natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I. ne glede na to, kako je rešen spor, je bistveno, da so vzpostavljeni postopki in nadzorni ukrepi za zagotovitev, da sta obe strani pošteno obravnavani, hkrati pa je treba preprečiti zlorabe sistema, kakršne so se pojavile v drugih pravnih sistemih, zlasti v Združenih državah;
I. whereas no matter how a dispute is resolved, it is essential that procedures and safeguards are put in place to ensure that all parties receive fair treatment and that, at the same time, there is no abuse of that system, such as has occurred in other legal systems and, in particular, in the United States;
J. ker mora v povezavi s kakršnim koli predlogom, ki ne spada pod izključna pooblastila Skupnosti, Komisija spoštovati načela subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti;
J. whereas with regard to any proposal that does not fall within the exclusive powers of the Community, the Commission must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality,
12. opaža, da obstaja potreba po prima facie ocenjevanju izpolnjevanja pogojev za skupinsko tožbo v začetni fazi, in poudarja da tožniki v skupinskih pravnih tožbah ne smejo biti v boljšem ali slabšem položaju kot tožniki individualnih tožb; v okviru mehanizmov kolektivnih pravnih sredstev poziva k uporabi načela, po katerem mora tožeča stranka dokazati svoje očitke, razen če veljavno nacionalno pravo predvideva olajšanje dokaznega bremena ali lažji dostop do informacij in dokazov, ki so v lasti toženca;
Observes that some prima facie assessment of the merits of a collective action should form a preliminary stage and stresses that claimants in collective redress actions must not be in a better or worse position than individual claimants; calls for the application in the context of collective redress mechanisms of the principle that the party bringing the claim must provide evidence for their claim, provided the applicable national law does not provide for any lightening of the burden of proof or ease access to information and evidence held by the defendant;
15. poudarja, da mora biti namerno ravnanje vedno predpogoj za odškodninski zahtevek in da mora biti kršitev konkurenčnega prava ES storjena vsaj iz malomarnosti, razen če v nacionalnem pravu obstaja predpostavka ali ovrgljiva predpostavka krivde v primeru kršitve konkurenčnega prava ES, s katero se zagotovi dosledno in skladno izvrševanje konkurenčnega prava;
Stresses that an intended act must always be a prerequisite for a claim for compensation for damages, and that the EC competition law infringement must, at the least, be negligent unless there is a presumption or rebuttable presumption of fault in national law in the case of a breach of EC competition law, ensuring a consistent and coherent enforcement of competition law;
18. ugotavlja, da je oblikovanje skupnega pristopa Skupnosti za prenos koristno, ter se strinja z dopustnostjo obrambe prenosa in poudarja, da mora dokaze za to obrambo vedno priskrbeti toženec, pri čemer lahko sodišča sežejo po preizkušenih nacionalnih predpisih glede povezave med vzročnostjo in odgovornostjo, da v posameznem primeru dosežejo pravico; predlaga, naj se pripravijo smernice, ki določajo, v kolikšni meri se lahko posredni kupec in zlasti zadnji posredni kupec zanese na ovrgljivo predpostavko, da so se nezakoniti povečani stroški v celoti prenesli na njegovo raven;
Notes that developing a common Community approach to passing on has merit and approves the admissibility of the defence of passing on as a defence, that evidence for that defence must always be provided by the defendant, and that the courts have the option of recourse to established national rules on the link between causality and liability in order to reach just decisions in individual cases; suggests that guidelines be proposed concerning the extent to which the indirect purchaser and in particular the last indirect purchaser may rely on the rebuttable presumption that the illegal overcharge was passed down in its entirety to its level;
22. poziva Komisijo, naj se izogne opustitvi sodnih postopkov o kartelih in konkurenci ter vse tiste, ki so pomembni, ustrezno zaključi in sprejme jasne odločitve, da ne bi ovirala, ampak spodbujala pravico žrtev do sprožitve odškodninskih tožb;
Calls on the Commission, in order not to undermine but to facilitate the right of victims to bring actions for damages, as a priority, to avoid abandoning cartel and competition proceedings and to bring all those that are significant to a proper conclusion with a clear decision;
Poročevalec pozdravlja, da se je Komisija v svoji beli knjigi ogradila od številnih predlogov, navedenih v zeleni knjigi iz leta 2005, ki bi v Evropi povzročili „amerikanizacijo“ zasebnega vlaganja pravnih sredstev.
The rapporteur welcomes the fact that the Commission, in its White Paper, has distanced itself from a large number of the proposals contained in its Green Paper of 2005 which would have led to an ‘Americanisation’ of private law enforcement in Europe.
Poročevalec je pri oblikovanju poročila izhajal iz ene premise: vsak oškodovanec mora imeti pravico, da dobi povrnjeno utrpelo škodo, pri čemer pa se udeležencev skupinske tožbe ne sme obravnavati bolje kot posameznih tožnikov.
In drafting this report, the rapporteur has based himself on one premise: anyone who has suffered damage must have the right to receive compensation for the damage suffered; it must also be a principle, however, that those bringing collective actions must not be in a better position than individual claimants.
Poročevalec dvomi, da so mehanizmi za uveljavljanje prava na civilnopravni ravni v državah članicah premalo razviti, saj so po vzoru sodne prakse Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti številne države članice okrepile zasebno izvrševanje.
The rapporteur doubts that private-law law enforcement mechanisms are underdeveloped in the Member States, since many Member States have strengthened private enforcement further to the relevant Court of Justice case-law.
Poleg tega poročevalec dvomi v to, da je Komisija pristojna za svoje predloge.
The rapporteur also has doubts as to the Commission’s competence for its proposals.
Ukrepi Komisije na področju nacionalnega odškodninskega in procesnega prava zagotovo ne morejo temeljiti na členu 83 Pogodbe.
The Commission can certainly not base its measures in the area of national damages and procedural law on Treaty Article 83.
Ali in v kolikšni meri se je mogoče opreti na člen 95 ali člen 65 Pogodbe, je treba natančno preveriti.
Whether, and to what extent, Articles 95 or 65 of the Treaty can be taken as the legal base are questions that still need to be examined in detail.
Vprašanje pristojnosti se poraja tudi za horizontalni instrument.
The question of competence also arises in the case of a horizontal instrument.
Poročevalec predlaga, da se najprej počaka na sporočilo GD za varstvo potrošnikov na temo skupnih mehanizmov za izvajanje prava in šele nato vstopi v razpravo o horizontalnem instrumentu za instrumente za kolektivno izvrševanje prava.
The rapporteur suggests waiting for the communication from DG ‘Health and Consumers’ on the subject of collective enforcement mechanisms before entering into a discussion on a horizontal instrument for collective enforcement instruments.
Sporočilo bo temeljilo na dveh študijah, ki bosta pojasnili obstoječe mehanizme za kolektivno izvrševanje prava v državah članicah in razkrili morebitne ovire na notranjem trgu, ki izvirajo iz razlik v nacionalnih zakonodajah.
The communication will be based on two studies which should provide information on existing collective enforcement mechanisms in the Member States and possible obstacles in the single market resulting from differing national legislation.
Do težav na področju konkurenčnega prava, ki jih opisuje Komisija, prihaja tudi na drugih področjih, zato vpeljava sektorsko omejenih predpisov ne bi bila smiselna.
The problems described by the Commission with reference to competition law also arise in other areas, so that it seems advisable not to introduce sectoral arrangements.
Previdno je treba pretehtati, ali in v kolikšni meri bi bilo za povečanje možnosti za izvrševanje prava v Evropi smiselno ubrati horizontalni pristop.
Instead, careful consideration should be given to whether, and to what extent, a horizontal approach must be chosen to improve law enforcement possibilities in Europe.
Cilj vseh ukrepov na evropski ravni mora biti preprečevanje razdrobljenosti procesnega prava.
The aim of all measures at European level must be to avoid fragmentation of procedural law.
Poročevalec je iz sodne prakse Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti razbral, da morajo imeti pravico do vložitve tožbe tudi posredni kupci.
The rapporteur infers from Court of Justice case-law that indirect purchasers must also be entitled to bring actions.
Za uveljavljanje pravic so na voljo reprezentativne tožbe in/ali skupinske tožbe v obliki posamične (stand-alone) ali nadaljnje tožbe (follow-on).
For the prosecution of claims, representative actions and/or collective actions are available in the form of an isolated (stand-alone) claim or a follow-up claim.
Tožbo v imenu vseh je mogoče zaupati kvalificiranim subjektom.
Qualified entities may be entrusted with representative actions.
Poročevalec meni, da je treba kvalificirani subjekt določiti na podlagi člena 3 Direktive 98/27/ES o opustitvenih tožbah.
The rapporteur takes the view that a qualified entity should be defined in the light of Article 3 of Directive 98/27/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests.
Tako se izključi možnost vlaganja pravnih sredstev z namenom zlorabe.
This is necessary in order to exclude the possibility of improper prosecutions.
Ad-hoc pooblastila pridejo v poštev predvsem za združenja, ki na sodišču uveljavljajo odškodninske zahtevke podjetij, ki so utrpela škodo zaradi kršitve konkurenčnega prava.
Authorisations to pursue such actions should primarily be considered for associations which arrange for actions in law for damages for companies which have been victims of violations of competition law.
Kršitve konkurenčnega prava ES zlasti malim in srednje velikim podjetjem povzročijo enako škodo kot potrošnikom.
Small and medium-sized businesses in particular are just as much affected by violations of EC competition law as consumers.
Poročevalec zahteva, da se udeležbo pri reprezentativni tožbi dovoli le natančno identificiranemu krogu posameznikov, pri čemer zgolj možnost identifikacije ne zadošča.
However, the rapporteur calls for only a clearly identified group of people to be able to take part in a representative action; identifiability is not enough.
Pojasniti je treba tudi, da mora biti ob vložitvi tožbe identifikacija opravljena.
It must also be made clear that identification must be complete when the claim is brought.
Bela knjiga namiguje, da bi tožba v imenu vseh vključevala možnost izstopa, to pa bi bilo iz ustavnopravnih razlogov v številnih državah članicah nedopustno.
The White Paper suggests that representative action should take the form of an opt-out model, which would be impossible in many Member States for constitutional reasons.
Z ozirom na višino odškodnine, ki se uveljavlja, in njene razdelitve je identifikacija neobhodno potrebna.
Identification is inadmissible in view of the level of damages to be asserted and the apportionment thereof.
Nadomestiti je treba samo dejansko nastalo izgubo.
The damage actually suffered must be compensated for.
Doktrina cy-pres (čim bližja razdelitev), izpeljana iz občega prava, ni v skladu s tem načelom, saj se ne povrne dejansko utrpela škoda.
The doctrine of cy-pres derived from common law (apportionment that is as accurate as possible) contradicts this principle, since the damages actually incurred are not paid out.
Deli iztožene odškodnine prav tako ne smejo ostati v rokah združenja, saj bi lahko to spodbujalo združenje k morebitni vložitvi neupravičenih tožb in nasprotovalo načelu povrnitve škode.
Neither must portions of the damages sued for be left in the hands of the representative association, since this would raise the incentive for the association to lodge possibly unfounded claims and since it runs counter to the concept of compensation.
Stroški, nastali pri vložitvi pravnih sredstev, se lahko povrnejo.
Costs incurred in bringing the claim can be reimbursed.
Poročevalec zagovarja tudi možnost skupinskih tožb po načelu prostovoljnega sodelovanja.
The rapporteur is also in favour of the admissibility of an opt-in collective action.
Komisija mora določiti še točna merila, kot na primer, da mora biti prostovoljno sodelovanje potrjeno do vložitve tožbe.
The Commission still has to lay down exact criteria, for example that the opt-in must take place before the time when the claim is brought.
Poleg tega mora izbira določenega načina tožbe onemogočiti dostop do preostalih načinov, s čimer se izključi možnost, da bi tožena stran uveljavila več različnih načinov.
In addition, opting for one claim instrument must exclude the remaining ones, so that multiple claims cannot be brought against the defendant.
Komisija se želi s predlogom oddaljiti od načela, navedenega tudi v drugem členu Uredbe 1/2003, po katerem mora tožeča stran dokazati svoje očitke.
With its proposal, the Commission would like to move away from the principle, also set out in Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003, whereby the party alleging an infringement must prove the infringement.
Toženca ni mogoče obvezati k temu, da mora predložiti dokazno gradivo za tožnika.
However, a defendant cannot be required to provide evidence for the plaintiff.
Seveda ni mogoče zanikati nesorazmernosti informacij tožečega in tožnika, še več, v razmerjih procesnega prava je to že kar tipično.
While it cannot be denied that there is an information asymmetry between plaintiff and defendant, this is nevertheless entirely typical in procedural law relationships.
Zlasti ko gre za vprašanje dostopa do dokaznega gradiva, šteje predvsem to, da udeležencev skupinske tožbe ni dovoljeno obravnavati bolje kot posameznih tožnikov.
Precisely in the question of access to evidence it is of decisive importance that collective claimants should not be in a better position than individual claimants.
Namesto vpeljave obveznosti razkritja na evropski ravni je bolje, če ostane pri tem, da države članice upravljajo dostop do dokaznega gradiva v skladu z določbami nacionalnega prava.
Instead of introducing unfamiliar disclosure requirements at European level, the Member States should continue to regulate access to evidence in accordance with the principles of national law.
Ob takšnem pristopu prav tako ni bojazni, da bi prišlo do izbiranja najugodnejšega pravnega reda („forum shopping“), saj daljnosežne obveznosti razkritja zvišujejo pravdne stroške in odvračajo tožnike od tožb.
This approach also avoids the danger of forum shopping, since extensive disclosure requirements raise the cost of litigation enormously and act as a deterrent to bringing claims.
Pri nadaljnjih tožbah morajo oškodovanci dobiti možnost vpogleda v dokumentacijo Komisije, če s tem ne pride do brezpogojnega ogrožanja interesov.
In the case of subsequent cases, victims must also be allowed access to Commission documents, unless interests pressingly in need of protection are endangered in the process.
Poročevalec meni, da ti predpisi izvirajo iz člena 255 ES in Uredbe 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije, predlog spremembe KOM(2008) 229 pa jih ne omejuje.
The rapporteur takes the view that this right derives from Article 255 EC and the Transparency Regulation 1049/2001, and that it is not limited by amending proposal (2008) 229.
Poročevalec opozarja, da se zavezujoči učinek sklepov nacionalnega organa za konkurenco nanaša samo na odkrivanje kršitev konkurenčnega prava ES.
The rapporteur points out that the binding effect of decisions of national competition authorities (NCAs) relates only to the determination of an infringement of EC competition law.
Obstoj vzročnosti mora priznati sodišče, ki je prvo začelo postopek.
The existence of causality, etc. must be recognised by the court appealed to.
Zavezujoči učinek sklepov Komisije je določen v členu 16 Uredbe 1/2003.
The binding effect of decisions by the Commission is laid down in Article 16 of Regulation 1/2003.
Tudi Komisija je v osnutku Uredbe 1/2003 (KOM 2000 (582)) priznala, da „ sklepi nacionalnih organov za konkurenco izven zadevne države članice nimajo pravnega učinka “.
The Commission too recognised in draft of Regulation 1/2003 (COM 2000 (582)) that ‘ decisions adopted by national competition authorities do not have legal effects outside the territory of their Member State ’.
Prav tako ni upravičenih razlogov za odstopanje od načela, po katerem je lahko upravni sklep posamezne države veljaven samo na njenem ozemlju.
There are no obvious grounds for deviating from the principle that an administrative decision by a State can only be valid within its sovereign territory.
Odločitve nacionalnih organov za konkurenco so lahko torej obvezujoče samo znotraj posamezne države.
Decisions by NCAs can therefore only acquire legally binding status internally.
Državam članicam ostaja prepuščeno, ali bodo priznale zavezujoči učinek tujih nacionalnih organov za konkurenco.
Member States can, however, continue to recognise the legally binding effects of decisions by foreign NCAs.
Poročevalec zahteva uvedbo kršitve konkurenčnega prava vsaj iz malomarnosti.
The rapporteur calls for at least negligent competition violation.
Ni razloga za odstopanje od načela dokazovanja krivde, ki je prav tako predpogoj za naložitev kazni v skladu s členom 23 Uredbe 1/2003.
There are no grounds to depart from the negligence requirement, which is, in addition, cause for a fine to be imposed under Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003.
Poročevalec soglaša z mnenjem Komisije, da je treba povrniti izgubo, pa tudi izpad dobička.
The rapporteur shares the Commission’s view that losses such as lost profits should be reimbursed with interest.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je sicer v zadevi Manfredi priznalo dopustnost nacionalnih predpisov v primeru kazenske odškodnine, vendar odločitev drži zgolj v primeru „ pomanjkanja enotnih predpisov Skupnosti“.
It is true that the Court of Justice, in the Manfredi Case, recognised the admissibility of internal provisions on punitive damages, but this judgment applies only in the absence of Community rules governing the matter .
Zaradi tega lahko zakonodajalci Skupnosti izključijo izplačilo kazenske odškodnine zaradi kršitve konkurenčnega prava ES.
The Community legislators can thus exclude the possibility of payment of punitive damages for violations of EC competition law.
Za izračun odškodnine bi bil koristen nezavezujoč orientacijski okvir.
For the calculation of damages, a non-binding guidance framework would be helpful.
Ne glede na to bo izračun v praksi povzročal znatne težave, saj se je treba pri tem opirati na zapletene gospodarskoznanstvene modele.
Nonetheless, calculating damages in practice will give rise to considerable problems, since complex economic models will have to be used as references.
Vprašanja dopustnosti prenosa povečanih stroškov se ni mogoče lotiti na podlagi pavšalne ocene, saj bodo stranke v postopku zaradi nezadostnega poznavanja distribucijske verige le stežka dokazale, da je bila škoda prenesena na nižji člen.
The issue of the admissibility of passing on overcharges cannot be given a single all-embracing answer, since inadequate knowledge of the distribution chain means that the parties in the case will be able to provide proof of passing on of damage only with difficulty.
Poročevalec sicer zagovarja dopustnost obrambe, hkrati pa zavrača možnost pravila ovrgljive predpostavke, ki ga predlaga Komisija in po katerem bi se celotna škoda prenesla na posredne kupce.
The rapporteur agrees that invoking this defence is admissible, but rejects the rule of rebuttable presumption proposed by the Commission, whereby the harm is to have been passed on in its entirety to the indirect purchaser.
Olajšanje dokaznega bremena se sme sicer predvideti zgolj v izjemnih primerih, vendar Komisija ni uspela predložiti pogojev za njegovo uporabo.
Lightening of the burden of proof can only be provided for in exceptional circumstances, which the Commission has not so far been able to demonstrate.
Prav tako ni znanstvenih dokazov, da bi se škodo praviloma prenašalo na posredne kupce.
On the contrary, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the harm is as a general rule passed on to the indirect purchaser.
Če ni mogoče dokazati prenosa povečanih stroškov, prav tako obstaja nevarnost, da toženec večkrat uveljavi svoje pravice, saj bi moral zaradi pravila predpostavke plačati odškodnino posrednim kupcem in zaradi pomanjkanja dokazov prenosa povečanih stroškov tudi neposrednim kupcem.
Furthermore, if passing on of overcharges turns out to be unprovable, there is a risk that the defendant will be held liable on a number of counts, since he will be obliged to pay damages to the indirect purchaser on the basis of the presumption rule and to the direct purchaser in the absence of provability of passing on of overcharges.
Pri vsaj dvakratni odškodnini pa gre za sankcijo, ki jo sme naložiti le državni organ.
However, double (at the least) damages are a sanction that only the public authorities can impose.
Zaradi tega mora ostati v veljavi načelo, da mora vlagatelj zahtevka predložiti ustrezne predpogoje.
The principle must therefore be maintained that the claimant must fulfil the conditions for justifying the claim.
Takšna rešitev upošteva sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti, po kateri vsakomur pripada pravica do odškodnine.
This approach is in line with the Court of Justice case-law according to which everyone must have the right to compensation for damages.
Beseda „načeloma“ nacionalnim sodiščem dopušča dovolj manevrskega prostora, da v posameznih primerih izhajajo iz dejanskega prenosa stroškov (na primer pri pogodbah z dodatkom na stroške).
The words ‘in principle’ ensure that the national courts retain the option in individual cases of acting on the assumption that charges really are passed on (for example in the case of ‘cost-plus’ contracts).
Poleg tega mora biti sodiščem prepuščeno, da na podlagi izoblikovanih pravil nacionalnega deliktnega prava natančno razporedi razdelitev posameznih škodnih postavk, kakor je opredeljeno z besedo „ remoteness “ (odmaknjenost) v delovnem dokumentu Komisije (točka 205).
In addition, as the Commission states in the working document under the heading of ‘Remoteness’ (paragraph 205), the courts must maintain the possibility of fine-tuning the award of compensation in individual cases on the basis of the established rules of national criminal law.
Poročevalec se strinja s Komisijo, da začne zastaralni rok pri trajni ali ponavljajoči se kršitvi konkurenčnega prava teči z dnevom, ko se je kršitev končala in se je kršitelj seznanil s kršitvijo.
The rapporteur agrees with the Commission that in the case of continuous or repeated infringement limitation periods begin on the day when the infringement ceases or when the victim can reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the infringement.
Vendar je treba pri tem pomisliti na to, da zahtevek ne more zastarati, če se kršitelj ne seznani s kršitvijo.
It must, however, be borne in mind that a claim can never lapse if there has been no knowledge of it.
Tega ni moč storiti namerno, saj naj bi zastaranje zagotovilo pravno varnost.
This cannot be the intention, since the limitation period is intended to create legal certainty.
Zaradi tega je treba predpisati absolutni zastaralni rok 10 let.
For this reason an absolute limitation period of ten years must be laid down.
Poročevalec se strinja, da se zastaralni rok za samostojne tožbe ravna po nacionalnem pravu.
The rapporteur approves the principle of the limitation period for stand-alone claims being based on national law.
Ni upravičenih razlogov, da bi bilo za nadaljnje tožbe potrebno določiti vsaj dveletni zastaralni rok, zato je treba tudi ta rok določiti glede na nacionalno pravo.
In the case of follow‑on claims there are no obvious grounds for laying down a limitation period of at least two years, so this limitation period should also be based on national law.