natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
VAN LEUKEN it protect the market for estate agency activity in respect of immovable property situate in Belgium, in a manner which is objectionable, artificial and lacking objective justification, against cooperation agreements entered into by independent estate agents established in different Member States (Belgium and the Netherlands), at least one of whom (the Belgian estate agent) satisfies the conditions laid down by the directive and the national provisions, with the result that the requirement that the Netherlands estate agent must additionally also satisfy those conditions … is tantamount to indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality and constitutes at the very least a prohibited non-discriminatory restriction?’
VAN LEUKEN utemeljitve ločujejo trg nepremičninskega posredovanja v Belgiji od vsakr�nega sodelovanja med neodvisnimi nepremičninskimi posredniki s sedežem v različnih državah članicah ([Kraljevina] Belgija in [Kraljevina] Nizozemska), od katerih vsaj eden ([…] nepremičninski posrednik [s sedežem v Belgiji]) izpolnjuje pogoje, določene z zgoraj omenjenimi direktivo in nacionalnimi določbami, tako da je zahteva, da […] posrednik [s sedežem na Nizozemskem] poleg tega izpolnjuje te pogoje […], enakovredna posredni diskriminaciji na podlagi državljanstva in gre vsaj za prepovedano nediskriminatorno omejitev[?]“
It is apparent from the Court file that the allegation against the defendant in the main proceedings is that, even after the reorganisation of his activities following the conclusion of the cooperation agreement, he exercised, in Belgium, a number of activities falling, pursuant to the Belgian legislation, under the regulated profession of estate agent without having first obtained authorisation to exercise that profession.
Iz spisa, ki je bil predložen Sodi�ču, izhaja, da se toženi stranki v postopku v glavni stvari očita tudi po reorganizaciji njenih dejavnosti neposredno po sklenitvi sporazuma o sodelovanju, da je opravljala v Belgiji določene dejavnosti, ki po belgijskem pravu sodijo v reguliran poklic nepremičninskega posrednika, ne da bi pred tem pridobila dovoljenje za opravljanje tega poklica tam.
The activities complained of in the case in the main proceedings are, first, advertising immovable property situated in Belgium on a website and, second, guiding prospect- ive purchasers around property when they visited it, making technical comments on its construction.
Dejavnosti, ki se ji jih očita v postopku v glavni stvari, so, prvič, ogla�evanje na spletni strani v zvezi z nepremičninami v Belgiji in, drugič, vodenje ogledov na kraju samem za potencialne kupce ob obisku teh nepremičnin in navajanje tehničnih komentarjev o njihovi gradnji.
It is apparent from the Court file and from the observations of the parties to the main proceedings, which it is for the national court to verify, that the other activities, in particular those linked with the legal aspects of the sale, are, by reason of the cooperation agreement, accomplished through the intervention of an estate agent duly authorised in Belgium.
Iz navedenega spisa in stali�č strank v postopku v glavni stvari izhaja, da mora predložitveno sodi�če preveriti, ali se druge dejavnosti, zlasti tiste, ki se nana�ajo na pravne vidike prodaje, opravljajo na podlagi sporazuma o sodelovanju ob posredovanju nepremičninskega posrednika, ki ima v skladu s predpisi licenco v Belgiji.
Consequently, the first question referred by the national court must be construed as essentially asking whether Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 89/48 preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the performance, on its territory, of activities such as those at issue in the main proceedings by a service provider established in another
Torej je treba prvo vpra�anje razlagati tako, kot da predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali člena 3 in 4 Direktive 89/48 nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, ki pogojuje opravljanje dejavnosti, kot so te v postopku v glavni stvari, na njenem ozemlju s strani osebe s sedežem v drugi državi članici v položaju, v katerem je tožena
Member State and in a situation such as that of the defendant in the main proceedings, subject to obtaining an authorisation the grant of which is conditional upon success in an aptitude test in law.
2008 – ZADEVA C-197/06 stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, z dovoljenjem, katerega podelitev je odvisna od uspeha na preizkusu usposobljenosti s pravnega področja.
Subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 89/48 provides that a Member State may not, on the grounds of inadequate qualifications, refuse to authorise a national of a Member State to take up or pursue a regulated profession on its territory if he fulfils certain criteria relating to his professional qualifications.
Člen 3, prvi odstavek, točka (b), te direktive določa, da država članica iz naslova nezadostnih kvalifikacij ne more zavrniti državljanu druge države članice, da opravlja reguliran poklic na njenem ozemlju, če izpolnjuje določene pogoje glede svojih formalnih kvalifikacij.
It was not contested before the Court that Mr Van Leuken fulfilled the criteria in question, this being, none the less, a matter for the national court to verify.
Pred Sodi�čem se ni izpodbijalo, da W. Van Leuken izpolnjuje zadevne pogoje, kar pa mora predložitveno sodi�če preveriti.
Notwithstanding Article 3 thereof, Article 4 of Directive 89/48 authorises the host Member State, in circumstances which are set out in that article, to require the applicant to comply with compensatory measures.
Ne glede na člen 3 Direktive 89/48 člen 4 te direktive državi članici gostiteljici dovoljuje, da od vlagatelja zahteva, da se pod določenimi pogoji, ki so v njej opredeljeni, ravna v skladu z izravnalnim ukrepom.
The choice of compensatory measure
Izbira izravnalnega ukrepa
The third subparagraph of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/48 provides that the host Member State which imposes the compensatory measures must, in principle, give the applicant the choice between an adaptation period and an aptitude test.
Iz člena 4(1)(b), tretji pododstavek, te direktive izhaja, da mora država članica gostiteljica, ki naloži izravnalne ukrepe, kandidatu načeloma pustiti možnost izbire med prilagoditvenim obdobjem in preizkusom usposobljenosti.
However, as regards professions ‘whose practice requires precise knowledge of national law and in respect of which the provision of advice and/or assistance concerning national law is an essential and constant aspect of the professional activity’, the host Member State may, by derogation from the principle laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/48, stipulate either an adaptation period or an aptitude test.
Vendar lahko za poklice, „katerih opravljanje zahteva posebna znanja s področja državne zakonodaje in pri katerih je bistven in stalni element dela svetovanje in/ali pomoč, ki zadeva državno zakonodajo“, država članica gostiteljica kljub načelu, določenemu v členu 4(1)(b), tretji pododstavek, Direktive 89/48, predpi�e bodisi prilagoditveno obdobje bodisi preizkus usposobljenosti.
In the light of the information on the training of estate agents in Belgium submitted to the Court by the Commission at the hearing, which it is for the national court to verify, it does not, however, appear that it is a profession falling within the scope of that derogation.
Glede na podatke v zvezi z usposabljanjem nepremičninskega posrednika v Belgiji, ki jih je Sodi�ču posredovala Komisija na obravnavi, ki pa jih mora predložitveno sodi�če preveriti, pa se ne zdi, da bi �lo za poklic, ki bi sodil na področje uporabe te izjeme.
According to that information, it is sufficient to be the holder of a Belgian diploma in civil, agricultural, technical or industrial engineering in order to become a member of the profession of estate agent in Belgium and the education and training leading to those diplomas does not include significant legal training.
Glede na podatke bi za opravljanje poklica nepremičninskega posrednika v Belgiji dejansko zadostovalo biti imetnik belgijske diplome gradbenega inženirja, inženirja agronomije ali tehničnega ali industrijskega inženirja in izobraževanje, ki se konča s to diplomo, ne zajema nobene pomembne pravne izobrazbe.
As the Court has previously held, the content of the education and training required by a Member State which regulates a profession is a criterion which is especially relevant in order to establish the requirements connected to the practice thereof (Case C-149/05 Price [2006] ECR I-7691, paragraph 55).
Kot je Sodi�če že razsodilo, je vsebina izobraževanja, ki jo predpi�e država članica, ki regulira poklic, posebno pomembno merilo za določitev zahtev, ki so povezane z opravljanjem tega poklica (sodba z dne 7. septembra 2006 v zadevi Price, C-149/05, ZOdl., str. I-7691, točka 55).
Consequently, a profession which is open to persons who have not received significant education and training in law cannot be considered to be one ‘whose practice requires precise knowledge of national law’.
Zato ni mogoče trditi, da poklic, do katerega dostop je odprt za osebe, ki nimajo pomembne pravne izobrazbe, pomeni poklic, „katerega opravljanje zahteva posebna znanja s področja državne zakonodaje“.
The proportionality of the compensatory measures
Sorazmernost izravnalnih ukrepov
In any event, the scope of Article 4 of Directive 89/48, which expressly authorises compensatory measures, must be restricted to those cases where they are proportionate to the objective pursued (Case C-330/03 Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos [2006] ECR I-801, paragraph 24).
V vsakem primeru je treba obseg člena 4 Direktive 89/48, ki izrecno dovoljuje izravnalne ukrepe, omejiti na primere, v katerih se ti izkažejo za sorazmerne s ciljem, ki ga zasledujejo (sodba z dne 19. januarja 2006 v zadevi Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, C-330/03, ZOdl., str. I-801, točka 24).
In that regard, it should be pointed out that, as set out at paragraph 31 above, in any event as a result of the reorganisation of his activities by the conclusion of the cooperation agreement, Mr Van Leuken no longer exercised all the aspects of the regulated
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, kot je bilo poudarjeno v točki 31 te sodbe, da vsaj po reorganizaciji svojih dejavnosti s sklenitvijo sporazuma o sodelovanju W. Van Leuken ni več opravljal vseh vidikov reguliranega poklica nepremičninskega posrednika, kot
2008 — CASE C-197/06 profession of estate agent, as it is defined in Belgium, but only certain of the professional activities which constitute that profession.
2008 – ZADEVA C-197/06 je opredeljen v Belgiji, ampak je tam opravljal samo določene regulirane poklicne dejavnosti, ki so sestavni del tega poklica.
In particular, he claims that he was no longer involved in the legal aspects of sales, those being carried out, in accordance with the cooperation agreement, through the intervention of Ms van Asten, who is an estate agent duly authorised in Belgium.
Glede na njegove trditve ni bil več udeležen predvsem pri pravnih vidikih prodaje, saj je te v skladu s sporazumom o sodelovanju prevzela gospa van Asten, ki je nepremičninska posrednica, ki ima v skladu s predpisi licenco v Belgiji.
It is for the national court to verify the truth of those matters.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora preveriti resničnost teh trditev.
In such circumstances, the requirement imposed on a service provider to comply with compensatory measures relating to his knowledge of the law of the Member State in question goes manifestly beyond what is necessary in order to protect the recipients of services such as those at issue in the main proceedings against the risk of inadequate assistance with regard to the legal aspects of the sale.
V teh okoli�činah obveznost izvajalca storitev, da se podredi izravnalnim ukrepom v zvezi s poznavanjem zakonodaje zadevne države članice, presega to, kar je potrebno za varstvo naslovnikov storitev, kot so ti v postopku v glavni stvari, pred �kodo, ki jo lahko utrpijo zaradi neustrezne pomoči v zvezi s pravnimi vidiki prodaje.
In the light of the business model described in the preceding paragraph, the interests of such recipients are safeguarded by the intervention of an estate agent duly authorised in the Member State in each transaction for the sale of immovable property situated in that State in the same way as they would be in the context of a transaction which had no aspects involving the intervention of an intermediary established in another Member State.
Glede na postopanje, opisano v prej�nji točki, so interesi navedenih naslovnikov ohranjeni s posredovanjem nepremičninskega posrednika, ki ima v skladu s predpisi licenco v navedeni državi članici, pri vsaki prodaji nepremičnine v tej državi članici na enak način, kot bi bili v okviru prodaje, pri kateri z nobenega vidika ne bi bil udeležen noben posrednik iz druge države članice.
So far as concerns the imposition of a penalty in conditions such as those of the main proceedings, a Member State may not apply a penalty for failure to complete an administrative formality where such completion has been refused or rendered impossible by the Member State concerned, in infringement of Community law (Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04 Placanica and Others [2007] ECR I-1891, paragraph 69).
V zvezi z obsodbo na kazen v okoli�činah, kot so te v postopku v glavni stvari, je treba spomniti, da država članica ne more uporabiti kazenske sankcije za upravno obličnost, ki ni bila izpolnjena, če je izpolnitev te obličnosti zavrnila ali onemogočila zadevna država članica v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 6. marca 2007 v združenih zadevah Placanica in drugi, C-338/04, C-359/04 in C-360/04, ZOdl., str.
That is notably the case where compliance with the administrative formality concerned is made subject to conditions which are contrary to Community law.
I-1891, točka 69). Za to gre predvsem takrat, kadar je izpolnitev zadevne obličnosti predmet pogojev, ki so v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
Having regard to all the foregoing, the answer to the first question must be that Art -icles 3 and 4 of Directive 89/48 preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the performance, on its territory, of activities such as those at issue in the main proceedings by a service provider established in another Member State, and in a situation such as that of the defendant in the main proceedings, subject to obtaining an authorisation the grant of which is conditional upon success in an aptitude test in law.
Glede na vse zgoraj navedeno je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da člena 3 in 4 Direktive 89/48 nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, ki pogojuje opravljanje dejavnosti, kot so te v postopku v glavni stvari, na njenem ozemlju s strani osebe s sedežem v drugi državi članici v položaju, v katerem je tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, s pridobitvijo dovoljenja, katerega podelitev je odvisna od uspeha na preizkusu usposobljenosti s pravnega področja.
Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
Člena 3 in 4 Direktive Sveta 89/48 z dne 21. decembra 1988 o splošnem sistemu priznavanja visokošolskih diplom, pridobljenih s poklicnim izobraževanjem
2008 — CASE C-197/06 completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the performance, on its territory, of activities such as those at issue in the main proceedings by a service provider established in another Member State, and in a situation such as that of the defendant in the main proceedings, subject to obtaining an authorisation the grant of which is conditional upon success in an aptitude test in law.
2008 – ZADEVA C-197/06 in usposabljanjem, ki traja najmanj tri leta, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2001/19/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 14. maja 2001, nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, ki pogojuje opravljanje dejavnosti, kot so te v postopku v glavni stvari, na njenem ozemlju s strani osebe s sedežem v drugi državi članici v položaju, v katerem je tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, s pridobitvijo dovoljenja, katerega podelitev je odvisna od uspeha na preizkusu usposobljenosti s pravnega področja.
Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P
Združene zadeve C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P in C-382/06 P
Thomas Flaherty and Others v
Thomas Flaherty in drugi proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti
(Appeal — Resource conservation measures — Restructuring of the fisheries sector — Requests to increase the tonnage objectives of the multiannual guidance programme ‘MAGP IV’ — Dismissal of application)
„Pritožba – Ukrepi za ohranjanje virov – Prestrukturiranje sektorja za ribi�tvo – Zahteve za povečanje ciljev večletnega usmerjevalnega programa ‚VUP IV‘ na področju tonaže – Zavrnitev zahteve“
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 17 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest
Ničnostna tožba – Pravni interes – Zahteva po obstoječem in dejanskem interesu
(Art. 230 EC; Council Decision 97/413, Art. 4(2); Commission Decisions 98/125, Annex, point 3.3, and 2003/245)
(člen 230 ES; Odločba Sveta 97/413, člen 4(2); odločbi Komisije 98/125, priloga, točka 3.3, in 2003/245)
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P AND C-382/06 P
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P IN C-382/06 P
(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Decision 2003/245)
(člen 230, četrti odstavek, ES; Odločba Komisije 2003/245)
Fisheries — Common structural policy — Multiannual guidance programmes (Council Decision 97/413, Art. 4(2); Commission Decision 2003/245)
(Odločba Sveta 97/413, člen 4(2); Odločba Komisije 2003/245)
and to point 3.3 of the annex to Decision 98/125 approving the multiannual guidance programme for the fishing fleet of Ireland for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001, clearly has an interest in seeking the annulment of a decision refusing the corresponding authorisation.
usmerjevalnega programa ribi�ke flote Irske za obdobje od 1. januarja 1997 do 31. decembra 2001, očitno pravni interes za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe o zavrnitvi ustreznega dovoljenja.
An applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must, in the light of the purpose of the action, exist at the time at which the action is brought, failing which it will be inadmissible.
Pravni interes tožeče stranke glede predmeta tožbe mora obstajati ob njeni vložitvi, sicer ta ni dopustna.
That purpose must continue, like the interest in bringing proceedings, until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate, which presupposes that the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage to the party bringing it.
Tak�en predmet spora in pravni interes morata obstati do razglasitve sodne odločbe, sicer se postopek ustavi, kar je predpostavka za to, da ima lahko stranka, ki je vložila tožbo, zaradi izida tožbe koristi.
In that regard, anyone who, in compliance with the applicable rules, has sought an increase in capacity of certain fishing vessels on the ground of safety improvements by having a replacement vessel built, pursuant to Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and their exploitation
V zvezi s tem ima vsaka oseba, ki je ob upo�tevanju pravil, ki veljajo v zvezi s tem, zahtevala povečanje zmogljivosti določenih ribi�kih plovil zaradi izbolj�av varnosti zaradi gradnje nadomestnega plovila na podlagi člena 4(2) Odločbe 97/413 o ciljih in pravilih za prestrukturiranje ribi�kega sektorja Skupnosti med 1. januarjem 1997 in 31. decembrom 2001 za doseganje trajnega ravnovesja med ribolovnimi viri in njihovim izkori�čanjem in točke 3.3 priloge k Odločbi 98/125 o odobritvi večletnega
Annulment of a Commission decision refusing the authorisation sought means, in effect, for all those whose requests were rejected, that the granting of an authorisation becomes possible again following a fresh examination of those requests, which the Commission is obliged to undertake.
Posledica razglasitve ničnosti odločbe Komisije o zavrnitvi zahtevanega dovoljenja je, da je za vse osebe, katerih zahteve so bile zavrnjene, ponovno mogoče izdati dovoljenje v okviru nove preučitve teh zahtev, ki jo je Komisija zavezana opraviti.
Where such authorisation is forthcoming, it means that whatever steps remain to be taken (including, if necessary, having a replacement vessel built) in order to achieve or use the increased capacity sought may be taken in compliance with any applicable conditions and time-limits.
Kadar se to dovoljenje izda, je mogoče vse ukrepe, ki jih je treba sprejeti, vključno po potrebi z gradnjo nadomestnih plovil, za izvedbo ali uporabo zahtevane povečane zmogljivosti, sprejeti ob upo�tevanju morebitnih veljavnih pogojev in rokov.
FLAHERTY AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
FLAHERTY IN DRUGI PROTI KOMISIJI
Therefore, the appellants who, at the date of the contested decision, had not had the vessels referred to in Annex II to the decision built, so that at the date of that decision they were not owners of the vessels, cannot be regarded, on that ground, as not having had an interest in bringing an action.
Torej ni mogoče �teti, da pritožniki niso imeli pravnega interesa, ker na dan izdaje sporne odločbe niso začeli graditi plovila, določenega v prilogi II k tej odločbi, tako da na ta dan niso bili lastniki.
on that ground, as not being individually concerned by that decision since they submitted individual requests for an increase in safety tonnage in respect of the vessels referred to in Annex II.
metrov, navedena odločba zato ni zadevala posamično, ker so predložili posamične zahteve za povečanje varne tonaže v zvezi s plovili, določenimi v navedeni prilogi II.
In those circumstances, the submission of those requests is a circumstance capable of differentiating them from all other persons and of distinguishing them individually just as in the case of the person addressed by that decision.
V teh okoli�činah je namreč predložitev teh zahtev okoli�čina, zaradi katere jih je mogoče opredeliti glede na vse druge osebe in jih razlikovati posamično enako kot naslovnike navedene odločbe.
(see paras 25, 32-34)
(Glej točke 25 in od 32 do 34.)
(see paras 36, 41)
(Glej točki 36 in 41.)
Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed by a decision.
Osebe, ki niso naslovniki odločbe, bi lahko trdile, da jih odločba posamično zadeva v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES le, če ta odločba nanje vpliva zaradi svojih posebnih značilnosti ali zato, ker jih posamično opredeljuje glede na vse druge osebe in jih zato posamično opredeli na enak način, kot bi posamično opredelila naslovnika odločbe.
In that regard, the appellants who, at the date of Decision 2003/245 on the requests received by the Commission to increase Multiannual Guidance Programme IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall, had not had the vessels referred to in Annex II to the decision built, cannot be regarded,
V zvezi s tem ni mogoče �teti, da pritožnikov, ki na dan sprejetja Odločbe Komisije o zahtevah, ki jih je prejela Komisija za povečanje ciljev večletnega usmerjevalnega programa IV zaradi izbolj�av glede varnosti, pomorske navigacije, higiene, kakovosti proizvodov in delovnih pogojev za plovila, katerih skupna dolžina zna�a več kot dvanajst