natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Polish Government points out that the limit in time placed on the right of cancellation in the case of contracts concluded away from business premises, notwithstanding the lack of information or the inadequacy of information concerning the exercise of that right, is not, in principle, contrary to the doorstep selling directive.
Poljska vlada poudarja, da časovna omejitev pravice do odstopa v primeru pogodbe, sklenjene zunaj poslovnih prostorov, čeprav pri tem ni bil dan pouk ali da je bil pouk o uveljavljanju te pravice napačen, načeloma ni v nasprotju z direktivo o prodaji od vrat do vrat.
However, that limit must be arranged in such a way as to permit the consumer to become aware of his rights from sources of information other than the trader.
Vseeno pa mora biti ta omejitev taka, da potro�niku omogoča, da se seznani s svojimi pravicami na podlagi drugih virov informacij od teh, ki jih daje trgovec.
In the view of the Polish Government, that limit, which also marks the period during which the right of cancellation may be exercised, must, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 4 of the doorstep selling directive, be laid down in the national legislation of every Member State.
Ta vlada trdi, da mora v skladu s členom 4, tretji odstavek, direktive o prodaji od vrat do vrat navedeno omejitev, ki zajema tudi določitev obdobja, v katerem se lahko izvr�uje pravica do odstopa, določiti nacionalna zakonodaja vsake države članice.
The Commission argues, in substance, that although it is unlawful, according to Heininger, to limit in time the right of cancellation which runs from the conclusion of the contract, the rules at issue in the main proceedings concern a limit in time on that right which runs from the performance in full of the contract.
Komisija v glavnem trdi, da je v skladu z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Heininger nezakonito časovno omejiti pravico do odstopa od trenutka sklenitve pogodbe, da pa se ureditev, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari nana�a na časovno omejitev te pravice od trenutka popolne izpolnitve navedene pogodbe.
It should first be pointed out that the doorstep selling directive is primarily designed to protect consumers against the risks arising from the conclusion of contracts away from business premises (see, to that effect, Schulte, paragraph 66).
Najprej je treba poudariti, da je glavni namen direktive o prodaji od vrat do vrat varstvo potro�nika pred tveganjem, ki izhaja iz okoli�čin sklenitve pogodbe zunaj poslovnih prostorov (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Schulte, točka 66).
Thus, the fifth recital in the preamble to the doorstep selling directive states that the consumer should be given a right of cancellation over a period of at least seven days in order to enable him to assess the obligations arising under the contract.
Tako je v peti uvodni izjavi direktive o prodaji od vrat do vrat pojasnjeno, da bi potro�nik moral imeti pravico do preklica pogodbe v najmanj sedmih dneh, da bi se mu tako omogočilo oceniti obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz pogodbe.
The fact that the minimum period of seven days must be calculated from receipt by the
Dejstvo, da se najkraj�i rok sedmih dni računa od takrat, ko je trgovec potro�nika poučil o tej pravici, je
2008 — CASE C-412/06 consumer of the notice concerning that right is explained by the fact that, if the consumer is not aware of the existence of the right of cancellation, he will not be able to exercise that right (Heininger, paragraph 45).
2008 – ZADEVA C-412/06 utemeljeno s tem, da potro�nik, če ni bil seznanjen s pravico do odstopa, te ne more uresničevati (zgoraj navedena sodba Heininger, točka 45).
As the Advocate General points out in points 18 and 19 of his Opinion, incorrect information concerning exercise of the right of cancellation is equivalent to no information, since both situations are equally misleading for the consumer as regards his right of cancellation.
Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točkah 18 in 19 sklepnih predlogov, je treba posredovanje napačnega pouka potro�niku o uveljavljanju pravice do odstopa �teti za tako, kot da ga sploh ne bi bilo, ker je bil potro�nik v obeh primerih v zmoti glede svoje pravice do odstopa.
For such situations, the third paragraph of Article 4 of the doorstep selling directive provides that ‘Member States shall ensure that their national legislation lays down appropriate consumer protection measures’.
Za take primere direktiva o prodaji od vrat do vrat v členu 4, tretji odstavek, določa, da „[d]ržave članice zagotovijo, da njihova nacionalna zakonodaja določa ustrezne ukrepe za varstvo potro�nikov“.
The question therefore arises in the main proceedings whether a measure which provides that the right of cancellation given by Article 5(1) of that directive is to expire one month after both parties have performed in full their obligations under a long-term loan contract, when the consumer has been given defective notice concerning the exercise of that right, may none the less be regarded as an appropriate consumer protection measure within the meaning of the third indent of Article 4 of that directive.
V postopku v glavni stvari se torej zastavlja vpra�anje, ali se lahko �teje, da je ukrep, v skladu s katerim pravica do odstopa iz člena 5(1) navedene direktive ugasne po enem mesecu od obojestranske celotne izpolnitve obveznosti iz pogodbe o dolgoročnem kreditu, če je potro�nik prejel napačen pouk v zvezi z uveljavljanjem navedene pravice, v smislu člena 4, tretji odstavek, iste direktive ustrezen ukrep za varstvo potro�nikov.
It should be pointed out in that regard that the concept of ‘appropriate consumer protection measures’, to which the third paragraph of Article 4 of the doorstep selling directive refers, indicates that the Community legislature wished to give those measures a uniform scope at Community level.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da pojem „ustrezni ukrepi za varstvo potro�nikov“, na katerega napotuje člen 4, tretji odstavek, direktive o prodaji od vrat do vrat, kaže na to, da je hotel zakonodajalec Skupnosti na ravni Skupnosti poenotiti obseg teh ukrepov.
Moreover, the term ‘appropriate’ in the abovementioned provision indicates that such measures do not seek to provide absolute protection for consumers.
Poleg tega pojem „ustrezni“ v tej določbi kaže na to, da navedeni ukrepi niso namenjeni absolutnemu varstvu potro�nikov.
The Member States must exercise their discretion in accordance both with the principal aim of the doorstep selling directive and with the other provisions thereof.
Države članice morajo namreč svojo diskrecijsko pravico izvr�evati tako v skladu z glavnim namenom direktive o prodaji od vrat do vrat kot tudi v skladu z njenimi drugimi določbami.
Although it is true, as has been pointed out in paragraph 32 of the present judgment, that the principal aim of the doorstep selling directive is to protect consumers, it should be pointed out that both the general structure of the directive and the wording of several of its provisions indicate that such protection is subject to certain limits.
Čeprav je glavni namen direktive o prodaji od vrat do vrat, kot je bilo opozorjeno v točki 32 te sodbe, res varstvo potro�nikov, je treba poudariti, da splo�na sistematika in besedilo več določb te direktive kažeta na to, da veljajo za to varstvo določene omejitve.
Thus, with regard, specifically, to the purpose of the timelimit for cancellation, the fifth recital in the preamble to the directive states — as has been pointed out in paragraph 33 of the present judgment — that that timelimit enables the consumer ‘to assess the obligations arising under the contract’ concluded at the doorstep.
Tako je prav v zvezi z namenom roka za odstop od pogodbe v peti uvodni izjavi navedene direktive navedeno, kot je bilo poudarjeno v točki 33 te sodbe, da daje ta rok potro�niku „[možnost] oceniti obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz pogodbe“, sklenjene od vrat do vrat.
The reference in that recital to the concept of ‘obligations arising under the contract’ indicates that the consumer may cancel such a contract during the time that it is in effect.
Sklicevanje na pojem „obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz pogodbe“ v tej uvodni izjavi kaže na to, da lahko potro�nik odstopi od take pogodbe kadarkoli med njenim trajanjem.
Similarly, the provision which governs the exercise of the right of cancellation — namely, Article 5(1) of the doorstep selling directive — provides, inter alia, that ‘[t]he consumer shall have the right to renounce the effects of his undertaking’.
Prav tako določba, ki ureja uveljavljanje pravice do odstopa, in sicer člen 5(1) direktive o prodaji od vrat do vrat, med drugim določa, da ima „[p]otro�nik […] pravico, da odstopi od pogodbe“.
The use in that provision of the term ‘undertaking’ indicates, as Volksbank argued at the hearing before the Court, that the right of cancellation may be exercised as long as
Uporaba pojma „pogodba“ v tej določbi kaže na to, kot je na obravnavi pred Sodi�čem trdila Volksbank, da se lahko pravica do odstopa uveljavlja
2008 — CASE C-412/06 the consumer is not bound, at the time that the right is exercised, by any undertaking under the cancelled contract.
2008 – ZADEVA C-412/06 le, če ima potro�nik ob uveljavljanju te pravice �e kak�no obveznost iz pogodbe, od katere odstopa.
That logic flows from one of the general principles of civil law, namely that full performance of a contract results, as a general rule, from discharge of the mutual obligations under the contract or from termination of that contract.
Ta razlaga izhaja iz enega od splo�nih načel civilnega prava, in sicer da je celotna izpolnitev pogodbe praviloma posledica izvr�itve vzajemnih storitev pogodbenih strank in prenehanja te pogodbe.
Moreover, according to Article 5(2) of the directive, which governs the consequences of the exercise of the right of cancellation, the giving of cancellation notice has the effect of releasing the consumer from ‘any obligations under the cancelled contract’.
Sicer pa je v skladu s členom 5(2) iste direktive, ki ureja posledice uveljavljanja pravice do odstopa, po obvestilu o odstopu potro�nik prost „vseh obveznosti iz pogodbe, od katere je odstopil“.
The reference to the concept of ‘obligation’ in that provision indicates that the existence of the abovementioned consequences presupposes that the consumer has exercised his right of cancellation in regard to a contract which was in the process of being performed, whereas after the full performance of the contract, there is no further obligation.
Napotitev na pojem „obveznosti“ iz te določbe kaže na to, da je predpostavka za obstoj teh posledic, da je potro�nik uveljavil svojo pravico do odstopa od pogodbe, ki se je izvr�evala, medtem ko po celotni izpolnitvi pogodbe obveznosti ni več.
Furthermore, with regard to the legal effects of cancellation, particularly in regard to the reimbursement of payment for goods or services provided and the return of goods received, Article 7 of the doorstep selling directive refers to the national laws.
V zvezi s pravnimi posledicami odstopa, zlasti glede vračila plačil za dobavljeno blago ali opravljene storitve in vračila blaga, člen 7 direktive o prodaji od vrat do vrat napotuje na nacionalno ureditev.
It follows that an ‘appropriate measure’ within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 4 of the doorstep selling directive is one which provides that the performance in full by the parties of their obligations under a long-term loan contract causes the right of cancellation to lapse.
Iz tega izhaja, da je v skladu s členom 4, tretji odstavek, direktive o prodaji od vrat do vrat „ustrezen ukrep“ ukrep, ki določa, da obojestranska celotna izpolnitev obveznosti iz pogodbe o dolgoročnem kreditu povzroči ugasnitev pravice do odstopa.
That interpretation is not weakened by the judgments in Heininger and Schulte or in Case C-229/04 Crailsheimer Volksbank [2005] ECR I-9273.
Te razlage ne omajajo zgoraj navedeni sodbi Heininger in Schulte ter sodba z dne 25. oktobra 2005 v zadevi Crailsheimer Volksbank (C-229/04, ZOdl., str. I-9273).
Crailsheimer Volksbank that the interpretation of the doorstep selling directive provided by the Court in those judgments concerns loan contracts which had not been fully performed.
HAMILTON direktive o prodaji od vrat do vrat, ki jo je podalo Sodi�če v teh sodbah, zadeva kreditne pogodbe, ki niso bile v celoti izpolnjene.
However, that is not the position in the case before the referring court.
V postopku v glavni stvari pa ne gre za tak primer.
With regard, specifically, to Heininger, the Court held in that judgment that the doorstep selling directive precludes the national legislature from imposing a time-limit, of one year from the conclusion of the contract, within which the right of cancellation provided for in Article 5 of that directive must be exercised, where the consumer has not received the information specified in Article 4 of that directive.
Sodi�če je prav v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Heininger presodilo, da direktiva o prodaji od vrat do vrat nasprotuje temu, da bi nacionalni zakonodajalec določil rok enega leta od sklenitve pogodbe za uveljavljanje pravice do odstopa, ki jo uvaja člen 5 te direktive, če potro�nik ni dobil pouka iz člena 4 navedene direktive.
As Volksbank, the German Government and the Commission were fully entitled to argue, that is not the position in the case before the referring court.
Kot pa so upravičeno trdile Volksbank, nem�ka vlada in Komisija, v postopku v glavni stvari ne gre za tak primer.
In that case, the national legislature applies a timelimit of one month from the time at which the contracting parties have performed in full their obligations under a contract.
V postopku v glavni stvari je namreč nacionalni zakonodajalec določil enomesečni rok od celotne obojestranske izpolnitve obveznosti iz pogodbe.
It should be borne in mind — with regard to the one-month timelimit provided for by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which runs from the performance in full by the parties of their obligations under the contract — that, under Article 8 of the doorstep selling directive, that directive does not prevent Member States from adopting or maintaining more favourable provisions to protect consumers in the field which it covers.
V zvezi z navedenim rokom, določenim z nacionalno zakonodajo, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, je treba opozoriti, da kot določa člen 8 direktive o prodaji od vrat do vrat, ta direktiva državam članicam ne preprečuje, da na področju, ki ga ureja, sprejmejo ali ohranijo ugodnej�e določbe za varstvo potro�nikov.
In the light of all the foregoing, the answer to the first question referred to the Court must be that the doorstep selling directive must be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is entitled to provide that the right of cancellation laid down in Article 5(1) of the directive may be exercised no later than one month from the time at which the contracting parties have performed in full their obligations under a contract for long-term credit, where the consumer has been given defective notice concerning the exercise of that right.
Glede na navedeno je treba na prvo zastavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba direktivo o prodaji od vrat do vrat razlagati tako, da nacionalni zakonodajalec lahko določi, da se pravica do odstopa iz člena 5(1) te direktive, če je potro�nik prejel napačen pouk o uveljavljanju te pravice, lahko uveljavlja najpozneje en mesec po tem, ko obe pogodbeni stranki v celoti izpolnita obveznosti iz pogodbe o dolgoročnem kreditu.
Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises must be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is entitled to provide that the right of cancellation laid down in Article 5(1) of the directive may be exercised no later than one month from the time at which the contracting parties have performed in full their obligations under a contract for long-term credit, where the consumer has been given defective notice concerning the exercise of that right.
Direktivo Sveta 85/577/EGS z dne 20. decembra 1985 za varstvo potrošnika v primeru pogodb, sklenjenih zunaj poslovnih prostorov, je treba razlagati tako, da nacionalni zakonodajalec lahko določi, da se pravica do odstopa iz člena 5(1) te direktive, če je potrošnik prejel napačen pouk o uveljavljanju te pravice, lahko uveljavlja najpozneje en mesec po tem, ko obe pogodbeni stranki v celoti izpolnita obveznosti iz pogodbe o dolgoročnem kreditu.
Part 2008-4 (B)
Zvezek 2008 – 4 (A)
Catalogue number: QD-AB-08-04A-EN-C
Katalo�ka �tevilka: QD-AB-08-04A-SL-C
Catalogue number (A + B): QD-AB-08-004-EN-C
Katalo�ka �tevilka (A + B): QD-AB-08-004-SL-C
Annual volume price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 300
Cena za letnik (brez DDV) v Luksemburgu: 300 EUR
Reports
Zbirka odločb lo č b sodne prakse
B) before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance
Sodi�ča prve stopnje
ISSN 1022-842XCatalogue number: QD-AB-08-04B-EN-C Catalogue number (A + B): QD-AB-08-004-EN-C
ISSN 1830-1851Katalo�ka �tevilka: QD-AB-08-04B-SL-C Katalo�ka �tevilka (A + B): QD-AB-08-004-SL-C
Case C-442/06
Zadeva C-442/06
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/31/EC — Landfill of waste — National legislation concerning existing landfill sites — Incorrect transposition)
„Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Direktiva 1999/31/ES – Odlaganje odpadkov na odlagali�čih – Nacionalna ureditev o obstoječih odlagali�čih – Nepravilen prenos“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 10 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 10. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Right of the Commission to bring proceedings — Exercise of that right not dependent on a specific interest in bringing an action
Tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti – Pravica Komisije do vložitve tožbe – Izvajanje te pravice, ki ni odvisno od obstoja posebnega pravnega interesa
SUMMARY — CASE C-442/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-442/06
Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations — Late implementation of a directive as justification — Not permissible
Države članice – Obveznosti – Izvršitev direktive – Neizpolnitev obveznosti – Utemeljitev s prepozno izvršitvijo direktive – Nedopustnost
Environment — Waste — Landfill of waste — Directive 1999/31 (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 1999/31, Arts 2 to 13)
Okolje – Odpadki – Odlaganje odpadkov – Direktiva 1999/31 (člen 226 ES; Direktiva Sveta 1999/31, členi od 2 do 13)
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Period set for the Member State in the reasoned opinion — Default subsequently remedied — Interest in continuing the proceedings
Tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti – Rok za državo članico, določen v obrazloženem mnenju – Naknadno odpravljena neizpolnitev obveznosti – Pravni interes za vložitev tožbe
Environment — Waste — Landfill of waste — Directive 1999/31 (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 1999/31, Art. 14(d)(i))
Okolje – Odpadki – Odlaganje odpadkov – Direktiva 1999/31 (člen 226 ES; Direktiva Sveta 1999/31, člen 14(d)(i))
defence, since that Member State has been given the opportunity to prepare its defence before receiving the reasoned opinion.
imela možnost pripraviti svojo obrambo, preden je prejela obrazloženo mnenje.
(see paras 22, 23)
(Glej točki 22 in 23.)
The proper conduct of the pre-liti -gation procedure laid down in Article 226 EC constitutes an essential guarantee required by the Treaty not only in order to protect the rights of the Member State concerned, but also so as to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute as its subjectmatter.
Pravilnost predhodnega postopka, določena v členu 226 ES, pomeni bistveno jamstvo, ki ga Pogodba želi zagotavljati ne le za varstvo pravic zadevnih držav članic, temveč tudi za to, da bo v morebitnem sodnem postopku predmet spora jasno opredeljen.
It follows from that function that the purpose of the letter of formal notice is, first, to delimit the subjectmatter of the dispute and to indicate to the Member State, which is invited to submit its observations, the factors enabling it to prepare its defence and, secondly, to enable the Member State to comply before proceedings are brought before the Court.
Iz tega izhaja, da je cilj pisnega opomina po eni strani omejiti predmet spora in dati državi članici, ki je pozvana, naj predloži svoja stali�ča, potrebne podatke za pripravo obrambe in po drugi strani omogočiti ji, da se zadeva razre�i že pred sklicem sodi�ča.
Accordingly, when the Commission sends a Member State a supplementary letter of formal notice laying down a new time-limit for that State to submit its observations, before sending it a reasoned opinion based on the same complaints as those in the supplementary letter of formal notice, it does not prejudice the rights of the
Zato Komisija, ko je državi članici poslala dodatni pisni opomin, pri čemer je tej državi določila nov rok za predložitev svojih pripomb, preden ji je poslala obrazloženo mnenje, ki temelji na istih očitkih, kot so bili v tem dodatnem pisnem opominu, ni kr�ila pravic do obrambe, ker je navedena država članica
A Member State which has not transposed, within the period prescribed, a Community directive and against which infringement proceedings have been brought in respect not of the failure to transpose but of the failure to fulfil an obligation flowing from that directive cannot plead the fact that it has not taken the necessary measures to implement the directive in order to object to the
Država članica, ki v predpisanem roku ni prenesla direktive Skupnosti in proti kateri je vložena tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, katere predmet ni to nedelovanje, ampak nespo�tovanje obveznosti, ki izhaja iz te direktive, se pri ugovoru dopustnosti tožbe ne more
COMMISSION v ITALY admissibility of the action, arguing that the Commission lacks a legal interest in bringing proceedings.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI sklicevati na to, da ni sprejela potrebnih ukrepov za prenos navedene direktive, pri čemer navaja, da Komisija nima pravnega interesa.
(see paras 30, 31)
(Glej točki 30 in 31.)
(see paras 34, 35, 51, operative part)
(Glej točke 34, 35, 51 in izrek.)
When a directive lays down unequivocal obligations on the competent national authorities, Member States which have not transposed the directive cannot consider themselves relieved from compliance with those obligations after the period for transposition has expired and cannot exclude, by a transitional provision, the application of the provisions of that directive.
Namreč, če direktiva pristojnim nacionalnim organom določa nedvoumne obveznosti, se države članice, ki niso prenesle te direktive, po izteku roka za prenos ne morejo �teti za opro�čene spo�tovanja teh obveznosti in ne morejo s prehodno določbo izključiti uporabe določb te iste direktive.
To allow the State such a right would have the effect of allowing it to defer the time-limit for transposition by it.
Odobritev take možnosti državi članici bi omogočila odložitev roka za prenos.
Whether or not a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.
Obstoj neizpolnitve obveznosti je treba presoditi glede na položaj države članice, kot je obstajal ob preteku roka, določenega v obrazloženem mnenju.
Even where the infringement has been remedied after that period has expired, there is still an interest in pursuing the action in order to establish the basis of liability which a Member State may incur, as a result of its infringement, to, amongst others, persons who derive rights from the infringement.
Čeprav bi bila neizpolnitev obveznosti odpravljena po preteku omenjenega roka, nadaljevanje postopka s tožbo ohrani interes, ki je lahko zlasti v vzpostavitvi podlage za odgovornost, ki lahko za državo članico nastane do tistih, ki zaradi omenjene neizpolnitve obveznosti pridobijo pravice.
A Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 1999/31 on the landfill of waste when it adopts and maintains in force national legislation
Država članica ni izpolnila obveznosti iz Direktive 1999/31 o odlaganju odpadkov na odlagali�čih, ko določa preho -