natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Whilst it is acknowledged that the sale of goods via the internet constitutes an ‘information society service’ within the meaning of the directive in question 11and that a domestic rule such as the prohibition of mail order sales under Paragraph 12(3)(2) of the JuSchG falls within the ‘coordinated field’ of the directive, 12 none of the parties intervening before the Court has stated, nor have I been able to ascertain, which specific provision in the directive in question may have implemented the exhaustive harmonisation of domestic legislation on the protection of young persons in connection with mail order sales of goods via the internet that would preclude verification of the compatibility of the prohibition with Articles 28 EC and Article 30 EC.
in da sodi nacionalna določba člena 12(3), točka 2, JuSchG, s katero je prepovedana prodaja po po�ti, na „koordinirano področje“ iz te direktive, 12 ni nobena od strank v tem postopku pojasnila in tudi sam ne morem razbrati, kateri posebni predpisi, vsebovani v tej direktivi, naj bi izčrpno usklajevali nacionalno zakonodajo o varstvu mladoletnikov na področju internetne prodaje blaga in s tem izključevali možnost preverjanja skladnosti navedene prepovedi s členoma 28 ES in 30 ES.
10 — Emphasis added.
10 – Moj poudarek.
11 — This appears to be the thrust of recital 18 in the preamble to the directive, according to which ‘[i]nformation society services span a wide range of economic activities which take place online’, which ‘can, in particular, consist of selling goods online’.
11 – Videti je, da to stali�če podpira osemnajsta uvodna izjava direktive, v skladu s katero „[s]toritve informacijske družbe zajemajo �iroko področje gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki potekajo po internetu“, med katere sodi „predvsem […] internetn[a] prodaj[a] blaga“.
12 — Under Article 2(h) of the directive, the coordinated field covers ‘requirements laid down in Member States’ legal systems applicable to information society service providers or information society services, regardless of whether they are of a general nature or specifically designed for them’, ‘requirements with which the service provider has to comply in respect of’ both the taking-up and pursuit of the activity of an information society service (in particular the ‘requirements concerning the behaviour of the service provider, … the quality or content of the service including those applicable to advertising and contracts’).
12 – V skladu s členom 2(h) direktive pokriva to koordinirano področje „zahteve, določene v pravnih sistemih držav članic za ponudnike storitev informacijske družbe ali storitve informacijske družbe, ne glede na to, ali so splo�ne narave ali posebej določene […] zahteve, ki jih mora ponudnik storitev izpolniti“ tako za začetek opravljanja storitev informacijske družbe kot za izvajanje teh storitev (zlasti „zahteve glede obna�anja ponudnika storitev, zahteve glede kakovosti ali vsebine storitve, vključno z zahtevami za ogla�evanje in pogodbe“).
Article 3 contains the so-called ‘internal market clause’, which essentially permits the providers of information society services to operate throughout the territory of the Community while remaining subject to the provisions of the Member State in which they are established as far as matters within the field coordinated by the directive are concerned.
V členu 3 je tako imenovana „klavzula notranjega trga“, na podlagi katere ponudniki storitev informacijske družbe v bistvu lahko poslujejo na ozemlju Skupnosti, pri tem pa zanje veljajo, v zvezi s koordiniranim področjem direktive, določbe države članice, v kateri imajo sedež.
Article 3(1) provides that ‘[e]ach Member State shall ensure that the information society services provided by a service provider established on its territory comply with the national provisions applicable in the Member State in question which fall within
V odstavku 1 tega člena je določeno, da „[v]saka država članica zagotovi, da so storitve informacijske družbe ponudnika, ki posluje na njenem ozemlju, v skladu z veljavnimi nacionalnimi določbami v zadevni državi članici, ki spadajo na koor-
At the same time, Article 3(2) lays down that ‘Member States may not, for reasons falling within the coordinated field, restrict the freedom to provide information society services from another Member State’.
„svobode zagotavljanja storitev informacijske družbe iz druge države članice“, ki jih lahko država članica sprejme ne glede na prepoved, določeno v odstavku 2 tega člena, zaradi razlogov iz koordiniranega področja direktive. 13 dinirano področje“.
therefore those that a Member State may adopt in derogation from the prohibition, laid down in Article 3(2), on restricting, for reasons falling within the field coordinated by the directive, ‘the freedom to provide information society services from another Member State’. 13
V odstavku 2 istega člena je določeno, da „[d]ržave članice ne smejo omejevati svobode zagotavljanja storitev informacijske družbe iz druge države članice zaradi razlogov, ki spadajo na koordinirano področje“.
Since Avides is a provider established in Germany, 14the prohibition of mail order sales under Paragraph 12(3)(2) of the JuSchG constitutes, in relation to the defendant, a national provision of the home State within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/31, and not a provision restricting the freedom to provide information society services from another Member State, within the meaning of Article 3(2) of that directive.
Ker je družba Avides ponudnik s sedežem v Nemčiji, 14bi bilo treba �teti, da je prepoved prodaje po po�ti iz člena 12(3), točka 2, JuSchG v razmerju do nje nacionalna določba države izvora v smislu člena 3(1) Direktive 2000/31 in ne ukrep, ki omejuje prost pretok storitve informacijske družbe, ki izvira iz druge države članice, v smislu člena 3(2) te direktive.
However, the directive provides that ‘notwithstanding the rule on the control [of such services] at source’, ‘it is legitimate’, under the conditions established in the direct ive, ‘for Member States to take measures to restrict the free movement of information society services’ (recital 24).
Vendar je v Direktivi določeno, da „[n]e glede na pravilo, da je treba storitve informacijske družbe nadzorovati pri viru, lahko države članice pod pogoji iz te direktive uvedejo ukrepe za omejitev prostega pretoka storitev informacijske družbe“ (�tiriindvajseta uvodna izjava).
Article 3(4), to which the court of reference and the German and United Kingdom Governments refer, lays down the conditions in question, in particular circumscribing the publicinterest grounds that may be invoked to justify such restrictive measures and making their adoption conditional on compliance with particular procedural formalities, such as requesting the Member State in which the service provider is established to take action and notifying the intention to adopt the measures in question to that Member State and to the Commission, which has a duty to verify that the measures are compatible with Community law.
V členu 3(4), na katerega se sklicujejo predložitveno sodi�če, nem�ka vlada in vlada Združenega kraljestva, so določeni ti pogoji in opredeljeni zlasti razlogi javnega interesa, ki upravičujejo omejevalne ukrepe, ter postopek, v skladu s katerim lahko država članica take ukrepe sprejme, ki določa, da mora ta pred sprejetjem omejevalnega ukrepa na državo članico izvora ponudnika storitve nasloviti zahtevo, naj ukrepa, in o svoji nameri uradno obvestiti Komisijo (ki mora preveriti, ali so prigla�eni ukrepi v skladu s pravom Skupnosti).
Hence, the rules under Article 3(2) and (4) of Directive 2000/31 play no part in an assessment of whether the prohibition of mail order sales is compatible with Community law, in that it is applicable to a business, such as Avides, established on the national territory.
Ureditev, določena s členom 3(2) in (4) Direktive 2000/31, torej ni upo�tevna za namene preverjanja skladnosti navedene prepovedi prodaje po po�ti s pravom Skupnosti, ker se prepoved uporablja za gospodarski subjekt, kakršen je družba Avides, s sedežem na nacionalnem ozemlju.
13 — Emphasis added.
13 – Moj poudarek.
14 — Article 2(c) of Directive 2000/31 states that for the purposes of the directive ‘established service provider’ means ‘a service provider who effectively pursues an economic activity using a fixed establishment for an indefinite period’, ‘[t]he presence and use of the technical means and technologies required to provide the service … not, in themselves, constitut[ing] an establishment of the provider’.
14 – V členu 2(c) Direktive 2000/31 je pojasnjeno, da za namene te direktive izraz „ponudnik storitve s sedežem“ pomeni „ponudnik storitve, ki dejansko izvaja neko gospodarsko dejavnost in ima sedež za nedoločen čas“ in da „[z]astopanost in uporaba tehničnih sredstev in tehnologij, potrebnih za izvajanje dejavnosti, sami �e ne pomenita ustanovitve sedeža ponudnika“.
The provisions designed to ensure ‘the protection of minors’ in accordance with Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31 are
Ukrepi za zagotovitev „varstva mladoletnikov“ v smislu člena 3(4) Direktive 2000/31 sodijo torej med tiste ukrepe omejevanja
Treaty, and in particular with Articles 28 EC and 30 EC; in fact, it expressly provides for such a check. 16
DYNAMIC MEDIEN torej ni določena izčrpna uskladitev nacionalne zakonodaje glede prodaje blaga po po�ti in tudi preverjanje, ali so strožji ukrepi, ki jih lahko države članice sprejmejo za varstvo potro�nikov na podlagi njenega člena 14, v skladu z določbami Pogodbe, zlasti s členoma 28 ES in 30 ES, ni izključeno, ampak celo izrecno določeno. 16
The provisions of Directive 2000/31 are therefore not relevant in the present case.
Skratka, določbe Direktive 2000/31 niso upo�tevne za obravnavani primer.
They could prove applicable, in place of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, for assessing whether the prohibition in question is compatible with Community law in so far as it is applicable to businesses established in Member States other than Germany that make sales via the internet in Germany, but, as I have pointed out, that aspect falls outside the scope of the case before the court of reference.
Namesto členov 28 ES in 30 ES bi bile upo�tevne kvečjemu za preizkus skladnosti zadevne prepovedi s pravom Skupnosti, če bi se uporabljale za poslovne subjekte s sedežem v drugih državah članicah in ne v Nemčiji, ki bi opravljali storitve internetne prodaje v Nemčiji, vendar, kot sem že poudaril, gre tu za vidik, ki se ne nana�a na predmet spora o glavni stvari, o katerem mora odločiti predložitveno sodi�če.
I am therefore of the opinion that the directives in question do not preclude the need to examine whether the prohibition of mail order sales of image storage media not examined and classified by the competent German authority, as laid down in Paragraph 12(3)(2) of the JuSchG, is compatible with Articles 28 EC and 30 EC.
Zato menim, da na podlagi direktiv, na katere se sklicujejo stranke v tem postopku, ni mogoče izključiti potrebe po presoji, ali je prepoved prodaje po po�ti nosilcev slike, ki niso bili predmet preizkusa in razvrstitve pristojnega nem�kega organa, iz člena 12(3), točka 2, JuSchG v skladu s členoma 28 ES in 30 ES.
C — The applicability of Article 28 EC in the present case: measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports?
C – Upoštevnost člena 28 ES v obravnavanem primeru: ali gre za ukrep z enakim učinkom, kot ga ima količinska omejitev pri uvozu?
As regards Directive 97/7, I note that the prohibition of mail order sales under Paragraph 12(3)(2) of the JuSchG appears to fall within the scope of that directive.
Glede Direktive 97/7 pa ugotavljam, da sodi prepoved prodaje po po�ti iz člena 12(3), točka 2, JuSchG, kot kaže, na področje njene uporabe.
15However, Article 14 of that directive allows the Member States to ‘introduce or maintain, in the area covered by this Directive, more stringent provisions compatible with the Treaty, to ensure a higher level of consumer protection’ and goes on to state that ‘[s]uch provisions shall, where appropriate, include a ban, in the general interest, on the marketing of certain goods or services, particularly medicinal products, within their territory by means of distance contracts, with due regard for the Treaty’. Hence Directive 97/7 does not carry out an exhaustive harmonisation with regard to the sale of goods by mail order and does not preclude verifying whether more stringent measures than those which Article 14 of the directive permits the Member States to adopt in order to protect consumers are compatible with the EC
15Vendar je v členu 14 te direktive določeno, da države članice lahko „na področju, ki ga [ta direktiva] pokriva […], uvedejo ali obdržijo bolj stroge določbe, združljive s Pogodbo, da bi zagotovile vi�jo raven varstva potro�nikov“, in pojasnjeno, da „[č]e je to primerno, tak�ne določbe v splo�nem interesu na njihovem ozemlju vključujejo prepoved prodaje določenega blaga ali storitev, zlasti medicinskih izdelkov, po pogodbah pri prodaji na daljavo, s potrebnim upo�tevanjem Pogodbe“. Z Direktivo 97/7
By its question to the Court, the Landgericht Koblenz asks the Court first whether the abovementioned prohibition constitutes
Landgericht Koblenz z vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje od Sodi�ča zahteva
15 — In Deutscher Apothekerverband, paragraph 63, the Court reached a similar conclusion with reference to a ban on mail order sales of medicinal products, the sale of which was restricted to pharmacies, as laid down in the German legislation examined in that judgment.
15 – V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Deutscher Apothekerverband (točka 63) je Sodi�če izpeljalo podoben sklep v zvezi s tako prepovedjo prodaje po po�ti za zdravila, katerih prodaja je dovoljena samo lekarnam, kot je določena v nem�ki zakonodaji, obravnavani v navedeni sodbi.
16 — Deutscher Apothekerverband, paragraphs 64 and 65.
16 – Prav tam, točki 64 in 65.
Under Article 28 EC, ‘[q]uantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States’.
Na podlagi člena 28 ES so „[m]ed državami članicami […] prepovedane količinske omejitve pri uvozu in vsi ukrepi z enakim učinkom“.
Cassis de Dijon judgment 19states that, in the absence of harmonisation of legislation, obstacles to the free movement of goods which are the consequence of applying, to goods coming from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed, rules that lay down requirements to be met by such goods (such as those relating to designation, form, size, weight, composition, presentation, labelling or packaging) constitute measures of equivalent effect prohibited by Article 28 EC, even if those rules apply to all products alike, unless their application can be justified by a publicinterest objective taking precedence over the requirements of the free movement of goods. 20
v zadevi Cassis de Dijon 19, �teti, da sodijo med ukrepe z enakim učinkom, prepovedane na podlagi člena 28 ES, vse ovire prostemu pretoku blaga, ki izhajajo – kadar zakonodaje niso usklajene na ravni Skupnosti – iz uporabe predpisov, s katerimi so določeni pogoji, ki jih mora izpolnjevati blago z izvorom iz drugih držav članic, v katerih je zakonito proizvedeno in dano na trg (na primer glede oznak, oblike, sestave, predstavitve, opremljenosti z nalepkami, pakiranja), čeprav se ti uporabljajo brez razlikovanja za vse proizvode, in sicer takrat, kadar teh predpisov ne upravičujejo razlogi splo�nega interesa, ki prevladajo nad zahtevo po prostemu pretoku blaga. 20
In accordance with the Dassonville formula, 17which has been reiterated repeatedly in the Court’s caselaw up to the present day, 18all trading rules enacted by the Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be regarded as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions.
V skladu z znano odločitvijo, sprejeto v zadevi Dassonville 17in vse do danes upo�tevano v sodni praksi Sodi�ča, 18je treba �teti, da so vsi trgovinski predpisi držav članic, ki bi lahko neposredno ali posredno, dejansko ali morebiti ovirali trgovino znotraj Skupnosti, ukrepi z enakim učinkom kot količinske omejitve.
Hence, in accordance with the caselaw beginning with the judgment in Keck and Mithouard, 21the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States within the meaning of the line of caselaw beginning with Dassonville, so long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact,
Vendar iz sodne prakse, ki temelji na sodbi v zadevi Keck in Mithouard 21, izhaja tudi, da uporabe nacionalnih določb, s katerimi se omejujejo ali prepovedujejo določeni načini prodaje proizvodov iz drugih držav članic, ni mogoče �teti za neposredno ali posredno, dejansko ali potencialno oviro za trgovino med državami članicami v smislu navedene sodne prakse, ki izhaja iz sodbe Dassonville, če veljajo te določbe za vse zadevne gospodarske subjekte, ki opravljajo
Even where the purpose of a measure is not to regulate trade in goods between Member States, the determining factor is its actual or potential effect on intra-Commu-nity trade.
Čeprav cilj določenega ukrepa ni urejanje trgovine med državami članicami, je ključnega pomena njegov učinek, dejanski ali morebiten, na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti.
In application of that criterion, established caselaw beginning with the
Ob upo�tevanju tega merila je treba v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, ki temelji na sodbi
19 — Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral [1979] ECR 649.
19 – Sodba z dne 20. februarja 1979 v zadevi Rewe-Zentral (120/78, Recueil, str. 649).
17 — Case 8/74 Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5.
17 – Sodba z dne 11. julija 1974 v zadevi Dassonville (8/74, Recueil, str. 837, točka 5).
20 — Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097, paragraph 15, and Deutscher Apothekerverband, paragraph 67.
20 – Sodba z dne 24. novembra 1993 v združenih zadevah Keck in Mithouard (C-267/91 in C-268/91, Recueil, str. I-6097, točka 15) in zgoraj navedena sodba Deutscher Apothekerverband, točka 67.
18 — Most recently in Case C-254/05 Commission v Belgium [2007] ECR I-4269, paragraph 27.
18 – Nazadnje v sodbi z dne 7. junija 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji (C-254/05, ZOdl., str. I-4269, točka 27).
21 — Paragraph 16.
21 – Zgoraj navedena sodba, točka 16.
DYNAMIC MEDIEN the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States.
DYNAMIC MEDIEN ukvarjajo z elektronsko trgovino, s sedežem v Nemčiji, in ne tudi na podjetja s sedežem v drugih državah članicah.
22 and not also on those established in the other Member States.
dejavnost na nacionalnem ozemlju, in če pravno in dejansko enako prizadenejo trženje domačih proizvodov in trženje proizvodov iz drugih držav članic. 22
Avides, the United Kingdom Government and the Commission maintain that the prohibition of mail order sales imposed by Paragraph 12(3)(2) of the JuSchG constitutes a measure of equivalent effect prohibited by Article 28 EC.
Družba Avides, vlada Združenega kraljestva in Komisija menijo, da je prepoved prodaje po po�ti, določena s členom 12(3), točka 2, JuSchG, ukrep z enakim učinkom, ki je prepovedan na podlagi člena 28 ES.
The Commission considers that the answer lies crucially in an analysis of the real or potential effect of the national measures in question.
Po mnenju Komisije je ključnega pomena preučitev dejanskega ali morebitnega učinka zadevnih nacionalnih ukrepov.
It points out that Paragraph 12 of the JuSchG essentially obliges the traders concerned to label image storage media.
Komisija poudarja, da je s členom 12 JuSchG zadevnim gospodarskim subjektom v bistvu naloženo, da nosilce slike opremijo z ustreznimi nalepkami.
The prohibition of mail order sales under Paragraph 12(3)(2) is, in the Commission’s opinion, only one of the penalties laid down for non-compliance with that obligation, which, according to the Commission, falls within the category of national measures considered by the caselaw mentioned in point 38 above, in that it establishes a labelling requirement with which the goods must comply.
Prepoved prodaje po po�ti iz odstavka 3, točka 2, tega člena naj bi bila samo ena od sankcij, določenih za nespo�tovanje te obveznosti, ki sodi po njenem mnenju v skupino nacionalnih ukrepov, obravnavanih v sodni praksi, navedeni v točki 38 zgoraj, saj nalaga pogoj v zvezi z opremljenostjo z nalepkami, ki ga mora blago izpolnjevati.
The restrictive effect of the German rules is then reinforced by the fact that the required labelling presupposes the carryingout of a national examination procedure, even where the rules of the Member State of export already provided for a comparable procedure and labelling.
Omejevalni učinek nem�ke zakonodaje naj bi �e krepilo dejstvo, da je zahteva v zvezi z opremljenostjo z nalepko lahko izpolnjena le, če se opravi nacionalni postopek preizkusa, čeprav je bilo blago že predmet takega postopka in označevanja v državi članici izvoza.
Hence, according to the Commission, the rules in question impose additional costs for the sale of imported image storage media in Germany, and this is sufficient for them to be characterised as constituting a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction.
Komisija torej meni, da so z zadevno zakonodajo naloženi dodatni stro�ki za trženje uvoženih nosilcev slike v Nemčiji, kar naj bi zado�čalo za njeno uvrstitev med ukrepe z enakim učinkom, kot ga imajo količinske omejitve.
According to Avides, what is at issue is not simply the regulation of a selling arrangement.
Družba Avides trdi, da ne gre le za ureditev določenega načina prodaje.
The need for imported image storage media that have already been examined and classified in the exporting Member State for the purpose of protecting young persons to be submitted for examination and classification for the same purpose by the competent German authority as well would lead to significant additional costs and delays in the marketing of such products in Germany.
Zahteva, v skladu s katero mora uvožene nosilce slike, ki so že bili preizku�eni in razvr�čeni za namene varstva mladoletnikov v državi članici izvoza, z istim namenom preizkusiti in razvrstiti �e pristojni nem�ki organ, naj bi povzročila občutne dodatne stro�ke in zamude pri trženju teh proizvodov v Nemčiji.
In any case, even if the measure regulated a selling arrangement, it would not meet the first of the two conditions laid down in the Keck and Mithouard judgment, since the fact that it is applicable only on national territory means that it would fall only on electronic trading undertakings established in Germany
Vendar pa naj ta določba – čeprav bi sprejeli stali�če, da gre za ureditev določenega načina prodaje – ne bi izpolnjevala prvega izmed dveh pogojev, opredeljenih v sodbi Keck in Mithouard, saj naj bi zato, ker se uporablja samo na nacionalnem ozemlju, vplivala izključno na poslovanje podjetij, ki se
According to the United Kingdom Government, any obstacle to the free movement of goods which is the consequence of applying a national measure relating to the
Vlada Združenega kraljestva meni, da je treba vsako omejevanje prostega pretoka blaga, ki je posledica uporabe
Dynamic Medien observes that the restrictions imposed by Paragraph 12(3) of the JuSchG relate to selling arrangements and apply to all image storage media, whether produced in Germany or not, and sold by businesses established in Germany or in other Member States.
Družba Dynamic Medien navaja, da se omejitve, določene v členu 12(3) JuSchG, nana�ajo na način prodaje in na vse nosilce slike ne glede na to, ali so proizvedeni v Nemčiji ali ne, ki jih tržijo gospodarski subjekti s sedežem v Nemčiji ali v drugih državah članicah.
In its view, there is therefore no protection of national production.
Zato naj ne bi bila povezana z za�čito domače proizvodnje.