natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘If that notice is not given, the consumer’s right of cancellation shall not lapse until one month after both parties have performed in full their obligations under the agreement’.
Tak�en pouk mora imeti datum in podatke, ki omogočajo identifikacijo pogodbe.
Such notice shall be dated and shall state particulars enabling the contract to be identified.
„Če potro�nik o tem ni bil poučen, njegova pravica do odstopa preneha �ele en mesec po tem, ko obe stranki v celoti izpolnita svoje obveznosti.“
Member States shall ensure that their national legislation lays down appropriate consumer protection measures in cases where the information referred to in this Article is not supplied.’
Države članice zagotovijo, da njihova nacionalna zakonodaja določa ustrezne ukrepe za varstvo potro�nikov v primerih, ko pouk iz tega člena ni bil dan.“
By virtue of Article 5 of Directive 85/577:
Predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje o skladnosti člena 2(1), četrti stavek, HWiG z Direktivo 85/577.
3 — That provision was amended subsequently by the Law on the modernisation of the law of obligations (Schuldrechtsmodemisierungsgesetz, BGBl 2001 I, p. 3138).
3 – Od takrat je bila ta določba spremenjena z zakonom o spremembi prava obligacij Schuldrechtsmodernisierungs-gesetz (BGBl. 2001 I, str. 3138).
That law came into force on 1 January 2002 and provides that the right of cancellation no longer lapses if the consumer has not been properly notified of that right.
Zakon je začel veljati 1. januarja 2002 in izključuje prenehanje pravice do odstopa, če potro�nik o njej ni bil pravilno poučen.
However, since that new provision does not have retroactive effect, the dispute is governed by the fourth sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the Law on the cancellation of doorstep transactions and analogous transactions.
Vendar ob neobstoju retroaktivnega učinka, ki ga ima ta nova določba, spor, s katerim se ukvarjamo, �e vedno ureja člen 2(1), četrti stavek HWiG.
The consumer shall have the right to renounce the effects of his undertaking by
Potro�nik ima pravico, da odstopi od pogodbe, tako da v roku, ki ni dalj�i od
HAMILTON sending notice within a period of not less than seven days from receipt by the consumer of the notice referred to in Article 4, in accordance with the procedure laid down by national law.
HAMILTON je bil potro�nik poučen’ o pravici do odstopa in da ga mora o tej pravici poučiti trgovec.
It shall be sufficient if the notice is dispatched before the end of such period.
Te določbe se pojasnjujejo tako, da potro�nik, če ni bil seznanjen s svojo pravico do odstopa, le-te ne more uresničevati.
days prescribed for cancellation must be calculated “from receipt by the consumer of the notice” concerning his right of cancellation, and that it is on the trader that the obligation falls to provide that information.
sedmih dni po prejemu pouka iz člena 4, po�lje pisno obvestilo po postopku, določenem v nacionalnem pravu.
Those provisions are explained by the fact that if the consumer is not aware of the existence of the right of cancellation, he will not be able to exercise that right.
Zadostuje, če je pisno obvestilo odposlano pred iztekom tega roka.
The giving of the notice shall have the effect of releasing the consumer from any obligations under the cancelled contract.’
Posledica obvestila je, da je potro�nik prost vseh obveznosti iz pogodbe, od katere je odstopil.“
Having regard to the wording and purpose of Article 5 of the doorstep-selling directive, it is not possible to construe the third paragraph of Article 4 as enabling the national legislature to provide that the consumer’s right of cancellation must in any event be exercised within a period of one year, even if the trader has not notified the consumer of the existence of that right.
Glede na člen 5 Direktive o prodaji od vrat do vrat in njegov namen, člena 4, tretji odstavek, ni mogoče razlagati, kot da nacionalnemu zakonodajalcu omogoča, da določi, da je pravico do odstopa, ki jo ima potro�nik, v vsakem primeru treba uresničevati v enem letu, čeprav trgovec potro�nika ni poučil o tej pravici.
The Court has already had occasion to rule on the interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 4 and Article 5(1) of Directive 85/577 in Heininger 4.
Sodi�če je že imelo priložnost, da se izreče o razlagi členov 4, tretji odstavek, in 5(1) Direktive 85/577 v sodbi Heininger 4.
The applicant in that case had received no information about his right of cancellation.
V tej zadevi tožeča stranka ni bila poučena o pravici do odstopa.
The German legislation none the less laid down a timelimit of one year from the conclusion of the contract for the exercise of that right in such circumstances.
Za te okoli�čine pa je nem�ka zakonodaja določala omejitev roka za uresničevanje te pravice na eno leto od sklenitve pogodbe.
The Court decided as follows:
Sodi�če je odločilo:
Finally, as regards the argument that it is essential, for reasons of legal certainty, to restrict the period within which the right of cancellation may be exercised, such reasons cannot prevail since they imply a limitation of the rights expressly conferred on consumers by the doorstep-selling directive in order to protect them against the risks arising from the fact that the credit institutions have chosen to enter into agreements away from their business premises. …’
Glede trditve, da je treba nujno omejiti rok za uresničevanje pravice do odstopa zaradi pravne varnosti, je treba povedati, da ti razlogi ne morejo prevladati, kolikor določajo omejitev pravic, ki jih potro�niku izrecno podeli Direktiva o prodaji od vrat do vrat, da se ga zavaruje zoper nevarnosti, ki izhajajo iz tega, da so kreditne institucije izbrale, da sklenejo kreditne pogodbe za nakup nepremičnine zunaj svojih poslovnih prostorov. […]“
It was precisely after becoming aware of the judgment in Heininger, cited above, that Ms Hamilton cancelled the initial loan contract on 16 May 2002.
Natanko po tem, ko se je seznanila z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Heininger, je A.
On 27 December 2004, she brought an action for reimbursement of the interest and the amount of the loan that she had paid, and for compensation for the interest she had paid to the building society.
Hamilton 16. maja 2004 odpovedala pogodbo začetnega posojila. Nato je 27. decembra 2004 vložila tožbo za vračilo obresti in zneska posojila, ki jih je plačala, ter tudi za od�kodnino iz naslova obresti, ki so bile plačane stanovanjskemu skladu.
In the event that the Court answers the first question referred in the negative:
Če je odgovor na prvo predložitveno vpra�anje nikalen:
The national court is unsure as to the precise implications of the Heininger judgment, cited above, inasmuch as it cannot clearly deduce from that case whether Direct- ive 85/577 precludes the national legislature from limiting the right of cancellation in all situations.
Predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje tudi o natančnem obsegu zgoraj navedene sodbe Heininger, kolikor iz te zadeve ne more jasno sklepati, da Direktiva 85/577 v vseh predpostavkah prepoveduje nacionalnemu zakonodajalcu, da omeji pravico do odstopa.
(2) Should Directive 85/577/EEC be interpreted as meaning that the right of renunciation cannot be forfeited by the consumer — in particular after the completion of the contract — if he has not been given notice in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Directive?’
Ali je treba Direktivo 85/577/EGS razlagati tako, da potro�niku – zlasti po izpolnitvi pogodbe – pravica do odstopa ne preneha, če ni bil poučen na podlagi člena 4(1) Direktive?“
Article 4 of Directive 85/577 lays down the principle that ‘traders shall be required to give consumers written notice of their right of cancellation within the period laid down in Article 5’.
Ali je treba člena 4(1) in 5(1) Direktive Sveta 85/577/EGS z dne 20. decembra 1985 razlagati tako, da nacionalnemu zakonodajalcu ne preprečujeta, da na podlagi člena 5 priznano pravico do odstopa časovno omeji kljub
Consistently with the purpose of Directive 85/577, that principle is intended to protect consumers who have concluded contracts in a doorstep-selling situation.
S tem načelom se v skladu s ciljem iz Direktive 85/577 želi zagotoviti varstvo potro�nika v okviru pogodb, sklenjenih po prodaji od vrat do vrat.
In accordance with that approach, the right of cancellation must be understood as an extension of the consumer’s right to information.
V tem pogledu je treba pravico do odstopa razumeti kot raz�iritev pravice potro�nika, da je poučen.
Moreover, where the consumer is not supplied with adequate information, Directive 85/577 leaves it to the national legislature concerned to lay down ‘appropriate consumer protection measures’. 5
V podporo te razlage člen 4, tretji odstavek, te direktive določa, da „[d]ržave članice zagotovijo, da njihova nacionalna zakonodaja določa ustrezne ukrepe […] v primerih, ko pouk iz tega člena ni bil dan“.
7 It follows that if the information supplied does not fulfil the requirements laid down in the first paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 85/577, that information cannot be regarded as valid and it is thus for the Member States to determine what measures are appropriate to ensure protection of consumers, in the same way as if no information had been supplied concerning the right of cancellation.
Ne obstaja namreč noben razlog za razlikovanje med neobstojem pouka in napačnim poukom, saj v obeh primerih potro�nik ni pravilno poučen o svoji pravici do odstopa.
None the less, the situation before the referring court is not absolutely identical to that which gave rise to the judgment in Heininger, cited above.
Vendar položaj v tej zadevi ni popolnoma enak kot položaj, v katerem je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Heininger. Dejansko poziva k temu, da se re�itev nekoliko izbolj�a.
However, the Court has explained that if the consumer is not informed of the existence of his right of cancellation, reasons of legal certainty cannot prevail to justify a limitation of the rights expressly conferred on consumers by Directive 85/577 in order to protect them against the risks arising from contracts concluded in a doorstep-selling situation. 6
Vendar je Sodi�če pojasnilo, da razlogi pravne varnosti, če potro�nik ni bil poučen o obstoju pravice do odstopa, ne morejo prevladati, da se upraviči omejitev pravic, ki jih je izrecno dodelila Direktiva 85/577, da bi za�čitila potro�nika pred tveganji, ki izhajajo iz sklenitve pogodbe po prodaji od vrat do vrat. 6
It appears from the facts which were communicated to the Court at the hearing that Ms Hamilton became aware of her right
Dejansko iz dejstev, ki so bila predložena Sodi�ču in potrjena na obravnavi, izhaja, da je bila A. Hamilton poučena o pravici do
5 — Third paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 85/577.6 — Heininger, paragraph 47.
5 – Člen 4, tretji odstavek, Direktive 85/577.6 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Heininger, točka 47.
7 — My italics.
7 – Moj poudarek.
the placing of a timelimit on the exercise of a right, most often referred to as ‘limitation’, is a principle common to the laws of the Member States.
na ravni Skupnosti z vzpostavitvijo skupnega referenčnega okvira na področju evropskega pogodbenega prava. 9 Obstoj splo�nega načela zastaranja bi bilo tako treba priznati in državam članicam pustiti prosto presojo, ki je potrebna za izvajanje tega načela v njihovem pravnem redu.
That situation raises questions as to whether it would be appropriate to allow the right of cancellation to subsist independently of any timelimit when it is established that the consumer became aware, or could have become aware, of his right of cancellation notwithstanding the fact that the information was not supplied by the trader with whom he had entered into contractual relations.
Vendar ker se zastaranje upravičuje v glavnem z razmi�ljanji glede pravne varnosti 10, se taka razmi�ljanja, v skladu s
However, since limitation is justifiable essentially for reasons of legal certainty 10, such reasons cannot, in accordance with Heininger, prevail over the obligation to
Ne gre za to, da se postavi pod vpra�anje re�itev, na podlagi katere se lahko, ob neobstoju pouka glede pravice do odstopa, ta vedno uresničuje; ampak za presojo, ali ne bi bilo utemeljeno meniti, da kolikor bi se upravičenec te pravice o njej lahko poučil, bi bile države članice upravičene v okviru proste presoje, ki jim je priznana s členom 4, tretji odstavek, Direktive 85/577, da določijo rok, v katerem se lahko veljavno odstopi od pogodbe.
8 — See, in particular, the study carried out by the Lando Commission, Principles of European Contract Law, Part III, O. Lando, E. Clive, A. Prüm and R. Zimmermann (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2003), especially Chapter 14; Le code européen des contrats, (Pilot study prepared by the Academy of European Specialists in Private Law), Book One, coordinator G. Gandolfi, A. Giuffrè, Milan, 2004, especially Title X and p.
8 – Glej med drugim �tudijo komisije Lando, Principles of European Contract Law, del III, Lando, O., Clive, E., Prüm, A. in Zimmermann, R. (ur.), Kluwer Law International, Hag, 2003, zlasti Poglavje 14; Le code européen des contrats, predprojekt akademije evropskih privatistov, koordinator Gandolfi, G., Knjiga I, A. Giuffrè, Milano, 2004, zlasti Poglavje X ter stran 260 in naslednje ter Principles of existing EC Contract Law (Načela Acquisja), Contract I, Pre-contractual Obligations, Conclusion of contract, Unfair Terms, prvi zvezek del, Sellier, 2007, zlasti str.
98 et seq. and p. 166 et seq.
98 in naslednje ter str.
9 — The Commission has come out in favour of a common frame of reference. See, inter alia, the Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on European Contract Law and the revision of the acquis: the way forward (COM(2004) 651 final) and Report from the Commission - First Annual Progress Report on European Contract Law and the Acquis Review (COM(2005) 56 final).
9 – Komisija se torej izreče v korist izdelave skupnega referenčnega okvira: glej predvsem Sporočilo Komisije EP in Svetu: Evropsko pogodbeno pravo in sprememba Acquisa: COM(2005)456 konč. Koristno se lahko sklicujemo na �tudije glede tega, med drugim, Van Gerven, W., „Comparative law in a texture of communitarization of national laws and europeanization of community law“, in Judicial Review in the European Union, Liber amicorum in honour of Lord Slynn of Hadley, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, zvezek. I, 2000, str. 433–445; Schulze, R., „The Acquis Communautaire and the Development of European Contrat Law“, in Schulze/Ebers/Grigoleit �t. 25), str.
15 and, more generally, on the technique whereby the Community Courts have recourse to the principles common to the legal systems of the Member States: Y. Galmot ‘Réflexions sur le recours au droit comparé par la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes’, RFDA, 1990, p. 255.
15 in na splo�no o tehniki pravnega sredstva glede načel, skupnih pravom držav članic s strani sodnega organa Skupnosti: Galmot, Y., „Réflexions sur le recours au droit comparé par la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes“, RFDA, 1990, str. 255.
There are several arguments in favour of that solution. It should be pointed out that
Na tej podlagi je treba povedati, da časovna omejitev uresničevanja pravice, ki je večkrat določena kot „zastaranje“, predstavlja skupni
10 — See the studies mentioned in note 9.
10 – Glej �tudije, navedene v opombi 10.
HAMILTON right of cancellation appears to be justified, even though the information did not come from the trader.
HAMILTON omejitev možnosti za uveljavljanje te pravice izkaže za upravičeno, čeprav ga trgovec o tej pravici ni poučil.
inform the consumer.
sodno prakso iz zadeve Heininger, ne morejo sklicevati na obveznost, da se pouči potro�nika 11.
11As long as the consumer has not been supplied with information concerning his right of cancellation, he is unable to become aware of the full extent of his right.
Tako dolgo, kolikor potro�nik ni bil poučen o svoji pravici do odstopa, namreč ne more v celoti poznati svoje pravice.
Consequently, the limitation of the right of cancellation cannot be relied on against the consumer where such information has not been supplied.
Zato se zastaranja pravice do odstopa ne more uveljavljati proti potro�niku, če o njej ni bil poučen.
The protection of that right is recognised in Heininger as being of fundamental importance in ensuring that consumers are informed as to their rights under Directive 85/577, with the result that the informing of the consumer is the essential guarantee of the effectiveness of Directive 85/577.
Varstvo te pravice je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Heininger priznano kot temeljno za zagotovitev pouka potro�nika o njegovih pravicah, ki jih ima po Direktivi, tako da pouk potro�nika predstavlja bistveno jamstvo polnega učinka Direktive 85/577.
To accept a timelimit on the right of cancellation when that essential condition is not fulfilled would not only fail to ensure the protection of the consumers but would protect traders, a situation which would directly contravene the objective which Directive 85/577 seeks to attain.
Določitev časovne omejitve pravice do odstopa potro�nika, čeprav ta bistveni pogoj ne bi bil izpolnjen, tudi ne bi zagotovilo varstva tega potro�nika, ampak trgovca, torej bi bil tak položaj neposredno v nasprotju s ciljem Direktive 85/577.
That approach does not cause the consumer to lose his right of cancellation but merely places a timelimit on the exercise thereof if the consumer, notwithstanding the fact that he was aware of, or could have been aware of, the information concerning his right of cancellation, did not invoke that right within a certain time.
Ta re�itev ne vodi k temu, da se potro�niku odvzame njegovo pravico do odstopa, ampak le da se časovno omeji uresničevanje te pravice, ker je potro�nik, čeprav je bil s to pravico seznanjen ali je imel možnost, da se z njo seznani, v določenem roku ni uresničeval.
Under those circumstances, the stability of legal relations and even the fairness of commercial transactions require that a fair balance should be struck between the protection of the consumer (ensured by his right to be informed and his right of cancellation) and the stability of legal relations, which requires that when it is established that the consumer knew or could have known, of the existence of his right, it should not be possible to call the contract into question beyond a certain period starting from the point at which the necessary information was obtained.
V takih okoli�činah trdnost pravnih razmerij in tudi lojalnost trgovskih poslov določata, da se izvaja pravilno ravnovesje med varstvom potro�nika, ki ga zagotavljata pouk in tudi obstoj pravice do odstopa, ter načelom trdnosti pravnih razmerij, ki mora omogočati, da se �teje, če se izkaže, da potro�nik pozna ali je lahko poznal obstoj svoje pravice, da se pogodbi ne bo več oporekalo po izteku določenega roka od prejema zahtevanega pouka.
However, once it is possible to establish that the consumer — who, according to the caselaw of the Court, is supposed to have ‘a certain measure of alertness and discrimination’ 12 — was able to become aware of his right of cancellation, or actually did so, a timelimit on the possibility of relying on the
Vendar ker je mogoče ugotoviti, da kadar bi potro�nik, ki mora po sodni praksi Sodi�ča „imeti določeno stopnjo pozornosti in razlikovanja“ 12, lahko poznal ali je poznal svojo pravico do odstopa, se časovna
11 — Heininger, paragraph 47.
11 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Heininger, točka 47.
12 — See, in particular, Case C-220/98 Estée Lauder [2000] ECR I-117, paragraphs 17 and 30.
12 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 13. januarja 2000 v zadevi Estée Lauder (C-220/98, Recueil, str. I-117, točki 17 in 30).
Directive 85/577 does not require wider protection, which would leave a consumer who was aware of his right of cancellation free, to a disproportionate extent, to choose
Direktiva 85/577 ne zahteva �ir�ega varstva, ki ne bi sorazmerno dopu�čalo proste presoje potro�niku, ki je poučen o svoji pravici do odstopa, izbire najbolj ugodnega
To my mind, the absence of any timelimit on the right of cancellation where the consumer was aware of his right clearly goes beyond the objective which the directive sought to attain.
Neobstoj kakr�ne koli časovne omejitve pravice do odstopa, če je bil potro�nik seznanjen s svojo pravico do odstopa, po mojem mnenju očitno prekorači cilj varstva, ki je namen Direktive.
Protection of the consumer does not rule out the possibility of a timelimit on the right of cancellation, inasmuch as Article 5(1) of Directive 85/577 expressly provides for such a possibility where the information required under the directive is supplied in accordance with the conditions laid down therein.
Varstvo potro�nika ne izključuje omejitve pravice do odstopa, ker člen 5(1) izrecno predvidi tako možnost, če je bil pouk, ki se zahteva v skladu z Direktivo, zagotovljen v okoli�činah iz tega besedila.
Thus, even if the information is supplied to the consumer late and by means other than those provided for in the directive, the object- ive of protecting the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises will not be affected.
Prav tako, čeprav je potro�nik poučen pozno in ne na način, ki je določen v Direktivi, te okoli�čine ne vplivajo na cilj varstva potro�nika v okviru pogodb, sklenjenih zunaj poslovnih prostorov.
Certainly, it seems difficult to me to claim, as the German Government does, that those directives constitute, together with the doorstep selling directive, a ‘package of protection’ implying, in the interests of legal consistency, that there must necessarily be a three-month timelimit on the exercise of the right of cancellation.
Seveda se težko strinjam z nem�ko vlado, da sestavljajo te direktive, skupaj z Direktivo o prodaji od vrat do vrat, „paket varstva“, ki v težnji po pravni doslednosti določa, da nujno obstaja omejitev za uresničevanje te pravice, to je tri mesece 15.
15The distinguishing feature of Directive 85/577 is the need for a higher level of protection of the consumer once he is in physical contact with the seller who may therefore exercise a greater influence on him.
Direktiva, s katero se ukvarjamo, se razlikuje z okrepljeno potrebo po varstvu potro�nika, ko je bil ta v fizičnem stiku s prodajalcem, čigar vpliv lahko torej potro�nik močneje začuti 16.
16 That view seems to have been confirmed by the Court in Heininger when it decided that, in a doorstep-selling situation, a limit on the right of cancellation may be relied on against the consumer only from the time at which the latter becomes aware of the existence of his right.
Izkazalo se je, da je Sodi�če to mnenje potrdilo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Heininger, ker meni, da se lahko pri prodaji od vrat do vrat omejitev pravice do odstopa uveljavlja proti potro�niku le od trenutka, ko je poučen o svoji pravici.
None the less, it cannot be denied that those directives suggest the existence of a principle common to the laws of the Member States, and which is also found at Community level, to the effect that a timelimit should be placed on the exercise of a right which has not been exercised during a period such that a doubt arises as to whether it will ever be exercised by the person entitled to it.
Vendar pa ne moremo zanikati, da te direktive posku�ajo dokazati obstoj načela, ki je skupen državam članicam, ki ga ponovno najdemo na ravni Skupnosti in ki namerava določiti časovno omejitev uresničevanja pravice, če se ni uresničevala v obdobju, v katerem bi lahko dvomili, da jo bo enkrat uveljavljal njen upravičenec.
Thus, once it has been established that the consumer became aware — or could have
Torej, kadar je ugotovljeno, da je bil potro�nik poučen – ali bi lahko bil poučen – o
Moreover, Directives 94/47/EC 13and 97/7/EC 14, dealing with timeshare and distance contracts respectively, expressly fix a timelimit beyond which the right of cancellation my not be exercised even if no information has been supplied concerning that right.
Poleg tega direktivi 94/47/ES 13in 97/7/ES 14, ki se nana�ata na pogodbe „timesharing“ in na pogodbe, sklenjene na daljavo, izrecno določajo rok, po katerem pravice do odstopa ni več mogoče uresničevati, čeprav potro�nik ni bil poučen o njej.