natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
13 — It should be noted that Cassina disputes the compatibility of the Italian legislation with Community law (and indeed with the Italian constitution).
13 – Ugotoviti je treba, da družba Cassina spodbija skladnost italijanske zakonodaje s pravom Skupnosti (in vsekakor z italijansko ustavo).
However, the referring court has put its questions on the basis that the items of furniture at issue in the present case were lawfully manufactured and acquired in Italy, and Cassina’s summary of the Italian law appears to explain how this came about.
Vendar pa je predložitveno sodi�če zastavilo vpra�anja na podlagi predpostavke, da je bilo pohi�tvo, ki je sporno v obravnavanem primeru, v Italiji zakonito izdelano in pridobljeno, povzetek italijanskega prava, ki ga je predložila družba Cassina, pa pojasnjuje, kako je do tega pri�lo.
Can it be assumed that there is a distribution to the public otherwise than by sale, within the meaning of Article 4(1) of [the Copyright Directive], in the case where it is
Ali je treba primere, v katerih je tretjim osebam omogočena uporaba primerkov z avtorsko pravico za�čitenih del, ne da bi bil s prepustitvijo v uporabo povezan prenos dejanske pravice do razpolaganja s temi primerki, �teti za
Assessment made possible for third parties to make use of items of copyrightprotected works without the grant of user involving a transfer of de facto power to dispose of those items?
Presoja kakr�no koli distribuiranje na drugačen način od prodaje v smislu člena 4(1) [Direktive o avtorski pravici]?
Question 1(a)
Vprašanje 1(a)
Is there a distribution under Article 4(1) of the [Copyright] Directive also in the case in which items of copyrightprotected works are shown publicly without the possibility of using those items being granted to third parties?
Ali gre za distribuiranje v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive [o avtorski pravici] tudi, če se primerki z avtorsko pravico za�čitenih del javno prikazujejo, ne da bi bila tretjim osebam dana možnost njihove uporabe?
By the first part of its first question the referring court asks essentially whether there is a distribution to the public within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Copyright Directive where pieces of copyrightprotected furniture 14are made available for temporary use by third parties without those third parties having the right to dispose of them.
Predložitveno sodi�če v prvem delu prvega vpra�anja v bistvu spra�uje, ali gre takrat, ko so kosi z avtorsko pravico za�čitenega pohi�tva 14začasno dani v uporabo tretjim osebam, ne da bi bile te upravičene razpolagati z njimi, za javno distribuiranje v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive o avtorski pravici.
If the answers are in the affirmative:
V primeru pritrdilnega odgovora:
That question refers to furniture which is made available to the public in the rest areas of a department store but which is not available for purchase.
To vpra�anje se nana�a na pohi�tvo, ki je dano v uporabo javnosti v prostorih za počitek velike trgovine, vendar pa ga ni mogoče kupiti.
Can the protection accorded to the free movement of goods preclude, in the abovementioned cases, exercise of the distribution right if the items presented are not under copyright protection in the Member State in which they were manufactured and placed on the market?’
Ali spo�tovanje načela prostega pretoka blaga v zgoraj navedenih primerih lahko ovira uresničevanje pravice do distribuiranja, če razstavljeni primerki v državi članici, v kateri so bili izdelani in dani v promet, niso za�čiteni z avtorsko pravico?“
Cassina and the Polish Government consider that the referring court’s first question should be answered in the affirmative.
Družba Cassina in poljska vlada menita, da je treba na prvo vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča odgovoriti pritrdilno.
Peek & Cloppenburg and the Commission take the contrary view. 14 — In my view it would be preferable for the answers to the questions referred in the present case to be framed in terms of their specific context.
Družba Peek & Cloppenburg in Komisija sta nasprotnega mnenja. 14 – Po mojem mnenju bi bilo pri odgovorih na vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje v obravnavani zadevi bolje ostati v okviru njihovih posebnih okoli�čin.
If more general answers are given, there is a risk that they might determine the outcome of disputes arising in different circumstances where other factors, not debated before the Court in the present case, are relevant.
Če bi bili podani bolj splo�ni odgovori, bi obstajala nevarnost, da bi ti lahko določili re�itev sporov, ki bi nastala v drugačnih okoli�činah, v katerih so pomembni drugi dejavniki, o katerih se pred Sodi�čem v tej zadevi ni razpravljajo.
I have accordingly rephrased the questions in narrower terms than those put by the referring court.
Zato sem vpra�anja postavila ožje kot predložitveno sodi�če.
Written observations have been lodged by Cassina, Peek & Cloppenburg, the Polish Government and the Commission, all of whom, with the exception of the Polish Government, were represented at the hearing. I - 2740
Pisna stali�ča so predložile družba Cassina in družba Peek & Cloppenburg, poljska vlada in Komisija, ki so se vse razen poljske vlade udeležile obravnave. I - 2740
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG and on the legal protection of programs 20databases. 21 24.
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG in o varstvu računalni�kih programov 20pravnem varstvu baz podatkov. 21 24.
Cassina and the Polish Government make, variously, the following points.
Družba Cassina in poljska vlada sta navedli te ugotovitve.
Third, the Court has in a number of cases given a wide reading to ‘distribution’. 22
Tretjič, Sodi�če je v �tevilnih primerih podalo �iroko razlago „distribuiranja“. 22
First, Article 4(1) (‘any form of distribution, by sale or otherwise’ 15) is broadly formulated.
Prvič, besedilo člena 4(1) („javno distribuiranje s prodajo ali drugače“ 15) je obli- kovano �iroko.
A broad reading is moreover dictated by the objectives of the Directive.
Široka razlaga se zahteva tudi s cilji Direktive.
The recitals in its preamble show that it aims to give a wide protection to rightholders, 16 to ensure that they are adequately remuner-
Uvodne izjave v njeni preambuli kažejo, da je njen namen varstvo imetnikov pravic, 16da se zanje zagotovi pravično nadomestilo, 17in pospe�evanje pravne varnosti. 18
Finally, a narrow definition would conflict with Council Regulation No 1383/2003, 23 which concerns the duties of customs authorities with regard to counterfeit goods.
Končno, ozka opredelitev bi bila v nasprotju z Uredbo Sveta �t. 1383/2003 23v zvezi z dolžnostmi carinskih organov glede ponarejenega blaga.
Although that regulation applies to products coming from countries outside the EU, it would be undermined if, through a narrow reading of ‘distribution’, pirated goods (defined as copies made without the consent of the rightholder) from third countries could not be put into free circulation or re-exported whereas pirated goods from other Member States could be imported without sanction.
Čeprav se ta uredba uporablja za proizvode, ki prihajajo iz držav zunaj EU, bi bila oslabljena, če zaradi ozke razlage „distribuiranja“ piratsko blago (opredeljeno kot kopija, narejena brez soglasja imetnika pravice) iz tretjih držav ne bi moglo biti spro�čeno v prosti promet ali ponovno izvoženo, medtem ko bi bilo lahko piratsko blago iz drugih držav članic uvoženo brez sankcij.
20 — Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 1991 L 122, p. 42).
20 – Direktiva Sveta 91/250/EGS z dne 14. maja 1991 o pravnem varstvu računalni�kih programov, UL L 122, str. 42.
21 — Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20).
21 – Direktiva 96/9/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. marca 1996 o pravnem varstvu baz podatkov, UL L 77, str. 20.
15 — Emphasis added.16 — See recitals 9 and 11.17 — See recitals 10 and 11.18 — Recitals 21 and 23.
15 – Moj poudarek.16 – Glej uvodni izjavi 9 in 11.17 – Glej uvodni izjavi 10 in 11.18 – Uvodni izjavi 21 in 23.
19 — Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61).
19 – Direktiva Sveta 92/100/EGS z dne 19. novembra 1992 o pravici dajanja v najem in pravici posojanja ter o določenih pravicah, sorodnih avtorski, na področju intelektualne lastnine, UL L 346, str. 61.
I am not persuaded by these arguments.
Te trditve me ne prepričajo.
expected that the scope of exhaustion should be defined in terms of acts which are generically similar to those constituting distribution.
obseg izčrpanja opredeljen z dejanji, ki bi bila generično podobna dejanjem, ki pomenijo distribuiranje.
That approach is suggested even more strongly by the wording of recital 28 in the preamble to the Directive.
Tak pristop �e bolj vsiljuje besedilo osemindvajsete uvodne izjave Direktive.
As the Court noted in SGAE, Community legislation must, so far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with international law, in particular where its provisions are intended specifically to give effect to an international agreement concluded by the Community.
Kot je sodi�če ugotovilo v sodbi v zadevi SGAE, je treba besedila prava Skupnosti razumeti, kolikor mogoče, glede na mednarodno pravo, zlasti če se želi s temi besedili uresničiti mednarodni sporazum, ki ga je sklenila Skupnost.
24 As is clear from recital 15 in its preamble, the Copyright Directive is intended to implement a number of the international obligations flowing from the WCT.
24Kot izhaja iz uvodne izjave 15 Direktive o avtorski pravici, je njen namen izpolnitev več mednarodnih obveznosti, ki izvirajo iz WCT.
Article 6(1) of that Treaty refers to the distribution right it enjoins as the right to authorise the making available to the public of the original and copies of a protected work ‘through sale or other transfer of ownership’.
Člen 6(1) te Pogodbe pravico do distribuiranja določa kot pravico do dovoljenja dajanje na voljo javnosti izvirnikov in kopij varovanih del „s prodajo ali drugim prenosom lastni�tva“.
I agree with Peek & Cloppenburg and the Commission that that wording is unequivocal and would clearly not encompass making available for temporary use. 32.
Strinjam se z družbo Peek & Cloppenburg in Komisijo, da ta izraz ni nedvoumen in seveda ne bi zajemal dajanja na voljo za začasno uporabo. 32.
I am not convinced that any assistance is to be derived from the other directives mentioned by Cassina.
Nisem prepričana, da si je mogoče pomagati z drugimi direktivami, ki jih navaja družba Cassina.
It is true that the directives on the legal protection of computer programs and on the legal protection of databases both refer to ‘any form of distribution to the public’ 25in defining the rightholder’s exclusive right.
Res je, da se tako direktiva o pravnem varstvu računalni�kih programov kot direktiva o pravnem varstvu baz podatkov nana�ata na „kakr�no koli javno distribuiranje“ 25pri opredelitvi imetnikove izključne pravice.
However, since ‘distribution to the public’ is not itself defined, this argument seems to me to be circular.
Vendar ker samo „javno distribuiranje“ ni opredeljeno, se mi ta trditev ne zdi mogoča.
Similarly, the directive on rental and lending rights simply refers to ‘the exclusive right to make available [defined] objects, including copies thereof, to the public by sale or otherwise’.
Podobno se tudi direktiva o pravici dajanja v najem in pravici posojanja navezuje zgolj na „izključno pravico do dajanja na voljo javnosti [določenih] predmetov […], vključno z njihovimi kopijami, s prodajo ali kako drugače“.
26This too does not seem to advance matters.
26 Tudi to ne prispeva k razjasnitvi zadeve.
It is of course the case that the Copyright Directive seeks to provide for a high level of protection of intellectual property. 27
Nedvomno je res, da Direktiva o avtorski pravici sku�a zagotoviti visoko stopnjo varstva intelektualne lastnine.
It would, however, in my view be an oversimplification to assume that any ambiguity in the scope of ‘distribution to the public’
27Vendar pa bi po mojem mnenju ugotovitev, da je treba pri vsakem dvomu glede obsega „javnega
That interpretation is, as the Commission submits, borne out by the scheme of the Copyright Directive, and in particular by Article 4 read as a whole.
To razlago, kot zatrjuje Komisija, potrjujeta sistematika Direktive o avtorski pravici ter zlasti člen 4, bran kot celota.
Article 4(2) essentially defines exhaustion of the distribution right, and it does so in terms of the ‘first sale or other transfer of ownership’.
Člen 4(2) določa, da se pravica do distribuiranja izčrpa s „prv[o] prodaj[o] ali drug[im] prenos[om] lastni�tva“. Pričakovati je, da bi moral biti
24 — Case C-306/05 [2006] ECR I-11519, paragraph 35, and the caselaw there cited.
24 – Sodba z dne 7. decembra 2006 (C-306/05, ZOdl., str. I-11519, točka 35) in tam navedena sodna praksa.
See also Commission v Germany, cited in footnote 7, at paragraph 52.
Glej tudi sodbo Komisija proti Nemčiji, navedeno v opombi 7, točka 52.
25 — Articles 4(c) and 5(c) respectively.26 — Article 9(1).27 — See recitals 4, 9 and 11.
25 – Člena 4(c) oziroma 5(c).26 – Člen 9(1).27 – Glej uvodne izjave 4, 9 in 11.
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG In that context I note that, prior to Direct- ive 98/71, 29the legal protection of designs was not harmonised, 30 and that the reference in the present case is based on the premiss hat the items of furniture were not protected either by copyright or as designs at the time of their purchase by Peek & Cloppenburg. should automatically be decided in favour of the rightholder.
Glede na to ugotavljam, da pred Direktivo 98/71 29 pravno varstvo modelov ni bilo usklajeno 30in da sklicevanje v obravna- vanem primeru temelji na predpostavki, da kosi pohi�tva v času, ko jih je kupila družba Peek & Cloppenburg, niso bili varovani niti z avtorsko pravico niti kot modeli. distribuiranja“ avtomatsko odločiti v korist imetnika pravice, pomenila preveliko poenostavitev.
That is all the more so when, as in the present case, such a construction would be contrary both to the express terms of the WCT, which (as I have indicated) is relevant when construing the Copyright Directive, and to the free movement of goods.
To �e toliko bolj drži, kadar bi bila tako kot v obravnavanem primeru taka konstrukcija v nasprotju tako z izrecnim besedilom WCT, ki je (kot sem pojasnila) pomembno za razlago Direktive o avtorski pravici, kot z načelom prostega pretoka blaga.
It must be borne in mind that the Directive also seeks to implement the four freedoms of the internal market. 28
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da je namen Direktive tudi uresničevanje �tirih svobo�čin notranjega trga. 28
Interpreting Article 4(1) of the Directive in such a way that ‘distribution to the public’ includes the making available of protected items for temporary use, so that the rightholder could prevent such use, would be liable to restrict the free movement of goods.
Razlaganje člena 4(1) Direktive tako, da „javno distribuiranje“ vključuje dajanje na voljo varovanih predmetov za začasno uporabo, torej da bi lahko imetnik pravice preprečil tako uporabo, bi lahko omejilo prost pretok blaga.
Article 30 EC provides that such a restriction may be justified on grounds of, inter alia, the protection of industrial and commercial property.
Člen 30 ES določa, da so te prepovedi lahko med drugim utemeljene z varstvom industrijske in poslovne lastnine.
It is settled caselaw, however, that a derogation on that ground is allowed only to the extent to which it is justified by the fact that it safeguards the rights which constitute the specific subjectmatter of that property. 31
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da je tovrstno omejevanje dopustno zgolj v obsegu, v katerem je utemeljeno z dejstvom, da varuje pravice, ki tvorijo poseben predmet te lastnine. 31
A broad interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Directive, such as that advocated by Cassina and the Polish Government, would therefore be in accordance with Art -icle 30 EC only if the exercise of the distri-
Široka razlaga člena 4(1) Direktive, kot jo zagovarjata družba Cassina in poljska vlada, bi bila zato v skladu s členom 30 ES le, če bi izvr�evanje pravice do distribuiranja, podeljene s členom 4(1), ki se ga tako
Although the national court has referred a specific question concerning the rules on the free movement of goods, that question is put only on the assumption that the first questions are answered in the affirmative.
Čeprav je nacionalno sodi�če v zvezi s pravili glede prostega pretoka blaga zastavilo posebno vpra�anje, je to vpra�anje zastavljeno zgolj ob predpostavki, da je odgovor na prvi vpra�anji pritrdilen.
I consider, however, that those rules may be relevant at an earlier stage in the analysis, namely in determining whether the first questions should be so answered.
Vendar pa menim, da so ta pravila lahko pomembna na prej�nji stopnji analize, namreč pri določitvi, ali je treba na prva vpra�anja tako odgovoriti.
As the Commission points out, Articles 28 and 30 EC will be relevant to arriving at the correct interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Copyright Directive in cases — such as the present — which concern a reproduction of a work protected by copyright in one Member State and not another, where the ability of the author to prevent a use of that reproduction is liable to affect intracommunity trade.
Kot navaja Komisija, sta člena 28 in 30 ES pomembna za pravilno razlago člena 4(1) Direktive o avtorski pravici v primerih, ki se – tako kot ta – nana�ajo na reproduciranje dela, varovanega z avtorsko pravico v eni državi članici, in ne v drugi, kjer možnost avtorja, da prepreči uporabo tega reproduciranja, lahko vpliva na trgovino znotraj
29 — Cited in footnote 4.30 — See point 6 and footnote 4 above.
29 – Navedena v opombi 4.30 – Glej točko 6 in opombo 4 zgoraj.
31 — See, for example, Foreningen af danske gramdistributører, cited in footnote 22, paragraph 13.
31 – Glej na primer sodbo Foreningen af danske Videogramdistributører, navedeno v opombi 22, točka 13.
28 — See recital 3.
28 – Glej uvodno izjavo 3.
As the Commission submits, the Court has, in assessing the lawfulness of derogations from the free movement of goods based on the protection of copyright, focused on whether an allegedly infringing act is commercial in nature, generating revenue of which the rightholder is deprived.
Sodi�če se je, kot poudarja Komisija, pri presoji zakonitosti odstopanj od prostega pretoka blaga, ki jih upravičuje varstvo avtorske pravice, osredotočilo na to, ali je domnevna kr�itev gospodarske narave, ki ustvarja prihodke, za katere je prikraj�an imetnik pravice.
The allegedly infringing act in cases such as the present is, in contrast, clearly very different in nature.
Domnevna kr�itev pa ima v primerih, kot je ta v obravnavani zadevi, nasprotno, drugačne lastnosti.
It is not at all obvious to me that to permit a rightholder in such circumstances to prevent a person who has lawfully bought the protected goods in another Member State from making them available for temporary use by the public safeguards the rights which constitute the specific subjectmatter of the copyright.
Ne zdi se mi povsem očitno, da to, da se imetniku pravice dovoli, da v takih okoli�činah osebi, ki je zakonito kupila varovano blago v drugi državi članici, prepreči dajanje na voljo za začasno javno uporabo, varuje pravice, ki so poseben predmet avtorske pravice.
Community legislation 33respectively which conferred on (inter alios) the author or producer of a musical or cinematographic work the exclusive right to authorise the rental of recordings of such work.
drugim) avtorju ali producentu glasbenega ali filmskega dela izključno pravico, da dovoli dajanje v najem posnetkov tega dela.
The question in particular was, essentially, whether such a right conflicted with the general principle that a rightholder’s distribution right is exhausted on first sale.
Vpra�anje je bilo zlasti, ali je taka pravica v bistvu v nasprotju s splo�nim načelom, da se imetnikova pravica do distribuiranja izčrpa s prvo prodajo.
The Court concluded that, given the particular nature of the relevant markets, it did not.
Sodi�če je ugotovilo, da glede na posebno naravo upo�tevnih trgov taka pravica ni v nasprotju s tem načelom.
I do not see how the Court’s analysis in that case assists with the definition of ‘distribution to the public’ in a wholly different context.
Ni mi jasno, kako lahko analiza Sodi�ča v tisti zadevi pomaga pri opredelitvi „javnega distribuiranja“ v popolnoma drugačnih okoli�činah.
Foreningen af danske Videogramdistributører concerned the question whether that exclusive rental right was exhausted throughout the Community when the holder authorised rental within one Member State.
Sodba Foreningen af danske Videogramdistributører se je nana�ala na vpra�anje, ali se ta izključna pravica do dajanja v najem v Skupnosti izčrpa, ko imetnik pravice dovoli dajanje v namen znotraj ene države članice.
The Court ruled that, given the particular nature of the exclusive rental right, it was not.
Sodi�če je presodilo, da se glede na posebno naravo izključne pravice do dajanja v najem ta pravica ne izčrpa.
Again, I do not see how that ruling assists the Court in the present case.
Ponovno mi ni jasno, kako lahko ta presoja pomaga Sodi�ču v obravnavani zadevi.
Cassina submits that if the Court were to interpret the distribution right conferred by Article 4(1) of the Copyright Directive more narrowly than it interpreted the distribution right at issue in those cases, which concerned intellectual property in intangi-
Družba Cassina trdi, da če bi Sodi�če pravico do distribuiranja, podeljeno s členom 4(1) Direktive o avtorski pravici, razlagalo bolj ozko, kot je razlagalo pravico do distribuiranja, ki je bila sporna v teh zadevah, ki so se nana�ale na intelektualno
Nor do I accept Cassina’s more general argument that, since the Court has interpreted the concept of the right of distribution broadly in a number of cases concerning copyright, it should be so interpreted in the context of Article 4(1) of the Directive.
Prav tako se ne strinjam s splo�nej�o trditvijo družbe Cassina, da je treba, odkar je Sodi�če pojem pravice do distribuiranja v več zadevah v zvezi z avtorsko pravico razlagalo �iroko, to pravico razlagati tako tudi v okviru člena 4(1) Direktive.
Of the three cases cited by Cassina in support of this argument, 32Warner Brothers and Metronome Musik concerned the compatibility with Article 30 EC of national and
Od treh zadev, ki jih je družba Cassina navedla v podporo te trditve, 32 se sodbi Warner Brothers in Metronome Musik nana�ata na skladnost s čle -
33 — The directive on rental and lending rights, cited in footnote 19.
33 – Direktiva o pravici dajanja v najem in pravici posojanja, navedena v opombi 19.
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG Article 4(1) of the Copyright Directive where pieces of copyrightprotected furniture are made available for temporary use by third parties without those third parties having the right to dispose of them.
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG za�čitenega pohi�tva začasno dani v uporabo tretjim osebam, ne da bi bile te upravičene razpolagati z njimi, ne gre za javno distribuiranje v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive o avtorski pravici. lastnino na neopredmetenih sredstvih, kot je glasba, bi bila neopredmetena dela neupravičeno bolje varovana kot opredmetena dela.
Even, however, if that were the case, I do not consider that it is a good argument for a broad reading of Article 4(1).
Vendar pa tudi če bi bilo tako, menim, da to ni dober argument za �iroko razlago člena 4(1).
Intangible works are, by their nature, susceptible to being distributed in different ways from tangible works.
Neopredmetena dela se lahko zaradi svojih lastnosti prodajajo drugače kot opredmetena dela.
It is precisely for that reason that first the Court in its caselaw and then the Community legislature in the directive on rental and lending rights provided for more extensive copyright protection for intangibles.
Prav zato sta se najprej Sodi�če v svoji sodni praksi in nato normodajalec Skupnosti v Direktivi o pravici dajanja v najem in pravici posojanja odločila za �ir�e varstvo avtorske pravice za neopredmetena dela.
Question 1(b)
Vprašanje 1(b)