natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘… the contribution payable by undertakings in respect of the procedures for the grant of individual licences shall cover solely the administrative costs incurred in the preliminary investigation, control of the management of the service and maintenance of the conditions imposed for the licences themselves…’
„[…] prispevek, ki se zahteva od podjetij za postopek v zvezi s posamičnimi licencami, je namenjen zgolj pokritju administrativnih stro�kov, povezanih s predhodnim postopkom in nadzorom nad vodenjem storitev ter z vzdrževanjem pogojev, določenih v licencah. […]“
Article 21(2) of Decree No 318/1997 reads as follows:
Člen 21(2) dekreta �t. 318/1997 določa:
‘Unless otherwise provided in these regulations, the provisions in force in the field of telecommunications shall continue to apply.
„Razen če ta uredba izrecno določa drugače, se veljavne določbe na področju telekomunikacij uporabljajo �e naprej.
In particular, the provisions referred to in Article 188 of the Codice Postale shall continue to apply, for the purposes referred to in Article 6(20) and (21) and pending a decision to the contrary by the [national regulatory authority].’
Še naprej se uporabljajo zlasti določbe iz člena 188 po�tnega zakonika, in sicer za potrebe določb iz člena 6(20) in (21) ter do nasprotne odločitve [nacionalnega uredbenega organa].“
Pursuant to Article 20(4) of that law, Article 21(2) of Decree No 318/1997 has been repealed.
Na podlagi člena 20(4) omenjenega zakona preneha veljati člen 21(2) dekreta �t. 318/1997.
Telecom Italia, a company incorporated under Italian law, is the former holder of exclusive rights, in the form of an exclusive licence, to provide public telecommunications services in Italy.
Telecom Italia, družba italijanskega prava, je nekdanji imetnik izključne pravice, podeljene z izključno koncesijo, ponujanja javnih telekomunikacijskih storitev v Italiji.
It challenges before the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Regional Administrative Court of Latium) the continuation, in respect of 1998, of the annual charge provided by the Codice Postale, which amounts to approximately EUR 385 million, for which it claims reimbursement.
Omenjena družba pred Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (upravno sodi�če dežele Lacij) izpodija ohranitev, za leto 1998, v po�tnem zakoniku določene letne pristojbine, ki je zna�ala približno 385 milijonov EUR, in zahteva vračilo tega zneska.
From that date, the only pecuniary charges applicable to telecommunications undertak-
Družba zatrjuje, da je odprtje trga telekomunikacij konkurenci
TELECOM ITALIA ings in respect of their individual licences were those provided for in Article 11 of Directive 97/13, as confirmed by the Court in Joined Cases C-292/01 and C-293/01 Albacom and Infostrada [2003] ECR I-9449.
Od tega dne so edine denarne dajatve, za katere so zavezana telekomunikacijska podjetja iz naslova posamičnih licenc, tiste, ki so predvidene v členu 11 Direktive 97/13, kot je to Sodi�če potrdilo v sodbi z dne 18. septembra 2003 v združenih zadevah Albacom in Infostrada (C-292/01 in C-293/01, Recueil, str. I-9449).
The national court also expresses doubts as to the validity of the annual charge imposed on Telecom Italia for 1998, while asking whether Article 22 of Directive 97/13, which contains a transitional provision for authorisations existing on the date of the entry into force of that directive, such as that granted to Telecom Italia, might not, however, be interpreted as authorising such a charge for that year only.
Tudi predložitveno sodi�če dvomi v veljavnost letne pristojbine, ki je bila družbi Telecom Italia naložena za leto 1998, pri čemer se spra�uje, ali je mogoče člen 22 Direktive 97/13, ki vsebuje prehodno določbo o dovoljenjih, veljavnih na dan, ko začne veljati ta direktiva, kakr�no je imela družba Telecom Italia, kljub vsemu razlagati tako, da le za to leto dovoljuje naložitev pristojbine.
That court is none the less inclined to think, like Telecom Italia, that Article 22 does not contain a transitional provision concerning Article 11 of that directive on charges for individual licences and that it does not therefore allow the imposition of a pecuniary charge such as the charge in the main proceedings.
To sodi�če se, tako kot Telecom Italia, kljub vsemu nagiba k mnenju, da omenjeni člen 22 ne vsebuje prehodne določbe, ki bi se nana�ala na člen 11 navedene direktive, ki ureja dajatve, ki veljajo za posamične licence, in ne dovoljuje naložitve denarne dajatve, kakr�na je zadevna pristojbina v postopku v glavni stvari.
‘Is Article 20(3) of Law No 448/1998 consistent with Articles 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13…?’
„Ali je člen 20(3) zakona �t. 448/1998 [v skladu] s členi 11, 22 in 25 Direktive 97/13/ES[?]“
First of all, it should be noted that, in proceedings brought under Article 234 EC, it is not for the Court to rule on the compatibility of national rules with provisions of Community law.
Uvodoma je treba opozoriti, da se Sodi�če v okviru postopka, uvedenega na podlagi člena 234 ES, ni dolžno izjaviti o združljivosti notranjih pravnih norm z določbami prava Skupnosti.
On the other hand, the Court is competent to supply the national
Nasprotno je Sodi�če pristojno, da nacionalnemu sodi�ču posreduje
In that regard, even if, formally, the national court has limited its question to the interpretation of Articles 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13, that fact does not prevent the Court from providing the national court with all the elements of interpretation of Community law which may enable it to rule on the case before it, whether or not reference is made thereto in the question referred (see, in particular, Case C-329/05 Alevizos [2007] ECR I-3505, paragraph 64 and the caselaw cited).
Čeprav je predložitveno sodi�če svoje vpra�anje formalno omejilo na razlago členov 11, 22 in 25 Direktive 97/13, to Sodi�ča ne ovira pri tem, da predložitvenemu sodi�ču posreduje vse vidike razlage prava Skupnosti, ki bi mu lahko koristili pri presoji predložene zadeve, in sicer ne glede na to, ali se je nanje sklicevalo v predstavitvi svojega vpra�anja ali ne (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 26. aprila 2007 v zadevi Alevizos, C-392/05, Zodl., str. I-3505, točka 64 in navedena sodna praksa).
Accordingly, in so far as it is apparent from the casefile submitted to the Court that Telecom Italia has a general authorisation, account should be taken also of Article 6 of Directive 97/13 relating to general authorisations.
Zato je treba, kolikor iz Sodi�ču predloženega spisa izhaja, da ima Telecom Italia splo�no dovoljenje, upo�tevati tudi člen 6 Direktive 97/13, ki se nana�a na splo�na dovoljenja.
Consequently, the question referred must be understood as seeking to ascertain whether Articles 6 and 11 of Directive 97/13, read in conjunction with Articles 22 and 25 thereof, preclude a Member State from requiring an operator, formerly the holder of an exclusive right to provide public telecommunications services and then the holder of a general authorisation, to pay a pecuniary charge such as the charge in the main proceedings, corresponding to the amount previously demanded for the exclusive right, for one year from the final date laid down for transposition of that directive into national law, namely 31 December 1998.
Predloženo vpra�anje je treba torej razumeti tako, da se želi z njim izvedeti, ali člena 6 in 11 Direktive 97/13 v povezavi s členoma 22 in 25 te direktive nasprotujeta temu, da država članica od nekdanjega imetnika izključne pravice za ponujanje javnih telekomunikacijskih storitev, ki je nato postal imetnik splo�nega dovoljenja, zahteva plačilo denarne dajatve, kakr�na je zadevna pristojbina v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ustreza znesku, ki ga je nekdaj zahtevala kot protidajatev za izključno pravico, in sicer to zahteva za eno leto od dne, določenega kot skrajni rok za prenos direktive v nacionalno pravo, oziroma do 31. decembra 1998.
Observations submitted to the Court
Stališča, predložena Sodišču
Telecom Italia and the Commission of the European Communities submit that such a charge is incompatible with Article 11 of Directive 97/13 as interpreted by the Court and that its continuation for one year from the final date laid down for transposition of that directive into national law is not permitted by Article 22 of that directive.
Telecom Italia in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti zatrjujeta, da je tak�na pristojbina v neskladju s členom 11 Direktive 97/13, kot ga razlaga Sodi�če, in da člen 22 te direktive ne dovoljuje ohranitve pristojbine za leto od dne, določenega kot skrajni rok za prenos direktive v nacionalno pravo.
In their view, Article 22 permits the terms of authorisations existing on the date of the entry into force of Directive 97/13 to be continued, in so far as those conditions do not give special or exclusive rights.
Po njunem mnenju omenjeni člen 22 dovoljuje ohranitev pogojev za dovoljenja, veljavna na dan, ko začne veljati Direktiva 97/13, kolikor ti pogoji ne podeljujejo posebnih ali izključnih pravic.
However, the obligation to pay the charge in question in the main proceedings is the consideration for the grant of an exclusive right.
Obveznost plačila zadevne pristojbine v postopku v glavni stvari pa predstavlja protidajatev za podelitev izključne pravice.
It must therefore be considered to be contrary to Article 22.
Zato je treba �teti, da ni združljiva z omenjenim členom 22.
The Italian Government, for its part, makes a distinction between Article 22(2) of Directive 97/13, which provides that the terms giving special or exclusive rights may not be continued after the date of entry into force of that directive, and Article 22(3) thereof, under which the obligations concerning the authorisations existing on that date may be continued until 31 December 1998.
Italijanska vlada razlikuje med členom 22(2) Direktive 97/13, v skladu s katerim se pogoji, ki podeljujejo posebne ali izključne pravice, ne smejo ohraniti po dnevu, ko začne veljati ta direktiva, in členom 22(3) iste direktive, v skladu s katerim se lahko obveznosti v zvezi z dovoljenji, veljavnimi na ta dan, ohranijo do 31. decembra 1998.
That government states that the special and exclusive rights were withdrawn on 31 December 1997, in accordance with Directive 97/13.
Vlada navaja, da so posebne in izključne pravice v skladu z Direktivo 97/13 prenehale 31. decembra 1997.
It adds that the Italian Republic also exercised the right, conferred by Article 22(3), to maintain certain obligations for one year.
Dodaja, da je Italijanska republika izkoristila pravico iz člena 22(3) in za eno leto ohranila nekatere obveznosti.
The payment of the charge imposed by the former holder of exclusive rights falls within those obligations and is therefore compatible with the directive.
Plačilo pristojbine, naložene nekdanjemu imetniku izključne pravice, naj bi sodilo med te obveznosti in naj bi bilo torej v skladu z omenjeno direktivo.
The Court’s answer
Odgovor Sodišča
The Court has previously had the opportunity to examine the compatibility of Directive 97/13 with an annual charge imposed on a telecommunications undertaking and calculated on the basis of a percentage of its turnover in Albacom and
Sodi�če je imelo priložnost obravnavati skladnost Direktive 97/13 z letno denarno dajatvijo, naloženo telekomunikacijskemu podjetju in izračunano na podlagi deleža prometa, že v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Albacom in Infostrada. V točki 41 te sodbe je
Infostrada, cited above. In paragraph 41 of that judgment, the Court held that such a charge is contrary to the objectives sought by the Community legislature and goes beyond the common framework established by Directive 97/13.
Sodi�če presodilo, da je tak�na dajatev v neskladju z nameni zakonodajalca Skupnosti in presega skupen okvir Direktive 97/13.
Moreover, it follows from paragraphs 33 and 42 of that judgment that such a charge is prohibited by Article 11 of that directive, which provides that the fees imposed on undertakings as part of authorisation procedures seek only to cover the administrative costs incurred in the delivery, management, review and application of individual licences.
Iz točk 33 in 42 omenjene sodbe sicer izhaja, da tako dajatev prepoveduje člen 11 te direktive, ki določa, da je namen dajatev, ki so podjetjem naložene iz naslova postopkov za izdajo dovoljenj, zgolj pokritje administrativnih stro�kov, povezanih z izdajo, vodenjem, nadzorom in uporabo posamičnih licenc.
Since the fees imposed under Article 6 of that directive are limited in the same way, the same prohibition applies on the basis of that article.
Glede na to, da so enako omejene tudi dajatve, naložene na podlagi člena 6, velja tak�na prepoved tudi na podlagi tega člena.
Pursuant to Article 25 of Directive 97/13, Articles 6 and 11 had to be implemented, like all provisions of that directive, not later than 31 December 1997.
Na podlagi člena 25 Direktive 97/13 je bilo treba člena 6 in 11, kot vse določbe te direktive, začeti izvajati najkasneje 31. decembra 1997.
Article 22 of Directive 97/13 contains, however, the derogating provisions applicable to the authorisations existing on the date of entry into force of that directive, under which those authorisations had to be brought into line with the latter before 1 January 1999, in other words not later than one year after the date laid down in Article 25.
Člen 22 Direktive 97/13 kljub temu vsebuje določbe o odstopanju v zvezi z dovoljenji, veljavnimi na dan, ko začne veljati ta direktiva, v skladu s katerimi je treba ta dovoljenja uskladiti z direktivo do 1. januarja 1999 oziroma najkasneje v enem letu od dne, določenega v omenjenem členu 25.
The question therefore arises whether Article 22 of Directive 97/13 allows, by way of derogation and for one year only, the continuation of a charge such as the charge in the main proceedings as regards the operator to which an exclusive right had been granted before the entry into force of that directive.
Zastavlja se vpra�anje, ali člen 22 Direktive 97/13 dovoljuje, da se denarna dajatev, kakr�na je zadevna pristojbina v postopku v glavni stvari, izjemoma in zgolj za eno leto ohrani za subjekte, ki so imeli pred začetkom veljavnosti te direktive izključne pravice.
Article 22 allows not only, in subparagraph 1, an additional period of one year, expiring on 31 December 1998, to bring authorisations existing on the date of entry into force of Directive 97/13 into line with its provisions, but in addition provides
Člen 22 v odstavku 1 ne dovoljuje le enoletnega dodatnega roka, ki poteče 31. decembra 1998 in do katerega morajo biti z Direktivo 97/13 usklajena dovoljenja, veljavna na dan, ko začne veljati ta direktiva, temveč med drugim v odstavku 2 pred-
TELECOM ITALIA in subparagraph 2 thereof, that the validity of terms linked to existing authorisations may be extended, without prejudice, however, to those giving special or exclusive rights and provided that that extension of validity does not affect the rights of other undertakings under Community law.
TELECOM ITALIA videva možnost podalj�anja pogojev, povezanih z veljavnimi dovoljenji, vendar le, če ti pogoji ne podeljujejo posebnih ali izključnih pravic in če podalj�anje ne vpliva na pravice, ki jih imajo v skladu s pravom Skupnosti druga podjetja.
Article 22(3) concerns obligations in the authorisations existing on the date of entry into force of that directive.
Odstavek 3 istega člena se nana�a na obveznosti v zvezi z dovoljenji, veljavnimi na dan, ko začne veljati Direktiva 97/13.
That provision, which applies without prejudice to the provisions in Article 22(2), provides that the obligations referred to must be brought into line with that directive by 1 January 1999, unless the Member State concerned has, upon request, been granted a deferment of that date by the Commission.
Ta zadnji odstavek, ki se uporablja ne glede na omenjeni odstavek 2, določa, da morajo biti omenjene obveznosti usklajene z navedeno direktivo do 1. januarja 1999, razen če je Komisija na predlog države članice ta rok preložila.
Article 22 of Directive 97/13 does not therefore deal explicitly with the charges applicable to telecommunications undertakings which are holders of authorisations, be they general authorisations or individual licences.
Člen 22 Direktive 97/13 torej ne obravnava izrecno denarnih dajatev, naloženih telekomunikacijskim podjetjem, imetnikom dovoljenj, in sicer ne glede na to, ali gre za splo�na dovoljenja ali za posamične licence.
Only Articles 6 and 11 of that directive expressly address that issue.
To vpra�anje izrecno urejata le člena 6 in 11 te direktive.
Before determining whether Article 22 may none the less be applied to charges such as the charge at issue in the main proceedings, it is necessary to interpret that article by reference not only to its wording but also to its objective and scheme in the context of Directive 97/13 taken as a whole.
Da bi lahko ugotovili, ali je mogoče člen 22 uporabiti tudi za denarne dajatve, kakr�na je zadevna pristojbina v postopku v glavni stvari, je treba podati razlago omenjenega člena, pri čemer se je treba poleg besedila sklicevati tudi na njegov namen in ume�čenost v Direktivo 97/13 kot celoto.
In that regard, recital 26 in the preamble to that directive serves to clarify the objective of Article 22.
Šestindvajseta uvodna izjava te direktive pojasnjuje namen omenjenega člena 22.
The Community legislature stated in that recital that certain telecommunications licences have been granted by the Member States for periods which go beyond 1 January 1999.
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti v tej uvodni izjavi ugotavlja, da so države članice nekatere telekomunikacijske licence podelile za obdobja, ki se bodo zaključila po 1. januarju 1999.
In order to avoid claims for compensation, it was considered necessary to allow the Member States to extend the validity of certain conditions of those licences, in so far as they do not confer special or exclusive rights.
Da bi se izognili od�kodninskim zahtevkom, je bilo treba državam članicam dovoliti, da podalj�ajo veljavnost nekaterih pogojev v teh licencah, če se z njimi ne podeljujejo posebne ali izključne pravice.
As regards those rights, without prejudice to authorisations granted by the Commission, they must be withdrawn in particular pursuant to Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10).
Te pravice je bilo treba ob upo�tevanju dovoljenj, ki jih je odobrila Komisija, ukiniti zlasti na podlagi Direktive Komisije 90/388/EGS z dne 28. junija 1990 o konkurenci na trgih za telekomunikacijske storitve (UL L 192, str. 10).
The objective of Article 22 of Directive 97/13 is therefore to avoid litigation, by making it possible for contractual relationships entered into between those States and telecommunications undertakings before the entry into force of that directive to continue beyond 1 January 1999, while granting the Member States a period only until that date in order to adapt the content of the contracts in question to the provisions of that directive.
Namen člena 22 Direktive 97/13 je torej preprečiti spore, s tem da se dovoli, da se pogodbena razmerja, ki so jih države članice sklenile s telekomunikacijskimi podjetji pred začetkom veljavnosti te direktive, ohranijo tudi po 1. januarju 1999, pri čemer morajo države do tega dne prilagoditi vsebino zadevnih pogodb določbam direktive.
The purpose of Article 22 of Directive 97/13, thus clarified in the light of recital 26, therefore appears to have nothing to do with the continuation of a charge connected with a former exclusive right.
Namen člena 22 Direktive 97/13, opredeljen z vidika njene �estindvajsete uvodne izjave, se torej ne zdi združljiv z ohranitvijo denarne dajatve, povezane z nekdanjo izključno pravico.
Analysis of the precise wording of that article supports that finding.
Analiza natančnih izrazov, uporabljenih v tem členu, podpira to ugotovitev.
First, so far as concerns a Member State which has not obtained an authorisation from the Commission to maintain special or exclusive telecommunications rights, Article 22(2) of Directive 97/13 precludes the continuation of conditions giving such rights beyond 31 December 1997.
Prvič, člen 22(2) Direktive 97/13 izključuje možnost, da bi država članica, ki od Komisije ni pridobila dovoljenja za ohranitev posebnih ali izključnih pravic na področju telekomunikacij, tudi po 31. decembru 1997 ohranila pogoje, ki podeljujejo omenjene pravice.
As the Advocate General has pointed out in paragraph 37 of his Opinion, if an exclusive right is withdrawn, that withdrawal must generally affect the application of the pecuniary charge which is the consideration for it.
Kot opozarja generalni pravobranilec v točki 37 sklepnih predlogov, mora prenehanje izključne pravice običajno vplivati na uporabo denarne dajatve, določene v zameno.
Secondly, the actual wording of Article 22(3) of Directive 97/13 makes it clear that that paragraph applies without prejudice to the provisions of Article 22(2).
Drugič, že iz besedila člena 22(3) Direktive 97/13 izhaja, da se ta odstavek uporablja, ne da bi posegal v določbe odstavka 2 istega člena.
Since that subparagraph excludes the terms giving special or exclusive rights, Article 22(3) cannot refer to obligations laid down in such terms, so that it cannot be understood as allowing them to continue until 31 December 1998.
Glede na to, da slednji izključuje pogoje, ki podeljujejo posebne ali izključne pravice, se omenjeni člen 22(3) ne more nana�ati na obveznosti, ki so povezane s temi pogoji, in ga tako ni mogoče razumeti v smislu, da dovoljuje njihovo ohranitev do 31. decembra 1998.
Consequently, it must be considered that an obligation taking the form of a charge linked to a former exclusive right does not come within the scope of the obligations referred to in Article 22(3) of Directive 97/13 and such a charge cannot be continued beyond 31 December 1997 pursuant to Article 25 of that directive.
Zato je treba zaključiti, da obveznost v obliki pristojbine, določene v povezavi z nekdanjo izključno pravico, ne sodi na področje uporabe obveznosti iz člena 22(3) Direktive 97/13 in da tak�ne pristojbine ni mogoče ohraniti po 31. decembru 1997 v skladu s členom 25 omenjene direktive.
The Italian Government stated at the hearing, however, that the payment of the charge in the case in the main proceedings is not linked to the grant of an exclusive right, which has, moreover, been withdrawn.
Italijanska vlada pa je na obravnavi navedla, da plačilo zadevne pristojbine v postopku v glavni stvari ni povezano s podelitvijo izključne pravice, ki je sicer prenehala.
That charge was designed, in fact, to facilitate on the part of the Italian Republic the transition towards a competitive system.
Italijanska republika naj bi pristojbino naložila z namenom pospe�itve prehoda v sistem konkurence.
Since that Member State had to abandon the system of exclusive rights which it had set up as well as the resources which that system guaranteed it, the continuation of that charge for one year constituted a financial contribution enabling it to adapt gradually to the new system.
Ker je morala ta država članica opustiti dotlej veljaven sistem izključnih pravic in tudi vire, ki ji jih je zagotavljal, naj bi ohranitev omenjene pristojbine za nadaljnje leto predstavljala finančni prispevek za postopno prilagoditev novemu sistemu.
The word ‘obligations’ in Article 22(3) of Directive 97/13 is distinct from the word ‘terms’ used in Article 22(2) and should be read independently of the latter.
Izraz „obveznosti“ iz člena 22(3) Direktive 97/13 naj bi se razlikoval od izraza „pogoji“, uporabljenega v odstavku 2 istega člena, in naj bi ga bilo treba razumeti neodvisno od slednjega.
It thus provides a means for a Member State to impose, for financial reasons, a charge such as the charge at issue in the main proceedings until 31 December 1998.
Državi članici naj bi omogočal, da iz finančnih razlogov do 31. decembra 1998 nalaga denarne dajatve, kakr�na je zadevna pristojbina v postopku v glavni stvari.