natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ker sta člena 81 in 82 Pogodbe ES določbi javnega reda, ki imata neposredni učinek in bi ju morali pristojni organi avtomatično uporabljati; ker ti določbi ustvarjata pravice med posamezniki, ki jih morajo nacionalni pravosodni organi učinkovito varovati v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti, vključno s sodbo v primeru 26/62
whereas Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty are public policy provisions that have direct effects and that should automatically be applied by the competent authorities; whereas those provisions create rights between individuals, which national judicial authorities should safeguard effectively in line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, including the judgment in Case 26/62
van Gend & Loos
van Gend & Loos
, ki je pomembna predvsem, ker je predhodnica poznejših primerov,
, which is notable, in particular, for being the precursor to subsequent cases,
ker se konkurenčno pravo v državah članicah 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,
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,
ker Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti meni, da mora zaradi odsotnosti pravil Skupnosti, ki bi urejala pravico žrtev do odškodninskega zahtevka pred nacionalnimi pravosodnimi organi, domači pravni sistem držav članic,vzpostaviti pristojna sodišča in določiti natančna postopkovna pravila za varstvo pravic, ki za posameznike izhajajo neposredno iz prava Skupnosti, ob upoštevanju, da takšna pravila niso manj ugodna kot tista, ki urejajo podobne nacionalne postopke (v skladu z načelom enakovrednosti) in da dejansko ne onemogočajo ali prekomerno otežujejo izvajanja pravic, ki izhajajo iz prava Skupnosti (v skladu z načelom učinkovitosti),
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 judicial authorities, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts or tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive directly from Community law, provided that such rules are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (in accordance with the principle of equivalence), and provided that they do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (in accordance with the principle of effectiveness),
ker redka in izjemna raba zasebnih tožb pred nacionalnimi pravosodnimi organi držav članic, kot določa Uredba (ES) št. 1/2003, kaže, da so potrebni ukrepi za olajšanje vložitve odškodninske tožbe; ker bi morali takšni ukrepi povečati skladnost s konkurenčnim pravom ES, upoštevajoč različna postopkovna in dokazna pravila v državah članicah; ker to ne bi smelo voditi v situacijo, kjer bi bila podjetja, ki se poslužujejo zakonitega gospodarskega ravnanja, izpostavljena pretiranim tveganjem zaradi plačevanja neupravičenih zahtevkov ali prisiljena v spremembo svojega ravnanja, da bi se izognila dragim postopkom,
whereas the rare and exceptional use of private actions before the jurisdictions of national judicial authorities, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 indicates that there is a need for measures to facilitate the bringing of actions for damages; whereas such measures should increase compliance with EC competition law, bearing in mind the different rules of procedure and evidence applicable across the Member States; whereas this should not lead to a situation in which undertakings engaging in lawful economic behaviour are placed at undue risk of having to pay unjustified claims, or to change their behaviour, in order to avoid costly litigation,
ker bi morali imeti potrošniki in podjetja, ki so zaradi kršitve pravil o konkurenci utrpeli škodo, pravico do odškodnine,
whereas consumers and businesses that have suffered damage as a result of a breach of the competition rules should have a right to compensation,
ker razvoj pravil na področju civilnega sodstva EU, zlasti kar zadeva dostop do sodnega varstva, ni šel v korak z nedavnim razvojem na področju konkurenčnega prava Skupnosti na notranjem trgu,
whereas developments in EU civil justice rules, in particular as regards access to justice, have not kept pace with recent developments in Community competition law in the internal market,
ker je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi C-453/99 Zadeva C-453/99
whereas in Case C-453/99 Case 453/99
[2001] ECR I-6297 in sodba z dne 13. julija 2006 v združenih zadevah C-295/04 do 298/04, Manfredi in drugi proti Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA in drugi [2001] ECR I-6619.
[2001] ECR I-62976297 and judgment of 13 July 2006 in Joined Cases C-295/04 to 298/04, Manfredi and Others v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA and Others ECR I-6619.
razsodilo, da posamezniki in podjetja, z namenom zagotoviti popolno učinkovitost člena 81 Pogodbe, lahko zahtevajo nadomestilo za škodo, ki je nastala na podlagi pogodbe ali vedenja, ki omejuje ali izkrivlja konkurenco,
, the Court of Justice ruled that, in order to ensure the full effectiveness of Article 81 of the Treaty, individuals and companies may claim compensation for damage caused to them by virtue of a contract or conduct that restricts or distorts competition,
ker obstoječi odškodninski mehanizmi za primere kršitev pravil o konkurenci na evropski ravni ne zagotavljajo popolne učinkovitosti člena 81 Pogodbe, zlasti v zvezi s tistimi, ki so utrpeli škodo,
whereas the existing redress mechanisms for breaches of competition rules at European level do not guarantee the full effectiveness of Article 81 of the Treaty, in particular with regard to those suffering damage,
ker veliko držav članic preučuje načine za boljše varstvo potrošnikov s tem, da omogoča skupinske tožbe, in ker bi različne tožbe lahko vodile do izkrivljanja konkurence na notranjem trgu,
whereas many Member States are examining ways better to protect consumers by allowing collective actions, and whereas differing courses of action may lead to the distortion of competition in the internal market,
ker mora biti vsak predlog Komisije, na področjih, ki niso v njeni izključni pristojnosti na podlagi Pogodbe, v skladu z načeloma subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti,
whereas any proposal by the Commission in areas for which the Commission does not have exclusive competence must, pursuant to the Treaty, comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality,
opozarja, da pravilom Skupnosti o konkurenci primanjkuje odvračilen učinek, njihova učinkovitost pa bi lahko bila ogrožena, če bi oseba, ki deluje na prepovedan način, lahko koristila prednosti na trgu ali uživala imuniteto zaradi svojih kršitev, ker obstajajo ovire pri odškodninskih zahtevkih; meni, da je treba predstavnikom javnega interesa in žrtvam omogočiti vlaganje tožb;
Points out that Community competition rules would lack dissuasive effect, and their effectiveness would be compromised, if anyone acting in a proscribed manner were able to enjoy advantages on the market or immunity in respect of breaches of the rules due to obstacles to full claims for damages; considers that the bringing of legal actions by the representatives of the public interest and victims should be facilitated;
meni, da morajo državljani ali podjetja, ki so oškodovana zaradi kršitev konkurenčnega prava, imeti možnost zahtevati nadomestilo za škodo;
Considers that citizens or businesses suffering damage as a result of a breach of competition law should have the opportunity to claim compensation for their losses;
pozdravlja dejstvo, da je Sodišče priznalo pravico žrtvam, ki so utrpele škodo zaradi protikonkurenčnega obnašanja, da vložijo samostojne ali skupinske odškodninske tožbe; zato pozdravlja zeleno knjigo o odškodninskih tožbah in z njo povezana pripravljalna dela;
Welcomes the fact that the Court of Justice has recognised the right of victims who have suffered losses as a result of anti-competitive behaviour to bring 'stand alone' or 'follow on' legal actions to obtain compensation; welcomes, therefore, the Green Paper on Damages as well as the preparatory works linked thereto;
ker želi spodbuditi konkurenčnost namesto pravdnih postopkov, poziva k hitremu in prijateljskemu izvensodnemu reševanju sporov in olajševanju izvensodnih poravnav pri odškodninskih zahtevkih za škodo, ki izhaja iz protikonkurenčnega ravnanja in poudarja, da je v primeru, ko stranka, ki naj bi kršila konkurenčna pravila, trdi in dokaže, da je bila škoda poplačana pred zaključkom postopka, to lahko olajševalna okoliščina pri določanju višine odškodnine; pozdravlja tudi dejstvo, da uradi za konkurenco v Evropski uniji lahko do neke mere izvajajo institucionalno arbitražno vlogo z upravljanjem arbitražnih postopkov vključno z imenovanjem arbitrov na zahtevo strank;
Calls, with a view to promoting competition rather than litigation, for the promotion of swift and amicable out-of-court settlements and the facilitation of plea agreements in claims for damages arising from anti-competitive behaviour and points out that in the event that the party that is alleged to have infringed competition rules claims and proves that the damage has been compensated before the conclusion of the proceedings, this could be regarded as mitigating factor in setting the amount of damages to be awarded; also welcomes the fact that competition authorities in the European Union can to some extent perform an institutional arbitration role by administering arbitration procedures including appointing arbitrators at the request of the parties;
zato meni, da mora pravni sistem držav članic omogočati učinkovite civilnopravne postopke, v katerih se lahko zahteva nadomestilo za škodo, nastalo zaradi kršitev konkurenčnega prava;
Considers, therefore, that the legal systems of the Member States should provide for effective civil law procedures whereby compensation can be claimed for damage resulting from breaches of competition law;
meni, da bi morala pravica do vlaganja zasebnih tožb na združljiv način dopolnjevati javno izvrševanje, ki bi tako lahko postalo bolj strateško in selektivno ter bi se lahko osredotočilo na najbolj pomembna vprašanja in na najbolj važne primere; meni pa, da takšna sprememba pozornosti ne bi smela biti opravičilo za nezadostno dodeljevanje virov uradom za konkurenco;
Takes the view that instituting private actions should be complementary to and compatible with public enforcement, which, in turn, could become more strategic and selective in nature, focusing on the most important issues and significant cases; considers, however, that such change in focus should not constitute a justification for the under-resourcing of competition authorities;
poziva, da se člena 81 in 82 Pogodbe uporabljata na enak način, ne glede na upravni ali sodni značaj organa, ki odloča; meni, da morajo biti odločbe, ki jih sprejmejo pravosodni organi, skladne in morajo odražati skupna načela varnosti in učinkovitosti, ki se izogibajo izkrivljanju in neskladnostim znotraj Unije; meni, da bi moral biti cilj doseči postopke in stanje, ko je predhodna pravnomočna sodba nacionalnega organa za konkurenco ali nacionalnega pravosodnega organa zavezujoča za vse države članice, če so stranke in okoliščine primera enake;
Calls for Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty to be implemented uniformly, regardless of the administrative or judicial nature of the authority adopting the decision; takes the view that decisions adopted by judicial authorities should be consistent and reflect common principles of security and effectiveness that avoid distortions and inconsistencies within the European Union; considers that the objective should be to arrive at procedures and a situation in which a prior final ruling by a national competition authority (NCA) or national judicial authority is binding on all Member States insofar as the parties to and circumstances of the case are the same;
poudarja, da je bistvenega pomena nuditi pravosodnim organom usposabljanje na področju konkurenčnega prava, da se zagotovi kakovost njihovih sodb, in zagotoviti, da postopke vodijo specializirani ali visoko usposobljeni organi;
Emphasises that it is vital to provide judicial authorities with training in competition law in order to ensure the quality of their rulings, and to respect the essential importance of having proceedings handled by specialist or highly qualified bodies;
meni, da bi morali za zaščito konkurence in pravic žrtev vsi pravosodni organi, ki uporabljajo pravila Skupnosti o konkurenci, biti sposobni, če je treba, sprejeti začasne ukrepe, zahtevati preiskave in izkoristiti svoja preiskovalna pooblastila;
Maintains that in order to protect competition and the rights of victims all judicial authorities implementing the Community competition rules should be able to adopt provisional measures, order measures of enquiry and make use of their powers of investigation where necessary;
poudarja, da bi za pridobivanje pomembnih dejstev za uporabo členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe, nacionalni pravosodni organi morali uživati primerljive pravice kot tiste, ki so priznane nacionalnim organom za konkurenco, in ker je za zagotavljanje doslednosti potrebno okrepljeno sodelovanje med nacionalnimi organi za konkurenco in nacionalnimi sodišči ter med samimi nacionalnimi pravosodnimi organi;
Stresses that, for the purposes of establishing the relevant facts in the application of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, the national judicial authorities should enjoy powers comparable with those granted to the NCAs, and that, to ensure consistency, there is a need to strengthen cooperation between the NCAs and the national judicial authorities and among the national judicial authorities;
poudarja, da bi morali pristojni organi, ki uporabljajo pravila Skupnosti o konkurenci, razpolagati z enotnimi merili za določanje dokaznega bremena; ugotavlja, da bi morda bilo treba upoštevati nesorazmerje informacij, ki so na voljo strankam; predlaga, naj bi bila dejstva v tožbah dokazana takrat, ko je pristojni pravosodni organ zadovoljen z obstojem vzročne povezave med kršitvijo in škodo;
Emphasises that the competent authorities implementing the Community competition rules should have uniform criteria for establishing the burden of proof; notes that it may be necessary to take into account asymmetry of information available to the parties; suggests that in legal proceedings, the facts should be deemed established when the competent judicial authority is satisfied of the existence of a breach and damage with a causative link;
zahteva, naj imajo vsi pravosodni organi, pristojni za uporabo konkurenčnega prava, pooblastila za zahtevanje dostopa do podatkov, ki so pomembni za izid odškodninskih postopkov, za katere velja predhodno zaslišanje druge stranke, razen v nujnih primerih, s sorazmernimi ukrepi v okviru njihovega nadzora; poudarja, da je pri dostopu do podatkov, ki so pomembni za izid postopka, treba spoštovati legitimnost poslovne skrivnosti v odnosih med pravniki in njihovimi strankami, poslovne skrivnosti gospodarskih subjektov in zakonodajo na področju uradnih skrivnosti; poziva Komisijo, naj čim prej pripravi sporočilo o obdelavi zaupnih podatkov s strani organov, ki uporabljajo konkurenčno pravo Skupnosti;
Calls for the judicial authorities responsible for applying competition law to be empowered to order access to information relevant to the outcome of actions in damages, subject to a prior hearing of the other party except in urgent cases, by way of proportionate measures under their supervision; points out that in accessing information relevant to the outcome of proceedings the legitimacy of professional secrecy in relations between lawyers and their clients, business secrets of economic players and legislation on official secrets must be respected; calls on the Commission to draw up, as swiftly as possible, a communication on the processing of confidential information by the authorities applying Community competition law;
poziva države članice, naj sprejmejo dejstvo, da kršitev, ki jo je ugotovil nacionalni organ za konkurenco, in je dokončna ter je bila, kjer je to ustrezno, potrjena po pritožbi, samodejno predstavlja očiten dokaz krivde v civilnih postopkih, ki zadevajo ista vprašanja, če je tožena stranka imela ustrezno možnost obrambe v upravnih postopkih;
Urges Member States to accept that the finding of an infringement arrived at by an NCA, once final and, where appropriate, confirmed on appeal, automatically constitutes prima facie proof of fault in civil proceedings involving the same issues, provided that the defendant was given an adequate opportunity to defend itself in the administrative proceedings;
nadalje meni, da na ravni Skupnosti ni potrebno razpravljati in predpisati potrebe po imenovanju strokovnjakov;
Further considers it unnecessary to discuss and prescribe at Community level the need for the appointment of experts;
meni, da bi predlagana uredba o pravu, ki se uporablja za nepogodbene obveznosti (Rim II) morala zagotoviti zadovoljivo rešitev, razen v primerih, ko protikonkurenčno obnašanje vpliva na konkurenco v več kot eni državi članici, in da bi zato bilo treba razmisliti o vključitvi posebnega pravila za te primere;
Considers that the proposed regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) should provide a satisfactory solution save where the anti-competitive behaviour affects competition in more than one Member State, and that consideration should therefore be given to introducing a specific rule relating to such cases;
poziva nacionalne pravosodne organe k sodelovanju pri zaščiti zaupnih podatkov in pri spodbujanju učinkovitosti programov prizanesljivosti; meni, da je v primeru spora, povezanega z dostopom in z obdelavo tovrstnih podatkov, ki so na razpolago članom Evropske mreže organov za varstvo konkurence, le-tega treba reševati ob upoštevanju interpretacije zakonodaje Skupnosti s strani Sodišča;
Urges the national judicial authorities to cooperate in protecting confidential information and rendering leniency programmes effective; considers that in the event of a conflict arising over access to and the processing of such information available to the members of the European competition network (ECN), this should be settled in the light of the interpretation of Community law by the Court of Justice;
poudarja, da morajo imeti tožnikom priznana plačila značaj nadomestila in ne smejo preseči nastale dejanske škode (damnum emergens) in izgubljenega dobička (lucrum cessans), da se tako izognemo neupravičeni obogatitvi, ter da se lahko upošteva dejanska zmožnost žrtve, da škodo in izgube ublaži; kljub temu pa v primeru kartelov predlaga, da prvi prosilec, ki sodeluje s konkurenčnimi organi v okviru programov prizanesljivosti, ne bi bil solidarno odgovoren skupaj s preostalimi kršitelji, in da se obresti zaračunavajo od dneva, ko je bila kršitev storjena;
Emphasises that payments awarded to complainants should be compensatory and should not exceed the actual damage (damnum emergens) and losses ('lucrum cessans') suffered, in order to avoid unjust enrichment, and that the ability of the victim to mitigate the damage and losses may be taken into account; however in the case of cartels, suggeststhat first applicants cooperating with the competition authorities in leniency programmes should not be held jointly and severally liable with the other infringers, and that interest should be calculated from the date of the infringement;
meni, da mora vsak predlagani ukrep popolnoma spoštovati javni red države članice, zlasti v zvezi z dodatnimi odškodninami;
Considers that any proposed measure must fully respect the public policy of the Member States, in particular with regard to punitive damages;
poudarja, da morajo države članice upoštevati, da bi bila možnost obrambe na podlagi prenosa koristi škodljiva za ugotavljanje obsega škode in vzročne zveze;
Underlines that Member States should take into account that the possibility of defendants arguing that all or part of the gains they made as a result of the infringement have been transferred to third parties (the passing-on defence) would be detrimental to establishing the extent of the damage and the causal link;
soglaša s sodno prakso Sodišča, da imajo vse žrtve pravico vložiti tožbo; meni, da morajo države članice, ki predvidijo ukrepe za posredne izgube, priznati tožencu možnost, da dokaže, da je bila vsa korist ali del koristi, ki je nastala kot rezultat kršitve, prenesena na tretjo stranko ('passing on defence'), da se tako izognemo možnosti neupravičene obogatitve; meni, da je zato potreben mehanizem za obravnavanje več manjših zahtevkov;
Concurs with case law of the Court of Justice that all victims should be able to bring legal actions; takes the view that Member States that make provision for actions for indirect losses should grant the defendant the possibility of asserting a passing-on defence in order to avoid the possibility of unjust enrichment; notes that it is therefore essential to have a mechanism for dealing with multiple small claims;
meni, da bi zaradi razlogov pravičnosti, gospodarnosti, hitrosti in doslednosti žrtve morale imeti možnost, da prostovoljno vložijo skupne tožbe, tako neposredno kot prek organizacij, ki imajo v svojem statutu le-to predvideno;
Takes the view that, in the interests of justice and or reasons of economy, speed and consistency, victims should be able voluntarily to bring collective actions, either directly or via organisations whose statutes have this as their object;
opozarja, da bo v številnih primerih prišlo do asimetrije virov pri pritožniku in toženi stranki v sodnih odškodninskih postopkih, ki so sproženi zaradi protikonkurenčnega ravnanja in da v takšnih primerih pritožnik ne bi smel biti odvrnjen od vložitve dobro utemeljene tožbe zaradi bojazni, da bo moral plačati prekomerne pravne stroške, vključno s stroški tožene stranke, če je tožba neuspešna; zato predlaga, naj se pravosodnim organom omogoči, da upoštevajo različne ekonomske položaje strank in naj, kadar je ustrezno, to preverijo ob začetku postopka; meni, da bi morala raven stroškov temeljiti na razumnih in objektivnih merilih, ob upoštevanju narave postopka, ter bi morala vključevati stroške, ki so nastali zaradi pravnih postopkov;
Notes that in many cases there will be an asymmetry of resources between the complainant and the defendant in legal proceedings for damages arising from anti-competitive behaviour and that, in such cases, complainants should not be deterred from bringing well-founded actions for damages for fear of having to pay excessive legal costs, including the costs of the defendant in the event that the claim is unsuccessful; suggests, therefore, that judicial authorities should be able to take into account the different economic situation of the parties and, where appropriate, should make an assessment at the outset of proceedings; considers that the level of costs should be based on reasonable and objective criteria taking into account the nature of the trial, and should include the costs engendered by the legal proceedings;
predlaga, naj se v programih javne pomoči, ki so legitimno sprejeti, da se omogoči lažje vlaganje zasebnih odškodninskih tožb zaradi protikonkurenčnega ravnanja, določijo jasni pogoji za nadzor postopkov in povračilo takšne pomoči, še posebej v primerih, ko je o zadevi razsojeno in mora kršitelj plačati stroške;
Recommends that in the legal aid programmes that can legitimately be adopted to enable private actions to be brought more easily for damages arising from anti-competitive behaviour, clear-cut conditions be laid down as regards the supervision of the proceedings and the reimbursement of such aid, in particular in the event that the case is settled and the infringer is ordered to pay costs;