natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I base that analysis on the following considerations.
To analizo opiram na naslednje ugotovitve.
It is also indisputable that the second condition required by caselaw is also fulfilled.
Sporno ni niti to, da je izpolnjen tudi drugi pogoj, ki ga zahteva sodna praksa.
The ban prohibiting service providers from engaging in advertising of any kind of their services to the general public is indeed intended to prevent them from engaging in advertising activities which might undermine the trust which their patients place in them, by detracting from the dignity of their profession and thus compromising the quality of care.
Prepoved ponudnikom storitev kakr�nega koli ogla�evanja svojih storitev je ustrezna za preprečevanje njihovih ogla�evalskih akcij, ki bi lahko �kodile zaupanju pacientov, s tem da bi vplivale na ugled njihovega poklica in tako zmanj�ale kakovost zdravstva.
In accordance with settled caselaw, a restriction on the exercise of the freedoms of movement resulting from a national measure which is applicable without distinction may be justified where it serves overriding requirements relating to the public interest, is suitable for securing the attainment of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. 57
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je omejitev izvr�evanja pravic prostega pretoka, ki izhaja iz nacionalnega ukrepa, ki se brez razlik uporablja za vse, mogoče upravičiti, če ustreza nujni zahtevi javnega interesa, da je z njim mogoče doseči cilj, ki ga zasleduje in ki ne presega tistega, kar je nujno za njegovo doseganje. 57
The question at the centre of the present case is therefore, in actual fact, whether such a prohibition is disproportionate in relation to such objectives or, in other words, whether those objectives may be achieved just as effectively by measures which are less restrictive.
Osrednje vpra�anje obravnavane zadeve se torej dejansko nana�a na vpra�anje, ali ni taka prepoved nesorazmerna glede na te cilje ali, z drugimi besedami, ali je te cilje mogoče prav tako učinkovito doseči z manj omejujočimi ukrepi.
That question is particularly apposite given that, at the time of the conduct complained of in the main proceedings, there
To vpra�anje se postavlja �ele sedaj, ker so v času nastanka dejstev, ki se očitajo
The first of those conditions is clearly fulfilled.
Prvi izmed teh pogojev je očitno izpolnjen.
The protection of public health is cited as one of the grounds capable of justifying a measure which discriminates against nationals of other Member States.
Varovanje javnega zdravja se namreč navaja med razlogi, ki lahko upravičijo diskriminatorni ukrep nasproti državljanom drugih držav članic.
The Court has held, in this regard, that the health and life of humans rank foremost among the property or interests protected by the Treaty provisions providing for possible derogations from the prohibition of restrictions on the
Sodi�če je v zvezi s tem razsodilo, da zdravje in življenje ljudi zaseda prvo mesto med interesi, varovanimi z določbami Pogodbe, ki določajo možna odstopanja od prepovedi omejitev pravic do prostega
57 — CaixaBank France, paragraph 17 and the caselaw cited.
57 – Zgoraj navedena sodba CaixaBank France (točka 17 in navedena sodna praksa).
protection of his life.
njegovega življenja.
Bearing in mind the importance of what is thus at stake, when having to decide whether or not to avail himself of treatment, the patient does not have the same freedom of choice as he does with other services.
Ob upo�tevanju tega tveganja, pacient pri odločitvi, ali bo posegel po zdravstvenih storitvah ali ne, ne razpolaga z enako svobodo volje kot pri drugih storitvah.
When he avails himself of treatment, the patient is not satisfying a desire but responding to a need.
Pacient, kadar posega po zdravstvenih storitvah, ne zadovoljuje svojih želja, pač pa odgovarja na potrebo.
The existence of that legislation therefore prompts me to examine whether the protection of public health and the protection of the dignity of the profession are capable of justifying a ban prohibiting dental care providers from engaging in advertising in the same way as for any other service provider, that is to say by promoting their services through any form of communication in order to encourage the consumer to purchase them.
Na podlagi te zakonodaje bom torej preučil, ali varovanje javnega zdravja in dostojanstva poklica lahko upravičuje prepoved ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev, da ogla�ujejo pod enakimi pogoji kot kateri koli drug ponudnik storitev, to pomeni prepoved ogla�evanja ponujanja svojih storitev s kakr�nim koli komunikacijskim sredstvom, s katerim bi potro�nika spodbudili k nakupu.
It must also be ascertained whether those grounds are capable of justifying a ban on any form of advertising to the general public.
Gre tudi za vpra�anje, ali ti razlogi lahko upravičujejo prepoved kakr�nega koli ogla�evanja v javnosti.
In the second place, the dental care sector, as with all activities in the healthcare sector, is one in which, in my opinion, the degree of ‘asymmetry of information’ between the provider and the recipient of the service, to adopt the expression used by the Commission in its abovementioned Report on Competition in Professional Services, 60is at its highest.
Drugič, področje zobozdravstva, kot vse dejavnosti na področju zdravstva, pomeni eno izmed tistih področij, na katerih je stopnja „asimetrije informacij“ med ponudnikom in uporabnikom storitve po mojem mnenju najvi�ja, kar je izraz, ki ga je v svojem zgoraj navedenem poročilu o konkurenci v sektorju svobodnih poklicev uporabila Komisija.
This means that, in his area of activity, the service provider has a level of competence which is very much higher than that of the recipient, so that the latter is not in a position to make a genuine assessment of the quality of the service he is purchasing.
60 To pomeni, da ima ponudnik storitev v svojem sektorju dejavnosti mnogo več znanja kot uporabnik, ker slednji ne more dejansko presojati kakovosti storitve, ki jo kupuje.
I take the view that the protection of public health is capable of justifying a ban on any form of communication which offers enticements or incentives to the general public for the following reasons.
Menim, da varovanje javnega zdravja lahko upraviči prepoved kakr�nega koli zanimivega ali spodbujajočega ogla�evanja, in to zaradi naslednjih razlogov.
Consequently, taking into account that asymmetry in the level of competence and the significance to the patient of the decision whether or not to avail himself of healthcare services, I consider that the relationship of trust between the patient and the healthcare professional is a vital one. In other
Zato ob upo�tevanju te asimetrije znanja in pomena, ki ga za pacienta predstavlja odločitev, ali uporabiti zdravstvene storitve ali ne, menim, da je odnos zaupanja med pacientom in članom zdravni�kega
In the first place, healthcare services differ from other services.
Prvič, zdravstvene storitve se razlikujejo od vseh drugih storitev.
They affect the physical integrity and psychological balance of the recipient.
Imajo učinke na fizično integriteto uporabnika in na njegovo psihično ravnovesje.
Moreover, a patient who avails himself of those services is responding to a genuine need related to the restoration of his health and, in some cases, the
Poleg tega pacient, ki jih uporablja, odgovarja na resnično potrebo, ki je povezana z vzpostavitvijo njegovega zdravja in, odvisno od primera, z varovanjem
60 — Point 25.
60 – Točka 25.
words, it must be possible for the patient to be convinced that, when that practitioner advises or recommends that he follow a course of treatment, the reasons for that advice or recommendation relate solely to the protection of his health.
določiti raven, na kateri želi zagotoviti varovanje javnega zdravja, in seveda način, kako naj bi se ta raven dosegla, ob spo�tovanju načela sorazmernosti, 61menim, da taka prepoved ni v nasprotju s členoma 43 ES in 49 ES.
That prohibition cannot, however, be unlimited.
Ta prepoved pa naj ne bi bila neomejena.
In order for dental care providers, as well as other healthcare professionals, to be able to pursue their activities, the public must be aware of their existence.
Opravljanje dejavnosti s strani ponudnikov zobozdravstvenih dejavnosti in s strani drugih članov zdravni�kega poklica seveda zahteva, da je javnost seznanjena z njihovim obstojem.
This means that the public must have some way of knowing the identity of the service provider, be that a natural or a legal person, the services which he is permitted to provide, the place where he provides them, his hours of business and contact details, such as telephone and fax numbers or an internet address.
To pomeni, da mora biti javnost seznanjena s tem, kdo je ponudnik storitev, fizična ali pravna oseba, s storitvami, ki jih je ta ponudnik upravičen opravljati, krajem, kjer jih opravlja, urnikom ter z njegovimi kontakti, kot so �tevilke telefona, telefaksa ali spletni naslov.
That is why I share the opinion of the Belgian and Italian Governments when they state that that relationship of trust would necessarily be undermined if dental care providers were permitted to advertise to the general public in order to promote their services.
Zato sem enakega mnenja kot belgijska in italijanska vlada, ki navajata, da bi bil ta odnos zaupanja nujno načet, če bi bilo ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev dovoljeno ogla�evati z namenom ponujanja svojih storitev.
In such circumstances, the patient might legitimately fear that, when the practitioner advises or recommends that he follow a course of treatment, that advice or recommendation is motivated, at least in part, by the economic interests of the practitioner.
V takem primeru bi se lahko pacient upravičeno bal, da ta nasvet ali priporočilo zdravnika o tem, ali naj uporabi zdravstveno storitev, vsaj delno temelji na ekonomskem interesu tega zdravnika.
The patient might then reassess the value of that advice or recommendation and thus compromise his state of health by refusing or deferring the treatment proposed.
Pacient bi lahko tako zmanj�al vrednost tega nasveta ali tega priporočila in tako ogrozil svoje zdravje, s tem da bi zavrnil ali spremenil priporočeno storitev.
Public access to such factual information is therefore necessary in order to put into effect the free movement of healthcare professionals.
Dostop javnosti do takih objektivnih podatkov je torej nujen za izvr�evanje svobode gibanja zdravstvenih delavcev.
It also helps to improve the protection of public health by facilitating patient mobility within the Union. Developments in the Court’s caselaw since the judg-
Prav tako prispeva k bolj�i za�čiti javnega zdravja, s tem da podpira mobilnost pacientov v
61 — See, to that effect, Joined Cases C-1/90 and C-176/90 Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivía [1991] ECR I-4151, paragraph 16.
61 – V tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 25. julija 1991 v združenih zadevah Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior in Publivía (C-1/90 in C-176/90, Recueil, str. I-4151, točka 16).
Consequently, I am of the opinion that the protection of public health may properly justify a ban prohibiting dental care providers from engaging in any form of advertising to the general public to promote their services.
Zato menim, da varovanje javnega zdravja lahko veljavno upravičuje prepoved ponudnikom zdravstvenih storitev kakr�nega koli ogla�evanja ponujanja svojih storitev.
In so far as, in the absence of common or harmonised rules on advertising in the dental care sector, it is for each Member State to decide on the degree of protection which it wishes to afford to public health and on the way in which that level of protection is to
Ker mora vsaka država članica ob pomanjkanju skupnih ali usklajenih pravil, ki se nana�ajo na ogla�evanje na področju zobozdravstva,
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-446/05
BOTA – ZADEVA C-446/05 okviru Evropske unije.
It is for the national court to assess whether, in the case at issue, the advertisements which Mr Doulamis placed in the Belgacom telephone directory fall outside that limitation, in the light, in particular, of the manner in which those advertisements were presented and details such as ‘Immediate one-hour repairs’, ‘Free check-ups and consultations’, ‘Personal service’ and ‘Home visits’.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora presoditi, ali v tem primeru oglasi, ki jih je I. Doulamis objavil v imeniku Belgacom, presegajo okvire te omejitve zlasti glede na predstavitev teh oglasov in navedbe, kot so „Takoj�nje popravilo v eni uri“, „Brezplačni pregled in nasveti“, „Osebni pristop“ in „Prevoz od doma do ordinacije“.
ments in Decker 62and Kohll demonstrate that patients are increasingly seeking healthcare in other Member States.
in Kohll dokazuje, da se želijo pacienti vse bolj zdraviti v drugih državah članicah.
There are several reasons for that trend.
Ta težnja ustreza različnim razlogom.
They may, for example, wish to benefit from less expensive healthcare or treatments which do not exist in their State of residence, or they may wish to be treated more quickly than in the State of residence.
Morda želijo zdravni�ko oskrbo po ugodnej�i ceni ali storitve, ki v njihovi državi prebivali�ča ne obstajajo, ali hitrej�e zdravljenje, kot je v njej.
This mobility, in giving patients access to a wider range of healthcare than is available in their Member State, also contributes to the protection of public health.
Ta mobilnost pacientov, ki jim omogoča bolj�i dostop do zdravljenja kot v njihovi državi članici, prav tako prispeva k varovanju javnega zdravja.
A national law prohibiting dental care providers from advertising their services, whether directly or indirectly, to the general public should not go so far as to prohibit such service providers from giving, in a telephone directory or other source of information accessible by the public, basic details, free from enticements or incentives, making known their existence as professionals, such as their name, the activities they are permitted to pursue, the place where they pursue them, their hours of business and their contact details.
Nacionalni zakon, ki ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev neposredno ali posredno prepoveduje ogla�evanje svojih storitev, ne sme iti tako daleč, da bi ponudnikom storitev prepovedoval, da bi v telefonskem imeniku ali drugih sredstvih obve�čanja, dostopnih javnosti, na način, ki ne bi bil zanimiv ali spodbujajoč, navedli le podatke, ki omogočajo seznanitev z njihovim obstojem kot strokovnjakov, kot so njihova identiteta, dejavnosti, ki so jih upravičeni opravljati, kraj, kjer jih opravljajo, delovni čas in kontakti.
62 — Case C-120/95 [1998] ECR I-1831.
62 – Sodba z dne 28. aprila 1998 (C-120/95, Recueil, str. I-1831).
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I shall propose that the Court’s answer to the referring court should be that a national law which prohibits dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind of their services, whether directly or indirectly, to the general public constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Glede na te ugotovitve Sodi�ču predlagam, naj predložitvenemu sodi�ču odgovori, da nacionalni zakon, ki ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev v okviru svobodnega poklica oziroma zobozdravstvene ordinacije prepoveduje kakr�no koli neposredno ali posredno ogla�evanje svojih storitev, pomeni omejitev pravice do ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev v smislu členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
However, that restriction is justified on the ground of the protection of public health where the national legislation in question does not have the effect of prohibiting such service providers from giving, in a telephone directory or other source of information accessible by the public, basic details, free from enticements or incentives, making known their existence as professionals, such as their name, the activities they are permitted to pursue, the place where they pursue them, their hours of business and their contact details.
Vendar je ta omejitev upravičena z varovanjem javnega zdravja, če zadevna nacionalna zakonodaja tem ponudnikom ne prepoveduje, da bi v telefonskem imeniku ali drugih sredstvih obve�čanja, dostopnih javnosti, na način, ki ne bi bil zanimiv ali spodbujajoč, navedli le podatke, ki omogočajo seznanitev z njihovim obstojem kot strokovnjakov, kot so njihova identiteta, dejavnosti, ki so jih upravičeni opravljati, kraj, kjer jih opravljajo, delovni čas in kontakti.
In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court should reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles as follows:
Glede na zgoraj navedene ugotovitve Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je postavilo Tribunal de première instance iz Bruslja, odgovori:
‘Article 81 EC, Article 3(1)(g) EC, and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, read in conjunction, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national law which prohibits dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind of their services, whether directly or indirectly, to the general public.
Povezane člene 81 ES, 3(1)(g) ES in 10, drugi odstavek, ES, je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotujejo nacionalnemu zakonu, ki ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev v okviru svobodnega poklica oziroma zobozdravstvene ordinacije prepoveduje kakr�no koli neposredno ali posredno ogla�evanje svojih storitev.
However, such legislation constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Vendar taka zakonodaja pomeni omejitev pravice do ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev v smislu členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
That restriction is justified on the ground of the protection of public health where the national legislation in question does not have the effect of prohibiting dental care providers from giving, in a telephone directory or other source of information accessible by the public, basic details, free from enticements or incentives, making known their existence as professionals, such as their name, the activities they are permitted to pursue, the place where they pursue them, their hours of business and their contact details.’
Ta omejitev je upravičena z varovanjem javnega zdravja, če zadevna nacionalna zakonodaja ponudnikom zobozdravstvenih storitev ne prepoveduje, da bi v telefonskem imeniku ali drugih sredstvih obve�čanja, dostopnih javnosti, na način, ki ne bi bil zanimiv ali spodbujajoč, navedli le podatke, ki omogočajo seznanitev z njihovim obstojem kot strokovnjakov, kot so njihova identiteta, dejavnosti, ki so jih upravičeni opravljati, kraj, kjer jih opravljajo, delovni čas in kontakti.
JUDGMENT OF 13. 3.
SODBA Z DNE 13. 3.
2008 — CASE C-446/05
2008 – ZADEVA C-446/05
13 March 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat) z dne 13. marca 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles (Belgium), adjudicating on a criminal matter, made by decision of 7 December 2005, received at the Court on 14 December 2005, in the criminal proceedings against
V zadevi C-446/05, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgija), ki odloča v primeru lažjih kaznivih dejanj, vložilo z odločbo z dne 7. decembra 2005, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 14. decembra 2005, v kazenskem postopku proti
Advocate General: Y. Bot, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 81 ES, v povezavi s členom 3(1)(g) ES in členom 10, drugi odstavek, ES.
This reference was made in criminal proceedings brought against Mr Doulamis, a dental technician, for infringement of, first, legislation governing the exercise of the dental profession and the medical profession and, secondly, legislation governing advertising in dental care matters.
Predlog je bil vložen v okviru kazenskega postopka, ki je bil uveden proti I. Doulamisu, zobnemu tehniku, zaradi kr�itve predpisov o izvajanju zdravljenja in kr�itve zakona o ogla�evanju na področju zobozdravstva.
Article 3 of the Law of 15 April 1958 on advertising in dental care matters (Moniteur belge of 5 May 1958, p.
Člen 3 zakona z dne 15. aprila 1958 o ogla�evanju na področju zobozdravstva (Moniteur belge z dne 5. maja 1958, str.
3542) (‘the Law of 15 April 1958’) imposes penalties on those who infringe Article 1 of that law, which is worded as follows:
3542, v nadaljevanju: zakon z dne 15. aprila 1958) sankcionira ravnanja, ki niso v skladu s členom 1 navedenega zakona, ki določa:
‘No person may, whether directly or indirectly, engage in advertising of any kind with a view to treating or providing treatment, whether or not by a qualified person, in Belgium or abroad, for dental or oral ailments, lesions or abnormalities, by means, inter alia, of displays or signs, inscriptions or plaques liable to be misleading as to the lawful nature of the activity advertised, leaflets, circulars, handouts and brochures, via the media of the press, radio or the cinema, by conferring or promising to confer benefits of any kind such as discounts or the provision of free transport for patients, or through the intermediary of canvassers or other such intermediaries.
„Nihče ne sme neposredno ali posredno na kakr�en koli način ogla�evati, da zdravi ali omogoča zdravljenje obolenj, po�kodb ali anomalij ust in zobovja s strani kvalificirane ali nekvalificirane osebe, v Belgiji ali v tujini, zlasti v izložbah ali z izveski, napisi ali tablami, ki bi lahko povzročili zmoto glede zakonitosti dejavnosti, ki se ogla�uje, s prospekti, okrožnicami, letaki in bro�urami, v tisku, na radiu in v kinematografih, z obljubo ali zagotovitvijo kakr�nih koli ugodnosti, kot so popusti, brezplačni prevozi pacientov, ali s posredovanjem oseb, ki i�čejo stranke, ali akviziterjev.
The act on the part of mutual clinics and hospitals of informing their members of the dates and times of consultations, the names of those holding consultations and any changes to these shall not constitute advertising for the purposes of this article.’
Ogla�evanje, opredeljeno v tem členu, ne pomeni dejstva, da vzajemne klinike in poliklinike svoje člane seznanjajo z dnevi in urami posvetovanj, imeni oseb, ki ta posvetovanja opravljajo, in s tem povezanimi spremembami.“
It is apparent from the order for reference that Mr Doulamis is charged, inter alia, with having placed advertisements in a telephone directory for the ‘John Doulamis Dental Laboratory’ and the ‘John Doulamis Dental Clinic’, which is prohibited under the Law of 15 April 1958.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je bil proti I. Doulamisu uveden postopek zaradi ogla�evanja za „Laboratoire dentaire Jean DOULAMIS“ in „Clinique dentaire Jean DOULAMIS“ v telefonskem imeniku, kar je prepovedano z zakonom z dne 15. aprila 1958.
The first advertising insert was published in the dental laboratories section and the second in the dental clinics section.
Oglasa sta bila objavljena – eden na straneh, namenjenih zobnim laboratorijem, drugi pa na straneh, namenjenih zobnim klinikam.
Those inserts contained factual information, such as the services provided, the address, telephone number and opening hours of the two establishments.
Oglasa sta vsebovala dejanske podatke o storitvah, ki se ponujajo, naslov, telefonsko �tevilko in urnik obratovanja obeh obratov.
Before the national court, Mr Doulamis submitted that advertising is an indispensable instrument for free economic competition.
Z navajanjem določb, povezanih s členoma 10 ES in 81 ES, se je skliceval na sodbo z dne 21. septembra 1988 v zadevi Van Eycke (267/86, Recueil, str.