natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Promusicae infers from this that Directive 2002/58, which is not mentioned in that provision, is not applicable within the field of application of Directive 2004/48.
Promusicae iz tega sklepa, da se tam nenavedena Direk -tiva 2002/58 ne uporabi na področju uporabe Direktive 2004/48.
22The extension by Article 8 of Directive 2004/48 of the duty to provide information to include third parties goes even beyond that option.
22Raz�iritev obveznosti dajanja informacij tretjim osebam s členom 8 Direktive 2004/48 presega celo to možnost.
It can therefore be restricted by data protection without any conflict with the TRIPS Agreement.
Torej jo je mogoče brez navzkrižja s Sporazumom TRIPS omejiti z varstvom podatkov.
yet reflected in the Commission’s Proposal, but was incorporated in the Directive during the discussions in the Council and in the Parliament.
Komisije tega dodatnega izrecnega poudarka varstva podatkov �e ni vseboval, ampak je bil v Direktivo vključen med posvetovanji v Svetu in Parlamentu.
19Directive 2002/58 contains precisely such provisions and is therefore not infringed, at least not by the right of information under Article 8 of Directive 2004/48 at issue here.
19Direktiva 2002/58 vsebuje prav tak�ne določbe in zato nanjo vsaj tu predmetna pravica do informacij v skladu s členom 8 Direktive 2004/48 ne vpliva.
All three directives mentioned by the referring court thus cede precedence to the Data Protection Directives, 95/46 and 2002/58.
Vse tri direktive, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če, se morajo tako umakniti direktivama 95/46 in 2002/58 o varstvu podatkov.
Contrary to what has been submitted by some parties, that does not mean that data protection enjoys priority over the aims of those directives.
To ne pomeni, kot so trdili nekateri udeleženci, da ima varstvo podatkov prednost pred cilji teh direktiv.
Rather, a reasonable balance between data protection and those aims must be struck in the context of the Data Protection Directives.
Nasprotno je treba varstvo podatkov in te cilje sorazmerno izravnati v okviru direktiv o varstvu podatkov.
Promusicae rightly submits that Articles 41 and 42 of TRIPS require effective protection for intellectual property and in particular that access to the courts for legal protection must be possible.
Promusicae pravilno navaja, da člena 41 in 42 TRIPS zahtevata učinkovito varstvo intelektualne lastnine, �e posebej, da mora biti omogočeno sodno pravno varstvo.
However, a right of information is only provided for directly vis-à-vis infringers in Article 47 of TRIPS.
Pravica do informacij pa je v členu 47 TRIPS predvidena le neposredno proti kr�iteljem prava.
C — Data protection
C – Varstvo podatkov
19 — Compare Article 9(3)(e) of the Commission’s Proposal (COM/2003/46) with the same provision of the Council’s consolidated draft of 19 December 2003 (Council document 16289/03) and with Article 8(3)(e) of the draft revised by the Parliament (OJ 2004 C 102 E, p.
19 — Primerjaj člen 9(3)(e) predloga Komisije (COM(2003) 46) z isto določbo konsolidiranega osnutka Sveta z dne 19. decembra 2003 (dokument Sveta 16289/03) in s čle nom 8(3)(e) osnutka, ki ga je predelal Parlament (UL 2004, C 102 E, str.
242 et seq.), which was adopted unchanged by the Council.
242 in naslednje) ter ga je Svet nespremenjenega prevzel.
20 — Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which is to be found in Annex 1 C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, which was approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1).
20 — Sporazum o trgovinskih vidikih pravic intelektualne lastnine v Prilogi 1 C k Sporazumu o ustanovitvi Svetovne trgovinske organizacije, odobren v imenu Skupnosti za področja, ki so v njeni pristojnosti, s Sklepom Sveta 94/800/ES z dne 22. decembra 1994 (UL L 336, str. 1). TRIPS je kratica za Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
The secondary legislation relevant to the present case is Directive 2002/58 containing provisions on data protection in the elec-
22 — Tako tudi stali�če Sveta in Komisije v okviru postopka za sprejetje Direktive 2004/48 (dokument Sveta 6052/04 z dne 9. februarja 2004, str. 6 in naslednja).
21 — The fourth sentence of Article 42 of TRIPS could, admittedly, in its German version, be (mis)construed as meaning that effective legal protection must provide for the discovery of confidential information, yet, on the contrary, that provision is intended to protect confidential information in judicial proceedings, if that is permissible.
21 — Člen 42, stavek 4, TRIPS bi se lahko sicer v nem�ki različici (narobe) razumel tako, da mora učinkovito pravno varstvo predvideti preiskavo zaupnih podatkov, vendar pa naj ta določba nasprotno omogoča, da se zaupni podatki v sodnih postopkih varujejo, če je to dopustno.
This is more clearly apparent in the authentic language versions (English, French and Spanish).
To se jasneje kaže v zavezujočih jezikovnih različicah (angle�čina, franco�čina in �pan�čina). Kot tu tudi Daniel Gervais, The TRIPS Agreement, Drafting History and Analysis, London 2003, str. 291.
The communication of personal data to a third party, whatever the subsequent use of the information thus communicated, therefore constitutes an infringement of the right of the person concerned to respect for private life and consequently an interference within the meaning of Article 8 of the ECHR.
V skladu s tem sporočanje osebnih podatkov tretji osebi, neodvisno od poznej�e uporabe predloženih podatkov, pomeni okrnitev pravice prizadete osebe do spo�tovanja njenega zasebnega življenja in tako poseg v smislu člena 8 EKČP.
25 tronic communications sector, together with Directive 95/46 which regulates data protection in general.
25 tiva 2002/58 z določbami o varstvu podatkov pri elektronski komunikaciji in Direk -tiva 95/46, ki na splo�no ureja varstvo podatkov.
The Court, however, derives important criteria for the interpretation of those provisions of secondary legislation from the foundations of data protection, which lie in fundamental rights.
Sodi�če pa iz temeljnopravne osnove varstva podatkov jemlje pomembne oporne točke za razlago teh določb sekundarnega prava.
Such an interference violates Article 8 of the ECHR unless it is ‘in accordance with the law’.
Tak poseg je v nasprotju s členom 8 EKČP, razen če je „predviden z zakonom“. 26
The requirement of foreseeability has found particular expression in data protection law in the criterion — expressly mentioned in Article 8(2) of the Charter — of purpose limitation.
27Zahteva po predvidljivosti pride na področju prava varstva podatkov do posebnega izraza z namensko povezavo, ki je izrecno navedena v členu 8(2) Listine.
Pursuant to the specific embodiment of the purpose limitation criterion in Article 6(1)(b) of Directive 95/46, personal data may be collected only for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes.
V skladu s podrobnej�o opredelitvijo namenske povezave v členu 6(1)(b) Direktive 95/46 morajo biti osebni podatki zbrani za določene, izrecne in zakonite namene ter se ne smejo naprej obdelovati na način, ki ni skladen s temi nameni.
In addition, any interference with private life — the processing of personal data —
Poleg tega mora biti poseg v zasebnost – obdelava osebnih podatkov – sorazmeren z s
Data protection is based on the fundamental right to private life, as it results in particular from Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’).
Varstvo podatkov temelji na temeljni pravici do zasebnosti, kot izhaja zlasti iz čle na 8 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin, ki je bila podpisana 4. novembra 1950 v Rimu (v nadaljevanju: EKČP).
23The Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, proclaimed at Nice on 7 December 2000 24 (‘the Charter’), confirmed that fundamental right in Article 7, and in Article 8 specifically emphasised the fundamental right to the protection of personal data, including important fundamental principles of data protection.
23Listina o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije, razgla�ena 7. decembra 2000 v Nici 24(v nadaljevanju: Listina), je to temeljno pravico potrdila v členu 7, v členu 8 pa posebej poudarila temeljno pravico do varstva osebnih podatkov, vključno s pomembnimi temeljnimi načeli varstva podatkov.
25 — Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others, cited in footnote 23, paragraph 74.
25 — V opombi 23 navedena Rundfunk in drugi, točka 74.
27 — Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others, cited in footnote 23, paragraph 77, invoking the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights.
27 — V opombi 23 navedena sodba Österreichischer Rundfunk in drugi, točka točka 77, s sklicevanjem na sodno prakso ESČP.
Community legislature and, in the interpretation of Community law, by the Court.
29 zakonodajalec Skupnosti, tako kot Sodi�če pri razlagi prava Skupnosti.
However, the Member States are also obliged to observe it when using up any remaining margin for regulation in the implementation of directives.
Vendar pa morajo nanj paziti tudi države članice, ko v okviru prenosa direktiv izkori�čajo preostali manevrski prostor za urejanje.
Moreover, the authorities and courts of the Member States are not only required to interpret their national law in conformity with the Data Protection Directives, but also to ensure that they do not act on the basis of an interpretation of those directives which conflicts with the fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order or the other general principles of Community law. 32
Poleg tega morajo organi in sodi�ča držav članic ne le razlagati svoje nacionalno pravo v skladu z direktivama o varstvu podatkov, ampak morajo paziti tudi na to, da se ne opirajo na eno razlago teh direktiv, ki je v koliziji s temeljnimi pravicami, varovanimi s pravnim redom Skupnosti, ali z drugimi splo�nimi načeli prava Skupnosti. 32
In the context of legitimate aims, the relevant fundamental rights of the holders of copyrights, in particular the protection of property and the right to effective judicial protection, will have to be taken into account in the present case.
V okviru upravičenih namenov je treba v obravnavanem primeru upo�tevati prizadete temeljne pravice imetnikov avtorskih pravic, zlasti varstvo lastnine in pravico do učinkovitega pravnega varstva.
According to settled caselaw, both those rights form part of the general principles of Community law, 30as confirmed by Article 17 and Article 47 of the Charter.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso tudi ti temeljni pravici spadata k splo�nim načelom prava Skupnosti, 30kar potrjujeta člena 17 in 47 Listine.
Article 17(2) of the Charter emphasises in this connection that intellectual property also falls within the protective scope of the fundamental right to property. 31
V čle nu 17(2) Listine je poleg tega poudarjeno, da spada tudi intelektualna lastnina na področje varstva temeljne pravice do lastnine. 31
Applicability of the Data Protection Directives
Možnost uporabe direktiv o varstvu podatkov
The balance between the relevant fundamental rights must first be struck by the
Ravnotežje med prizadetimi položaji temeljnih pravic mora najprej določiti
29 — Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others, cited in footnote 23, paragraph 83, invoking the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights.
29 — V opombi 23 navedena sodba Österreichischer Rundfunk in drugi, točka 83, s sklicevanjem na sodno prakso ESČP.
The secondary legislation gives concrete expression to the requirements as regards fundamental rights for data protection and extends them in a respect which is one of the decisive factors in this case.
Sekundarno pravo podrobneje opredeljuje temeljnopravne določbe o varstvu podatkov in jih raz�irja v točki, ki je za obravnavani primer prav tako odločilna.
The directives not only provide for a binding obliga-
Direktivi namreč ne določata le vezanosti državnih
31 — See Metronome Musik, cited in footnote 30, paragraphs 21 and 26, and, most recently, Eur.
I-6677, točka 39), in z dne 13. marca 2007 v zadevi Unibet (C-432/05, ZOdl., str. I-2271, točka 37).
Court HR, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal judgment of 11 January 2007 (Application No 73049/01, § 72).
31 — Tako že v opombi 30 navedena sodba Metronome Musik, točki 21 in 26, ter v zadnjem času sodba ESČP z dne 11. januarja 2007 v zadevi Anheuser-Busch Inc. proti Portugalski (pritožba 73049/01, člen 72).
32 — See Case C-101/01 Lindqvist [2003] ECR I-12971, paragraph 87.
32 — Glej sodbo z dne 6. novembra 2003 v zadevi Lindqvist (C-101/01, Recueil, str. I-12971, točka 87).
Consequently, it must be examined whether the other conditions for the application of data protection law are fulfilled in this case.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali so v obravnavanem primeru podani preostali pogoji za uporabo prava varstva podatkov.
tion for governmental authorities to protect data, but also extend it to individuals except in so far as, pursuant to the second indent of Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46, the activity concerned is carried out by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity.
organov na varstvo podatkov, ampak ga hkrati �irita na posameznike, če v skladu s členom 3(2), druga alinea, Direktive 95/46 ne gre za dejavnost, ki jo fizična oseba opravlja med potekom popolnoma osebne ali domače dejavnosti.
33The Community thereby fulfils and gives concrete expression to an objective of protection resulting from the fundamental right to data protection. 34
33S tem Skupnost uresničuje in podrobneje opredeljuje cilj varstva, ki izhaja iz temeljne pravice do varstva podatkov. 34
Directive 2002/58, as provided in Article 3(1), applies to the processing of personal data in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services in public communications networks in the Community.
Direktiva 2002/58 se v skladu s čle -nom 3(1) uporabi za obdelavo osebnih podatkov v zvezi z zagotavljanjem javno razpoložljivih elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev v javnih komunikacijskih omrežjih v Skupnosti.
Under Article 2 of Directive 2002/58, those con cepts are defined in Directive 95/46 and Directive 2002/21. 35
Ti pojmi so v skladu s členom 2 Direkti- ve 2002/58 opredeljeni v Direktivi 95/46 oziroma v Direktivi 2002/21. 35
The provision of access to the Internet is a publicly available electronic communications service within the meaning of Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21, that is, a service normally provided for remuneration which consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks.
Zagotavljanje internetnega dostopa je v smislu člena 2(c) Direktive 2002/21 javnosti dostopna elektronska komunikacijska storitev, to pomeni storitev, ki se navadno opravlja za plačilo in je v celoti ali pretežno sestavljena iz prenosa signalov po elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežjih.
The bringing of civil proceedings against copyright infringements by Promusicae and the processing of connection data by Telefónica are not to be categorised as personal or household activities.
Uvedbe civilnopravnega postopka zaradi kr�itev avtorskih pravic s strani Promusicae in obdelave podatkov o povezavah s strani Telefónice ni mogoče �teti za osebno ali domačo dejavnost.
That is also apparent, with regard to the processing of connection data, from the existence of Directive 2002/58, which does not include the exemption for personal and household activities, but assumes that the processing of personal data by providers of electronic communications services is in principle subject to data protection.
To se glede na obdelavo podatkov o povezavah kaže tudi v obstoju Direktive 2002/58, ki ne pozna izjeme za osebne in domače dejavnosti, ampak izhaja iz tega, da je obdelava osebnih podatkov s strani ponudnikov elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev načelno podvržena varstvu podatkov.
Transmission of such data between private undertakings is therefore not excluded from the scope of data protection.
Torej prenos takih podatkov med zasebnimi podjetji ni izvzet s področja uporabe
33 — See Lindqvist, cited in footnote 32, paragraph 46 et seq.
33 — Glej v opombi 32 navedeno sodbo Lindqvist, točki 46 in 47.
The indication of which users were assigned particular IP addresses at particular times consists of personal data under Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46, namely infor-
34 — Nem�ko zvezno ustavno sodi�če izhaja v svojih sklepih z dne 9. oktobra 2002 (1 BvR 1611/96 in 1 BvR 805/98, BVerfGE 106, 28 [37], točka 21 različice na www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de) in z dne 27. oktobra 2006 (1 BvR 1811/99, Multimedia und Recht 2007, 308, toč -ka 13 različice na www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de) v zvezi s tajnostjo komunikacijskih sporočil celo iz ustrezne varstvene dolžnosti države.
35 — Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).
35 — Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/21/ES z dne 7. marca 2002 o skupnem regulativnem okviru za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve (UL L 108, str. 33).
With the aid of those data, ance of a communication on an electronic communications network.
skladu s členom 2(a) Direktive 95/46, in sicer iz informacij, ki se nana�ajo na določeno ali določljivo 36fizično osebo.
the actions performed using the IP address concerned are linked to the subscriber.
S pomočjo teh podatkov se dejanja, storjena z uporabo zadevnih IP-naslovov, povežejo z imetnikom priključka.
The applicable prohibitions on processing
Uporabljive prepovedi obdelave
In Article 2(b) of Directive 95/46, the disclosure of such data is expressly listed as an example of processing, that is, an operation performed by or without automatic means.
Sporočanje takih podatkov je v členu 2(b) Direktive 95/46 izrecno navedeno kot primer obdelave, to pomeni postopka, ki se izvaja z avtomatskimi sredstvi ali brez njih.
Under Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/58, the confidentiality of communications also applies to the traffic data arising during the communications.
V skladu s členom 5(1) Direktive 2002/58 se zaupnost sporočil nana�a tudi na podatke o prometu, ki nastanejo pri komunikaciji.
In particular, the Member States must prohibit the storage and other kinds of interception or surveillance of traffic data by persons other than the users, without the consent of the users concerned, except when legally authorised to do so in accordance with Article 15(1).
Države članice morajo zlasti prepovedati shranjevanje in druge načine prestrezanja ali nadziranja podatkov o prometu s strani vseh oseb, razen uporabnikov, če zadevni uporabniki ne dajo privolitve, razen kadar je to zakonsko dovoljeno v skladu s členom 15(1).
At the same time, at least the temporarily assigned IP addresses of users are traffic data according to the definition in Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/58, namely data which are processed for the purpose of the convey-
Hkrati so vsaj začasno dodeljeni IP-naslovi uporabnikov podatki o prometu v skladu z opredelitvijo v členu 2(b) Direktive 2002/58, to pomeni podatki, obde-
36 — In so far as the respective holders of the IP addresses are identifiable due to the storage of the assignments by the provider of Internet access, this involves, as soon as the IP addresses are intercepted by Promusicae, the processing of personal data, which must comply with the requirements of data protection; see the judgment of the Rechtbank Utrecht of 12 July 2005, Brein (194741/KGZA 05-462, Annex 5 to the written observations submitted by Promusicae, point 4.24 et seq.), Working Document WP 104 of the Data Protection Working Party of 18 January 2005 on data protection issues related to intellectual property rights, p.
36 — Če so konkretni imetniki IP-naslovov določljivi zaradi shranjevanja podatkov o dodelitvi s strani ponudnika internetnega dostopa, gre med drugim že pri prestrezanju IP-naslovov s strani Promusicae za obdelavo osebnih podatkov, ki mora zadostiti zahtevam varstva podatkov; glej sodbo Rechtbank Utrecht z dne 12. julija 2005 v zadevi Brein (194741/KGZA 05-462, Priloga 5 k spisu Promusicae, točka 4.24 in naslednje), delovni dokument WP 104 delovne skupine za varstvo posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov z dne 18. januarja 2005, Varstvo podatkov v povezavi s pravicami intelektualne lastnine, str. 4, ter v skladu s francoskim pravom odločbi (Délibérations) Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertes (CNIL) 2005-235 z dne 18. oktobra 2005 in 2006-294 z dne 21. decembra 2006 (dostop prek http://www.legifrance.gouv. fr/WAspad/RechercheExperteCnil.jsp).
The register of processing operations of the Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, https://www.agpd.es/index.php?idSeccion=100, contains a corresponding registration for Promusicae.
Ustrezna prijava Promusicae je zabeležena v registru prijavljenih postopkov obdelave pri Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, https://www.agpd.es/index.php?idSeccion=100.
Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/58 makes it clear, with regard to any storage of traffic data during the operation of communications networks, that such data relating to subscribers and users processed and stored by the provider of a public communications network or publicly available electronic communications service must be erased or made anonymous when it is no longer needed for the purpose of the transmission of a communication without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of that article and Article 15(1).
Člen 6(1) Direktive 2002/58 glede morebitnega shranjevanja podatkov o prometu pri obratovanju komunikacijskih omrežij določa, da morajo biti ti podatki, ki se nana�ajo na naročnike in uporabnike ter jih je ponudnik javnega komunikacijskega omrežja ali javno razpoložljive elektronske komunikacijske storitve obdelal in shranil, izbrisani ali predelani v anonimne, potem ko niso več potrebni za prenos sporočila, kar ne vpliva na odstavke 2, 3 in 5 tega člena in člena 15(1).
Both the storage and the communication of personal traffic data on Internet use must therefore be prohibited in principle.
Zato je treba načelno prepovedati tako shranjevanje kot tudi sporočanje osebnih podatkov o prometu, ki se nana�ajo na uporabo interneta.
It is already doubtful whether that exception allows any storage at all of particulars concerning the persons to whom and times when a dynamic IP address was assigned.
Vpra�ljivo je že, ali ta izjema sploh dovoljuje shranjevanje podatkov o tem, komu je bil v določenem trenutku dodeljen dinamični IP-naslov.
That information is not normally needed for the purpose of billing the access provider’s charges.
Ta podatek ponudniku dostopa ni vedno potreben, da naročnikom zaračuna dajatve.
The standard billing methods are based on the duration of the dial-up connection to the access provider or on the volume of the data traffic generated by the user, if, that is, unrestricted use of access in return for a flatrate amount has not been agreed.
Običajni postopki zaračunavanja temeljijo na trajanju povezave pri ponudniku dostopa ali na količini prenesenih podatkov s strani uporabnika, če ni celo na podlagi plačila pav�alnega zneska dogovorjena neomejena uporaba dostopa.
However, if processing of the IP address is not necessary for billing, it must not be stored for that purpose either. 37
Če pa obdelava IP-naslova ni potrebna za zaračunavanje, ga za to tudi ni dovoljeno shranjevati. 37
However, there are also exceptions to those prohibitions on processing.
Vendar pa obstajajo tudi izjeme od teh prepovedi obdelave.
They are set out in Article 6 and Article 15 of Directive 2002/58.
Določene so v členih 6 in 15 Direktive 2002/58.
(a) The exceptions under Article 2002/58
a) Izjeme v skladu s členom 6(2)(3) in (5) Direktive 2002/58
Irrespective of that, Article 6(2) is in any event not an appropriate basis for the communication of traffic data to third parties wishing to take action against the user for acts committed using that IP address.
Ne glede na to člen 6(2) nikakor ni primerna podlaga za sporočanje podatkov o prometu tretjim osebam, ki želijo ukrepati proti uporabniku zaradi dejanj, ki so bila storjena z uporabo IP-naslova.