natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court has not been provided with any figures as to the production or consumption of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ in Italy, or of cheese marketed elsewhere as ‘Parmesan’, whether in Germany or in other Member States of the European Union.
Sodi�ču niso bili predstavljeni nobeni podatki o proizvodnji ali potro�nji „Parmigiano Reggiano“ v Italiji ali sira, ki se trži drugje kot „Parmesan“, bodisi v Nemčiji bodisi v drugih državah članicah Evropske unije.
As to the status of the name ‘Parmesan’ under the national law of the Member States, the Court lacks a general overview as to the existence of legislation on Parmesan or the use of the word ‘Parmesan’ in the national legislation of other Member States.
Glede statusa imena „Parmesan“ po nacionalnem pravu države članice Sodi�če nima splo�nega pregleda o obstoju zakonodaje o Parmesanu ali uporabi besede „Parmesan“ v nacionalni zakonodaji drugih držav članic.
Germany only submitted data on one piece of foreign legislation, namely Austrian legislation, where the word ‘Parmesan’ appears to be used as a generic term.
Nemčija je predložila le podatke o eni izmed tujih zakonodaj, namreč avstrijski zakonodaji, iz katere izhaja, da je beseda „Parmesan“ uporabljana kot generični izraz.
The parties merely provided quotations from dictionaries and specialist literature, which do not provide any comprehensive view on how the word ‘Parmesan’ is perceived by consumers in Germany and beyond.
Stranke so posredovale le citate iz slovarjev in specializirane literature, ki ne zagotavljajo nikakr�nega vsestranskega pogleda na to, kako besedo Parmesan dojemajo potro�niki v Nemčiji in �ir�e.
19 — In Feta II, packaging material used outside Greece and suggesting a connection between the name ‘feta’ and Greek cultural traditions and civilisation was considered to be evidence of the lack of generic character of the word ‘feta’.
19 – V sodbi Feta II se je �telo, da je embalaža, uporabljana zunaj Grčije, ki je namigovala na povezavo med imenom „feta“ in gr�ko kulturno tradicijo in civilizacijo, dokaz za pomanjkanje generičnega značaja besede „feta“.
In that case the area of production of ‘feta’ covered a very large part of Greek territory.
V tem primeru je območje, kjer so proizvajali „feto“, zajemalo velik del gr�kega ozemlja.
For that reason the Court could assume that the link between the designation ‘feta’ and Greece was valuable evidence of the connection consumers establish between the name ‘feta’ and the area of production of the PDO ‘feta’ which thus rules out a generic character for the name ‘feta’.
Zato je Sodi�če lahko presodilo, da je povezava med označbo „feta“ in Grčijo koristen dokaz povezanosti, ki so jo potro�niki vzpostavili med imenom feta in območjem proizvodnje ZOP „feta“, ki tako izključuje generičost imena „feta“.
It is however questionable whether such an approach could be followed in the present case, because the area of production of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ only covers a very limited part of Italian territory.
Vendar je vpra�ljivo, ali lahko takemu pristopu sledimo v dani zadevi, ker območje proizvodnje „Parmigiano Reggiano“ zajema le zelo omejen del italijanskega ozemlja.
For that reason it is doubtful whether it could be inferred from a connection between ‘Parmesan’ and Italy that consumers expect cheese named ‘Parmesan’ to originate in the area of production of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ in Emilia-Romagna.
Iz tega razloga dvomim, da lahko izpeljemo iz povezave med „Parmesanom“ in Italijo, da potro�niki pričakujejo, da bo sir z imenom „Parmesan“ izviral z območja proizvodnje „Parmigiano Reggiano“ v Emilii-Romagni.
Another piece of evidence submitted was in the form of packaging and marketing
Eden od predloženih dokazov je bil podan v obliki embalaže in materiala za trženje, ki kažeta, da nekateri proizvajalci sira, ki se trži pod imenom „Parmesan“
It follows that Germany has not even produced evidence to substantiate to any great extent its argument that the name ‘Parmesan’ has become generic in Germany.
Iz tega izhaja, da Nemčija ni predložila dokazov za zadostno utemeljitev, da je ime „Parmesan“ postalo generično v Nemčiji.
For that purpose, it would in my view have been useful to produce inter alia comprehensive information on consumers’ perception of the name ‘Parmesan’, for example in the form of a consumer survey, and consumption and production data concerning cheese marketed as ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ and as ‘Parmesan’.
Menim, da bi bilo v ta namen med drugim koristno predložiti celovite podatke o zaznavanju potro�nikov imena „Parmesan“, na primer v obliki potro�ni�ke raziskave, in podatkov o potro�nji in proizvodnji sira, ki se trži kot „Parmigiano Reggiano“ in kot „Parmesan“.
It would however be unrealistic to require a Member State to provide complete proof that a word has become generic beyond its own territory.
Vendar bi bilo nerealnno zahtevati od države članice, da zagotovi popoln dokaz, da je beseda postala generična zunaj njenega lastnega ozemlja.
VI — Is Germany under an obligation to prosecute ex officio the infringement of Article 13(1)(b) of the Basic Regulation?
VI – Ali mora Nemčija po uradni dolžnosti preganjati kršitev člena 13(1)(b) Temeljne uredbe?
C — Conclusion
A – Trditve strank
Since Germany, which raised the generic nature of the term ‘Parmesan’ as a defence in the present proceedings, has failed to produce, even in respect of Germany, evidence to substantiate to any great extent its argument that the name ‘Parmesan’ has become generic, the use of the word ‘Parmesan’ for cheese which does not comply with the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ must be regarded for the purposes of the present proceedings as infringing the protection provided for that PDO in accordance with Article 13(1)(b) of the Basic Regulation.
Ker Nemčija, ki je v obrambi v tem postopku izpostavila generičnost izraza „Parmesan“, ni niti glede same Nemčije predložila dokazov za zadostno utemeljitev tega, da je ime „Parmesan“ postalo generično, je treba uporabo besede „Parmesan“ za sir, ki ne ustreza specifikaciji ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, za namene tega postopka �teti kot kr�itev za�čite, ki je za ta ZOP zagotovljena v skladu s členom 13(1)(b) Temeljne uredbe.
The Commission claims that Germany has not complied with the obligations imposed by Article 13(1)(b) of the Basic Regulation by formally refusing to prosecute, on its territory, the use of the designation ‘Parmesan’.
Komisija trdi, da je Nemčija kr�ila obveznosti iz člena 13(1)(b) Temeljne uredbe s tem, da je formalno zavrnila pregon, na svojem ozemlju, uporabe označbe „Parmesan“.
It argues, in particular, that infringements of Article 13 of the Basic Regulation must be dealt with by ex officio measures and not merely by private actions brought before the national courts.
Meni zlasti, da je treba na kr�itve člena 13 Temeljne uredbe odgovoriti z ukrepi po uradni dolžnosti, in ne le z zasebnimi tožbami, vloženimi pred nacionalnimi sodi�či.
The obligation to intervene through the use of ex officio measures arises clearly from the terms of Article 10 of the Basic Regulation, which requires the Member States to put in place inspection structures to verify that PDOs are not misused.
Dolžnost uporabe ukrepov po uradni dolžnosti jasno izhaja iz člena 10 Temeljne uredbe, ki od držav članic zahteva vzpostavitev struktur kontrole, katerih naloga je zagotavljati, da se ZOP ne zlorabi.
Moreover, in a number of Member States the functions of these structures include the monitoring of compliance with Article 13 of the Basic Regulation.
Poleg tega je v �tevilnih državah članicah naloga teh struktur nadzor nad usklajenostjo s členom 13 Temeljne uredbe.
The obligation to provide for administrative and criminal penalties confirms the obligation to act ex officio.
Obveznost določitve kazenskih in upravnih sankcij potrjuje obveznost ukrepanja po uradni dolžnosti.
Ex officio measures are necessary in order to ensure that products which are not in compliance with the requirements of the Basic Regulation are not placed on the market. For these purposes Member States must also take appropriate administrative measures and provide for adequate criminal penalties.
Možnost vlaganja zasebnih tožb na sodi�čih ni ustrezna, saj se tako želi za�čititi samo zasebni gospodarski interes, kar pomeni tveganje za druge cilje Temeljne uredbe.
By not doing so, Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1)(b) of the Basic Regulation in the same way that France failed to fulfil its obligations by its failure to act in the circumstances which gave rise to the judgment in Commission v France. 20
Z opustitvijo takega ukrepanja Nemčija ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 13(1)(b) Temeljne uredbe enako kot Francija ni izpolnila obveznosti ukrepanja v okoli�činah, ki so pripeljale do sodbe v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji 20.
Germany submits that Article 13 of the Basic Regulation, which lays down the scope
Nemčija trdi, da se člen 13 Temeljne uredbe, ki določa obseg za�čite registriranih geografskih znakov in označb porekla,
Germany’s argument that there have not been any judicial proceedings against the marketing of cheese which does not comply with the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ before German courts is irrelevant because, in order to enforce the Basic Regulation effectively, Member States should, in any event, have prosecuted ex officio the unlawful marketing of products called ‘Parmesan’ which do not fulfil the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ without the need for a complaint or a judicial action brought by a private party or an association for consumer protection.
Trditev Nemčije, da pred nem�kimi sodi�či niso bili sproženi sodni postopki proti trženju sira, ki ne ustreza specifikaciji za ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, ni pomemben, saj bi države članice morale za učinkovito uporabo Temeljne uredbe vsekakor po uradni dolžnosti preganjati nezakonito trženje proizvodov, imenovanih „Parmesan“, ki ne izpolnjujejo specifikacije za ZOP „Parmigiano
In this regard actions may be brought under trademark law, foodstuffs law and unfair competition law for breach of the PDO.
V zvezi s tem se lahko vložijo tožbe po pravu znamk, po zakonodaji o živilih in pravu o varovanju konkurence za kr�itve ZOP.
In the present case it is thus for the German courts to examine whether the use of the designation ‘Parmesan’ on the labels of products does not comply with the mandatory specification for the designation ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ and thereby breaches the terms of the Basic Regulation.
V obravnavani zadevi morajo torej nem�ka sodi�ča preučiti, ali je uporaba označbe „Parmesan“ na etiketah proizvodov v skladu z obvezno specifikacijo za označbo „Parmigiano Reggiano“, sicer kr�i določbe Temeljne uredbe.
By establishing such private enforcement, Germany has taken all necessary measures to guarantee the full effect of Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation.
Z vzpostavitvijo takih zasebnopravnih zahtevkov je Nemčija sprejela vse potrebne ukrepe za zagotavljanje polnega učinka člena 13(1) Temeljne uredbe.
The prosecution ex officio by public authorities of such breaches is not required in order to ensure the application of Article 13(1)(b) of the Basic Regulation.
Za zagotovitev uveljavitve člena 13(1)(b) Temeljne uredbe ni potreben pregon javnih oblasti takih kr�itev po uradni dolžnosti.
The system of judicial remedies established under German law is sufficient to ensure the effective fulfilment of the objectives of the Basic Regulation in Germany.
Sistem pravnih sredstev po nem�kem pravu zagotavlja učinkovito izpolnjevanje ciljev Temeljne uredbe v Nemčiji.
Moreover, the possibility of seeking relief before national courts against any conduct that would be contrary to the protection granted in respect of a registered designation of origin is not reserved to the legitimate user of that designation but is open to competitors, business associations and consumer organisations.
Poleg tega možnost za�čite pred nacionalnimi sodi�či proti ravnanju, ki bi bilo v nasprotju z za�čito, zagotovljeno registrirani označbi porekla, ni omejena na legitimnega uporabnika te označbe, ampak je odprta konkurentom, poslovnim združenjem in potro�ni�kim organizacijam.
The wide range of persons who have standing before the courts demonstrates that the measures which exist in Germany to ensure the enforcement of the Basic Regulation establish a general and efficient system to prevent and impose penalties for breaches of Article 13 of the Basic Regulation.
Širok spekter oseb, ki lahko vložijo tožbo pri sodi�ču, priča o tem, da obstoječi ukrepi v Nemčiji za zagotovitev uveljavitve Temeljne uredbe uvajajo splo�en in učinkovit sistem preprečevanja in določitve sankcij za kr�itve člena 13 Temeljne uredbe.
COMMISSION v GERMANY in so doing the Commission may not rely on any presumption. 21
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI da se dokaže trditev, da obveznost ni bila izpolnjena, ne da bi se pri tem zana�ala na kakr�no kolino domnevo 21.
While the Basic Regulation may indeed pursue several objectives, namely the protection of economic interests and consumer protection, nothing in it would suggest that the existing German system of protection and enforcement by means of private judicial action is insufficient to ensure the appropriate protection of designations of origin.
Čeprav lahko Temeljna uredba resnično zasleduje več ciljev, namreč za�čito gospodarskih interesov in varstvo potro�nikov, iz njenih določb ne izhaja, da je obstoječi nem�ki sistem za�čite in uresničevanja z zasebnimi sodnimi postopki nezadosten za zagotavljanje ustrezne za�čite označb porekla.
Indeed the German system of protection is consistent with the manner in which intellectual property is enforced and consumers are protected against unfair competition under Community law.
Nem�ki sistem za�čite je dosleden na način, po katerem je intelektualna lastnina uveljavljena in so potro�niki za�čiteni pred nepo�teno konkurenco po pravu Skupnosti.
It is undisputed that the German legal system provides for a range of judicial actions to enforce the protection of designations of origin as laid out in the Basic Regulation.
Nesporno nem�ki pravni sistem predpisuje vrsto pravnih sredstev za uresničevanje za�čite označb porekla, kot je določeno v Temeljni uredbi.
Moreover, a wide range of economic operators may bring such actions before national courts.
Poleg tega lahko veliko gospodarskih subjektov vloži te zahtevke pri nacionalnih sodi�čih.
Member States may choose to prosecute infringements of the Basic Regulation by the way of ex officio action by public authorities, but, under the current state of Community law, they are not obliged to do so.
Države članice se lahko odločijo za preganjanje kr�itev Temeljne uredbe z ukrepanjem javnih oblasti po uradni dolžnosti, vendar glede na trenutno stanje prava Skupnosti k temu niso zavezane.
B — Subjectmatter of the proceedings and proof of the failure to fulfil an obligation
B – Predmet postopka in dokaz o neizpolnitvi obveznosti
In the present case, the Commission claims that Germany has ‘formally refused to prosecute’ on its territory the use of the name ‘Parmesan’ for the labelling of products which do not conform to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ and thereby infringed its obligations under Article 13(1)(b) of the Basic Regulation.
Komisija v obravnavani zadevi trdi, da je Nemčija „formalno zavrnila pregon“, na svojem ozemlju, uporabe besede „Parmesan“ za označevanje proizvodov, ki ne ustrezajo specifikaciji za za�čiteno označbo porekla „Parmigiano Reggiano“, in tako ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 13(1)(b) Temeljne uredbe.
Thus the present infringement proceedings do not question the consistency of a provision of national law with a rule of Community law.
Zato se ta postopek zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti nana�a na skladnost določbe nacionalnega prava z določbo prava Skupnosti.
Rather the Commission questions the administrative action of the German authorities, which failed to take action against conduct which allegedly constitutes an infringement of Community law by economic operators on the territory of a Member State.
Komisija se nasprotno spra�uje o upravni praksi nem�kih organov, ki niso ukrepali proti ravnanju gospodarskih subjektov na ozemlju države članice, ki domnevno pomeni kr�itev prava Skupnosti.
It should be recalled from the outset that, according to the settled caselaw of the Court, in an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought under Article 226 EC it is for the Commission to prove that the obligation has not been fulfilled.
Najprej je treba spomniti, da mora Komisija v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso ob morebitni tožbi zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi člena 226 ES dokazati, da obveznost ni bila izpolnjena.
It is the Commission’s responsibility to place before the Court the information needed to prove the allegation that the obligation has not been fulfilled, and
Komisija mora Sodi�ču predstaviti podatke, ki so potrebni,
OPINION OF MR MAZÁK — CASE C-132/05 govern relations between the Community and the Member States, it is for the latter to ensure that Community rules are implemented within their territories.
Skupnostjo in državami članicami, morajo te poskrbeti za uresničevanje pravil Skupnosti na svojih ozemljih 23.
23As the Court has consistently held, for the implementation of Community regulations, unless Community law, including its general principles, contains common rules for that purpose, the national authorities act in accordance with the procedural and substantive rules of their own national law. 24
Kot je Sodi�če konsistentno odločalo, se nacionalni organi pri izvr�evanju uredb Skupnosti, če pravo Skupnosti s splo�nimi načeli ne vsebuje skupnih pravil v ta namen, ravnajo v skladu s postopkovnimi in materialnimi pravili svoje nacionalne zakonodaje 24.
According to the Court’s case-law, in a case questioning the application of a national provision by a Member State’s administration, proof of a Member State’s failure to fulfil its obligations requires production of evidence different from that usually taken into account in an action for failure to fulfil obligations concerning solely the terms of a national provision.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča in v primeru v zvezi z uporabo nacionalne določbe uprave države članice, dokaz o neizpolnitvi obveznosti države članice zahteva predložitev dokazov, ki niso enaki tistim, ki se običajno upo�tevajo v tožbi zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, ki zadeva izključno določbe nacionalnih pravil.
In those circumstances, the Court has held that a failure to fulfil obligations can be established only by means of sufficiently documented and detailed proof of the alleged practice of the national administration for which the Member State concerned is answerable. 22
V teh okoli�činah je Sodi�če odločilo, da se neizpolnitev obveznosti lahko ugotovi le z zadostno dokumentiranim in natančnim dokazom očitane prakse nacionalne uprave, za katero je odgovorna zadevna država članica 22.
The Basic Regulation contains some common rules on its implementation.
Temeljna uredba vsebuje nekaj skupnih pravil o izvr�evanju.
Article 10 of the Basic Regulation expressly deals with the monitoring of compliance by producers with the specifications for PDOs.
Člen 10 Temeljne uredbe izrecno obravnava spremljanje skladnosti proizvajalcev s specifikacijami ZOP.
For the purposes of the present case, which does not concern positive action by a Member State’s administration but rather a failure to act, the finding of an infringement under Article 226 EC requires, in my view, that the Commission prove that the German administration was under a duty to take ex officio action and has failed to do so.
Za namene te zadeve, ki ne zadeva pozitivnega ukrepanja uprave države članice, ampak opustitev ukrepanja, po mojem mnenju ugotovitev o neizpolnitvi obveznosti po členu 226 ES zahteva, da Komisija dokaže, da je dolžnost nem�ke uprave ukrepati po uradni dolžnosti in da je to opustila.
Article 10(4) provides that steps must be taken to ensure that the Regulation is complied with when a foodstuff bearing a PDO does not comply with the specification for that PDO.
Člen 10(4) določa, da se izvedejo potrebni ukrepi za zagotovitev skladnosti z Uredbo, če živilo, ki nosi ZOP, ni v skladu s specifikacijo za ta ZOP.
The wording of Article 10(4) of the Basic Regulation is, however, unclear as to which Member State’s inspection
Vendar je besedilo člena 10(4) Temeljne uredbe nejasno glede tega, kateri nadzorni organi države članice so zavezani ukrepati v primeru neskladja s specifikacijo za obravnavani ZOP. Iz nem�ke različice
According to the general principles on which the Community is based and which
V skladu s splo�nimi načeli, na katerih temelji Skupnost in ki urejajo razmerja med
22 — See, to that effect, Case C-287/03 Commission v Belgium [2005] ECR I-3761, paragraph 28.
22 – V zvezi s tem glej sodbo z dne 12. maja 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji (C-287/03, ZOdl., str. I-3761, točka 28).
COMMISSION v GERMANY that ‘the costs of inspections provided for under that regulation shall be borne by the producers using that protected name’.
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI kontrole, predvidene s to uredbo, nosijo proizvajalci, ki uporabljajo za�čiteno ime“.
This also suggests that the inspection provided for under Article 10 refers exclusively to the enforcement of the specifications with regard to the producers using the protected name in the Member State where it originates.
To tudi nakazuje, da se kontrola, ki se izvaja na podlagi člena 10, nana�a izključno na uveljavljanje specifikacij za proizvajalce, ki uporabljajo za�čiteno ime v državi članici, od koder izvira.
authorities are under the obligation to act against the non-compliance with the specification for a given PDO.
Uredbe 25 je razvidno, da so nadzorni organi, ki so dolžni sprejeti potrebne ukrepe, organi države članice, iz katere izvira sporni proizvod.
It appears from the German version of the Regulation 25 that the inspection authority obliged to take the necessary measures is that of the Member State in which the infringing product originates.
Druge jezikovne različice iste določbe ne podpirajo take razlage in določajo, da niso dolžni ukrepati nadzorni organi države članice, iz katere proizvod izvira, ampak nadzorni organi države članice, iz katere izvira za�čitena označba 26.
26According to those language versions, only the Italian authorities would be obliged to take action against products which do not comply with the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Po teh jezikovnih različicah bi bili samo italijanski organi dolžni ukrepati proti proizvodom, ki niso v skladu s specifikacijo za ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
Although it follows from the above that the wording of Article 10 of the Basic Regulation is not entirely clear, I consider that the purpose and general scheme of the Basic Regulation indicate that the obligation to carry out inspections go beyond the mere verification of the compliance of products with the specification for a PDO in the Member State where the PDO originates.
Čeprav iz že navedenega izhaja, da besedilo člena 10 Temeljne uredbe ni popolnoma jasno, menim, da namen in splo�na sistematika Temeljne uredbe nakazujeta, da obveznost izvajanja kontrole presega samo potrditev skladnosti proizvodov s specifikacijami za ZOP v državi članici, od koder ZOP izvira.
It is also worth citing Article 10(7) of the Basic Regulation, which provides
Smiselno je navesti tudi člen 10(7) Temeljne uredbe, ki določa, da „stro�ke
It follows from the system of protection set up by the Basic Regulation that for the proper implementation of the Basic Regulation, two kinds of inspections may be required.
Iz sistema kontrole, določenega v Temeljni uredbi, izhaja, da sta za pravilno izvajanje Temeljne uredbe lahko potrebni dve vrsti kontrole.
On the one hand there must be systematic monitoring of compliance, by producers in the area of production of the products bearing the PDO, with the specification for that PDO.
Po eni strani se mora sistematično spremljati skladnost proizvajalcev na področju proizvodnje ZOP po specifikaciji za ZOP.
On the other hand misuse of PDOs outside the area of production must be acted upon.
Po drugi strani je treba ukrepati ob zlorabi ZOP zunaj območja proizvodnje.