natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Notified operators shall publish from 31 December 2000, and keep updated, a reference offer for unbundled access to their local loops and related facilities, which shall include at least the items listed in the Annex.
Prigla�eni obratovalci od 31. decembra 2000 dalje objavljajo in dopolnjujejo referenčno ponudbo za razvezani dostop do svojih krajevnih zank in pripadajočih zmogljivosti, ki vključuje vse točke, na�tete v Prilogi.
The offer shall be sufficiently unbundled so that the beneficiary does not have to pay for network elements or facilities which are not necessary for the supply of its services, and shall contain a description of the components of the offer, associated terms and conditions, including charges.
Ponudba je dovolj odprta, da upravičencu ni treba plačati omrežnih elementov ali zmogljivosti, ki jih ne potrebuje za izvajanje svojih storitev, vsebuje pa opis komponent ponudbe in pripadajoče pogoje, vključno s cenami.
Notified operators shall from 31 December 2000 meet reasonable requests from beneficiaries for unbundled access to their local loops and related facilities, under transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions.
V skladu z nem�kim pravom in zlasti s členom 24(1) in (2) zakona o telekomunikacijah z dne 25. julija 1996 (Telekommunikationsgesetz) 3morajo biti cene naravnane glede na stro�ke učinkovitega opravljanja storitev in biti v skladu z zahtevami iz drugega odstavka tega člena.
On 30 September 1998, Arcor signed a contract with Deutsche Telekom — which was subsequently renewed with effect from
Družba Arcor je 30. septembra 1998 z družbo Deutsche Telekom sklenila pogodbo o dostopu do krajevnih zank zadnjenavedene
Without prejudice to Article 4(4), notified operators shall charge prices for unbundled
Kadar se dostop zavrne, lahko o�kodovana stranka predloži primer v re�evanje po postopku re�evanja sporov iz člena 4(5).
1120, ‘the TKG 1996’.
1120, v nadaljevanju: TKG 1996.
1 April 2001 — on access to the latter’s local loops.
ARCOR družbe, ki je bila pozneje podalj�ana in velja od 1. aprila 2001.
Under that contract, the rates approved by the regulatory authority applied as agreed.
Na podlagi te pogodbe se je �telo, da cene, ki jih je odobril regulativni organ, veljajo, kot je bilo dogovorjeno.
The national regulatory authority may, where justified, intervene on its own initiative in order to ensure nondiscrimination, fair competition, economic efficiency and maximum benefit for users.
Nacionalni regulativni organ lahko, kadar je to utemeljeno, ukrepa na lastno pobudo, da bi zagotovil nediskriminacijo, po�teno konkurenco, gospodarsko učinkovitost in maksimalno korist za uporabnike.
Under Article 4 of the regulation, which is concerned with ‘[s]upervision by the national regulatory authority’:
V členu 4 Uredbe, ki zadeva „[n]adzor nacionalnega regulativnega organa“, je določeno:
When the national regulatory authority determines that the local access market is sufficiently competitive, it shall relieve the notified operators of the obligation laid down in Article 3(3) for prices to be set on the basis of costorientation.
Če nacionalni regulativni organ ugotovi, da je trg za krajevni dostop dovolj konkurenčen, razre�i prigla�ene obratovalce obveznosti iz člena 3(3), po katerem morajo cene določati na podlagi stro�kovne naravnanosti.
The national regulatory authority shall ensure that charging for unbundled access to the local loop fosters fair and sustainable competition.
Nacionalni regulativni organ zagotovi, da se z zaračunavanjem razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke pospe�uje po�tena in znosna konkurenca.
The national regulatory authority shall have the power to:
Nacionalni regulativni organ je poobla�čen, da:
(a) impose changes on the reference offer for unbundled access to the local loop and related facilities, including prices, where such changes are justified, and
(a) zahteva spremembe referenčne ponudbe za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke in pripadajočih zmogljivosti, vključno s cenami, kadar so take spremembe upravičene; in
With regard to German national law, according to Paragraph 27(1) of the TKG 1996, the regulatory authority is to approve rates either on the basis of the cost of providing an efficient service for each type of service or on the basis of the average price, set by that authority, for a basket of ser -vices.
Z vidika nem�kega nacionalnega prava regulativni organ v skladu s členom 27(1) TKG 1996 dovoljuje cene ali na podlagi stro�kov učinkovitega opravljanja storitev za vsako storitev ali na podlagi ravni povprečnih stopenj gibanja cen, ki jo določi in se plača za skupino storitev.
Paragraph 27(4) empowers the Federal Government to issue regulations setting out the rules applying to different types of approvals and defining the terms and conditions under which the regulatory authority is required to decide which of the procedures listed in paragraph 1 is to apply.
Člen 27(4) poobla�ča zvezno vlado, da z uredbami opredeli pravila za vrste dovoljenj in določi pogoje, pod katerimi mora regulativni organ odločiti, kateri od postopkov iz prvega odstavka se uporablja.
(b) require notified operators to supply information relevant for the implementation of this Regulation.
(b) zahteva od prigla�enih obratovalcev, da predložijo informacije, ki so primerne za izvajanje te uredbe.
(Telekommunikations-Entgeltregulier-ungsverordnung) of 1 October 1996, 4the company which filed the application referred to in Paragraph 27(1) of the TKG 1996 must produce the following documents relating to the service in question in each case: (1) a detailed description of the service, including information on the quality of the service and a copy of the terms and conditions applying to it; (2) turnover figures for the last five years and also forecast turnover for the year of filing and for the next four years; (3) information on market shares and, if possible, on price elasticity of demand for the period referred to in point (2); (4) figures for the trend in the various costs referred to in Paragraph 2 (cost statements) and the trend in variable cost margins for the period referred to in point (2); (5) information on the financial impact on customers — in particular the structure of demand from private and business customers — and on competitors who receive the service as a preliminary service; and (6) in the case of differential rates, information on the effects on the user groups affected by the differential rates, as well as objective justification for the proposed differential rates.
Uredba o uravnavanju cen na področju telekomunikacij z dne 1. oktobra 1996 (TelekommunikationsEntgeltregulierungsverordnung) 4v členu 2(1) določa, da mora podjetje, ki je vložilo zahtevek za odobritev cen iz člena 27(1) TKG 1996, v vsakem primeru predložiti naslednje dokumente v zvezi z zadevno storitvijo: 1. podroben opis storitve, vključno s podatki o njeni kakovosti in z osnutkom splo�nih pogojev; 2. podatke o prometu, ustvarjenem v zadnjih petih letih, ter o pričakovanem prometu za leto vložitve zahtevka in �tiri naslednja leta; 3. podatke o tržnih deležih, in če je mogoče, o cenovni elastičnosti povpra�evanja za obdobje iz točke 2; 4. podatke o razvoju različnih stro�kov iz drugega odstavka (potrdila o stro�kih) in razvoju variabilnih stro�kov za obdobje iz točke 2; 5. podatke o finančnem vplivu na uporabnike, zlasti glede strukture povpra�evanja zasebnih in poslovnih uporabnikov, ter na konkurente, ki prejemajo storitev kot predhodno storitev, in 6. pri diferenciaciji cen podatke o učinkih na skupine uporabnikov, ki jih zadeva diferenciacija, in objektivno utemeljitev načrtovane diferenciacije.
cated to the given service (direct costs) and costs that cannot be directly allocated to the given service (common costs).
storitvi (neposredni stro�ki), in stro�ke, ki se tej ne morejo pripisati neposredno (skupni stro�ki).
Statements relating to common costs shall set forth how the common costs are allocated to the given service.
Glede skupnih stro�kov je treba navesti in pojasniti, kako se pripi�ejo različnim storitvam.
In such allocation, the filing company shall take account of the criteria of the Council directives issued under Article 6 of Council Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the establishment of the internal market for telecommunications services through the implementation of open network provision (OJ 1990 L 192, p. 1).
Podjetje, ki je vložilo zahtevek, mora za ta pripis upo�tevati merila, določena z direktivami Sveta, sprejetimi na podlagi člena 6 Direktive Sveta 90/387/EGS z dne 28. junija 1990 o vzpostavitvi notranjega trga za telekomunikacijske storitve z uvedbo zagotavljanja odprtosti omrežij (UL L 192, str. 1).
Also to be included in the cost statements according to sentence 1 above is an account of: (1) the method used to determine the costs; (2) the level of payroll costs, depreciation, cost of capital, costs in relation to materials; (3) target and actual capacity utilisation in the documentation period; and (4) the cost, on which cost accounting is based, of the individual factors employed to provide the service, including the relevant prices, and in particular the elements of the public telecommunications network … and the cost of using those elements.’
V dokazilih o stro�kih iz prvega stavka morajo biti natančneje navedeni tudi: 1. metoda ocene stro�kov; 2. znesek stro�kov za zaposlene, odpisov, finančnih stro�kov vloženega kapitala, materialnih stro�kov; 3. uporaba pričakovane in uresničene zmogljivosti v referenčnem obdobju, in 4. količine, uporabljene kot osnova za izračun uporabljenih stro�kov za storitev, vključno z ustreznimi cenami, predvsem deli javnega telekomunikacijskega omrežja […] in stro�ki uporabe teh delov“.
According to Paragraph 2(3) of the TEntgV, ‘the regulatory authority may reject an application for rates approval where the company fails to produce the documents referred to in Paragraphs 1 and 2 in full.’
V skladu s členom 2(3) TEngV „lahko regulativni organ zavrne zahtevek za odobritev cen, če podjetje ne predloži vseh dokumentov iz prvega in drugega odstavka“.
According to Paragraph 2(2) of the TEntgV, ‘cost statements according to the fourth point of subparagraph 1 above shall comprise costs that can be directly allo-
V skladu s členom 2(2) TEntgV „dokazila o stro�kih iz točke 4 prvega odstavka obsegajo stro�ke, ki se lahko neposredno pripi�ejo
Lastly, Paragraph 3(1) of the TEntgV states that the regulatory authority is to examine the documentation submitted by the filing company with a view to establishing whether and to what extent the rates proposed are based on the cost of efficient service provision.
In končno, v členu 3(1) TEngV je določeno, da mora regulativni organ preučiti dokazila, ki jih predloži podjetje, ki je vložilo zahtevek, da bi ugotovil, ali in koliko so zahtevane cene naravnane glede na stro�ke učinkovitega opravljanja storitev.
1492, hereinafter ‘the TEntgV’.
1492, v nadaljevanju: TEntgV.
ARCOR rest, the approval expired on 31 March 2002 at the latest.
ARCOR da je odobritev mesečne naročnine potekla 31. marca 2003, ostalega pa najpozneje 31. marca 2002.
graph 3(2), these costs are derived from the longterm additional costs of providing the service plus an appropriate amount for volume-neutral common costs, both inclusive of an appropriate return on capital employed, to the extent that these costs are required to provide the offering.
dodatnih stro�kov storitve in primernega dodatka iz naslova skupnih stro�kov, neodvisnih od obsega storitve, kar v vsakem primeru vključuje primeren donos od vloženega kapitala, če so ti stro�ki nujni za to storitev.
According to Paragraph 3(3), when examining the documentation supplied, the regulatory authority should, for the purposes of comparison, refer additionally to, in particular, the prices and costs of companies offering corresponding services on comparable markets.
V členu 3(3) je določeno, da bo moral regulativni organ pri preučitvi dokazil poleg tega za primerjavo uporabiti cene in stro�ke podjetij, ki ponujajo enake storitve na podobnih trgih.
In doing this, the particular features of the reference markets must be taken into account.
Pri tem je treba upo�tevati posebnosti referenčnih trgov.
Lastly, Paragraph 3(4) states that where costs stated in Paragraph 2(2) exceed the cost of efficient service provision, they are to be deemed expenditure surplus to efficient provision.
Nazadnje, v členu 3(4) je določeno, da se za stro�ke, utemeljene na podlagi člena 2(2), če presegajo stro�ke učinkovitega opravljanja storitev, �teje, da so izdatki, ki niso potrebni za učinkovito opravljanje storitev.
Paragraph 2(2) also states that this expenditure and other neutral expenditure will only be taken into account in the rates approval procedure if, and for such duration as, it derives from a legal requirement or the filing company evidences other proper justification therefor.
V istem odstavku je določeno tudi, da se ti izdatki in tudi drugi nevtralni izdatki upo�tevajo pri odobritvi cen samo, če in dokler obstaja zakonska obveznost v ta namen ali če podjetje, ki je vložilo zahtevek, ponudi drugo objektivno utemeljitev.
On 30 April 2001, Arcor brought an action seeking, inter alia, judicial annulment of the approval decision referred to above.
Družba Arcor je 30. aprila 2001 vložila tožbo, s katero je zahtevala predvsem razglasitev ničnosti zgoraj navedene odločbe o odobritvi cen.
Its argument in substance is that the approved rates are too high because, according to Arcor, the investment value of the local loop — on which they were based — was incorrectly determined.
V bistvu trdi, da so odobrene cene previsoke. Po mnenju družbe Arcor so bile določene na podlagi napačne ocene vi�ine vlaganj v krajevno zanko.
The capital costs and the depreciation life were calculated exclusively on the basis of the current cost entailed in setting up a modern efficient local network, with the result that, in its view, the rates exceed Deutsche Telekom’s true capital costs.
Finančni stro�ki in amortizacijska doba so se izračunali izključno na podlagi dejanskih stro�kov, potrebnih za vzpostavitev sodobnega in učinkovitega krajevnega omrežja, tako da naj bi cene presegale dejanske finančne stro�ke družbe Deutsche Telekom.
Basically, the rates are in breach of the principle of costorientation contained in Article 3(3) of the regulation.
Skratka, cene naj bi kr�ile načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti iz člena 3(3) Uredbe.
By a decision dated 30 March 2001, and subsequently amended on 17 April 2001, the German regulatory authority partially approved Deutsche Telekom’s rates for access to the local loop (monthly licence fee for use of the line and a one-off provision and cancellation fee) from 1 April 2001 for numerous types of access charged at varying amounts.
Nem�ki regulativni organ je z odločbo z dne 30. marca 2001, popravljeno 17. aprila istega leta, deloma odobril cene družbe Deutsche Telekom za dostop do krajevne zanke (mesečna naročnina za uporabo linije, enotni stro�ki vzpostavitve in odpovedi) od 1. aprila 2001 za �tevilne različice dostopa po različnih cenah.
According to the referring court, the approval for the monthly licence fee expired on 31 March 2003, and, as for the
Predložitveno sodi�če meni,
In those circumstances, the Verwaltungsgericht Köln decided to stay proceedings and refer to the Court for a preliminary ruling a lengthy series of questions which could usefully be reformulated to enable the Court to reply to them in a straightforward manner.
Verwaltungsgericht Köln je v teh okoli�činah odločilo prekiniti odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje postavilo več vpra�anj, ki bi se lahko na novo oblikovala, da bi bili odgovori Sodi�ča enostavni.
Within the specific context of the present case, these questions take an extremely exhaustive and wide-ranging approach to a whole range of problems relating to and surrounding the concept of charges set on the basis of costorientation.
Ta vpra�anja zelo izčrpno in obsežno pokrivajo vse težave, ki se v konkretnih okoli�činah te zadeve pojavljajo v zvezi s pojmom stro�kovne naravnanosti cen.
The first basically asks to what extent Article 1(4) of the regulation permits Member States, when adopting national legislation defining the concept of costorientation, to deviate from the concept of costorientation as laid down in Article 3(3) of the regulation, to the detriment of beneficiaries.
Prvo vpra�anje je, v kolik�ni meri člen 1(4) Uredbe državam članicam pri sprejemanju nacionalne zakonodaje o določitvi pojma stro�kovne naravnanosti dovoljuje, da v �kodo upravičencev odstopajo od pojma stro�kovne naravnanosti, kot je določen v členu 3(3) Uredbe.
By its sixth question, the referring court is basically asking whether, even though a rates approval decision adopted by a national regulatory authority is not addressed to them, competitors as beneficiaries of access to the notified operator’s local loop must have the right to bring an action against such a decision, where they consider that the rates have not been set on the basis of costorientation.
Predložitveno sodi�če želi s �estim vpra�anjem v bistvu izvedeti, ali imajo konkurenti, ki so upravičeni do dostopa do krajevne zanke prigla�enega obratovalca, čeprav niso prejemniki odločbe o odobritvi cen, ki jo je sprejel nacionalni regulativni organ, pravico do tožbe zoper tako odločbo, če menijo, da cene niso stro�kovno naravnane.
The second question concerns whether, under Article 3(3) of the regulation, the requirement that the rates charged for local loop access should be set on the basis of costorientation also includes imputed interest and costaccounting depreciation.
Drugo vpra�anje je, ali v skladu s čle -nom 3(3) Uredbe zahteva, da so cene dostopa do krajevne zanke stro�kovno naravnane, vsebuje tudi računovodske obresti in odpise.
The referring court is asking about the basis used to calculate this depreciation and interest.
Predložitveno sodi�če se nato spra�uje o podlagi za izračun teh odpisov in obresti.
Should it be exclusively the current replacement value, expressed in terms of current daily prices at the date of valuation, or should depreciation made prior to the date of valuation be deducted from the replacement value of the assets?
Ali mora biti ta podlaga izključno trenutna nadomestna vrednost, izražena v dnevnih cenah v trenutku vrednotenja, ali je treba od te nadomestne vrednosti sredstev od�teti odpise, že opravljene v trenutku vrednotenja?
The last question is, basically, asking where the burden of proof that rates have been set on the basis of costorientation should lie, both during the administrative procedure preceding the rates approval decision and during an action brought against the national regulatory authority’s decision by a competitor who has been affected by that decision.
V zadnjem vpra�anju gre pravzaprav za to, kdo mora nositi dokazno breme glede stro�kovne naravnanosti cen v okviru upravnega postopka, v katerem se izda odločba o odobritvi cen, in v okviru tožbe, ki jo prizadeti konkurent vloži zoper to odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa.
Let me begin with some preliminary comments on the regulation. These concern
V četrtem vpra�anju gre v bistvu za to, ali je treba delati na podlagi popolnih dokazil o stro�kih prigla�enega obratovalca ali pa se dopu�ča uporaba analitičnih modelov stro�kov in, po potrebi, katere zahteve je treba upo�tevati.
8 the adoption of the regulation within the context of the former Community regulatory framework for telecommunications, the essential features and aims of the regulation and the context within which it introduces the concept of costorientation.
8 vajo sprejetje Uredbe v okviru starega regulativnega okvira Skupnosti za telekomunikacije, cene in bistvene cilje Uredbe ter okvir, v katerem uporablja pojem stro�kovne naravnanosti.
I shall then go on to analyse the referring court’s questions.
Nato bom analiziral vpra�anja, ki jih je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če.
A — Preliminary regulation.
A – Uvodne ugotovitve o Uredbi
The rates approval decision at issue in the main proceedings is dated 30 March 2001.
Odločba o odobritvi cen, ki se obravnava v zadevi v glavni stvari, je bila izdana 30. marca 2001.
That decision approved Deutsche Telekom’s rates for access to its local loop for the period between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2003 in the case of the monthly licence fee, and 31 March 2002 at the latest for the rest.
Z njo so bile odobrene cene družbi Deutsche Telekom za dostop do njene krajevne zanke od 1. aprila 2001 do 31. marca 2003 za mesečno naročnino in najpozneje do 31. marca 2002 za ostalo.
However, according to Article 28(1) of the framework directive, the provisions of the new regulatory framework did not become applicable until 25 July 2003.
Nasprotno pa so določbe novega regulativnega okvira v skladu s členom 28(1) Okvirne direktive začele veljati �ele 25. julija 2003.
9 The provisions of the regulation must be interpreted within the context of and in conjunction with the legal instruments consti-
9 Določbe Uredbe je treba razlagati v okviru in v povezavi z
According to recital (15) of the preamble, the regulation was adopted to complement the former regulatory framework for telecommunications, in particular Direct-
Uredba je bila glede na uvodno izjavo 15 sprejeta zaradi dopolnitve starega regu- lativnega okvira za telekomunikacije, zlasti
Article 4(5) of the regulation even refers expressly to the first of these directives.
Uredbe se celo izrecno sklicuje na prvo od teh direktiv 7.
7 Although forming part of the former Community regulatory framework for telecommunications, the
Čeprav je Uredba del starega regulativnega okvira Skupnosti za teleko-
5 — Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32).
5 – Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. junija 1997 o medmrežnem povezovanju v telekomunikacijah glede na zagotavljanje univerzalne storitve in medobratovalnosti z uporabo načel zagotavljanja odprtosti omrežij (ONP) (UL L 199, str. 32).
8 — According to Article 27 of 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 (the ‘Framework’ Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p.
8 – V skladu s členom 27 Direktive 2002/21/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 7. marca 2002 o skupnem regulativnem okviru za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve (okvirna direktiva) (UL L 108, str.
33) (‘the framework directive’), ‘[o]perators of fixed public telephone networks that were designated by their national regulatory authority as having significant market power in the provision of fixed public telephone networks […] shall continue to be considered “notified operators” for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 until such time as the market analysis procedure referred to in Article 16 has been completed.
33, v nadaljevanju: Okvirna direktiva) „[o]bratovalci fiksnih javnih telefonskih omrežij, ki jih je njihov nacionalni regulativni organ določil za obratovalce s pomembno tržno močjo pri zagotavljanju fiksnih javnih telefonskih omrežij […], se �e naprej �tejejo za,prigla�ene obratovalce‘ za namen Uredbe (ES) �t. 2887/2000, dokler se ne konča postopek analize trga iz člena 16.
Thereafter they shall cease to be considered “notified operators” for the purposes of this Regulation.’
Po tem se za namen te uredbe ne �tejejo več za, prigla�ene obratovalce‘“.
Recital 43 in the preamble to the framework directive also states that the Commission may, when appropriate, present a proposal for the repeal of the regulation.
V uvodni izjavi 43 Okvirne direktive je poleg tega določeno, da lahko Komisija v primernem času predlaga razveljavitev Uredbe.
The obligations laid down in the regulation are therefore to remain in force for the period of time necessary to assess competition and to decide, on the basis of that assessment, whether or not the obligations in question need to be retained.
Obveznosti, določene v Uredbi, zato veljajo v obdobju, potrebnem za ocenitev konkurence in odločitev na podlagi te ocene, ali je treba zadevne obveznosti ohraniti ali ne.