natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, such a provision cannot be interpreted as granting the Member States the right to derogate from that principle by maintaining in force or adopting national measures.
Vendar pa take določbe ni mogoče razlagati tako, da državam članicam omogoča, da z ohranitvijo ali uvedbo nacionalnih ukrepov odstopijo od navedenega načela.
It is apparent from the wording of Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2887/2000 that that provision permits the Member State concerned to supplement, by means of detailed national provisions, the relevant provisions of that regulation, in this case those concerning the principle that rates for access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation, but not to derogate from it.
Iz pojmov, uporabljenih v členu 1(4) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, namreč izhaja, da ta določba zadevni državi članici dopu�ča, da s podrobnej�imi nacionalnimi določbami dopolni upo�tevne določbe iz te uredbe, v tem primeru tiste, ki se nana�ajo na načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, ne pa da od njih odstopi.
The discretionary power which Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2887/2000 grants to the Member State concerned is necessary in the light of the fact that, as pointed out in paragraphs 48 and 49 above, that regulation does not contain any specific information concerning the definition of that principle.
Možnost, ki jo daje člen 1(4) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 zadevni državi članici, je neizogibna, če se upo�teva dejstvo, da ta uredba, kot je navedeno v točkah 48 in 49 te sodbe, ne vsebuje določnej�ih elementov v zvezi z opredelitvijo tega načela.
Consequently, the possibility of maintaining in force or introducing measures containing more detailed provisions, recognised in Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2887/2000, authorises the Member States to lay down provisions of national law giving concrete expression to the principle that rates for access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation provided that they respect the limits laid down in Article 1(4).
Zato možnost ohranitve ali uvedbe ukrepov s podrobnej�imi določbami, ki se priznava v členu 1(4) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, države članice poobla�ča, da v svojo nacionalno zakonodajo vnesejo določbe, s katerimi podrobneje opredelijo načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, pod pogojem, da te upo�tevajo omejitve, postavljene v členu 1(4) navedene uredbe.
In addition, it should be pointed out that that regulation was adopted, as is stated in recital 14 in the preamble thereto, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity set out in Article 5 of the Treaty and it is only in that context that it is expressly stated that the Member States retain the possibility to establish specific rules in the field in question.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da je bila navedena uredba sprejeta, kot je to navedeno v njeni uvodni izjavi 14, v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti iz člena 5 Pogodbe, zato je le v tem smislu izrecno navedeno, da države članice ohranijo možnost uvedbe lastnih pravil na tem področju.
Furthermore, the parties to the main proceedings which submitted observations to the Court of Justice do not argue that the principle that rates for access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation can not apply by reason of Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2887/2000, since the national provisions applicable in the main proceedings, namely Paragraph 24 of the TKG 1996 and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the TEntgV, constitute a detailed application of that principle.
Podrobneje pa je treba tudi pojasniti, da stranke postopka v glavni stvari, ki so Sodi�ču predstavile svoja stali�ča, niso zatrjevale, da naj bi bilo načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke na podlagi določb člena 1(4) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 mogoče prezreti, ker se to načelo podrobneje uresničuje z nacionalni določbami, ki jih je treba uporabiti v postopku v glavni stvari, in sicer s členom 24 TKG 1996 ter s členoma 2 in 3 TEntgV.
By contrast, they have submitted that the pricing principle at issue in the main proceedings must be given concrete expression by national provisions in the context of the discretion which the Member States enjoy in the field and that, in any event, that discretion has not been exceeded in this instance.
Zatrjevale pa so, da mora biti zadevno načelo oblikovanja cen v postopku v glavni stvari podrobneje opredeljeno z nacionalnimi določbami v okviru diskrecijske pravice, ki jo imajo na tem področju države članice, in da ta diskrecijska pravica v tem primeru vsekakor ni bila prekoračena.
In those circumstances, the question arises, second, as to whether the national provisions at issue in the main proceedings, such as Paragraph 24 of the TKG 1996 and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the TEntgV, constitute detailed provisions within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2887/2000.
Glede na to se, drugič, zastavlja vpra�anje, ali so zadevne nacionalne določbe v postopku v glavni stvari, kot so člen 24 TKG 1996 ter člena 2 in 3 TEntgV, podrobnej�e določbe v smislu člena 1(4) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000.
It is clear from a mere reading of those national provisions that they are detailed provisions within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that regulation.
Nedvomno lahko zgolj branje teh nacionalnih določb privede do sklepa, da gre za podrobnej�e določbe v smislu člena 1(4) navedene uredbe.
Those national provisions implement, in accordance with Community law, the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation by means of technical measures regarding, inter alia, the charges and documents which have to be produced by the undertaking which has made an application for rates approval.
Na podlagi navedenih nacionalnih določb se namreč načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke ob upo�tevanju prava Skupnosti izvaja s tehničnimi ukrepi, ki se nana�ajo zlasti na pristojbine in listine, ki jih mora predložiti podjetje, ki vloži zahtevek za odobritev cen.
It follows from the above that the answer to Question 1 must be that the possibility granted to the Member States, in Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2887/2000, to adopt detailed national measures cannot render inapplicable the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation as laid down in Article 3(3) of that regulation.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti tako, da podrobnej�i nacionalni ukrepi, katerih uvedbo državam članicam omogoča člen 1(4) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, ne smejo preprečiti učinkovanja načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke iz člena 3(3) navedene uredbe.
Question 3(e): the discretion of the NRAs in applying the principle that rates for access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation
Tretje vprašanje, točka (e), v zvezi s pristojnostjo presoje NRO v okviru uporabe načela stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke
In that regard, Article 4(2) of that regulation states that the NRA is to have the power, first, to impose changes on the reference offer for unbundled access to the local loop and related facilities, including prices, where such changes are justified, and, second, to require notified operators to supply information relevant for the implementation of that regulation.
V zvezi s tem odstavek 2 tega člena navaja, da je NRO poobla�čen zahtevati spremembe referenčne ponudbe za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke in pripadajočih zmogljivosti, vključno s cenami, kadar so take spremembe upravičene, in od prigla�enih obratovalcev zahtevati, da predložijo informacije, ki so primerne za izvajanje te uredbe.
It is apparent from those provisions that the NRAs have broad discretion to intervene in the various pricing aspects for the provision of unbundled access to the local loop, including the discretion to change prices, and thus the proposed tariffs.
Iz teh določb izhaja, da imajo NRO �iroke pristojnosti za poseganje v različne vidike oblikovanja cen za zagotavljanje razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, tudi za spreminjanje predlaganih cen.
In that regard, in accordance with the principle laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000, the level of rates for unbundled access to the local loop must be set on the basis of actual costs, namely the historic and forwardlooking costs incurred by the notified operator.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je treba v skladu z načelom iz člena 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 cene razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke določati na podlagi dejanskih stro�kov, in sicer stro�kov, ki jih je prigla�eni obratovalec že plačal, in predvidenih stro�kov.
In those circumstances, it follows that the broad discretion granted by Regulation No 2887/2000 to the NRAs as regards the assessment of pricing aspects of unbundled access to the local loop also concerns the evaluation of the costs incurred by the notified operator.
Iz tega izhaja, da se �iroke pristojnosti, ki jih daje Uredba �t. 2887/2000 NRO v zvezi s presojo cenovnih vidikov razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, nana�ajo tudi na oceno stro�kov, ki jih ima prigla�eni obratovalec.
Therefore, it must be held that the broad discretion enjoyed by the NRAs under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 2887/2000 also relates to the costs taken into account, such as interest on invested capital and depreciation of fixed assets, the calculation basis of those costs and the costaccounting models used to prove them.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da se �iroke pristojnosti, ki jih imajo NRO na podlagi člena 4(2) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, nana�ajo tudi na stro�ke, ki se upo�tevajo, na primer na obresti na vloženi kapital in amortizacijo osnovnih sredstev, na osnovo za izračun teh stro�kov in na modele računovodskega izkaza navedenih stro�kov.
In addition, it is also apparent from Article 4(2) of that regulation that, in the context of the broad discretion granted to them by those provisions, the NRAs are also entrusted with the power to conduct proceedings to control the pricing for unbundled access to the local loop in that they may request information concerning, inter alia, costs incurred in applying the principle that rates for access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation.
Poleg tega je treba podrobneje pojasniti, da iz določb člena 4(2) navedene uredbe izhaja tudi, da so NRO v okviru �irokih pristojnosti, ki jim jih dajejo te določbe, pristojeni tudi za pospe�evanje postopka nadzora nad oblikovanjem cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, v smislu da lahko zahtevajo informacije zlasti o stro�kih, nastalih v okviru uporabe načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen.
It follows that Regulation No 2887/2000 grants the NRAs not only broad discretion, but also the appropriate means to enable them to examine, in the most effective way, the correct application of the principle laid down in Article 3(3) of that regulation.
Iz tega izhaja, da Uredba �t. 2887/2000 NRO ne daje le �irokih pristojnosti, temveč tudi ustrezna sredstva, ki jim omogočajo kar najučinkoviteje preizkusiti pravilno uporabo načela iz člena 3(3) navedene uredbe.
The answer to Question 3(e) must therefore be that it is apparent from Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2887/2000 that, when examining the rates of notified operators for the provision of unbundled access to their local loop in light of the pricing principle laid down in Article 3(3) of that regulation, the NRAs have a broad discretion concerning the assessment of the various aspects of those tariffs, including the discretion to change prices, and thus the proposed tariffs.
Na tretje vpra�anje, točka (e), je treba torej odgovoriti tako, da iz določb člena 4(1) in (2) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 izhaja, da imajo NRO pri preizku�anju cen, ki jih prigla�eni obratovalci zaračunavajo za zagotavljanje razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, ob upo�tevanju načela oblikovanja cen iz člena 3(3) navedene uredbe, �iroke pristojnosti, ki obsegajo presojo različnih vidikov teh cen in celo spreminjanje predlaganih cen.
That broad discretion also relates to the costs incurred by notified operators, such as interest on invested capital and depreciation of fixed assets, the calculation basis of those costs and the costaccounting models used to prove them.
Te �iroke pristojnosti se nana�ajo tudi na stro�ke, ki jih imajo prigla�eni obratovalci, na primer na obresti na vloženi kapital in amortizacijo osnovnih sredstev, na osnovo za izračun teh stro�kov in na modele računovodskega izkaza navedenih stro�kov.
Question 3(d) and (f) to (h): the procedural aspects related to the application of the principle that rates for access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation
Tretje vprašanje, točke (d) in od (f) do (h), v zvezi s procesnimi vidiki uporabe načela stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke
The national court requests the Court of Justice, first, to rule on the scope of the review by the courts of decisions of the NRAs concerning the application of the pricing principle laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000.
Predložitveno sodi�če Sodi�ču predlaga, naj se najprej opredeli glede obsega sodnega nadzora v zvezi z odločitvami NRO o uporabi načela oblikovanja cen iz člena 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000.
Second, the national court requests the Court of Justice to give a ruling on whether telecommunications operators falling within the category which Regulation No 2887/2000 classes as beneficiaries, namely competing third parties operating in the telecommunications sector, are able to challenge before the courts decisions of the NRAs authorising the tariffs of notified operators for the provision of unbundled access to their local loop.
Drugič, predložitveno sodi�če Sodi�ču predlaga, naj se opredeli o tem, ali lahko obratovalci na področju telekomunikacij, ki jih Uredba �t. 2887/2000 opredeljuje kot upravičence, torej tretji konkurenti, ki poslujejo v telekomunikacijskem sektorju, sodno izpodbijajo odločitve, s katerimi NRO prigla�enim obratovalcem odobrijo cene za zagotavljanje razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke.
Third and finally, it asks, in that context, who is to bear, in particular in court proceedings or the supervisory procedure laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 2887/2000, the burden of proving that the principle that rates for access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation referred to in Article 3(3) of that regulation has been respected.
Tretjič in nazadnje se glede na te okoli�čine zastavlja vpra�anje, kdo nosi v sodnih postopkih ali v nadzornih postopkih iz člena 4 Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 dokazno breme v zvezi z upo�tevanjem načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, na katerega se nana�a člen 3(3) navedene uredbe.
Question 3(d): the scope of the review by the courts
Tretje vpra�anje, točka (d), v zvezi z obsegom sodnega nadzora
It should be pointed out at the outset that neither Regulation No 2887/2000 nor the directives of the FRF envisage harmonisation of the national rules concerning the applicable court proceedings or, in that regard, the scope of any review by the courts.
Najprej je treba ugotoviti, da niti Uredba �t. 2887/2000 niti direktive NekdRO ne predvidevajo uskladitve nacionalnih pravil o sodnih postopkih, ki se uporabljajo, niti ni v zvezi s tem določen obseg sodnega nadzora glede na primer.
The German Government, the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, as party to the main proceedings, and Deutsche Telekom base their argument on the caselaw according to which, when Community law grants the Community institutions a wide measure of discretion by reason of complex economic assessments which they carry out in the field at issue, any review by the Community judicature must be limited to verifying that the measures in dispute are not vitiated by a manifest error or a misuse of powers, or that the institution in question did not clearly exceed the bounds of its
Nem�ka vlada, Bundesrepublik Deutschland kot stranka v postopku v glavni stvari in družba Deutsche Telekom se v zvezi s tem sklicujejo na sodno prakso, v skladu s katero se mora – če pravo Skupnosti institucijam Skupnosti zaradi vsestranske in celovite ekonomske presoje, ki jo opravljajo na zadevnem področju, priznava �iroke diskrecijske pravice – morebitni nadzor sodi�č Skupnosti omejiti na preverjanje tega, ali so zadevni sporni ukrepi morda očitno napačni, ali so bila z njimi zlorabljena pooblastila oziroma ali je zadevna institucija očitno prekoračila meje svojih diskrecijskih pravic (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 21. januarja 1999 v zadevi Upjohn, C-120/97,
By transposing that caselaw by analogy to the case in the main proceedings, it is claimed that the assessments made by the NRAs concerning the application of the pricing principle laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000, namely those concerning the costs to be taken into account, their method of calculation and the accounting evidence of those costs in the case of the fictitious valuation of the local telecommunications infrastructures, constitute complex economic assessments and, consequently, the review by the national courts should also be limited.
Na podlagi sklepanja po analogiji med to sodno prakso in postopkom v glavni stvari se zatrjuje, da gre pri presoji NRO, ki se v zvezi z uporabo načela oblikovanja cen iz člena 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 nana�a na stro�ke, ki se upo�tevajo, njihov izračun in računovodski izkaz teh stro�kov v primeru fiktivne ocene krajevne telekomunikacijske infrastrukture, za vsestransko in celovito ekonomsko presojo, zato bi morale za nacionalno sodi�če veljati enake omejitve.
In that regard, according to the caselaw, in the absence of relevant Community rules it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, provided, first, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and, secondly, that they do not render in practice impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (see Case C-30/02 Recheio — Cash & Carry [2004] ECR I-6051, paragraph 17, and Joined Cases C-222/05 to C-225/05 van der Weerd and Others [2007] ECR I-4233, paragraph 28 and the caselaw cited). 167
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da mora v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, kadar na določenem področju ni predpisov Skupnosti, pravni red vsake države članice določiti pristojna sodi�ča in podrobneje urediti procesna pravila pravnih sredstev, katerih namen je varstvo pravic, ki jih imajo upravičenci na podlagi prava Skupnosti, če ta pravila niso manj ugodna od tistih, ki veljajo za podobna nacionalna pravna sredstva (načelo enakovrednosti), in če v praksi ne onemogočajo ali znatno otežujejo uveljavljanja pravic, ki jih daje pravni red Skupnosti (načelo učinkovitosti) (glej sodbi z dne 17. junija 2004 v zadevi Recheio – Cash & Carry, C-30/02, ZOdl. str. I-6051, točka 17, in z dne 7. junija 2007 v združenih zadevah Van der Weerd in drugi, od C-222/05 do C-225/05, ZOdl., str. I-4233, točka 28 in navedena sodna praksa). 167
In that regard, it needs to be pointed out that, as rightly submitted by Arcor and, more generally, the Lithuanian Government, it is apparent from recital 11 in the preamble to Regulation No 2887/2000 as well as Articles 3(2) and (3) and 4(3) of that regulation that the NRAs must ensure the application of rates for access to the local loop in transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions.
V teh okoli�činah je treba poudariti, kot to upravičeno zatrjujeta družba Arcor in, nekoliko splo�neje, litovska vlada, da iz uvodne izjave 11 Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 ter iz členov 3(2) in (3) in 4(3) navedene uredbe izhaja, da morajo NRO zagotavljati pregledno, pravično in nediskriminacijsko izvajanje cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke.
It is thus the task of the national courts to ensure compliance with the obligations resulting from Regulation No 2887/2000 regarding unbundled access to the local loop by means of procedures consistent with the pricing principle laid down in Article 3(3) of that regulation, and in accordance with the conditions referred to above.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora torej zagotoviti upo�tevanje obveznosti, ki iz Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 izhajajo glede razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke v skladu z načelom oblikovanja cen iz člena 3(3) navedene uredbe in z zgoraj navedenimi pogoji.
It follows that Community law does not lay down any rule requiring the Member States to put in place a specific means of review with respect to decisions of the NRAs concerning the rates of notified operators for access to their local loops.
Iz tega izhaja, da pravo Skupnosti ne določa nobenega pravila, v skladu s katerim morajo države članice urediti poseben nadzor nad odločitvami NRO o cenah prigla�enega obratovalca za dostop do njegove krajevne zanke.
It follows from all of the above considerations that the answer to Question 3(d) must be that it is a matter solely for the Member States, within the context of their pro -cedural autonomy, to determine, in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of judicial protection, the competent court, the nature of the dispute and, consequently, the detailed rules of judicial review with respect to decisions of the NRAs concerning the authorisation of the rates of notified operators for unbundled access to their local loop.
Iz celote zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je treba na tretje vpra�anje, točka (d), odgovoriti tako, da so države članice v okviru procesne avtonomije, ki jo uživajo, ob upo�tevanju načel enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti sodnega varstva, izključno pristojne za določanje pristojnih sodi�č, vrste spora in zato tudi oblike sodnega nadzora v zvezi z odločitvami NRO o odobritvi cen prigla�enih obratovalcev za razvezani dostop do njihove krajevne zanke.
In those circumstances, the national courts must ensure that the obligations resulting from Regulation No 2887/2000 regarding unbundled access to the local loop by means of procedures consistent with the pricing principle laid down in Article 3(3) of that regulation are in fact complied with in transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions.
Glede na to mora nacionalno sodi�če zagotoviti, da se obveznosti, ki iz Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 izhajajo glede razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke v skladu z načelom oblikovanja cen iz člena 3(3) navedene uredbe, dejansko upo�tevajo, in sicer pod preglednimi, pravičnimi in nediskriminacijskimi pogoji.
Question 3(f): the right to appeal against decisions of the NRAs regarding the rates of notified operators for unbundled access to their local loop
Tretje vpra�anje, točka (f), v zvezi s pravico do pritožbe zoper odločitve NRO o cenah prigla�enih obratovalcev za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke
By Question 3(f) the Court of Justice is essentially invited to consider whether beneficiaries within the meaning of Regulation No 2887/2000 may challenge the decisions of the NRAs authorising the rates of notified operators for unbundled access to their local loop by virtue of the requirements regarding the costorientation of rates.
V okviru tretjega vpra�anja, točka (f), se Sodi�ču v bistvu predlaga, naj preuči, ali upravičenci v smislu Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 lahko izpodbijajo odločitve NRO, s katerimi ti v skladu z zahtevami po stro�kovni naravnanosti cen odobravajo cene prigla�enih obratovalcev za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke.
In order to answer that question it is necessary to examine the regulatory framework to which Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000 belongs.
Za odgovor na to vpra�anje je treba preučiti regulativni okvir, v katerega sodi člen 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000.