natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The tariffs shall take account of the avoided costs, as compared to the standard service covering the complete range of features offered for the clearance, transport, sorting and delivery of individual postal items and, together with the associated conditions, shall apply equally both as between different third parties and as between third parties and universal service providers supplying equivalent services.
Tarife morajo upo�tevati stro�ke, do katerih ni pri�lo v primerjavi s standardnimi storitvami, ki zajemajo celotno ponudbo za sprejem, prevoz, usmerjanje in dostavo posameznih po�tnih po�iljk in se skupaj s povezanimi pogoji enako uporabljajo tako med različnimi tretjimi strankami kot med tretjimi strankami in izvajalci univerzalnih storitev, ki opravljajo podobne storitve.
Any such tariffs shall also be available to private customers who post under similar conditions.’
Vse take tarife so na voljo tudi zasebnim strankam, ki uporabljajo po�tne storitve pod podobnimi pogoji.“
It is clear from that provision that, if a universal postal service provider applies special tariffs, it must, in order to observe the principles of transparency and non-discrim-ination, apply them equally in particular as between third parties.
Iz te določbe jasno izhaja, da če izvajalec univerzalnih po�tnih storitev uporablja posebne tarife, jih mora zaradi spo�tovanja načel preglednosti in nediskriminacije uporabljati na enak način zlasti v odnosih med tretjimi.
Thus, contrary to the claim of Deutsche Post and the German Government, whenever such a provider applies special tariffs to businesses and/or bulk mailers, consolidators of mail from different customers are entitled to enjoy the same tariffs under the same conditions.
Zato velja, v nasprotju s tem, kar navajata Deutsche Post in nem�ka vlada, da če tak izvajalec uporablja posebne tarife za podjetja in/ali za odpo�iljatelje masovnih po�iljk, morajo združevalci po�iljk več strank imeti pravico do enakih tarif pod enakimi pogoji.
That finding cannot be invalidated by the arguments of Deutsche Post and the German Government to the effect that the fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67 does not require that the intermediaries concerned and the business customers of the universal postal service provider must be treated equally.
Te ugotovitve ni mogoče omajati z argumenti Deutsche Post in nem�ke vlade, ki želita dokazati, da se s členom 12, peta alinea, Direktive 97/67 ne zahteva, da bi bili zadevni združevalci in poslovne stranke izvajalca univerzalnih po�tnih storitev obravnavani popolnoma enako.
In that regard, Deutsche Post and the German Government contend first that the activity of clearance, transport and sorting carried out by the intermediaries concerned falls within the field which can be reserved pursuant to Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67 and which, in fact, was reserved in the public interest by the German legislature to Deutsche Post until 31 December 2007.
Deutsche Post in navedena vlada glede tega najprej navajata, da dejavnost sprejema, prevoza in usmerjanja, ki jo opravljajo zadevni združevalci, sodi na področje, ki je lahko rezervirano na podlagi člena 7(1) Direktive 97/67 in ki ga je nem�ki zakonodajalec v splo�nem interesu dejansko pridržal Deutsche Post do 31. decembra 2007.
As a result, those intermediaries are not authorised to offer the services for which they request special tariffs.
Zato naj slednjim ne bi bilo dovoljeno, da ponudijo storitve, za katere zahtevajo ugodnost posebnih tarif.
On the other hand, business customers act as ‘self-providers’, for the purposes of recital 21 in the preamble to that directive, and cannot, therefore, encroach on Deutsche Post’s exclusive licence.
Nasprotno, poslovne stranke naj bi ravnale kot „izvajalci storitev z lastnimi sredstvi“ v smislu uvodne izjave 21 iste direktive, zato naj ne bi mogli posegati na področje izključnih licenc Deutsche Post.
It must be pointed out that, under the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67, Member States may, to the extent necessary to ensure the maintenance of universal service, continue to reserve services, within certain price and weight limits, to one or more universal service providers.
Treba je poudariti, da na podlagi člena 7(1), prvi pododstavek, Direktive 97/67 države članice lahko, če je to potrebno za zagotovitev ohranitve univerzalne storitve, �e naprej, ob določenih omejitvah glede cen in mase, pridržijo storitev enemu (od) izvajalcu(ev) univerzalnih storitev.
Those services are to be limited to the clearance, sorting, transport and delivery of items of domestic correspondence and incoming crossborder correspondence.
Navedne storitve so omejene na sprejem, usmerjanje, prevoz in dostavo običajnih po�tnih po�iljk notranje korespondence in dohodne čezmejne korespondence.
To the extent necessary to ensure the provision of universal service, direct mail and outgoing crossborder mail may, in accordance with the third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 7(1), also continue to be reserved within the same weight and price limits as those defined in that paragraph.
Če je to potrebno za zagotovitev izvajanja univerzalnih storitev, so lahko neposredna po�ta in odhodne čezmejne po�iljke na podlagi tretjega in četrtega pododstavka navedenega odstavka 1 �e naprej pridržane ob enakih omejitvah glede mase in cene, kot so tiste, določene v tem odstavku.
Nevertheless, as is apparent from the wording of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67, the handling chain which may be reserved to the provider of the universal postal service starts only with clearance.
Vendar, kot izhaja iz člena 7(1), prvi pododstavek, drugi stavek, Direktive 97/67 se veriga prenosa, ki je lahko pridržana izvajalcu univerzalnih po�tnih storitev, začne �ele s sprejemom po�te.
According to Article 2(4) of the directive, ‘clearance’ means the operation of collecting postal items deposited at access points, which are defined, in Article 2(3), as ‘physical facilities, including letter boxes provided for the public either on the public highway or at the premises of the universal service provider, where postal items may be deposited with the public postal network by customers’.
V skladu s členom 2, točka 4, te direktive „sprejem“ pomeni proces sprejemanja po�tnih po�iljk, ki so bile oddane prek točk dostopa, ki so določene v točki 3 istega člena, kot „fizični objekti ali naprave, skupaj s po�tnimi nabiralniki na javnih glavnih cestah ali v prostorih izvajalca univerzalne po�tne storitve, kjer lahko uporabniki oddajo po�tne po�iljke javnemu po�tnemu omrežju“.
Physical facilities such as the sorting offices of Deutsche Post are access points within the meaning of Article 2(3).
Torej je treba ugotoviti, da fizični objekti, kot so po�tni centri Deutsche Post, pomenijo točke dostopa v smislu navedenega člena 2, točka 3.
It is common ground that Deutsche Post’s business customers may deposit there their postal items with the public postal network maintained by it as universal postal service provider.
Ugotoviti je namreč treba, da poslovne stranke te družbe lahko tam oddajo svoje po�tne po�iljke v javno po�tno omrežje, ki ga ta vzdržuje kot izvajalka univerzalne po�tne storitve.
Contrary to the claim of Deutsche Post, whether the partial services provided by those business customers themselves or in their name up to the point of deposit of their items in the sorting offices can or cannot be classified as ‘self-provision’ is not relevant in that regard.
V nasprotju s tem, kar navaja Deutsche Post, vpra�anje, ali se delne storitve, ki jih opravijo te poslovne stranke same oziroma v svojem imenu do dostave po�iljk v po�tne centre, lahko opredelijo kot „prenos z lastnimi sredstvi“ ali ne, glede tega ni upo�tevno.
Moreover, as the German Government points out in its written observations, beyond the scope of Deutsche Post’s exclusive licence, on the basis of the Law on postal services, its competitors also have access to the sorting offices and the discounts granted for partial services.
Poleg tega, kot to poudarja nem�ka vlada v svojih pisnih stali�čih, zunaj področja izključne licence Deutsche Post, imajo konkurenti na podlagi po�tnega zakona dostop tudi do po�tnih centrov in popustov, odobrenih za delne storitve.
Such access seems to be necessary because, as Vedat Deniz explains in its written observations, without being contradicted on that point, the letter boxes and post offices of Deutsche Post are too small to receive or deal with large quantities of items.
Tak dostop se zdi potreben zaradi dejstva, da – kot je Vedat Deniz navedel v svojih pisnih stači�čih, ne da bi mu kdo glede tega ugovarjal – so po�tni nabiralniki in po�tni uradi Deutsche Post premajhni, da bi se tam lahko sprejelo in obdelalo tako veliko po�iljk.
It must therefore be stated that an activity such as the collection by intermediaries at the premises of various senders of postal items, their pre-sorting and transport to access points such as Deutsche Post sorting offices does not fall within the field which may be reserved under Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da dejavnost, kot je zbiranje po�tnih po�iljk različnih po�iljateljev prek združevalcev, njihovo predsortiranje in prevoz do točk dostopa, kot so po�tni centri, ne sodi na področje, ki bi lahko bilo pridržano na podlagi člena 7(1) Direktive 97/67.
Consequently, that provision cannot be relied upon to justify treatment of the intermediaries concerned which is different from that enjoyed by Deutsche Post’s business customers.
Zato se za utemeljitev, da se zadevne združevalce obravnava drugače kot poslovne stranke navedene družbe, ni mogoče sklicevati na to določbo.
Deutsche Post and the German Government nevertheless contend that permitting intermediaries access to the sorting offices and the corresponding discounts for a partial service with regard to the postal items which, owing to their weight and their price, fall within that company’s exclusive licence would threaten the financial stability of Deutsche Post.
Deutsche Post in nem�ka vlada kljub temu navajata, da bi dejstvo, da se združevalcem odobri dostop do po�tnih centrov in do ustreznega popusta za delne storitve glede zadevnih po�tnih po�iljk, ki glede na njihovo maso in ceno spada v izključno licenco te družbe, ogrozilo njeno finančno ravnovesje.
Those intermediaries would then be able to offer a lucrative group of customers, namely businesses, from which approximately 80% of all items come, the entire postal handling chain, at tariffs lower than those of Deutsche Post.
Ti združevalci bi namreč lahko na ta način dobičkonosnim strankam, to je podjetjem, od katerih bi izviralo 80 odstotkov vseh po�iljk, ponudili celotno verigo po�tnega po�iljanja, in sicer po tarifah, ki bi bile nižje od tarif Deutsche Post.
For more expensive services, in particular distribution in rural areas, those intermediaries would then be able to turn to the services of the universal postal service provider, acting as sub-contractor, which would be bound to maintain in full its structure in terms of operations and personnel.
Za dražje storitve, zlasti za dostavo v bolj ruralnih regijah, pa bi se navedeni združevalci torej lahko zatekli k storitvam ponudnika univerzalnih po�tnih storitev, ki bi deloval kot podizvajalec in bi bil zavezan v celoti ohraniti svojo strukturo sredstev in osebja.
In that regard, it is sufficient to point out that, under the fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67, the special tariffs ‘shall take account of the avoided costs, as compared to the standard service covering the complete range of features offered for the clearance, transport, sorting and delivery of individual postal items’.
V zvezi s tem zado�ča poudarek, da posebne tarife na podlagi člena 12, peta alinea, Direktive 97/67 „upo�tevajo stro�ke, do katerih ni pri�lo v primerjavi s standardnimi storitvami, ki zajemajo celotno ponudbo za sprejem, prevoz, usmerjanje in dostavo posameznih po�tnih po�iljk“.
Those tariffs can therefore be set in such a way that they cover the specific costs linked to the provision of the universal postal service and do not differ from the normal tariffs except due to the fact that the costs actually avoided are deducted from the latter tariffs, with the result that the grant of special tariffs does not affect the financial stability of the universal postal service provider.
Navedene tarife je torej mogoče razumeti, kot da pokrivajo posebne stro�ke, povezane z izvajanjem univerzalnih po�tnih storitev in se od običajnih tarif razlikujejo le zaradi dejstva, da se stro�ki, do katerih dejansko ni pri�lo, odtegnejo od teh tarif, tako da odobritev posebnih tarif ne vpliva na finančno ravnovesje izvajalca univerzalnih po�tnih storitev.
Thus, if it were to turn out that the grant to the intermediaries of the discounts currently agreed only for the business customers of Deutsche Post means that those discounts are excessive compared with the avoided costs, it would be open to the company to reduce those discounts to the extent necessary for all recipients.
Če bi se izkazalo, da dodelitev popustov združevalcem, ki so bili v tem primeru odobreni le poslovnim strankam Deutsche Post, povzroči, da bi bili navedeni rabati prekomerni v primerjavi z nenastalimi stro�ki, bi bilo tej družbi omogočeno, da te popuste zmanj�a, kolikor je potrebno, za vse tiste, ki so do njih upravičeni.
Furthermore, it is not disputed that the distribution of postal items which fall within the scope of the exclusive licence of the universal postal service provider remains, as a rule, reserved to that provider and that the discounts currently agreed by Deutsche Post for its business customers for the deposit, at sorting offices, of minimum quantities of presorted mail vary between 3% and a maximum 21%.
Poleg tega ni sporno, da dostava po�tnih po�iljk, ki sodijo na področje izključne licence izvajalca univerzalnih po�tnih storitev, ostaja načeloma pridržana temu izvajalcu in da popusti, ki jih je v tem primeru Deutsche Post odobrila svojim poslovnim strankam za dostavo minimalnih količin predsortiranih po�iljk v po�tne centre, niha med 3 odstotki in največ 21 odstotki.
Deutsche Post and the German Government also contend that the fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67 is concerned only with tariffs and it cannot, therefore, have the effect of compelling a Member State to open up, within the scope of the exclusive licence of the universal postal service provider, access to partial services to competitors.
Deutsche Post in nem�ka vlada tudi navajata, da naj bi bil člen 12, peta alinea, Direktive 97/67 le tarifna določba in zato ne more povzročiti, da bi bila država članica prisiljena na področju izključne licence izvajalca univerzalnih po�tnih storitev konkurentom omogočiti dostop do delnih storitev.
Access to the public postal network is the subject of Article 11 of that directive, which makes regulation of such access dependent on subsequent action by the Community legislature, which has however not yet used that power.
Dostop do javnega po�tnega omrežja naj bi bil namreč urejen s členom 11 iste direktive, ki določa, da naj bi bila ureditev navedenega dostopa prepu�čena predhodnemu aktu zakonodajalca Skupnosti, vendar slednji �e ni uporabil tega pooblastila.
It is true that the fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67 is not intended to determine the question of principle whether a universal postal service provider is or is not obliged to grant access to the postal chain under conditions and at points different from those which apply to the traditional service for letter post.
Res je, da cilj člena 12, peta alinea, Direktive 97/67 ni urediti načelno vpra�anje, ali izvajalec univerzalnih po�tnih storitev mora odobriti dostop do po�tne verige pod drugačnimi pogoji in na drugačnih točkah v primerjavi s standardno po�tno storitvijo ali ne.
Nevertheless, as is apparent from the wording of that provision, it imposes on the Member States a strict obligation to apply the principles of transparency and non-discrimination where such access to special tariffs is in fact granted by that provider.
Vendar, kot izhaja iz navedene določbe, ta državam članicam nalaga strogo obveznost, da spo�tujejo načeli preglednosti in nediskriminacije, če ta izvajalec dejansko odobri tak dostop do posebnih tarif.
Both Deutsche Post and the German Government concede that Deutsche Post grants its business customers, in an even more liberal way than required by the directive, access to its postal network at points other than the traditional access points and agrees special tariffs for them on that basis.
Deutsche Post in nem�ka vlada priznata, da ta družba �e bolj liberalno, kot to določa navedena direktiva, dodeljuje svojim poslovnim strankam dostop do svojega po�tnega omrežja na točkah, ki niso standardne točke dostopa, in jim v ta namen odobri posebne tarife.
It is precisely such a situation that the fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67 is intended to regulate.
Natančneje, gre za prav tak položaj, ki ga ureja člen 12, peta alinea, Direktive 97/67.
Whenever a provider of the universal postal service applies special tariffs, for example for services for businesses, bulk mailers or consolidators of mail from different customers, the tariffs, together with the associated conditions, are to apply equally as between third parties in particular.
Ko izvajalec univerzalne po�tne storitve uporabi posebne tarife, na primer za storitve podjetjem, po�iljateljem masovnih po�iljk ali združevalcem po�iljk več strank, se navedene tarife in pogoji v zvezi s tem, uporabijo enako pri razmerjih zlasti med tretjimi.
Having regard to all of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred must be that the fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67 is to be interpreted as precluding refusal to apply to businesses which consolidate, on a commercial basis and in their own name, postal items from various senders the special tariffs which the national universal postal service provider grants, within the scope of its exclusive licence, to business customers for the deposit of minimum quantities of presorted mail at its sorting offices.
Glede na vse zgornje ugotovitve je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 12, peta alinea, Direktive 97/67 razlagati tako, da nasprotuje temu, da se podjetjem, ki poslovno in v svojem imenu združujejo po�tne po�iljke več po�iljateljev, zavrne ugodnost posebnih tarif, ki jih nacionalni izvajalec univerzalne po�tne storitve na področju svoje izključne licence odobri poslovnim strankam za dostavo minimalnih količin predsortiranih po�iljk v njegove po�tne centre.
The fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002, must be interpreted as precluding refusal to apply to businesses which consolidate, on a commercial basis and in their own name, postal items from various senders the special tariffs which the national universal postal service provider grants, within the scope of its exclusive licence, to business customers for the deposit of minimum quantities of presorted mail at its sorting offices.
Člen 12, peta alinea, Direktive 97/67/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 15. decembra 1997 o skupnih pravilih za razvoj notranjega trga poštnih storitev v Skupnosti in za izboljšanje kakovosti storitve, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/39/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 10. junija 2002, je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje temu, da se podjetjem, ki poslovno in v svojem imenu združujejo poštne pošiljke več pošiljateljev, zavrne ugodnost posebnih tarif, ki jih nacionalni izvajalec univerzalne poštne storitve na področju svoje izključne licence odobri poslovnim strankam za dostavo minimalnih količin predsortiranih pošiljk v njegove poštne centre.
Case C-82/07
Zadeva C-82/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Tribunal Supremo)
(Electronic communications — Networks and services — Articles 3(2) and 10(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) — National numbering plans — Specific regulatory authority)
„Elektronske komunikacije – Omrežja in storitve – Člena 3(2) in 10(1) Direktive 2002/21/ES (okvirna direktiva) – Nacionalni načrti �tevilčenja – Posebni regulativni organ“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 6 March 2008
Sodba Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 6. marca 2008
Approximation of laws — Electronic communications networks and services — Regulatory framework — Directive 2002/21
Približevanje zakonodaj – Elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve – Regulativni okvir – Direktiva 2002/21
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/21, recital 11 and Arts 3(2) and (4) and 10(1))
(Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/21, enajsta uvodna izjava in člena 3(2) in (4) ter 10(1))
SUMMARY — CASE C-82/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-82/07
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/21, recital 11 and Arts 3(2), (4) and (6) and 10(1))
(Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/21, člena 3(2), (4) in (6) ter 10(1))
Article 10(1) and Article 3(2), (4) and (6) of Directive 2002/21 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services must be interpreted as not precluding the functions of assigning national numbering resources or of managing national numbering plans from being shared by a number of independent regulatory authorities, provided that the allocation of the tasks is made public and easily accessible, and notified to the Commission.
Člena 3(2) in (4) ter 10(1) Direktive 2002/21 o skupnem regulativnem okviru za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve v zvezi z enajsto uvodno izjavo te direktive je treba razlagati tako, da se funkcije dodeljevanja nacionalnih �tevilskih virov in upravljanja nacionalnih načrtov �tevilčenja obravnava kot regulativne funkcije. Države članice niso zavezane dodeliti teh različnih funkcij različnim nacionalnim regulativnim organom.
Articles 3(2), 3(4) and 10(1) of Directive 2002/21 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, read in conjunction with recital 11 in the preamble to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the assignment of the national numbering resources and the management of the national numbering plans must be regarded as regulatory functions. Member States are not required to allocate those different functions to separate regulatory authorities.
Člena 10(1) in 3(2), (4) ter (6) Direktive 2002/21 o skupnem regulativnem okviru za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotujeta temu, da se funkcije dodeljevanja nacionalnih �tevilskih virov in upravljanja nacionalnih načrtov �tevilčenja razdeli med več regulativnih organov, pod pogojem, da se razdelitev nalog javno objavi v preprosto dostopni obliki in da se o njih uradno obvesti Komisijo.
(see para. 21, operative part 1)
(Glej točko 21 in točko 1 izreka.)
(see para. 27, operative part 2)
(Glej točko 27 in točko 2 izreka.)
6 March 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat) z dne 6. marca 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain), made by decision of 23 January 2007, received at the Court on 15 February 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-82/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Tribunal Supremo (Španija) z odločbo z dne 23. januarja 2007, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 15. februarja 2007, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-82/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-82/07 generalni pravobranilec: M.
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Poiares Maduro, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Netherlands Government, by C. Wissels and M. de Grave, acting as Agents,
– za nizozemsko vlado C. Wissels in M. de Grave, zastopnika,