natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Next, Case C-127/08Metock andOthers (judgment of 25 July 2008) and Case C-33/07 Jipa (judgment of 10 July 2008) concern the interpretation of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (12).
Nato je treba poudariti zadevi Metock in drugi (sodba z dne 25. julija 2008, C-127/08) in Jipa (sodba z dne 10. julija 2008, C-33/07), ki se nanašata na razlagoDirektive 2004/38/ES o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic12.
In Metock andOthers, the Court held that Directive 2004/38 precludes legislation of a Member State which makes a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in that Member State but not possessing its nationality subject to a condition that he must have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State before arriving in the host Member State, in order to benefit from the provisions of that directive.
Sodišče je v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Metock in drugi razsodilo, da Direktiva 2004/38 nasprotuje ureditvi države članice, ki državljanu tretje države, zakoncu državljana Unije, ki prebiva v tej državi članici, katere državljan ni, zato da bi bil upravičen do ugodnosti, ki izhajajo iz določb te direktive, postavlja pogoj predhodnega zakonitega prebivanja v drugi državi članici, preden se je preselil v državo gostiteljico.
As regards family members of a Union citizen, no provision of the directive makes its application subject to that condition; the Court took the view that it was necessary to reconsider the conclusion reached in its judgment in Akrich (13), which made the ability to benefit from the rights to enter and reside provided for by Regulation No 1612/68 (14) subject to such a condition.
Glede družinskih članov državljana Unije v nobeni določbi te direktive ni določen navedeni pogoj za njeno uporabo; Sodišče meni, da je treba ponovno preučiti ugotovitev iz sodbe Akrich13, ki postavlja tak pogoj, da bi se lahko uveljavljali pravici vstopa in prebivanja, predvideni z Uredbo (EGS) št. 1612/68.14 Dejstvo, da državljana Unije njegova družina nemore spremljati ali se mu pridružiti v državi članici gostiteljici, bi ga namreč lahko odvračalo od izvrševanja pravice do vstopa in prebivanja v tej državi članici.
The inability of a Union citizen to be accompanied or joined by his family in the host Member State would be such as to discourage him from exercising his right of entry into and residence in that Member State. The Court also stated that a non-Community spouse of a Union citizen who accompanies or joins that citizen may benefit from Directive 2004/38, irrespective of when and where
Sodišče je prav tako pojasnilo, da za državljana tretje države, zakonca državljana Unije, ki tega državljana spremlja ali se mu pridruži, velja ta direktiva ne glede na kraj in datum sklenitve zakonske zveze in ne glede na način, kako je ta državljan vstopil v državo članico gostiteljico, in da ni potrebno, da bi moral državljan pred selitvijo
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p.
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/38/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic (UL L 158, str. 77, in popravek, UL L 229, str. 35).
Case C-109/01 Akrich [2003] ECR I-9607.
Sodba z dne 23. septembra 2003, C-109/01, Recueil, str. I-9607.
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15October 1968 on freedomofmovement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p.
Uredba Sveta št. 1612/68 (EGS) z dne 15. oktobra 1968 o prostem gibanju delavcev v Skupnosti (UL L 257, str.
475), amended by Directive 2004/38/EC.
2), spremenjena z Direktivo 2004/38.
Court of Justice their marriage took place and of how that spouse entered the host Member State, and that it is not necessary for the citizen to have already founded a family at the time when he moves in order for his family members who are nationals of non-membercountries to be able to enjoy the rights conferred by that directive.
Razvoj in dejavnost že ustvariti družino, zato da bi lahko njegovi družinski člani, državljani tretjih držav, pridobili pravice, ki jim jih podeljuje ta direktiva.
Finally, the words ‘family members [of Union citizens] who accompany… them’(15) must be interpreted as referring both to the family members of a Union citizen who entered the host Member State with him and to those who reside with him in that Member State, without it being necessary, in the latter case, to distinguish according to whether they entered that Member State before or after the Union citizen or before or after becoming his family members.
Nazadnje, izraz„družinski člani [državljana Unije], ki [tega] spremljajo“15 je treba razlagati tako, da hkrati zajema družinske člane državljana Unije, ki so z njim vstopili v državo članico gostiteljico, in družinske člane, ki z njim prebivajo v tej državi članici, ne da bi bilo treba v drugem primeru razlikovati med tem, ali so vstopili v navedeno državo članico pred državljanom Unije ali za njim oziroma preden so postali njegovi družinski člani ali pozneje.
In Jipa, the question before the Court was whether Community law, and in particular Directive 2004/38, precludes national legislation that allows the right of a national of a Member State to travel to another Member State to be restricted, in particular on the ground that he has previously been expelled from the latter Member State on account of his‘illegal residence’there.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi Jipa je bilo Sodišču predloženo vprašanje, ali pravo Skupnosti in predvsem Direktiva 2004/38 nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, ki dopušča omejitev pravice državljana države članice, da potuje na ozemlje druge države članice, predvsem iz razloga, ker je bil predhodno izgnan iz slednje države članice, ker je v njej bil v„nezakonitem položaju“.
The Court noted that such a national enjoys the status of a citizen of the Union and may therefore rely, including against his Member State of origin, on the right of freemovement and residence within the territory of the Member States, which includes both the right to enter a Member State other than the one of origin and the right to leave the State of origin.
Sodišče je poudarilo, da ima tak državljan status državljana Unije in torej lahko uveljavlja pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic tudi proti svoji državi članici izvora, kar vključuje pravico, da državljani Unije vstopajo v drugo državo članico, ki ni njihova država članica izvora, in pravico slednjo zapustiti.
However, the right of freemovement may be subject to limitations and conditions envisaged by the Treaty, inter alia on the basis of requirements of public policy or public security which the Member States have power to determine.
Vendar je ta pravica lahko podrejena omejitvam in pogojem, določenim s Pogodbo, zlasti zaradi zahtev javnega reda ali javne varnosti, za katerih določitev so pristojne države članice.
In the Community context, those requirements must, however, be interpreted strictly.
V kontekstu Skupnosti pa je treba te zahteve razlagati ozko.
The Court explained that such restriction simply in particular that, in order to be justified, measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned and not on considerations of general prevention.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da tako uokvirjenje vključuje predvsem to, da se morajo za namen svoje utemeljitve ukrepi javnega reda in javne varnosti opirati izključno na osebno obnašanje zadevnega posameznika, in ne na splošno preventivo.
A measure restricting freemovement must be adopted in the light of considerations pertaining to the protection of public policy or public security in the Member State imposing it ; while the authorities of that Member State are not precluded from being able to take into account reasons advanced by another Member State to justify a decision to remove a Community national from the territory of the latter State, the restrictive measure cannot be based exclusively on those reasons.
Ukrep, s katerim se omejuje prosto gibanje, je treba obravnavati glede na ugotovitve o varstvu javnega reda in javne varnosti države članice, ki sprejme ta ukrep. Sicer ni izključeno, da bi lahko organi navedene države članice upoštevali razloge, ki jih navede druga država članica, za utemeljitev odločitve o odstranitvi državljana Skupnosti z ozemlja te države, vendar omejevalni ukrep nemore temeljiti izključno na teh razlogih.
The Court concluded that Communitylaw does not preclude the national legislation in question, provided that certain requirements are met.
Sodišče je sklenilo, da pravo Skupnosti ne nasprotuje zadevni nacionalni ureditvi, če je zadoščeno določenim zahtevam.
First, the personal conduct of that national must constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.
Prvič, osebno obnašanje tega državljana mora pomeniti resnično, sedanjo in dovolj resno nevarnost, ki ogroža temeljne družbene interese.
Second, the restrictive measure envisaged must be necessary and proportionate to the achievement of the objective it pursues.
Drugič, predvideni omejevalni ukrepmora biti nujen in sorazmeren za uresničevanje zastavljenega cilja.
In Case C-499/06 Nerkowska (judgment of 22May 2008), the Court held that the right of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it refuses, generally and in all circumstances, to pay to its nationals a benefit granted to civilian victims of war or repression solely because they are not resident in the territory of that State throughout the period of payment of the benefit, but in the territory of another Member State.
Sodišče je v zadevi Nerkowska (sodba z dne 22. maja 2008, C-499/06) razsodilo, da je treba pravico vsakega državljana Evropske unije, da se prosto giblje in prebiva na ozemlju držav članic, razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, na podlagi katere bi slednja na splošno in v vseh okoliščinah svojim državljanom zavrnila izplačilo dajatev, odobrenih civilnim žrtvam vojne ali represije, samo zato, ker v obdobju izplačevanja te dajatve ne prebivajo na ozemlju te države, ampak na ozemlju druge države članice.
The Court noted that such a benefit falls within the competence of the Member States, but that they must exercise that competence in accordance with Community law, in particular with the right to freedomofmovement of citizens of the Union.
Sodišče je opozorilo, da navedena dajatev spada v pristojnost držav članic, vendar pa morajo slednje to pristojnost izvajati ob spoštovanju prava Skupnosti, zlasti pravice do prostega gibanja državljanov Unije.
The requirement of residence in national territory in order for the benefit to be granted is a restriction on the exercise of that freedom. The Court
Sodišče meni, da sta tako želja po zagotavljanju obstoja naveznih okoliščin med družbo zadevne države članice in upravičencem do dajatve kot zahteva po preverjanju, ali upravičenec še naprej izpolnjuje pogoje za prejemanje te dajatve, objektivna preudarka v splošnem interesu, ki upravičujeta tako omejitev.
Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC.
Člen 3(1) Direktive 2004/38.
However, the fact that a person is a national of the Member State granting the benefit concerned and, moreover, has lived in that State for more than 20 years may be sufficient to establish such a connection.
Vendar dejstvo, prvič, da ima oseba državljanstvo države članice, ki podeljuje zadevne dajatve, in drugič, da je v tej državi živela več kot dvajset let, zadostuje za dokaz obstoja navezne okoliščine.
In those circumstances, the requirement of residence throughout the period of payment of the benefit must be held to be disproportionate.
V teh okoliščinah je treba zahtevo po prebivanju v celotnem obdobju izplačevanja dajatev šteti za nesorazmerno.
Furthermore, there are other means of verifying that the recipient continues to satisfy the conditions for the grant of the benefit, which, although less restrictive, are just as effective.
Poleg tega, da bi se preverilo, ali upravičenec še naprej izpolnjuje pogoje za pridobitev dajatve, obstajajo druga sredstva, ki bi bila prav tako učinkovita, vendar manj omejujoča.
In the field of the freemovement of goods, the Court delivered a number of judgments concerning the compatibility with Community legislation of national provisions amounting to measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions.
Na področju prostega pretoka blaga je Sodišče izdalo več sodb, ki se nanašajo na skladnost nacionalnih določb, ki uvajajo ukrepe z enakim učinkom, kot ga imajo količinske omejitve, z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
First of all, in Case C-244/06 Dynamic Medien [2008] ECR I-505, the Court turned its attention to German rules prohibiting the sale and transfer by mail order of image storage media which have not been examined and classified by a competent national authority or by a national voluntary self-regulatory body for the purposes of protecting young persons and which do not bear a label from that authority or body indicating the age from which those image storage media may be viewed.
Najprej se je Sodišče v zadevi Dynamic Medien (sodba z dne 14. februarja 2008, C-244/06, ZOdl., str. I-505) ukvarjalo z nemško zakonodajo, na podlagi katere sta bila prepovedana prodaja in prenos po pošti tistih nosilcev slike, ki jih pristojni nacionalni organ oziroma nacionalna organizacija prostovoljnega samourejanja ni preizkusila in razvrstila z namenom varstva mladoletnikov in ki niso opremljeni z oznako tega organa oziroma organizacije, iz katere bi bila razvidna starost, od katere si je te nosilce slike dovoljeno ogledati.
The Court held that such rules do not constitute a selling arrangement which is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially intra-Community trade, but a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions within the meaning of Article 28 EC and are, in principle, incompatible with the obligations arising from that provision.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da taka ureditev ne pomeni načina prodaje, ki bi lahko neposredno ali posredno, dejansko ali potencialno omejevala trgovino med državami članicami, ampak ukrep z enakim učinkom, kot ga imajo količinske omejitve v smislu člena 28 ES, ki je načeloma nezdružljiv z obveznostmi, ki iz njega izhajajo.
According to the Court, such rules may, however, be justified by the objective of protecting children, insofar as the rules are proportionate to that objective, as will be the case where they do not preclude all forms of marketing of unchecked image storage media and it is permissible to import and sell such image storage media to adults, while ensuring that children do not have access to them.
Pomnenju Sodišča pa je lahko taka zakonodaja utemeljena s ciljem varstva otrok, če je sorazmerna s tem ciljem, za kar gre, če ta zakonodaja ne nasprotuje vsem oblikam prodaje nosilcev slike, ki niso bili preizkušeni, in če je dovoljen uvoz in prodaja teh nosilcev slike odraslim ter je poskrbljeno zato, da otroci nimajo dostopa do njih.
It could be otherwise only if it appears that the examining, classifying and labelling procedure established by those rules is not easily accessible or cannot be completed within a reasonable period or that the decision of refusal cannot be open to challenge before the courts.
Drugače je lahko samo takrat, ko se izkaže, da postopek za preizkus, razvrstitev in označevanje, ki ga določata zakonodaja, ni lahko dostopen ali da ne omogoča, da se izvede v razumnih rokih, ali da zoper zavrnilno odločbo ni mogoče zahtevati sodnega varstva.
Next, in Case C-141/07 Commission v Germany (judgment of 11 September 2008), the Court was faced with German legislation concerning the requirements which external pharmacies had to meet if they were to be eligible to supply medicinal products to hospitals situated in Germany, requirements which, in practice, necessitated a degree of geographical proximity between the pharmacy supplying the medicinal products and the hospital.
Nato je bilo Sodišče v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (sodba z dne 11. septembra 2008, C-141/07) soočeno z nemško zakonodajo, ki se je nanašala na zahteve, ki so jih morale zunanje lekarne izpolnjevati, ko so se potegovale za oskrbo z zdravili bolnišnic na nacionalnem ozemlju; gre namreč za zahteve, s katerimi se de facto zahteva določena geografska bližina med lekarno, ki dobavlja zdravila, in bolnišnico.
The Court held that, while such provisions must be regarded as concerning selling arrangements, since they do not concern the characteristics of the medicinal products, but concern solely the arrangements permitting their sale, they are nevertheless liable to hinder intra-Community trade and, therefore, constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports prohibited, in principle, by Article 28 EC.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da čeprav je treba za take določbe, kadar se ne nanašajo na lastnosti zdravil, ampak samo na načine, kako se lahko prodajajo, šteti, da se nanašajo na načine prodaje, pa lahko te določbe ovirajo trgovino znotraj Skupnosti in zato pomenijo ukrep z enakim učinkom kot količinska omejitev pri uvozu, ki je načelno prepovedan s členom 28 ES.
According to the Court, they are justified, however, on grounds of the protection of public health.
Vendar so pomnenju Sodišča utemeljene z razlogi varovanja javnega zdravja.
Such legislation can achieve the objective of ensuring that the supply of products to hospitals of the Member State concerned is reliable
S tako zakonodajo se namreč uresničuje cilj zagotovitve zanesljive in kakovostne oskrbe bolnišnic zadevne države članice in v resnici prenašajo zahteve, analogne tistim, ki so značilne za sistem z interno oskrbo, v sistem z zunanjo oskrbo, in sicer zahtevo, da je lekarnar po eni strani odgovoren za oskrbo z zdravili in po drugi strani zadostno in hitro na voljo na kraju samem.
Form at :
Sodišče
Finally, Case C-205/07 Gysbrechts and Santurel Inter (judgment of 16 December 2008) concerned the compatibility of Belgian rules relating to distance-selling contracts with the EC Treaty.
Nazadnje je treba omeniti zadevo Gysbrechts in Santurel Inter (sodba z dne 16. decembra 2008, C-205/07) v zvezi s skladnostjo belgijske zakonodaje na področju pogodbo prodaji na daljavo s Pogodbo ES.
Those rules prohibited a seller from requiring a deposit or form of payment from the consumer or even, according to the Belgian authorities, a consumer’s payment card number, before expiry of the mandatory period of seven working days for withdrawal.
Ta zakonodaja je prodajalcu prepovedovala, da pred iztekom roka sedmih delovnih dni za obvezni odstop od pogodbe od potrošnika zahteva predplačilo ali plačilo, celo – pomnenju belgijskih organov – številko kreditne kartice tega potrošnika.
Having taken the view that such prohibitions constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports, the Court held that, while the prohibition on requiring an advance or payment from the consumer is justified by the needto protect the latter, the imposition on a supplier of a prohibition on requiring that a consumer provide his payment card number goes beyondwhat is necessary to ensure the effective exercise of the consumer’s right to withdraw.
Sodišče je po tem, ko je ugotovilo, da take prepovedi pomenijo ukrep z enakim učinkom kot količinska omejitev pri izvozu, razsodilo, da čeprav je prepoved zahtevati od potrošnika predplačilo ali plačilo utemeljena z nujnostjo varovati potrošnika, pa nasprotno prepoved ponudniku, da bi zahteval številko potrošnikove plačilne kartice, preseže tisto, kar je nujno potrebno za zagotavljanje učinkovitega uveljavljanja potrošnikove pravice do odstopa od pogodbe.
The value of such a prohibition resides only in the fact that it eliminates the risk that the supplier collects the price before expiry of the period for withdrawal.
Taka prepoved je namreč koristna zgolj za odpravo tveganja, da bi ponudnik pred iztekom roka za odstop od pogodbe unovčil kupnino.
If, however, that risk materialises, the supplier’s action is, in itself, a contravention of the prohibition on requesting an advance or payment from the consumer, which is an appropriate and proportionate measure to attain the objective pursued.
Če se to tveganje kljub temu uresniči, je to ravnanje ponudnika samo po sebi kršitev prepovedi zahtevati od potrošnika predplačilo ali plačilo, ki je ustrezen in sorazmeren ukrep za dosego cilja, ki ga želi doseči.
Therefore, Article 29 EC does not preclude the prohibition on a supplier, in cross-border distance selling, requiring an advance or any payment from a consumer before expiry of the withdrawal period, but does preclude a prohibition on requesting, before expiry of that period, the number of the consumer’s payment card.
Zato člen 29 ES ne nasprotuje prepovedi ponudniku v okviru čezmejne prodaje na daljavo, da od potrošnika pred iztekom roka za odstop od pogodbe zahteva predplačilo ali kakršno koli plačilo, vendar pa nasprotuje prepovedi, da pred iztekom navedenega roka zahteva številko potrošnikove plačilne kartice.
In Case C-132/05 Commission v Germany [2008] ECR I-957, the Court was required to determine whether a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations by refusing to proceed against the use, on its territory, of the name‘Parmesan’on the labelling of products which do not comply with the requirements of the specification for the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, thereby favouring the appropriation of the reputation of a genuine, Communitywide protected product (16).
Sodišče je moralo v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (sodba z dne 26. februarja 2008, C-132/05, ZOdl., str. I-957) odločiti, ali država članica, s tem da na svojem ozemlju zavrača sankcioniranje uporabe imena„parmezan“ na etiketah proizvodov, ki ne ustrezajo s pe ci ê ka ciji zaščitene označbe porekla (v nadaljevanju: ZOP)„Parmigiano Reggiano“, in tako spodbuja poseganje v ugled pristnega proizvoda, zaščitenega na ravni Skupnosti, ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti.16
Noting, first of all, that it is not only the exact form of registration of a PDO that enjoys protection under Community law, the Court found that, in view of the phonetic and visual similarity between the names in question and the similar appearance of the products, the use of the name ‘Parmesan’must be regarded as an evocation of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Sodišče je najprej poudarilo, da po pravu Skupnosti ni zaščitena samo natančno taka oblika, v kateri je bila ZOP registrirana, in nato ugotovilo, da je treba, ker obstaja glasovna in vidna podobnost med zadevnima imenoma in ker so si proizvodi na videz podobni, uporabo imena„parmezan“ opredeliti kot navajanje ZOP„Parmigiano Reggiano“.
If it is unable to show that the name‘Parmesan’has become generic, a State cannot rely on the exception provided for under Regulation No 2081/92.
Če država ne dokaže, da je ime„parmezan“ generično, se nemore sklicevati nato izjemo, ki jo določa Uredba št. 2081/92.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 2081/92 z dne 14. julija 1992 o zaščiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila (UL L 208, str. 1).
Freemovement of persons, services and capital
Prosto gibanje oseb, prosti pretok storitev in kapitala