natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the Belgian Government, the fact that, in the English and German versions of that directive, Articles 4(1) and 16(3) use the same term, namely ‘affected’ and ‘betroffen’ respectively, indicates that those two provisions concern the same idea and that, consequently, the Dutch versions ‘getroffen’ (affected) and ‘die gevolgen ondervinden’ (literally, ‘incurring consequences’), given in Articles 4(1) and 16(3) respectively, have the same meaning.
Po mnenju belgijske vlade je dejstvo, da angle�ka in nem�ka različica te direktive v členih 4(1) in 16(3) uporabljata enaka pojma, in sicer „affected“ (prizadeto) in „betroffen“ (zadevno), kaže na to, da se obe določbi nana�ata na isto dejansko stanje in da imata zato nizozemski formulaciji „getroffen“ (prizadeto) in „die gevolgen ondervinden“ (ki trpi posledice) v členih 4(1) oziroma 16(3) enak pomen.
The national court also takes the view that, since, in the German version, Articles 4(1) and 16(3) of the Framework Directive both use the expression ‘betroffenen’, their scope must be deemed to be the same.
Predložitveno sodi�če tudi meni, da če člena 4(1) in 16(3) okvirne direktive v nem�ki različici uporabljata isti izraz „betroffenen“, jima je treba pripisati enak obseg.
However, the answer to the question referred by the national court cannot be deduced from those findings.
Vendar se odgovor na vpra�anje, ki ga je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če, ne sme izpeljati iz teh ugotovitev.
Several language versions of the Framework Directive, namely the Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, English, German, Greek, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Slovak, Spanish and Swedish and versions, use one and the same term in Articles 4(1) and 16(3) of that directive, whereas in other language versions of the same provisions two different terms are used, such as user ‘affecté’ or undertaking ‘affectée’ and parties ‘concernées’ in the French version.
Več jezikovnih različic okvirne direktive, in sicer nem�ka, angle�ka, bolgarska, danska, �panska, gr�ka, italijanska, latvijska, litovska, poljska, slova�ka, �vedska in če�ka različica, uporablja isti pojem v členih 4(1) in 16(3) te direktive, medtem ko imajo druge jezikovne različice istih določb dve različni besedi, kot recimo francoska različica, ki v primeru uporabnika ali podjetja uporabi besedo „affecté(e)“ oziroma v primeru strank „concernées“.
Accordingly, the scope which the Community legislature intended to confer on the terms user ‘affected’ or undertaking ‘affected’ by a decision of a national regulatory authority for the purposes of Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive must be assessed in the light of the purpose of that article within the context of that directive.
Zato je treba obseg, ki ga je zakonodajalec Skupnosti želel podeliti pojmu uporabnik ali podjetje, ki je „prizadeto“ z odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa, v smislu člena 4(1) okvirne direktive, preučiti glede na cilj, ki ga zasleduje navedeni člen 4 v okviru te direktive.
It must, however, be noted that, even if one assumes that an undertaking in a situation similar to that of the applicant in the main proceedings falls within Article 16(3) of the Framework Directive, it does not automatically follow that that undertaking may fall within the scope of Article 4(1) thereof.
Vsekakor je treba ugotoviti, da čeprav podjetje, ki je v položaju, kot je položaj pritožnice v postopku v glavni stvari, spada pod člen 16(3) okvirne direktive, pa iz tega ne bi avtomatično sledilo, da bi bilo za to podjetje mogoče uporabiti člen 4(1) te direktive.
As pointed out by the Advocate General in point 19 of his Opinion, Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive pursues objectives which are very distinct from those pursued by Article 16(3) thereof.
Kot je navedel generalni pravobranilec v točki 19 sklepnih predlogov, navedeni člen 4 zasleduje popolnoma druge cilje kot člen 16(3).
The consequence of the applicability of Article 4(1) to an undertaking is that that undertaking is granted a right to appeal against a decision taken by a national regulatory authority by which it is affected, whereas Article 16(3) grants it the right, in the case of a decision to withdraw obligations placed on the undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market, to be given an appropriate period of notice of that withdrawal.
Posledica, da podjetje spada pod prvo določbo, je, da se mu dodeli pravica do pritožbe zoper odločbo, ki jo sprejme nacionalni regulativni organ in ki ga prizadeva, medtem ko mu druga določba v primeru odločbe, ki se nana�a na preklic obveznosti, naloženih podjetju s (prej) pomembno tržno močjo na upo�tevnem trgu, podeljuje pravico, da je v ustreznem roku obve�čeno o tem preklicu.
As stated by the Advocate General in point 22 of his Opinion, Article 4 of the Framework Directive follows from the principle of effective judicial protection, which is a general principle of Community law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and which has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, paragraph 37 and the caselaw cited), pursuant to which it is for the courts of the Member States to ensure judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Community law (Unibet, paragraph 38 and the caselaw cited).
Kot je opozoril generalni pravobranilec v točki 22 sklepnih predlogov, člen 4 pomeni odraz načela učinkovitega sodnega varstva, ki je splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti, ki izhaja iz skupnih ustavnih tradicij držav članic in je potrjeno v členih 6 in 13 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin, podpisane v Rimu 4. novembra 1950 (sodba z dne 13. marca 2007 v zadevi Unibet, C-432/05, ZOdl., str. I-2271, točka 37 in navedena sodna praksa), na podlagi katerega morajo sodno varstvo pravic, ki jih imajo posamezniki na podlagi prava Skupnosti, zagotoviti sodi�ča držav članic (zgoraj navedena sodba Unibet, točka 38 in navedena sodna praksa).
In the case covered by Article 4 of the Framework Directive, the Member States are required to provide for a right of appeal before an appellate body in order to protect the rights which users and undertakings derive from the Community legal order.
V primeru iz člena 4 okvirne direktive morajo države članice za varstvo pravic, ki za uporabnike in podjetja izhajajo iz pravnega reda Skupnosti, predvideti pritožbo pri sodnem organu.
It follows that the requirement to provide effective judicial protection, which is at the origin of Article 4 of the Framework Directive, must apply to both users and undertakings which may derive rights from the Community legal order, in particular from telecommunications directives, and whose rights are affected by a decision taken by a national regulatory authority.
Iz tega sledi, da mora zapoved učinkovitega sodnega varstva, ki je privedla do člena 4 okvirne direktive, veljati tudi za uporabnike in podjetja, ki lahko izvajajo pravice iz pravnega reda Skupnosti, zlasti iz direktiv o telekomunikacijah, in ki jih v teh pravicah prizadene odločba nacionalnega regulativnega organa.
It is thus necessary to determine whether the users and undertakings operating in competition with an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market may derive rights from the Community legal order, in particular from telecommunications directives, and whether their rights may be affected by a decision taken by a national regulatory authority which is not addressed to them. If that is the case, they should be entitled to a right of appeal in order to make that decision amenable to judicial review.
Zato je treba določiti, ali lahko uporabniki in konkurenti podjetja, ki je imelo (prej) pomembno tržno moč na upo�tevnem trgu, izvajajo pravice iz pravnega reda Skupnosti, zlasti iz direktiv o telekomunikacijah, in ali jih v teh pravicah lahko prizadene odločba, ki jo sprejme nacionalni regulativni organ in katere naslovniki niso; v tem primeru bi morali imeti pravico do pravnega sredstva, da bi to odločbo podvrgli sodnemu nadzoru.
As pointed out by the Advocate General in point 29 of his Opinion, and as submitted by the applicant in the main proceedings and the Commission, certain specific obligations imposed on the undertaking with significant power on the relevant market in accordance with Article 16(3) and (4) of the Framework Directive and the provisions of the Access Directive which are cited therein are protective measures adopted in the interest of users and undertakings in competition with that undertaking with significant market power and are therefore capable of conferring rights on them.
Kot je opozoril generalni pravobranilec v točki 29 sklepnih predlogov in kot zatrjujeta pritožnica v postopku v glavni stvari in Komisija, določene posebne obveznosti, naložene podjetjem s pomembno tržno močjo na podlagi člena 16(3) in (4) okvirne direktive in na podlagi tam navedenih določb direktive o dostopu, pomenijo za�čitne ukrepe, ki so sprejeti v interesu uporabnikov in konkurentov tega podjetja s pomembno tržno močjo in jim lahko dajejo določene pravice.
Those protective measures include, for example, those which may be adopted by national regulatory authorities under Article 8 of the Access Directive and the obligations of nondiscrimination between competitors and the obligations to give competitors access to specific network facilities and the use of such facilities, laid down respectively in Articles 10 and 12 of the latter directive.
Med temi za�čitnimi ukrepi so zlasti ukrepi, ki jih lahko sprejeme nacionalni regulativni organ v skladu s členom 8 direktive o dostopu, obveznosti prepovedi diskriminacije med konkurenti in obveznosti v zvezi z dostopom konkurentov do posebnih omrežnih naprav in do njihove uporabe, ki so predvideni v členih 10 oziroma 12 direktive o dostopu.
As regards, inter alia, those obligations to provide access to network facilities and the use of those facilities, Article 12(1) of the Access Directive 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’. As in the case of the obligation of nondiscrimination laid down in Article 10 of that directive, those obligations concerning the access of competitors to specific network facilities and the use thereof seek to enable interested competitors to benefit from such access.
Kar zadeva zlasti navedene obveznosti v zvezi z dostopom do posebnih omrežnih naprav in v zvezi z uporabo teh, je v členu 12(1) direktive o dostopu določeno: „Nacionalni 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.“ Tako kot obveznost prepovedi diskriminacije, predvidena v členu 10 iste direktive, morajo te obveznosti v zvezi z dostopom konkurentov do posebnih omrežnih naprav in do njihove uporabe omogočiti zainteresiranim konkurentom ta dostop.
It follows that users or undertakings competing with an undertaking with significant power on the relevant market must be considered to be potential beneficiaries of the rights corresponding to the specific regulatory obligations imposed by a national regulatory authority on that undertaking with significant market power pursuant to Article 16 of the Framework Directive and the telecommunications directives
Iz tega izhaja, da je treba uporabnike in konkurente podjetja s pomembno tržno močjo na upo�tevnem trgu obravnavati kot potencialne upravičence do pravic, ki ustrezajo posebnim obveznostim, ki jih nacionalni regulativni organ naloži temu podjetju s pomembno tržno močjo na podlagi člena 16 okvirne direktive in tam navedenih direktiv o telekomunikacijah. Zato je te uporabnike in podjetja mogoče �teti,
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION cited therein. Consequently, those users and undertakings may be regarded as being ‘affected’, within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive, by decisions of that authority which amend or withdraw those obligations.
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION kot da so „prizadeti“, v smislu člena 4(1) okvirne direktive, z odločbami tega organa, ki spreminjajo ali preklicujejo navedene obveznosti.
Next, it should be pointed out that, under Article 8(2) of the Framework Directive, the national regulatory authorities must promote competition in the provision of electronic communications networks, electronic communications services and associated facilities and services by, inter alia, ensuring that there is no distortion or restriction of competition in the electronic communications sector.
Nadalje je treba opozoriti, da morajo v skladu s členom 8(2) okvirne direktive nacionalni regulativni organi podpirati konkurenco pri zagotavljanju elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij, elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev in pripadajočih naprav ter storitev med drugim tako, da zagotovijo, da v sektorju elektronskih komunikacij ni izkrivljanja ali omejevanja konkurence.
As noted by the Advocate General in point 24 of his Opinion, and as submitted by the Danish Government, a strict interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive to the effect that that provision confers a right of appeal only on persons to whom the decisions of the national regulatory authorities are addressed would be difficult to reconcile with the general objectives and regulatory principles resulting, for those authorities, from Article 8 of that directive, particularly with the objective of promoting competition.
Kot je opozoril generalni pravobranilec v točki 24 sklepnih predlogov in kot trdi danska vlada, bi bila ozka razlaga člena 4(1) direktive, na podlagi katere bi imele v skladu s to določbo pravico do pritožbe zgolj osebe, na katere so naslovljene odločbe nacionalnih regulativnih organov, težko združljiva s splo�nimi cilji in regulativnimi načeli, ki za te organe izhajajo iz člena 8 navedene direktive, zlasti s ciljem spodbujanja konkurence.
It follows that Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive must be interpreted as granting a right of appeal also to persons other than the addressees of a decision taken by a national regulatory authority in the context of a market analysis.
Iz tega izhaja, da je treba člen 4(1) okvirne direktive razlagati tako, da bi na podlagi tega predpisa morale imeti pravico do pritožbe tudi osebe, na katere ni naslovljena odločba, ki jo nacionalni regulativni organ sprejme v postopku analize trga.
Thus, users and undertakings competing with an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the market concerned must be regarded as being ‘affected’ for the purposes of that provision when their rights are potentially affected by such a decision.
Tako je treba kot „prizadete“ v smislu te določbe obravnavati uporabnike in konkurente podjetja s (prej) pomembno tržno močjo na zadevnem trgu, če taka odločba potencialno zadeva njihove pravice.
As regards, next, the third sentence of Article 16(3) of the Framework Directive, that provision provides that the parties ‘affected’ by the withdrawal of sector-specific regulatory obligations are to be given an appropriate period of notice. An under-
Dalje, določba člena 16(3), tretji stavek, okvirne direktive predvideva, da je treba stranke, ki jih „zadeva“ preklic regulativnih obveznosti, ki so značilne za sektor, o tem prej obvestiti v primernem roku.
2008 — CASE C-426/05 taking (formerly) having significant power on the market concerned is an addressee of the decision withdrawing such obligations, with the result that it is self-evident that that undertaking must be notified of the decision.
2008 – ZADEVA C-426/05 zadevnem trgu naslovnik odločbe, s katero se preklicuje take obveznosti, se samo po sebi razume, da ga je treba obvestiti.
The same applies with regard to decisions imposing such obligations on such an undertaking, irrespective of the fact that Article 16(4) of that directive does not state so expressly.
To poleg tega velja tudi za odločbe, s katerimi se takemu podjetju naložijo obveznosti, ne glede na to, da člen 16(4) navedene direktive ne vsebuje izrecne navedbe.
By contrast, the period of notice laid down in Article 16(3) of that directive acquires its full significance in relation to competing undertakings which, for their part, benefit from the obligations the withdrawal of which has been decided.
Nasprotno se celotni smisel obvestila, ki ga predvideva člen 16(3) iste direktive, kaže pri konkurentih, ki so imeli korist od obveznosti, o katerih preklicu je bilo odločeno.
It follows that, in providing that a period of notice must be given, the Community legislature sought to protect, above all, competitors of the undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the market in their capacity as ‘affected’ parties.
Iz tega sledi, da je zakonodajalec Skupnosti, s tem da je predvidel taka obvestila, želel za�čiti predvsem konkurente podjetja s (prej) pomembno tržno močjo kot „zadevne“ stranke.
Furthermore, in that provision the Community legislature would otherwise have used the term ‘undertaking’, as in the second sentence of that provision, and not the term parties ‘affected’.
Poleg tega bi v nasprotnem primeru zakonodajalec Skupnosti v tej določbi namesto pojma „zadevne“ stranke uporabil pojem „podjetje“, ki je v drugem stavku istega odstavka.
Consequently, the rights of the competitors of an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market are covered by Article 16(3) of the Framework Directive and those rights must therefore be regarded as stemming from both that provision and Article 4(1) of that directive.
Zato pravice konkurentov podjetja s (prej) pomembno tržno močjo na upo�tevnem trgu pokriva člen 16(3) okvirne direktive in tako je treba konkurente obravnavati, kot da spadajo v to določbo in v člen 4(1) iste direktive.
It must also be pointed out that, pursuant to Article 16(6) of the Framework Directive, measures taken under that provision are subject to the procedures laid down in, inter alia, Article 6 of that directive and that that latter provision contains, among other things, a right for the interested parties to comment on the draft measure within a reasonable period.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da se na podlagi člena 16(6) okvirne direktive za ukrepe, sprejete v skladu s to določbo, uporabljajo postopki zlasti iz člena 6 te direktive in da slednja določba predvideva predvsem pravico zainteresiranih strank, da v primernem roku izrazijo svoja stali�ča do osnutka ukrepov.
It follows from all of the foregoing that the terms user ‘affected’ or undertaking ‘affected’ for the purposes of Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive and the term party ‘affected’ within the meaning of Article 16(3) of that directive must be interpreted as being applicable not only to an undertaking (formerly) having significant
Iz vsega zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je treba pojma uporabnik ali „prizadeto“ podjetje v smislu člena 4(1) okvirne direktive ter pojem „zadevna“ stranka v smislu člena 16(3) te direktive razlagati tako, da se lahko nana�ata ne samo na podjetje s (prej) pomembno tržno močjo na upo�tevnem trgu, ki je predmet odločbe nacionalnega
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION power on the relevant market which is subject to a decision of a national regulatory authority taken in the context of a market analysis procedure referred to in Article 16 of that directive and to which that decision is addressed, but also users and undertakings in competition with such an undertaking which are not themselves addressees of that decision but the rights of which are adversely affected by it.
TELE2 TELECOMMUNICATION regulativnega organa, sprejete v postopku analize trga na podlagi člena 16 iste direktive in katere naslovnik je, ampak tudi na uporabnike in konkurente tega podjetja, ki sami niso naslovniki te odločbe, vendar ta zadeva njihove pravice.
Consequently, the submission of the Austrian and Slovene Governments that reading Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive in conjunction with recital 12 in the preamble thereto justifies, on its own, the finding that that directive grants the possibility of bringing an appeal only to the person who is actually the subject of the decision of the national regulatory authority and who is the addressee thereof cannot be upheld.
Zato ni mogoče sprejeti trditve, ki jo navajata avstrijska in slovenska vlada, da že samo branje člena 4(1) v povezavi z dvanajsto uvodno izjavo okvirne direktive omogoča sklep, da ta direktiva predvideva možnost pritožbe samo za osebe, ki so dejansko predmet odločbe nacionalnega regulativnega organa in na katere je odločba naslovljena.
Admittedly, that recital states that ‘[a]ny party who is the subject of a decision by a national regulatory authority should have the right to appeal to a body that is independent of the parties involved.
Navedena uvodna izjava določa, da mora imeti „[v]saka stranka, za katero velja sklep nacionalnega regulativnega organa, […] pravico do pritožbe pri organu, neodvisnem od udeleženih strank.
This body may be a court’.
Ta organ je lahko sodi�če“.
Thus, that recital merely raises the possibility, for whoever is concerned by a decision of a national regulatory authority, of appealing against that decision.
Tako ta uvodna izjava omenja zgolj možnost, da katera koli oseba, na katero se nana�a sklep nacionalnega regulativnega organa, vloži pritožbo zoper ta sklep.
However, the mere fact that that recital raises the possibility for the addressee of a decision to appeal against it in no way implies that such an appeal is excluded in relation to other undertakings, such as those in competition with the addressee.
Preprosta omemba možnosti naslovnika sklepa, da vloži pritožbo, v tej uvodni izjavi nikakor ne pomeni, da bi bila taka pritožba izključena za druga podjetja, kot so na primer konkurenti navedenega naslovnika.
The Austrian and Slovene Governments also submit that, for the interpretation of the provisions concerned by the present reference for a preliminary ruling, account must be taken of the principle of effectiveness, inherent in Community law, which also encompasses the aspect relating to the speed at which specific regulatory decisions are implemented.
Avstrijska in slovenska vlada trdita tudi, da je treba pri razlagi določb, na katere se nana�a to vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, upo�tevati načelo učinkovitosti, ki je svojstven pravu Skupnosti, kamor sodi tudi hitrost izvajanja posebnih regulativnih odločb.
Those governments thus appear to be attempting to demonstrate that the possibility of granting ‘interested parties’, within the meaning of
Zdi se, da sku�ata ti vladi s tem pokazati, da lahko možnost, da se
Paragraph 8 of the 1991 General Law on Administrative Procedure, in the version published during 2004, rights reserved to ‘parties’ may extend significantly the total duration of the market analysis procedure, whereas the national regulatory authority must react as quickly as possible in order to cancel out imbalances liable to arise in markets with rapidly changing conditions.
„udeleženim osebam“ v smislu člena 8 splo�nega zakona o upravnem postopku iz leta 1991, v različici, objavljeni v letu 2004, prizna pravice, ki so pridržane „strankam“, znatno podalj�a celotno trajanje postopka analize trga, medtem ko mora nacionalni regulativni organ reagirati čim prej, da bi odpravil neravnotežja, ki bi lahko nastala na trgih, na katerih se pogoji lahko hitro spreminjajo.
That argument cannot be upheld.
Te argumentacije ni mogoče sprejeti.