natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Second, the remuneration which it would receive in consideration for the provision of unbundled access to the local loop would not enable it to make a reasonable profit from the operation, bearing in mind that it is also required, as stated in recital 11 in the preamble to Regulation No 2887/2000, to ensure the longterm development and upgrade of the local infrastructure.
Na drugi strani pa mu plačilo, ki bi ga prejemal v zameno za zagotavljanje razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, ne bi omogočalo dosegati primernega donosa iz poslovanja, pri čemer ne gre pozabiti, da bi moral v skladu z uvodno izjavo 11 Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 zagotavljati dolgoročen razvoj in nadgrajevati infrastrukturo krajevnega dostopa.
It should be added in that regard that the costs related to maintaining and upgrading the local infrastructure are calculated in any case on the basis of the actual value of the notified operator’s fixed assets.
V zvezi s tem je treba dodati, da se stro�ki vzdrževanja in nadgradnje krajevne infrastrukture v vsakem primeru izračunavajo glede na dejansko vrednost osnovnih sredstev prigla�enega obratovalca.
It follows that the cost calculation basis which must be taken into account when setting rates for unbundled access to the local loop cannot be based exclusively on historic costs, otherwise the notified operator would suffer, compared with the beneficiary, unjustified disadvantages, which is precisely what Regulation No 2887/2000 seeks to prevent.
Iz tega izhaja, da osnova za izračun stro�kov, ki jih je treba upo�tevati pri določanju cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, ne sme temeljiti izključno na preteklih stro�kih, saj bi se s tem prigla�eni obratovalec v primerjavi z upravičencem zna�el v položaju, ko bi bil neupravičeno o�kodovan, prav to pa je tisto, kar se želi preprečiti z Uredbo �t. 2887/2000.
The aim of that regulation is to enable both beneficiaries and the notified operator to operate on the market so as to establish normal competition in the medium term.
Cilj te uredbe je namreč upravičencem in prigla�enemu obratovalcu omogočiti istočasno poslovanje na trgu, da bi se tako v srednjeročnem obdobju vzpostavila normalna konkurenca.
It results from all of the above that there is no indication in Regulation No 2887/2000 and Directives 97/33 and 98/10 of the FRF in favour of a method of calculation based exclusively on current costs or historic costs and that the taking into account of only one or other of those bases is likely to call into question the aim of that regulation, namely to intensify competition through the setting of harmonised conditions for unbundled access to the local loop, in order to foster the competitive provision of a wide range of electronic communications services.
Iz celote zgornjih ugotovitev izhaja, da v Uredbi �t. 2887/2000 in upo�tevanih direktivah NekdRO 97/33 in 98/10 ni določb v korist metodi izračuna, ki bi temeljila izključno na podlagi tekočih ali preteklih stro�kov, in da bi lahko izključno upo�tevanje ene ali druge osnove ogrozilo cilj te uredbe, namreč okrepitev konkurence z določitvijo usklajenih pogojev za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke, da bi se pospe�ilo konkurenčno zagotavljanje �irokega nabora elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev.
In those circumstances, it is necessary to consider, irrespective of the reference made by the national court to current costs and historic costs, whether there is any other indication in Directives 97/33 and 98/10, which Regulation No 2887/2000 aims to supplement, concerning the calculation basis of costs.
Glede na to je treba neodvisno od sklicevanja predložitvenega sodi�ča na tekoče in pretekle stro�ke preučiti, ali so v direktivah 97/33 in 98/10, ki ju Uredba �t. 2887/2000 dopolnjuje, druge določbe v zvezi z osnovo za izračun stro�kov.
In that regard, the Court notes that, according to recital 10 in the preamble to Direct- ive 97/33, the level of charges should promote productivity and encourage efficient and sustainable market entry and should not be below a limit calculated by the use of long-run incremental cost and cost allocation and attribution methods based on actual cost causation, nor above a limit set by the stand-alone cost of providing the interconnection in question.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da morajo v skladu z uvodno izjavo 10 Direktive 97/33 cene spodbujati produktivnost in vstopanje na trg učinkovitih in spodobnih obratovalcev in da ne smejo biti nižje od ravni, določene na podlagi dolgoročnih mejnih stro�kov in po metodi porazdelitve in dodelitve stro�kov na temelju dejanskih stro�kov, niti vi�je od ravni dejanskih stro�kov zagotavljanja zadevnega medomrežnega povezovanja.
Also to that effect, Article 7(2) of that directive provides that charges for interconnection are to follow the principles of transparency and costorientation and that the burden of proof that charges are derived from actual costs including a reasonable rate of return on investment is to lie with the organisation providing interconnection to its facilities.
Tudi člen 7(2) iste direktive v tem smislu določa, da pristojbine za medomrežno povezovanje upo�tevajo načeli preglednosti in stro�kovne naravnanosti ter da dokazno breme, da so pristojbine izračunane na podlagi dejanskih stro�kov, vključno s primerno stopnjo donosnosti naložbe, nosi subjekt, ki s svojimi napravami zagotavlja medomrežno povezovanje.
Equally, Annex IV to Directive 97/33 categorises interconnection charges as actual charges payable by interconnected parties.
Priloga IV k Direktivi 97/33 pristojbine za medomrežno povezovanje prav tako opredeljuje kot dejanske pristojbine, ki jih plačujejo stranke medomrežnih povezav.
In Annex V to Directive 97/33 the Community legislature refers to the ‘cost standard used’ and, where it is necessary to determine the method of calculation of those costs, that annex uses ‘historic costs’ as a reference, based on actual expenditure incurred for equipment and systems, or ‘forward-looking costs’, based on estimated replacement costs of equipment or systems.
V Prilogi V k Direktivi 97/33 se zakonodajalec Skupnosti sklicuje na „uporabljene standardne stro�ke“, v zvezi z opredelitvijo metode izračuna stro�kov pa so v prilogi kot referenca navedeni „plačani stro�ki“, ki temeljijo na dejansko nastalih stro�kih za opremo in sisteme, ter „predvideni stro�ki“, ki temeljijo na oceni stro�kov za zamenjavo opreme in sistemov.
It results from the abovementioned provisions that the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation requires account to be taken of actual costs, namely costs already paid by the notified operator and forwardlooking costs based on an estimation of the costs of replacing the network or certain parts thereof.
Iz zgoraj navedenih določb izhaja, da načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke zahteva upo�tevanje dejanskih stro�kov, in sicer stro�kov, ki jih je prigla�eni obratovalec že plačal, in predvidenih stro�kov, ki temeljijo na oceni stro�kov za zamenjavo omrežja ali nekaterih njegovih elementov.
In the absence of specific Community legislation, it is the task of the NRAs to define the detailed rules for determining the calculation basis on which depreciation must be taken into account.
Ker v zvezi s tem ni posebne zakonodaje Skupnosti, morajo o načinu določanja osnove za izračun, na podlagi katere se upo�teva amortizacija, odločati nacionalni regulativni organi.
Thus, pursuant to the provisions of Directive 97/33, which also apply to the local loop under Regulation No 2887/2000, the method of cost calculation may be based both on costs already paid by the notified operator — which presupposes the taking into account, as the basis of reference, of costs at their historic value — and on forwardlooking costs, which does not exclude the taking into account, as the basis of reference, of costs at their current value.
V skladu z določbami Direktive 97/33, ki se v okviru Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 nana�ajo tudi na krajevno zanko, lahko tako metoda izračuna stro�kov obenem temelji na stro�kih, ki jih je plačal prigla�eni obratovalec, kar pomeni, da se kot referenčna osnova upo�teva njihova vrednost ob plačilu, in na predvidenih stro�kih, kar ne izključuje, da se kot referenčna osnova upo�teva trenutna vrednost stro�kov.
It is under those conditions that the NRAs have to calculate the actual costs which have to be taken into account for the application of the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation.
NRO morajo torej pri izračunavanju dejanskih stro�kov, ki jih je treba upo�tevati v okviru uporabe načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, upo�tevati vse te navedbe.
It follows from all of the above considerations that the answer to Question 3(a) must be that, when applying the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation, laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000, in order to determine the calculation basis of the costs of the notified operator, the NRAs have to take account of actual costs, namely costs already paid by the notified operator, and forwardlooking costs, the latter being based, where relevant, on an estimation of the costs of replacing the network or certain parts of it.
Iz celote zgornjih ugotovitev izhaja, da je treba na tretje vpra�anje, točka (a), odgovoriti tako, da morajo NRO v okviru uporabe načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke iz člena 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 pri določanju osnove za izračun stro�kov prigla�enega obratovalca upo�tevati dejanske stro�ke, in sicer stro�ke, ki jih je prigla�eni obratovalec že plačal, ter predvidene stro�ke, pri čemer slednji po potrebi temeljijo na oceni stro�kov zamenjave omrežja ali nekaterih njegovih elementov.
Question 3(b) and (c): proof of costs
Tretje vpra�anje, točki (b) in (c), v zvezi z izkazom stro�kov
By Question 3(b) the national court asks the Court of Justice to determine whether the costs which have to be taken into account in the application of the pricing
Predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem, točka (b), Sodi�ču predlaga, naj presodi, ali morajo biti stro�ki, ki jih je treba upo�tevati v okviru uporabe načela oblikovanja
2008 — CASE C-55/06 principle laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000 have to be proven by complete and comprehensible accounting documents.
2008 – ZADEVA C-55/06 cen iz člena 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, izkazani s popolnimi in razumljivimi računovodskimi listinami.
If that question is to be answered in the negative, the national court asks, by Question 3(c), whether those costs may be proven by a valuation made on the basis of a bottomup or top-down analytical cost model.
V primeru nikalnega odgovora na to vpra�anje predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem, točka (c), spra�uje, ali je mogoče navedene stro�ke izkazati z vrednotenjem na podlagi analitičnega modela stro�kov od spodaj navzgor ali od zgoraj navzdol.
In that regard, the national court also asks the Court to determine, in particular, the methodological requirements of that valuation.
V zvezi s tem preložitveno sodi�če Sodi�ču predlaga tudi, naj opredeli zlasti metodolo�ke zahteve takega vrednotenja.
— Question 3(b): accounting documents
– Tretje vpra�anje, točka (b), v zvezi z računovodskimi listinami
As regards proof, on the basis of complete and comprehensible accounting documents, of the costs which have to be taken into consideration when applying the pricing principle laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000, it should be noted that that regulation and Directives 97/33 and 98/10 do not contain any provisions in that regard.
V zvezi z izkazovanjem stro�kov, ki jih je treba upo�tevati v okviru uporabe načela oblikovanja cen iz člena 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, s popolnimi in razumljivimi računovodskimi listinami je treba ugotoviti, da niti ta uredba niti direktivi 97/33 in 98/10 ne vsebujejo tovrstnih določb.
Arcor submits, however, that there are indications in Annex V to Directive 97/33 that the Community legislature sought to ensure the adoption of a costaccounting system based on detailed documents in such a way that a notified operator cannot circumvent that system by sending incomplete and incomprehensible accounting documents. That implies that the NRAs are to use theoretical costaccounting models.
Vendar pa družba Arcor zatrjuje, da obstajajo v Prilogi V k Direktivi 97/33 določbe, na podlagi katerih je mogoče sklepati, da je imel zakonodajalec Skupnosti namen zagotoviti uporabo sistema stro�kovnega računovodstva, ki bi temeljil na podrobnih listinah, tako da prigla�eni obratovalec tega sistema ne bi mogel obiti s predložitvijo nepopolnih ali nerazumljivih računovodskih listin, kar bi pomenilo, da se morajo NRO zateči k teoretičnim modelom stro�kovnega računovodstva.
Supposing that to be the case, in the absence of an express provision to that effect, it cannot be inferred from Annex V to Directive 97/33 alone that there is an obligation to prove in each case, by means of complete and comprehensible documents, the costs taken into account when applying the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation.
Tudi ob domnevi, da to drži, pa glede na to, da ni izrecne določbe v tem smislu, zgolj iz Priloge V k Direktivi 97/33 ni mogoče sklepati, da v vsakem primeru obstaja obveznost izkazovanja stro�kov, ki jih je treba upo�tevati v okviru uporabe načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, s popolnimi in razumljivimi listinami.
In that regard, the Court observes that Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 2887/2000 provides that the NRA is to have the power to require notified operators to supply information relevant for the implementation of that regulation.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da člen 4(2)(b) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 določa, da je NRO poobla�čen od prigla�enih obratovalcev zahtevati, da predložijo informacije, ki so primerne za izvajanje te uredbe.
Thus, pursuant to that provision, NRAs may request information even in respect of documents justifying costs which have to be taken into consideration when applying the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation, laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000.
Na podlagi te določbe lahko torej NRO zahtevajo informacije, in sicer tudi listine, ki izkazujejo stro�ke, ki jih je treba upo�tevati v okviru uporabe načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke iz člena 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000.
It follows from the above that the answer to Question 3(b) must be that, pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 2887/2000, the NRA may request notified operators to supply relevant information on the documents justifying the costs taken into account when applying the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je treba na tretje vpra�anje, točka (b), odgovoriti, da lahko NRO na podlagi člena 4(2)(b) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 od prigla�enega obratovalca zahtevajo, da jim predloži primerne informacije o listinah, ki izkazujejo stro�ke, ki se upo�tevajo v okviru uporabe načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke.
Since Community law does not contain any provision concerning the accounting documents to be checked, it is the task of the NRAs alone, in accordance with the law applicable, to examine whether, for the purposes of cost-accounting, the documents produced are the most appropriate ones.
Glede na to, da v pravu Skupnosti ni določb v zvezi z računovodskimi listinami, ki bi se preverjale, o tem, ali so predložene listine najustreznej�e za potrebe stro�kovnega računovodstva, v skladu z veljavnim pravom odločajo izključno NRO.
— Question 3(c): analytical cost models
– Tretje vpra�anje, točka (c), v zvezi z analitičnimi modeli stro�kov
As regards analytical cost models, it should be noted, as a preliminary point, that, in the analytical model for bottomup costs, it is necessary to take account of the current value of the investments in the construction of a new network.
V zvezi z analitičnimi modeli stro�kov je treba uvodoma opozoriti, da je treba v okviru analitičnega modela stro�kov od spodaj navzgor, imenovanega tudi model „bottom up“, upo�tevati trenutno vrednost naložb, potrebnih za izgradnjo novega omrežja.
That model is based on the costs which an operator would incur to acquire and exploit its own network.
Ta model temelji na stro�kih, ki naj bi jih imel obratovalec s tem, da je vzpostavil in da uporablja svoje omrežje.
By contrast, the top-down model is based on the costs actually incurred by the notified operator.
Nasprotno pa model od zgoraj navzdol, imenovan tudi „top down“, temelji na stro�kih, ki jih je prigla�eni obratovalec dejansko imel.
In that regard, it should be noted at the outset that neither Regulation No 2887/2000 nor Directives 97/33 and 98/10 contain any concrete and consistent guidance on the question referred by the national court.
V zvezi s tem je treba najprej ugotoviti, da niti Uredba �t. 2887/2000 niti direktivi 97/33 in 98/10 ne vsebujejo konkretnih in skladnih določb o vpra�anju, ki ga je zastavilo predložitveno sodi�če.
In addition, the fifth recital in the preamble to Recommendation 98/322 states that although the bottomup economic/engineering models are becoming highly sophisticated, they are as yet imperfect, and thus reconciliation of top-down and bottomup approaches is advised for the foreseeable future.
Poleg tega je v uvodni izjavi 5 Priporočila 98/322 zapisano, da postajajo ekonomski modeli od spodaj navzgor sicer visoko izpopolnjeni, a hkrati ostajajo nepopolni, zato se za predvidljivo prihodnost svetuje približevanje pristopov od spodaj navzgor in od zgoraj navzdol.
Therefore, it is apparent from Regulation No 2887/2000 and the legislation of the FRF applicable in the case in the main proceedings that there is no evidence to establish to the required legal standard that the Community legislature opted for either a bottomup or a top-down accounting model.
V Uredbi �t. 2887/2000 in besedilih NekdRO, ki jih je treba uporabiti v postopku v glavni stvari, torej ni najti določb, ki bi z zadostno verjetnostjo izkazovale opredeljenost zakonodajalca Skupnosti za računovodski model od spodaj navzgor ali od zgoraj navzdol.
In the absence of further clarification, it must be found that Community law leaves to the NRAs, on the basis of the applicable law, the choice of costaccounting method which they deem most appropriate in a specific case.
Ker ni drugih podrobnej�ih določb, je treba ugotoviti, da pravo Skupnosti NRO dopu�ča, da na podlagi veljavnega prava izberejo metode stro�kovnega računovodstva, ki se jim jih zdijo glede na primer najustreznej�e.
In those circumstances it is not necessary to answer the subsequent question concerning the methodological requirements of the valuation based on an analytical model of bottomup or top-down costs.
Glede na to ni treba odgovoriti na naslednje vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča v zvezi z metodolo�kimi zahtevami vrednotenja, ki temelji na analitičnem modelu stro�kov od spodaj navzgor ali od zgoraj navzdol.
The answer to Question 3(c) must therefore be that when NRAs are applying the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation, Community law does not preclude them, in the absence of complete and comprehensible accounting documents, from determining the costs on the basis of an analytical bottomup or top-down cost model.
Na tretje vpra�anje, točka (c), je treba torej odgovoriti tako, da pravo Skupnosti ne izključuje, da se NRO v okviru uporabe načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, če ni na voljo popolnih in razumljivih računovodskih listin, pri določanju stro�kov oprejo na analitični model stro�kov od spodaj navzgor ali od zgoraj navzdol.
Question 1: the scope of the principle that rates for access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation
Prvo vprašanje v zvezi s področjem uporabe načela stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke
By its first question the national court asks whether Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2887/2000 must be understood as meaning that the principle that rates for access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation, laid down in Article 3(3) of that regulation, constitutes a minimum requirement from which national law of the Member States may not deviate to the prejudice of beneficiaries.
Predložitveno sodi�če se s prvim vpra�anjem spra�uje, ali je treba člen 1(4) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 razumeti tako, da načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke iz člena 3(3) navedene uredbe predstavlja minimalni pogoj, od katerega nacionalna zakonodaja držav članic ne sme odstopati v �kodo upravičencev.
In that regard, pursuant to Article 1(4) thereof, Regulation No 2887/2000 is without prejudice to the rights of Member States to maintain or introduce measures in conformity with Community law which contain more detailed provisions than those set out in that regulation and/or are outside the scope of that regulation, inter alia with respect to other types of access to local infrastructures.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da se v skladu s členom 1(4) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 ta uredba uporablja, ne da bi posegala v pravice držav članic, da v skladu z zakonodajo Skupnosti ohranijo ali uvedejo ukrepe, ki vsebujejo podrobnej�e določbe, kot so tiste, ki jih vsebuje ta uredba in/ali ne spadajo na področje uporabe te uredbe, med drugim v zvezi z drugimi vrstami dostopa do lokalnih infrastruktur.
As regards Article 3(3) of that regulation, it should also be pointed out that it merely states, in a general manner, that notified operators are to charge prices for unbundled access to the local loop set on the basis of costorientation, without any further details.
Glede člena 3(3) te uredbe pa je treba prav tako opozoriti, da se omejuje na splo�no navedbo, da prigla�eni obratovalci zaračunavajo cene za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke na podlagi stro�kovne naravnanosti, pri čemer ne vsebuje podrobnej�ih določb.
In view of the wording of those provisions of Regulation No 2887/2000 and the facts of the case in the main proceedings, it must be found that, by its first question, the national court asks the Court of Justice, in essence, whether detailed national measures, adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 1(4) of that regulation, are capable of rendering inapplicable the principle that rates for access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation, as laid down in Article 3(3) of that regulation.
Ob upo�tevanju vsebine zgoraj navedenih določb Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 in dejanskih okoli�čin spora o glavni stvari je treba ugotoviti, da predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem Sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali lahko podrobnej�i nacionalni ukrepi, sprejeti v skladu z določbami člena 1(4) te uredbe, preprečijo učinkovanje načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, kot je to opredeljeno v členu 3(3) navedene uredbe.
In that regard, the Court notes, first, that Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2887/2000 does grant the Member States the possibility to maintain in force or to introduce measures which contain more detailed provisions than those laid down in that regulation and, in particular, those concerning the principle that rates for access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation.
Glede tega je treba najprej podrobneje pojasniti, da člen 1(4) državam članicam sicer dopu�ča, da ohranijo ali uvedejo ukrepe, ki vsebujejo podrobnej�e določbe, kot so tiste v tej uredbi, zlasti tiste, ki se nana�ajo na načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke.