natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Fourthly, the applicant considers that the Board of Appeal erred in deciding that the decision granting the plant variety right did not concern it individually on the ground that it did not possess certain attributes which are specific to it and is not in a situation in which it is differentiated from all other persons.
Neljandaks märgib hageja, et apellatsiooninõukogu tegi vea, kui leidis, et kaitse alla võtmise otsus ei puuduta teda isiklikult, kuna hagejal puuduvad mingid talle omased tunnused või ta ei eristu kõigist teistest isikutest teatava faktilise olukorra tõttu.
It is clear from the caselaw that that condition is fulfilled when the legal position of the undertaking in
Kohtupraktikast tuleneb, et see tingimus on täidetud siis, kui vaidlustatud akt mõjutab asjaomase ettevõtja õiguslikku seisundit mingi neile omase tunnuse või neid
The fact that the measure produces effects in regard to all the traders concerned does not prevent the measure in question from being of individual concern to some of them.
See, kui akt mõjutab kõiki asjaomaseid ettevõtjaid, ei välista seda, et kõnealune akt puudutab teatavaid ettevõtjaid nende seas isiklikult.
First of all, with regard to the applicant’s capacity as a supplier of plant material, the consequence of the decision granting the right is that any person wishing to be involved in the reproduction or supply of plant material must be in possession of a licence granted by the holder of the plant variety right.
Esiteks, mis puudutab hagejat kui taimse materjali tarnijat, siis tooks kaitse alla võtmise otsus kaasa selle, et kõik isikud, kes soovivad seda materjali paljundada või tarnida, peavad sordi omanikult selleks loa saama.
As a result, it is necessary to consider whether the legal position of the applicant’s members is affected in a manner different from that of other reproducers or suppliers of plant material.
Seetõttu tuleb uurida, kas hageja liikmete õiguslikku seisundit kahjustatakse taimse materjali teiste tootjate ja tarnijate omast teistmoodi.
The decision granting the plant variety right has caused some of the applicant’s members supplying the Nadorcott variety to cease doing so, resulting in significant damage, and that distinguishes them individually from all other suppliers of plant material.
Kaitse alla võtmise otsus kohustaks hageja neid liikmeid, kes tarnivad sorti Nadorcott, seda tegevust lõpetama, mis toob kaasa suuri kahjusid ning see individualiseerib hageja liikmed võrreldes kõigi teiste taimse materjali tarnijatega.
Although the Board of Appeal mentions in the contested decision that Anecoop provides such plant material, it omitted that fact subsequently and focused on the fact that the applicant did not itself supply plant material.
Kuigi apellatsiooninõukogu märgib vaidlustatud otsuses, et Anecoop tarnib taimset materjali, jättis ta selle asjaolu hiljem välja ning keskendus sellele, et hageja ei tarni taimset materjali ise.
However, consideration of Anecoop’s situation would have shown that the applicant had locus standi to seek annulment of the decision granting the plant variety right.
Anecoopi seisundi uurimine oleks seega tõendanud, et hagejal oli kaitse alla võtmise otsuse tühistamiseks kaebeõigus.
Secondly, with regard to its capacity as a grower, the applicant stresses that it did not claim to represent the general interests of growers in support of its claim to be individually concerned.
Teiseks, mis puudutab hagejat kui tootjat, siis märgib hageja, et ta ei ole isikliku puutumuse toetuseks väitnud, et ta esindab tootjate üldisi huve.
On the other hand, the applicant considers that it has locus standi because it represents the interests of members who are directly affected in their capacity as growers.
Seevastu leiab hageja, et tema kaebeõigust põhjendab asjaolu, et ta esindab nende liikmete huve, keda tootjatena otse puudutati.
The applicant points out that, since 90% of the companies which prepare the Nadorcott variety are established in Valencia, it is impossible to contend that the decision to grant the plant variety right has the same effects on it as on other federations of growers or cooperatives in the Community.
Hageja väidab, et kuna 90% sorti Nadorcott kasvatavatest ettevõtjatest asub Valencias, siis on võimatu kinnitada, et kaitse alla võtmise otsus võib teda mõjutada sama moodi kui teisi ühenduse tootjate konföderatsioone ja liite.
The cooperatives concerned distribute more than half of the citrus fruit originating in Valencia and, as the applicant’s membership includes almost all of those cooperatives, its members are among the persons primarily affected by the decision to grant the plant variety right.
Kuna asjaomased ühistud levitavad üle poole nendest tsitrusviljadest, mis Valencias toodetakse ning kuna hageja koondab peaaegu kõiki neid ühistuid, siis kuuluvad peamised kaitse alla võtmise otsusega kahjustatud isikud tema liikmete hulka.
Since almost all of the production of the Nadorcott variety originates in Valencia, the fact that the consequence of the decision granting the plant variety right is that all growers in the Community must pay royalties in order to grow the Nadorcott variety implies that, if such royalties are not paid, practically all of Valencia’s production would be unlawful.
Kuna sordi Nadorcott peaaegu kogu toodang pärineb Valenciast, siis tähendab asjaolu, et kaitse alla võtmise otsuse tulemusel peavad kõik ühenduse tootjad maksma tasu sordi Nadorcott kasvatamise eest seda, et sellise tasu maksmata jätmise korral oleks peaaegu kogu Valencia asjaomane tootmine õigusvastane.
Only those growers would be required from that time on either to pay to have a licence or destroy their groves, which would affect their competitive position on the market at the time at which their produce was being marketed.
Ainult nendel tootjatel tuleks aretajale tasu maksta või oma istandused hävitada, mis mõjutaks nende konkurentsivõimet turul kauba turustamise ajal.
It is thus incorrect to state that the decision granting the plant variety right affects the applicant’s members in the same way as any other grower who will cultivate the variety at issue in the future since its members possess a series of attributes which distinguish them from all other growers.
Seetõttu ei ole õige väita, et kaitse alla võtmise otsus puudutab hageja liikmeid sama moodi kui kõiki teisi tootjaid, kes tulevikus asjaomast sorti kasvatavad, kuna tema liikmetel on teatavad omadused, mis individualiseerivad neid kõigist teistest tootjatest.
Thirdly, the applicant considers that its members have the same characteristics as the company Van Zanten Plants (‘Van Zanten’), which brought an appeal before the Board of Appeal (Cases A 005/2003 and A 006/2003).
Kolmandaks leiab hageja, et tema liikmetel on samad omadused, mis äriühingul Van Zanten Plants (edaspidi „Van Zanten”), kes esitas apellatsiooninõukogule kaebuse (asjades A 005/2003 ja A 006/2003).
Since Van Zanten was the worldwide distributor for a protected variety which, in its view, was similar to a new variety in respect of which the CPVO had granted a Community plant variety right, the Board of Appeal recognised it as having locus standi.
Van Zanten oli sellise kaitstud sordi ülemaailmne levitaja, mis tema sõnul sarnanes uuele sordile, mille sordiamet oli võtnud ühenduse kaitse alla, kusjuures apellatsiooninõukogu tunnustas tema kaebeõigust.
The Board of Appeal took the view that there would be confusion on the markets if the similarity of the varieties was shown to exist and that, therefore, Van Zanten would be forced to defend its rights by bringing actions for infringement.
Apellatsiooninõukogu leidis, et kui sortide vaheline sarnasus osutuks tõeks, tekiks turgudel segadus, ning siis peaks Van Zanten kaitsma oma õigusi algatades rikkumiste kohta menetlusi.
The applicant considers that the situation is similar in this case since the decision granting the right forces its members to uproot all their plants if they do not accept the costly conditions imposed by the intervener.
Hageja leiab, et käesolev olukord on sarnane, kuna kaitse alla võtmise otsus sunniks tema liikmeid juhul, kui nad ei nõustu menetlusse astuja kulukate tingimustega, hävitama kogu oma istandused.
Since the applicant is the representative of undertakings which supply material of the Afourer variety, which is a competitor of the Nadorcott variety, it is individually affected inasmuch as, in both cases, it is a competitor of the undertaking seeking protection.
Kuna hageja on nende ettevõtjate esindaja, kes tarnivad sordi Nadorcott konkurendiks oleva sordi Afourer materjali, siis tuleneb tema isiklik puutumus neil kahel juhul sellest, et ollakse kaitset taotleva ettevõtja konkurendid.
The Board of Appeal should have taken account of the applicant’s position as a negotiator and competitor, as it did in the Van Zanten case.
Apellatsiooninõukogu oleks käesoleval juhul pidanud arvesse võtma hageja läbi-rääkija- ja konkurendirolli mõjutamist, mida apellatsiooninõukogu arvestas Van Zantenit puudutavas asjas.
Fourthly, the applicant complains that the Board of Appeal wrongly excluded the application to this case of the Community caselaw on State aid.
Neljandaks heidab hageja apellatsiooninõukogule ette seda, et ta jättis käesolevas asjas ühenduse riigiabi kohtupraktika vääralt kohaldamata.
It considers that the procedure for opposing a plant variety right is not so different from the procedure in regard to State aid that the caselaw concerning locus standi to bring actions against Commission decisions on State aid would not be applicable to it.
Hageja leiab, et taimesortide kaitse vastuväitemenetlus ei erine riigiabi menetlusest niivõrd, et ei saaks kohaldada komisjoni riigiabi valdkonna otsuste vaidlustamise kaebeõiguse kohta olemasolevat kohtupraktikat.
It is clear from that caselaw that the ‘parties concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC also include the persons, undertakings or associations whose interests might be affected by the grant of the aid, in particular competing undertakings and trade associations (Case 323/82 Intermills v Commission [1984] ECR 3809, paragraph 16, and Case C-204/97 Portugal v Commission [2001] ECR I-3175, paragraph 31).
Sellest kohtupraktikast tuleneb, et EÜ artikli 88 lõikes 2 osundatud huvitatud isikud on samuti isikuid, äriühingud või ühendused, kelle huve võib abi andmine mõjutada, nimelt konkureerivaid äriühingud ja ametiliidud (Euroopa Kohtu 14. novembri 1984. aasta otsus kohtuasjas 323/82: Intermills vs. komisjon, EKL 1984, lk 3809, punkt 16, ja 3. mai 2001. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-204/97: Portugal vs. komisjon, EKL 2001, lk I-3175, punkt 31).
In the applicant’s view, the locus standi of undertakings competing with the undertaking to which State aid has been granted does not flow from the particularities of the procedure for review of State aid laid down in Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.
Hageja sõnul ei tulene riigiabi saajaga konkureerivate äriühingute kaebeõiguse tunnustamine EÜ artiklites 87 ja 88 ettenähtud riigiabi uurimismenetluse eripärast.
That status flows, in fact, from the effects of the State aid on the competitive position of traders in the same market which have not been granted such aid.
See õigus tuleneb tegelikult mõjust, mida riigiabi avaldab nende sellel turul tegutsevate ettevõtjate konkurentsiseisundile, kes ei saa abi.
In the applicant’s view, the situation is similar here, with the result that it is possible to apply that caselaw to the present case.
Hageja sõnul on käesoleval juhul tegemist sarnase olukorraga, mis lubab nimetatud kohtupraktika kohaldamist käesolevas asjas.
Moreover, in the applicant’s view, the rights of third parties who wish to challenge the grant of right in respect of a plant variety are not limited to the objection procedure laid down in Article 59 of the basic regulation.
Peale selle ei piirdu nende kolmandate isikute õigused, kes soovivad taimesordi kaitsmist vaidlustada, alusmääruse artiklis 59 ettenähtud vastuväitemenetlusega.
They may also lodge an appeal under Article 67 et seq. of that regulation.
Samuti võivad nad esitada kaebuse nimetatud määruse artikli 67 ja sellele järgnevate artiklite alusel.
The objection procedure under Article 59 of the basic regulation, which permits the parties to contest only the facts on the basis of which the CPVO has granted the right, is intended to achieve objectives that differ from those of the appeal under Article 67 of the basic regulation.
Alusmääruse artiklis 59 sätestatud vastuväitemenetluse, mille alusel on menetluspooltel õigus vaidlustada asjaolusid, mille alusel sordiamet on asjaomase sordi kaitse alla võtnud, eesmärgid erinevad alusmääruse artiklis 67 sätestatud kaebemenetluse eesmärkidest.
In the applicant’s view, by overlooking that possibility of appeal, the Board of Appeal has also gone against the practice in its decisions regarding locus standi.
Hageja leiab, et kuna apellatsiooninõukogu jättis selle kaebevõimaluse tähelepanuta, sattus viimane vastuollu ka oma kaebeõigust käsitleva otsustuspraktikaga.
In its decision in Van Zanten, it stated that Article 67 of the basic regulation does not prevent third parties lodging an appeal under that provision on the ground that they had not previously lodged an objection.
Van Zantenit puudutavas otsuses märkis apellatsiooninõukogu, et alusmääruse artikkel 67 ei võta kolmandatelt isikutelt selle sätte alusel kaebuse esitamise õigust põhjusel, et nad ei ole varem vastuväidet esitanud.
However, the Board of Appeal did not indicate why participation in the procedure for the grant of the right was relevant in this case.
Apellatsiooninõukogu ei ole selgitanud, miks omab kaitse alla võtmise menetluses osalemine käesolevas asjas tähtsust.
Like the beneficiary of State aid, the owner of a protected variety acquires, in the applicant’s view, an advantage over its competitors which affects its competitive position.
Hageja sõnul saab kaitse alla võetud sordi omanik – nagu riigiabi saaja – eelise oma konkurentide ees, mis seega mõjutab tema konkurentsiseisundit.
It is clear from the caselaw that, although the competitive position of direct competitors of the beneficiaries of State aid was necessarily affected by that aid, their position in the market would not be substantially affected as long as all farmers in the Community are to be regarded as competitors of the beneficiaries of the aid.
Kohtupraktikast tuleneb, et isegi siis, kui asjaomane abi mõjutab riigiabi saajate otseste konkurentide konkurentsiseisundit, kuid nende turuseisundit see abi eriti oluliselt ei mõjuta, saab pidada riigiabi saaja konkurentideks ühenduse kõiki põllumajandusettevõtjaid.
In this case, the growers represented by the applicant are substantially affected by the protection granted to the Nadorcott variety.
Käesoleval juhul mõjutab sordi Nadorcott kaitse alla võtmine hageja esindatavaid tootjaid oluliselt.
They are placed at a disadvantage compared with any Community grower wishing to begin cultivating that variety because they were already cultivating it at the date on which the decision granting the plant variety right was adopted.
Nad oleksid ebasoodsamas olukorras võrreldes kõigi ühenduse tootjatega, kes soovivad seda sorti kasvatama hakata, kuna nad kasvatasid seda sorti juba kaitse alla võtmise otsuse tegemise ajal.
In the applicant’s view, the growers who do not already own mandarin trees of that variety will be able to choose another variety if the conditions for the granting of a licence offered to them by the holder of the right do not appear acceptable to them without that having serious consequences for their economic activity.
Hageja sõnul võivad need tootjad, kellel veel ei ole selle sordi mandariinipuid, valida mõne teise sordi, kui tingimused, mida aretaja loa saamiseks välja pakub, ei ole neile vastuvõetavad, ning see ei tooks nende majandustegevuse suhtes kaasa raskeid tagajärgi.
On the other hand, growers who already have trees of that variety in their groves will have to root them up.
Need tootjad aga, kelle istandustes juba kasvavad selle sordi puud, peavad need hävitama.
Since the ‘useful life’ of such trees is about 20 years, hardly any of the growers have yet obtained a return on their investment in their groves.
Kuna nimetatud puude „kasulik iga” on umbes kakskümmend aastat, siis ei olnud peaaegu kõigi tootjate istandused veel ära tasunud.
Consequently, the situation of the applicant’s members is not comparable to that of other growers and the decision granting the plant variety right substantially affects those members’ competitive position.
Seetõttu ei ole hageja liikmete olukord teiste tootjate omaga võrreldav ning kaitse alla võtmise otsus mõjutas oluliselt nende konkurentsiseisundit.
Finally, with regard to the caselaw requiring an applicant to have taken part in the administrative procedure in order to be recognised as having locus standi to seek the annulment of a Commission decision concerning State aid, the applicant points out that the procedure before the Board of Appeal is also an administrative procedure.
Lõpuks seoses kohtupraktikaga, milles seatakse komisjoni riigiabiotsuste vaidlustamise kaebeõiguse tingimuseks hageja osalemine haldusmenetluses, rõhutab hageja seda, et ka apellatsiooninõukogus toimuv menetlus on haldusmenetlus.
Since it is part of the administrative body which has the power of decision in regard to plant variety rights, the Board of Appeal is not a court.
Kuna apellatsiooninõukogu kuulub haldusorgani koosseisu, millel on taimesortide kaitse alla võtmise otsustuspädevus, siis ei ole apellatsiooninõukogu kohus.
Consequently, an appeal lodged against a decision of the CPVO is a step in the administrative procedure which leads to the grant of a plant variety right.
Seetõttu on sordiameti otsuse peale esitatud kaebus taimesordi kaitse alla võtmise haldusmenetluse üks staadium.
The applicant therefore took part in the administrative procedure.
Nii osales hageja haldusmenetluses.
The CPVO considers, from the outset, that the formulation of Article 68 of the basic regulation is identical to Article 230 EC.
Sordiamet leiab kõigepealt, et alusmääruse artikli 68 sõnastus on identne EÜ artikli 230 sõnastusega.
It therefore takes the view that examination of this plea should be based on the judicial interpretation of the concept of a person
Seetõttu leiab ta, et käesoleva väite uurimine peab põhinema viimati nimetatud sätte mõistele „isik, keda otsus isiklikult puudutab”
The caselaw recognises the locus standi of a professional association set up to defend the interests of its members where it is differentiated by reason of the impact on its own interests, where it represents the interests of persons who themselves would have had locus standi and where a legal provision expressly confers upon it a number of powers of a procedural nature.
Kohtupraktikas tunnustatakse kutseühingu, kes on asutatud selle liikmete huvide kaitseks, kaebeõigust juhul, kui ühingu enda huvide kahjustamine seda ühingut individualiseerib, kui see ühing esindab isikute huve, kellel endal on kaebeõigus ning kui õigusnorm otsesõnu annab talle sellised menetluslikud õigused.
First of all, the CPVO takes the view that, according to the caselaw, a measure does not individually concern an applicant when his situation was not taken into account when the measure was being adopted, with the result that he is affected in the same way as all other persons in the same situation.
Sordiamet leiab esiteks, et kohtupraktika kohaselt ei mõjuta akt hagejat isiklikult, kui selle isiku olukorda ei ole kõnealuse akti vastuvõtmisel arvesse võetud ning kui see akt mõjutab teda seetõttu samamoodi kui kõiki teisi selles olukorras olevaid isikuid.
In this case, it has not been shown that the applicant is a supplier of plant material and, in any event, it does not have characteristics of its own or circumstances which distinguish it from other suppliers of plant material.
Käesoleval juhul ei ole tõendatud, et hageja on taimse materjali tarnija, ning igal juhul ei ole tal eriomadusi või -jooni, mis võimaldaks eristada teda teistest taimse materjali tarnijatest.
Secondly, the CPVO considers that, according to the applicant’s statutes, its direct members are unions of cooperatives and not the cooperatives themselves or the mandarin growers.
Teiseks leiab sordiamet, et vastavalt hageja põhikirjale on viimase otsesteks liikmeteks ühistute liidud mitte ühistud ega mandariinitootjad ise.
Thus, the applicant could legitimately represent the interests of the unions of cooperatives, but it has put forward no evidence showing that those unions, which merely defend the general interests of their members, are directly concerned.
Seega võib hageja õiguspäraselt esindada ühistute liitude huve, kuid ta ei ole esitanud ühti tõendit liitude isikliku puutumuse kohta, kes üksnes esindavad oma liikmete üldisi huve.
In addition, in so far as certain of its members can supply plant material, the applicant has established no specific characteristic which distinguishes them from other suppliers.
Lisaks ei ole hageja tuginenud ühelegi eriomadusele, mis võiks tema taimse materjali tarnijatest liikmeid individualiseerida teistest tarnijatest.
With regard to the situation of the individual growers, the CPVO points out that the applicant brought the action in its own name and there is nothing in its statutes to suggest that it is entitled to bring legal proceedings to defend the interests of specific mandarin growers.
Üksiktootjate olukorra kohta märgib sordiamet, et hageja esitas kaebuse oma nimel ning tema põhikirjast ei ole võimalik leida kinnitust selle kohta, et hagejal oleks teatavate mandariini üksiktootjate huvide kaitsmise kohtumenetlusteovõime.
Furthermore, the individual interests of some mandarin growers differ from the general interests of the cooperatives that the applicant can represent.
Peale selle erinevad teatavate mandariinitootjate isiklikud huvid nende ühistute üldistest huvidest, keda hageja võib esindada.
Finally, the growers of the Nadorcott variety, indirect members of the applicant, are affected only by reason of an objective factual situation that in no way distinguishes them from other growers of that variety, since the obligation to pay royalties to grow the variety which is now protected flows directly
Lõpuks mõjutati sordi Nadorcott tootjaid, kes on hageja liikmed, üksnes teatavast objektiivsest asjaolust tingitud olukorra tõttu, mis ei erista neid tootjaid selle sordi teistest tootjatest mitte millegi poolest, kuna teatava kaitse alla võetud sordi kasutamise eest
In particular, it is clear from the caselaw that it is not sufficient that a measure has greater economic repercussions for some traders than for other traders in the sector for them to be regarded as individually concerned by that measure.
Kohtupraktika kohaselt ei piisa sellest, kui akt toob teatavatele ettevõtjatele kaasa suuremaid majanduslikke tagasilööke kui teistele selle sektori ettevõtjatele, et tuvastada, et see akt puudutab neid ettevõtjaid isiklikult.
Thirdly, the CPVO points out that the basic regulation, in particular Article 59 thereof, confers a number of powers of a procedural nature on parties which take part in the grant procedure before the CPVO.
Kolmandaks rõhutab sordiamet, et alusmäärus ning eriti selle artikkel 59 annab teatavad menetluslikud õigused isikutele, kes osalevad sordiameti kaitse alla võtmise menetluses.
It draws attention to the fact that the applicant became aware of the application for protection published in the Official Gazette of the CPVO of 26 February 1996 and raised no objection.
Sordiamet märgib, et hageja oli teadlik 26. veebruari 1996. aasta Bulletin officiel de l’OCVV-s avaldatud sordikaitse taotlusest ega esitanud sellele vastuväiteid.
Consequently, it could not have been individually concerned on the basis of the powers of a procedural nature which it could have obtained by taking part in that procedure.
Seetõttu ei saa ta olla isiklikult puudutatud nende menetluslike õiguste alusel, mida ta oleks võinud selles menetluses osalemisel saada.