natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
38 — The German Government points out that the level of tolerance of violent or pornographic images differs between Member States, with the result that some films are prohibited for young persons in some Member States and not in others.
Opozarja tudi na posebno občutljivost nem�kega občinstva in torej na strožjo presojo pristojnega nacionalnega organa glede vsebin, ki prikazujejo nacionalsocializem.
Given the discretion granted to the national authorities in this way, the mere fact that a Member State has chosen a system of protection different from that adopted by another Member State cannot affect the appraisal as to the need for and proportionality of the provisions in question.
Ob upo�tevanju pravice do proste presoje, ki je tako priznana nacionalnim organom, je treba ugotoviti, da samo dejstvo, da je določena držav članica izbrala sistem varstva, ki se razlikuje od sistema, sprejetega v drugi državi članici, ne more biti ključnega pomena za presojo nujnosti in sorazmernosti obravnavanih določb.
Those provisions must be assessed solely by reference to the objectives pursued by the national authorities of the Member State concerned and the level of protection which they are intended to provide. 42
Te lastnosti je treba preučiti le glede na cilje, ki jih zasledujejo nacionalni organi zadevne države članice, in glede na raven varstva, ki ga želijo zagotoviti. 42
It must therefore be recognised that, in the absence of harmonisation in the area under examination, the EC Treaty leaves the Member States free to set the age limits for access to image storage media according to the cultural, religious, moral and historic sensitivities of each State and to appoint a national authority to examine and classify the content of such media for different age groups.
Zato je treba priznati, da ob neusklajenosti zakonodaj na zadevnem področju Pogodba ES državam članicam dopu�ča pravico, da po prosti presoji določijo starostne omejitve za namene dostopa do nosilcev slike, in sicer na podlagi kulturnih, verskih, moralnih in zgodovinskih izku�enj ter vrednot vsake posamezne države, in da za naloge preizkusa in razvrstitve vsebin teh nosilcev pooblastijo svoj nacionalni organ.
As the Commission and the intervening governments point out, the Court has already stated that ‘in principle, it is for each Member State to determine in accordance with its own scale of values and in the form selected by it the requirements of public morality in its territory’, 39 and that ‘the specific circumstances which may justify recourse to the concept of public policy may vary from one country to another and from one era to another’, so that ‘the competent national authorities must … be allowed a margin of discretion within the limits imposed by the Treaty’.
Kot so ustrezno opozorile Komisija in vlade intervenientke, je Sodi�če že odločilo, da lahko „načeloma vsaka država članica opredeli zahteve javne morale v okviru svojega ozemlja na podlagi svoje lestvice vrednot in na način, ki ga sama izbere“, 39in da se lahko „posebne okoli�čine, ki bi lahko upravičile sklicevanje na pojem javnega reda, razlikujejo od ene do druge države in od enega do drugega obdobja“, tako da je „treba glede tega pristojnim nacionalnim organom priznati določeno diskrecijsko pravico v mejah, ki so določene s Pogodbo“.
40Moreover, it is settled caselaw that the health and life of humans rank foremost among the assets or interests protected by Article 30 EC and it is for the Member States, within the limits imposed by the Treaty, to decide what degree of protection they wish to assure. 41
40Poleg tega iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da sta izmed dobrin ali interesov, zavarovanih s členom 30 ES, zdravje in življenje ljudi najpomembnej�a in da morajo države članice v mejah, določenih s Pogodbo, opredeliti raven njunega varstva, ki jo nameravajo zagotoviti. 41
As pointed out by the Commission, the assessment inherent in such classification is influenced by the scale of values of each State, so that in my opinion it cannot in any event be held that the examination and
Kot je poudarila Komisija, je presoja v zvezi s to razvrstitvijo odvisna od lestvice vrednot, lastne vsaki državi, zato po mojem mnenju nikakor ni mogoče trditi, da preizkus
39 — Case 34/79 Henn and Darby [1979] ECR 3795, paragraph 15.40 — Omega, paragraph 31 and the caselaw cited.
39 – Sodba z dne 14. decembra 1979 v zadevi Henn in Darby (34/79, Recueil, str. 3795, točka 15).
42 — Case C-124/97 Läärä and Others [1999] ECR I-6067, paragraph 36, and Case C-6/01 Anomar and Others [2003] ECR I-8621, paragraph 80.
40 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Omega, točka 31 in tam navedena sodna praksa.
41 — Deutscher Apothekerverband, paragraph 103 and the caselaw cited.
41 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Deutscher Apothekerverband, točka 103 in tam navedena sodna praksa.
DYNAMIC MEDIEN classification of an image storage medium in the Member State of export for the purpose of protecting young persons are sufficient to ensure the level of protection of young persons that the authorities of the Member State of import intend to provide.
DYNAMIC MEDIEN in razvrstitev, opravljena v državi članici izvoza za namene varstva mladoletnikov, zado�čata za zagotavljanje take ravni varstva mladoletnikov, ki jo nameravajo zagotoviti organi države članice uvoza.
subjected only to simplified examination in Germany, as is provided for in Germany for certain types of image storage media, I note that Avides has provided no information on the differences between this and the normal procedure.
nosilcev slike, ugotavljam, da družba Avides ni priskrbela nobene informacije v zvezi z lastnostmi, po katerih se ta postopek loči od rednega postopka preizkusa.
Hence in my opinion the Court does not have sufficient facts to assess whether recourse to the simplified procedure for image storage media that have already been examined and classified in the Member State of export would be an appropriate way of achieving the level of protection of young persons that the German authorities seek to provide in Germany.
Menim, da zato Sodi�če nima na voljo dovolj elementov, na podlagi katerih bi lahko presodilo, ali bi bila z uporabo poenostavljenega postopka za nosilce slike, ki so bili že preizku�eni in razvr�čeni v državi članici izvoza, dosežena ustrezna raven varstva mladoletnikov, ki jo želijo zagotoviti nem�ki organi v Nemčiji.
In any case, I have pointed out above that the assessment of what may be harmful to young persons, and hence indirectly to public morality, public policy and the health of humans, depends heavily on the scale of values of each Member State.
Kakor koli, zgoraj sem navedel, da je presoja o tem, kaj lahko �koduje mladoletniku in torej, posredno, javnemu redu in zdravju ljudi, zelo odvisna od vrednot vsake posamezne države članice.
Hence, the fact that a particular image storage medium has already been examined and classified in the Member State of export is not, in my opinion, necessarily a factor likely to mitigate the risk that the enjoyment of such a medium vitiates the abovementioned requirements of public policy in Germany and therefore to require an easing of the formalities for examination and classification by the competent German authority.
Menim torej, da dejstvo, da je bil določen nosilec slike že preizku�en in razvr�čen v državi članici izvoza, ni nujno dejavnik, ki lahko omili nevarnost, da bo zaradi prostega dostopa do tega nosilca ogroženo izpolnjevanje zahtev javnega interesa v Nemčiji, in ki bi upravičeval zahtevo, naj pristojni nem�ki organ zanj uporabi manj stroge formalne postopke preizkusa in razvrstitve.
I take the view that there is manifestly no substance to Avides’ argument that the signature and ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by both Germany and the United Kingdom mean that the criteria for the examination and classification of image storage media by the competent authorities of the two States are equivalent.
Očitno neutemeljeno se mi zdi stali�če družbe Avides, ki meni, da je treba zato, ker sta obe državi, tako Nemčija kot Združeno kraljestvo, podpisali in ratificirali Konvencijo o otrokovih pravicah, sklepati, da so merila za preizkus in razvrstitev nosilcev slike pristojnih organov teh dveh držav enaka.
As was observed at the hearing by the representatives of Dynamic Medien, the Commission and the governments of those two States, the Convention lays down no common standard for the protection of young persons with regard to the content of image storage media and other media products.
Kot so na obravnavi navedli zastopniki družbe Dynamic Medien, Komisije in vlad teh dveh držav, z navedeno konvencijo niso določeni skupni standardi varstva mladoletnikov v zvezi z vsebinami nosilcev slike ali drugih medijskih proizvodov.
Article 17(e) of the Convention provides only that the States Parties shall ‘encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material [from the mass media] injurious to his or her well-being’.
V njenem členu 17(e) je določeno le, da države pogodbenice „spodbujajo razvoj ustreznih smernic za zavarovanje otroka pred informacijami in gradivi [množičnih občil], ki �kodujejo njegovi blaginji“.
As to the claimed possibility that image storage media that have already been examined and classified by the competent authority in the State of export should be
Glede zatrjevane možnosti, da bi bil za nosilce slike, ki jih je že preizkusil in razvrstil pristojni organ države izvoza, v Nemčiji lahko uporabljen poenostavljeni postopek, kot je v tej državi določen za nekatere vrste
For that reason, I do not think that, by prohibiting the offering and transfer to young persons of image storage media that have not been submitted for examination and classification for the protection of young persons by the competent German authority or are not labelled accordingly but have previously been examined and classified for that purpose
Zato se mi ne zdi, da bi bila nem�ka zakonodaja o varstvu mladoletnikov v zvezi z nosilci slike, ki določa prepoved ponudbe
43 by the competent authority in the State of export or by prohibiting ‘unprotected’ mail order sales of such media, the German rules on the protection of young persons with regard to image storage media are disproportionate in relation to the objectives pursued.
43 in prodaje mladoletnikom ali „neza�čitene“ prodaje po po�ti nosilcev slike, ki niso bili predmet preizkusa in razvrstitve z namenom varstva mladoletnikov pristojnega nem�kega organa ali ki niso temu ustrezno označeni, ampak jih je z istim namenom preizkusil in razvrstil pristojni organ države izvoza, nesorazmerna glede na cilje, ki jih zasleduje.
Furthermore, the Court has already recognised that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is binding on each of the Member States and is one of the international instruments for the protection of fundamental rights of which it takes account in applying the general principles of Community law. 44
Poleg tega je Sodi�če že potrdilo, da je Konvencija o otrokovih pravicah zavezujoča za vsako državo članico in da sodi med mednarodne instrumente za za�čito temeljnih pravic, ki jih Sodi�če upo�teva pri uporabi splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti. 44
Nor can the need to interpret and apply the provisions of the EC Treaty on the freedom of movement of goods in the light of Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which enshrines the right of the child to freedom of expression, be relied upon to infer that the German rules in question are incompatible with those provisions, as Avides argued at the hearing.
O neskladju zadevne nem�ke zakonodaje z določbami Pogodbe ES s področja prostega pretoka blaga ne bi bilo mogoče sklepati niti na podlagi razloga, na katerega se je na obravnavi sklicevala družba Avides, da je treba te določbe razlagati in uporabljati ob upo�tevanju člena 13 Konvencije o otrokovih pravicah, v kateri je določena otrokova pravica do svobodnega izražanja.
Under Article 13(1), that right ‘shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice’.
V odstavku 1 tega člena je določeno, da ta pravica „zajema svobodno iskanje, sprejemanje in �irjenje vsakovrstnih informacij in idej, ne glede na meje, v ustni, pisni, tiskani ali umetni�ki obliki ali na katerikoli drug način po otrokovi izbiri“.
In this regard, I observe first, as did the German Government and the Commission at the hearing, that Article 13(2) of
Vendar v zvezi s tem ugotavljam, prvič, da je – kot sta na obravnavi navedli nem�ka vlada in Komisija – v odstavku 2 člena 13
43 — Familiapress, paragraph 24.
43 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Familiapress, točka 24.
It is true that the Court has stated that where a Member State relies on overriding requirements to justify rules which are likely to obstruct the exercise of free movement of goods, such justification must also be
Sodi�če je sicer ugotovilo, da je treba takrat, kadar se država članica za utemeljitev zakonodaje, ki bi lahko ovirala prosti pretok blaga, sklicuje na nujne zahteve, to
DYNAMIC MEDIEN ment of those objectives, since they address the pressing social need of protecting young persons from media content inappropriate for them, and are proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued.
DYNAMIC MEDIEN z zakonom, njegov objektivni namen je zasledovanje teh ciljev ob upo�tevanju nujne družbene zahteve varstva mladoletnikov pred zanje neprimernimi medijskimi vsebinami in je sorazmeren z zasledovanim legitimnim ciljem.
the Convention on the Rights of the Child concedes that exercise of the right to freedom of expression may be made subject by law to such limitations as are necessary, in particular, ‘for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals’, while Article 17(e) of the Convention, as I have already noted, obliges the States Parties to encourage ‘the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being’.
Konvencije o otrokovih pravicah določeno, da so glede uveljavljanja pravice do svobode izražanja možne nekatere omejitve, ki jih predpisuje zakon in ki so potrebne „zaradi zavarovanja državne varnosti ali javnega reda ali javnega zdravja ali morale“; medtem ko je v členu 17(e) te konvencije, kot sem že poudaril, določeno, da morajo države pogodbenice spodbujati „razvoj ustreznih smernic za zavarovanje otroka pred informacijami in gradivi, ki �kodujejo njegovi blaginji“.
Secondly, it is clear from the very wording of Article 10(2) of the ECHR that freedom of expression is subject to certain limitations justified by objectives in the public interest, in so far as those derogations are prescribed by law, motivated by one or more of the legitimate aims under those provisions and necessary in a democratic society, that is to say, justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Drugič, tudi iz besedila drugega odstavka člena 10 EKČP izhaja, da veljajo za svobodno izražanje določene omejitve, ki jih upravičujejo cilji splo�nega interesa, če jih določa zakon, če imajo enega ali več v smislu te določbe legitimnih ciljev in če so nujne v demokratični družbi, to je če so utemeljene z nujno družbeno zahtevo ter zlasti če so sorazmerne z zasledovanim legitimnim ciljem.
45These objectives in the public interest specifically mentioned in Article 10(2) of the ECHR include, in particular, ‘prevention of disorder or crime’ and ‘the protection of health or morals’.
45Med cilji splo�nega interesa, ki so izrecno navedeni v drugem odstavku člena 10 EKČP, so tudi „javn[a] varnost[…], preprečevanj[e] neredov ali zločinov“ in „zavarovanje zdravja ali morale“.
The German rules in question are laid down by law, objectively serve the attain-
Zadevni nem�ki ukrep je določen
I accordingly take the view that the reply to the second part of the question submitted for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Koblenz may be that where a prohibition on mail order sales of image storage media that have not been examined and classified by the competent national authority for the purpose of protecting young persons — such as that laid down in Paragraph 12(3)(2) of the JuSchG — is considered to be a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC, that prohibition is justified, within the meaning of Article 30 EC, on grounds of public morality, public policy and protection of the health of humans, even in the case where the image storage media have been examined in another Member State as to their suitability for young persons and
Zato menim, da je treba na drugi del vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je zastavilo Landgericht Koblenz, odgovoriti, da je prepoved prodaje po po�ti nosilcev slike, ki niso bili predmet preizkusa in razvrstitve pristojnega nacionalnega organa z namenom varstva mladoletnikov, kot je prepoved iz člena 12(3), točka 2, JuSchG, če bi bilo treba �teti, da gre za ukrep z enakim učinkom, kot ga imajo količinske omejitve pri uvozu v smislu člena 28 ES, utemeljena v smislu člena 30 ES z razlogi javne morale, javnega reda in varovanja zdravja ljudi, tudi kadar je bil nosilec slike že predmet preizkusa glede primernosti za mladoletnike in je to na njem navedeno.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court reply as follows to the question from the Landgericht Koblenz:
Ob upo�tevanju zgornjih ugotovitev Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je zastavilo Landgericht Koblenz, odgovori:
A prohibition on mail order sales of image storage media that have not been examined and classified by the competent national authority for the purpose of protecting young persons, such as the prohibition under Paragraph 12(3)(2) of the Jugendschutzgesetz, regulates a selling arrangement and, since it applies to all traders operating on the territory of the State concerned, does not constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC, on condition that it affects in the same way the marketing of products originating in that State and the marketing of products from other Member States.
Prepoved prodaje po po�ti nosilcev slike, ki jih pristojni nacionalni organ ni preizkusil in razvrstil z namenom varstva mladoletnikov, kot je prepoved iz člena 12(3), točka 2, Jugendschutzgesetz, ureja način prodaje in je glede na to, da se uporablja za vse gospodarske subjekte, ki opravljajo dejavnost na ozemlju zadevne države, ni treba �teti za ukrep z enakim učinkom, kot ga imajo količinske omejitve pri uvozu v smislu člena 28 ES, če enako prizadene trženje proizvodov iz te države in trženje proizvodov iz drugih držav članic.
Should the national court, in making that determination, conclude that such a prohibition does constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC, that prohibition is justified, within the meaning of Article 30 EC, on grounds of public morality, public policy and protection of the health of humans, even in the case where the image storage media have been examined in another Member State as to their suitability for young persons and have been labelled accordingly.
Če bo nacionalno sodi�če, ki bo ta pogoj preverilo, ugotovilo, da sodi navedena prepoved med ukrepe z enakim učinkom, kot ga imajo količinske omejitve pri uvozu v smislu člena 28 ES, je treba �teti, da je ta prepoved utemeljena v smislu člena 30 ES z razlogi javne morale, javnega reda in varovanja zdravja ljudi, tudi kadar je bil nosilec slike že predmet preizkusa glede primernosti za mladoletnike in je to na njem navedeno.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 14. februarja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Koblenz (Germany), made by decision of 25 April 2006, received at the Court on 31 May 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-244/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Landgericht Koblenz (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 25. aprila 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 31. maja 2006, v postopku
JUDGMENT OF 14. 2.
SODBA Z DNE 14. 2.
2008 — CASE C-244/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-244/06 generalni pravobranilec: P. Mengozzi, sodni tajnik: J.
— the Commission of the European Communities, by B. Schima, acting as Agent, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 September 2007, gives the following
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti B. Schima, zastopnik, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 13. septembra 2007 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘the Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 28 ES in 30 ES ter Direktive 2000/31/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 8. junija 2000 o nekaterih pravnih vidikih storitev informacijske družbe, zlasti elektronskega poslovanja na notranjem trgu (Direktiva o elektronskem poslovanju, UL L 178, str. 1).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between two companies incorporated under German law, Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH (‘Dynamic Medien’) and Avides Media AG (‘Avides Media’), with respect to mail order sales by Avides Media in Germany, via the internet, of image storage media from the United Kingdom which have not been examined and classified by a higher regional authority or a national voluntary selfregulation body for the purpose of protecting young persons and which do not bear any label from such an authority or body as to the age from which such image storage media may be viewed.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH (v nadaljevanju: Dynamic Medien) in Avides Media AG (v nadaljevanju: Avides Media), družbama nem�kega prava, v zvezi z internetno prodajo v Nemčiji s strani druge družbe nosilcev slike iz Združenega kraljestva, ki niso bili predmet preizkusa in razvrstitve vrhovnega deželnega organa ali nacionalne organizacije prostovoljnega samourejanja za varstvo mladoletnikov in niso opremljeni z oznako tega organa ali organizacije, iz katere bi bila razvidna starost, od katere si je te nosilce slike dovoljeno ogledati.
2008 — CASE C-244/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-244/06
Community law
Skupnostna ureditev
According to Article 1(1) thereof, Directive 2000/31 seeks to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by ensuring the free movement of information society services between the Member States.
Člen 1(1) Direktive 2000/31 določa, da je njen cilj prispevati k pravilnemu delovanju notranjega trga z zagotavljanjem prostega pretoka storitev informacijske družbe med državami članicami.
Article 2(h) of Directive 2000/31 defines the concept of ‘coordinated field’ as ‘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.’
V členu 2(h) te direktive je pojem „koordinirano področje“ opredeljen kot „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“.
Article 2(h)(ii) states that the coordinated field does not cover requirements such as those applicable to goods as such or requirements applicable to the delivery of goods.
V členu 2(h)(ii) te direktive je določeno, da koordinirano področje ne zajema zahtev glede blaga niti zahtev glede dobave blaga.