natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this respect, it must be recalled that Article 43 EC requires the elimination of restrictions on the freedom of establishment and that it is settled caselaw of the Court that all measures which prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of that freedom must be regarded as restrictions within the meaning of that article (see Case C-442/02 CaixaBank France [2004] ECR I-8961, paragraph 11 and the caselaw cited).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da člen 43 ES nalaga ukinitev omejitev svobode ustanavljanja in da je treba na podlagi sodne prakse Sodi�ča za take omejitve v smislu tega člena �teti vse ukrepe, ki prepovedujejo, motijo ali zmanj�ujejo privlačnost izvr�evanja te svobode (sodba z dne 5. oktobra 2004 v zadevi CaixaBank France, C-442/02, ZOdl., str. I-8961, točka 11 in navedena sodna praksa).
The exclusive rights over a geographical area conferred on authorised insemination centres restricting the overall number of operators permitted to open and manage such centres in French territory and the unlimited duration of those exclusive rights hamper the access of other operators, including those from other Member States, to the insemination market.
Geografsko določena izključna pravica, podeljena odobrenim osemenjevalnim sredi�čem, na podlagi katere je bilo omejeno skupno �tevilo gospodarskih subjektov, ki jim je dovoljeno ustanoviti in upravljati taka sredi�ča na francoskem ozemlju, in neomejeno trajanje te izključne pravice ovirata dostop drugih gospodarskih subjektov do trga storitev osemenjevanja, vključno s tistimi iz drugih držav članic.
The fact that the geographical areas covered by those exclusive rights can, as the French Republic claims, be adjusted or divided cannot affect that assessment.
Okoli�čina, da bi se geografska območja, na katera se nana�a ta izključna pravica, lahko, kot zatrjuje Francoska republika, prilagodila ali razdelila, ne vpliva na to presojo.
In the absence of the possibility of acquiring rights over a determined geographical area, an operator who seeks to carry on an activity in the artificial insemination sector is required to conclude an agreement with the territorially competent insemination centre in order to obtain an inseminator’s licence.
Če gospodarski subjekt, čigar cilj je opravljanje dejavnosti v sektorju osemenjevanja, ne more pridobiti pravic na določenem geografskem območju, mora z osemenjevalnim sredi�čem, pristojnim za določeno območje, skleniti pogodbo, da pridobi licenco za osemenjevalca.
It must therefore be found that, as the Commission maintains, the national measures at issue, on account of their nature, render it difficult, if not impossible or, in any event, less attractive, to exercise freedom of establishment with a view to carrying on, in French territory, the distribution and insemination of bovine semen.
Ugotoviti je torej treba, kot zatrjuje Komisija, da zadevni nacionalni ukrepi zaradi svoje narave otežujejo, če ne onemogočajo, vsekakor pa zmanj�ujejo privlačnost izvr�evanja svobode ustanavljanja, z namenom izvajanja dejavnosti distribucije in osemenjevanja goveda na francoskem ozemlju.
The fact that those measures are applicable without distinction to national operators and to those of other Member States does not preclude that finding, given that such national measures, even though applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, are liable to hamper or to render less attractive the exercise by Community nationals, including those of the Member State which enacted the measure, of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty (see, to that effect, Kraus, paragraph 32).
Okoli�čina, da se ti ukrepi brez razlikovanja uporabljajo za nacionalne gospodarske subjekte in za tiste iz drugih držav članic, ni ovira tej ugotovitvi, ker taki nacionalni ukrepi, ki bi, čeprav se uporabljajo brez diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo, za državljana Skupnosti, vključno z državo članico avtorico ukrepa, lahko pomenili oviro pri izvajanju temeljne svobo�čine, zagotovljene s Pogodbo, ali zmanj�ali privlačnost tega izvajanja (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Kraus, točka 32).
It is common ground that, under the French legislation, a cross-border service provider who wishes to distribute bovine semen or carry out insemination in French territory by virtue of the freedom to provide services, is obliged to store that semen in authorised artificial insemination centres, which alone are authorised to deliver semen to breeders, and to obtain an inseminator’s licence in order to be able to act as an inseminator.
Ni sporno, da mora čezmejni ponudnik storitev, ki želi distribuirati seme goveda ali opravljati storitev osemenjevanja na francoskem ozemlju iz naslova svobode opravljanja storitev, na podlagi francoske ureditve obvezno shraniti to seme pri odobrenih sredi�čih za osemenjevanje, ki to seme edina dostavljajo rejcem, in pridobiti licenco za osemenjevalca, da lahko opravljajo dejavnost osemenjevalca.
The French Republic disputes the arguments alleging that that legislation hampers the freedom to provide the service of distribution of bovine semen.
Francoska republika prereka trditev, da naj bi ta ureditev ovirala svobodo opravljanja storitev distribucije semena goveda.
On the other hand, it does not dispute the fact that it is an obstacle to the freedom to provide the service of the insemination of that product.
Ne prereka pa dejstva, da ta ureditev ovira svobodo opravljanja storitev osemenjevanja s tem proizvodom.
The Commission claims that, as regards the distribution service, and stating that its objection does not concern the obligation to store frozen semen before its dispatch in accordance with paragraph 3(a) of Annex C to Directive 88/407, the freedom to provide that service is affected, first, by the obligation to store semen in authorised artificial insemination centres which alone are authorised to deliver it to breeders and, secondly, by the prohibition of any intervention not authorised by the insemination centre enjoying an exclusive right of action.
Komisija, kar zadeva storitev distribucije in s pojasnilom, da se njen očitek ne nana�a na obveznost shranjevanja globoko zamrznjenega semena pred njegovim po�iljanjem v smislu priloge C, točka 3(a), k Direktivi 88/407, trdi, da na svobodo opravljanja te storitve vpliva po eni strani obveznost shranjevanja semena pri odobrenih osemenjevalnih sredi�čih, ki to seme edina dostavljajo rejcem, in po drugi strani prepoved vsakr�nega nepoobla�čenega opravljanja dejavnosti osemenjevalnega sredi�ča, ki ima izključno pravico do opravljanja te dejavnosti.
Even if breeders may, as the French Republic contends, request the centre to which they are affiliated to order specific semen originating from a producer established in another Member State, the obligation to store the semen in that centre, after its dispatch, is likely to impede or render less attractive the provision of the distribution service by the producer.
Navesti je treba, da – čeprav imajo rejci, kot trdi Francoska republika, možnost, da sredi�če, od katerega so odvisni, zanje naroči posebno seme, ki izvira od proizvajalca s sedežem v drugi državi članici – lahko obveznost shranjevanja tega semena v navedenem sredi�ču po njegovem po�iljanju pomeni oviro za proizvajalca pri opravljanju storitve distribucije ali zmanj�uje privlačnost tega izvajanja.
The same is true of the prohibition on any insemination not authorised by the territorially competent insemination centre, since that prohibition, on account of the connection between distribution and insemination, is also likely to impede or render less attractive the provision of the semen distribution service.
Enako velja glede prepovedi vsakr�nega izvajanja nepoobla�čenega osemenjevanja s strani osemenjevalnega sredi�ča, pristojnega za določeno območje, ker prepoved zaradi povezanosti dejavnosti distribucije in osemenjevanja prav tako pomeni oviro pri opravljanju storitve distribucije semena ali zmanj�uje privlačnost opravljanja te storitve.
As regards, specifically, the freedom to provide the service of semen insemination, the French Republic concedes that the national legislation constitutes an obstacle to the provision of that service.
Francoska republika je glede posebej svobode opravljanja storitve osemenjevanja priznala, da nacionalna ureditev pomeni oviro zanj.
Cross-border service providers wishing to carry out insemination in French territory in accordance with the freedom to provide services must obtain, in France, an inseminator’s licence.
Čezmejni izvajalec storitev, ki želi na francoskem ozemlju opravljati postopke osemenjevanja v smislu svobode opravljanja storitev, mora v Franciji nujno pridobiti licenco za osemenjevalca.
Moreover, after obtaining that licence, those operators may carry out the insemination of bovine semen only under the authority of a territorially competent insemination centre.
Poleg tega lahko gospodarski subjekti po pridobitvi te licence izvajajo osemenjevanje goveda le pod nadzorom odobrenega osemenjevalnega sredi�ča, pristojnega za določeno območje.
In those circumstances, it must be held that the French legislation, inasmuch as it grants authorised centres the exclusive right to provide the service of artificial insemination of bovine animals in a determined area and makes the activity of insemination subject to the issue of an inseminator’s licence, constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.
V teh okoli�činah je treba ugotoviti, da francoska ureditev, ki odobrenim sredi�čem podeljuje izključno pravico zagotavljanja storitev osemenjevanja goveda na določenem območju in dejavnost osemenjevanja pogojuje z izdajo licence za osemenjevalca, pomeni omejitev svobode ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev.
Such measures can be allowed only if they pursue a legitimate aim compatible with the Treaty and are justified by overriding reasons in the public interest, in so far as there is no harmonising measure of Community law providing for the necessary measures to protect those interests.
Taki ukrepi bi smeli biti sprejeti le, če sledijo zakonitemu cilju, združljivemu s Pogodbo, in bi bili utemeljeni z nujnimi razlogi splo�nega interesa, če ne obstaja usklajevalni ukrep Skupnosti, ki predvideva ukrepe, potrebne za zagotovitev varstva teh interesov.
Furthermore, it is settled caselaw of the Court that those restrictive measures can be justified by those reasons only if they are necessary for the protection of the interests which they are intended to guarantee and only in so far as those objectives cannot be attained by less restrictive measures (see judgment of 14 December 2006 in Case C-257/05 Commission v Austria, paragraph 23 and the caselaw cited).
Poleg tega lahko na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča te omejevalne ukrepe upravičujejo ti razlogi le, če so nujni za varstvo interesov, ki jih želijo zagotoviti, in le če teh ciljev ni mogoče doseči z manj omejevalnimi ukrepi (sodba z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Avstriji, C-257/05, točka 23 in navedena sodna praksa).
The justification for the restriction on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services
Utemeljevanje omejitve svobode ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev
The protection of bovine genetic stock
Varstvo genetskega bogastva goveda
The French Republic submits that the legislation at issue is designed to improve bovine genetic stock, which the Court has already accepted in Case C-162/97 Nilsson and Others [1998] ECR I-7477 constitutes an overriding reason in the public interest.
Francoska vlada trdi, da je sku�ala z zadevno ureditvijo zagotoviti varstvo genetskega bogastva goveda, ki ga je Sodi�če s sodbo z dne 19. novembra 1998 v zadevi Nilsson in drugi (C-162/97, Recueil, str. I-7477) potrdilo kot nujen razlog splo�nega interesa.
It adds that, while Directives 77/504 and 87/328 harmonised the conditions governing movement within the Community of purebred breeding animals of the bovine species and their semen, they did not, by contrast, harmonise the rules relating to 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 semenom znotraj Skupnosti, nista pa enotno uredili področja in pogojev glede osemenjevanja goveda.
That Member State, referring to the implementation in its territory of programmes of selection for progeny and stock conservation, points out that the exclusive rights over a defined geographical area conferred on the authorised insemination centres and the conditions governing the issue of an inseminator’s licence are the only way of guaranteeing accurate and comprehensive genetic information on bovine animals, which is essential to the continued genetic improvement of the stock.
Ta država članica ob sklicevanju na to, da so se na francoskem ozemlju izvajali selekcijski programi, testiranje na potomcih in programi genetskega ohranjanja, trdi, da so izključna pravica, podeljena odobrenim osemenjevalnim sredi�čem, in pogoji za izdajo licence za osemenjevalca edini način, ki zagotavlja, da se bodo genetski podatki o govedu zbirali natančno in popolno, kar je nujno za dosego cilja, to je genetskega izbolj�anja te vrste.
The measures at issue are necessary in order to centralise within a single body in each exclusively defined area all the data on the inseminations carried out.
Zadevni ukrepi naj bi bili nujni za to, da se pri enem samem subjektu centralizirano zberejo vsi podatki o osemenitvah, opravljenih na določenem območju, za katero je bila odobrena izključna pravica.
The Commission maintains that the objective of protecting bovine genetic stock, which falls within the context of zootechnical and pedigree requirements, has, as the Court recognised in paragraph 33 of Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle, been the subject of comprehensive harmonisation at Community level. In any event, it
Komisija zatrjuje, da je bil cilj varstva genetskega bogastva goveda, ki spada na področje zootehni�kih in genealo�kih pogojev – kot je potrdilo tudi Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle, točka 33 – predmet
COMMISSION v FRANCE submits, the lack of Community provisions does not in itself constitute a justification for such a restriction.
KOMISIJA PROTI FRANCIJI popolne uskladitve na ravni Skupnosti. Vsekakor po njenem mnenju neobstoj določb Skupnosti sam po sebi ne pomeni, da je omejitev upravičena.
The Commission submits that improvement of the stock depends on the breeder and not the inseminator, whereas the act carried out by the inseminator which, at most, raises considerations relating to health, has no effect on either the quality or provenance of the semen inseminated.
Komisija trdi, da je varstvo genetskega bogastva odvisno od rejca, in ne od dejavnosti osemenjevalca, saj dejanje, ki ga opravi zadnjenavedeni in ki se nana�a kvečjemu na zdravstvene razloge, ne more vplivati niti na kakovost niti na izvor semena.
The Commission adds that, for the purposes of guaranteeing the accurate collection of genetic information concerning bovine animals by centralising the data in one place, an obligation merely to send the necessary information to a centre collecting the genetic data would suffice.
Komisija dodaja, da bi za zagotavljanje natančnega zbiranja genetskih podatkov o govedu, ki se centralizirajo pri enem samem mestu, zado�čala zgolj obveznost po�iljanja potrebnih podatkov sredi�ču, ki zbira genetske podatke.
First, as is apparent from the provisions of Directives 77/504, 87/328 and 91/174, referred to in paragraphs 3 to 6 and 15 above and paragraph 33 of Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle, the pedigree conditions, so far as intraCommunity trade in bovine semen from purebred animals is concerned, have been fully har -monised at Community level.
Prvič, opozoriti je treba, da so bili – kot izhaja iz določb direktiv 77/504, 87/328 in 91/174, omenjenih v točkah od 3 do 6 in 15 te sodbe, in iz točke 33 zgoraj navedene sodbe Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle – genealo�ki pogoji, v zvezi s prometom s semenom čistopasemskega plemenskega goveda znotraj Skupnosti, predmet popolne uskladitve na ravni Skupnosti.
As recalled in paragraph 67 above, an overriding reason in the public interest cannot be relied upon where there is harmonisation at Community level providing for measures necessary to ensure that interest is protected (see, to that effect, Commission v Austria, paragraph 23).
Kot je bilo opozorjeno v točki 67 te sodbe, je mogoče nujni razlog splo�nega interesa uveljavljati le, če obstaja usklajevalni ukrep Skupnosti, ki predvideva ukrepe, potrebne za zagotovitev varstva tega interesa (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Avstriji, točka 23).
The second paragraph of Article 1 of Directive 88/407, which does not amend the content of Directives 77/504, 87/328 and 91/174 or conflict with the caselaw cited in paragraph 73 above, does not cast doubt on that assessment.
Na podlagi člena 1, drugi odstavek, Direktive 88/407, ki ne spreminja vsebine direktiv 77/504, 87/328 in 91/174 in ne nasprotuje sodni praksi, navedeni v točki 73 te sodbe, ni mogoče ovreči te presoje.
That provision, specifying that Directive 88/407 does not affect the Community and/or national zootechnical provisions governing the organisation of artificial insemination in general and the distribution of semen in particular, is aimed only at zootechnical measures, whereas the justification relied on by the French Republic is based solely on considerations of pedigree.
Ta določba s tem, da natančno določa, da Direktiva 88/407 ne vpliva na določbe Skupnosti in/ali nacionalne zootehnične določbe o organizaciji osemenjevanja na splo�no in zlasti distribucije semena, se nana�a le na zootehnične ukrepe, medtem ko se utemeljevanje Francoske republike opira le na genetske razloge.
Secondly, in so far as the arguments relied on by the French Republic aim to vindicate the national system at issue in so far as it establishes restrictions on carrying out the insemination of bovine semen and issuing the inseminators’ licences, it must be observed that the considerations set out by that Member State do not concern pedigree but, as the Commission points out, relate to the field of health.
Drugič, ker želi Francoska republika s svojimi trditvami upravičiti sporni nacionalni sistem, s katerim so uvedene omejitve izvajanja dejavnosti osemenjevanja goveda in izdajanja licenc za osemenjevalca, je treba navesti, da razlogi, ki jih je predstavila ta država članica, niso genealo�ki, ampak, kot zatrjuje Komisija, spadajo na zdravstveno področje.
In fact, the genetic aspect of an insemination does not depend on the action of the inseminator but on the characteristics of the female bovine animals and the semen inseminated.
Genetski vidik osemenjevanja namreč ni odvisen od dejanja, ki ga opravi osemenjevalec, ampak od značilnosti samic goveda in uporabljenega semena.
Thirdly, even supposing that the Community harmonisation of intraCommunity trade of semen from bovine animals other than purebred animals, carried out in Directive 88/407, is incomplete as regards the conditions on pedigree, an absence of
Tretjič, tudi če bi bila uskladitev Skupnosti, ki jo na področju prometa znotraj Skupnosti s semenom drugega goveda, kot je čistopasemsko, izvedena z Direktivo 88/407, ne bi bila popolna, kar zadeva genealo�ke pogoje, na eni strani, je treba poudariti, kot trdi Komisija, da neobstoj določb Skupnosti sam po sebi ne more upravičiti omejitve.
The French Republic’s claims that the national system at issue is intended to protect the genetic stock in so far as it allows the collecting of information relating to artificial inseminations completed in the territory of that Member State to be centralised, which is essential for the purposes of programmes of selection for progeny and stock conservation, do not demonstrate either the necessity or proportionality of the restrictions resulting from that system.
Po drugi strani trditve Francoske republike – da je namen sporne nacionalne ureditve zagotoviti varstvo genetskega bogastva goveda, saj omogoča centralizirano zbiranje podatkov o osemenitvah, opravljenih na ozemlju te države članice s postopkom osemenjevanja, ki je nujno potrebno za izvajanje selekcijskih programov in testiranj potomcev ter za genetsko ohranjanje – ne dokazujejo niti nujnosti niti sorazmernosti omejitev, ki izhajajo iz te ureditve.
That centralised collecting of information, even if it is useful so far as bovine animals other than purebred animals are concerned, might have been accomplished using less restrictive measures than the grant to authorised centres of exclusive rights to carry out the semen insemination service in specific geographical areas.
Tako centralizirano zbiranje podatkov bi bilo, če bi bilo koristno za druga goveda, kot je čistopasemsko, lahko izvedeno z manj omejevalnimi ukrepi, kot je podelitev izključne geografske pravice za storitev osemenjevanja odobrenim osemenjevalnim sredi�čem.
It would have been possible, in particular, to impose on operators carrying out the artificial insemination of semen the obligation to communicate to a body designated for that purpose the data relating to the inseminations carried out, thereby collecting the same data centrally without hindering the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.
Zlasti bi bilo mogoče, da se gospodarskim subjektom, ki izvajajo postopke osemenjevanja goveda, naloži obveznost, naj v ta namen določenemu organu sporočajo podatke o opravljenih osemenitvah, kar bi tako zagotavljalo centralizirano zbiranje enakih podatkov, izognili pa bi se ustvarjanju ovir svobodi ustanavljanja in svobodi opravljanja storitev.
Therefore, the justification relied on by the French Republic relating to the protection of bovine genetic stock must be rejected.
Utemeljitev Francoske republike v zvezi z varstvom genetskega bogastva goveda je zato treba zavrniti.
The French Republic maintains that the rules relating to the qualifications of operators carrying out insemination satisfy concerns about protection of animal and human health.
Francoska republika zatrjuje, da ureditev v zvezi s strokovno kvalifikacijo oseb, ki opravljajo postopke osemenjevanja, sledi ciljem varstva zdravja živali in ljudi.
First of all, so far as animal health is concerned, it submits that the act of inseminating the semen must comply with health and safety rules in relation to both the handling of the semen and contact with the animal.
Najprej, ta država članica v zvezi z zdravjem živali trdi, da je treba v okviru postopka osemenjevanja spo�tovati higiensko-zdravstvena pravila tako pri ravnanju s semenom kot pri stiku z živaljo.
Inseminators must possess the skills required to avoid physical harm to the animal which is being artificially inseminated.
Zato morajo biti osemenjevalci strokovno usposobljeni, da bi preprečili nevarnost po�kodb živali, ki so predmet postopka.
In addition, the very decision to carry out insemination may affect the health of the animal, in terms of its fertility in particular, as the latter may be compromised as a result of illjudged crossbreeding.
Poleg tega lahko odločitve v zvezi z osemenjevanjem vplivajo na zdravje te živali, ki je lahko ogroženo, zlasti z vidika plodnosti, če izbor semena ni premi�ljen.
Next, as regards protection of the health of the operators carrying out the semen insemination, the French Republic maintains that the grant of a licence attesting to the ability of the person concerned to carry out insemination is necessary, since the act of inseminating carries risks, both in terms of contact with a large animal and in terms of the use of liquid nitrogen, which can cause serious burns.
Dalje, Francoska republika v zvezi z varovanjem zdravja osebe, ki izvaja postopke osemenjevanja, meni, da je dodelitev licence, ki potrjuje usposobljenost zadevne osebe za izvajanje postopka osemenjevanja, nujna, saj je ta postopek lahko nevaren zaradi stika z razmeroma težko živaljo in zaradi uporabe tekočega du�ika, ki lahko povzroči hude kožne opekline.