natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the second case, the Court of First Instance stated that the Member State other than the United Kingdom in which
V zvezi z drugim primerom je Sodi�če prve stopnje navedlo, da mora država članica, različna od Združenega kraljestva, na ozemlju
It then examined whether, in the light of that caselaw, Infront was directly concerned in the two cases envisaged by Infront in its action, namely that in which the television broadcasting rights for the matches of the FIFA World Cup finals, which it held for 2002 and 2006, were sold by it, for retransmission in the United Kingdom, to a television broadcaster under the United Kingdom’s
Nato je preizkusilo, ali je bila družba Infront z vidika te sodne prakse prizadeta v obeh primerih iz njene tožbe, in sicer, prvič, v primeru prodaje njenih pravic televizijskega prenosa tekem sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE za leti 2002 in 2006 za
8 — Paragraph 130.
8 – Točka 130.
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM legislation implementing Article 3a(3) of the Directive, those authorities must ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction comply with the conditions for broadcasting the events in question as defined by the Member State in its measures approved and published in the Official Journal by the Commission’.
KOMISIJA PROTI INFRONT WM katerega ima sedež izdajatelj televizijskih programov, ki od družbe Infront prejema pravice prenosa, zagotoviti, da se ta izdajatelj ne izogne ukrepom, ki jih je odobrila Komisija, in da ta obveznost izhaja iz izpodbijanega dopisa, ki je tem ukrepom z vidika vzajemnega priznavanja v drugih državah članicah podelil veljavnost za nazaj.
13 the television broadcaster which acquired Infront’s broadcasting rights was established would be required to satisfy itself that that broadcaster did not circumvent the measures approved by the Commission and that that obligation arose from the contested letter which validated those measures, thenceforth, for the purposes of their mutual recognition by the other Member States. 11
11 tive določi vrsto in način izvajanja kontrole s strani nacionalnih organov v postopku vzajemnega priznavanja, zagotoviti, da izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njihovo pristojnostjo pri prenosu spornih dogodkov spo�tujejo pogoje, ki jih je država članica določila v ukrepih, objavljenih v Uradnem listu in odobrenih s strani Komisije“. 13
The Court of First Instance then considered the Commission’s argument that only television broadcasters established in the United Kingdom would be interested in purchasing from Infront the rights to broadcast the FIFA World Cup finals.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je torej preučilo argument Komisije, da imajo interes za odkup pravic prenosa sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE od družbe Infront le izdajatelji televizijskih programov, ki imajo sedež v Združenem kraljestvu.
The Court of First Instance concluded that the case now before the Court is different from the case which gave rise to the judgment in DSTV v Commission, 12cited by the Commission, concerning the second subparagraph of Article 2a(2) of the Directive, which requires a posteriori verification of the compatibility with Community law of the measures adopted by a Member State in order to prevent the broadcasting on its territory of programmes from other Member States.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je na podlagi tega sklenilo, da se ta zadeva razlikuje od tiste, ki je privedla do sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 13. decembra 2000 v zadevi DSTV proti Komisiji, 12 na katero se sklicuje Komisija ter se je nana�ala na člen 2a(2), drugi pododstavek, Direktive, ki določa naknadno kontrolo skladnosti s pravom Skupnosti tistih ukrepov, ki jih je država članica sprejela zaradi prepovedi oddajanja televizijskih programov iz drugih držav članic na njenem ozemlju.
It stated, furthermore, that the contested letter did not leave the national authorities any discretion, once the measures were published, as to the performance of their obligations.
Poleg tega je opozorilo na to, da izpodbijani dopis nacionalnim organom po objavi ukrepov ne pu�ča nikakr�ne diskrecije pri izpolnjevanju njihovih obveznosti.
In the Court of First Instance’s view, ‘[a]lthough the detailed rules for the control which the national authorities are required to exercise under the mechanism of mutual recognition are determined by each Member State in the framework of its
Sodi�če prve stopnje namreč meni, da morajo nacionalni organi, „čeprav vsaka država članica v svoji zakonodaji za prenos člena 3a(3) Direk-
The Commission maintained, indeed, that even if its preliminary verification of the measures notified were to cause other Member States to ensure that broadcasters in their jurisdiction respected the list of events of major importance for society, that would have no effect in the present case.
Komisija je namreč trdila, da tudi če njena predhodna presoja sporočenih ukrepov ostale države članice spodbuja k zagotavljanju tega, da izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njeno pristojnostjo upo�tevajo seznam dogodkov velikega družbenega pomena, to v obravnavanem primeru ni bistveno.
In the Commission’s submission, it was inconceivable that Infront would sub-license its television rights for the United Kingdom to a television broadcaster not established in the United Kingdom, as those rights were granted on a national basis. It stated that, at the national level, the income of television
Po njenem mnenju je nepredstavljivo, da daje družba Infront podlicence za svoje pravice prenosa, ki se nana�ajo na Združeno kraljestvo, izdajatelju televizijskega programa, ki tam nima sedeža, saj se te pravice odtujujejo na nacionalni podlagi.
13 — Paragraph 146.
13 – Točka 146.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-125/06 P broadcasters was generated from advertising directed at the national audience, national licence fees or national subscription fees for pay television.
Na nacionalni ravni izvirajo prihodki izdajateljev televizijskih programov iz ogla�evanja, namenjenega domači javnosti, nacionalnih licenčnin ali domačih naročnin komercialnih televizij.
As their interest was in providing programmes to a national audience, only those broadcasters reaching a high proportion of the national population would be prepared to pay very large amounts for the broadcasting rights held by Infront.
Ker so izdajatelji torej zainteresirani za programe, namenjene domači javnosti, bi bili pripravljeni pravice za prenos programov od družbe Infront za zelo visoko ceno odkupiti le tisti izdajatelji, ki pokrivajo velik del domače javnosti.
Therefore, since the potential sub-licensees of such rights for the United Kingdom were entities under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom authorities, only the national measures directly affected Infront.
Ker bi bili morebitni prejemniki podlicence za take pravice prenosa za Združeno kraljestvo torej izdajatelji, za katere so pristojni britanski organi, lahko družbo Infront neposredno zadevajo zgolj nacionalni ukrepi.
14 established in the United Kingdom would be interested in purchasing from [Infront] the rights to broadcast the FIFA World Cup finals in order to broadcast them in the United Kingdom, it should be noted that such an assumption deprives Article 3a(3) of the Directive of all practical effect.
14 raz�irjanja tekem sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE z namenom prena�anja v Združenem kraljestvu, je treba opozoriti, da taka domneva členu 3(a)(3) Direktive odvzame vsakr�en polni učinek.
According to recitals 18 and 19 to Directive 97/36, the purpose of that article is to ensure wide access by the public to television coverage of events considered to be of major importance for society by the Member States and, on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition, to require the Member States to ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction respect the list of events established by another Member State so as not to deprive a substantial proportion of the public in that State of the possibility of following the events designated by that State.
Dejansko je treba opozoriti, da je po uvodnih izjavah 18 in 19 Direktive 97/36 cilj tega člena zagotoviti javnosti, da prosto dostopa do raz�irjanih dogodkov, za katere države članice �tejejo, da so �ir�ega pomena za družbo, in na podlagi načela vzajemnega priznavanja zahtevati od držav članic, naj zagotovijo, da izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njihovo sodno pristojnostjo upo�tevajo sezname dogodkov, ki jih je sestavila država članica, da pomembnemu delu občinstva ne bi bila odvzeta možnost spremljanja dogodkov, ki jih je določila ta država.
The Commission also noted, in that context, that the television broadcasting market in the United Kingdom was one of the most competitive in Europe and that 25% of the broadcasters operating in the sector were licensed in the United Kingdom. 15
Komisija je v zvezi s tem opozorila, da sodi televizijski trg Združenega kraljestva med najkonkurenčnej�e trge Evrope in da ima 25 % vseh izdajateljev televizijskih programov v Združenem kraljestvu licenco. 15
The Court of First Instance held as follows:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je navedlo:
‘147 Lastly, as regards the Commission’s argument that only broadcasters
„147 Končno, glede trditve Komisije, da naj bi imeli samo izdajatelji televizijskih programov, ustanovljeni v Združenem kraljestvu, interes kupiti pravice
14 — Paragraph 120.15 — Paragraph 121.
14 – Točka 120.15 – Točka 121.
148 The facts of the case which gave rise to the judgment of the House of Lords [of 25 July 2001] in R v ITC ex parte TV Danmark 1 Ltd [2001] UKHL 42 …, although relating to events designated by the Kingdom of Denmark, also confirm the existence of situations implementing the mechanism of mutual recognition established by Article 3a(3) of the Directive.
148 Dejansko stanje v zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana sodba House of Lords, R proti ITC, ex parte TV Danmark 1 Ltd [2001] UKHL 42 (zgoraj navedena), čeprav se nana�a na dogodke, ki jih je določila Kraljevina Danska, potrjuje obstoj izvajanja sistema vzajemne - ga priznavanja, kot je določen v čle -nu 3(a)(3) Direktive.
Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the Application of [the Directive] (COM(2001) 9 final) states that in three cases, television broadcasters under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom have broadcast events listed by the Kingdom of Denmark in a way that prevented a substantial part of the Danish population from seeing those events.
Direktive (COM(2001) 9 konč.) iz leta 2001 navaja, da so izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod pristojnostjo Združenega kraljestva trikrat prena�ali dogodke, vpisane na seznamu Kraljevine Danske, tako da je bila pomembnemu delu danskega prebivalstva odvzeta možnost spremljanja omenjenih dogodkov.
The Court of First Instance noted first of all that, according to well-established caselaw, persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned only if that decision affects them by virtue of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person to whom the decision is addressed.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je najprej spomnilo na ustaljeno sodno prakso, v skladu s katero lahko osebe, ki niso naslovnice odločbe, posamično prizadetost uveljavljajo le, če se ta odločba nanje nana�a zaradi določenih osebnih lastnosti ali posebnih okoli�čin, ki jih opredeljujejo glede na ostale osebe in jih posamično opredeli podobno kot naslovnico odločbe.
149 In those circumstances, notwithstanding the Commission’s unsupported allegations as to the specificity of the television broadcasting market in the United Kingdom (see paragraph 121 [of the judgment under appeal]), it cannot be assumed that the rights to broadcast the FIFA World Cup finals in that State will be acquired by broadcasters established in that State.’
149 V teh okoli�činah se kljub neutemeljenim navajanjem Komisije glede posebnosti trga televizijskega oddajanja v Združenem kraljestvu (glej točko 121 [izpodbijane sodbe] ne bi smelo �teti, da bodo pravice televizijskih prenosov sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE v tej državi članici nujno kupili izdajatelji televizijskih programov, ustanovljeni v tej državi.“
It stated next that Infront held the exclusive television broadcasting rights to the 2002 and 2006 FIFA World Cup finals, which were included among the events of major importance for society chosen by the United Kingdom and approved by the Commission, and that television broadcasters under the jurisdiction of the other Member States had necessarily to deal with Infront in its capacity as broker of the broadcasting rights to the World Cup finals, for the purposes of obtaining licences to broadcast them on television. 16
Nato je navedlo, da je imela družba Infront za leti 2002 in 2006 izključne pravice za televizijski prenos sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE, navedenega med dogodki velikega družbenega pomena, ki jih je izbralo Združeno kraljestvo in odobrila Komisija, ter da so morali izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod pristojnostjo drugih držav članic za pridobitev licence za televizijski prenos skleniti pogodbo z družbo Infront kot posrednico pravic prenosa za ta dogodek. 16
It stated that the measures adopted by the United Kingdom imposed restrictions on
Opozorilo je na to, da so bile tem izdajateljem z ukrepi, ki jih je sprejelo Združeno
The Court of First Instance concluded from the foregoing that Infront was directly concerned by the contested letter in so far as it enabled the implementation of the mechanism of mutual recognition by the other Member States of the measures notified by the United Kingdom.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je na podlagi navedenega sklepalo, da izpodbijani dopis družbo Infront zadeva neposredno, saj se z njim drugim državam članicam omogoči uporaba postopka vzajemnega priznavanja ukrepov, ki jih je sporočilo Združeno kraljestvo.
French Republic, the United Kingdom and the Parliament were ordered to bear Infront’s costs arising from their interventions, the Commission was ordered to bear its own costs and Infront’s apart from those previously mentioned, and the interveners were ordered to bear their own costs.
Francoska republika, Združeno kraljestvo Velika Britanija in Severna Irska in Parlament nosijo stro�ke, ki so družbi Infront nastali zaradi njihove intervencije, Komisija pa nosi svoje stro�ke ter stro�ke družbe Infront, z izjemo prej navedenih stro�kov; intervenientke nosijo svoje stro�ke.
It noted that Infront acquired the rights in question exclusively, before the entry into force of Article 3a of the Directive and, a fortiori, before the adoption of the contested letter, with the result that the letter concerned Infront by reason of a characteristic peculiar to it. 18
Spomnilo je, da je družba Infront zadevne pravice izključno pridobila pred začetkom veljavnosti člena 3a Direktive, in kar je �e bolj odločilno, pred izdajo izpodbijanega dopisa, tako da jo ta zadeva zaradi določene osebne lastnosti. 18
V — The appeal
V – Pritožba
The Commission claims that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal, give final judgment on Infront’s application in the case which gave rise to the judgment under appeal by declaring it to be inadmissible, and order Infront to pay the costs arising from that case and the present appeal.
Komisija predlaga Sodi�ču, naj izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi, tožbo družbe Infront v zadevi, v kateri je bila navedena sodba izdana, razglasi za nedopustno ter družbi Infront naloži stro�ke postopka v navedeni zadevi in stro�ke te pritožbe.
The Court of First Instance held that the contested measure was vitiated by a breach of essential procedural requirements, on the ground that it was adopted without the College of Commissioners being consulted and that the Director-General who signed it had received no specific power from the College. 19
Sodi�če prve stopnje je razsodilo, da je izpodbijani akt temeljil na bistveni kr�itvi postopka, saj je bil izdan brez obravnave na kolegiju članov Komisije, generalni direktor, ki ga je podpisal, pa ni imel nikakr�nega posebnega pooblastila tega kolegija. 19
As set out in the operative part of the judgment under appeal, the decision of the Commission contained in its letter to the United Kingdom was annulled, the remainder of the action was dismissed, the
V izreku izpodbijane sodbe je odločba Komisije, ki jo vsebuje dopis Združenemu
Infront contends, in essence, that the appeal should be dismissed and the Commission ordered to pay the costs; it requests the award of costs, pursuant to Article 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure, even if the appeal is allowed, in view of the fact that the Commission is challenging the judgment under appeal only in part.
Družba Infront v bistvenem predlaga, naj se pritožba zavrne in Komisiji naložijo stro�ki, pri čemer predlaga, naj se Komisiji tudi v primeru ugoditve pritožbi, ob upo�tevanju, da Komisija tožbo izpodbija le v delu, naložijo stro�ki v skladu s členom 69(3) Poslovnika.
The Commission challenges the Court of First Instance’s findings that Infront was directly, and individually, concerned by the contested measure, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, under which any natural or legal person may institute proceedings against a decision which, although in the form of a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former.
Komisija izpodbija presojo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, v skladu s katero izpodbijani akt družbo Infront zadeva neposredno in posamično v smislu člena 230(4) ES, na podlagi katerega lahko vsaka fizična ali pravna oseba sproži postopek zoper izdano odločbo, čeprav naslovljeno na drugo osebo, če jo ta zadeva neposredno in posamično.
I shall examine those two grounds of appeal successively.
Ta dva očitka bom preučil enega za drugim.
It states that that measure requires the Member States to impose obligations on television broadcasters which could dissuade them from purchasing the broadcasting rights to events covered by the notified measures or lead them to acquire those rights at a price lower than that which they would have been willing to pay in the absence of those measures.
Zatrjuje torej, da akt učinkuje tako, da morajo države članice izdajateljem televizijskih programov naložiti obveznosti, ki jih lahko odvrnejo od nakupa pravic prenosa za dogodke, navedene v sporočenih ukrepih, oziroma jih spodbudi k nakupu teh pravic po nižji ceni od tiste, ki bi jo bili pripravljeni plačati brez teh ukrepov.
A pay television company might decide not to acquire the broadcasting rights to such events as they must also be broadcast by a free-to-air broadcaster covering 95% of the territory of the United Kingdom.
Komercialna televizija bi se lahko odpovedala nakupu pravic prenosa za take dogodke, saj jih mora oddajati tudi izdajatelj televizijskih programov, čigar oddaje so prosto dostopne in ki pokriva 95 % ozemlja Združenega kraljestva.
Infront would therefore have fewer potential purchasers and find itself, as a result, in a worse business situation.
Družba Infront bi imela tako manj potencialnih kupcev in bi se zato zna�la v manj ugodnem položaju.
However, these are only indirect economic consequences.
Kljub temu naj bi �lo le za posredne gospodarske posledice.
Its legal position would remain unaltered.
Njen pravni položaj naj bi ostal nespremenjen.
Pleas in law and arguments of the parties
Pritožbeni razlogi in trditve strank
In the alternative, assuming that it would be sufficient for the applicant to be directly concerned by a measure if that measure affects its economic position, the Commission complains that the Court of First Instance did not explain what exactly the business consequences of the contested measure would be for a broker such as Infront.
Podredno Komisija v primeru, da naj bi za neposredno prizadetost tožeče stranke zado�čal obstoj posledic za njen gospodarski položaj, prereka, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni prikazalo konkretnih gospodarskih posledic izpodbijanega akta za takega posrednika, kot je družba Infront.
In reality, such consequences are entirely uncertain, because, to the Commission’s knowledge, there has never been a television broadcaster established in a Member State other than the United Kingdom which would have been willing to pay the sum expected by Infront for the right to broadcast the FIFA World Cup finals in the United Kingdom.
Dejansko naj bi bile posledice vse prej kot gotove, saj po vedenju Komisije nikoli ni bilo izdajatelja televizijskih programov s sedežem v drugi državi članici od Združenega kraljestva, ki bi bil pripravljen plačati s strani družbe Infront pričakovano ceno za pravico prenosa sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE v tej državi.
Since the income of television
Ker naj bi prihodki izdajateljev televizijskih
The Commission submits that the Court of First Instance did not show that the two conditions required by the caselaw were satisfied, according to which, first, the measure at issue must affect the applicant’s legal situation and, second, its implementation must be purely automatic.
Komisija v zvezi s prvo predpostavko najprej navaja, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni pojasnilo, kako ima izpodbijani akt za poslovni položaj družbe Infront drugačne posledice od posrednih.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-125/06 P broadcasters is generated from advertising directed at the national audience, national licence fees or national subscription fees, a potential purchaser, in order to make such an investment, would have to have sufficiently broad coverage within the United Kingdom or wish to refocus its business on those lines.
programov izvirali iz ogla�evanja, namenjenega domači javnosti, nacionalnih licenčnin ali domačih naročnin komercialnih televizij, bi moral kupec za uresničitev take naložbe na britanskem ozemlju razpolagati z dovolj veliko pokritostjo oziroma bi si moral svojo dejavnost želeti preusmeriti.
Admittedly, in the Commission’s submission, the events and the manner in which they are to be broadcast, whole or in part, live or deferred, are determined by the notifying State and, therefore, by the decision declaring those measures to be compatible with Community law.
Po mnenju Komisije je sicer res, da dogodke in vrsto njihovega prenosa, bodisi neposrednega bodisi s časovnim zamikom, celotnega ali delnega, določi država, ki sporoči ukrepe, in sicer z odločbo o ugotovitvi njihove združljivosti s pravom Skupnosti.
However, contrary to the Court of First Instance’s statement in paragraph 146 of the judgment under appeal, that decision does not deprive the national authorities of any discretion as to the performance of their obligations.
Vendar naj bi v nasprotju z navedbami Sodi�ča prve stopnje iz točke 146 izpodbijane sodbe ta odločba nacionalnim organom ne odvzemala diskrecije pri izvr�evanju njihovih obveznosti.
The implementation of the obligations set out by the notifying State depends greatly on the legislation applied by and the view taken by the competent national authorities.
Izvr�evanje obveznosti, določenih s strani države, ki je sporočila ukrepe, naj bi bilo zelo odvisno od zakonodaje in nazora pristojnih nacionalnih organov.
The Court of First Instance therefore made an error of law by not requiring Infront to prove such economic consequences and by indicating that the Commission had not substantiated its allegations as to the specificity of the television broadcasting market in the United Kingdom.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem da družbi Infront ni naložilo obveznosti predložitve dokaza za omenjene gospodarske posledice in s tem, da je dopustilo, da Komisija ni utemeljila svojih navedb glede posebnosti televizijskega trga v Združenem kraljestvu.