natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In my view, the failure to define, with sufficient clarity and precision, the service, other than the insemination service, whose provision in France, by operators from other Member States has, allegedly, been impeded or discouraged by the national legislation on the artificial reproduction of cattle, makes it impossible to declare any failure on the part of the Member State concerned to fulfil an obligation in that regard.
Ker storitev, ki se razlikuje od storitve osemenjevanja, katere svobodno opravljanje naj bi bilo v Franciji za subjekte drugih držav članic zaradi omejitev, ki jih določa nacionalna zakonodaja v zvezi z umetnim oplojevanjem goveda, ovirano ali oteženo, ni opredeljena dovolj jasno in natančno, je po mojem mnenju nemogoče skleniti, da tožena država v zvezi s tem ni izpolnila obveznosti.
I therefore consider that, since they fail to meet the necessary conditions of clarity and precision, the complaints raised by the Commission concerning alleged restrictions on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services with reference to the semen distribution service (or services) must be dismissed as inadmissible.
Zato menim, da je treba očitke Komisije glede zatrjevanega omejevanja svobode ustanavljanja in opravljanja storitev v zvezi s storitvijo (ali storitvami) distribucije semenskega materiala zavrniti kot nedopustne, saj ne izpolnjujejo zahtev, ki se nana�ajo na jasnost in natančnost tožbenih razlogov.
Consequently, in this Opinion, I shall not consider the questions pertaining to the obligation to deliver the semen to and store it at an authorised AIC, after dispatch from the production centre.
Posledično bom v teh sklepnih predlogih izpustil presojo vpra�anj glede obveznosti izročanja in shranjevanja semenskega materiala, poslanega iz sredi�ča za pridelavo, pri odobrenem OS.
29I would, moreover, add that the Commission has set out the complaint concerning that obligation in a
29 Ob tem naj dodam �e, da je Komisija tudi očitek glede te obveznosti tako v tožbi kot v repliki oblikovala dokaj nejasno,
28 — See, as regards an action for failure to fulfil an obligation under Article 226 EC, the judgment of 14 October 2004 in Case C-55/03 Commission v Spain, paragraph 23.
28 – V zvezi s tožbo zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi člena 226 ES glej sodbo z dne 14. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji (C-55/03, točka 23).
I would point out in that connection that, according to caselaw, in both the reasoned opinion and, consequently, the action for failure to fulfil an obligation, which may not be based on pleas and grounds other than those put forward in that opinion, the complaints must be set out coherently and precisely, in order that the Member State and the Court may appreciate exactly the scope of the infringement of Community law complained of, a condition which is necessary in order to enable the Member State to avail itself of its right to defend itself and the Court to determine whether there is a breach of obligations, as alleged. 27
Spomnim naj, da morajo biti na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse tako v obrazloženem mnenju kot, posledično, v tožbi zaradi neizpolnitve, ki lahko temelji samo na razlogih, navedenih v mnenju, očitki predstavljeni skladno in natančno, tako da se državi članici in Sodi�ču omogoči, da natančno razumeta obseg očitane kr�itve prava Skupnosti, kar je nujen pogoj, da lahko tožena država članica uspe�no uveljavlja razloge v svojo obrambo in da lahko Sodi�če preveri obstoj zatrjevane neizpolnitve obveznosti. 27
la Crespelle, 30‘by making the operation of the [AICs] subject to authorisation and providing that each centre should have the exclusive right to serve a defined area, the national legislation granted those centres exclusive rights’, ‘thus establishing, in favour of those undertakings, a contiguous series of monopolies territorially limited but together covering the entire territory of a Member State’.
članica, s tem da je za opravljanje dejavnosti [OS] predpisala dovoljenja in s tem da je vsakemu sredi�ču podelila izključne pravice za določeno območje, „v korist teh podjetij oblikovala sicer geografsko omejene monopole, ki pa vsi skupaj pokrivajo celotno ozemlje države članice“.
I shall, instead, focus on the alleged restrictions of freedom of establishment and of the freedom to provide services with reference to the insemination service, in situations arising from the exclusive rights over defined geographical areas conferred on the authorised AICs to carry out that service, and the requirement that an agreement be concluded with an authorised AIC before an inseminator’s licence could be obtained (hereinafter also the ‘national rules at issue’).
Osredotočil se bom torej na presojo zatrjevanega omejevanja pravice do ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev, ki se nana�a na storitev osemenjevanja in ki naj bi bilo posledica geografsko določene izključne pravice, podeljene odobrenim OS za opravljanje te storitve, in obvezne sklenitve pogodbe z odobrenim OS, ki je pogoj za pridobitev licence za osemenjevalca (v nadaljevanju tudi: sporna nacionalna ureditev).
(i) Preliminary considerations
b) Očitki glede storitve osemenjevanja i) Predhodne ugotovitve
The possibility, for which the rules at issue provide, that insemination activities could be carried out by licence-holders who were not AIC employees, might, on the face of it, seem at odds with the exclusive geographically defined rights conferred on the AICs in relation to insemination.
Možnost, predvidena v zadevni ureditvi, opravljanja storitev osemenjevanja tudi za imetnike licenc za osemenjevalca, ki niso zaposleni pri OS, bi se lahko na prvi pogled zdela v nasprotju z geografsko določeno izključno pravico, podeljeno OS za opravljanje storitev osemenjevanja.
But this is actually only an apparent contradiction, since it is clear from the rules themselves that insemination carried out by such persons must, in any event, take place under the authority of the territorially competent, authorised AIC, and subject to the technical responsibility of the AIC manager, and that the technical and financial, as well as the administrative procedures for that insemin ation could not be determined by the operator independently, but had to form the subject of an agreement with the managing director of the AIC.
V resnici je to nasprotje le navidezno, saj iz zakonodaje izhaja, da se morajo tudi storitve osemenjevanja, ki jih izvajajo te osebe, opravljati pod vodstvom in nadzorom odobrenega OS, pristojnega za določeno območje, ter pod tehnično odgovornostjo vodje tega OS, pri čemer izvajalec ni mogel samostojno odločati niti o tehničnih, administrativnih in finančnih vidikih storitve, saj so bili ti predmet dogovora oziroma pogodbe s predsednikom OS.
In those circumstances, it seems difficult to envisage the provision
Te okoli�čine izpodbijajo trditev – ki je poleg vsega tudi v očitnem neskladju z navedeno izključno pravico –, da so lahko tudi drugi subjekti, različni od OS, dejansko neodvisno
As the Court had occasion to state in its judgment in Centre d’insémination de
V zgornji točki navedena elementa sporne nacionalne ureditve sta po mojem mnenju le dve strani iste medalje.
30 — Cited in footnote 4, paragraph 17.
30 – Navedena zgoraj, točka 17.
I am, therefore, of the opinion that the two aspects in question must be considered together, both for the purpose of determining whether there is any restriction of freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and for the purpose of assessing the reasons invoked by the French Government to justify any such restrictions.
Zato menim, da je treba oba sporna vidika obravnavati skupaj, in sicer tako pri presoji glede obstoja omejevanja pravice do ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev kot pri presoji razlogov, ki jih je navedla francoska vlada kot upravičenje morebitnega omejevanja.
Therefore, rather than reinforcing, as the Commission claims, the exclusive rights over a defined geographical area conferred on the AICs, the requirement that an agreement be entered into with the AIC as a prerequisite for obtaining an inseminator’s licence, is, in my view, an inherent part of those exclusive rights in the context of a system that, by reserving the insemination service for the authorised AICs, in any event sought to ensure that insemination activities could also be carried out, within — and not outside — the framework of those exclusive rights, by qualified persons who were not necessarily on the staff of an AIC.
Zato je bila obveznost sklenitve pogodbe z OS, ki je bila predvidena kot pogoj za pridobitev licence za osemenjevalca, bolj kot dejavnik, ki je prispeval h krepitvi položaja OS, njegove izključne pravice za določeno območje, kot trdi Komisija, dejansko neločljiva sestavina sistema, ki je pravico do opravljanja storitve osemenjevanja sicer pridržal odobrenim OS, a je hkrati želel dopustiti tudi možnost, da storitev osemenjevanja v okviru in ne zunaj te izključne pravice opravljajo tudi usposobljene osebe, ki pa niso zaposlene pri OS.
Furthermore, in its written pleadings, the French Government clearly states that Article L. 653-7 of the Rural Code accorded
Francoska vlada je v svojih vlogah jasno navedla, da je bila OS na podlagi čle -na L.653-7 kmetijskega zakonika podeljena
31 — Under Article 4 of the Decree of the Minister for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs of 20 February 2003 concerning the charges for insemination carried out on cattle by authorised artificial insemination centres (JORF of 23 February 2003, p.
31 – Na podlagi člena 4 dekreta ministra za kmetijstvo, prehrano, ribi�tvo in kmetijske zadeve z dne 20. februarja 2003 o tarifnih pogojih za storitev osemenjevanja goveda, ki jo izvajajo odobrena sredi�ča za osemenjevanje (JORF z dne 23. februarja 2003, str.
3290), the cost of the insemination was invoiced to the breeders by the AIC, regardless of whether the person who had carried out the insemination was an employee or an independent operator.
3290), so storitev osemenitve rejcem zaračunala OS, ne glede na status (samozaposlen ali v delovnem razmerju) osemenjevalca, ki jo je izvedel.
As is well known, Community law does not generally prohibit the Member States from making a specific economic activity subject to a monopoly.
Kot je znano, v pravnem redu Skupnosti ni predvidena nobena splo�na prepoved, ki bi državam članicam onemogočala, da za določeno gospodarsko dejavnost uvedejo monopolno ureditev.
That is borne out by Article 31 EC in particular, for Article 31(1) simply requires the adjustment of any State monopolies of a commercial character; it is further borne out by Article 86(1) EC which, by generally prohibiting the Member States from enacting or maintaining in force, in relation to public undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights, any measures contrary to the rules contained in the EC Treaty, necessarily implies that the Member States may accord
Tak sklep na primer potrjuje člen 31(1) ES, v katerem je določeno le, da morajo države članice vse državne monopole tržne narave prilagoditi, in člen 86(1) ES, v katerem je določena splo�na prepoved za države članice, da glede javnih podjetij ali podjetij, ki so jim odobrile posebne ali izključne pravice, ne smejo sprejeti ali ohraniti v veljavi ukrepov, ki so v nasprotju s pravili Pogodb ES, pri čemer iz te določbe nujno izhaja, da države članice očitno lahko
COMMISSION v FRANCE certain undertakings exclusive rights and grant them a monopoly.
KOMISIJA PROTI FRANCIJI določenim podjetjem podelijo izključne pravice ali monopolni položaj.
32 ficial reproduction of cattle, indirectly established a monopoly hindering the free movement of goods, since any private breeder was free to request the AIC for his area to supply him with semen from a production centre of his choice, whether situated in France or abroad. 35
32 monopola, ki ovira prost pretok blaga, saj je lahko v tem primeru vsak zasebni rejec od OS zahteval, naj mu priskrbi semenski material iz izbranega sredi�ča pridelave bodisi v Franciji bodisi v tujini. 35
As the Court has explained, however, that does not mean that all special and exclusive rights are necessarily compatible with the EC Treaty. 33
A kot je pojasnilo Sodi�če, to �e ne pomeni, da so vse posebne in izključne pravice skladne s Pogodbo ES. 33
It in its judgment in Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle, the Court pointed out that the mere creation of a dom -inant position by the granting of an exclusive right within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty was not, as such, incompatible with Article 86 of the Treaty, and that a Member State contravened the prohibitions contained in those two provisions only if, in merely exercising the exclusive right granted to it, the undertaking in question could not avoid abusing its dominant position.
V sodbi Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle pa je Sodi�če opozorilo, da nastanek prevladujočega položaja z odobritvijo izključne pravice v smislu člena 90(1) Pogodbe ES sam po sebi ni v nasprotju s členom 86 Pogodbe ES in da država članica kr�i prepovedi, določene v teh členih, samo takrat, kadar je zadevno podjetje v položaju, v katerem je samo z izvajanjem izključnih pravic, ki so mu dodeljene, navedeno k temu, da svoj prevladujoči položaj zlorabi.
In that case, analysing the French legislation which set in place AICs authorised to operate exclusively in a defined zone, allowing them to require breeders who requested the AICs to provide them with semen from other production centres to pay the additional costs entailed by that choice, the Court found that although it left to the AICs the task of calculating those costs, that legislation did not lead the centres to charge disproportionate costs and thereby abuse their dom -inant position. 36
V tem primeru je Sodi�če po preučitvi francoske zakonodaje, na podlagi katere so odobrena OS pridobila izključno pravico za opravljanje storitev na določenem območju in so smela strankam zaračunavati dodatne stro�ke za dobavo semenskega materiala iz drugih sredi�č za pridelavo, izbranih s strani rejcev, ugotovilo, da ta ureditev OS, čeprav so lahko zaračunavala navedene stro�ke, ni navajala k temu, da bi zahtevala nesorazmerna plačila, in torej k zlorabi prevladujočega položaja. 36
Specifically with reference to monopolies on the provision of services, such as those which, it has been determined, result from the exclusive rights over a defined geographical area conferred on the authorised AICs by the national rules at issue, the Court has held that, even though they are not caught by Article 37 of the EC Treaty, which relates to trade in goods, they are incompatible with the principle of the free movement of goods under Article 30 of the EC Treaty, if they have an indirect influence on that trade by discriminating against imported products to the benefit of products of domestic origin.
Prav v zvezi z monopoli na področju storitev, kakr�en je tisti, ki po ugotovitvah Sodi�ča izhaja iz podelitve izključne pravice za določeno območje odobrenim OS na podlagi sporne nacionalne ureditve, je Sodi�če poudarilo, da so – čeprav ne spadajo na področje uporabe člena 37 Pogodbe ES, ki se nana�a na trženje blaga med članicami – v nasprotju z načelom prostega pretoka blaga iz člena 30 Pogodbe ES, če posredno vplivajo na navedeno blagovno izmenjavo tako, da diskriminirajo uvoženo blago v korist blaga nacionalnega izvora.
34In its judgment in Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn, in particular, the Court found that the circumstances referred to by the national court and those which had come to light in the course of the proceedings before the Court of Justice were not sufficient to support the view that legislation of the kind which, in France, governs the arti-
34 V sodbi Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn je Sodi�če sklenilo, da okoli�čine, na katere je opozorilo predložitveno sodi�če, in tiste, ki so bile ugotovljene med postopkom, ne zado�čajo za ugotovitev, da zakonodaja, kakr�na je tista, s katero je bilo v Franciji urejeno umetno oplojevanje goveda in na podlagi katere je bil OS odobren geografsko določen monopolni položaj, vzpostavlja posredno obliko
35 — Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn, cited in footnote 3, paragraphs 11 and 12, also mentioned in Gervais and Others, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 37, in which the Court made it clear that the question whether the operation of the authorised centres in practice involved discrimination against the imported semen, contrary to Article 30 of the EC Treaty, requires an assessment of the material facts which falls within the jurisdiction of the national court (in point of fact, as in Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn, that case concerned a reference for a preliminary ruling and not, as in this case, proceedings for failure by a State to fulfil its obligations).
35 – Prim. točki 11 in 12 zgoraj navedene sodbe Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn, na kateri se je Sodi�če sklicevalo tudi v točki 37 zgoraj navedene sodbe Gervais in drugi, kjer je Sodi�če pojasnilo, da je treba za odgovor na vpra�anje, ali dejavnost odobrenih sredi�č vpliva na diskriminacijo v odnosu do uvoženega semenskega materiala, ki bi bila v nasprotju s členom 30 Pogodbe ES, preučiti upo�tevna dejstva, in odločilo, da je za to presojo pristojno (�lo je namreč – tako kot v zadevi Société coopérative d’amélioration de l’élevage et d’insémination artificielle du Béarn – za postopek predho -dnega odločanja in ne za postopek, uveden s tožbo zaradi neizpolnitev obveznosti, kakr�en je zadevni).
In these proceedings, the Court is asked to rule, directly on this occasion (this not being a request for a preliminary ruling but an action for a declaration that a State has failed to fulfil an obligation), whether the national rules at issue, which have established a number of territorial monopolies on the provision of services, are compatible with other provisions of the EC Treaty, such as those which guarantee freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the Community (Articles 43 EC and 49 EC).
V okviru tega postopka je Sodi�če pozvano, naj se – tokrat neposredno (saj ne gre za predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, temveč za tožbo zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti države) – izreče o skladnosti sporne nacionalne ureditve, na podlagi katere je bilo vzpostavljenih več območnih monopolov na področju opravljanja storitev, z drugimi določbami Pogodbe ES, in sicer s tistimi, ki zagotavljajo pravico do ustanavljanja in svobodnega opravljanja storitev na ozemlju Skupnosti (člena 43 ES in 49 ES).
Consequently, the fact that, in the abovementioned judgments, the Court was not able to identify ways in which those rules were incompatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty certainly does not imply that a finding in favour of the Commission in these proceedings would be incompatible with the Court’s caselaw.
Zato dejstvo, da Sodi�če v zgoraj navedenih sodbah ni ugotovilo, da bi bila sporna ureditev v nasprotju z določbami Pogodbe ES, sicer navedenimi v teh sodbah, nikakor ne dovoljuje sklepa, da bi bila odločitev Sodi�ča, s katero bi ugodilo tožbi Komisije v obravnavanem primeru, v nasprotju s predhodno sodno prakso Sodi�ča.
That was how, in its judgment in Läärä and Others, 40 the Court was able to conclude
Na podlagi tak�nih izhodi�č je lahko Sodi�če v sodbi v zadevi Läärä in drugi 40
There is no doubt that it is open to the Court to ascertain, on the basis of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, whether the conferring by a Member State of exclusive rights to engage in economic activities is compatible with Community law.
O tem, da Sodi�če lahko presoja, ali je ravnanje države članice, ki je odobrila izključne pravice za opravljanje določene gospodarske dejavnosti, zakonito in skladno s pravnim redom Skupnosti glede na člena 43 ES in 49 ES, pač ni nobenega dvoma.
that national legislation prohibiting any person other than the licensed public body from running the operation of slot machines, which involves no discrimination on grounds of nationality and applies without distinction to operators who might be interested in that activity, whether they are established in the Member State concerned or in another Member State, constitutes an impediment to the freedom to provide services in that it directly or indirectly prevents operators in other Member States from themselves making such machines available to the public, and must, therefore, if it is to be compatible with the EC Treaty, if it does not fall within
ugotovilo, da nacionalna ureditev, ki prepoveduje dajanje igralnih avtomatov na voljo javnosti vsem, razen poobla�čenemu javnemu subjektu, ne da bi pri tem gospodarske subjekte, ki bi želeli opravljati to dejavnost, diskriminirala glede na državljanstvo, in ki torej enako prizadene tako subjekte s sedežem v zadevni državi kot tuje subjekte s sedežem v eni izmed drugih držav članic, omejuje svobodo opravljanja storitev v smislu člena 59 Pogodbe ES, ker subjektom iz drugih držav članic posredno ali neposredno onemogoča, da bi javnosti dajali na razpolago te avtomate, in mora biti zato – da bi bila skladna s Pogodbo ES, če ne gre za eno izmed
In its judgment in ERT, 37 not only did the Court accept that a monopoly on the provision of services, such as, in that case, a monopoly in the television sector in Greece, may infringe the rules of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services, in particular, because of the manner in which it is organised or exercised, but it also held, citing the
Sodi�če je v sodbi v zadevi ERT 37 ne le priznalo, da lahko monopol na področju opravljanja storitev – v tem primeru je �lo za monopol v televizijskem sektorju v Grčiji – zaradi načina svoje organizacije ali izvajanja kr�i zlasti določbe Pogodbe ES, ki se nana�ajo na svobodo opravljanja storitev, temveč tudi zatrdilo, pri čemer se je sklicevalo na precedenčni primer, to je na sodbo v zadevi
38 — Case 155/73 [1974] ECR 409, paragraph 14.
40 – Sodba z dne 21. septembra 1999 (C-124/97, Recueil, str. I-6067, točke od 28 do 30).
My emphasis.39 — Cited in footnote 33, paragraph 35.40 — Case C-124/97 [1999] ECR I-6067, paragraphs 28 to 30.
37 – Sodba z dne 18. junija 1991 (C-260/89, Recueil, str. I-2925, točke od 10 do 12 in 20).
COMMISSION v FRANCE activity of artificially inseminating cattle, acknowledges that those exclusive rights and that condition represent a restriction of freedom of establishment.
KOMISIJA PROTI FRANCIJI osemenjevanja goveda – priznava, da navedena izključna pravica in navedeni pogoj omejujeta svobodo ustanavljanja.
one of the derogations expressly provided for by the Treaty (restrictions justified by the exercise of public authority or on grounds of public order, public safety or public health) be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest.
v njej izrecno predvidenih izjem (omejitve, ki jih upravičuje udeležba pri izvajanju javnih pooblastil ali razlogi javnega reda, javne varnosti ali javnega zdravja) – upravičena z nujnimi razlogi splo�nega interesa.
I am completely in agreement with that view.
Glede tega se povsem strinjam.
The considerations set out above in themselves intimate the conclusions which I shall reach below concerning the existence, in the case forming the subjectmatter of these proceedings, of restrictions of freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services.
Zgoraj navedene ugotovitve že nakazujejo sklepe, ki jih bom oblikoval v naslednjih točkah glede vpra�anja, ali je v zadevnem primeru podano omejevanje svobode ustanavljanja in opravljanja storitev.
In its judgment in Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, 42the Court held
V sodbi v zadevi Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti 42je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da ii) Pravica do ustanavljanja
According to caselaw, all measures which prohibit, impede or render less at -tractive the exercise of freedom of establishment, under Article 43 EC, must be considered to be restrictions on that freedom.
V skladu s sodno prakso je treba �teti, da svobodo ustanavljanja v smislu člena 43 ES omejujejo vsi ukrepi, ki prepovedujejo, ovirajo ali odvračajo od uresničevanja te svobo�čine.