natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Member States must take appropriate measures to combat misleading advertising and to ensure compliance with the conditions of permitted comparative advertising.
V skladu z isto direktivo pomeni zavajajoče ogla�evanje vsako ogla�evanje, ki na kateri koli način, vključno s predstavitvijo, zavaja ali bi utegnilo zavajati osebe, ki jim je
Moreover, they may adopt more extensive protection measures for combating misleading advertising than those provided for in Directive 84/450.
Poleg tega lahko v zvezi z bojem proti zavajujočemu ogla�evanju sprejmejo daljnosežnej�e za�čitne ukrepe, kot so določeni v Direktivi 84/450.
5 — Council Directive of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17).
5 – Direktiva Sveta z dne 10. septembra 1984 o približevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic o zavajajočem ogla�evanju (UL L 250, str. 17).
6 — Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18).
6 – Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 6. oktobra 1997 o spremembi Direktive 84/450/EGS o zavajajočem ogla�evanju, tako da vključuje primerjalno ogla�evanje (UL L 290, str. 18).
10 — Article 2(2).11 — Article 2(2a) of Directive 84/450.
10 – Člen 2(2).11 – Člen 2(2)a Direktive 84/450.
7 — Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p.
7 – Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. maja 2005 o nepo�tenih poslovnih praksah podjetij v razmerju do potro�nikov na notranjem trgu ter o spremembi Direktive Sveta 84/450/EGS, direktiv Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/7/ES, 98/27/ES in 2002/65/ES ter Uredbe (ES) �t. 2006/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (Direktiva o nepo�tenih poslovnih praksah) (UL L 149, str.
22) (‘Directive 84/450’).
22, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 84/450).
8 — Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21).
8 – Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 12. decembra 2006 o zavajajočem in primerjalnem ogla�evanju (UL L 376, str. 21).
12 — Comparative advertising is permitted, in essence, inter alia, if it is not misleading, if it compares goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose, if it objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services, which may include price, if it does not discredit or denigrate a competitor and does not create confusion with a competitor and if it does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of the trade mark or trade name of that competitor.
12 – Primerjalno ogla�evanje je v bistvu dovoljeno, zlasti če ogla�evanje ni zavajajoče, če primerja blago ali storitve, ki zadovoljujejo iste potrebe ali imajo enak namen, če objektivno primerja eno ali več pomembnih, preverljivih in reprezentativnih lastnosti takega blaga ali storitev, s čimer so mi�ljene tudi cene, če ne diskreditira ali očrni blagovnih znamk, trgovskih imen, drugih znakov razlikovanja, blaga, storitev, dejavnosti ali razmer konkurenta in ne ustvarja zmede med njima, če se ne okori�ča nepo�teno z ugledom blagovne znamke ali trgovskega imena tega konkurenta.
9 — Article 2(1).
9 – Člen 2(1).
The above definitions and provisions are repeated in Directive 2006/114.
Zgoraj navedene opredelitve in določbe so povzete v Direktivi 2006/114.
provides, in particular, that television advertising and teleshopping must not encourage behaviour prejudicial to health or to safety. 16
spremenjena, določa, da televizijsko ogla�evanje in televizijska prodaja ne smeta spodbujati k ravnanjem, ki bi lahko ogrozila zdravje ali varnost.
Article 14(1) of that directive provides that television advertising for medicinal products and medical treatment available only on prescription in the Member State within whose jurisdiction the broadcaster falls is to be prohibited.
16 V skladu s členom 14(1) te direktive je prepovedano 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.
According to Article 14(2) of that directive, teleshopping for medicinal products which are subject to a marketing authorisation and teleshopping for medical treatment are prohibited.
V skladu s členom 14(2) navedene direktive je prepovedana televizijska prodaja medicinskih proizvodov, za katere velja dovoljenje za trženje, ter televizijska prodaja storitev zdravljenja.
Under Article 3(1) of Directive 89/552, Member States are to remain free to require television broadcasters under their jurisdiction to lay down more detailed or stricter rules in the areas covered by the directive.
V skladu s členom 3(1) Direktive 89/552 [smejo države članice glede izdajateljev televizijskih programov pod svojo jurisdikcijo za področja, ki jih zadeva ta direktiva, določiti strožja in natančnej�a pravila].
In tandem with the general scheme of rules, the Community legislature has adopted provisions which regulate advertising applicable to specific products, such as tobacco and medicinal products.
Vzporedno s to splo�no ureditvijo je normodajalec Skupnosti sprejel določbe, ki urejajo ogla�evanje, ki se uporablja za določene proizvode, kot so tobak in zdravila.
13The measures adopted with respect to medicinal products are based on the protection of public health.
13Ukrepi, sprejeti glede zdravil, temeljijo na varovanju javnega zdravja.
They lay down an outright ban on the advertising to the general public of certain categories of medicinal products, such as those sold only on medical prescription, and the conditions which must be fulfilled by advertisements for other categories of medicinal products and advertisements directed at healthcare professionals.
Ti ukrepi določajo popolno prepoved ogla�evanja v javnosti za vrste zdravil, kot so zdravila, ki se prodajajo le na zdravni�ki recept, in pogoje, ki jih je treba spo�tovati pri ogla�evanju drugih vrst zdravil in pri ogla�evanju, namenjenem zdravstvenim delavcem.
The Community legislature has also coordinated the national rules and regulations governing television advertising 14and
Normodajalec Skupnosti je prav tako uskladil nacionalne ureditve, ki urejajo televizijsko ogla�evanje 14in elektronsko ogla�evanje. 15Direktiva 89/552, kot je bila
13), repealed and replaced by Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
13), razveljavljeno in nadome�čeno z Direktivo 2001/83/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 6. novembra 2001 o zakoniku Skupnosti o zdravilih za uporabo v humani medicini (UL L 311, str. 67).
14 — Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p.
14 – Direktiva Sveta 89/552/EGS z dne 3. oktobra 1989 o usklajevanju nekaterih zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic o opravljanju dejavnosti raz�irjanja televizijskih programov (UL L 298, str.
23), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p.
23), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/36/ES z dne 30. junija 1997 (UL L 202, str.
60) (‘Directive 89/552’).
60, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 89/552).
16 — Article 12(d).
16 – Člen 12(d).
In November 1996, the Union des dentistes et stomatologistes de Belgique (Belgian Association of Dentists and Stomatologists) brought a civil action against Mr Doulamis, alleging that he had engaged unlawfully in dental practice and had placed advertisements in the Belgacom telephone directory.
Združenje zobozdravnikov in stomatologov Belgije je novembra 1996 vložilo zasebno tožbo proti I. Doulamisu, v kateri mu očita, da je nezakonito opravljal zobozdravstveno dejavnost in da jo je ogla�eval v imeniku Belgacom.
the words ‘Immediate one-hour repairs’, printed within a coloured band, followed by the following text: ‘Full range of removable and fixed prosthetics — Ceramics — Metal frame dentures — Descaling — Prosthetic renewals — Free check-ups and consultations — Personal service — Home visits’, followed by the address of the laboratory, telephone number and hours of opening.
poleg znaka navedbo „Takoj�nje popravilo v eni uri“, natiskano na barvnem pasu, ter naslednje navedbe: „Vse snemljive in pritrjene proteze – Keramika – Delne pro teze – Odstranjevanje zobnega kamna – Obnovitev protez – Brezplačni pregled in nasveti – Osebni pristop – Prevoz od doma do ordinacije“, ki jim sledi naslov laboratorija, telefonska �tevilka in delovni čas.
In the course of the police investigation carried out after that application to join the criminal proceedings as a party claiming damages, Mr Doulamis stated that he was a dental technician, that he had passed the examination for dental prosthetics technicians in 1981, that in 1985 he had obtained a diploma in business administration and that he held a certificate issued by the Chambre des métiers et négoces de la province du Brabant (Chamber of Trade and Commerce for the Province of Brabant) confirming that he fulfilled all the requirements necessary to practise as a dental prosthetics technician.
V okviru policijske preiskave, opravljene po vložitvi te tožbe, je I. Doulamis navedel, da je zobozdravstveni tehnik, ki je leta 1981 opravil izpit za tehnika za zobno protetiko in leta 1985 pridobil diplomo za opravljeno usposabljanje za poslovodjo, in da ima potrdilo obrtne zbornice province Brabant, da izpolnjuje pogoje, potrebne za opravljanje poklica tehnika za zobno protetiko.
The first advertisement for the dental clinic comprises, within a box measuring approximately 4 cm by 8 cm, from top to bottom, the headings ‘Jean Doulamis’, ‘Dental clinic’ and ‘Porte de Hal’ in large letters, followed by the same sign as above, followed by the words ‘Adult and child treatment — Fixed and removable prosthetics — Cosmetic orthodontics — Parodontology’, under which appear the clinic’s address, two telephone numbers, the words ‘On-site laboratory’ and the hours of opening.
Prvi oglas, ki se nana�a na zobno kliniko, vsebuje v okvirčku velikosti približno 4 cm krat 8 cm od zgoraj navzdol naslove „Jean Doulamis“, „Zobna klinika“ in „Porte de Hal“, napisane s krepkimi črkami, nato znak, ki je enak zgoraj navedenemu, sledijo navedbe „Oskrba odraslih in otrok – Pritrjene in snemljive proteze – Estetski ortodontski posegi – Parodontologija“, pod katerimi je naslov klinike, dve telefonski �tevilki, navedba „Notranji laboratorij“ ter delovni čas.
Those advertisements, as reproduced in the order for reference, were as follows.
Ti oglasi, kot so povzeti v predložitveni odločbi, so navedeni v nadaljevanju.
The second advertisement for the clinic comprises, in a box measuring approximately 4 cm by 2 cm, the headings ‘Doulamis Jean’ and ‘Dental clinic’ in large letters, followed by the words ‘Treatment: Adults and children — Prosthetics — Orthodontics’, followed by the hours of opening, an address and a telephone number.
Drugi oglas, ki se nana�a na kliniko, vsebuje v okvirčku velikosti približno 4 cm krat 2 cm naslova „Doulamis Jean“ in „Zobna klinika“, napisana s krepkimi črkami, nato navedbe „Oskrba odraslih in otrok – Pro -teze – Ortodontski posegi“, sledi delovni čas, naslov in telefonska �tevilka.
The advertisement for the dental laboratory comprises, within a box measuring approximately 10 cm by 7 cm, under the headings ‘Jean Doulamis’ and ‘Dental laboratory’ written in large letters beside a sign,
Oglas, ki se nana�a na zobozdravstveni laboratorij, v okvirčku velikosti približno 10 cm krat 7 cm, pod naslovoma „Jean Doulamis“ in „Zobozdravstveni laboratorij“, napisanima s krepkimi črkami, vsebuje
competition, both at national and international level.
svobodno konkurenco, tako na nacionalni kot tudi na mednarodni ravni.
He referred to Article 81 EC and the judgment in Van Eycke, 17in which the Court held that Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC, requires the Member States not to introduce or maintain in force measures, even of a legislative or regulatory nature, which may render ineffective the competition rules applicable to undertakings.
Skliceval se je na člen 81 ES in na sodbo z dne 21. septembra 1988 v zadevi Van Eycke, 17v kateri je Sodi�če odločilo, da člen 81 ES v povezavi s členom 10 ES državam članicam nalaga, naj ne sprejmejo ali ohranjajo v veljavi ukrepov, tudi zakonske ali podzakonske narave, ki bi lahko izničili polni učinek pravil konkurence, ki veljajo za podjetja.
18He also made reference to the Report of the Commission of the European Communities on Competition in Professional Services. 19
18 Prav tako je navedel poročilo o konkurenci v sektorju svobodnih poklicev, 19 ki ga je sestavila Komisija Evrop- skih skupnosti.
III — The question referred
III – Vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
It cannot be ruled out that a law such as the Law of 1958 may affect freedom of trade between Member States in such a way as to impede completion of the single market.
Ni mogoče izključiti, da bi lahko zakonodaja, v katero sodi zakon iz leta 1958, vplivala na svobodno trgovino med državami članicami v smislu, ki bi bil v nasprotju z vzpostavitvijo enotnega trga.
In this connection, it follows from the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Pavlov and Others 20that, owing to the heterogeneity of the professions and the specificities of the markets on which they operate, no general formula can be applied.
V zvezi s tem iz sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v zadevi Pavlov in drugi, v kateri je bila izrečena sodba z dne 12. septembra 2000, 20 izhaja, da glede heterogenosti svobodnih poklicev in značilnosti trgov, na katerih se ti opravljajo, ni mogoče uporabiti splo�ne formule.
21 It is therefore necessary to assess carefully in each case whether a restriction of conduct leads on the market in issue to a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC, taking into account, where appropriate, the requirements of the protection of health and consumer protection.
21 Zdi se torej nujno v vsakem posameznem primeru presoditi, ali omejevanje svobode delovanja na zadevnem trgu vodi do omejevanja konkurence v smislu člena 81 ES, pri čemer je treba v takem primeru upo�tevati nujne razloge varovanja zdravja in potro�nikov.
The referring court states that it is faced with the following questions.
Predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da se je soočilo z naslednjimi vpra�anji.
It was in the light of those considerations that the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles decided to stay proceedings and refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Tribunal de première instance iz Bruslja prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
It follows from Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, that Member States may not introduce or maintain in force measures which may render ineffective the competition rules applicable to undertakings.
Iz člena 81 ES v povezavi s členo - ma 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES izhaja, da država članica ne sme sprejemati ali ohranjati v veljavi ukrepov, ki bi lahko spremenili polni učinek konkurenčnih pravil, ki se uporabljajo za podjetja.
‘Must Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, be interpreted as precluding
„Ali je treba člen 81 ES v povezavi s členo - ma 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalnemu
The Italian Government submits that the question referred is hypothetical because it seeks to clarify whether a general ban on all advertising in the dental care sector is compatible with Article 81 EC, whereas the Law of 1958 does not prohibit all forms of advertising but only those forms referred to in Article 1 of that law.
Italijanska vlada trdi, da je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje hipotetično, ker se z njim zahteva pojasnilo, ali je splo�na prepoved slehernega ogla�evanja na področju zobozdravstva združljiva s členom 81 ES, čeprav naj zakon iz leta 1958 ne bi prepovedoval vseh oblik ogla�evanja, ampak le tiste iz člena 1 tega zakona.
In my view, the arguments put forward by those governments are not capable of demonstrating that the question referred for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible.
Menim, da trditve teh vlad ne dokazujejo, da je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje nedopustno.
A — Admissibility of the question referred
A – Dopustnost vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
The Belgian and Italian Governments submit that the question referred for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible.
Po mnenju belgijske in italijanske vlade je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje nedopustno.
It should be noted that, according to settled caselaw, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
Opozoriti je treba, da lahko v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso le nacionalno sodi�če, pred katerim poteka spor in ki je pristojno za izdajo sodne odločbe, ob upo�tevanju značilnosti zadeve presodi, ali je sprejetje predhodne odločbe nujno za izrek njegove sodbe in ali so vpra�anja, postavljena Sodi�ču, upo�tevna.
Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling. 22
Zato mora Sodi�če, če se postavljena vpra�anja nana�ajo na razlago prava Skupnosti, načeloma na njih odgovoriti. 22
The Belgian Government bases its contention of inadmissibility on the argument that Article 81 EC does not apply to the Law of 1958 because the ban on advertising in the dental care sector is social in nature and is intended to protect public welfare.
Belgijska vlada to nedopustnost opira na trditev, da naj se člen 81 ES ne bi uporabljal za zakon iz leta 1958, ker naj bi bila prepoved ogla�evanja na področju zobozdravstva socialne narave in naj bi se nana�ala na varovanje člove�kega zdravja.
It is true that the Court has also held that, in exceptional circumstances, it can
Vendar je Sodi�če tudi razsodilo, da mora izjemoma preizkusiti okoli�čine, v katerih
22 — See, in particular, Case C-318/00 Bacardi­Martini and Cellier des Dauphins [2003] ECR I-905, paragraph 41 and the caselaw cited.
22 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 21. januarja 2003 v zadevi Bacardi-Martini in Cellier des Dauphins (C-318/00, Recueil, str. I-905, točka 41 in navedena sodna praksa).
The Belgian Government deduces from this that the question referred by the national court is not relevant to the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings and is of a purely hypothetical nature.
Ta vlada iz tega sklepa, da vpra�anje, ki ga je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če, ni upo�tevno za re�itev spora o glavni stvari in je popolnoma hipotetično.
DOULAMIS factual situation which does not correspond to the facts of the main proceedings.
DOULAMIS dejanski položaj, ki ne ustreza resničnosti spora o glavni stvari.
25 examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court.
25 mu je nacionalno sodi�če zadevo predložilo.
As is regularly stated in judgments on references for a preliminary ruling, the spirit of cooperation which must prevail in such proceedings requires the national court for its part to have regard to the function entrusted to the Court, which is to assist in the administration of justice in the Member States and not to give opinions on general or hypothetical questions. 23
Kot se v sodbah o vpra�anjih za predhodno odločanje redno opozarja, duh sodelovanja, ki mora prevladati v postopkih za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, namreč zahteva, da nacionalno sodi�če upo�teva nalogo, zaupano Sodi�ču, ki je v tem, da pomaga pravosodju v državah članicah, in ne v tem, da oblikuje svetovalna mnenja o splo�nih in hipotetičnih vpra�anjih. 23
That may also be the case where the national court refers a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling with a view to enabling it to decide whether the legislation of another Member State is in accordance with Community law, where that court bases its question on an interpretation of that legislation which is founded on mere suppositions. 26
Prav tako je to mogoče takrat, ko predložitveno sodi�če Sodi�ču postavi vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje zato, da bi lahko presojalo o združljivosti zakonodaje druge države članice s pravom Skupnosti, če to sodi�če svoje vpra�anje opira na razlago te zakonodaje, ki temelji le na domnevah. 26
I do not believe that the question referred by the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles for a preliminary ruling falls within any of those categories of inadmissibility.
Menim, da vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je postavilo Tribunal de première instance iz Bruslja, ne ustreza enemu izmed teh različnih primerov nedopustnosti.
Thus, the Court has refused to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court where it is quite obvious that the ruling sought by that court on the interpretation or validity of Community law bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.
Tako je Sodi�če razsodilo, da ne more odločati o vpra�anju za predhodno odločanje, ki mu ga je postavilo nacionalno sodi�če, kadar je očitno, da razlaga ali presoja veljavnosti pravila Skupnosti, ki jo je zahtevalo nacionalno sodi�če, ni v nobeni zvezi z resničnostjo ali predmetom spora o glavni stvari, če je problem hipotetičen ali če Sodi�če nima na voljo dejanskih in pravnih elementov, potrebnih za to, da bi podalo koristen odgovor na postavljena vpra�anja.
Thus, contrary to the submissions of the Belgian Government, the question is not obviously without relevance to the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings and is not hypothetical.
Tako to vpra�anje, v nasprotju s trditvijo belgijske vlade, ni očitno neupo�tevno za re�itev spora o glavni stvari in ni hipotetično.
If Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, read in conjunction with Article 81 EC, were interpreted as meaning that they preclude
Razlaga členov 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES, v povezavi s členom 81 ES v smislu, da navedeni členi nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je zakon iz leta 1958, bi
The same is true where the problem raised by the referring court is hypothetical.
Enako velja, če je vpra�anje, ki ga je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če, hipotetično.
24That may be the case, for example, where the question referred for a preliminary ruling by such a court relates to a legal or
24 To se zgodi na primer takrat, kadar se vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga postavi tako sodi�če, nana�a na pravni ali
26 — Case C-153/00 der Weduwe [2002] ECR I-11319, paragraphs 33 to 39.
26 – Sodba z dne 10. decembra 2002 v zadevi der Weduwe (C-153/00, Recueil, str. I-11319, točke od 33 do 39).
23 — Ibid., paragraph 42 and the caselaw cited.24 — Ibid., paragraph 43 and the caselaw cited.
23 – Ibidem (točka 42 in navedena sodna praksa).24 – Ibidem (točka 43 in navedena sodna praksa).