natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 3a(3) puts in place a mutual recognition mechanism by which the other Member States must ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not circumvent measures adopted pursuant to Article 3a(1) by another Member State, approved by the Commission and published in the Official Journal.
Odstavek 3 navedenega člena uvaja mehanizem vzajemnega priznavanja, v skladu s katerim morajo države članice zagotoviti, da se izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njihovo sodno pristojnostjo ne izognejo ukrepom, ki jih je na podlagi odstavka 1 istega člena sprejela druga država članica in ki jih je Komisija odobrila ter objavila v Uradnem listu.
That is also stated in the 19th recital in the preamble to Directive 97/36, from the terms of which it is evident that Article 3a of Directive 89/552 is intended to prevent the possibility of circumvention of national measures protecting a legitimate general interest.
To določa tudi devetnajsta uvodna izjava Direktive 97/36, iz katere izhaja, da je namen člena 3a Direktive 89/552 preprečevanje možnosti, da bi se ob�li nacionalni ukrepi za za�čito zakonitih splo�nih interesov.
As the Court of First Instance held, that decision thus closed the verification procedure which the Commission was required to carry out under Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552.
Kot je ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, ta sporni akt končuje postopek preverjanja, h kateremu je bila Komisija zavezana na podlagi člena 3a(2) Direktive 89/552.
The publication in the Official Journal of those measures informed the other Member States of their existence and enabled them to comply with their obligations under Article 3a(3) of Directive 89/552.
Objava navedenih ukrepov v Uradnem listu omogoča drugim državam članicam, da se z njimi seznanijo in se torej lahko uskladijo z zahtevami iz člena 3a(3) te direktive.
The contested decision therefore triggered the mutual recognition mechanism under Article 3a(3) of Directive 89/552 and, consequently, activated the other Member States’ obligation to ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction did not circumvent the measures adopted by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1).
S spornim aktom je bil torej sprožen mehanizem za vzajemno priznavanje, določen v členu 3a(3) Direktive 89/552, in tako je bila torej aktivirana obveznost za druge države članice, da zagotovijo, da se izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njihovo sodno pristojnostjo ne izognejo ukrepom, ki jih je sprejelo Združeno kraljestvo na podlagi odstavka 1 tega člena.
It is in the light of those considerations that the Commission’s grounds of appeal must be examined.
Glede na te ugotovitve je treba preučiti pritožbene razloge, ki jih navaja Komisija.
The first ground of appeal, alleging misapplication of the requirement of direct concern
Prvi tožbeni razlog, ki izhaja iz kršitve pogoja v zvezi z neposrednim interesom
The Commission submits that the Court of First Instance erroneously applied the caselaw mentioned in paragraph 22 of the present judgment, which defines the requirement of direct concern under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Komisija trdi, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje nepravilno uporabilo sodno prakso, navedeno v točki 22 te sodbe, ki pojasnjuje pogoj v zvezi z neposrednim interesom, določenim v členu 230, četrti odstavek, ES.
First of all, the contested decision does not affect Infront’s legal situation.
Najprej, sporni akt naj ne bi imel vpliva na pravni položaj družbe Infront.
It requires the Member States other than the United Kingdom to ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not deprive a substantial proportion of the public in that Member State of the possibility of following certain designated events on free television.
Sporni akt nalaga državam članicam, razen Združenega kraljestva, obveznost, da zagotovijo, da izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njihovo sodno pristojnostjo ne prikraj�ajo večjega deleža javnosti za možnost spremljanja določenih dogodkov s seznama na „brezplačni“ televiziji.
For that purpose, legal obligations are therefore to be imposed only on such broadcasters.
V ta namen so torej pravne obveznosti naložene zgolj tem izdajateljem.
Assuming that a pay television company established in a Member State other than the United Kingdom wished to bid for the exclusive television broadcasting rights in question, the legal restrictions which are imposed on it could lead it to refrain from doing so.
Ob predpostavki, da bi lahko plačljiva televizijska družba s sedežem v državi članici, ki ni Združeno kraljestvo, želela dati ponudbo za izključno razpolaganje s pravicami za zadevne televizijske prenose, bi jo lahko pravne omejitve, ki so ji naložene, odvrnile od tega.
Consequently, Infront would have fewer potential purchasers and probably find itself in a worse business situation than it had envisaged, and that would be not because of a change in its legal position, but solely because it would not be in a position to find the purchaser it could have hoped for.
Zato naj bi imela družba Infront manj potencialnih ponudnikov in bi bila verjetno v manj ugodnem poslovnem položaju od načrtovanega, in to ne zaradi spremembe svojega pravnega položaja, temveč samo zaradi dejstva, da ne bi mogla več najti kupca, ki bi si ga želela.
It would therefore suffer the indirect economic consequences of the contested decision, whereas its legal position would remain unaltered.
Tako naj bi zaradi spornega akta utrpela posredne ekonomske posledice, medtem ko bi njen pravni položaj ostal nespremenjen.
Next, even those economic consequences are completely uncertain, since there was no broadcaster established in a Member State other than the United Kingdom which would be willing to pay the considerable sum demanded by Infront for the right to broadcast in the United Kingdom the designated events for which it holds the exclusive television broadcasting rights.
Nadalje, celo te ekonomske posledice naj bi bile popolnoma negotove, ker ne bi bilo izdajatelja televizijskih programov s sedežem v državi članici, ki ni Združeno kraljestvo, ki bi bil pripravljen plačati velik znesek, ki ga zahteva družba Infront za pravico prenosa dogodkov s seznama, za katere ima ta družba izključno pravico televizijskega prenosa v Združenem kraljestvu.
The Court of First Instance should have required Infront to prove the plausibility of such a factual situation and the probability of economic loss arising from the contested decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje bi torej od družbe Infront moralo zahtevati, da dokaže verjetnost takega dejanskega položaja in verjetnost gospodarske �kode, nastale zaradi spornega akta.
By failing to apply the appropriate burden of proof, it again fell into error of law.
S tem da ni naložilo primernega dokaznega bremena, naj bi prav tako storilo pravno napako.
Finally, the Court of First Instance wrongly found that the Member States have no discretion in the implementation of the obligations laid down by Article 3a(3) of Directive 89/552.
Končno, Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi napačno �telo, da države članice nimajo nobene diskrecijske pravice pri izvr�evanju obveznosti, določenih v členu 3a(3) Direktive 89/552.
Admittedly, the identity of the events considered to be of major
Res je, da naj bi seznam dogodkov, ki naj bi bili velikega družbenega
2008 — CASE C-125/06 P importance for society and the method of their television broadcasting are determined by the notifying Member State and, therefore, by the Commission’s decision adopted pursuant to Article 3a(2).
2008 – ZADEVA C-125/06 P pomena, ter način njihovega televizijskega prenosa določila država članica, ki jih priglasi, z odločbo Komisije, sprejeto na podlagi odstavka 2 tega člena.
However, the extent to which such an event will be broadcast, in practice, in accordance with the interests of that Member State, largely depends on the legislation and the decision-making structure adopted by each Member State under Article 3a(3).
Vendar pa naj bi bil način, na katerega je tak dogodek dejansko predvajan v skladu z interesi države članice, močno odvisen od zakonodaje in odločitvene strukture, ki ju vsaka država članica sprejme na podlagi člena 3a(3).
That provision itself states that the task entrusted to the Member States must be achieved ‘by appropriate means, within the framework of their legislation’.
Sama določba naj bi določala, da mora biti naloga, zaupana državam članicam, opravljena „s primernimi sredstvi v okviru njihove zakonodaje“.
The results in each Member State may be very different depending on the approach followed in each particular case.
Rezultati, doseženi v posamezni državi članici, bi se torej lahko zelo razlikovali glede na pristop, uporabljen za vsak posamičen primer.
In those circumstances, the implementation of the contested decision by Member States other than the United Kingdom involves the exercise of a broad discretion.
V teh okoli�činah naj bi izvr�itev spornega akta s strani držav članic, razen Združenega kraljestva, pomenila izvajanje visoke stopnje proste presoje.
Infront submits that the Court of First Instance correctly concluded that the contested decision is of direct concern to it.
Družba Infront meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno ugotovilo, da jo sporni akt zadeva neposredno.
First, it must be determined whether the contested decision directly affects Infront’s legal situation.
Najprej je treba ugotoviti, ali sporni akt neposredno povzroča učinke na pravni položaj družbe Infront.
Under Articles 98 and 101 of the Broadcasting Act, a broadcaster which wishes to broadcast, exclusively and live, a designated event must, if the service is intended to be received in all or part of the United Kingdom, obtain the ITC’s consent.
Iz členov 98 in 101 zakona o radiodifuziji izhaja, da mora izdajatelj televizijskega programa, ki želi izključno in neposredno prena�ati dogodek s seznama, pridobiti soglasje ITC, kadar je storitev namenjena sprejemu na celotnem ozemlju ali delu ozemlja Združenega kraljestva.
Under the Independent Television Commission Code on Sports and other Listed Events, as amended, the factors on which the ITC’s consent depends are essentially that the sale of the television broadcasting rights was the subject of a public announcement and that broadcasters had a genuine opportunity to acquire those rights on terms which were fair and reasonable.
V skladu s kodeksom neodvisne televizijske komisije o �portnih in drugih dogodkih s seznama, kot je bil spremenjen, dejavnike, ki pogojujejo to soglasje, v bistvu sestavljajo okoli�čine, da je bila prodaja pravic televizijskega prenosa objavljena v javnem razglasu in da so imeli izdajatelji televizijskih programov resnično možnost pridobiti te pravice pod razumnimi in enakimi pogoji.
As has been stated in paragraphs 35 to 39 of the present judgment, Member States other than the United Kingdom must, because of the contested decision, ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not circumvent the measures adopted by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 and, therefore, that they do not broadcast designated events notwithstanding the requirements of those measures.
Tako kot je bilo ugotovljeno v točkah od 35 do 39 te sodbe, so države članice, razen Združenega kraljestva, na podlagi spornega akta dolžne, da zagotovijo, da se izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njihovo sodno pristojnostjo ne izognejo ukrepom, ki jih je sprejelo Združeno kraljestvo na podlagi člena 3a(1) Direktive 89/552, in da ti zato ne prena�ajo dogodkov s seznama ne glede na zahteve navedenih ukrepov.
It follows that those Member States must ensure that such broadcasters do not broadcast those events, exclusively and live, to the United Kingdom public if they acquired the television broadcasting rights to those events through a sale procedure which did not take account of the criteria mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Iz tega izhaja, da so te države članice dolžne ravnati tako, da navedeni izdajatelji ne prena�ajo, izključno in neposredno, teh dogodkov, namenjenih javnosti Združenega kraljestva, če so pridobili pravice televizijskega prenosa navedenih dogodkov v okviru prodaje, ki ne upo�teva meril, navedenih v predhodni točki.
The measures adopted by the United Kingdom and approved by the contested decision thus impose certain restrictions on broadcasters where they envisage broadcasting designated events for which Infront acquired exclusive rights.
Ukrepi, ki jih je sprejelo Združeno kraljestvo in ki so bili odobreni s spornim aktom, tako navedenim izdajateljem televizijskih programov nalagajo določeno �tevilo omejitev, kadar načrtujejo prenose dogodkov s seznama, za katere je družba Infront pridobila izključne pravice.
Since those restrictions are linked to the circumstances in which those broadcasters acquire the television broadcasting rights to designated events from Infront, the effect of the measures adopted by the United Kingdom and the contested decision is to subject the rights held by Infront to new restrictions which did not exist when it acquired those broadcasting rights and which render their exercise more difficult.
Glede na to, da so te omejitve vezane na pogoje, pod katerimi ti izdajatelji pridobijo pravice televizijskega prenosa dogodkov s seznama od družbe Infront, imajo ukrepi, ki jih je sprejelo Združeno kraljestvo, in sporni akt za posledico uskladitev pravic, ki jih ima ta družba, z novimi omejitvami, ki niso obstajale v trenutku, ko je ta družba pridobila navedene pravice do prenosa, in ki otežijo izvr�evanje slednjih pravic.
Thus, the contested decision directly affects Infront’s legal situation.
Tako sporni akt neposredno vpliva na pravni položaj družbe Infront.
The Commission asserts none the less that the reality of such effects on Infront’s legal situation is not established because there was no broadcaster established in the Member States other than the United Kingdom which would, in the absence of the contested decision, be interested in purchasing the television broadcasting rights held by Infront and which would be prevented or dissuaded from acquiring them because of the adoption of that decision.
Komisija kljub temu trdi, da resničnost teh vplivov na pravni položaj družbe Infront ni ugotovljena, ker ni izdajateljev televizijskih programov s sedežem v državah članicah, razen v Združenem kraljestvu, ki bi bili v primeru neobstoja spornega akta zainteresirani za nakup pravic televizijskega prenosa, ki so v lasti družbe Infront, in katerim bi bilo preprečeno ali bi se jih odvračalo od nakupa zaradi sprejetja tega akta.
In addition, the Court of First Instance reversed the burden of proof in that regard.
Poleg tega naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje obrnilo dokazno breme v zvezi s tem.
The Community legislature inserted Article 3a(3) in Directive 89/552 precisely because circumstances can exist in which broadcasters under the jurisdiction of a Member State purchase exclusive television broadcasting rights to an event considered to be of major importance for society by another Member State and broadcast it to the public in that Member State under conditions which deprive a substantial proportion of that public of the possibility of following it.
Ugotoviti je treba, da je normodajalec Skupnosti vstavil člen 3a(3) v Direktivo 89/552 ravno zato, ker bi lahko obstajali položaji, v katerih izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njihovo sodno pristojnostjo kupijo izključne pravice za televizijski prenos dogodka, ki �teje za dogodek velikega družbenega pomena v drugi državi članici, in ga prena�ajo v javnosti te države članice na način, na katerega bi večji delež javnosti v drugi državi članici prikraj�ali za možnost spremljanja tega dogodka.
The Court of First Instance ruled on that aspect in paragraphs 148 and 149 of the judgment under appeal.
Sodi�če prve stopnje se je glede tega izreklo v točkah 148 in 149 izpodbijane sodbe.
First, it took note of several cases of cross-frontier broadcasts of events considered to be of major importance for society in which broadcasters had acted in that manner.
Prvič, navedlo je več primerov čezmejnih prenosov dogodkov, ki �tejejo za dogodke z velikim družbenim pomenom, v katerih so izdajatelji televizijskih programov ravnali na navedeni način.
Second, it considered that the Commission had not made out its allegations that the specificity of the television broadcasting market in the United Kingdom precludes, in the circumstances of this case, such situations. In
Drugič, menilo je, da Komisija ni podprla svojih trditev, v skladu s katerimi naj bi posebnosti trga televizijskega oddajanja v Združenem kraljestvu v tem primeru izključevale take položaje. Ob upo�tevanju teh elementov je Sodi�če prve
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM the light of those matters, the Court of First Instance concluded that the television broadcasting rights in that Member State to the FIFA World Cup finals would not necessarily have been acquired by broadcasters established in that same State.
KOMISIJA PROTI INFRONT WM stopnje ugotovilo, da pravic televizijskega prenosa sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE v tej državi članici ne bodo nujno kupili izdajatelji televizijskih programov s sedežem v tej državi.
By so doing, the Court of First Instance did not reverse the burden of proof on the parties.
S tem Sodi�če prve stopnje ni obrnilo dokaznega bremena, ki je naloženo strankam.
It made an unfettered assessment of the facts which were intended to establish the reality of cross-frontier broadcasting of the designated events.
Samostojno je preučilo dejstva, katerih namen je ugotovitev resničnost čezmejnih prenosov dogodkov s seznama.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance is free to take account of the fact that a party has refrained from adducing evidence in support of its own allegations (see Case C-214/05 P Rossi v OHIM [2006] ECR I-7057, paragraph 23).
Vendar glede tega Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko upo�teva dejstvo, da ena stranka ni podala dokazov v utemeljitev lastnih trditev (glej sodbo z dne 18. julija 2006 v zadevi Rossi proti UUNT, C-214/05 P, ZOdl., str. I-7057, točka 23).
Moreover it is settled caselaw that an appeal lies on points of law only and that the Court of First Instance thus has exclusive jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and assess the evidence.
Poleg tega je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pritožba omejena na pravna vpra�anja, Sodi�če prve stopnje pa je zato edino pristojno, da ugotovi in presodi upo�tevna dejstva in da presodi dokaze.
The appraisal of those facts and the assessment of that evidence thus do not, save where the facts and evidence are distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal (see Case C-104/00 P DKV v OHIM [2002] ECR I-7561, paragraph 22 and the caselaw cited).
Presoja teh dejstev in dokazov, razen ob njihovem izkrivljanju, torej ne pomeni pravnega vpra�anja, ki bi bilo kot tako predmet nadzora Sodi�ča v okviru pritožbe (glej sodbo z dne 19. septembra 2002 v zadevi DKV proti UUNT, C-104/00 P, Recueil, str. I-7561, točka 22 in navedena sodna praksa).
Distortion of the facts has not been pleaded before the Court of Justice.
Izkrivljanje dejstev pred Sodi�čem ni bilo navedeno.
In those circumstances, it is not for the Court to review whether the Court of First Instance correctly concluded that it had not been proved that the television broadcasting rights concerned would necessarily have been acquired by broadcasters established in the United Kingdom.
V teh okoli�činah ni naloga Sodi�ča, da preveri, ali je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno ugotovilo, da ni bilo dokazano, da so pravice zadevnega televizijskega prenosa nujno pridobili izdajatelji televizijskih programov s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu.
Secondly, it must be considered whether the contested decision leaves any discretion to the national authorities entrusted with the task of implementing it, or whether such implementation is purely automatic and results from Community rules without the application of other intermediate rules.
Drugič, preveriti je treba, ali sporni akt nacionalnim organom, katerih naloga je njegovo izvr�evanje, dopu�ča diskrecijsko pravico, ali ima povsem avtomatičen značaj in izvira iz same skupnostne ureditve brez uporabe drugih izvedbenih pravil.
It is true that the national authorities are not deprived of any discretion in implementing Article 3a(3) of Directive 89/552 and the contested decision.
Res je, da nacionalnim organom ni odvzeta vsa diskrecija za izvr�itev člena 3a(3) Direktive 89/552 in spornega akta.
They may specify appropriate control mechanisms to satisfy the obligations which flow from it.
Ti lahko določijo ustrezne nadzorne mehanizme za izpolnitev obveznosti, ki iz njega izhajajo.
None the less, they must ensure that the broadcasters concerned do not circumvent the measures adopted by another Member State pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 and that they exercise their exclusive rights in such a way as not to deprive the relevant public of the possibility of following, in accordance with the provisions adopted by that other Member State, the events considered to be of major importance for society.
Kljub temu so dolžni ravnati tako, da se izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njihovo sodno pristojnostjo ne izognejo ukrepom, ki jih je sprejela druga država članica na podlagi člena 3a(1) Direktive 89/552, ter izključnih pravic ne izvajajo tako, da bi upo�tevno javnost prikraj�ali za možnost spremljanja dogodkov, ki �tejejo za dogodke velikega družbenega pomena, v skladu z določbami, ki jih je sprejela ta druga država članica.
Thus, as the Court of First Instance correctly stated in paragraph 146 of the judgment under appeal, the national authorities must ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction comply with the conditions for the television broadcasting of those events as defined by another Member State in its measures approved and published in the Official Journal by the Commission.
Tako kot je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno ugotovilo v točki 146 izpodbijane sodbe, morajo nacionalni organi zagotoviti, da izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njihovo sodno pristojnostjo spo�tujejo pogoje televizijskega prena�anja navedenih dogodkov, kot jih določa druga država članica v ukrepih, ki jih Komisija odobri in objavi v Uradnem listu.
It is those measures, and therefore, in this case, the contested decision, which determine the result to be attained.
Ti ukrepi in zato v tem primeru sporni akt določajo rezultat, ki ga je treba doseči.
As regards that result, the national authorities therefore have no discretion.
Kar zadeva ta rezultat, nacionalni organi torej nimajo nobene diskrecijske pravice.
The prejudice to the legal situations of broadcasters and of Infront is due to the requirement to attain that result.
Vendar je vzrok poseganja v pravni položaj izdajateljev televizijskih programov in družbe Infront zahteva po dosegu tega rezultata.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the first ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.
Glede na zgoraj navedene ugotovitve je treba prvi pritožbeni razlog zavrniti kot neutemeljen.
The second ground of appeal, alleging misapplication of the requirement of individual concern
Drugi tožbeni razlog, ki izhaja iz kršitve pogoja v zvezi s posamičnim interesom
The Commission submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly held that the contested decision was of individual concern to Infront, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and of the Court’s case-law.
Komisija trdi, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno presodilo, da je sporni akt družbo Infront zadeval posamično v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES in sodne prakse Sodi�ča.
The Commission maintains that the approach taken by the Court of First Instance leads to the conclusion that all television broadcasting rights holders affected by the measures adopted by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 are individually concerned by those measures, though such broadcasters are numerous.
Komisija trdi, da pristop, ki ga je uporabilo Sodi�če, vodi to tega, da se za vse imetnike pravic televizijskih prenosov, na katere se nana�ajo ukrepi, ki jih je sprejelo Združeno kraljestvo na podlagi člena 3a(1) Direktive 89/552, �teje, da jih ti ukrepi posamično zadevajo, čeprav jih je veliko.