natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In practice, the operators of illegal websites and the internet providers which make them available online are frequently based outside Europe or conceal their identity, making it difficult to pursue them before the courts.
U praksi operateri internetskih stranica kojima se povređuju prava i davatelji internetskih usluga koji ih postavljaju online često djeluju u inozemstvu izvan Europe ili skrivaju svoj identitet kako ne bi mogli biti tuženi.
It also seeks clarification of the EU rules on the content and procedure for the issuing of such an injunction.
Osim toga traži i pojašnjenje normi prava Unije o sadržaju i postupku izdavanja takvog naloga.
The Oberster Gerichtshof is called upon to decide at third instance in respect of a legal dispute between UPC Telekabel Wien, a major Austrian internet provider, on the one hand, and Constantin Film Verleih and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft, on the other.
Oberste r Gerichtshof u trećem stupnju odlučuje o sporu između, s jedne strane, UPC Telekabel Wien, velikog austrijskog davatelja internetskih usluga, i Constantin Film Verleih te Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft s druge strane.
On application by Constantin Film and Wega, the courts at first and second instance granted an interim injunction – in the case of the appellate court without mentioning specific measures to be taken – prohibiting UPC from allowing its customers to access kino.to .
Na zahtjev koji su postavili Constantin Film i Wega sudovi nižih stupnjeva zabranili su UPC-u privremenom mjerom – a u slučaju žalbenog suda bez određivanja mjera koje treba poduzeti ‒ pružanje pristupa njihovim klijentima internetskoj stranici kino.to .
By accessing that website, users were able to view by streaming or to download films the rights in respect of which are held inter alia by Constantin Film and Wega, without their consent 3 .
Ta stranica omogućavala je korisnicima gledanje filmova putem streaminga ili skidanje filmova, a prava na koje, među ostalima, pripadaju društvima Constantin Film i Wega, bez njihovog odobrenja.
UPC has no legal relationship with the operators of the website and made neither internet access nor storage space available to them.
3 UPC pravno nikako nije povezan s operaterima internetske stranice i nije im stavio na raspolaganje ni pristup internetu ni mjesto za pohranu.
According to the findings of the Oberster Gerichtshof, it can, however, be assumed with near certainty that individual UPC customers availed themselves of the kino.to offer.
Prema utvrđenjima Oberster Gerichtshofa najvjerojatnijim se pak treba smatrati to da pojedini klijenti UPC-a jesu koristili ponudu stranice kino.to .
That is apparent from the wording, context, spirit and purpose of the provision of EU law.
To proizlazi iz izričaja, konteksta te smisla i svrhe Uredbe prava Unije.
That also applies where the provider can avoid incurring a penalty for breach of that prohibition by showing that it has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the prohibition.
To vrijedi i onda kada bi davatelj usluga mogao izbjeći kazne predviđene privremenom mjerom zbog povrede zabrane dokazom da je poduzeo sve razumne mjere za poštivanje zabrane.
Advocate General Cruz Villalón underlines in that connection that the provider of the user has no connection with the operators of the website that infringes copyright and has not itself infringed the copyright.
Nezavisni odvjetnik s tim u vezi ističe da davatelj usluge korisnika nije ni u kakvoj vezi s operaterima internetske stranice koja povređuje autorska prava i da sâm nije povrijedio autorska prava.
However, a specific blocking measure imposed on a provider relating to a specific website is not, in principle, disproportionate only because it entails not inconsiderable costs but can easily be circumvented without any special technical knowledge.
Nasuprot tome konkretna mjera blokiranja izrečena protiv davatelja usluge vezano uz konkretnu internetsku stranicu nije načelno neproporcionalna samo zbog toga što iziskuje napor koji nije neznatan, ali se može i lako zaobići bez posebnih tehničkih znanja.
It is for the national courts, in the particular case, taking into account all relevant circumstances, to weigh the fundamental rights of the parties against each other and thus strike a fair balance between those fundamental rights.
Na nacionalnim sudovima je da u konkretnom slučaju izvrše vaganje temeljnih prava osoba na koje se to odnosi, uzimajući u obzir sve relevantne okolnosti, i tako osiguraju odgovarajuću ravnotežu između tih temeljnih prava.
When weighing the fundamental rights it must however be taken into account that in future action could be taken in numerous similar cases against any provider before the national courts.
Ipak, p rilikom vaganja temeljnih prava mora se uzeti u obzir da bi se u budućnosti mogli razmatrati mnogobrojni slični slučajevi protiv svakog davatelja usluga pred nacionalnim sudovima.
Advocate General Cruz Villalón also points out that rightholders must, in so far as possible, claim directly against the operators of the illegal website or their providers.
Nezavisni odvjetnik Cruz Villalón dodatno upućuje na to da se nositelj prava, ako je to moguće, na svoja prava mora pozvati izravno protiv operatera protupravne internetske stranice ili njihovih davatelja usluga.
NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice.
NAPOMENA : Sud nije vezan mišljenjem nezavisnog odvjetnika.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act.
NAPOMENA : Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku omogućuje sudovima država članica da, u okviru postupka koji se pred njima vodi, upute pitanje Sudu o tumačenju prava Unije ili o valjanosti akta Unije.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
Neslužbeni doku ment za medije koji ne obvezuje Sud.
The full text of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Cjelovit tekst mišljenja objavljuje se na stranici CURIA na dan objave.
10).
119.).
On the one hand, the fundamental right of the copyright holder to property and, on the other hand, the provider’s freedom to conduct a business and its customers’ freedom of expression and information, on which the provider can also rely.
S jedne strane temeljno pravo vlasništva nositelja autorskog prava, a s druge strane poduzetnička sloboda davatelja usluga kao i sloboda izražavanja i sloboda informiranja njegovih klijenata, na koje se može pozivati i davatelj usluga
DNS (Domain Name System) blocks concern domain names which are used instead of unwieldy IP addresses by users.
DNS ( Domain Name System ) blokade odnose se na domene s nazivima koje korisnici koriste umjesto IP adresa koje su nepraktične za korištenje.
DNS servers, which are operated by every provider, ‘translate’ domain names into IP addresses.
DNS serveri koje vodi svaki davatelj usluga,
In the case of a DNS block, such translation is prevented.
„prevode“ nazive domena u IP adrese.
Judgment s in Cases C-40/12 P, C-50/12 P and C-58/12 P
Presude u predmetima C-40/12 P, C-50/12 P i C-58/12 P
Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Kendrion NV and Groupe Gascogne SA v Commission
Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Kendrion NV i Groupe Gascogne SA / Komisija
The Court of Justice confirms the judgment s of the General Court on the participation of the companies Gascogne Sack Deutschland, Groupe Gascogne and Kendrion in a cartel in the industrial plastic bags sector
Sud potvrđuje presudu Općeg suda o sudjelovanju trgovačkih društava Sack Deutschland, Groupe Gascogne i Kendrion u zabranjenom sporazumu na tržištu industrijskih plastičnih vreća
Those companies may nevertheless bring acti ons for damages seeking compensation for possible damage which they may have suffered as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings before the General Court
Navedena društva mogu , međutim, podnijeti tužbe radi naknade štete koju su eventualno pretrpjela zbog prekomjerne duljine postupka pred Općim sudom
In 2005, the Commission imposed fines totalling over €290 million on several undertakings for participating in a cartel in the industrial plastic bags sector 1 .
Komisija je 2005. izrekla novčane kazne u ukupnom iznosu višem od 290 milijuna eura većem broju poduzetnika zbog njihova sudjelovanja u zabranjenom sporazumu na tržištu plastičnih vreća 1 .
In the Commission’s view, the infringement consisted mainly in (i) the fixing of prices and the establishment of common price calculation models, (ii) the sharing of markets and the allocation of sales quotas, (iii) the assignment of customers, deals and orders and (iv) the exchange of information in Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Prema mišljenju Komisije, povreda se sastojala prvenstveno u određivanju cijena i uspostavi zajedničkih modela njihova izračunavanja, podjeli tržišta i dodjeli prodajnih kvota, podjeli kupaca, poslova i narudžbi, te razmjeni informacija u Belgiji, Njemačkoj, Španjolskoj, Francuskoj, Luksemburgu i Nizozemskoj.
Certain undertakings which had participated in that cartel brought actions before the General Court for the annulment of the Commission’s decision or for the reduction of the fines imposed on them.
Nek i od poduzetnika koji su sudjelovali u tom zabranjenom sporazumu podnijeli su Općem sudu tužbe zahtijevajući poništenje odluke Komisije ili smanjenje novčanih kazni koje su im izrečene.
By its judgments delivered on 16 November 2011 2 , the General Court ruled on some of those actions, dismissing those brought by the companies Kendrion NV, Groupe Gascogne SA and Sachsa Verpackung GmbH (now Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH).
Opći sud je presudama od 16. studenoga 2011.
Consequently, the amounts of the fines imposed on those companies remained unchanged.
Stoga su iznosi novčanih kazni izrečenih tim društvima ostali neizmijenjeni.
Those three undertakings brought appeals before the Court of Justice against the judgments of the General Court 3 .
Navedeni poduzetnici podnijeli su protiv presuda Općeg suda žalbe Sudu Europske unije 3 .
In its judgments in those appeals delivered today, the Court of Justice notes, first of all, that when a parent company has a 100% shareholding in a subsidiary which has infringed the competition rules, there is a simple presumption that the parent company does in fact exercise a decisive influence over the conduct of its subsidiary.
U svojoj današnjoj presudi Sud najprije podsjeća da , kada društvo majka drži 100 % kapitala društva kćeri koje je počinilo povredu pravila tržišnog natjecanja, postoji oboriva pretpostavka prema kojoj navedeno društvo majka stvarno izvršava odlučujući utjecaj na svoje društvo kćer.
Therefore, the Commission is able to regard the parent company as jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine imposed on its subsidiary.
Komisija slijedom toga može društvo majku smatrati solidarno odgovornim za plaćanje novčane kazne izrečene njezinom društvu kćeri.
That is not, however, the case if the parent company adduces sufficient evidence to show that its subsidiary acts independently on the market.
Drukčije će ipak biti ako društvo majka dokaže da njezino društvo kći na tržištu djeluje samostalno.
However, since Groupe Gascogne and Kendrion failed to adduce such evidence, the Court confirms that the Commission was entitled to attribute liability to them for the infringement committed by their respective subsidiaries, namely Sachsa Verpackung and Fardem Packaging.
Međutim, s obzirom na to da Groupe Gascogne i Kendrion to nisu uspjeli dokazati, Sud je potvrdio da im je Komisija mogla pripisati odgovornost za protupravno ponašanje njihovih društva kćeri, odnosno Sache Verpackunga i Fardem Packaginga.
The Court also points out that the fact that the amount of the fine imposed on Kendrion (€34 million) is much higher than that imposed on its subsidiary (€2.2 million) is because, at the date of adoption of the Commission’s decision on the cartel in question, the two companies no longer constituted the same undertaking.
Sud također ističe da se činjenica da iznos novčane kazne izrečene Kendrionu (34 milijuna eura) znatno viši od iznosa novčane kazne izrečene njegovom društvu kćeri (2,2 milijuna eura) objašnjava okolnošću da, u vrijeme donošenja odluke Komisije o predmetnom zabranjenom sporazumu, dva navedena društva nisu više činila istog poduzetnika.
Thus, after Kendrion sold its subsidiary, the maximum amount of the fine that could be imposed for participating in a cartel, which corresponds to 10% of the annual turnover of the company concerned, had to be calculated differently for each of the two companies.
Stoga se, nakon što je Kendrion prodao svoje društvo kćer, najviši se iznos novčane kazne koja se može izreći zbog sudjelovanja u zabranjenom sporazumu, a koji odgovara iznosu od 10 % godišnjeg prihoda društva u pitanju, mora izračunati drukčije za svako od dvaju društava.
Next, the Court considers whether the argument of the three companies, according to which the duration of the proceedings before the General Court was excessive ly lengthy and, therefore, caused them loss, may have a bearing on the present cases.
Sud je zatim razmotrio može li argument koji su tri društva istaknula, prema kojem je duljina postupka pred Općim sudom bila prekomjerna te im je, stoga, prouzročila štetu, biti od utjecaja u ovim predmetima.
In that regard, the Court notes, first, that where the excessive length of the proceedings does not affect their outcome, failure to deliver judgment within a reasonable time cannot lead to the setting aside of the judgment under appeal in the context of appeal proceedings.
U tom pogledu Sud najprije podsjeća da , ako ne postoji utjecaj prekomjerne duljine postupka na rješenje spora, nepoštovanje razumnog roka za suđenje ne može dovesti do ukidanja pobijane presude u okviru žalbenog postupka.
Consequently, the Court dismisses the companies’ claims seeking, on that ground, to have the judgments of the General Court set aside.
Slijedom navedenog, Sud odbija zahtjeve društava kojima su ona tražila ukidanje presuda Općeg suda iz tog razloga.
Secondly, the Court points out that an application for damages brought against the European Union 4 constitutes an effective remedy of general application for asserting and penalising such a breach, since such a claim can cover all the situations where a reasonable period of time has been exceeded in proceedings.
Kao drugo, Sud ističe da zahtjev za naknadu štete podnesen protiv Unije 4 predstavlja, po tome što može pokriti sve situacije prekoračenja razumne duljine nekog postupka, učinkovito i opće primjenjivo pravno sredstvo kojim se utvrđuje i sankcionira takva povreda.
It follows that a claim for compensation for the damage caused by the failure by the General Court to adjudicate within a reasonable time may not be made directly to the Court of Justice in the context of an appeal, but must be brought before the General Court itself, by way of an action for damages.
Iz navedenog Sud zaključuje da zahtjev usmjeren na ostvarivanje popravljanja štete koju je Opći sud prouzročio nepoštovanjem razumnog roka za suđenje ne može biti podnesen izravno Sudu u okviru žalbe, nego se mora podnijeti samom Općem sudu u obliku tužbe radi naknade štete.
In such an action, it will be for the General Court to appraise, in the light of the circumstances specific to each case, whether it has observed the reasonable time principle.
U okviru takve tužbe Opći sud morat će ocijeniti, s obzirom na okolnosti svakog pojedinog predmeta, je li poštovao načelo razumnog roka.
It will also be for the General Court to assess whether the parties concerned have actually suffered harm because their right to effective legal protection has been breached.
Opći sud će također morati ocijeniti jesu li stranke u pitanju pretrpjele štetu zbog povrede prava na učinkovitu sudsku zaštitu.
In that context, the Court makes clear that, when determining actions for damages, the General Court must take into consideration the general principles applicable in the legal systems of the Member States for actions based on similar breaches.
U tim ok olnostima Sud naglašava da će Opći sud prilikom razmatranja tužbe radi naknade štete morati uzeti u obzir opća načela primjenjiva u pravnim porecima država članica za postupanje po pravnim sredstvima koja se temelje na sličnim povredama.
It must, in particular, ascertain whether it is possible to identify, in addition to any material loss, any other type of harm sustained by the party affected by the excessive period, which should, where appropriate, be suitably compensated.
Morat će, osobito, pokušati utvrditi, pored postojanja imovinske štete, i postojanje neimovinske štete koju su pretrpjele stranke oštećene prekoračenjem roka, a koja bi se trebala, ako je to potrebno, popraviti na primjeren način.
That said, the Court finds that, in the present case, the length of the proceedings before the General Court, which amounted to approximately 5 years and 9 months, cannot be justified by any of the circumstances in connection with those cases.
Slijedom navedenog, Sud utvrđuje da se, u konkretnom slučaju, duljina postupanja Općeg suda u spornim predmetima, koja iznosi gotovo 5 godina i 9 mjeseci, ne može opravdati nijednom okolnošću povezanom s tim predmetima.
The excessive length of the proceedings cannot be explained by the complexity of the dispute, the conduct of the parties or the specific features of the procedures.
Naime, ni složenost postupka ni ponašanje stranaka ni posebnost postupaka ne mogu opravdati njihovu prekomjernu duljinu.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the procedures in the General Court breached the right of the parties to have their case heard within a reasonable time conferred on them by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
U tim okolnostima Sud zaključuje da su postupci vođeni pred Općim sudom povrijedili pravo na suđenje u razumnom roku koje strankama dodjeljuje Povelja o temeljnim pravima Europske unije.
The Court also notes that the breach of that right is sufficiently serious and may therefore give rise to liability on the part of the European Union for the damage arising therefrom.
Sud također navodi da je povreda tog prava dovoljno ozbiljna pa stoga može biti temelj za odgovornost Unije za štetu koja je njome prouzročena.
In those circumstances, the Court dismisses the appeals of the three undertakings in their entirety.
U tim okolnostima Sud u cijelosti odbija žalbe triju poduzetnika.
NOTE: An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against a judgment or order of the General Court.
NAPOMENA: Sudu se može podnijeti žalba protiv presude ili rješenja Općeg suda koja se može odnositi isključivo na pravna pitanja.
In principle, the appeal does not have suspensive effect.
Načelno žalba nema odgodni učinak.
If the appeal is admissible and well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court.
Ako je žalba dopuštena i osnovana, Sud će ukinuti odluku Općeg suda.
Where the state of the proceedings so permits, the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the case.
U slučaju kad je predmet u tijeku, Sud može sam donijeti konačnu odluku o sporu.
Otherwise, it refers the case back to the General Court, which is bound by the decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal.
Ako to nije slučaj, vratit će predmet Općem sudu koji je vezan odlukom Suda u žalbenom postupku.
The full texts of the judgments ( C-40/12 P , C-50/12 P and C-58/12 P ) are published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Cjelovit tekst presude ( C-40/12 P , C-50/12 P et C-58/12 P ) objavljuje se na stranici CURIA na dan objave.
41).
41.).
In Case T-26/06 Trioplast Wittenheim SA v Commission , Case T-40/06 Trioplast Industrier v Commission , Case T-53/06 UPM-Kymmene Oyj v Commission , Case T-64/06 FLS Plast v Commission and Case T-65/06 FLSmidth v Commission , which are also related to that cartel, the General Court delivered its judgments on 13 September 2010 and 6 March 2012, respectively.
U predmetima Trioplast Wittenheim SA/Komisija ( T-26/06 ), Trioplast Industrier/Komisija ( T-40/06 ), UPM-Kymmene Oyj/Komisija ( T-53/06 ), FLS Plast/Komisija ( T-64/06 ) i FLSmidth/Komisija ( T-65/06 ), koji su također povezani s ovim zabranjenim sporazumom, Opći sud je donio svoje presude 13. rujna 2010., odnosno 6. ožujka 2012.
Appeals were also bought against the judgments delivered in Cases T-64/06, T-65/06, T-76/06 and T-78/06 (see Cases C-243/12 P , C-238/12 P , C-35/12 P and C-36/12 P currently pending).
Žalbe su također podnesene protiv presuda donesenih u predmetima T-64/06, T-65/06, T-76/06 i T-78/06 (vidjeti predmete C-243/12 P , C-238/12 P , C-35/12 P i C-36/12 P trenutno u razmatranju).
Judgment in Case C‑576/11
Presuda u predmetu C-576/11
Commission v Luxembourg
Komisija / Luksemburg
Luxembourg is ordered to pay financial penalties for failing to comply with the Court’s judgment of 2006 finding that it had infringed the Urban Waste Water Directive
Luksemburg osuđen na financijske sankcije za neizvršenje presude Suda iz 2006. kojom je utvrđeno neusklađeno prenošenje direktive o obradi komunalnih otpadnih voda
The Court imposes a lump sum of €2 million and a fine of €2 800 euros for each day of delay in taking the measures necessary to comply with the first judgment of 2006, until full compliance with today’s judgment
Sud je nametnuo paušalni iznos od 2 milijuna eura i novčanu kaznu od 2 800 eura po danu zakašnjenja provedbe mjera nužnih za usklađenje s prvom presudom iz 2006. do potpunog izvršenja danas donesene presude
The 1991 Urban Waste Water Directive 1 concerns the collection, treatment and discharge of urban waste water and the treatment and discharge of waste water from certain industrial sectors.
Direktiva iz 1991.1 odnosi se na prikupljanje, pročišćavanje i ispuštanje komunalnih otpadnih voda, te pročišćavanje i ispuštanje otpadnih voda iz određenih industrijskih sektora.
Its objective is to protect the environment from the adverse effects of the discharges of that water.
Cilj Direktive je zaštita okoliša od štetnih utjecaja ispuštanja gore navedenih otpadnih voda.
The Directive required, inter alia, Member States to identify sensitive areas corresponding to the criteria set out therein by 31 December 1998 2 .
Direktiva je obvezivala države članice na utvrđivanje, do 31. prosinca 1998., osjetljivih područja prema zadanim kriterijima2 .
Member States were also required to ensure by 31 December 1998 that urban waste water entering collection systems be put through more stringent treatment than for less sensitive areas before being discharged into sensitive areas, in respect of all discharges originating from agglomerations having a ‘population equivalent’ (p.e., a unit of measure of the average organic biodegradable load) 3 of more than 10 000.
Osim toga države članice su morale osigurati da se komunalne otpadne vode koje ulaze u sabirne sustave prije ispuštanja u osjetljiva područja podvrgnu strožem pročišćavanju nego za manje osjetljiva područja, i to najkasnije do 31. prosinca 1998. za sva ispuštanja iz aglomeracija koje imaju « populacijski ekvivalent » (p.e., mjerna jedinica prosječnog opterećenja organskim biorazgradivim onečišćenjem)3 viši od 10 000.
However, those conditions do not necessarily apply to sensitive areas if it can be shown that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all urban waste water treatment plants in that area is at least 75% for total phosphorus and at least 75% for total nitrogen.
Međutim, ovi uvjeti ne primjenjuju se nužno u osjetljivim područjima ako se može dokazati da je minimalni postotak smanjenja ukupnog opterećenja koje ulazi u stanice za pročišćavanje otpadnih voda u tom području najmanje 75 % za ukupni fosfor i najmanje 75 % za ukupni dušik.