92 Kraus [1993] ECR I-1663, paragraph 32, and Case T-266/97 Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij v Commission [1999] ECR II-2329, paragraph 113.
I-1663, točka 32) ter sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 8. julija 1999 v zadevi Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij proti Komisiji (T-266/97, Recueil, str. II-2329, točka 113).
The French Government does, however, acknowledge that the national rules involved
Francoska vlada sicer priznava, da je bila zaradi nacionalne zakonodaje pravica do
None the less, it insists that those rules did not discriminate in any way between national operators and operators from other Member States.
Vendar vztraja, da pri tem nikakor ni �lo za diskriminacijo glede na državljanstvo, saj navedena zakonodaja ni razlikovala med osebami s sedežem ali državljanstvom v Franciji in osebami iz drugih držav članic.
(b) The freedom to provide services services was hindered by the imposition of the requirement that persons wishing to engage in that activity should, if they were to obtain the requisite inseminator’s licence, conclude a prior agreement with the managing director of an authorised AIC.
b) Svoboda opravljanja storitev skladu s katero so morali vsi, ki so želeli to dejavnost opravljati in torej pridobiti licenco za osemenjevalca, s predsednikom odobrene OS skleniti pogodbo.
The Commission stresses that the conclusion of an agreement of that nature was in fact left to the discretion and good will of AIC managing directors, who refused, however, to enter into agreements with independent inseminators, that is to say, inseminators who were not employees of the AIC in question.
Komisija poudarja, da je bila odločitev o sklenitvi tak�ne pogodbe dejansko prepu�čena svobodni presoji in dobri volji predsednikov OS, ti so namreč lahko sklenitev pogodbe z neodvisnimi osemenjevalci, to je s tistimi, ki niso bili zaposleni pri OS, zavrnili.
While the Commission considers it legitimate to make the award of an inseminator’s licence subject to prior verification, by the veterinary authorities, of the applicant’s abilities, it does not, on the other hand, consider it legitimate to make that award conditional also on the conclusion of an agreement with the AIC, a condition which has nothing to do with investigating the applicant’s abilities and has actually proved to be discretionary and arbitrary.
Komisija priznava, da je preverjanje usposobljenosti prosilca za licenco za osemenjevalca s strani veterinarskih organov upravičeno, ni pa upravičeno, da se izdaja licence pogojuje s pogodbo, predhodno sklenjeno z OS, saj se ta pogoj v ničemer ne nana�a na preverjanje usposobljenosti prosilca, njegovo izpolnjevanje pa naj bi bilo v praksi dejansko odvisno od svobodne in samovoljne odločitve nasprotne stranke.
That condition was intended to consolidate the monopoly on the providing of insemination services arising from the exclusive geographical rights conferred on authorised AICs.
Ta pogoj naj bi dodatno utrdil monopol na področju opravljanja storitev osemenjevanja, ki je temeljil na geografsko določeni izključni pravici, podeljeni odobrenim OS.
The Commission maintains that the requirement to store semen at authorised AICs, which alone were authorised to supply that material to breeders, constituted a restriction on the freedom to provide the ‘distribution service’, which the Commission defines as ‘consisting in the whole range of operations necessary to enable a product to be forwarded and sold, from the point of its manufacture to its purchase by the final consumer’.
Komisija trdi, da je obvezno shranjevanje semenskega materiala pri odobrenih OS, ki so smela ta material edina dostavljati rejcem, oviralo prosto opravljanje „storitve distribucije“, ki jo Komisija opredeljuje kot „skupino postopkov, potrebnih za vpeljavo in trženje proizvoda, od njegove izdelave do nakupa s strani končnega kupca“.
In response to the French Government, which objects that Directive 88/407/EEC 25required the Member States to implement that obligation, the Commission states that the obligation to store semen intended for use in intraCommunity trade, laid down by that directive on health grounds, relates solely to frozen semen and the stage prior to its dispatch from the production site, whereas the charge levelled against the French Republic concerned an obligation to store at the stage after dispatch.
Francoski vladi, ki navaja, da naj bi bila tak�na obveznost državam članicam naložena v Direktivi 88/407/EGS, 25Komisija odgovarja, da se obveznost v zvezi s shranjevanjem semenskega materiala, namenjenega izmenjavam med državami članicami, ki je bila s to direktivo 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 po�iljanja.
The Commission maintains that a further obstacle to the freedom to provide services is caused by the fact that it was impossible for service providers established in other Member States to offer both semen distribution services and insemination ser -vices because of the requirement that the semen should be deposited with authorised AICs which were alone authorised to supply it to breeders.
Dodatna ovira za svobodno opravljanje storitev naj bi izhajala iz okoli�čine, da osebe s sedežem ali prebivali�čem v drugih državah članicah niso smele neposredno ponuditi storitev distribucije semenskega materiala in osemenjevanja na ozemlju Francije zaradi zahteve, naj se semenski material shranjuje pri odobrenih OS, ki so bila edina poobla�čena za razdeljevanje semena rejcem.
Moreover, the Commission contends that the freedom to provide insemination
Poleg tega naj bi bila dodatna ovira za svobodno opravljanje storitev zahteva, v
25 — Council directive of 14 June 1988 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intraCommunity trade in and imports of deep-frozen semen of domestic animals of the bovine species (OJ 1988 L 194, p. 10).
25 – Direktiva Sveta z dne 14. junija 1988 o zahtevah za zdravstveno varstvo živali, ki veljajo za promet med državami članicami Evropske skupnosti in za uvoz globoko zamrznjenega semena domačih živali iz vrst govedi (UL L 194, str. 10).
The French Government acknowledges that the national rules in question were
Francoska vlada priznava, da je zadevna nacionalna ureditev ovirala svobodno
According to the Commission, one or other of those aspects resulted in restrictions on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, in relation both to the semen distribution service and to the insemination service.
Iz teh vidikov naj bi po mnenju Komisije izhajalo omejevanje pravice do svobodnega ustanavljanja in opravljanja storitev tako glede storitve distribucije semenskega materiala kot glede storitve osemenjevanja.
an impediment to the freedom to provide insemination services, but disputes that they also presented obstacles to the freedom to provide the semen distribution services.
opravljanje storitev osemenjevanja, vendar trdi, da to ne velja za opravljanje storitev na področju distribucije semenskega materiala.
In that connection, it observes that those rules enabled the breeders to choose directly the supplier of semen and to have the territorially competent AIC carry out the insemin -ation using the semen offered by that supplier.
V zvezi s tem poudarja, da je navedena zakonodaja rejcem dovoljevala, da sami neposredno izberejo dobavitelja semenskega materiala, in da od območno pristojnega OS zahtevajo, naj osemenitev izvede s semenskim materialom izbranega dobavitelja.
(a) Complaints concerning the semen distribution service
a) Očitki v zvezi s storitvijo distribucije semenskega materiala
The charges levelled against the French Republic by the Commission turn on three aspects of the French legislation on the artificial reproduction of cattle, in force until 31 December 2006: the exclusive rights over a defined geographical area conferred on AICs for the artificial reproduction of cattle; the conditions governing the award of an inseminator’s licence, and, more specifically, the requirement that independent insemin -ators had to enter into a prior agreement with an authorised AIC; 26the obligation to deliver the semen to and store it with an authorised AIC, once it had been dispatched from the production centre.
Očitki Komisije toženi državi članici temeljijo na treh vidikih francoske ureditve področja umetnega oplojevanja goveda, ki je veljala do 31. decembra 2006: gre za, prvič, geografsko določeno izključno pravico, podeljeno OS v sektorju umetnega oplojevanja goveda; drugič, za pogoje za izdajo licence za osemenjevalca, natančneje za pogoj, ki neodvisnim osemenjevalcev nalaga sklenitev pogodbe z odobrenim OS; 26in tretjič, za obveznost izročanja in shranjevanja semenskega materiala, poslanega iz sredi�ča za pridelavo, pri odobrenem OS.
26 — From the wording of the Commission’s written and oral pleadings, it may be understood that, contrary to what the contentions set out in the reply seem to suggest, the requirement of an inseminator’s licence is not in itself the subject of criticism.
26 – Čeprav bi bilo mogoče na podlagi trditev, vsebovanih v repliki, sklepati drugače, pa iz vlog in iz ustnih stali�č Komisije izhaja, da predpisana licenca za osemenjevalca sama po sebi ni predmet očitkov.
Let me begin by drawing attention to the serious difficulty involved in determining whether there are any restrictions, arising from the abovementioned factors, of freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services with reference to what the Commission, in its written pleadings, describes as the semen ‘distribution service’.
Uvodoma ugotavljam, da je zelo težko presoditi o tem, ali je – kar zadeva področje, ki ga Komisija v svojih vlogah opredeljuje kot „storitev distribucije“ semenskega materiala – svoboda ustanavljanja in opravljanja storitev zaradi navedenih ključnih razlogov dejansko ovirana.
That difficulty is caused by the fact that, in my view, the Commission itself has failed to define with sufficient clarity and precision the actual content of that service.
Ta težava je posledica dejstva, da tudi Komisija po mojem mnenju ni uspela dovolj jasno in natančno opredeliti, kaj naj bi ta storitev obsegala.
In the reasoned opinion and in the application initiating the proceedings, the Commission states that, by ‘distribution service’, it means ‘the whole range of operations necessary to enable a product to be forwarded and sold, from the point of its manufacture to its purchase by the final consumer’.
V obrazloženem mnenju in v tožbi je „storitev distribucije“ opisala kot „skupino postopkov, potrebnih za vpeljavo in trženje proizvoda, od njegove izdelave do nakupa s strani končnega kupca“.
That definition is too vague, and no further light appears to be shed upon it by the prolix explanations provided in the Commission’s written answer to a specific question asked by the Court, in which the Commission distinguishes between a ‘technical’ and an ‘economic’ concept of the distribution service — which is sometimes referred to in the plural also — and refers to an extremely broad concept of distribution as a ‘commercial activity which may be engaged in by a producer, an intermediary, a wholesaler, a retailer or a cooperative’, and mentions more specifically ‘the
Ta opredelitev, preveč �iroka, ni bolje pojasnjena niti v sicer �tevilnih razlagah, vsebovanih v pisnem odgovoru Komisije na vpra�anje Sodi�ča, v katerem se „tehnično“ pojmovanje pojavlja ob „ekonomskem“ opisu storitve distribucije, ki je mestoma zapisana tudi v množinski obliki, ob sklicevanju na zelo �irok pojem distribucije v smislu „gospodarske dejavnosti, ki jo lahko izvajajo proizvajalec, posrednik, trgovec na debelo, trgovec na drobno, zadruga“ pa je navedena �e ožja opredelitev, opisana kot „možnost katerega koli gospodarskega subjekta, ki razpolaga z ustreznim strokovnim znanjem za trženje in ponudbo svojih storitev rejcem s sedežem v Franciji“,
Furthermore, it is clear from Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and the caselaw pertaining thereto that the application must state the subjectmatter of the dispute and a summary of the grounds, and that the statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to exercise its review.
Po drugi strani iz člena 38(1)(c) Poslovnika Sodi�ča in iz sodne prakse v zvezi s to določbo izhaja, da mora tožba obsegati predmet spora in kratek povzetek tožbenih razlogov, pri čemer morajo biti te navedbe dovolj jasne in natančne, da se toženi stranki omogoči pripravo obrambe, Sodi�ču pa preizkus tožbe.
It follows that the essential elements of fact and of law on which an application is based must emerge coherently and comprehensibly from the text of the application itself. 28
Dejanski in pravni elementi, na katerih temelji tožba, morajo torej skladno in razumljivo izhajati iz besedila tožbe. 28