natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
49 However, the assessment of whether the effect is appreciable or insignificant depends not only on quantitative but also qualitative factors; nor can it be confined to a single aspect such as, for example, the size of the market, but is normally the result of a combination of several factors each of which, taken separately, may not necessarily be decisive. 50
49 Presoja, ali je vpliv znaten ali ne, pa ni odvisna samo od kvantitativnih, ampak tudi od kvalitativnih dejavnikov; ti tudi ne morejo biti omejeni na en sam vidik, kot je morda velikost trga, nasprotno, presoja je odvisna v splo�nem od več dejavnikov, ki sami zase ne bi bili nujno odločilni. 50
From a qualitative point of view, the assessment of whether the effect is appreciable depends not least on the way in which
S kvalitativnega vidika je presoja, ali je vpliv znaten, navsezadnje odvisna tudi od načina delovanja podjetja s prevladujočim
From a quantitative point of view, it is not sufficient merely to consider the overall volume of the materially and geographically relevant market.
S kvantitativnega vidika ne zado�ča, da se obravnava samo skupni obseg stvarnega in prostorsko relevantnega trga.
The overall volume may take on a certain significance for the question
Ta skupni obseg sicer lahko delno vpliva na pomen vpra�anja, ali je prizadet bistveni del
51 — Joined Cases 40/73 to 48/73, 50/73, 54/73 to 56/73, 111/73, 113/73 and 114/73 Suiker Unie and Others v Commission [1975] ECR 1663, paragraph 371; Case C-179/90 Merci convenzionali porto di Genova [1991] ECR I-5889, paragraph 15, second sentence); and Case C-163/96 Raso and Others [1998] ECR I-533, paragraph 26, second sentence.The overall volume of the market, considered in isolation, is likewise by no means decisive in determining whether a substantial part of the common market is affected.
51 – Sodbe z dne 16. decembra 1975 v združenih zadevah Suiker Unie in drugi proti Komisiji (od 40/73 do 48/73, 50/73, od 54/73 do 56/73, 111/73, 113/73 in 114/73, Recueil, 1663, točka 371), z dne 10. decembra 1991 v zadevi Merci convenzionali porto di Genova (C-179/90, Recueil, I-5889, točka 15, drugi stavek) in z dne 12. februarja 1998 v zadevi Raso in drugi (C-163/96, Recueil, I-533, točka 26, drugi stavek).Tudi za obstoj znatnega dela skupnega trga pa zgolj skupni obseg trga ni sam na noben način odločilen.
In the present case, as has been said, it follows not least from the geographical extent of the markets concerned, that is to say the territory of a Member State, that a substantial part of the common market is affected (see also in this regard point 57 of this Opinion and the caselaw cited there).
V obravnavanem primeru sledi, kot je zgoraj omenjeno, že iz geografske razsežnosti prizadetih trgov, ki ustrezajo ozemlju ene države članice, da gre za znaten del skupnega trga (glej v zvezi s tem točko 57 teh sklepnih predlogov in tam navedeno sodno prakso).
49 — Joined Cases C-215/96 and C-216/96 Bagnasco and Others [1999] ECR I-135, paragraph 60; Ambulanz Glöckner (cited in footnote 23, paragraph 48), as well as — in relation to Article 81 EC — Case 22/71 Béguelin Import [1971] ECR 949, paragraph 16; Case C-306/96 Javico [1998] ECR I-1983, paragraph 16; Manfredi (cited in footnote 44, paragraph 42); Asnef-Equifax (cited in footnote 44, paragraph 34); and Dalmine v Commission (cited in footnote 44, paragraph 90).
49 – Sodba z dne 21. januarja 1999 v združenih zadevah Bagnasco in drugi (C-215/96 in C-216/96, Recueil, I-135, točka 60), sodba Ambulanz Glöckner (navedena v opombi 23, točka 48) ter – glede člena 81 ES – sodbi z dne 25. novembra 1971 v zadevi Béguelin Import (22/71, Recueil, 949, točka 16) in z dne 28. aprila 1998 v zadevi Javico (C-306/96, Recueil, I-1983, točka 16) ter sodbe Manfredi (navedena v opombi 44, točka 42), Asnef-Equifax (navedena v opombi 44, točka 34) in Dalmine proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 44, točka 90).
50 — Bagnasco (cited in footnote 49, paragraph 47), Manfredi (cited in footnote 44, paragraph 43) and Asnef-Equifax (cited in footnote 44, paragraph 35).
50 – Sodbe Bagnasco (navedena v opombi 49, točka 47), Manfredi (navedena v opombi 44, točka 43) in Asnef-Equifax (navedena v opombi 44, točka 35).
52 — See to this effect Javico (cited in footnote 49, paragraph 26).
52 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo Javico (navedena v opombi 49, točka 26).
See also the Commission Guidelines, in paragraph 52 of which — concerning Article 81 EC — the decisive factors are said to be the market share and annual turnover of the undertakings concerned in relation to the markets and/or goods affected by an agreement.
Glej tudi Smernice Komisije, v točki 52 – glede člena 81 ES – je poudarek na tržnem deležu in letnem prometu udeleženih podjetij pri določanju trgov oziroma blaga, na katere se nana�a sporazum.
Special or exclusive rights (Article 86(1) EC) the undertaking in a dominant position behaves.
Posebne (člen 86(1) ES) položajem na trgu.
53 Article 82 EC covers any practice which is capable of constituting a threat to freedom of trade between Member States in a manner which might harm the attainment of the objectives of a single market between the Member States, in particular by partitioning the national markets or by affecting the structure of competition within the common market. 54
53 Na področje člena 82 ES spadajo vsa ravnanja, ki lahko ogrozijo prosto trgovino med državami članicami na način, ki lahko �koduje uresničitvi ciljev enotnega trga med državami članicami, zlasti z zapiranjem domačih trgov ali s spreminjanjem konkurenčnih struktur na skupnem trgu. 54
Since an organisation such as ELPA is indisputably not a public undertaking but a private association, Article 86(1) EC would be applicable only in so far as the Greek State has granted special or exclusive rights to that association.
Ker organizacija, kakr�na je ELPA, nesporno ni javno podjetje, ampak zasebno dru�tvo, pride uporaba člena 86(1) ES v po�tev le, če temu dru�tvu gr�ka država podeli posebne ali izključne pravice.
The characteristic feature of such special or exclusive rights is that they give rise to a special relationship between the State authority in question and the favoured undertaking 56and accord more favourable treatment to the undertaking than to its competitors.
Za tak�ne posebne ali izključne pravice je značilno, da ustvarijo neki poseben odnos med konkretnim državnim organom in izbranim podjetjem, 56 kar mu daje prednost pred njegovim konkurentom.
Any abuse of ELPA’s rights of co-deci-sion with regard to the organisation and marketing of motorcycling events may contribute towards the partitioning of the markets and thus undermine the aim of achieving the single market.
Morebitna zloraba pravice do soodločanja ELPE v zvezi z organiziranjem in trženjem motociklističnih dirk lahko prispeva k zapiranju trga in tako ovira vzpostavitev notranjega trga.
Aside from that, as the Commission rightly points out, the mere existence of a dominant market position which extends over the entire territory of a Member State may have the effect of reinforcing the partitioning of markets on a national basis by holding up the economic interpenetration which the Treaty was designed to bring about. 55
Poleg tega lahko, kot Komisija pravilno poudarja, že obstoj prevladujočega položaja na trgu, ki zajema celotno ozemlje države članice, krepi zapiranje trgov na nacionalni ravni, s tem da ovira nacionalno prepletenost, za katero si prizadeva Pogodba ES. 55
There are therefore both quantitative and qualitative aspects pointing to an appreciable effect on trade between Member States.
Tako iz kvantitativnih in kvalitativnih vidikov izhaja, da je vpliv na trgovino med državami članicami znaten.
53 — See also in this regard the Commission Guidelines, paragraph 45.
53 – Glej v zvezi s tem tudi Smernice Komisije, točka 45.
Through the rules on consent in Article 49 of the Road Traffic Code, the Greek State accords to ELPA, as the official representative of the FIM in Greece, a right of co-decision in the authorisation of motorcycling events and thus allows it to participate in the exercise of public authority.
Z določbami o soglasju iz člena 49 zakona o cestnem prometu gr�ka država priznava ELPI kot uradnemu zastopniku Mednarodne motociklistične zveze (FIM) v Grčiji pravico do soodločanja o dovoljenjih za motociklistične dirke in mu tako dovoljuje sodelovanje pri izvr�evanju javne oblasti.
ELPA is thus given preference over other possible organisers of motorcycling events in Greece.
Tako ima ELPA nasproti drugim mogočim prirediteljem motociklističnih dirk v Grčiji prednost.
The association therefore enjoys a special right.
Dru�tvo uživa torej posebno pravico.
Because ELPA alone has that right of co-decision under Article 49 of the Road Traffic Code, it can also be said to have an exclusive right. 57
Ker ima samo ELPA to pravico do soodločanja v skladu s členom 49 zakona o cestnem prometu, se lahko govori hkrati o izključni pravici. 57
54 — Case 22/78 Hugin Kassaregister and Hugin Cash Registers v Commission [1979] ECR 1869, paragraph 17; Ambulanz Glöckner (cited in footnote 23, paragraphs 47 and 49); Manfredi (cited in footnote 44, paragraph 41); Asnef-Equifax (cited in footnote 44, paragraph 33); and Dalmine v Commission (cited in footnote 44, paragraphs 89 and 91); see to the same effect Case 30/87 Bodson [1988] ECR 2479, paragraph 24; and Case 247/86 Alsatel [1988] ECR 5987, paragraph 11.
54 – Sodba z dne 31. maja 1979 v zadevi Hugin Kassare -gister in Hugin Cash Registers proti Komisiji (22/78, Recueil, 1869, točka 17), sodbe Ambulanz Glöckner (navedena v opombi 23, točki 47 in 49), Manfredi (navedena v opombi 44, točka 41), Asnef-Equifax (navedena v opombi 44, točka 33) in Dalmine proti Komisiji (nave -dena v opombi 44, točki 89 in 91); glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 4. maja 1988 v zadevi Bodson (30/87, Recueil, 2479, točka 24) in z dne 5. oktobra 1988 v zadevi Alsatel (247/86, Recueil, 5987, točka 11).
56 — Case C-202/88 France v Commission (‘Telecommunications Terminals Equipment’) [1991] ECR I-1223, paragraph 24.
56 – Sodba z dne 19. marca 1991 v zadevi Francija proti Komi -siji, Telekomunikacijska terminalska oprema (C-202/88, Recueil, I-1223, točka 24).
55 — See to the same effect — although in relation to cartels extending over the entire territory of a Member State — Case 8/72 Vereeniging van Cementhandelaren v Commission [1972] ECR 977, paragraph 29; Manfredi (cited in footnote 44, paragraph 45); and Asnef-Equifax (cited in footnote 44, paragraph 37); see, similarly, Case C-94/04 Cipolla [2006] ECR I-11421, paragraph 45.
55 – Glej v tem smislu – vsekakor glede kartelov, ki obsegajo celotno ozemlje države članice – sodbo z dne 17. oktobra 1972 v zadevi Vereeniging van Cementhan -delaren proti Komisiji (8/72, Recueil, 977, točka 29), sodbi Manfredi (navedena v opombi 44, točka 45) in Asnef-Equifax (navedena v opombi 44, točka 37); po analogiji glej sodbo z dne 5. decembra 2006 v zadevi Cipolla (C-94/04, ZOdl., I-11421, točka 45).
57 — For the sake of simplicity, I shall henceforth use only the term exclusive right.
57 – V nadaljevanju zaradi poenostavitve uporabljam samo pojem izključne pravice.
C — Compatibility of ELPA’s dual role with Article 86(1) in conjunction with Article 82 EC (second question)
C – Združljivost dvojne vloge ELPE s členom 86(1) ES v povezavi s členom 82 ES (drugo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje)
Therefore, ELPA’s activity falls within the scope not only of Article 82 EC but also of Article 86(1) EC.
S tem dejavnost, ki jo opravlja ELPA, ne spada samo na področje uporabe člena 82 ES, ampak tudi člena 86(1) ES.
In summary, it can be concluded that:
Tako je treba ugotoviti:
If, as I have proposed, the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, the second question also requires discussion.
Če je odgovor na prvo vpra�anje pritrdilen, kot sem predlagala, je treba obravnavati tudi drugo vpra�anje.
By the second question, the referring court wishes, in essence, to ascertain whether Articles 82 EC and 86 EC preclude a provision such as Article 49 of the Greek Road Traffic Code, under which a non-profit-making association that itself organises and markets motorcycling events is at the same time accorded an exclusive right of co-deci-sion in the authorisation by a public body of such events, in which capacity it can refuse to give its consent without being subject to any restrictions, obligations or controls.
S tem drugim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali člena 82 ES in 86 ES nasprotujeta ureditvi, kot je določena v členu 49 gr�kega zakona o cestnem prometu, v skladu s katerim ima nepridobitno dru�tvo, ki motociklistične dirke samo prireja in trži, izključno pravico do soodločanja o upravnih dovoljenjih za tak�ne dirke, pri čemer lahko svoje soglasje odkloni, ne da bi bile v zvezi s tem določeni omejitve, obveznosti in nadzor.
Essentially, the dual role, as referred to above, of an association such as ELPA must be measured against the criterion of Community law, in particular Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC.
V bistvu je s tem že omenjeno dvojno vlogo dru�tva, kakr�no je ELPA, treba presojati po merilu prava Skupnosti, posebno člena 86(1) ES v povezavi s členom 82 ES.
A non-profit-making association that not only has an exclusive right of co-decision in the authorisation by a public body of motorcycling events but also itself organises such events and, in this connection, concludes sponsorship, advertising and insurance agreements, is an undertaking within the meaning of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC.
Nepridobitno dru�tvo, ki nima samo izključne pravice do soodločanja o upravnih dovoljenjih za motociklistične dirke, ampak tak�ne dirke tudi organizira in v zvezi s tem sklepa sponzorske pogodbe, pogodbe o ogla�evanju in zavarovalne pogodbe, je podjetje v smislu členov 82 ES in 86 ES.
The requirements of Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC
Zahteve iz člena 86(1) ES v povezavi s členom 82 ES
Under Article 86(1) EC, with regard to undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights, Member States
V skladu s členom 86(1) ES ne smejo države članice glede podjetij, ki so jim
It is for the national court, having regard to the caselaw of the Court of Justice concerning Article 82 EC, to examine whether that association holds a dominant position on the market and whether the abuse of that position would be capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States.
V pristojnosti nacionalnega sodi�ča je, da ob upo�tevanju sodne prakse Sodi�ča v zvezi s členom 82 ES presodi, ali ima to dru�tvo prevladujoč položaj na trgu in ali bi zloraba tega položaja lahko znatno vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami.
Whether any abuse actually occurs is immaterial.
MOTOE membno je, ali do take zlorabe dejansko pride.
60 must neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules of competition law.
60 odobrile posebne ali izključne pravice, sprejeti ali v veljavi ohraniti ukrepov, ki so v nasprotju s pravili o konkurenci.
The term ‘measure’ must be interpreted broadly in this connection.
Pojem ukrepov je v tej zvezi treba razlagati �iroko.
Even a legal provision such as Article 49 of the Greek Road Traffic Code is covered by it. 58
To vključuje tudi pravno pravilo, kot je člen 49 gr�kega zakona o cestnem prometu. 58
As I shall show below, not every exercise of ELPA’s right of co-decision in the authorisation of motorcycling events necessarily leads to an abuse of its dominant position, particularly if due account is taken of objective considerations such as the interests of sport (see in this regard subsection (a) below).
Kot bom prikazala v nadaljevanju, ne vodi nujno vsako izvr�evanje pravice do soodločanja, ki jo ima ELPA pri dovoljenjih za motociklistične dirke, do zlorabe njenega prevladujočega položaja, zlasti če se ustrezno upo�tevajo objektivni razlogi, kot je interes �porta (glej v zvezi s tem spodaj a)).
However, a provision such as Article 49 of the Greek Road Traffic Code invites abuse because of the way in which it in fact operates (see subsection (b) below).
Vendar se z določbo, kot je člen 49 gr�kega zakona o cestnem prometu, na podlagi njenega konkretnega besedila zlorabo spodbuja (glej v zvezi s tem spodaj b)).
Through the rules on consent laid down in that article, the Greek State accords to ELPA, as the official representative of the FIM in Greece, the exclusive right of co-deci-sion in the authorisation of motorcycling events.
S tam predvidenimi določbami o soglasju priznava gr�ka država ELPI kot uradnemu zastopniku Mednarodne motociklistične zveze (FIM) v Grčiji izključno pravico, da soodloča o dovoljenjih za motociklistične dirke.
(a) Not every exercise of the right of co-deci-sion is abuse per se
a) Ni vsako izvr�evanje pravice do soodločanja per se zloraba
Such a provision infringes Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC where the undertaking in question, merely by exercising the exclusive right granted to it, abuses its dominant position or where that right is liable to create a situation in which that undertaking commits such an abuse. 59
Tak�na ureditev je v nasprotju s členom 86(1) ES v povezavi s členom 82 ES, če zadevno podjetje zgolj zaradi samega izvr�evanja izključne pravice, ki je nanj prenesena, zlorablja prevladujoči položaj na trgu ali če lahko ta pravica ustvari položaj, ki bi podjetje vodil k zlorabi. 59Nepo-
58 — See to this effect, for example, Job Centre (cited in footnote 45, paragraph 29).
58 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo Job Centre (navedena v opombi 45, točka 29).
Certainly, not every exercise of the right of co-decision conferred on ELPA by Article 49 of the Road Traffic Code can automatically be regarded as abuse.
Gotovo ni treba vsakega izvr�evanja pravice do soodločanja, ki je prenesena na ELPO v skladu s členom 49 zakona o cestnem prometu, vnaprej obravnavati kot zlorabo.
If the behaviour of an undertaking in a dominant position can be objectively justified, it is not abuse.
Mogoče je namreč, da je ravnanje podjetja, ki ima prevladujoč položaj na trgu, objektivno upravičeno, tako da ne gre za zlorabo.
61In fact, in a case such as this, there may be objective reasons why an association such as ELPA refuses to give its consent to the authorisation of a motorcycling event.
61 Dejansko lahko v primeru, kakr�en je obravnavani, obstajajo objektivni razlogi, da dru�tvo, kakr�no je ELPA, odkloni svoje soglasje k dovoljenju za motociklistično dirko.
60 — Job Centre (cited in footnote 45, paragraph 36) and Raso and Others (cited in footnote 51, paragraph 31).
60 – Sodbi Job Centre (navedena v opombi 45, točka 36) in Raso in drugi (navedena v opombi 51, točka 31).
61 — See to this effect Case C-95/04 P British Airways v Commission [2007] ECR I-2331, paragraphs 84 and 85; see to the same effect — in relation to Article 81 EC — Wouters (cited in footnote 22, paragraph 97).
61 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 15. marca 2007 v zadevi British Airways proti Komisiji (C-95/04 P, ZOdl., I-2331, točki 84 in 85); glej v tem smislu – glede člena 81 ES – sodbo Wouters (navedena v opombi 22, točka 97).
59 — Höfner and Elser (cited in footnote 21, paragraph 29); ERT (cited in footnote 40, paragraph 37); Merci convenzionali porto di Genova (cited in footnote 51, paragraph 17); Case C-323/93 Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle [1994] ECR I-5077, paragraph 18; Raso and Others (cited in footnote 51, paragraph 27 and 28); Albany (cited in footnote 30, paragraph 93); Pavlov (cited in footnote 23, paragraph 127); Ambulanz Glöckner (cited in footnote 23, paragraph 39); and Case C-380/05 Centro Europa 7 [2008] ECR I-349, paragraph 60; see, similarly, Connect Austria (cited in footnote 40, paragraph 80).
59 – Sodbe Höfner in Elser (navedena v opombi 21, točka 29), ERT (navedena v opombi 40, točka 37), Merci convenzionali porto di Genova (navedena v opombi 51, točka 17), sodba z dne 5. oktobra 1994 v zadevi Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle (C-323/93, Recueil, I-5077, točka 18), sodbe Raso in drugi (navedena v opombi 51, točki 27 in 28), Albany (navedena v opombi 30, točka 93), Pavlov (navedena v opombi 23, točka 127), Ambulanz Glöckner (navedena v opombi 23, točka 39) in sodbo z dne 31. januarja 2008 v zadevi Centro Europa 7 (C-380/05, ZOdl., str. I-349, točka 60); po analogiji glej sodbo Connect Austria (navedena v opombi 40, točka 80).
63This is without prejudice, of course, to the
63To seveda ne vpliva na vsebinsko
The existence of such an objective reason is particularly evident where, at a planned motorcycling event, the safety of the racers and spectators would not be guaranteed because the organiser did not take the appropriate precautions.
Posebno očiten je obstoj tak�nega objektivnega razloga, če pri načrtovanih motociklističnih dirkah zaradi pomanjkanja primernej�ih ukrepov prireditelja varnost tekmovalcev in gledalcev ne more biti zagotovljena.
substantive examination of each of those rules from the point of view of their compatibility with Community law, in particular its rules on competition. 64
presojo vsakega posameznega pravila po merilih prava Skupnosti, zlasti pravilih o konkurenci. 64
However, in addition to the purely technical safety requirements, there may be other objective reasons for refusing consent which relate to the particular characteristics of the sport.
Vendar pa lahko poleg čisto tehničnovarnostnih zahtev obstajajo tudi objektivni razlogi za odrekanje soglasja, ki so povezani s posebnostmi �porta.
62In a case such as this, it is worth bearing in mind the following considerations.
62V primeru, kot je obravnavani, so na primer omembe vredni tile vidiki.
Secondly, it is in the interests of the sportspersons participating in the event, but also of the spectators and the public in general, that the individual competitions in a particular sport are incorporated into an overarching framework so that, for example, a specific timetable can be followed.
Po drugi strani je v interesu udeleženih �portnikov pa tudi občinstva in javnosti, da so različna tekmovanja v določeni �portni panogi postavljena v splo�en okvir, tako da se na primer upo�teva določen časovni načrt.
It may make sense to prevent clashes between competitions so that both sportspersons and spectators can participate in as many such events as possible.
Smiselno je namreč preprečiti časovno prekrivanje tekmovanj, da se tako �portnikom kot tudi gledalcem omogoči udeležbo na čim več tak�nih prireditvah.
Firstly, it is in the interests of the sportspersons concerned, but also of the spectators and the public in general, that, for each sport, rules that are as uniform as possible apply and are observed so as to ensure that competitions are conducted in a regulated and fair manner.
Po eni strani je v interesu udeleženih �portnikov, pa tudi občinstva in javnosti, da v vsaki �portni panogi veljajo in se upo�tevajo določena in, če je mogoče, enotna �portna pravila, s čimer je zagotovljen bolj urejen in bolj po�ten potek tekmovanj.
This applies not only to the frequently discussed anti-doping rules, but also to the ordinary rules of sport.
To ne zadeva samo vedno znova obravnavanih antidopin�kih pravil, ampak tudi povsem normalna pravila igre.
If rules varied greatly from one organiser to another, it would be more difficult for sportspersons to participate in competitions and to compare their respective performances; the public’s interest in and recognition of the sport in question might also suffer.
Če bi glede na prireditelja veljala zelo različna pravila, bi bila �portnikom udeležba na tekmovanjih ter primerjava njihovih dosežkov otežena in tudi zanimanje občinstva za konkretne �portne panoge ter njihova prepoznavnost bi se lahko zmanj�ala.
Consequently, the fact that an organisation such as ELPA makes the grant of consent to the authorisation of a motorcycling event subject to the requirement that the event must not clash with other events that have already been planned and authorised cannot automatically be regarded as an abuse.
Zato se ne more vnaprej �teti, da gre za zlorabo, če organizacija, kakr�na je ELPA, izdajo svojega soglasja k dovoljenju za motociklistično dirko pogojuje s tem, da ta dirka časovno ne sovpada z drugimi, že načrtovanimi in odobrenimi dirkami.