natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On appeal, the Oberlandesgericht Köln, after noting that Directive 2000/35 could be relied on in order to fill lacunae in the interconnection contract on this point, took the view that Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Directive could also correspond to the majority view in German law that, in the event of payment by transfer, it is the late execution of the transfer order and not the late receipt of the sum which is important.
Oberlandesgericht Köln je v okviru pritožbe po tem, ko je poudarilo, da bi se bilo glede tega mogoče sklicevati na Direktivo z namenom zapolnitve praznin v pogodbi o medomrežnem sodelovanju, menilo, da bi lahko člen 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35 ustrezal tudi prevladujoči razlagi v nem�kem pravu, v skladu s katero je v primeru plačila z nakazilom bistvena prepozna izvr�itev naloga za nakazilo in ne prepozni prejem zneska. Navedeni člen, ki določa, da se zamudne obresti ne dolgujejo, če dolžnik
The abovementioned article, in specifying that interest for late payment is not due where the debtor ‘is not responsible for the delay’, indicates, according to the referring court, that a payment, even late, may be regarded as ‘received’ on time by the creditor where the debtor has done what is necessary for the sum due to be transferred in good time.
„Ali je nacionalna ureditev, v skladu s katero v obliki bančnega nakazila izvedeno plačilo, ki preprečuje dolžnikovo zamudo pri plačilu ali jo končuje, ni odvisno od trenutka knjiženja v dobro zneska na upnikovem računu, ampak od trenutka naloga za nakazilo, ki ga je ob zadostnem kritju na računu ali ustrezni kreditni sposobnosti dal dolžnik in ga je
Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions?’ relations.
Sodi�če je v sodbi QDQ Média 5 opozorilo na to načelo v odgovoru na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki se prav tako nana�a na razlago Direktive 2000/35.
In its judgment in QDQ Média, the Court had occasion to recall that principle in reply to a question referred for a preliminary ruling which also related to the interpretation of Directive 2000/35.
banka sprejela, v skladu s členom 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35/ES Parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. junija 2000 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih?“
Before analysing the substance, it is appropriate to examine whether the question referred for a preliminary ruling is admissible.
Pred vsebinsko analizo je treba preučiti dopustnost vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
Nevertheless, by virtue of the principle of interpretation in conformity with the requirements of Community law and the obligation of genuine cooperation as set out in Article 10 EC, the Court has consistently pointed out that a national court called upon to interpret national law is bound to interpret it, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive concerned in order to achieve the result sought by the directive. 6
Vendar je Sodi�če v skladu z načelom skladne razlage in obveznosti lojalnega sodelovanja, kot je določena v členu 10 ES, vztrajno opozarjalo, da mora nacionalno sodi�če razlagati nacionalno pravo kolikor je mogoče glede na besedilo in namen direktive, da bi se dosegel rezultat, ki ga zasleduje slednja 6.
Such an obligation cannot be called into question in the main proceedings by the fact that the period for transposition of Directive 2000/35 had not yet expired at the material time.
Upo�tevnost postavljenega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, čeprav ni predmet razprave med strankami, zasluži nekaj dodatnih pojasnil.
Although the relevance of the question referred for a preliminary ruling does not appear to be the subject of debate in the parties’ observations, this merits some amplification.
Te obveznosti naj v postopku v glavni stvari ne bi izpodbijala okoli�čina, da se rok za prenos Direktive 200/35 v času nastanka dejstev �e ni iztekel.
4 — See, inter alia, Case 152/84 Marshall [1986] ECR 723; Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I-4135; and Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer and Others [2004] ECR I-8835.
4 – Glej zlasti sodbe z dne 26. februarja 1986 v zadevi Marshall (152/84, Recueil, str. 723); z dne 13. novembra 1990 v zadevi Marleasing (C-106/89, Recueil, str.
5 — Case C-235/03 QDQ Média [2005] ECR I-1937.
5 – Sodba z dne 10. marca 2005 (C-235/03, ZOdl., str. I-1937).
6 — Case 14/83 von Colson and Kamann [1984] ECR 1891, paragraph 26; Marleasing, paragraph 8; Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 113; and Case C-212/04 Adeneler and Others [2006] ECR I-6057, paragraph 108.
1891, točka 26); zgoraj navedeni sodbi Marleasing, točka 8; Pfeiffer in drugi, točka 110, in sodba z dne 4. julija 2006 v zadevi Adeneler in drugi (C-212/04, ZOdl., str. I-6057, točka 108).
Since this is a dispute between individuals, account must be taken of the fact that,
Ker gre za spor med posamezniki, je treba upo�tevati dejstvo, da sama Direktiva v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča ne more ustvarjati pravic in obveznosti v okviru
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-306/06
POIARESA MADURA – ZADEVA C-306/06 je sprejel člen 286 BGB.
Since its judgment in Inter-Environne-ment Wallonie, 7 the Court considers, on the chosen to implement the provisions of Directive 2000/35 early, by adopting Paragraph 286 of the BGB. In those circumstances, the Court considers: basis of the second paragraph of Article 10 EC and Article 249 EC, that, during the period laid down for its implementation, the Member States to which a directive is addressed must refrain from adopting measures liable seriously to compromise the achievement of the result prescribed.
Sodi�če od sodbe Inter-Environne-ment Wallonie 7dalje, na podlagi člena 10, drugi odstavek, ES in člena 249 ES, namreč meni, da se mora država članica naslovnica med rokom za prenos vzdržati sprejemanja določb, ki bi resno ogrozile izvedbo cilja, ki je določen v tej direktivi.
That is all the more so where the question referred to the Court does not concern the possible exclusion of a national provision but its interpretation where it is already treated with caution in the relevant legal order.
To velja �e toliko bolj, če se vpra�anje, postavljeno Sodi�ču, ne nana�a na morebitno izključitev nacionalne določbe, ampak na njeno razlago, če je ta že zajamčena v okviru upo�tevanega pravnega reda.
Moreover, the Court has stated that:
Poleg tega je Sodi�če pojasnilo, da:
‘Thus, when it applies domestic law, and in particular legislative provisions specifically adopted for the purpose of implementing the requirements of a directive, the national court is bound to interpret national law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive concerned in order to achieve the result sought by the directive and consequently comply with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC’. 9
„Zato mora nacionalno sodi�če pri uporabi notranjega prava in zlasti določb predpisov, posebej sprejetih za izvr�itev zahtev direktive, nacionalno pravo v največji možni meri razlagati glede na besedilo in namen zadevne direktive, da bi se dosegel rezultat, ki ga ta določa, in se mora zato ravnati po členu 249, tretji odstavek, ES 9“.
‘from the date upon which a directive has entered into force, the courts of the Member States must refrain as far as possible from interpreting domestic law in a manner which might seriously compromise, after the period for transposition has expired, attainment of the objective pursued by that directive’. 8
„[O]d datuma, ko je direktiva začela veljati, se morajo sodi�ča držav članic v največji možni meri vzdržati razlage notranjega prava, ki bi po izteku roka za prenos, resno ogrozila izvedbo cilja, ki ga zasleduje ta direktiva“ 8.
Finally, in the dispute in the main proceedings, the national legislature had
Nazadnje, v postopku v glavni stvari se je nacionalni zakonodajalec odločil, da vnaprej prenese določbe Direktive 2000/35 tako, da
In those circumstances, in interpreting the implementing provisions in accordance with the Directive, the court must take account of the intention of the national legislature which sought rapid implementation.
V teh okoli�činah mora sodi�če upo�tevati voljo nacionalnega zakonodajalca, ki je želel hitri prenos s tem, da je izvedbene določbe razlagal v skladu z direktivo 10.
10Since Paragraphs 269, 270 and 286 of the BGB may be interpreted in different ways, resolution of the dispute depends to a great extent on the interpretation given by the Court to Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Directive on late payment, such that the relevance of the question put to the Court must be regarded as established.
Ker se členi 269, 270 in 286 BGB lahko razlagajo na različne načine, je re�itev spora precej odvisna od razlage Sod�ča člena 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive o zamudi pri plačilu, tako da je vpra�anje, postavljeno Sodi�ču, treba �teti za upo�tevno.
9 — Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 113.10 — Pfeiffer and Others and Adeneler and Others.
9 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Pfeiffer in drugi (točka 113).10 – Zgoraj navedeni sodbi Pfeiffer in drugi in Adeneler in drugi.
8 — Adeneler and Others, paragraph 123.
8 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Adeneler in drugi, točka 123.
B — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) the sum due must be credited to the creditor’s account on the due date if interest for late payment is no longer to be payable.
Direktive knjižiti v dobro na upnikov račun, tako da ta ne bi bil več upravičen do zamudnih obresti.
The Court is asked essentially to determine on the basis of which operation a payment made by bank transfer may be regarded as correctly executed in the context of a commercial transaction and, accordingly, as not giving rise to the charging of interest for late payment within the meaning of Directive 2000/35.
Predložitevno sodi�če je Sodi�če v bistvu vpra�alo, od katere transakcije se lahko plačilo, izvedeno z bančnim nakazilom, �teje za pravilno izvedenega v okviru trgovinske transakcije in torej ne povzroči nastanka zamudnih obresti v smislu Direktive 2000/35.
In support of that argument, it will also be noted that that requirement tallies perfectly with the objective of ensuring that creditors have effective protection against late payment, as is clear from recitals 7, 16, 19 and 20 in the preamble to Directive 2000/35, late payment constituting ‘an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market’.
V podporo tej tezi je treba prav tako poudariti, da ta zahteva povsem sovpada s ciljem zagotoviti učinkovito varstvo upnika zoper zamude pri plačilu, kot jasno izhaja iz sedme, sedemnajste in devetnajste uvodne izjave Direktive 2000/35, saj navedene zamude pomenijo „oviranje pravilnega delovanja notranjega trga“ 11.
11The textual and teleological interpretations thus, at first sight, concur in favour of the requirement of effective payment of the amount due in the sense that the beneficiary should have at his disposal the amount credited to his account.
Besedna in teleolo�ka razlaga torej na prvi pogled govorita v prid zahtevi po dejanskem plačilu dolgovanega zneska tako, da prejemnik lahko razpolaga z zneskom, vknjiženim na svoj račun.
The claimant and the Commission of the European Communities argue for a rigorous interpretation of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35, taking the view that the provision requires the debtor to ensure that the creditor has the amount due at his disposal on the due date.
Tožeča stranka in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti zagovarjata ozko razlago člena 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35, saj menita, da ta določba dolžniku nalaga, naj zagotovi upniku pravočasno razpolaganje z dolgovanim zneskom.
In other words, only when the funds are actually credited to the creditor’s account will entitlement to payment of interest for late payment be brought to an end or avoided.
Z drugimi besedami, zgolj trenutek, ko so sredstva fizično knjižena v dobro na upnikov račun, naj bi ustavil oziroma preprečil plačilo zamudnih obresti.
However, that interpretation imposes a responsibility on the debtor which does not appear to be his.
Ta razlaga pa prelaga odgovornost na dolžnika, ki naj le-te ne bi imel.
It requires him to anticipate exactly the time necessary for the transaction to be handled by the various financial institutions involved.
Dolžnika namreč zavezuje, da natančno upo�teva roke, potrebne za izvr�itev transakcij s strani različnih finančnih subjektov, ki so udeleženi v njih.
Although the view may be taken that the originator of the transfer must accept responsibility for delays in payment attributable to his financial institution, that
Vendar, če �tejemo, da mora dajalec naloga prevzeti zamude pri plačilu, za katere je odgovorna njegova finančna ustanova, ne velja enako za tiste zamude, ki jih sproži
11 — See, inter alia, recitals 9 and 10 in the preamble to Directive 2000/35 as set out in Commission Recommendation 95/198/EC of 12 May 1995 on payment periods in commercial transactions (OJ 1995 L 127, p. 19).
11 – Glej zlasti deveto in deseto uvodno izjavo Direktive 2000/35, ki sta navedeni že v Priporočilu Komisije 95/198/ES z dne 12. maja 1995 o rokih za plačilo v trgovinskih poslih (UL L 127, str. 19).
It is true that a literal interpretation of the article, in most language versions, appears to confirm that position by stating that the creditor is entitled to interest for late payment if he ‘has not received the amount due on time’.
Res je, da naj bi dobesedna razlaga navedenega člena potrjevala to stali�če, ker določa, da je upnik upravičen do zamudnih obresti, če „[…] ni prejel dolgovanega zneska pravočasno […]“.
The choice of that verb by the Community legislature leads to the view that
Izbira te besede s strani zakonodajalca Skupnosti, potrjena v različnih jezikovnih različicah, namreč napeljuje k temu, da je treba dolgovani znesek pravočasno
is not the case as regards those caused by the creditor’s institution or by the creditor himself.
upnikova finančna ustanova oziroma celo sam upnik.
Furthermore, such an interpretation is contrary to that adopted by Direct- ive 97/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 on crossborder credit transfers, 12 according to which responsibility for late payment caused by the financial institution of the beneficiary must be accepted by the creditor and not by the debtor. 13
Taka razlaga med drugim nasprotuje tisti iz Direktive 97/5/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 27. januarja 1997 o čezmejnih nakazilih 12, v skladu s katero mora odgovornost prejemnikove finanačne ustanove v primeru zamude pri plačilu prevzeti upnik, in ne dolžnik 13.
It seems to me that such an interpretation must be excluded for two main reasons.
Taka razlaga po mojem mnenju ni dopustna zaradi dveh glavnih razlogov.
Firstly and despite clear progress on delays and transparency in banking transactions, 14it remains impossible, at the present time, for the debtor accurately to determine the date on which the creditor’s financial institution will transfer the funds to the creditor’s account.
Prvič, in kljub napredku na področju rokov in preglednosti bančnih transakcij 14, je trenutno nemogoče, da bi dolžnik z gotovostjo določil datum, ko bo upnikova finančna ustanova prenesla sredstva na račun slednjega.
Accordingly, to elevate into a principle a requirement that, in any event, can be based only on an estimation undermines the principle of legal certainty.
Zato postavitev za načelo zahteve, ki se v vsakem primeru opira le na oceno, posega v načelo pravne varnosti.
Nevertheless, the solution could be found in the second part of the article submitted for interpretation by the Court, according to which a creditor who has not received the amount due on time is entitled to interest for late payment, ‘unless the debtor is not responsible for the delay’.
Vendar je re�itev mogoče razbrati iz drugega dela člena, ki je predmet razlage Sodi�ča, v skladu s katerim je upnik, ki dolgovanega zneska ni prejel pravočasno, upravičen do zamudnih obresti „razen, če dolžnik ni odgovoren za zamudo“.
At the hearing, the Commission thus argued for the view that Article 3(1)(c)(ii) could be interpreted as laying down the principle, in the case of payment by transfer, that entry on the account of the creditor of the sum invoiced on time would avoid or end late payment, except in circumstances, which remain to be determined, of late payment for which the debtor was not responsible.
Komisija je tako na obravnavi zagovarjala stali�če, da bi bilo mogoče člen 3(1)(c)(ii) razlagati tako, da v primeru plačila z nakazilom postavlja načelo pravočasnega knjiženja zaračunanega zneska na upnikov račun, da bi se tako preprečila ali končala – razen v okoli�činah zamude pri plačilu, ki jih je treba določiti – zamuda, za katero odgovornosti ni mogoče naložiti dolžniku.
However, such a reading supposes a split between the two
Taka razlaga pa predpostavlja cepitev dveh delov člena 3(1)(c)(ii)
14 — In this regard, reference may be made to the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of Directive 97/5 (COM/2002/663 final).
14 – Na tem mestu se lahko sklicujemo na poročilo Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu o uporabi Direktive 97/5 (COM/2002/663 konč).
This report thus states that nearly 90% of credit transfers arrived within the time indicated by the executing institution. A further 8% arrived within 3 days after the time indicated (paragraph 3.7.2.1).
V poročilu je navedeno, da je skoraj 90 % naročil prispelo do naslovnika v navedenih rokih in 8 % v treh dneh po navedenem datumu (točka 3.7.2.1).
Furthermore, it is established that transfers took on average x2.97 days. 95.4% of transfers arrived within 6 working days, which is the default time specified in Directive 97/5 (paragraph 3.8.2).
Poleg tega je ugotovljeno, da so bila ta naročila v poprečju prejeta v 2,97 dneva; 95,4 % jih je prispelo v �estih delovnih dneh v skladu s privzetim časom, navedenim v Direktivi 97/5 (točka 3.8.2).
See also the Proposal for a Directive on payment services (COM (2005) 603 final), especially Articles 26, 28 and 60 of that directive, which impose a precise obligation on the service provider to inform the beneficiaries with regard, inter alia, to the ‘execution time for the payment service to be provided’ (Article 26(1)(a)(ii)).
Glej tudi predlog direktive o plačilnih storitvah [COM(2005) 603 konč.], zlasti člene 26, 28 in 60 te direktive, ki določa natančno obveznost ponudnika storitev, da obve�ča prejemnike zlasti glede „roka za izvr�itev, v katerem mora biti izvedeno plačilo“ (člen 26(1)(a)(ii).
The draft also seeks to require the payer’s payment service provider to credit the payee’s payment account at the latest at the end of the first working day following the point in time of acceptance (Article 60).
Osnutek prav tako stremi k zahtevi, da plačnikov ponudnik plačilnih storitev naročeni znesek knjiži v dobro na plačilni račun prejemnika plačila najpozneje ob koncu prvega delovnega dne po datumu sprejema (člen 60).
01051 TELECOM the principle of equality that the definition of responsibility with regard to late payment thus represents an autonomous Community law definition which is to be interpreted in a uniform manner.
01051 TELECOM da pojem odgovornosti na področju zamude pri plačilu torej pomeni samostojni pojem prava Skupnosti, ki ga je treba razlagati enotno 15.
15 may find it impossible to determine the point from which he is free of his obligation, the creditor too could be forced to accept a risk which he cannot control, where delays in payment were caused by the debtor’s financial institution.
tovosti, tako za dolžnika kot tudi za upnika. Če namreč dolžnik ne bi mogel določiti trenutka, ko bi bil re�en obveznosti, bi bil lahko tudi upnik zavezan prevzeti tveganje, ki ga ne bi mogel nadzirati, saj bi bila za zamude pri plačilu odgovorna dolžnikova finančna ustanova.
Lastly, in any event, I would point out that the Directive was adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC.
Nazadnje, v vsakem primeru je treba opozoriti, da je bila Direktiva 2000/35 sprejeta na podlagi člena 95 ES.
Consequently, the main object- ive which it pursues is indeed the approximation of the laws of the Member States.
Zato je glavni cilj, ki ga zasleduje, prav približevanje zakonodaj držav članic.
To that end, it seeks to eliminate obstacles to the smooth running of the internal market arising in particular as a result of divergences between the national legal orders.
V ta namen se Direktiva 2000/35 nana�a na odstranitev ovir pravilnemu delovanju notranjega trga, ki izhajajo zlasti iz razlik med nacionalnimi pravnimi redi.
An interpretation of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) which left to the Member States the task of determining what is meant by ‘receipt of the amount due on time’ as cases where the debtor cannot be held responsible for late payment would amount, as has already been emphasised, to reintroducing disparities between the national rules which the Community legislature wished precisely to avoid.
Vendar bi razlaga člena 3(1)(c)(ii), ki bi državam članicam dopu�čala, da opredelijo koncept „pravočasnega prejema dolgovanega zneska“ kot primere, v katerih naj bi bila odgovornost dolžnika na področju zamude pri plačilu izključena, pripeljala do, kot je bilo že razsojeno, ponovne vzpostavitve razlik med nacionalnimi ureditvami, ki se jim je zakonodajalec Skupnosti želel izogniti.
Secondly, the interpretation envisaged means that the circumstances in which the debtor would not be responsible for late payment are left to the discretion of the Member States.
Drugič, zadevna razlaga vodi do tega, da pu�ča presojo okoli�čin, v katerih naj dolžnik ne bi bil odgovoren za zamudo pri plačilu, državam članicam.
Although exceptions are to be interpreted strictly, that could reintroduce disparities between the Member States which would be directly contrary to the objective of harmonisation pursued by Direct- ive 2000/35 and, more generally, to the smooth functioning of the common market.
Čeprav se morajo izjeme razlagati ozko, bi to lahko ponovno vzpostavilo razlike med državami članicami, ki bi se nana�ale neposredno na cilj usklajevanja, ki ga določa Direktiva 2000/35, in splo�neje na pravilno delovanje skupnega trga.
As stated in recital 10 in the preamble to that directive: ‘distortions of competition would ensue if substantially different rules applied to domestic and transborder operations’.
Kot določa deseta uvodna izjava: „Če bi za domače in čezmejno poslovanje veljala bistveno drugačna pravila, bi pri�lo do izkrivljanja konkurence“.
That would be the case if exoneration from responsibility had to be decided in the context of national laws under which the rules on the subject differed.
Za to bi �lo v primeru, če bi se o oprostitvah odgovornosti odločalo v okviru nacionalnih pravnih redov, katerih predpisi se na tem področju razlikujejo.
None the less, it cannot meet the objectives of the Directive either to take the view that mere execution of the transfer order, accepted by the debtor’s financial institution,
Poleg tega na cilje direktive prav tako ne bi bilo mogoče odgovoriti z ugotovitvijo, da zgolj izvedba naloga za nakazilo, ki ga je sprejela dolžnikova finančna ustanova, slednjega odvezuje njegove obveznosti. Taka razlaga bi direktivi odvzela polni učinek.
Moreover, although the Directive regularly refers back to national law and confines itself to laying down minimal requirements for the combating of late payment, there is no such reference in Article 3(1)(c)(ii).
Poleg tega, čeprav Direktiva redno napotuje na nacionalne pravne rede in čeprav se omejuje na določanje minimalnih zahtev na področju boja zoper zamude pri plačilu, ni nobeno tak�no napotilo določeno v členu 3(1)(c)(ii).
It follows both from the requirements of uniform application of Community law and
Iz zahtev tako enotne uporabe prava Skupnosti kot načela enakosti izhaja,
Although such interest is due automatically when the transfer order is late, the creditor also needs to know the date on which the order was passed to the payer’s financial institution.
negotov položaj glede datuma upravičenosti do zamudnih obresti. Čeprav se te v primeru prepoznega nakazila dolgujejo avtomatično, mora upnik vseeno vedeti za datum, ko je bil nalog prene�en na finančno ustanovo plačnika.