natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 5(2) applies to situations in which the specific condition of the protection consists of a use of the sign in question without due cause which takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark (see Marca Mode, paragraph 36, and Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux, paragraph 27).
Ta določba se namreč uporablja za situacije, v katerih je glede varstva določen poseben pogoj neupravičene uporabe izpodbijanega znaka, ki bi brez upravičenega razloga izkoristila ali o�kodovala razlikovalni značaj ali ugled znamke (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Marca Mode, točka 36, ter Adidas-Salomon in Adidas Benelux, točka 27).
It is not therefore necessary that the degree of similarity between
Ne zahteva se torej, da je stopnja podobnosti med znamko z ugledom in znakom, ki ga uporabljajo tretje
2008 — CASE C-102/07 the mark with a reputation and the sign used by the third party is such that there exists a likelihood of confusion between them on the part of the relevant section of the public.
2008 – ZADEVA C-102/07 osebe, taka, da bi pri upo�tevni javnosti pri�lo do verjetnosti zmede.
It is sufficient for the degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign to have the effect that the relevant section of the public establishes a link between the sign and the mark (see Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux, paragraphs 29 and 31).
Zadostuje, da upo�tevna javnost zaradi podobnosti med znamko z ugledom in znakom vzpostavi zvezo med znakom in znamko (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Adidas-Salomon in Adidas Benelux, točki 29 in 31).
The existence of such a link must be appreciated globally, taking into account all the relevant factors relevant to the circumstances of the case (Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux, paragraph 30).
Obstoj take zveze je treba presojati celovito ob upo�tevanju vseh upo�tevnih dejavnikov (zgoraj navedena sodba Adidas-Salomon in Adidas Benelux, točka 30).
It is clear that the requirement of availability is extraneous both to the assessment of the degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign used by the third party and to the link which may be made by the relevant public between that mark and the sign.
Ugotoviti je treba, da je zahteva po razpoložljivosti nepomembna tako pri presoji stopnje podobnosti med znamko z ugledom in znakom, ki ga uporabljajo tretje osebe, kot pri zvezi, ki jo upo�tevna javnost lahko vzpostavi med navedeno znamko in znakom.
Interpretation of Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive
Razlaga člena 6(1)(b) Direktive
By thus limiting the effects of the exclusive rights of a trade mark proprietor, Article 6 of the Directive seeks to reconcile the fundamental interests of trade mark protection with those of free movement of goods and freedom to provide services in the common market in such a way that trade mark rights are able to fulfil their essential role in the system of undistorted competition which the EC Treaty seeks to establish and maintain (see Case C-228/03 Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland [2005] ECR I-2337, paragraph 29, and the caselaw cited).
Člen 6 Direktive s takim omejevanjem učinkov izključne pravice imetnika znamke združuje temeljne interese varstva pravic iz znamke in interese prostega pretoka blaga ter svobode opravljanja storitev na skupnem trgu, in sicer tako, da pravica iz znamke lahko izpolni svojo vlogo bistvenega elementa sistema neizkrivljene konkurence, ki ga ima Pogodba ES namen vzpostaviti in ohranjati (glej sodbo z dne 17. marca 2005 v zadevi Gillette Company in Gillette Group Finland, C-228/03, ZOdl., str. I-2337, točka 29 in navedena sodna praksa).
Specifically, Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive seeks to ensure that all economic operators have the opportunity to use descriptive indications.
Namen člena 6(1)(b) Direktive je ohraniti možnost, da vsi gospodarski subjekti uporabljajo opisne označbe.
As noted by the Advocate General in points 75 and 78 of his Opinion, that provision therefore gives expression to the requirement of availability.
Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točkah 75 in 78 sklepnih predlogov, je ta določba torej izraz zahteve po razpoložljivosti.
It must be stated in that regard that, in order for a third party to be able to plead the limitations of the effects of the trade mark in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive and rely in that respect on the requirement of availability underlying that provision, the indication used by it must, as required by that provision of the Directive, relate to one of the characteristics of the goods marketed or the service provided by that third party (see, to that effect, Windsurfing Chiemsee, paragraph 28, and Case C-48/05 Adam Opel [2007] ECR I-1017, paragraphs 42 to 44).
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da se mora – zato da bi se tretje osebe lahko sklicevale na omejitve učinkov znamke iz člena 6(1)(b) Direktive in v tem kontekstu na zahtevo po razpoložljivosti, ki je temelj te določbe – označba, ki jo tretje osebe uporabljajo, nana�ati na eno od značilnosti proizvoda ali storitve, ki jo trži oziroma ponuja ta tretja oseba (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Windsurfing Chiemsee, točka 28, in sodbo z dne 25. januarja 2007 v zadevi Adam Opel, C-48/05, ZOdl., str. I-1017, točke od 42 do 44).
In the present case, according to the decision making the reference and the observations submitted to the Court by the competitors of adidas, the latter rely on the purely decorative nature of the two-stripe motifs at issue to justify their use.
V obravnavanem primeru iz predložitvene odločbe in iz stali�č, ki so jih pred Sodi�čem predložili konkurenti družbe adidas, izhaja, da so se slednji v utemeljitev uporabe spornih motivov dveh črt sklicevali na njihovo popolnoma okrasno vlogo.
It follows that the placing by those competitors of motifs with stripes on their garments is not intended to give an indication concerning one of the characteristics of those goods.
Sledi, da konkurenti, s tem da so na oblačila namestili motive črt, niso imeli namena podati označbe glede značilnosti teh proizvodov.
Having regard to all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling must be that the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of availability cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the scope of the exclusive rights of the proprietor of a trade mark, except in so far as the limitation of the effects of the trade mark defined in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive applies.
Glede na vse navedene ugotovitve je treba na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovoriti, da je Direktivo treba razlagati tako, da se pri presoji obsega izključne pravice imetnika znamke ne sme upo�tevati zahteva po razpoložljivosti, razen v primerih, ko se uporablja omejitev učinkov znamke, ki je opredeljena v členu 6(1)(b) te direktive.
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of availability cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the scope of the exclusive rights of the proprietor of a trade mark, except in so far as the limitation of the effects of the trade mark defined in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive applies.
Prvo direktivo Sveta 89/104/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1988 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami je treba razlagati tako, da se pri presoji obsega izključne pravice imetnika znamke ne sme upoštevati zahteva po razpoložljivosti, razen v primerih, ko se uporablja omejitev učinkov znamke, ki je opredeljena v členu 6(1)(b) navedene direktive.
Case C-268/06
Zadeva C-268/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Labour Court)
(Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 4 and 5 of the framework agreement on fixedterm work — Fixedterm employment in the public sector — Employment conditions — Pay and pensions — Renewal of fixedterm contracts for a period of up to eight years — Procedural autonomy — Direct effect)
„Direktiva 1999/70/ES – Določbi 4 in 5 okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas – Zaposlovanje za določen čas v javni upravi – Pogoji zaposlitve – Plačilo in pokojnine – Obnovitev pogodb o zaposlitvi za določen čas za obdobje do osmih let – Procesna avtonomija – Neposredni učinek“
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 9 January 2008 . . . . . . .
Kokott, predstavljeni 9. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection (Council Directive 1999/70)
Pravo Skupnosti – Načela – Pravica do učinkovitega sodnega varstva (Direktiva Sveta 1999/70)
SUMMARY — CASE C-268/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-268/06
Social policy — Framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70
Socialna politika – Okvirni sporazum o delu za določen čas, sklenjen med ETUC, UNICE in CEEP – Direktiva 1999/70
(Art. 139(1) and (2) EC; Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clauses 4(1) and 5(1))
(člen 139(1) in (2) ES; Direktiva Sveta 1999/70, priloga, določbi 4, točka 1, in 5, točka 1)
Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC; Council Directive 1999/70)
Akti institucij – Direktive – Izvajanje s strani držav članic (člen 249, tretji odstavek, ES; Direktiva Sveta 1999/70)
(Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4)
(Direktiva Sveta 1999/70, priloga, določba 4)
It is for the national court to undertake the necessary checks in that regard.
Glede tega mora potrebno presojo opraviti nacionalno sodi�če.
(see para. 55, operative part 1)
(Glej točko 55 in točko 1 izreka.)
Community law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, requires that a specialised court which is called upon, under the, albeit optional, jurisdiction conferred on it by the legislation transposing Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, to hear and determine a claim based on an infringement of that legislation, must also have jurisdiction to hear and determine an applicant’s claims arising directly from the directive itself in respect of the period between the deadline for transposing the directive and the date on which the transposing legislation entered into force if it is established that the obligation on that applicant to bring, at the same time, a separate claim based directly on the directive before an ordinary court would involve procedural disadvantages liable to render excessively difficult the exercise of the rights
Pravo Skupnosti, zlasti načelo učinkovitosti, zahteva, da se mora specializirano sodi�če, ki mu je bila zadeva predložena v okviru pristojnosti, čeprav fakultativne, podeljene z zakonodajo, s katero je bila prenesena Direktiva 1999/70 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu za določen čas, sklenjenem med ETUC, UNICE in CEEP, za odločanje o zahtevi zaradi kr�itve te zakonodaje, izreči za pristojno za odločanje tudi o zahtevah posameznika, ki temeljijo neposredno na tej direktivi za obdobje po poteku roka za njen prenos in pred začetkom veljavnosti navedene zakonodaje, če se izkaže, da bi obveznost za tega posameznika, da mora vzporedno pri rednem sodi�ču vložiti ločeno zahtevo, ki temelji neposredno na direktivi, povzročila tak�ne postopkovne težave, da bi bilo izvr�evanje pravic, ki jih ima na podlagi pravnega reda Skupnosti,
Whenever the provisions of a directive appear, so far as their subjectmatter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, they may be relied upon by individuals as against the State, particularly in its capacity as an employer.
V vseh primerih, ko se pojavljajo določbe direktive, ki so vsebinsko brezpogojne in dovolj natančne, so posamezniki upravičeni, da se nanje sklicujejo nasproti državi, zlasti ko nastopa kot delodajalec.
That principle can be applied in respect of provisions of agreements
To načelo se lahko prenese na določbe sporazumov, ki kot okvirni sporazum
which, like the framework agreement on fixedterm work which is annexed to Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, are the product of a dialogue, based on Article 139(1) EC, between management and labour at Community level and which have been implemented in accordance with Article 139(2) EC by a directive of the Council, of which they are thus an integral component.
o delu za določen čas, ki je priloga k Direktivi 1999/70 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu za določen čas, sklenjenem med ETUC, UNICE in CEEP, izhajajo iz dialoga med socialnimi partnerji na ravni Skupnosti na podlagi člena 139(1) ES in ki se izvajajo, v skladu z odstavkom 2 tega člena, z direktivo Sveta, katere sestavni del torej so.
Article 10 EC, the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, and Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as meaning that an authority of a Member State acting in its capacity as a public employer may not adopt measures contrary to the objective pursued by that directive and the framework agreement on fixedterm work as regards prevention of the abusive use of fixedterm contracts, which consist in the renewal of such contracts for an unusually long term in the period between the deadline for transposing Directive 1999/70 and the date on which the transposing legislation entered into force.
Člena 10 ES in 249, tretji odstavek, ES ter Direktivo 1999/70 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu za določen čas, sklenjenem med ETUC, UNICE in CEEP, je treba razlagati tako, da organ države članice, ki nastopa kot delodajalec javnega sektorja, ni poobla�čen za sprejetje ukrepov, ki so v nasprotju s ciljem, zasledovanim z navedeno direktivo in okvirnim sporazumom o delu za določen čas, v zvezi s preprečevanjem zlorab pri uporabi pogodb o zaposlitvi za določen čas, to je obnovitev tak�nih pogodb za neobičajno dolgo obdobje v obdobju po poteku roka za prenos te direktive in pred začetkom veljavnosti zakona za prenos.
(see para. 92, operative part 3)
(Glej točko 92 in točko 3 izreka.)
In that regard, Clause 4(1) of that framework agreement, which prohibits, in a general manner and in unequivocal terms, any difference in treatment of fixedterm workers in respect of employment conditions which is not objectively justified, is unconditional and sufficiently precise for individuals to be able to rely upon it before a national court; that is not the case, however, as regards Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement, which assigns to the Member States the general objective of preventing the abusive use of successive fixedterm employment contracts or relationships, while leaving to them the choice as to how to achieve it.
Glede tega je določba 4, točka 1, navedenega okvirnega sporazuma, s katero je v zvezi s pogoji zaposlitve splo�no in nedvoumno prepovedano vsakr�no različno obravnavanje delavcev, zaposlenih za določen čas, ki ni objektivno utemeljeno, brezpogojna in dovolj natančna, da se posameznik lahko sklicuje nanjo pred nacionalnim sodi�čem. Nasprotno pa to ne velja za določbo 5, točka 1, istega okvirnega sporazuma, v kateri je za države članice določen splo�ni cilj preprečevanja zlorab zaporednih pogodb o zaposlitvi za določen čas, ob tem pa jim je prepu�čena izbira sredstev za njegovo uresničitev.
When applying domestic law and, in particular, legislative provisions specifically adopted for the purpose of implementing the requirements of a directive, national courts are bound to interpret that law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive in order to achieve the result sought by it and thus to comply with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC.
Nacionalna sodi�ča morajo ob uporabi nacionalnega prava in zlasti določb posebne ureditve, sprejete z namenom izvajanja zahtev iz direktive, to pravo povsod, kjer je to mogoče, razlagati ob upo�tevanju besedila in cilja direktive, da bi dosegla rezultat, ki ga slednja zasleduje, in se tako ravnala v skladu s členom 249, tretji odstavek, ES.
The obligation on a national court to refer to the content of a directive when inter-
Obveznost nacionalnega sodi�ča, da se pri
(see paras 57, 58, 60, 68, 70, 73, 79, 80, operative part 2)
(Glej točke 57, 58, 60, 68, 70, 73, 79, 80 in točko 2 izreka.)
preting and applying the relevant rules of domestic law is, however, limited by general principles of law, particularly those of legal certainty and non-retro-activity, and that obligation cannot serve as the basis for an interpretation of national law contra legem.
razlagi in uporabi upo�tevnih pravil nacionalnega prava sklicuje na vsebino direktive, je vendar omejena s splo�nimi pravnimi načeli, zlasti z načeloma pravne varnosti in prepovedi retroaktivnosti, in ne more biti podlaga za razlago nacionalnega prava contra legem.
Articulating a principle of Community social law which cannot be interpreted restrictively, Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixedterm work, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that employment conditions within the meaning of that clause encompass conditions relating to pay and to pensions which depend on the employment relationship, to the exclusion of conditions relating to pensions arising under a statutory social-security scheme.
Ker izraža načelo socialnega prava Skupnosti, ki se ne more razlagati restriktivno, je treba določbo 4 okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas, ki je priloga k Direktivi 1999/70 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu za določen čas, sklenjenem med ETUC, UNICE in CEEP, razlagati tako, da pogoji zaposlitve v smislu te določbe zajemajo pogoje v zvezi s plačilom in pokojninami, ki izhajajo iz delovnega razmerja, z izjemo pogojev v zvezi s pokojninami iz zakonskega sistema socialne varnosti.
In those circumstances, in so far as the applicable national law contains a rule that precludes the retrospective application of legislation unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication to the contrary, a national court hearing a claim based on an infringement of a provision of national legislation transposing Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixedterm work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP is required, under Community law, to give that provision retrospective effect to the date by which that directive should have been transposed only if that national legislation includes an indication of that nature capable of giving that provision retrospective effect.
V teh okoli�činah, če je v veljavnem nacionalnem pravu pravilo, ki izključuje retroaktivno uporabo zakona, razen v primerih, ko je jasno in nedvoumno navedeno nasprotno, mora nacionalno sodi�če, ki mu je bila predložena zahteva zaradi kr�itve določbe nacionalnega zakona, s katerim je bila prenesena Direktiva 1999/70 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu za določen čas, sklenjenem med ETUC, UNICE in CEEP, na podlagi prava Skupnosti priznati navedeni določbi retroaktiven učinek od dne poteka roka za prenos te direktive le, če obstaja v nacionalnem pravu tak�na navedba, s katero je tej določbi podeljen tak�en retroaktiven učinek.
(see paras 98, 100, 104, operative part 4)
(Glej točki 114, 134 in točko 5 izreka.)
(see paras 114, 134, operative part 5)
(Glej točke 98, 100, 104 in točko 4 izreka.)
The present case looks at how fixedterm employment relationships are used by public sector employers, as did the earlier cases of Adeneler, Marrosu and Sardino, Vassallo and Del Cerro Alonso.
V tem primeru gre za obravnavo – kot že prej v zadevah Adeneler, Marrosu in Sardino, Vassallo ter Del Cerro Alonso – delovnih razmerij za določen čas, ki se jih poslužujejo delodajalci javnega sektorja.
The fact that such employment relationships are also within the scope of the framework agreement on fixedterm work has already been clarified by the Court in the cases just mentioned. 3
Sodi�če je v navedenih zadevah že razjasnilo, da tudi tak�na delovna razmerja spadajo na področje uporabe okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas. 3
Are national courts required to apply directly effective provisions of Community law even if they have not been given express jurisdiction to do so under domestic law?
Ali morajo nacionalna sodi�ča uporabiti neposredno veljavne predpise prava Skupnosti tudi tedaj, če na njih v skladu z nacionalnim pravom za to ni bila prenesena izrecna pristojnost?
That fundamental question has been referred to the Court of Justice by the Irish Labour Court in Dublin in the light of the Community rules on fixedterm employment contained in the framework agreement on fixedterm work. 2
Irsko delovno sodi�če, Labour Court v Dublinu, je to temeljno vpra�anje predložilo Sodi�ču glede določb prava Skupnosti o zaposlitvi za določen čas, ki jih vsebuje okvirni sporazum o delu za določen čas. 2
The Community-law framework for this case is established by Council
Pravni okvir Skupnosti je v tem primeru Direktiva Sveta 1999/70/ES z dne 28. junija
In addition, the Labour Court asks how it should interpret two main provisions of that framework agreement encompassing, first, the principle of nondiscrimination against fixedterm workers and, second, measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixedterm employment relationships.
Labour Court poleg tega želi informacijo o razlagi dveh osrednjih določb tega okvirnega sporazuma, ki po eni strani vsebujeta načelo nediskriminacije delavcev, zaposlenih za določen čas, in po drugi strani ukrepe za preprečevanje zlorab, ki izhajajo iz veriženja delovnih razmerij za določen čas. Labour
The Labour Court also seeks guidance on the scope of its obligation to interpret national law in conformity with directives.
3 – Sodbe z dne 4. julija 2006 v zadevi Adeneler in drugi (C-212/04, ZOdl., str. I-6057, točke od 54 do 57); z dne 7. septembra 2006 v zadevi Marrosu in Sardino (C-53/04, ZOdl., str. I-7213, točke od 39 do 42) in Vassallo (C-180/04, ZOdl., str.
7Furthermore, the Framework Agreement presupposes that ‘the use of fixedterm employment contracts based on objective reasons is a way to prevent abuse’. 8
7Okvirni sporazum dalje izhaja iz tega, da „je uporaba pogodb o zaposlitvi za določen čas, ki temeljijo na objektivnih razlogih, način preprečevanja zlorab“. 8
4This Dir -ective puts into effect the framework agreement on fixedterm work (also: ‘the Framework Agreement’) which was concluded on 18 March 1999 between three general crossindustry organisations (ETUC, UNICE and CEEP) and is annexed to the Directive.
S to direktivo se izvaja okvirni sporazum o delu za določen čas (v nadaljevanju tudi: okvirni sporazum), ki so ga 18. marca 1999 sklenile tri splo�ne medpanožne organizacije (ETUC, UNICE in CEEP) in ki je priloga k tej direktivi.
Clause 1 of the Framework Agreement defines the purpose of the agreement:
Določba 1 okvirnega sporazuma določa njegov namen:
‘The purpose of this framework agreement is to:
„Namen okvirnega sporazuma je:
Overall, the framework agreement on fixedterm work aims to set out ‘the general principles and minimum requirements for fixedterm employment contracts and employment relationships’ and thereby ‘to improve the quality of fixedterm work by ensuring the application of the principle of nondiscrimination, and to establish a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixedterm employment contracts or relationships’. 5
Skupni cilj okvirnega sporazuma o delu za določen čas je opredeliti „splo�na načela in minimalne zahteve za pogodbe o zaposlitvi in delovnih razmerjih za določen čas“ in pri tem „[izbolj�ati kakovost] dela za določen čas z zagotavljanjem uporabe načela nediskriminacije in vzpostavitvijo okvira, ki bi preprečeval zlorabe, izhajajoče iz veriženja pogodb o zaposlitvi ali delovnih razmerij za določen čas“. 5
(a) improve the quality of fixedterm work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination;
(a) izbolj�ati kakovost dela za določen čas z zagotavljanjem uporabe načela nediskriminacije;