natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Vse od sodb v primerih Geus proti Bosch (primer 13/61) in Van Gend & Loos (primer 26/62) so priznava, da določbe pogodbe nalagajo obveznosti državljanom in jim ravno tako dajejo pravice, na katere se lahko v pravu sklicujejo.
The judgments in Geus v Bosch (case 13/61) and Van Gend & Loos (case 26/62) recognised that the provisions of the Treaty impose obligations on the public and also create rights in their favour on which they can rely in law.
Vodilno vlogo pri odpravljanju protikonkurenčnega obnašanja igrajo javni postopki.
The leading role in the tackling of anti-competitive behaviour has come to be filled by public proceedings.
Začetna centralizacija uporabe člena 81(3) s strani Komisije, prek sistema obveščanja in dovoljevanja, ki se je izkazala za odločilno pri uvajanju politike konkurence Skupnosti, je postavila poudarek na javno pobudo.
Initial centralisation of the application of Article 81(3) by the Commission through a system of notification and authorisation, which proved decisive for the introduction of Community competition policy, placed the emphasis on public initiative.
Razširitev vloge Komisije, s sprejetjem skupinskih izjem za nekatere vrste sporazumov od '80-ih let naprej, je pospešila sistem, vendar ni spremenila svojih administrativnih tendenc.
The extension of the Commission's role, with the adoption, from the 1980s onwards, of block exemption rules for some classes of agreement, may have speeded up the system but did not change its administrative leanings.
Pomanjkljivosti preprečujejo uspeh: zahteva po večji in boljši konkurenčnosti je bila neskladna z gospodarsko neuspešnostjo in pravosodno neustreznostjo sistema.
Its weakness stemmed from success: the demand for more and better competition was incompatible with the economic inefficiency and judicial inadequacy of the system.
In zaradi tega je izginila z Uredbo 1/2003, ki je razbila monopol Komisije in določila bolj zapleten in odprt sistem, ki ga uradi za konkurenco in nacionalni pravosodni organi uporabljajo na decentraliziran način.
It was therefore done away with under Regulation 1/2003, which broke the Commission's monopoly and established a more complex and open system, applicable in a decentralised manner by the competition authorities and by the national judicial authorities.
Mejnik v procesu modernizacije je bila sodba Sodišča Evropskih Skupnosti v primeru Courage proti Crehan z dne 20. septembra 2001, ki je, povezujoč osnovno sodno prakso, izrecno priznala, da se je v pravu mogoče sklicevati na člen 81in je tudi določila, da je njegova popolna učinkovitost omejena, če žrtev protikonkurenčnega obnašanja ni mogla zahtevati odškodnine za izgube.
A milestone in the modernisation process came with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the case Courage v Crehan of 20 September 2001 which, in tying in with basic jurisprudence, expressly recognised that Article 81 could be relied on in law and, moreover, indicated that its full effectiveness would be restricted if the victim of anti-competitive behaviour were not able to claim damages for losses.
Sodba v primeru Manfredi z dne 13. julija 2006 opominja, da "odškodninske tožbe pred nacionalnimi sodišči lahko znatno prispevajo k ohranjanju učinkovite konkurence v Skupnosti".
The judgment in the Manfredi case of 13 July 2006 also pointed out that 'actions for damages before the national courts can make a significant contribution to the maintenance of effective competition in the Community' .
Dodatna narava javnih in zasebnih tožb
Complementary nature of public and private legal actions
Javne in zasebne tožbe oblikujejo dva stebra pri uporabi pravil Skupnosti o konkurenci.
Public actions and private actions form two pillars in the application of Community competition rules.
Politika konkurence mora zaščititi pravni red trga kot socialne institucije, in interese tržnih subjektov, tako podjetij kot potrošnikov.
Competition policy must safeguard market discipline, as a social principle, and the interests of the players on that market, be they undertakings or consumers.
V naprednem sistemu mora biti javna tožba proti nekaznovanju podjetij kršiteljic, podprta z zasebno tožbo proti njihovi imuniteti in nekaznovanosti v odnosu do posameznikov.
In an advanced system, public action against the impunity of infringer undertakings should be backed with private action against their immunity and indemnity vis-à-vis private individuals.
Nalaganje kazni s strani javnih organov je omejen odgovor in bi bilo nesprejemljivo, da bi se ukvarjali z zasebnimi zahtevki, saj bi jih to preobremenilo, kar bi povzročilo neučinkovitost in bi bilo v nasprotju z evropsko pravno kulturo.
The imposition of fines by the public authorities is a limited response and it would be unacceptable for them also to address private claims as this would overburden them, resulting in inefficiency, and would be alien to European legal culture.
V evropskem modelu zasebne tožbe dopolnjujejo javne tožbe in jih ne nadomeščajo.
In the European model, private legal actions are a complement to public actions, rather than a substitute for them.
Odpiranje evropskega sistema zasebnih tožb ne predpostavlja zamenjave modela, ampak razvoj v odnosu do osnovne oblike.
The opening-up of the European system to private actions, rather than a change in that model, is an evolution from its original form.
Doslednost sistema je treba zagotoviti v skladu s pravico do vodenja podjetji in s subjektivnimi pravicami posameznikov.
The consistency of the system must be ensured in accordance with the right to conduct a business and the subjective rights of private individuals.
Oblikovanje obeh stebrov zahteva usklajevanje dejavnosti, lajšanje spremljanja odločb v zasebnih tožbah o kršitvi, ki jih sprejmejo uradi za konkurenco, ter priznanje zavezujoče narave predhodnih odločb, ki so jih sprejeli pristojni organi.
Articulation of the two pillars calls for the coordination of activities under them, facilitation of the following-up with private actions of infringement decisions adopted by the competition authorities, and recognition of the binding nature of prior final rulings adopted by the competent authorities.
Decentralizacija javnih tožb in razvoj zasebnih tožb bo omogočil bolj strateško in selektivno usmeritev, javnih tožb, in jo osredotočiti na glavna vprašanja in prednostne zadeve.
The decentralisation of public legal action and the development of private actions will enable a more strategic and selective focus to be adopted for public actions, centring these on major questions and priority issues.
Spodbujanje konkurence ne pa pravnih sporov
Promoting competition rather than litigation
Zasebne tožbe so instrument politike konkurence in niso same sebi namen.
Private legal actions are an instrument of competition policy and not an end in themselves.
Priznavanje njihove vloge ne vodi k njihovemu izvajanju, in je lahko močna spodbuda, da se jim izognemo.
Recognising their role does not necessarily entail implementation can act as a powerful incentive to avoiding them.
V vsakem primeru je vlaganje zasebnih tožb dejansko sredstvo za reševanje gospodarskih neravnovesij, ki izhajajo iz kršitev.
In any event, the bringing of private actions is in reality a means of remedying the economic imbalances arising from infringement.
Primerna ureditev zasebnih tožb bo tudi zmanjšala število pravnih sporov, s tem, da se umaknejo negotovosti, ki jih spodbujajo.
Appropriate regulation of private actions will also reduce the number of lawsuits by removing the uncertainties which help to encourage them.
Navsezadnje bi omogočila pravosodnim organom, da izvajajo pravila Skupnosti bolj učinkovito, kadar je sodni spor neizbežen.
In the final analysis, it will enable the judicial authorities to implement Community rules more effectively when litigation is inevitable.
Sodnih sporov se ne sme umetno spodbujati, niti s pravili, ki škodijo poštenemu in pravičnemu postopku, z enakimi pogoji za obe strani.
Litigation should not be encouraged artificially or with rules detrimental to fair and equitable process, with equality of arms for both parties.
Cilj ni aktivizem, ampak razumna uporaba pravnega postopka.
The aim is not activism but the rational use of legal action.
Pri odškodninskih tožbah se spodbujajo medsebojni dogovori in izvensodne poravnave sporov.
Self-settlement, out-of-court settlements and plea agreements should be promoted in actions for damages.
Treba je omogočiti, da se njihovo reševanje utemelji in upošteva pri določanju vrste globe.
It should be possible for their remedying to be justified and taken into account when it comes to deciding on what fine to set.
Razlike s severnoameriškim modelom
Differences with the North American model
Medtem ko se zakonodaja na področju konkurence v Združenih državah uporablja v 90 % primerov prek zasebne tožbe, se to v Evropski uniji le redko dogaja.
While competition legislation in the United States is implemented in 90% of cases via private damages actions, these are very rarely brought in the European Union.
Prakse so različne, vendar pa je primerjava kakovostnih vidikov še vedno bolj pomembna.
Practices differ, but a comparison of the qualitative aspects is still more relevant.
Zasebne tožbe lahko odražajo zelo različne pristope in modele, in bilo bi napačno, če bi identificirali zasebno tožbo s severnoameriškim modelom.
Private actions can reflect very different approaches and models, and it would be a gross mistake to identify private actions with the North American model.
V Združenih državah pravosodni organi, ki razsojajo o zasebnih zahtevkih, nalagajo kaznovalna plačila za škodo, ki so trikrat višja od povzročene škode.
In the United States, the judicial authorities that rule on private claims impose punitive damage payments of three times the damage occasioned.
V Evropski uniji imajo uradi za konkurenco monopol pri nalaganju glob, in evropski model zasebne tožbe je prej dodatek kot alternativa za javno tožbo.
In the European Union, the competition authorities have the monopoly on imposing fines, and the European model of private actions is a complement rather than an alternative to public legal action.
Severnoameriški model temelji na sklopu elementov (pravosodni organi, ki jih ne sestavljajo strokovnjaki, skupinske tožbe, stroge zahteve za razkritje dokumentov, kaznovalna plačila za škodo, ki so trikrat višja od povzročene škode, sodni spori brez tveganja, saj so za določanje honorarji za odvetnika odvisni od izida, in plačilo stroškov sodnega spora vsake stranke itd.).
The North American model is based on a set of elements (judicial bodies consisting of non-professionals, 'class actions', strict requirements on the disclosure of documents, punitive damage payments of three times the damage occasioned, risk-free litigation owing to the lawyer's fees being pegged to the outcome and payment by each party of the costs of litigation, etc.).
V evropski sodni praksi takšna formula ne obstaja.
No formula of this type exists in European legal practice.
Evropskega modela se ne da primerjati s severnoameriškim samo na podlagi teh nekaj elementov.
The European model cannot be compared to the North American one simply on the basis of some of these elements.
To poročilo predlaga popolnoma drugačen pristop, ki bo v skladu s pridobljenimi izkušnjami Skupnosti in držav članic.
This report proposes a clearly differential approach, in line with the experience acquired by the Community and the Member States.
Potreba po skupnem pristopu v Evropski uniji
Need for a common focus in the European Union
Člena 81 in 82 pogodbe je treba uporabljati enotno, ne glede na administrativni ali pravni značaj organa, ki odloča.
Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty should be implemented uniformly regardless of the administrative or judicial nature of the authority giving the ruling.
Odločbe morajo biti dosledne in odražati skupna načela varnosti in učinkovitosti, ki se izogibajo izkrivljanjem in pomanjkanju kohezije znotraj Unije.
Decisions should be consistent and reflect common principles of security and effectiveness that avoid distortions and a lack of cohesion within the Union.
Zelena knjiga Komisije zastavlja nekaj zanimivih vprašanj glede bodočega ravnanja.
The Commission's Green Paper raises several interesting points on the way these should be addressed in the future.
Zasebne tožbe so lahko dodatne (po sprejetju odločb s strani uradov za konkurenco, ki določijo, da je bila storjena kršitev), lahko pa so samostojne (kjer ni bila določena kršitev in pravosodni organ mora podati odločbo kot predpogoj za odškodninsko odgovornost).
Private actions can be follow-up actions (after adoption of a decision by the competition authorities establishing that a breach has been committed) or autonomous ones (where no breach has been established and the judicial authority must deliver a ruling as a precondition for liability for damages).
Zaradi skladnosti sistema je treba doseči enake odločitve glede tega, ali je šlo za kršitev ali ne, s pomočjo skupnih pravil in enakovrednih moči, da se omogoči:
In the interests of the consistency of the system, undifferentiated decisions on whether a breach has been committed must be reached through common rules and equivalent powers to enable:
- sprejetje začasnih ukrepov, ukrepov za poizvedbe in vnaprejšnjih ukrepov;
- adoption of provisional measures, measures of enquiry and anticipatory measures;
- določitev dejstev in določitev ter oceno dokaznega bremena;
- establishment of the facts and establishment and assessment of the burden of proof;
- zaščito zaupnih podatkov in učinkovitost programov prizanesljivosti;
- protection of confidential information and the effectiveness of leniency programmes;
- okrepljeno sodelovanje med organi, da bi sistem postal bolj zanesljiv in učinkovit.
- reinforced cooperation between authorities, making for a more reliable and effective system.
Da bi pravosodni organi lahko izrekali sodbe glede odškodninskih zahtevkov na enoten način, so potrebni bolj specifični temelji.
There is also a need for more specific bases, in order for the judicial authorities to rule on claims for compensation in a uniform manner.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je obvestilo, da ima njegova sodna praksa dopolnilno naravo ( "zaradi neobstoja pravil Skupnosti, ki urejajo te zadeve") pri določanju tega, da morajo o odškodninskih tožbah razsojati nacionalni organi v skladu z načeli učinkovitosti in enakovrednosti.
The Court of Justice of the Communities has pointed to the supplementary nature of its case law (' in the absence of Community rules governing the matter '), in establishing that actions for damages before the national authorities should be settled in accordance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.
Notranje načelo enakovrednosti koristi pri reševanju domačih in težavnih tožb, in tudi pri zaslišanju strani, skupaj z nasprotujočim načelom učinkovitosti, ko nastopi pred njim - mogoče bi se bilo razumno izogniti petindvajsetim in več različnim scenarijem?
The internal principle of equivalence is valid in the resolution of domestic and problematic actions, and also in hearings between parties, with that of effectiveness, when it takes precedence, but would it not be reasonable to avoid 25 or more different scenarios?
Povečanje števila sodnih sporov in sodna kompleksnost negativno vplivata na tožnike in na učinkovitost sistema.
An increase in litigiousness and judicial complexity is detrimental to claimants and to the effectiveness of the system.
To področje potrebuje regulativni okvir Skupnosti, ki bi nudil večjo varnost in učinkovitost.
The area requires a Community regulatory framework which affords greater security and efficacy.
Naloga pravosodnih organov na področju konkurenčnega prava Skupnosti ni oblikovanje zakonodaje ampak iskanje učinkovitosti prek reševanja konkretnih primerov s pomočjo razprav 'inter partes'.
The task of the judicial authorities in the field of Community competition law is not to write the law but to render it effective by settling concrete cases through ' inter partes ' debates.
Urejevalec mora izbrati alternative pri temeljnih vprašanjih in določiti določbe s pomočjo javne in odprte razprave v Evropski uniji, ki doprinese več legitimnosti in upošteva splošni interes.
It is up to the regulator to select alternatives in fundamental issues and to lay down provisions, via public and open debate in the European Union, thereby bestowing greater legitimacy and taking to account the general interest.
Posebna vloga Evropske komisije
The special role of the European Commission
Vlaganje zasebnih tožb ne spreminja pristojnosti ali odgovornosti, ki jih pogodba dodeljuje Komisiji.
The bringing of private actions does not alter the powers or responsibilities conferred on the Commission under the Treaty.
Njene naloge, ki zagotavljajo uporabo načel iz členov 81 in 82 pogodbe, imajo velik pomen.
Its functions as regards ensuring the application of the principles set out in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty are of major importance.
Prehod iz zakrnelih zasebnih tožb na uravnotežen sistem, z dvema dodatnima stebroma, zahteva politično voljo in intelektualno vodstvo.
Moving from stunted private actions to a balanced system, with two complementary pillars, calls for political will and intellectual leadership.
Komisija se mora soočiti s tem izzivom z referenčnim delom o uporabi konkurenčnega prava, in sprejeti ukrepe za zagotavljanje njegovega uspeha.
The Commission must address this challenge in the form of a reference work on the application of competition law, and adopt measures to ensure its success.
Njene osnovne naloge so posodobitev zakonodaje, oblikovanje smernic, ki bi omogočile njihov razvoj, objava dokumentov splošne politike, s katerimi bi se povečalo njihovo razumevanje ter spodbujanje sodelovanja med pristojnimi organi.
As basic tasks it must update the regulations, set out guidelines that enable their development, publish general policy documents to increase understanding of them and spur cooperation between the competent authorities.
Krepitev vloge Evropskega parlamenta pri politiki konkurence
Strengthening of the European Parliament's role in competition policy
Kot institucija, ki predstavlja državljane, mora Parlament politiki konkurence doprinesti potrebno demokratično legitimnost.
As a representative institution, Parliament must lend competition policy the democratic legitimacy it needs.
Parlament mora igrati bolj vodilno in bolj aktivno vlogo, če želi kulturo konkurence razširiti skozi vso družbo.
Parliament must play a more leading and more active role if a culture of competition is to be extended throughout society.
Konkurenca Skupnosti ni nič več porajajoča se administrativna disciplina, ampak ustaljena politika, ki je zelo pomembna za podjetja in državljane, ter bistvena za evropsko integracijo.
Competition in the Community is no longer a budding administrative discipline but a consolidated policy of enormous significance for undertakings and the public, and one fundamental to European integration.
Njena popolna demokratičnost zahteva okrepitev vloge Parlamenta, z večanjem njegovih pristojnosti za priporočila in nadzor, ter s priznanjem njegove vloge sozakonodajalca.
If it is to be made fully democratic, Parliament's role must be strengthened, its powers of recommendation and monitoring increased and its co‑legislative status recognised.
o zeleni knjigi Odškodninske tožbe zaradi kršitve protimonopolnih pravil ES
on the Green Paper: Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules
Odbor za pravne zadeve poziva Odbor za ekonomske in monetarne zadeve kot pristojni odbor, da v svoj predlog resolucije vključi naslednje pobude:
The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
A. ker imajo potrošniki in podjetja, prizadeta zaradi škode, ki je posledica kršitve protimonopolnih pravil, pravico do odškodnine,
A. whereas consumers and businesses who have suffered damage as a result of breach of antitrust rules have a right to compensation,
B. ker se konkurenčno pravo v državah članicah EU uveljavlja zlasti prek javnega prava in ker so na ravni držav članic prisotne občutne razlike in ovire, ki morebitne tožnike lahko odvrnejo od tega, da bi zahtevali odškodnino,
B. whereas in the Member States, competition law is chiefly enforced through public-law channels and considerable differences and obstacles exist at Member State level which may prevent potential claimants from pursuing actions for compensation,
C. ker člen 85 Pogodbe o ES zahteva, da Komisija zagotovi uveljavitev načel v zvezi s konkurenčnim pravom, določenih v členih 81 in 82 pogodbe; ker pogodba zagotavlja druge pravne podlage, ki lahko prispevajo k učinkovitosti teh načel, na primer člen 65, ki omogoča Evropski uniji, da odpravi ovire za dobro delovanje postopkov v civilnih zadevah s čezmejnimi posledicami; ker Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti meni, da mora domači pravni sistem držav članic zaradi pomanjkanja pravil Skupnosti, ki urejajo pravico žrtev do odškodninskega zahtevka pred nacionalnimi sodišči, imenovati pristojna sodišča in določiti natančna postopkovna pravila za varstvo pravic, ki za posameznike izhajajo neposredno iz prava Skupnosti, če takšna pravila niso manj ugodna kot tista, ki urejajo podobne nacionalne postopke (načelo enakovrednosti) in če ne dejansko onemogočajo ali prekomerno otežkočajo izvajanja pravic, ki izhajajo iz prava Skupnosti (načelo učinkovitosti),
C. whereas Article 85 of the EC Treaty requires the Commission to ensure application of the principles laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty concerning competition law; whereas the Treaty provides for other legal bases that can contribute to the effectiveness of those principles, such as Article 65, which enables the European Union to eliminate obstacles to the good functioning of proceedings in civil matters having cross-border implications; and whereas as the Court of Justice considers that, in the absence of Community rules governing the right of victims to claim damages before the national courts, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive directly from Community law, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence), and provided that they do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness),
D. ker razvoj civilnega pravosodja EU, zlasti dostop do pravnega varstva, ni šel v korak z nedavnim razvojem konkurenčnega prava EU na notranjem trgu,
D. whereas developments in EU civil justice, in particular access to justice, have not kept pace with recent developments in EU competition law in the internal market,
E. ker mora v skladu s Pogodbo o ES vsak predlog Komisije na področjih, ki niso v njeni izključni pristojnosti, spoštovati načelo subsidiarnosti in izpolnjevati merilo sorazmernosti,
E. whereas any proposal by the Commission in areas for which the Commission does not have exclusive competence must – pursuant to the EC Treaty – comply with the subsidiarity principle and meet proportionality criteria,
F. ker je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi C-453/99 Courage proti Créhan
F. whereas in Case C-453/99 Courage v Crehan
Sodba z dne 20. septembra 2001, [2002] ECR I-6297. razsodilo, da posamezniki in podjetja, z namenom zagotoviti popolno učinkovitost člena 81 Pogodbe o ES, lahko zahtevajo nadomestilo za škodo, ki je nastala zaradi sporazuma ali vedenja, ki omejuje ali izkrivlja konkurenco,
[2002] ECR I-6297. the Court of Justice ruled that, in order to ensure that Article 81 of the EC Treaty is fully effective, individuals and companies may claim compensation for damage caused to them by a contract or by conduct which restricts or distorts the play of competition,