natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It faces a normal commercial risk, which is insufficient to confer upon it a right of action.
Družba se po njenem mnenju sooča z običajnim tržnim tveganjem, kar ni dovolj za procesno upravičenje.
The Commission argues that the Court of First Instance’s reasoning is difficult to understand.
Komisija trdi, da je obrazložitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje težko razumljiva.
Finally, the Commission submits that Infront could have challenged the United
Komisija na koncu navaja, da bi lahko družba Infront britanske ukrepe izpodbijala
26 — The Commission refers to the order in Case T-113/99 Galileo and Galileo International v Council [2000] ECR II-4141, and to Case T-43/98 Emesa Sugar v Council [2001] ECR II-3519.
26 – Komisija se sklicuje na sklep Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 15. decembra 2000 v zadevi Galileo in Galileo International proti Svetu (T-113/99, Recueil, str.
27 — Case 11/82 [1985] ECR 207.28 — Case C-358/89 [1991] ECR I-2501.29 — Case C-309/89 [1994] ECR I-1853.
27 – Sodba z dne 17. januarja 1985 (11/82, Recueil, str. 207).28 – Sodba z dne 16. maja 1991 (C-358/89, Recueil, str.
In the Commission’s submission, Infront was affected by the contested measure only in its objective capacity as a holder of exclusive rights having acquired the broadcasting rights to one of the events covered by the United Kingdom measures. It observes that
Komisija meni, da izpodbijani akt družbo Infront zadeva zgolj glede njene objektivne lastnosti kot imetnice izključnih pravic prenosa, ki jih je pridobila za dogodek,
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM individually just as in the case of the persons to whom the decision is addressed. 30
KOMISIJA PROTI INFRONT WM na ostale osebe in jih posamično opredeli podobno kot naslovnike odločbe.
Kingdom measures before a United Kingdom court, so that the fact that its action is inadmissible before the Community courts does not deprive it of the right to legal recourse.
30 pred sodi�čem Združenega kraljestva, tako da ji zaradi nedopustnosti tožbe pred sodi�čem Skupnosti ni odvzeta pravica do sodnega varstva.
Infront disputes the Commission’s arguments and contends that the Court of First Instance correctly decided that it was individually concerned by the contested measure.
Družba Infront prereka trditve Komisije in navaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje upravičeno zavzelo stali�če, v skladu s katerim jo izpodbijani akt posamično zadeva.
First, Infront holds, on an exclusive basis, the television broadcasting rights to the 2002 and 2006 FIFA World Cup finals, which are included in the list of events of major importance for society adopted by the United Kingdom and approved by the Commission in the contested measure.
Prvič, družba Infront je imela izključne pravice za televizijski prenos sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE, kot dogodka s seznama dogodkov velikega družbenega pomena, ki ga je sprejelo Združeno kraljestvo, Komisija pa ga je v izpodbijanem aktu odobrila.
Secondly, it acquired those rights before the adoption of that measure and even before the entry into force of Article 3a of the Directive.
Drugič, te pravice je pridobila pred izdajo akta in celo pred uveljavitvijo člena 3a Direktive.
Thirdly, that measure, although not referring to Infront, impedes its ability to dispose freely of those rights to a television broadcaster established in a Member State other than the United Kingdom.
Tretjič, omenjeni akt, čeprav ni usmerjen zoper družbo Infront, vendarle omejuje njeno možnost prostega razpolaganja z njenimi pravicami v razmerju z izdajateljem televizijskih programov s sedežem v državi članici, ki ni Združeno kraljestvo.
I do not share the Commission’s view regarding the lack of clarity and the content of the Court of First Instance’s reasoning.
S presojo Komisije se ne strinjam niti z vidika pomanjkljive jasnosti navedb Sodi�ča prve stopnje niti z vidika njihove vsebine.
I take the view that no error of law vitiates the Court of First Instance’s assessment.
Menim, da pri presoji Sodi�ča prve stopnje pravo ni bilo napačno uporabljeno.
It is clear from the caselaw that, in order for a person to be able to be regarded as individually concerned by a Community measure
30 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Piraiki-Patraiki in drugi proti Komisiji (točka 11).
The Court of First Instance correctly noted, first of all, that persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned by that decision only if it affects them by virtue of 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
Sodi�če je najprej pravilno spomnilo, da se lahko posamezniki, ki niso naslovniki odločbe, na dejstvo, da jih ta posamično zadeva, sklicujejo le, če se ta odločba nanje nana�a zaradi določenih osebnih lastnosti ali posebnih okoli�čin, ki jih opredeljujejo glede
Kingdom wishing to broadcast that event in that State.
BOTA – ZADEVA C-125/06 P komercialni televiziji s sedežem zunaj Združenega kraljestva, ki bi želela zadevni dogodek oddajati v tej državi.
which is not addressed to him, he must have been identified or identifiable at the time of the adoption of that measure.
posameznika, da bi ga bilo mogoče �teti kot takega, ki ga izpodbijani akt zadeva, čeprav nanj ni naslovljen.
31It follows from the Court of First Instance’s analysis that Infront was clearly identifiable by the Commission at the time of the contested measure’s adoption, since it was the holder of the exclusive broadcasting rights to the 2002 and 2006 FIFA World Cup finals, events covered by the list in the measures notified by the United Kingdom.
31Iz analize Sodi�ča prve stopnje izhaja, da je Komisija ob sprejetju akta vsekakor lahko ugotovila istovetnost družbe Infront, ker je bila ta družba imetnica izključnih pravic prenosa sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE za leti 2002 in 2006, torej enega od dogodkov s seznama ukrepov, ki jih je sporočilo Združeno kraljestvo.
In other words, the Court of First Instance held that the contested measure affected Infront’s right to property.
Sodi�če je, povedano drugače, ugotovilo, da je bila z izpodbijanim aktom kr�ena lastninska pravica družbe Infront.
The acceptance of the admissibility of Infront’s action seems to me to be consistent with well-established caselaw, according to which an individual can challenge the legality of a Community measure where it alters rights acquired by that individual prior to its adoption.
Zdi se mi, da je sprejetje dopustnosti tožbe družbe Infront združljivo tudi z ustaljeno sodno prakso, v skladu s katero lahko posameznik izpodbija zakonitost akta Skupnosti, če ta posega v pravice, ki jih je pridobil pred njegovo izdajo.
Next, while, as the Commission submits, purely economic loss is not sufficient, in principle, to entitle an individual to bring an action for annulment of a Community measure, it should be pointed out that the Court of First Instance did not decide that Infront was individually concerned by the contested measure for the sole reason that the measure would involve adverse economic consequences for that company.
Če torej, kot zatrjuje Komisija, zgolj gospodarska �koda načeloma ne zado�ča za nastanek pravice posameznika, da vloži tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti akta Skupnosti, je treba opozoriti, da Sodi�če prve stopnje družbe Infront kot tak�ne, ki jo izpodbijani akt posamično zadeva, ni �telo le zato, ker je ta akt nanjo gospodarsko slabo učinkoval.
It stated, in paragraph 165 of the judgment under appeal, that the measure impeded Infront’s ability freely to dispose of its broadcasting rights to the event exclusively to a pay television channel established outside the United
V točki 165 izpodbijane sodbe je navedlo, da je ta akt družbo Infront oviral pri tem, da bi svoje pravice prostega prenosa oddala
The Court so held in Toepfer and Getreide­ImportGesellschaft v Commission, in which it accepted for the first time that a person could be individually concerned by a decision addressed to a Member State. 32
Tako je Sodi�če odločilo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Toepfer in Getreide-Import Gesellschaft proti Komisiji, v kateri je prvikrat sprejelo, da lahko odločba, ki je naslovljena na državo članico, zadeva posameznika.
32 — The Court held admissible the action by two firms that imported cereals into Germany against the Commission’s decision retrospectively authorising that Member State to adopt protective measures under which their applications for import licences had been rejected.
32 – Sodi�če je odločilo, da je dopustna tožba dveh družb za uvoz žita zoper odločbo Komisije, vloženo v Nemčiji, s katero je bilo tej državi članici za nazaj dovoljeno sprejeti za�čitne ukrepe, na podlagi katerih je bila zavrnjena pro�nja tožečih strank za podelitev uvoznih dovoljenj.
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM
KOMISIJA PROTI INFRONT WM ob njegovem sprejetju, in posega v pravice, pridobljene za prihodnje postopke.
It also adopted that solution in Bock v Commission, 33 as well as in Agricole commer­ time of its adoption and put in question the benefit of rights acquired in respect of future transactions. 36 ciale olio and Others v Commission and Savma v Commission. 34
36 v sodbi v zadevi Bock proti Komisiji 33ter sodbah v zadevah Agricola commerciale olio proti Komisiji in Savma proti Komisiji. 34
An expression of that caselaw can also be found in Codorniu v Council, to which the Commission refers, in which a company incorporated under Spanish law, the owner of the trade mark ‘Gran Cremant de Codorniu’ since 1924, sought the annulment of the article of a Council regulation prohibiting it, in due course, from using the word ‘crémant’. 37
To sodno prakso je mogoče najti tudi v sodbi v zadevi Codorniu proti Svetu, ki jo navaja Komisija, v kateri je družba �panskega prava, ki je bila od leta 1924 imetnica blagovne znamke „Gran Cremant de Codorniu“, zahtevala razglasitev ničnosti člena uredbe Sveta, s katerim je bila dolgoročno prepovedana uporaba oznake „crémant“. 37
In CAM v EEC, 35the Court also accepted that an individual had standing to bring proceedings where the contested measure covered a situation ongoing at the
Tudi v sodbi v zadevi CAM proti EGS 35je Sodi�če odločilo, da ima posame- znik procesno upravičenje, če izpodbijani ukrep zadeva dejansko stanje, kakr�no je bilo
That caselaw is, I consider, applicable to this case, since Infront had entered into possession of exclusive broadcasting rights to the FIFA World Cup finals before the adoption of the contested measure and even, as the Court of First Instance pointed out, before the entry into force of Article 3a of the
Zdi se mi, da je to sodno prakso mogoče prenesti na obravnavano zadevo, saj je bila družba Infront imetnica izključnih pravic za prenos svetovnega prvenstva FIFE že pred izdajo izpodbijanega akta in celo pred
33 — Case 62/70 [1971] ECR 897.
33 – Sodba z dne 23. novembra 1971 (62/70, Recueil, str. 897).
Thus, on 4 September 1970, the applicant had applied to the competent German authority for an import licence for a consignment of preserved Chinese mushrooms which was in free circulation in the Netherlands.
Tako je tožeča stranka 4. septembra 1970 pri pristojnem nem�kem organu zaprosila za izdajo uvoznega dovoljenja za po�iljko pločevink kitajskih gob, ki je bila v prostocarinski promet dana na Nizozemskem.
On 11 September 1970, that authority had informed the applicant that it would reject the application as soon as the Commission so authorised.
Organ ji je 11. septembra istega leta sporočil, da se njena pro�nja zavrne, dokler Komisija ne bo izdala ustrezne odobritve.
By decision of 15 September 1970, the Commission authorised the Federal Republic of Germany to exclude from Community treatment not only future applications for licences to import black mushrooms originating in China, but also pending applications for import licences.
Komisija je Zvezno republiko Nemčijo z odločbo z dne 15. septembra 1970 pooblastila, da iz režima Skupnosti ne izključi le pro�enj za izdajo uvoznega dovoljenja za črne gobe s poreklom iz Kitajske, temveč tudi ostale pro�nje za izdajo uvoznega dovoljenja, o katerih teče postopek.
36 — The case concerned a company which had, on 19 July 1974, obtained an export licence, which was valid until 16 October 1974, for 10 000 tonnes of barley.
36 – Šlo je za družbo, ki je 19. julija 1974 pridobila izvozno dovoljenje za 10.000 ton ječmena, veljavno do 16. oktobra 1974.
Under a Council regulation, the target and intervention prices applicable, among other things, to cereals were, with effect from 7 October 1974, to increase by 5%.
V skladu z Uredbo Sveta naj bi se priporočene in zajamčene cene, ki se med drugim uporabljajo za žito, s 7. oktobrom 1974 zvi�ale za 5 %.
However, the Commission, by a regulation of 4 October 1974, laid down that the measure would not apply to export licences issued before 7 October, thus depriving the applicant of the benefit of the increase provided for by the Council for the 3 978 tonnes which it was still to export between 7 and 16 October.
Vendar je Komisija v Uredbi z dne 4. oktobra 1974 določila, da ta ukrep ne velja za izvozna dovoljenja, ki so bila izdana pred 7. oktobrom, zaradi česar tožeča stranka za 3978 ton, ki jih je �e morala izvoziti med 7. in 16. oktobrom, ni mogla izkoristiti zvi�anja, ki ga je določil Svet.
The Court held that the applicant’s action against the Commission regulation was admissible.
Sodi�če je dopustilo tožbo tožeče stranke zoper Uredbo Komisije.
It held that the regulation, in denying to a class of traders, for specific exports, the benefit of the increase in the amount of the refund, applied to a fixed and known number of cereal exporters and that the measure, even though it formed part of a legislative act, affected those exporters because of a factual situation which differentiated them from all other persons.
Razsodilo je, da ta uredba, ker skupini udeležencev na trgu odreka zvi�anje zneska za nadomestilo, zadeva določeno in znano �tevilo izvoznikov žita in da se ta ukrep na zadevne izvoznike, tudi če spada med akte s pravno naravo, nana�a zaradi posebnih okoli�čin, ki izhajajo iz skupine vseh preostalih subjektov.
34 — Case 232/81 [1984] ECR 3881 and Case 264/81 [1984] ECR 3915.
34 – Sodbi z dne 27. novembra 1984 (232/81, Recueil, str. 3881 in 264/81, Recueil, str. 3915).
The Court observed that, since the position had been determined between the parties to the sale, ‘any intervention on the part of the Community institutions, preventing [the Italian intervention agency] from carrying out its obligations to the tenderers designated by the drawing of lots, necessarily constitutes a measure of direct and individual concern to them’ (Agricola commerciale olioand Others v Commission, paragraph 11, and Savma v Commission, paragraph 11).
Sodi�če je navedlo, da zaradi obstoja trdnega pravnega razmerja med strankami kupoprodajnega posla „vsak poseg organov Skupnosti, s katerim je bil [italijanski organ za posredovanje] oviran pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti do izžrebanih ponudnikov, nujno predstavlja pravni akt, ki te ponudnike neposredno in posamično zadeva“ (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Agricola commerciale olio in drugi proti Komisiji (točka 11) in Savma proti Komisiji (točka 11)).
35 — Case 100/74 [1975] ECR 1393.
35 – Sodba z dne 18. novembra 1975 (100/74, Recueil, str. 1393).
Directive, on the basis of which that measure was adopted.
Prav tako je treba pritožbo v delu, ki se nana�a na to presojo, zavrniti kot neutemeljeno.
In accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which apply to appeals by virtue of Article 118 of those rules, and having regard to Infront’s application, if the Court follows my analysis the Commission should bear the costs.
Če Sodi�če sogla�a z mojo analizo, se Komisiji v skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika, ki se na podlagi člena 118 istega poslovnika uporabi za postopek s pritožbo, ob upo�tevanju predlogov družbe Infront naloži plačilo stro�kov.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court should:
V skladu s predhodnimi navedbami Sodi�ču predlagam, naj ugotovi in razsodi tako:
13 March 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 13. marca 2008 *
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 28 February 2006,
V zadevi C-125/06 P, zaradi pritožbe na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, ki je bila vložena 28. februarja 2006,
2008 — CASE C-125/06 P
2008 – ZADEVA C-125/06 P
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Združeno kraljestvo Velika Britanija in Severna Irska,
European Parliament,
Evropski parlament,
Council of the European Union, interveners at first instance,
Svet Evropske unije, intervenienti na prvi stopnji,
Advocate General: Y. Bot, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 18 October 2007,
Bot, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 18. oktobra 2007
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM gives the following
KOMISIJA PROTI INFRONT WM izreka naslednjo
By its appeal, the Commission of the European Communities seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 15 December 2005 in Case T-33/01 Infront WM v Commission [2005] ECR II-5897 (‘the judgment under appeal’), by which it annulled the Commission’s decision contained in its letter of 28 July 2000 to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (‘the contested decision’).
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti s svojo pritožbo predlaga razveljavitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 15. decembra 2005 v zadevi Infront WM proti Komisiji (T-33/01, ZOdl., str. II-5897, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba), s katero je bila odločba Komisije iz njenega dopisa z dne 28. julija 2000, naslovljenega na Združeno kraljestvo Velika Britanija in Severna Irska (v nadaljevanju: sporni akt), razgla�ena za nično.
Community Legislation
Skupnostna ureditev
Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p.
Namen Direktive Sveta 89/552/EGS z dne 3. oktobra 1989 o usklajevanju nekaterih zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic o opravljanju dejavnosti raz�irjanja televizijskih programov (UL L 298, str.
23), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p.
23), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/36/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. junija 1997 (UL L 202, str.
60; ‘Directive 89/552’), is intended to ensure freedom of reception and retransmission of television broadcasts within the European Community by laying down minimum rules with which the Member States are required to ensure that television broadcasters under their jurisdiction comply.
60, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 89/552), je zagotovitev svobode sprejemanja in raz�irjanja televizijskih oddaj znotraj Evropske skupnosti z določitvijo minimalnih določb, ki jih morajo države članice predpisati za izdajatelje televizijskih programov pod njihovo sodno pristojnostjo.
The 18th and 19th recitals in the preamble to Directive 97/36 read as follows:
Osemnajsta in devetnajsta uvodna izjava Direktive 97/36 določata:
… it is essential that Member States should be able to take measures to protect the right to information and to ensure wide access by the public to television coverage of national or non-national events of major importance for society, such as the Olympic games, the football World Cup and the European football championship; … to this end Member States retain the right to take measures compatible with Community law aimed at regulating the exercise by broadcasters under their jurisdiction of exclusive broadcasting rights to such events;
[…] ker je bistvenega pomena, da države članice lahko sprejmejo ukrepe, s katerimi bi za�čitile pravico do obve�čenosti in �ir�i javnosti zagotovile dostop do televizijskega spremljanja nacionalnih in nenacionalnih dogodkov velikega družbenega pomena, kot so denimo olimpijske igre, nogometno svetovno prvenstvo in evropsko nogometno prvenstvo; […] države članice v ta namen ohranjajo pravico do sprejemanja ukrepov, skladnih s skupnostnim pravom, ki so namenjeni reguliranju izvr�evanja ekskluzivnih pravic televizijskega raz�irjanja tak�nih dogodkov s strani izdajateljev televizijskih programov pod njihovo sodno pristojnostjo;
… it is necessary to make arrangements within a Community framework, in order to avoid potential legal uncertainty and market distortions and to reconcile free circulation of television services with the need to prevent the possibility of circumvention of national measures protecting a legitimate general interest’.
[…] je treba zato, da bi se izognili morebitnim pravnim nejasnostim in tržnemu izkrivljanju ter uredili prosti pretok televizijskih storitev, sprejeti dogovore v okviru Skupnosti, pri čemer je treba upo�tevati potrebo po preprečevanju možnosti, da bi ob�li nacionalne ukrepe za za�čito zakonitih splo�nih interesov.“
Under Article 1(b) of Directive 89/552, ‘broadcaster’ means the natural or legal person who has editorial responsibility for the composition of schedules of television programmes and who transmits them or has them transmitted by third parties.
V skladu s členom 1(b) Direktive 89/552 „izdajatelj televizijskega programa“ pomeni fizično ali pravno osebo, ki je uredni�ko odgovorna za sestavo televizijskih programov v smislu točke (a) in ki te programe prena�a ali jih zanjo prena�ajo tretje osebe.
Article 3a of Directive 89/552, as inserted by Directive 97/36, is in these terms:
Člen 3a Direktive 89/552, ki je bil vstavljen z Direktivo 97/36, določa:
Each Member State may take measures in accordance with Community law to ensure that broadcasters under its jurisdiction do not broadcast on an exclusive
Vsaka država članica sme sprejeti ukrepe v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, s katerimi zagotovi, da izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njeno sodno pristojnostjo ne
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM basis events which are regarded by that Member State as being of major importance for society in such a way as to deprive a substantial proportion of the public in that Member State of the possibility of following such events via live coverage or deferred coverage on free television.
KOMISIJA PROTI INFRONT WM raz�irjajo tistih dogodkov, ki v tej državi članici veljajo za dogodke velikega družbenega pomena, na ekskluzivni osnovi, s čimer bi večji delež javnosti v tej državi članici prikraj�ali za možnost spremljanja tak�nih dogodkov po neposrednem prenosu ali po poznej�em prenosu na brezplačni televiziji.
Within a period of three months from the notification, the Commission shall verify that such measures are compatible with Community law and communicate them to the other Member States.
Komisija v treh letih od dneva obvestila preveri, ali so tak�ni ukrepi skladni s pravom Skupnosti in o njih obvesti druge države članice.
It shall seek the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 23a.
Komisija zaprosi za mnenje odbora, ki je bil ustanovljen v skladu s členom 23(a).
It shall forthwith publish the measures taken in the Official Journal of the European Communities and at least once a year the consolidated list of the measures taken by Member States.
Sprejete ukrepe takoj objavi v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti, najmanj enkrat letno pa objavi tudi konsolidirani seznam ukrepov, ki so jih sprejele države članice.
Sections 98 and 101 in Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996, as amended by the Television Broadcasting Regulations 2000 (‘the Broadcasting Act’), provide:
Člena 98 in 101 poglavja IV zakona o radiodifuziji iz leta 1996 (Broadcasting Act 1996), kot je bil spremenjen z uredbo iz leta 2000 o raz�irjanju televizijskih programov (The Television Broadcasting Regulations 2000, v nadaljevanju: zakon o radiodifuziji), določata:
Categories of service
Kategorije storitev