natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Connect Austria, as in the present case, the application was brought by a third party. The Court pointed out, first, that ‘it is the Member States’ responsibility to ensure that [individual rights derived from Community law] are effectively protected in each case’ 18and that Article 5a(3) of Directive 90/387 requires ‘Member States to ensure that suitable mechanisms exist at national level under which a party affected by a decision of the national regulatory authority has a right of appeal to an independent body’.
Kot sta v svojih stali�čih poudarili Komisija in družba Tele2, je Sodi�če implicitno priznalo, da morajo imeti pravico do pritožbe iz člena 5a(3) Direktive 90/387 tudi določene tretje osebe, ki, kot na primer Connect Austria, niso bile naslovniki odločb nacionalnih organov, čeprav so bile zaradi teh odločb dejansko prizadete 21.
It concluded that ‘in order to ensure that national law is interpreted in compliance
Vendar pa menim, da na podlagi tega, kar izhaja iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Connect Austria,
19 — Ibidem, paragraph 42.20 — Ibidem, paragraph 42.
19 – Prav tam, točka 42.20 – Prav tam, točka 42.
Article 5a(3) of Directive 90/387, repealed pursuant to Article 26 of the Framework Directive when the latter came into effect, provided, in identical terms to Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive, that ‘Member States shall ensure that suitable mechanisms exist at national level under which a party affected by a decision of the national regulatory authority has a right of appeal to a body independent of the parties involved’.
Člen 5a(3) Direktive 90/387, razveljavljen s členom 26 okvirne direktive v trenutku, ko je ta začela veljati, je določal, enako kot člen 4(1) okvirne direktive, da „države članice poskrbijo, da so na nacionalni ravni na voljo učinkoviti mehanizmi, po katerih ima vsaka stranka, ki je prizadeta z odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa, pravico do pritožbe zoper odločbo pri pritožbenem organu, ki je neodvisen od udeleženih strank“.
21 — That is so even though the Court did not, in its judgment, expressly uphold the views of Advocate General Geelhoed, who stated very clearly, in point 48 of his Opinion, that ‘It certainly cannot be the case that interested third parties who are directly affected by the decision do not have a right of appeal.
21 – To velja, čeprav Sodi�če v sodbi ni izrecno sprejelo stali�č generalnega pravobranilca Geelhoeda, ki je v točki 48 sklepnih predlogov jasno poudaril, da „ni sprejemljivo, da zainteresirane tretje osebe, ki so neposredno prizadete z odločbo, nimajo pravice do pritožbe.
Indeed, Article 5a(3) is, precisely, intended partly to protect the interests of newcomers to the market such as Connect Austria’.
Še več, namen člena 5a(3) je prav ta, da varuje interese novih podjetij na trgu, kot je Connect Austria“.
18 — Connect Austria, cited above, paragraph 35.
18 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Connect Austria, točka 35.
(Article 10 of the Access Directive) and the obligation to provide competitors with access to network facilities (Article 12 of the Access Directive).
POIARESA MADURA – ZADEVA C-426/05 na primer tudi tisti, ki jih lahko sprejmejo nacionalni regulativni organi na podlagi člena 8 Direktive o dostopu 22, med drugim obveznost nediskriminacije (člen 10 Direktive o dostopu) in obveznost dostopa do posebnih omrežnih naprav (člen 12 Direktive o dostopu).
In Connect Austria, the Court was dealing with the question whether Article 5a(3) of Directive 90/387 was to be interpreted as having direct effect and not with the specific question of whether the concept of a ‘party affected by a decision’ within the meaning of that article included an undertaking such as Connect Austria in the circumstances of that case.
V zadevi Connect Austria je Sodi�če namreč obravnavalo vpra�anje, ali ima člen 5a(3) Direktive 90/387 neposredni učinek in ne vpra�anje, ali se glede na okoli�čine primera pojem „stranka, prizadeta z odločbo“ v smislu tega člena nana�a tudi na podjetje, kot je Connect Austria.
The Court did not therefore address specifically the question — which is at the heart of the present case — of how to determine the conditions under which the rights of a concerned third party such as Tele2 are to be regarded as being affected by an administrative decision adopted by a regulatory authority.
Sodi�če se torej ni posebej opredelilo do vpra�anja – ki je bistvo te zadeve –, kateri so pogoji za to, da bi lahko tretje osebe, kot na primer družbo Tele2, �teli za osebe, prizadete v svojih pravicah zaradi odločbe regulativnega organa.
With regard, in particular, to the obligations to grant network access laid down in the Access Directive, Article 12(1) thereof provides that ‘[a] national regulatory authority may, in accordance with the provisions of Article 8, impose obligations on operators to meet reasonable requests for access to, and use of, specific network elements and associated facilities, inter alia in situations where the national regulatory authority considers that denial of access or unreasonable terms and conditions having a similar effect would hinder the emergence of a sustainable competitive market at the retail level, or would not be in the enduser’s interest’.
Glede obveznosti zagotovitve dostopa do posebnih omrežnih naprav člen 12(1) Direktive o dostopu določa, da „[n]acionalni regulativni organ lahko v skladu z določbami člena 8 naloži obratovalcem obveznosti, da izpolnijo utemeljene zahteve za dostop do posebnih omrežnih elementov in pripadajočih naprav ter za njihovo uporabo, med drugim takrat, kadar nacionalni regulativni organ meni, da bi zavrnitev dostopa ali neprimerni pogoji s podobnim učinkom ovirali razvoj trajnostnega konkurenčnega maloprodajnega trga ali ne bi bili v interesu končnih uporabnikov“ 23.
23 Like the obligation of nondiscrimination laid down in Article 10 of the Framework Directive, these obligations concerning access to, and use of, specific network resources are intended to benefit competitors interested in such access. It is
Enako kot obveznost nediskriminacije iz člena 10 Direktive o dostopu, te obveznosti glede dostopa do posebnih omrežnih naprav in njihove uporabe pome-
22 — According to Article 1(2) thereof, the Access Directive ‘establishes rights and obligations for operators and for undertakings seeking interconnection and/or access to their networks or associated facilities’.
22 – V členu 1(2) Direktive o dostopu so določene „pravice in obveznosti za obratovalce in podjetja, ki zaprosijo za medomrežno povezovanje in/ali dostop do svojih omrežij in pripadajočih naprav“.
23 — That provision thus lays down many specific obligations which may be imposed on operators. Among them, in particular, are the obligation to give third parties access to specified network elements and/or facilities, including unbundled access to the local loop, and the obligation to negotiate in good faith with undertakings requesting access.
23 – V isti določbi so na�tete tudi �tevilne posebne obveznosti, ki so lahko naložene obratovalcem, med drugim, da omogočijo tretjim osebam dostop do določenih omrežnih elementov in/ali naprav vključno z razvezanim dostopom do krajevne zanke in da se v dobri veri pogajajo s podjetji, ki zahtevajo dostop.
It should be pointed out that underlying Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive is, first of all, the imperative need to provide effective judicial protection for the rights which individuals derive from the Community legal order.
Treba je poudariti, da je na podlagi določbe člena 4(1) okvirne direktive najprej treba zagotoviti učinkovito sodno varstvo pravic, ki jih imajo posamezniki na podlagi pravnega reda Skupnosti.
As Tele2 and the Commission pointed out in their observations, it must be recognised that certain specific obligations imposed on undertakings having significant market power under Article 16(3) and (4) of the Framework Directive and the provisions of the Access Directive cited therein are precisely protective measures adopted in the interest of competitors and are therefore liable to confer rights on those competitors.
Kot sta v svojih stali�čih poudarila družba Tele2 in Komisija, določene posebne obveznosti, naložene podjetjem s pomembno tržno močjo na podlagi člena 16(3) in (4) okvirne direktive in tam navedenih določb Direktive o dostopu, pomenijo za�čitne ukrepe, ki so sprejeti v interesu konkurentov in jim lahko dajejo določene pravice.
24 observations that, although Tele2 had established contractual relations with the undertaking formerly having significant market power, those rights were based on the specific obligations which the regulatory authority had imposed on the latter undertaking under Article 16(4) of the Framework Directive and the provisions of the Access Directive cited therein.
ima družba Tele2 pravice iz pogodbe s podjetjem, ki je prej imelo pomembno tržno moč, te pravice izhajajo iz posebnih obveznosti, ki jih je regulativni organ naložil temu podjetju na podlagi člena 16(4) okvirne direktive in tam navedenih določb Direktive o dostopu.
Clearly, Tele2 is the contractual partner of the undertaking formerly having significant market power because that undertaking has had obligations imposed upon it by the regulatory authority which forced it to enter into contractual relations with Tele2 on specific terms.
Jasno je, da je družba Tele2 pogodbena stranka podjetja, ki je imelo pomembno tržno moč, saj je slednjemu regulativni organ naložil obveznosti, na podlagi katerih je moral pod določenimi pogoji stopiti v pogodbeno razmerje z družbo Tele2.
Tele2’s access rights were therefore conferred on it by Community law in so far as they flow from the specific obligations imposed on the dominant undertaking under Community law.
Družba Tele2 je pravico do dostopa pridobila iz posebnih obveznosti, ki so bile v skladu s pravom Skupnosti naložene podjetju s pomembno tržno močjo.
The imposition of obligations such as those laid down in Articles 10 and 12 of the Access Directive thus confers rights of access and/or non-discriminatory treatment on competing undertakings which are the beneficiaries of those obligations.
Predpisane obveznosti, kot jih določata člena 10 in 12 Direktive o dostopu, pomenijo za konkurenčna podjetja pravico do dostopa in/ali nediskriminatorno obravnavanje.
The imposition of such obligations obliges the undertaking having significant market power to make available to competing undertakings, under clearly defined and non-discriminatory conditions, facilities and/or services for the purpose of providing electronic communications services.
Podjetja s pomembno tržno močjo, ki so jim naložene te obveznosti, morajo pod jasno določenimi in nediskriminatornimi pogoji konkurenčnim podjetjem zagotavljati vire in/ali storitve za zagotavljanje elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev 25.
25In those circumstances, for example, a decision taken by a national regulatory authority to withdraw obligations of that kind imposed on an undertaking having significant market power will affect the rights under Community law of competing operators which, like Tele2, are contractual partners of that undertaking.
V teh okoli�činah bi bile z odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa, s katero bi bile preklicane prej naložene obveznosti podjetju s pomembno tržno močjo, prizadete pravice konkurenčnih podjetij, ki so, kot na primer družba Tele2, pogodbeni partnerji tega podjetja.
It can be seen from the order for reference and from the applicant’s written
Iz predložitvenega sklepa in pisnih stali�č tožeče stranke izhaja, da ne glede na to, da
24 — See, in that regard, recital 6 in the preamble to the Access Directive, which states that ‘[i]n markets where there continue to be large differences in negotiating power between undertakings, and where some undertakings rely on infrastructure provided by others for delivery of their services, it is appropriate to establish a framework to ensure that the market functions effectively.
24 – Glej �esto uvodno izjavo Direktive o dostopu, ki določa, da „[n]a trgih, kjer �e naprej obstajajo velike razlike v pogajalski moči med podjetji in kjer so nekatera podjetja pri izvajanju svojih storitev odvisna od infrastrukture, ki jo zagotavljajo drugi, je primerno vzpostaviti okvir, ki omogoča učinkovito delovanje trga.
National regulatory authorities should have the power to secure, where commercial negotiation fails, adequate access and interconnection …’.
Kadar so komercialna pogajanja neuspe�na, naj bodo nacionalni regulativni organi poobla�čeni za zagotovitev primernega dostopa do storitev.“
25 — See the definition of ‘access’ in Article 2(a) of the Access Directive.
25 – Glej opredelitev pojma „dostop“ v členu 2(a) Direktive o dostopu.
It follows that decisions of the regulatory authority adopted on the basis of Article 16(3) of the Framework Directive which amend or withdraw obligations to grant access previously imposed on the undertaking having significant market power are liable to affect the corresponding rights conferred by Community law.
Iz tega izhaja, da odločbe regulativnega organa, sprejete na podlagi člena 16(3) okvirne direktive, ki spreminjajo ali ukinjajo obveznosti zagotavljanja do dostopa, ki so bile predhodno naložene podjetju s pomembno tržno močjo, lahko vplivajo na tem obveznostim ustrezajoče pravice, ki izhajajo iz prava Skupnosti.
When a competing undertaking has a contractual relationship with the undertaking having significant market power which is based on specific obligations imposed on the latter undertaking by the regulatory authority, the competing undertaking must be granted a right of appeal within the meaning of Article 4 of the Framework Directive against
Kadar je konkurenčno podjetje v pogodbenem razmerju s podjetjem s pomembno tržno močjo in to razmerje temelji na obveznostih, naloženih slednjemu podjetju, je treba konkurenčnemu podjetju v skladu s členom 4 okvirne direktive zagotoviti pravico do pritožbe zoper
26 undertaking is faced with a decision of a regulatory authority concerning the imposition, amendment or withdrawal of specific obligations on the undertaking having significant market power which does not permit the establishment of the contractual relationship desired by the competing undertaking, that undertaking ought also to be able to avail itself of the rights guaranteed by Community law.
tržno močjo nalaga, spreminja ali preklicuje posebne obveznosti in ki ne daje podlage za pogodbeno razmerje, kakr�nega si želi konkurenčno podjetje, mora imeti možnost uveljavljati pravice, ki izhajajo iz prava Skupnosti.
It must therefore be accepted that a competing undertaking must, in those circumstances, have a right of appeal against the decisions of the regulatory authority which infringe Community telecommunications law.
V teh okoli�činah je torej treba sprejeti, da mora imeti konkurenčno podjetje pravico do pritožbe zoper odločbe regulativnih organov, ki kr�ijo pravo Skupnosti o telekomunikacijah.
The question whether competitors which are not in contractual relations with an undertaking formerly having significant market power ought also to have a right of appeal under Article 4 of the Framework Directive was discussed at the hearing.
Na obravnavi je potekala razprava o vpra�anju, ali morajo imeti konkurenti, ki nimajo pogodbenih razmerij s podjetjem, ki je imelo pomembno tržno moč, prav tako pravico do pritožbe na podlagi člena 4 okvirne direktive.
An analysis of that problem may be of use to the national court.
Analiza tega vpra�anja bi bila lahko koristna za predložitveno sodi�če.
In a broader context, I am of the view that safeguarding the objectives which the Community regulatory framework on telecommunications seeks to achieve, in particular the promotion of competition, which, as Article 8(2) of the Framework Directive provides, should expressly guide the intervention of the national regulatory authorities, justifies the conclusion that the right of appeal is not limited solely to competitors which are contractual partners of the undertaking having significant power in the relevant market.
V �ir�em smislu menim, da varovanje ciljev, ki jih zasleduje regulativni okvir Skupnosti o telekomunikacijah, predvsem spodbujanje konkurence, ki mora biti v skladu s členom 8(2) okvirne direktive glavna usmeritev za ukrepe nacionalnih regulativnih organov, utemeljuje, da pravica do pravnega sredstva ni omejena zgolj na podjetja, ki konkurirajo podjetju s pomembno tržno močjo na upo�tevnem trgu.
As Tele2, the Commission and the Danish Government argued at the hearing, undertakings which, although not yet in contractual relations with an undertaking having significant market power, have demonstrated a firm intention to enter into such relations with a view to obtaining access to the latter undertaking’s network should also be granted the right of appeal provided for in Article 4.
Kot so na obravnavi poudarili družba Tele2, Komisija in danska vlada, bi morala podjetja, čeprav �e nimajo pogodbenih razmerij s podjetjem s pomembno tržno močjo, ki so izrazila jasen namen vzpostavitve takega razmerja, ki bi jim omogočalo dostop do omrežja podjetja s pomembno tržno močjo, prav tako imeti pravico do pritožbe, kot izhaja iz člena 4.
26 — See, by analogy, Case 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki and Others [1985] ECR 207, concerning applications for annulment brought by third parties affected by a Commission decision authorising a Member State (in that case, the French Republic) to impose a system of quotas on imports of cotton yarn from Greece.
26 – Glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 17. januarja 1985 v zadevi Piraiki-Patraiki in drugi (11/82, Recueil, str. 207) v zvezi z ničnostno tožbo, vloženo s strani tretje osebe, ki je bila prizadeta z odločbo Komisije, s katero je pooblastila državo članico (Francosko republiko), da vzpostavi sistem uvoznih omejitev za bombažno prejo iz Grčije.
The Court took the view (in paragraph 19) that ‘the fact that, before the adoption of the decision at issue, [the applicants] had entered into contracts which were to be carried out during the months to which the decision applied constitutes a circumstance which distinguishes them from any other person concerned by the decision, in so far as the execution of their contracts was wholly or partly prevented by the adoption of the decision’. See also paragraph 31 of that judgment.
Sodi�če je menilo (v točki 19), da „dejstvo, da so bile pred sprejemom sporne odločbe sklenjene pogodbe, ki naj bi se izvajale v mesecih, v katerih bi veljala ta odločba, pomeni okoli�čino, ki jih razlikuje od katerekoli druge osebe, prizadete s to odločbo, ker je bilo izvajanje njihovih pogodb s sprejetjem te odločbe v celoti ali delno preprečeno.“ Glej tudi točko 31 te sodbe.
I am thinking, in particular, of undertakings which do not have contractual relations with the undertaking having significant market power but which, as direct beneficiaries of the Community rules designed to promote competition in the telecommunications sector, are adversely affected by a
S tem mislim predvsem na podjetja, ki niso v pogodbenem razmerju s podjetjem s pomembno tržno močjo, ki pa so kot subjekti, ki imajo neposredno korist od pravil Skupnosti, negativno prizadeta z odločbo regulativnega organa, sprejeto v okviru
Those undertakings, which are not in contractual relations with the undertaking having significant market power, should also be granted a right of appeal under Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive.
Na podlagi člena 4(1) okvirne direktive bi morala biti tudi tem podjetjem, ki niso v pogodbenem razmerju s podjetjem s pomembno tržno močjo, zagotovljena pravica do pritožbe.
Community rules designed to ensure effective competition in the telecommunications sector through the imposition, amendment or withdrawal of obligations to grant access to specific network elements and associated facilities belonging to an undertaking having significant market power.
področju telekomunikacij z naložitvijo, spremembo ali preklicem obveznosti dostopa do posebnih omrežnih elementov in pripadajočih naprav podjetja s pomembno tržno močjo, pa se preverja prav to pomanjkanje prekrivanja.
It could logically be supposed that neither the undertaking having significant market power nor its competitors which already have a contractual right of access would have any interest in lodging an appeal against decisions adopted by a regulatory authority which are to the disadvantage of other undertakings which have recently entered the market and which may wish to establish new relationships with the undertaking having significant market power.
Logično lahko sklepamo, da niti podjetje s pomembno tržno močjo niti konkurenti, ki že imajo korist od pogodbeno dogovorjene pravice do dostopa, ne bi imeli interesa vlagati pravnega sredstva zoper morebitne odločbe regulativnega organa v �kodo drugih podjetij, ki so �ele pri�la na trg in bi želela vzpostaviti novo pogodbeno razmerje s podjetjem s pomembno tržno močjo.
According a right of appeal to such competing undertakings which are not yet contractual partners is essential in order to ensure genuine protection for the competition objectives referred to in the Community rules designed to promote the entry and integration of market newcomers.
Priznavanje pravice do pritožbe takim konkurenčnim podjetjem, ki �e niso v pogodbenem razmerju, je bistvenega pomena za zagotavljanje resničnega varstva ciljev v zvezi z zagotavljanjem konkurence, ki izhajajo iz pravil Skupnosti in ki podpirajo vstop in integracijo novih podjetij na trgu.
Recognition of a right of appeal for those whose pre-existing legal relationships are affected may, in some cases, be sufficient to guarantee achievement of the objectives fixed by the provisions of Community law at issue.
Priznavanje pravice do pravnega sredstva tistim, katerih prej obstoječa pravna razmerja so z odločbo prizadeta, lahko v nekaterih primerih zadostuje za dejansko dosego ciljev, ki jih določa pravo Skupnosti.
This follows from the symmetry which exists between the protection of the rights arising under those legal relationships by way of the corresponding right of appeal granted to contractual partners affected by a decision and the protection of the social values upheld by the Community rule on the basis of which those relationships were established.
To izhaja iz prekrivanja med varovanjem pravic iz teh pravnih razmerij z ustrezno pravico do pravnega sredstva, ki je zagotovljena pogodbenim strankam, prizadetim z odločbo, in varovanjem socialnih vrednot, ki jih zagotavljajo pravila Skupnosti, na podlagi katerih so bila ta razmerja ustanovljena.
However, it is possible that that symmetry may be imperfect, in particular in so far as the beneficiaries of the values which the rule seeks to protect are a group of persons larger, for example, than that of the contractual partners.
Vendar je mogoče, da to prekrivanje ni popolno, na primer kadar bi bilo �tevilo oseb, ki bi imele od teh pravil koristi, večje od �tevila pogodbenih strank podjetja s pomembno tržno močjo.
In that case, those beneficiaries and the values upheld by the rule would not be protected if a right of appeal were to be granted only to those who had already entered into legal relations.
Če bi bila pravica do pritožbe zagotovljena zgolj tistim, ki so že vstopili v pravno razmerje, varstvo teh upravičencev in vrednot, ki jih zagotavljajo pravila Skupnosti, ne bi bilo zagotovljeno.
It is precisely such a lack of symmetry that is to be found in the application of the
Pri uporabi pravil Skupnosti, katerih cilj je zagotoviti dejansko konkurenco na