natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As the Commission essentially contends, if the objective of Regulation No 1260/2001 had been to base the calculation of production levies on the budgetary costs of refunds, it would have sufficed to calculate those levies from the total loss based on export and production refunds.
Kot je v bistvu trdila Komisija, če bi bil namen Uredbe �t. 1260/2001 utemeljiti izračun proizvodnih dajatev na stro�kih, ki nastanejo za proračun zaradi nadomestil, bi zado�čalo določiti te dajatve na podlagi skupne izgube, ki temelji na vseh izvoznih in proizvodnih nadomestilih.
It should be pointed out that the estimate of the total loss, as defined in Article 15(1) (e) of Regulation No 1260/2001, is not identical to the total amount of refunds for the marketing year concerned, but is made up of the product of the exportable surplus and the estimate of the average loss per tonne of sugar for export obligations to be fulfilled during the current marketing year.
Treba je poudariti, da predvidena skupna izguba, kot je opredeljena v členu 15(1)(e) Uredbe �t. 1260/2001, ni enaka skupnemu znesku nadomestil za tekoče tržno leto, ampak je zmnožek presežka, ki se izvozi, in predvidene povprečne izgube na tono sladkorja za izvozne obveznosti, ki jih je treba izpolniti v tekočem tržnem letu.
It follows that the method for calculating the estimated total loss is designed, in any event, to establish, in a forward-looking and conventional way, the losses caused by disposing of surplus Community production.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da naj bi se z metodo izračuna predvidene skupne izgube v vsakem primeru na napreden in konvencionalen način določilo izgube, ki nastanejo zaradi prodaje presežkov proizvodnje Skupnosti.
If quantities exported without refunds were included in the account of consumption within the Community, that account would be overvalued.
Če bi se dodalo količine, ki so bile izvožene brez nadomestil, k notranji porabi, bi bila ta previsoko ocenjena.
Thus, there is a risk that the objective pursued by the system of the self-financing of the costs of disposing of surpluses — which, from the introduction of that system by Regulation No 1785/81, has been to ensure, in a fair yet efficient way, that the producers themselves meet those costs in full, and the application of which by the Commission has always been based on a definition of exportable surplus which includes sugar exports regardless of whether they benefit from a refund — would not be achieved.
Prav tako bi obstajalo tveganje, da se ne doseže cilj sistema samofinanciranja stro�kov prodaje presežkov, ki je od vzpostavitve tega sistema z Uredbo �t. 1785/81, da se pravično, vendar učinkovito zagotovi, da proizvajalci sami v celoti pokrijejo te stro�ke, in pri izvajanju katerega se je Komisija vedno opirala na pojem presežka, ki se izvozi, z vključenim izvozom sladkorja ne glede na to, ali so bila izplačana nadomestila.
There is therefore a risk that the maintenance of the system would be liable to be undermined, contrary to recital 12 in the preamble to Regulation No 1260/2001.
Tako bi lahko bila ohranitev navedenega sistema, nasprotno kot je predvideno v uvodni izjavi 12 Uredbe �t. 1260/2001, ogrožena.
In the light of the foregoing, Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 1260/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of calculating the exportable surplus, all the quantities of exported products which fall under that article, regardless of whether or not refunds have actually been paid, are to be subtracted from consumption.
Glede na navedeno je treba člen 15(1)(c) Uredbe �t. 1260/2001 razlagati tako, da je treba pri izračunu presežka, ki se izvozi, od porabe od�teti vse količine izvoženih proizvodov iz tega člena, ne glede na to, ali so bila nadomestila dejansko izplačana.
The question whether, pursuant to Article 15 of Regulation No 1260/2001, all the quantities of exported products which fall under that provision are to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the estimated average loss per tonne of sugar
Vprašanje, ali je treba na podlagi člena 15 Uredbe št. 1260/2001 pri določanju predvi­dene povprečne izgube na tono sladkorja upoštevati vse količine izvoženih proizvodov iz te določbe
Pursuant to Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation No 1260/2001, the average loss is equal to the difference between the total amount of refunds and the total amount of levies on the total tonnage of export obligations in question to be fulfilled during the marketing year concerned.
Na podlagi člena 15(1)(d) Uredbe �t. 1260/2001 povprečna izguba ustreza razliki med skupnim zneskom nadomestil in skupnim zneskom dajatev glede na skupno tonažo izvoznih obveznosti, ki jih je treba izpolniti v tekočem tržnem letu.
The estimate of the total loss is, according to Article 15(1)(e) of that regulation, calculated by multiplying the exportable surplus by the average loss.
Predvidena skupna izguba se v skladu s členom 15(1)(e) te uredbe izračuna tako, da se presežek, ki se izvozi, pomnoži s povprečno izgubo.
Pursuant to Article 22(1) of that regulation, exports from the Community of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup are subject to the presentation of an export licence, the issue of which is conditional on the provision of a guarantee that the obligation to export during the term of validity of the licence will be fulfilled.
Na podlagi člena 22(1) navedene uredbe je treba za vsak izvoz sladkorja, izoglukoze in inulinskega sirupa iz Skupnosti predložiti izvozno dovoljenje, ki se izda pod pogojem, da je položena var�čina, s katero se zagotavlja, da bodo proizvodi izvoženi med veljavnostjo dovoljenja.
In the context of the exports referred to in Regulation No 1260/2001, it is necessary, in the absence of specific reasons to the contrary, to interpret the concept of ‘export obligations to be fulfilled during the current marketing year’ which appears in Article 15(1)(d) of that regulation in a manner which is consistent with Article 22(1) of that regulation, which refers to the export obligation.
Kajti v okviru izvoza, za katerega velja Uredba �t. 1260/2001, je treba, ker ni razlogov, ki bi temu nasprotovali, razlagati pojem „izvozn[ih] obveznosti, ki jih je treba izpolniti v tekočem tržnem letu“ iz člena 15(1)(d) iste uredbe skladno s členom 22(1) te uredbe, ki se sklicuje na to, da bodo proizvodi izvoženi.
Thus, in the present context, that concept has the effect of covering any quantity of products falling under Article 15 of Regulation No 1260/2001 which is intended for export from the Community.
Tako se v tem okviru s tem pojmom posku�a zajeti vse količine proizvodov iz člena 15 navedene uredbe, ki so namenjeni izvozu iz Skupnosti.
In that regard, it should be pointed out that, contrary to the contentions of the numerous interested parties which submitted observations in the proceedings, the question whether or not the quantities of products for export attract export refunds is not relevant in the light of the concept of ‘export obligations to be fulfilled during the current marketing year’.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je – nasprotno kot je trdilo več udeležencev, ki so predložili pisna stali�ča v okviru postopka – vpra�anje, ali so izvozna nadomestila izplačana za količine proizvodov, namenjenih izvozu, brezpredmetno v zvezi s pojmom „izvozn[ih] obveznosti, ki jih je treba izpolniti v tekočem tržnem letu“.
That concept covers only the quantities of products for which export licences have been issued.
Ta pojem namreč zajema le količine proizvodov, za katere so bila izdana izvozna dovoljenja.
Such an interpretation of Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation No 1260/2001 is consistent with the concept of ‘exportable surplus’ which appears in Article 15(1)(c), as identified at paragraph 45 of the present judgment, and makes it possible, moreover, to calculate in a coherent manner the estimated total loss as defined in Article 15(1)(e).
Taka razlaga člena 15(1)(d) Uredbe �t. 1260/2001 je skladna s pojmom „presežka, ki se izvozi“ iz člena 15(1)(c), kot je razložen v točki 45 te sodbe, in poleg tega omogoča, da se dosledno izračuna predvideno skupno izgubo, kot je opredeljena v členu 15(1)(e).
As the applicants in the main proceedings and the German and French Governments have in essence argued, the estimated total loss — obtained by multiplying the exportable surplus by the average loss — will be excessive if a product may be considered to have been exported for the purpose of calculating the exportable surplus but was not correspondingly taken into account for the purpose of the calculation of the average loss, the denominator of which, as specified in the second subparagraph of Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation No 1260/2001, is the total tonnage of export obligations to be fulfilled during the current marketing year.
Kot so v bistvu uveljavljale tožeče stranke iz postopka v glavni stvari ter nem�ka in francoska vlada, bi bila predvidena skupna izguba, ki se izračuna tako, da se presežek, ki se izvozi, pomnoži s povprečno izgubo, previsoko ocenjena, če bi se proizvod lahko obravnavalo kot izvožen pri izračunu presežka, ki se izvozi, ne bi se ga pa ustrezno upo�tevalo pri izračunu povprečne izgube, čigar imenovalec je, kot je navedeno v členu 15(1)(d), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe �t. 1260/2001, skupna tonaža izvoznih obveznosti, ki jih je treba izpolniti v tekočem tržnem letu.
It is apparent from the Court file and, more specifically, from Commission working document D/32013/04 on the method for calculating levies in respect of ‘sugar production’ submitted to the Management Committee for the Sugar Sector on 30 September 2004 that certain Member States have expressed the wish for sugar exported without refunds to be included in the calculation of the average loss.
Iz spisa in zlasti delovnega dokumenta D/32013/04 služb Komisije v zvezi z metodo izračuna dajatev „proizvodnja sladkorja“, ki je bil predložen upravljalnemu odboru za sektor sladkorja 30. septembra 2004, izhaja, da so nekatere države članice izrazile željo, da bi bil sladkor, izvožen brez nadomestil, vključen v izračun povprečne izgube.
According to that document, the total loss, as calculated by the Commission, inter alia in application of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 314/2002, namely in particular by excluding from export obligations the quantities exported without refunds, is equal to or greater than the cost of the sugar refunds.
V skladu s tem dokumentom je skupna izguba, kot jo je izračunala Komisija ob uporabi člena 6(5) Uredbe �t. 314/2002, in sicer da je količine, izvožene brez nadomestil, izključila iz izvoznih obveznosti, enaka ali vi�ja od stro�kov nadomestil za sladkor.
The Commission, however, contends that such a method of calculation makes it possible to discourage the creation of surpluses which would exert downward pressure on market prices, would destabilise the common organisation of markets in the sugar sector and might give rise to costs, particularly intervention purchase costs.
Vendar Komisija navaja, da tak�na metoda izračuna omogoča preprečevanje nastajanja presežkov, ki bi negativno vplivali na tržne cene, oslabili skupno ureditev trgov za sladkor in ki bi lahko povzročili stro�ke, zlasti stro�ke intervencijskega nakupa.
That argument cannot be accepted.
Te utemeljitve ni mogoče sprejeti.
It follows from recitals 9, 11 and 12 in the preamble to Regulation No 1260/2001 that the system introduced by that regulation seeks to make producers meet in full, in a fair yet efficient way, the cost of disposing of the surpluses of Community production in accordance with the principle of self-financing.
Iz uvodnih izjav 9, 11 in 12 Uredbe �t. 1260/2001 namreč izhaja, da se s sistemom, uvedenim s to uredbo, posku�a pravično, vendar učinkovito zagotoviti, da proizvajalci sami v celoti pokrijejo stro�ke prodaje presežkov proizvodnje Skupnosti v skladu z načelom samofinanciranja.
As the Court has ruled, the system for financing the costs of disposal is designed in such a way that the A quota, which represents internal consumption, attracts only a minimal levy whereas the B quota, which is mainly for export, is subject to a much higher levy in order to finance the necessary refunds whilst discouraging production (see Case 250/84 Eridania zuccherifici nazionali and Others [1986] ECR 117, paragraph 19).
Kot je ugotovilo Sodi�če, je sistem financiranja stro�kov prodaje oblikovan tako, da je kvota A, ki predstavlja notranjo porabo, podlaga le za minimalno dajatev, kvota B, ki je namenjena zlasti izvozu, pa je podlaga za precej vi�jo dajatev, s katero se lahko financirajo potrebna nadomestila in ki ima istočasno odvračalen učinek na proizvajalce (glej sodbo z dne 22. januarja 1986 v zadevi Eridania zuccherifici nazionali in drugi, 250/84, Recueil, str. 117, točka 19).
The dissuasive effect which, according to the ruling of the Court in Eridania zuccherifici nazionali and Others, the system for financing the costs of disposal is liable to have on producers derives, as the Advocate General has noted at point 60 of her Opinion, from the very fact that the production levy imposes on producers the burden of financing the costs of disposing of Community production surpluses.
Odvračalni učinek, ki ga ima lahko – kot je ugotovilo Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Eridania zuccherifici nazionali in drugi – sistem financiranja stro�kov prodaje na proizvajalce, izhaja, kot je opozorila generalna pravobranilka v točki 60 sklepnih predlogov, iz dejstva, da se s proizvodno dajatvijo proizvajalcem nalaga breme financiranja stro�kov prodaje presežkov proizvodnje Skupnosti.
With the exception of the largely theoretical case in which all exports benefit from refunds, the system introduced by the Commission, inasmuch as it resulted, in practice, in fixing a priori the total loss at an amount greater than that of the costs linked to refunds, goes beyond the objective of Regulation No 1260/2001, and in particular beyond that of the equitable financing of the costs of disposing of Community production surpluses, noted at paragraph 57 of the present judgment.
Če se ne upo�teva večinoma teoretičen primer, ko bi bilo za vsak izvoz izplačano nadomestilo, presega sistem, ki ga je uvedla Komisija, s tem da se tako v praksi a priori določi znesek skupne izgube, ki je vi�ji od zneska stro�kov, povezanih z nadomestili, cilj Uredbe �t. 1260/2001 in zlasti pravično financiranje stro�kov prodaje presežkov proizvodnje Skupnosti, na kar se je opomnilo v točki 57 te sodbe.
The validity of Regulations No 1837/2002, No 1762/2003 and No 1775/2004
Veljavnost uredb št. 1837/2002, 1762/2003 in 1775/2004
Regulations No 1837/2002, No 1762/2003 and No 1775/2004 fixed, for the marketing years 2001/02, 2002/03 and 2003/04, the amount of the production levies in the sugar sector.
Z uredbami �t. 1837/2002, 1762/2003 in 1775/2004 so bili za tržna leta 2001/2002, 2002/2003 in 2003/2004 določeni zneski proizvodnih dajatev v sektorju sladkorja.
It is common ground that the Commission, pursuant to Article 6(5) of Regulation No 314/2002, took into account, for the purpose of calculating the average loss per tonne of sugar, only those exports which had attracted refunds.
Nesporno je, da je Komisija ob uporabi člena 6(5) Uredbe �t. 314/2002 za izračun povprečne izgube na tono sladkorja upo�tevala le izvoz, za katerega so bila izplačana nadomestila.
However, it is evident from the Court file that that method of calculation has been applied only from 2003.
Vendar iz spisa izhaja, da je ta metoda v uporabi �ele od leta 2003. Za tržno leto 2001/2002, na katerega se nana�a Uredba �t.
As regards the marketing year 2001/02, to which Regulation No 1837/2002 relates, it is not contested that, for the purpose of fixing the production levies, the Commission calculated the average loss by basing itself on the total quantities of sugar exported in the form of processed products, regardless of whether or not those exports had actually benefited from refunds.
1837/2002, je ugotovljeno, da je Komisija za določitev proizvodnih dajatev izračunala povprečno izgubo tako, da je upo�tevala vse količine izvoženega sladkorja v obliki predelanih proizvodov ne glede na to, ali so bila za izvoz izplačana nadomestila.
The following year, the Commission proceeded to correct the calculation of the average loss by taking into consideration only the quantities of exported products which had actually given rise to the payment of refunds.
Naslednje leto je Komisija popravila izračun povprečne izgube tako, da je upo�tevala le količine izvoženih proizvodov, ki so bili dejansko podlaga za izplačilo nadomestil.
This led to an increase in the average loss, the amount of which was carried over into the total loss for the marketing year 2002/03.
To je povzročilo povečanje navedene povprečne izgube, katere znesek se je prenesel v skupno izgubo v tržnem letu 2002/2003.
It follows from the answer given at paragraph 61 of the present judgment that such a method of calculating the average loss does not comply with Article 15 of Regulation No 1260/2001.
Iz odgovora, navedenega v točki 61 te sodbe, pa izhaja, da taka metoda izračuna povprečne izgube ni v skladu s členom 15 Uredbe �t. 1260/2001.
In the light of the foregoing, examination of Regulation No 1837/2002 has not disclosed the existence of any factors such as to affect its validity.
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega ni bil pri preučitvi Uredbe �t. 1837/2002 ugotovljen noben dejavnik, ki bi lahko vplival na njeno veljavnost.
That notwithstanding, it follows from the arguments set out above that the correction of the calculation of the average loss noted at paragraph 63 of the present judgment, inasmuch as it was based on the method of calculation noted in that paragraph, does not comply with Article 15 of Regulation No 1260/2001.
Kljub temu iz navedenega izhaja, da popravek izračuna povprečne izgube, obravnavan v točki 63 te sodbe, ni v skladu s členom 15 Uredbe �t. 1260/2001, ker temelji na metodi izračuna, navedeni v isti točki.
— pursuant to Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 1260/2001, for the purpose of calculating the exportable surplus, all the quantities of exported products which fall under that article must, regardless of whether or not refunds have actually been paid, be subtracted from consumption;
– da je na podlagi člena 15(1)(c) Uredbe �t. 1260/2001 pri izračunu presežka, ki se izvozi, iz tega člena treba od porabe od�teti vse količine izvoženih proizvodov ne glede na to, ali so bila nadomestila dejansko izplačana;
— Article 15(1)(d) of that regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that all the quantities of exported products which fall under that article must, regardless of whether or not refunds have actually been paid, be taken into account for the purpose of calculating both the exportable surplus and the average loss per tonne of product;
– da je treba člen 15(1)(d) navedene uredbe razlagati tako, da je treba pri določanju presežka, ki se izvozi, in povprečne izgube na tono proizvoda upo�tevati vse količine izvoženih proizvodov iz tega člena ne glede na to, ali so bila nadomestila dejansko izplačana;
— examination of Regulation No 1837/2002 has not disclosed the existence of any factors such as to affect its validity.
– da ni bil pri preučitvi Uredbe �t. 1837/2002 ugotovljen noben dejavnik, ki bi lahko vplival na njeno veljavnost.
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the respective actions pending before the national courts, the decisions on costs are a matter for those courts.
Ker je ta postopek za stranke v postopku v glavni stvari ena od stopenj v postopku pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, to odloči o stro�kih.
Pursuant to Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, for the purpose of calculating the exportable surplus, all the quantities of exported products which fall under that article must, regardless of whether or not refunds have actually been paid, be subtracted from consumption.
Na podlagi člena 15(1)(c) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1260/2001 z dne 19. junija 2001 o skupni ureditvi trgov za sladkor je pri izračunu presežka, ki se izvozi, iz tega člena treba od porabe odšteti vse količine izvoženih proizvodov ne glede na to, ali so bila nadomestila dejansko izplačana.
Article 15(1)(d) of that regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that all the quantities of exported products which fall under that article must, regardless of whether or not refunds have actually been paid, be taken into account for the purpose of calculating both the exportable surplus and the average loss per tonne of product.
Člen 15(1)(d) navedene uredbe je treba razlagati tako, da je treba pri določanju presežka, ki se izvozi, in povprečne izgube na tono proizvoda upoštevati vse količine izvoženih proizvodov iz tega člena ne glede na to, ali so bila nadomestila dejansko izplačana.
Commission Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003 of 7 October 2003 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/03 marketing year and (EC) No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004 setting the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04 marketing year are invalid.
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1762/2003 z dne 7. oktobra 2003 o določitvi zneskov za proizvodne dajatve trgov za sladkor za tržno leto 2002/2003 in Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1775/2004 z dne 14. oktobra 2004 o določitvi zneskov za proizvodne dajatve trgov za sladkor za tržno leto 2003/2004 nista veljavni.
Examination of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1837/2002 of 15 October 2002 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the marketing year 2001/02 has not disclosed the existence of any factors such as to affect its validity.
Pri preučitvi Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1837/2002 z dne 15. oktobra 2002 o določitvi zneskov za proizvodne dajatve in koeficienta za dodatne dajatve v sektorju sladkorja za tržno leto 2001/2002 ni bil ugotovljen noben dejavnik, ki bi lahko vplival na njeno veljavnost.
Case C-304/06 P
Zadeva C-304/06 P
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Uradu za usklajevanje na notranjem trgu (znamke in modeli) (UUNT)
(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) — Word mark EUROHYPO — Absolute ground for refusal of registration — Trade mark devoid of any distinctive character)
„Pritožba – Znamka Skupnosti – Uredba (ES) �t. 40/94 – Člen 7(1)(b) – Besedna znamka EUROHYPO – Absolutni razlog za zavrnitev registracije – Znamka brez razlikovalnega učinka“
I - 3300Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 8 May 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trstenjak, predstavljeni 8. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate assessment of the different grounds for refusal — Interpretation of the grounds for refusal in the light of the general interest underlying each of them — Assessment of the distinctive character of a trade mark analysing only the descriptive character of the mark
Znamka Skupnosti – Opredelitev in pridobitev znamke Skupnosti – Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev – Ločen preizkus različnih razlogov za zavrnitev – Razlaga razlogov za zavr­nitev glede na splošni interes – Presoja razlikovalnega učinka znamke samo z eno analizo opisnosti znamke
SUMMARY — CASE C-304/06 P
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-304/06 P
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character
Znamka Skupnosti – Opredelitev in pridobitev znamke Skupnosti – Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev – Znamke brez razlikovalnega učinka
the product or service from others which have another origin.
znamka označuje, in mu omogočiti, da ta proizvod ali storitev brez možnosti zmede razlikuje od tistih, ki izvirajo od drugod.
Furthermore, the various grounds for refusal must be interpreted in the light of the public interest underlying each of them.
Poleg tega je treba omenjene razloge za zavrnitev razlagati v smislu splo�nega interesa, ki je podlaga za vsakega od njih.