natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court of First Instance has clearly stated that the purpose of the Regulation is to ensure that every person has access to public documents.
Sodišče prve stopnje je jasno navedlo, da je namen Uredbe zagotoviti, da ima vsakdo dostop do javnih dokumentov.
The Court of First Instance has confirmed the circumstances when e.g. a refusal to license may be abusive, namely when the information that is refused is indispensable to compete in a secondary market, when competition in that secondary market is likely to be eliminated, and when new products for which there is consumer demand are prevented from coming to market28.
Sodišče prve stopnje je potrdilo okoliščine, v katerih na primer zavrnitev podelitve licence pomeni zlorabo, in sicer kadar je informacija, katere razširjanje je bilo zavrnjeno, nujno potrebna za konkuriranje na sekundarnem trgu, kadar obstaja tveganje za izključitev konkurence na tem sekundarnem trgu, in kadar se novim izdelkom, po katerih potrošniki povprašujejo, preprečuje vstop na trg28.
The Court of First Instance has established that the exception aimed at protecting “legal advice”, set out in Article 4(2), second indent of the Regulation, applies to any legal advice given by the Legal Service of the institutions and is not limited to advice given in the course of litigation.
Sodišče prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da izjema, katere cilj je zaščita „pravnih nasvetov“ in je določena v drugi alinei člena 4(2) Uredbe, velja za kakršne koli pravne nasvete, ki jih daje pravna služba institucij, in ni omejena na nasvete, dane med sodnim postopkom.
The Court of First Instance held that, where the originating Member State has requested that a document not be disclosed, the application for access to that document is governed by the relevant national provisions and not by the Regulation21.
Sodišče prve stopnje je menilo, da, kadar država članica, iz katere izvira dokument, zahteva, da se dokument ne razkrije, zahtevek za dostop do tega dokumenta urejajo nacionalni predpisi in ne Uredba21.
The Court of First Instance would comprise a Central Division set up at the seat of the European Patent Court.
Sodišče prve stopnje bi obsegalo centralni oddelek, ki bi bil na sedežu Evropskega patentnega sodišča.
The Court of Justice
3.5. Sodišče Evropske unije
The Court of Justice
Sodišče
The Court of Justice (ECJ) had to decide on an appeal against a Court of First Instance (CFI) judgment brought by the Spanish region Territorio Histórico de Álava and the company Ramondín Cápsulas SA., both of which had brought a complaint before the Court of First Instance against a Commission decision finding that a certain form of preferential tax treatment constituted state aid, which was moreover incompatible with the internal market, since the tax advantage granted was beyond the ceiling of 25% nge for regional aid in that geographic area.
Sodišče je moralo odločiti o pritožbi zoper sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje, ki sta jo vložila španska regija Territorio Histórico de Álava in podjetje Ramondín Cápsulas SA., ki sta predhodno vložila pritožbo na Sodišče prve stopnje zoper odločbo Komisije, ki je ugotavljala, da je določena oblika preferencialne davčne obravnave pomenila državno pomoč, ki je bila poleg tega nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, saj je davčna ugodnost presegala mejo 25 % neto ekvivalenta dotacije za regionalno pomoč na tem geografskem območju.
The Court of Justice also acknowledged that the competent national authorities enjoy a wide margin of discretion in this respect.
Sodišče je tudi potrdilo, da imajo pristojni nacionalni organi široko diskrecijsko pravico v zvezi s tem.
The Court of Justice also clarified the right of Community air carriers to benefit from the right of establishment within the Community, including the right to non-discriminatory market access.
Sodišče je tudi jasno opredelilo upravičenost letalskih prevoznikov Skupnosti glede pravice do ustanavljanja znotraj Skupnosti, vključno s pravico do nediskriminatornega dostopa na trg.
The Court of Justice also indicated that this principle of mutual recognition of registration and roadworthiness information should be complemented by the cooperation between the authorities in the Member States concerning any data that may be missing9.
Sodišče je prav tako navedlo, da bi bilo treba to načelo vzajemnega priznavanja podatkov o registraciji in tehničnih pregledih dopolniti s sodelovanjem med organi držav članic v zvezi s pridobivanjem vseh manjkajočih podatkov9.
The Court of Justice and the General Court have confirmed that, where such a structure exists, the relevant organisations do not act as undertakings40.
Sodišče in Splošno sodišče sta potrdili, da v državah s tako strukturo zadevne organizacije ne delujejo kot podjetja40.
The Court of Justice can, nevertheless, take account of the common intention of the parties expressed in the declarations when it is called on to interpret the primary legislation constituted by the treaties and related acts that are the protocols and appendices.
Sodišče pa kljub temu lahko pri interpretaciji primarne zakonodaje, ki jo sestavljajo pogodbe in enakovredni akti, kot so protokoli in priloge, upošteva skupno namero, ki so jo strani izrazile v izjavah.
The Court of Justice cases referred to above exposed the fault lines that run between the Single Market and the social dimension in two ways.
Omenjene sodbe Sodišča so na prepad med enotnim trgom in socialno razsežnostjo opozorile na dva načina.
The Court of Justice clarified in the Morgenbesser case24 that the Treaty rules on free movement apply to such cases and that Member States cannot, as a matter of principle, prevent people from doing a remunerated supervised practice if they offer the possibility to their own nationals.
Sodišče je v zadevi Morgenbesser24 pojasnilo, da se pravila Pogodbe o prostem gibanju uporabljajo za take primere in da države članice posameznikom ne morejo preprečiti, da bi opravili plačano in nadzorovano prakso, če to možnost nudijo svojim državljanom.
The Court of Justice decided in eight out of the ten cases that the national inheritance tax and gift tax rules of the Member States in question breached EU rules on the free movement of capital and/or freedom of establishment.
Sodišče je v osmih od deset zadev odločilo, da nacionalni predpisi zadevne države članice glede davka na dediščino in davčnih pravil kršijo pravila EU o prostem gibanju kapitala in/ali svobodi ustanavljanja.
The Court of Justice delivered 52 judgments under Article 258 TFEU in 2013, out of which 31 judgments (59.6 %) were in favour of the Commission.
Leta 2013 je Sodišče izdalo 52 sodb na podlagi člena 258 PDEU, pri čemer je v 31 zadevah (59,6 %) ugodilo zahtevku Komisije.
The Court of Justice has accepted cases of companies relocating their COMI as a legitimate exercise of the freedom of establishment.
Sodišče je sprejelo nekatere primere podjetij, ki so preselila središče svojih glavnih interesov, kot zakonito uveljavljanje pravice do ustanavljanja.
The Court of Justice has acknowledged3 that Article 95 of the Treaty relating to the adoption of measures for the approximation of legislation for the establishment and functioning of the internal market provides an appropriate legal basis for setting up a "Community body responsible for contributing to the implementation of a process of harmonisation", when the tasks conferred on such a body are closely related to the subject-matter of the acts approximating the national legislations.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je potrdilo3, da je člen 95 Pogodbe, ki se nanaša na sprejetje ukrepov za približevanje zakonodaje za vzpostavitev in delovanje notranjega trga, primerna pravna podlaga za ustanovitev „organa Skupnosti, katerega naloga je prispevati k uresničitvi postopka usklajevanja“, kadar so naloge, dodeljene takemu organu, tesno povezane s področji, ki so predmet predpisov o približevanju nacionalne zakonodaje.
The Court of Justice has acknowledged9 that Article 95 of the EC Treaty relating to the adoption of measures for the approximation of legislation for the establishment and functioning of the internal market provides an appropriate legal basis for setting up a "Community body responsible for contributing to the implementation of a process of harmonisation", when the tasks conferred on such a body are closely linked to the subject-matter of the acts approximating the national legislations.
Evropsko sodišče je priznalo9, da člen 95 Pogodbe ES, ki se nanaša na uvedbo ukrepov za uskladitev zakonodaje za vzpostavitev in delovanje notranjega trga, predstavlja primerno pravno podlago za ustanovitev „organa Skupnosti, ki bi bil pristojen za sodelovanje pri uresničevanju postopka usklajevanja“, kadar so naloge, ki so dodeljene takšnemu organu, tesno povezane s predmeti aktov, ki usklajujejo nacionalne zakonodaje.
The Court of Justice has also acknowledged that the Union has not only an economic but also a social purpose.
Sodišče je potrdilo tudi, da Unija nima le gospodarskega namena, temveč tudi socialni namen.
The Court of Justice has also emphasised that ‘the Treaty does not prohibit an undertaking from exercising the freedom to provide services if it does not offer services in the Member State in which it is established’21.
Sodišče je poudarilo tudi, da „Pogodba ne prepoveduje podjetju, da uveljavlja pravico do opravljanja storitev, če ne ponuja storitev v državi članici, v kateri ima sedež“21.
The Court of Justice has also held that health and life of humans rank foremost among the assets and interests protected by the Treaty and that it is for Member States to determine the level of protection which they wish to afford to public health and the way in which that level has to be achieved.
Sodišče je tudi menilo, da sta zdravje in življenje ljudi na prvem mestu med sredstvi in interesi, ki jih ščiti Pogodba, ter da morajo države članice določiti raven varovanja, ki jo želijo zagotoviti javnemu zdravju, ter način, na katerega je navedeno raven treba doseči.
The Court of Justice has also held that, where the conditions for recourse to Article 95 EC as a legal basis are fulfilled, the Community legislature cannot be prevented from relying on that legal basis on the ground that public health protection is a decisive factor in the choices to be made4.
Sodišče je poleg tega razsodilo, da če bi bili pogoji za uporabo člena 95 ES kot pravne podlage izpolnjeni, zakonodajalcu Skupnosti ni mogoče preprečiti, da bi se oprl na to pravno podlago, saj je varovanje javnega zdravja odločilen dejavnik pri odločitvah, ki jih je treba sprejeti4.
The Court of Justice has also recognised that the number of hospitals, their geographical distribution, the way in which they are organised and the facilities with which they are provided, and even the nature of the medical services which they are able to offer, are all matters for which planning must be possible.
Sodišče je prav tako potrdilo, da mora biti omogočeno načrtovanje za vprašanja, kot so število bolnišnic, njihova geografska razporeditev, način organizacije in prostori, ki jih imajo na razpolago, ter celo narava zdravstvenih storitev, ki jih lahko ponudijo.
The Court of Justice has clarified that the term ‘printed publications’ used in Article 3(1) of the Directive covers publications such as newspapers, periodicals and magazines.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da pojem “tiskane publikacije“ iz člena 3(1) Direktive zajema publikacije, kot so časopisi, periodični tisk in revije.
The Court of Justice has confirmed the application of these principles to inheritance tax in several recent cases.
Sodišče je v več nedavnih primerih potrdilo uporabo teh načel pri izvajanju davka na dediščino.
The Court of Justice has consistently held that a Member State retains the right to take measures in order to prevent service providers from abusively taking advantage of the internal market principles.
Na podlagi sodne prakse Sodišča država članica ohrani pravico do sprejetja ukrepov, s katerimi bi ponudnikom storitev preprečila zlorabo načel notranjega trga.
The Court of Justice has consistently held that derogations from fundamental freedoms must be interpreted strictly.
Sodišče je bilo dosledno mnenja, da je treba odstopanja od temeljnih svoboščin razlagati strogo.
The Court of Justice has consistently held that the distinction between the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services on a temporary basis needs to be made on a case by case basis, taking into account not only the duration but also the regularity, periodicity and continuity of the provision of services.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča EU je treba med svobodo ustanavljanja in svobodo začasnega opravljanja storitev razlikovati od primera do primera ter pri tem upoštevati tako trajanje kot tudi rednost, občasnost in nepretrganost opravljanja storitev.
The Court of Justice has consistently held that the freedom of establishment is predicated, in particular, upon the principle of equal treatment, which entails the prohibition not only of any discrimination on grounds of nationality but also of any indirect discrimination based on other grounds but capable of producing the same result.
Na podlagi sodne prakse Sodišča svoboda ustanavljanja temelji zlasti na načelu enake obravnave, ki ne prepoveduje le diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva, ampak tudi posredno diskriminacijo na drugih podlagah, ki imajo lahko enake posledice.
The Court of Justice has consistently held that the temporary nature of the activities in question must be determined in the light not only of the duration of the provision of the service, but also of its regularity, periodical nature or continuity.
Na podlagi sodne prakse Sodišča se za določanje začasnega značaja storitve ne upošteva le trajanje storitve, ampak tudi pogostost, rednost ponovitve ali neprekinjenost storitve.
The Court of Justice has consistently made it clear that any derogation from the rules intended to ensure the effectiveness of the rights conferred by the Treaty must be interpreted strictly.6 Moreover, it has confirmed that this is also the case for derogations applicable "in situations which may involve public safety".
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti vedno znova pojasnjuje, da je treba vsako odstopanje od pravil za zagotavljanje učinkovitosti pravic, priznanih s Pogodbo, razlagati omejevalno.6 Poleg tega je potrdilo, da to velja tudi za odstopanja, ki se uporabljajo „v primerih, ki lahko vključujejo javno varnost“.
The Court of Justice has consistently ruled in its case law that recourse to derogations from Community law, including those covered by Article 296 of the Treaty, should be restricted to exceptional and clearly defined cases.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je z ustaljeno sodno prakso jasno odločilo, da mora biti uporaba odstopanj od prava Skupnosti, vključno z odstopanjem iz člena 296 Pogodbe, omejena na izredne in jasno opredeljene primere.
The Court of Justice has established that SGEIs are services that exhibit special characteristics as compared with those of other economic activities75.
Sodišče je določilo, da je storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena storitev, ki ima v primerjavi z drugimi gospodarskimi dejavnostmi posebne značilnosti75.
The Court of Justice has established5 that, once the Union has legislated for the establishment of a common organisation of the market in a given sector of agriculture, Member States are under an obligation to refrain from taking any measure which might undermine or create exceptions to it.
Sodišče je odločilo5, da so, takoj ko Unija izda predpise za uvedbo skupne ureditve trga v določenem sektorju kmetijstva, države članice zavezane, da se vzdržijo sprejemanja vseh ukrepov, ki bi lahko to ureditev trga omajali ali uvedli izjeme.
The Court of Justice has expressed its opinion on the obligation to keep and store social security documents on posted workers in the host Member State.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je odločilo o obveznostih vodenja in hranjenja dokumentov o socialni varnosti zaposlenih v državi članici gostiteljici v zvezi z napotenimi delavci.
The Court of Justice has generally taken an innovative and proactive position on the interpretation and development of European policies.
Evropsko sodišče je na splošno zavzelo inovativno in proaktivno stališče o razlagi in razvoju evropskih politik.
The Court of Justice has had to interpret the directive's definition of working time on two occasions.
Evropsko sodišče je moralo dvakrat tolmačiti opredelitev delovnega časa iz direktive.
The Court of Justice has had to pass judgement on these provisions on several occasions, resulting in a large body of case law which has had a marked impact on the law in this area8.
Sodišče se je moralo o teh odločbah že večkrat izrekati v obsežni sodni praksi, ki je imela precejšen vpliv na pravo na tem področju8.
The Court of Justice has held that restrictions to the free provision of this service may be justified26.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je ugotovilo, da so omejitve prostega zagotavljanja te storitve upravičene26.
The Court of Justice has held that the Directive’s requirements concerning maximum working time, paid annual leave and minimum rest periods ‘constitute rules of Community social law of particular importance, from which every worker must benefit’4.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da so zahteve Direktive glede najdaljšega delovnega časa, plačanega letnega dopusta in minimalnega časa počitka „pravila socialnega prava Skupnosti posebnega pomena, ki jih mora uživati vsak delavec“4.
The Court of Justice has held that the Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services includes the freedom for the recipients of healthcare, including persons in need of medical treatment, to go to another Member Sate in order to receive it there.
Sodišče meni, da določbe Pogodbe o pravici opravljanja storitev vključuje pravico prejemnikov zdravstvenega varstva, vključno z osebami, ki potrebujejo zdravljenje, da navedeno oskrbo poiščejo v drugi državi članici.
The Court of Justice has identified specific elements that should be taken into account when evaluating the intangible benefits arising from USO.
Sodišče Evropske unije je določilo specifične prvine, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri ocenjevanju nematerialnih koristi, ki izhajajo iz obveznosti zagotavljanja univerzalne storitve.
The Court of Justice has made clear that data originally collected for “commercial purposes” may only be subsequently used for a different, public interest purpose according to the conditions set out in this Article.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je pojasnilo, da se lahko podatki, ki so bili prvotno zbrani za „tržne namene“, naknadno uporabljajo samo za namene različnega javnega interesa v skladu s pogoji iz tega člena.
The Court of Justice has made clear that processing for safeguarding public security and for law-enforcement purposes does not fall within the scope of the Directive9.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je pojasnilo, da obdelava za zaščito javne varnosti in za namene kazenskega pregona ne sodi v področje uporabe Direktive9.
The Court of Justice has recently held30 that in very particular situations where the provision of residential care over a limited period necessitates a relationship of trust and confidence with a specific individual, it may be objectively impossible to alternate periods of work and daily rest with the normal regularity.
Sodišče je nedavno odločilo30, da je lahko v zelo posebnih okoliščinah, ko je za zagotavljanje oskrbe v nastanitvenih ustanovah v omejenem obdobju v razmerju z določenim posameznikom potrebno zaupanje, objektivno nemogoče izmenjevati obdobja dela in dnevnega počitka po običajnem redu.
The Court of Justice has recognised (cases C-170/78 – Commission vs. United Kingdom, and C-166/98 - Socridis) that one alcoholic beverage may stand in for another.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v svojih sodbah C-170/78 (Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu) in C-166/98 (Socridis) razsodilo, da lahko eno fermentirano pijačo zamenja druga.
The Court of Justice has recognised that an IP address may be considered as personal data falling within the scope of the Data Protection directives25.
Evropsko sodišče je priznalo, da je mogoče naslov IP obravnavati kot osebni podatek, za katerega veljajo direktive o varovanju podatkov25.
The Court of Justice has recognised that the protection of animal welfare is a legitimate objective in the public interest3.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je varstvo dobrega počutja živali legitimni cilj v splošnem interesu3.
The Court of Justice has repeatedly stated that "Article 10 EC makes it clear that the Member States are required to cooperate in good faith with the enquiries of the Commission pursuant to Article 226 EC, and to provide the Commission with all the information requested for that purpose".17 This concerns all investigations carried out by the Commission as guardian of the Treaty, including possible verifications of the applicability of Article 296 TEC to defence contracts.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je večkrat navedlo, da „iz člena 10 ES izhaja, da morajo države članice v dobri veri sodelovati v vseh poizvedbah Komisije na podlagi člena 226 ES in ji predložiti vse v ta namen zahtevane informacije“.17 To velja za vse preiskave, ki jih je izvedla Komisija kot varuhinja Pogodbe, vključno z morebitnim preverjanjem uporabnosti člena 296 Pogodbe ES za naročila za obrambo.
The Court of Justice has ruled several times that the failure by an EU citizen to comply with administrative procedures concerning residence can only be sanctioned in a proportionate and non discriminatory way.
Sodišče je večkrat razsodilo, da se lahko državljana EU zaradi kršitev upravnih postopkov v zvezi s prebivališčem sankcionira le na sorazmeren in nediskriminatoren način.
The Court of Justice has ruled that it is contrary to EU law to tax transfers of pension capital from domestic pension funds to funds established elsewhere in the EEA if transfers of pension capital between domestic pension funds are tax free29.
Sodišče je odločilo, da je obdavčitev prenosov glavnic pokojninskega zavarovanja iz domačih pokojninskih skladov v sklade, vzpostavljene drugje v EGP, če so prenosi glavnic med domačimi pokojninskimi skladi oproščeni davka, v nasprotju s pravom EU29.
The Court of Justice has stated that Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of European citizens.18
Sodišče Evropske unije je potrdilo, da naj bi evropsko državljanstvo postalo temeljni statut evropskih državljanov18.
The Court of Justice has stated that Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of European citizens18.
Sodišče Evropske unije je potrdilo, da naj bi evropsko državljanstvo postalo temeljni statut evropskih državljanov18.
The Court of Justice is to analyse and resolve damages claims.
Sodišče preuči in obravnava tožbe, ki se nanašajo na omenjeno škodo.
The Court of Justice is to have jurisdiction regarding damage to citizens caused by a European delegated prosecutor, the European Public Prosecutor, or his/her deputies.
Sodišče je pristojno za škodo, ki jo državljanom povzročijo evropski delegirani tožilci, evropski javni tožilec ali njegovi namestniki.
The Court of Justice issued a number of landmark rulings that include a reference to the Charter.
Sodišče EU je izdalo številne temeljne sodbe, ki se sklicujejo na Listino.
The Court of Justice itself has taken this same view.
Enakega mnenja je tudi Sodišče EU.
The Court of Justice itself has taken this same view19.
Enakega mnenja je tudi Sodišče EU19.
The Court of Justice may annul, reduce or increase the fine or periodic penalty payment imposed.
Sodišče lahko naloženo denarno kazen ali periodično denarno kazen razveljavi, zniža ali zviša.
The Court of Justice may nevertheless take into account the common intention of the parties expressed in the declarations when it is called on to interpret primary law.
Sodišče  lahko kljub temu pri razlagi primarne zakonodaje upošteva skupni namen, ki so ga različne strani izrazile v izjavah.