natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Lithuanian Republic submits that the action should be dismissed as inadmissible on the ground that the complaints set out in the reasoned opinion differed in their content from those raised in the application.
Republika Litva zatrjuje, da bi bilo treba tožbo zavrniti kot nedopustno, ker se očitki, navedeni v obrazloženem mnenju, vsebinsko razlikujejo od očitkov, navedenih v tožbi.
Whereas the statement of reasons in the reasoned opinion emphasised the fact that in Lithuania, as regards calls to the ‘112’ number from a mobile telephone, caller location information is not provided according to the ‘pull’ method, the application sets out an obligation to apply the ‘push’ method.
Čeprav naj bi bila v bistvu v obrazloženem mnenju poudarjena okoli�čina, da v Litvi za klice na �tevilko „112“, ki prihajajo z mobilnega telefona, informacije o lokaciji kličočega niso bile posredovane po sistemu „pull“, naj bi bila v tožbi v zvezi s tem navedena obveznost uporabe sistema „push“.
The Commission replies that the reasoned opinion and the application mention both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ methods, set out in Recommendation No 2003/558, and leave the Republic of Lithuania the choice as to which of those methods to apply in order to implement Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive.
Komisija odgovarja, da sta v obrazloženem mnenju in tožbi navedena oba sistema – „push“ in „pull“ – iz Priporočila 2003/558, ki Republiki Litvi omogoča, da izbere enega od sistemov, ki ga je treba uporabiti za izvajanje člena 26(3) Direktive o univerzalnih storitvah.
2008 — CASE C-274/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-274/07 najbolj enostavna tehnična sredstva za lociranje kličočega, torej morajo uporabiti sistem „pull“.
Since the Commission’s position therefore remained unclear until that stage the complaints that it made did not comply with the requirement to precisely formulate the subjectmatter of an action for failure to fulfil obligations.
Ker stali�če Komisije zato do te faze ni bilo natančno, v očitkih, ki jih je navedla, naj ne bi bila upo�tevana zahteva po natančni formulaciji predmeta tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti.
First of all, it is settled caselaw that the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity to comply with its obligations under Community law, on the one hand, and, on the other, to avail itself of its right to defend itself against the objections formulated by the Commission (see, in particular, Case C-484/04 Commission v United Kingdom [2006] ECR I-7471, paragraph 24, and the caselaw cited).
Opozoriti je treba, da je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso namen predhodnega postopka ta, da se zadevni državi da možnost, da se na eni strani uskladi s svojimi obveznostmi na podlagi prava Skupnosti in da na drugi strani zoper očitke Komisije učinkovito uveljavi obrambna sredstva (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 7. septembra 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu, C-484/04, ZOdl., str. I-7471, točka 24 in navedena sodna praksa).
The proper conduct of that procedure constitutes an essential guarantee required by the EC Treaty not only in order to protect the rights of the Member State concerned, but also to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute as its subjectmatter (see, Case C-34/04 Commission v Netherlands [2007] ECR I-1387, paragraph 49, and the caselaw cited).
Pravilnost tega postopka pomeni bistveno jamstvo, ki ga želi zagotavljati Pogodba ES, ne le za varstvo pravic zadevnih držav članic, temveč tudi za to, da se zagotovi, da bo v morebitnem sodnem postopku predmet spora jasno opredeljen (glej sodbo z dne 15. februarja 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Nizozemski, C-34/04, ZOdl., str. I-1387, točka 49 in navedena sodna praksa).
It follows, first, that the subjectmatter of the proceedings under Article 226 EC is delimited by the pre-litigation procedure governed by that provision.
Prvič, iz tega izhaja, da je predmet tožbe, ki je vložena v skladu s členom 226 ES, omejen s predhodnim postopkom, določenim v tem členu.
Second, the reasoned opinion must contain a cogent and detailed exposition of the reasons which led the Commission to the conclusion that the Member State concerned has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under Community law (see, Commission v Germany, cited above, paragraph 19, and Commission v United Kingdom, cited above, paragraph 26).
Drugič, obrazloženo mnenje mora vsebovati skladen in podroben prikaz razlogov, ki so Komisijo prepričali, da zadevna država ni izpolnila obveznosti iz prava Skupnosti (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Nemčiji, točka 19, in Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu z dne 7. septembra 2006, točka 26).
In this case, it must be stated first of all that the complaint made against the Republic of Lithuania remained unchanged throughout the pre-litigation and contentious procedures.
V obravnavani zadevi je treba ugotoviti, da je ostal očitek zoper Republiko Litvo nespremenjen vseskozi predhodni in sodni postopek.
Both during the pre-litigation procedure and before the Court, the Commission complained that that Member State had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive by failing to ensure in practice that, to the extent technically feasible, authorities handling emergencies are given caller location information for all callers to the single European emergency call number ‘112’.
Komisija je v bistvu tako v predhodnem postopku kot v postopku pred Sodi�čem tej državi članici očitala, da s tem, da v praksi ni zagotovila, da so organom, ki re�ujejo nujne primere, pri vseh klicih na enotno evropsko �tevilko klica v sili „112“ dane na voljo informacije o lokaciji kličočega, če je to tehnično izvedljivo, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 26(3) Direktive o univerzalnih storitvah.
As regards the specific content and the reasoning of that complaint, the Commission relied, in the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion, on the fact that it was technically feasible for fixed and mobile telephone operators operating in Lithuania to provide that information at least according to the ‘pull’ method referred to in Recommendation 2003/558.
Komisija je v zvezi z vsebino in obrazložitvijo tega očitka v pisnem opominu in obrazloženem mnenju zatrjevala, da je bilo tehnično izvedljivo, da bi dejavni operaterji fiksne in mobilne telefonije v Litvi te informacije posredovali vsaj prek sistema „pull“ iz Priporočila 2003/558.
However, in so doing it had in no way imposed that method on the Republic of Lithuania, but merely stated that in its view the obligation laid down in Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive is in fact applicable in this case, since the condition of technical feasibility to which Article 26(3) subjects that obligation is satisfied.
S tem Republiki Litvi nikakor ni naložila uporabo zadnjenavedenega sistema, ampak se je omejila na pojasnilo, da po njenem mnenju obveznost iz člena 26(3) Direktive o univerzalnih storitvah v obravnavani zadevi dejansko velja, ker je izpolnjen pogoj tehnične izvedljivosti, ki se v skladu s to določbo zahteva za navedeno obveznost.
Contrary to the Republic of Lithuania’s submissions, the Commission did not assert, during the proceedings before the Court, that Member States have an obligation to implement a specific method in order to comply with Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive.
Komisija v nasprotju s tem, kar zatrjuje Republika Litva, ni niti v okviru postopka pred Sodi�čem potrdila, da so države članice zavezane uporabiti določen sistem za uskladitev s členom 26(3) Direktive o univerzalnih storitvah.
The application and the reply, like the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion before them, simply refer to point 4 of Recommendation 2003/558, without requiring one or other method mentioned in that paragraph to be implemented.
Tožba in replika se namreč kot pred tem pisni opomin in obrazloženo mnenje zgolj sklicujeta na točko 4 Priporočila 2003/558, ne da bi zahtevali uporabo enega ali drugega sistema, navedenega v tej točki.
Thus, the Commission submitted — in particular in its reply — not that the Republic of Lithuania must use the ‘pull’ method, but that that Member State is required to implement at least the most simple technical measures in order to ensure that, from the date laid down in the Act of Accession, the relevant information is actually transmitted.
Komisija tako v repliki nikakor ni zatrjevala, da mora Republika Litva uporabiti sistem „pull“, ampak da mora ta država članica uporabiti vsaj najbolj enostaven sistem, da zagotovi, da bodo sporne informacije o lokaciji kličočega od datuma, določenega v Aktu o pristopu, dejansko posredovane.
That position corresponds exactly to the view expressed by the Commission during the pre-litigation procedure.
To stali�če se torej v celoti ujema s stali�čem, ki ga je Komisija podala v predhodnem postopku.
The Commission takes the view that it is technically feasible for Lithuanian operators of public mobile telephone networks to provide caller location information when the caller dials the ‘112’ number from a mobile telephone.
Komisija meni, da je tehnično izvedljivo, da litovski operaterji javnih omrežij mobilne telefonije posredujejo informacije o lokaciji kličočega, kadar zadnjenavedeni pokliče �tevilko „112“ z mobilnega telefona.
Therefore, it follows from the information provided by the defendant itself that the mobile telephone networks in Lithuania do not have specific characteristics which, from a technical point of view, prevent the transmission of that information.
Iz informacij, ki jih je posredovala tožena stranka, naj bi tako izhajalo, da omrežja mobilne telefonije v Litvi nimajo posebnih značilnosti, ki bi s tehničnega vidika preprečevale posredovanje teh informacij.
In particular, the agreement concluded on 4 December 2006 between the Joint Emergency Services Centre and the providers of public mobile telephone network services
Zlasti v sporazumu o storitvah lociranja kličočega, sklenjenem 4. decembra 2006 med skupno centralo dežurnih služb in ponudniki storitev javnih omrežij mobilne telefo-
COMMISSION v LITHUANIA states that it is technically possible to transmit the information, but that that might require additional investment.
KOMISIJA PROTI LITVI nije, naj bi bilo opozorjeno, da je posredovanje navedene informacije tehnično izved -ljivo, ampak da bi bile lahko za to potrebne dodatne naložbe.
The lack of investment and the delays in acquiring the technical equipment necessary for that purpose cannot be regarded as a lack of technical feasibility within the meaning of Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive.
Neobstoja naložb in zamude pri pridobitvi naprav, ki so za to potrebne, torej ni mogoče �teti za tehnično neizvedljivost v smislu člena 26(3) Direktive o univerzalnih storitvah.
In its reply, the Commission states that point 4 of Recommendation 2003/558, to which it referred in its application, cannot, having regard to the non-binding nature of that recommendation, require the Member States to apply the ‘push’ method rather than the ‘pull’ method in order to transmit caller location information.
Komisija v repliki navaja, da na podlagi točke 4 Priporočila 2003/558, na katero se nana�a v tožbi, ob upo�tevanju nezavezujoče narave tega priporočila držav članic ni mogoče zavezati k uporabi sistema „push“, namesto k uporabi sistema „pull“ za posredovanje informacij o lokaciji kličočega.
Although the Republic of Lithuania is therefore free as to the choice of method it must, however, in accordance with Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive, implement at least the most simple technical measures in order to ensure that the operators of fixed and mobile public telephone networks provide that information from the date set in the Act of Accession.
Čeprav Republika Litva prosto izbira sistem, naj bi bila v skladu s členom 26(3) Direktive o univerzalni storitvah vendarle zavezana uporabiti vsaj najbolj enostavna tehnična sredstva za zagotovitev, da operaterji javne fiksne in mobilne telefonije od datuma, določenega v Aktu o pristopu, posredujejo te informacije.
The Republic of Lithuania contends that the complaint made by the Commission is unfounded solely because it is not formulated in an appropriate manner.
Republika Litva zatrjuje, da očitek Komisije ni utemeljen zgolj zaradi dejstva, da ni bil ustrezno naveden.
Since that Member State has adopted all the legal, technical and organisational measures possible in order to fulfil the obligations laid down by Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive, the Commission’s head of claim should have been formulated so as to seek a declaration that the Republic of Lithuania has failed to fulfil its obligations by not ensuring that the undertakings which operate public telephone networks make the relevant information available to the authorities handling emergencies.
Ker naj bi ta država članica sprejela vse mogoče pravne, tehnične in organizacijske ukrepe, da bi izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 26(3) Direktive o univerzalnih storitvah, bi moral biti navedeni očitek Komisije naveden tako, da bi bila ugotovljena neizpolnitev, in sicer da ni zagotovila, da dajo podjetja, ki upravljajo javna omrežja telefonije, organom, ki re�ujejo nujne primere, na voljo sporne informacije o lokaciji kličočega.
As regards technical feasibility, the Republic of Lithuania explains that the Joint Emergency Services Centre has the technical means to receive the location information on a person calling the ‘112’ number.
Republika Litva v zvezi s tehnično izvedljivostjo navaja, da ima skupna centrala dežurnih služb tehnična sredstva za sprejemanje informacij o lokaciji osebe, ki je klicala �tevilko „112“.
However, the operators of public mobile telephone networks active in Lithuania do not always have the technical means to provide that information.
Vendar naj operaterji javnih omrežij mobilne telefonije v Litvi �e vedno ne bi imeli tehničnih sredstev za posredovanje teh informacij.
That Member State points out that the adaptation of the ‘pull’ method, used by certain operators for commercial purposes, would have been far simpler than the transition to a system based on the ‘push’ method.
Ta država članica podrobneje navaja, da naj bi bila prilagoditev sistemu „pull“, ki so ga določeni operaterji uporabili v komercialne namene, veliko bolj enostavna kot prehod na sistem „push“.
However, at the same time as a decision was taken to use the latter, more modern method, the extra investment to adapt the ‘pull’ method to the needs of the location of calls to the ‘112’ number was refused.
Vendar so bile hkrati, ko se je odločila uporabiti ta modernej�i sistem, zavrnjene dodatne naložbe za prilagoditev sistema „pull“ potrebam lociranja klicev na �tevilko „112“.
In that context, it states that the technical means necessary to transmit the information concerned differ radically according to whether the ‘pull’ or ‘push’ method is used and that the two systems require investment and a certain amount of preparation time.
V tem okviru Republika Litva poudarja, da se tehnična sredstva, potrebna za posredovanje zadevnih informacij, zelo razlikujejo glede na uporabljen sistem, „pull“ ali „push“, in da so za oba sistema potrebne naložbe in določen čas za priprave.
The factor of technical feasibility should be taken into consideration when examining the reasons why Lithuanian mobile telephone operators are not ready to transmit information to the emergency services.
Pri preučitvi razlogov, iz katerih litovski operaterji mobilne telefonije niso pripravljeni posredovati informacij dežurni službi, bi bilo treba upo�tevati ta element, povezan s tehnično izvedljivostjo.
In addition, account should be taken of the uncertainty raised by Recommendation 2003/558 as to the manner in which the obligations arising from Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive are to be implemented and the timelimit to be respected in that regard.
Poleg tega je treba upo�tevati negotovost, ki jo zbuja Priporočilo 2003/558 glede načina, kako morajo biti obveznosti iz člena 26(3) Direktive o univerzalnih storitvah izpolnjene, in roka, ki ga je treba v zvezi s tem spo�tovati.
There would be a failure to fulfil obligations only if it were known from the outset which method may and must be applied and from which date.
V bistvu bi �lo za vpra�anje neizpolnitve le, če bi bilo vnaprej znano, kateri sistem je mogoče ali treba uporabiti in od katerega datuma naprej.
According to the Republic of Lithuania, if it had been clearly established that Member States are free to apply the ‘pull’ method which is simpler from a technical point of view, it could have made use of that option, which would have saved a considerable amount of time.
Republika Litva meni, da če bi bilo jasno določeno, da države članice prosto odločijo, ali bodo uporabljale sistem „pull“, ki je enostavnej�i s tehničnega vidika, bi lahko uporabila to možnost, kar bi ji omogočilo, da bi prihranila veliko časa.
Furthermore, points 4 and 13 of Recommendation 2003/558 should be interpreted as meaning that the aims of the Universal Service Directive are not achieved in an effect - ive manner by employing the ‘pull’ method and therefore it is necessary to introduce the ‘push’ method as widely as possible.
Nadalje, točki 4 in 13 Priporočila 2003/558 bi bilo sicer treba razlagati tako, da pomenita, da z uporabo sistema „pull“ cilji Direktive o univerzalnih storitvah niso ustrezno doseženi in da je treba zato v čim večji meri uvesti sistem „push“.
Since extra time was necessary in order to implement this method, the Commission provided for an additional period in the recommendation.
Ker bi bil za uvedbo zadnjenavedenega sistema potreben dodaten čas, naj bi Komisija v navedenem priporočilu določila dodatni rok.
It must be recalled that, under Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive, Member States are to ensure that undertakings which operate public telephone networks make caller location information available to authorities handling emergencies, to the extent technically feasible, for all calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’.
Opozoriti je treba, da morajo države članice na podlagi člena 26(3) Direktive o univerzalnih storitvah zagotoviti, da podjetja, ki so pristojna za obratovanje javnega telefonskega omrežja, dajo organom, ki re�ujejo nujne primere, pri vseh klicih na enotno evropsko �tevilko klica v sili „112“ na voljo informacije o lokaciji kličočega, če je to tehnično izvedljivo.
As is clear from the 36th recital in the preamble to the Universal Service Directive, that provision aims to improve the level of protection and the security of users of ‘112’ services and assist the emergency services in the discharge of their duties.
Kot izhaja iz �estintridesete uvodne izjave Direktive o univerzalnih storitvah, je namen člena 26(3) izbolj�ati raven za�čite in varnost uporabnikov storitev „112“ in pomagati dežurnim službam pri izpolnjevanju njihovih dolžnosti.
It follows from the wording and the aim of the provision that it imposes on Member States, subject to technical feasibility, an obligation to achieve a result which is not limited to putting in place an appropriate regulatory framework, but which requires that the location information for all callers to the ‘112’ be actually transmitted to the emergency services.
Iz besedila in tega cilja navedene določbe izhaja, da ta državam članicam nalaga, če je tehnično izvedljivo, obveznost glede rezultata, ki se ne omejuje na uvedbo ustreznega pravnega okvirja ampak zahteva, da se informacije o lokaciji vseh kličočih na �tevilko „112“ dejansko posredujejo dežurnim službam.
In this case, the Republic of Lithuania does not deny that when the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion expired, that information was not transmitted in cases where the call came from a mobile telephone.
V obravnavani zadevi Republika Litva ne izpodbija tega, da te informacije ob izteku roka, določenega v obrazloženem mnenju, kadar so klici prihajali z mobilnega telefona, niso bile posredovane.
First, the Republic of Lithuania’s argument that the Commission’s complaint is not formulated in an appropriate manner since it has adopted all the legal, technical and organisational measures necessary to transpose Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive, cannot be accepted.
Prvič, trditve države članice, v skladu s katero naj očitek Komisije ne bi bil ustrezno formuliran, ker je Republika Litva sprejela vse pravne, tehnične in organizacijske ukrepe, ki so potrebni za prenos člena 26(3) Direktive o univerzalnih storitvah, ni mogoče sprejeti.
It is clear from the formulation and the reasoning of that complaint that the Commission does not criticise the Republic of Lithuania for
Iz formulacije in obrazložitve tega očitka namreč jasno izhaja, da
2008 — CASE C-274/07 having incorrectly or insufficiently transposed that provision, but for not being able to ensure in practice that the information at issue is actually made available to the emergency services.
2008 – ZADEVA C-274/07
Second, as regards the requirement of technical feasibility which accompanies the obligation imposed on the Member States by Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive, it must be held that, according to the information provided by the Republic of Lithuania, the failure to transmit information on the location of calls from the public mobile telephone networks is due to the fact that the operators of those networks do not have the necessary technical equipment, which would require substantial investment.
Drugič, v zvezi s pogojem tehnične izvedljivosti, ki je sestavni del obveznosti, ki jo člen 26(3) Direktive o univerzalnih storitvah nalaga državam članicam, je treba ugotoviti, da v skladu s podatki Republike Litve informacije o lokaciji klicev, ki prihajajo iz javnih omrežij mobilne telefonije, niso bile posredovane, ker operaterji teh omrežij nimajo potrebne tehnične opreme, za katere so potrebne večje naložbe.
It has been explained in that regard that after an initial disagreement between the operators and the Lithuanian authorities concerning the financing of the costs of such investment the legislature amended Article 65(4) of the Law on electronic communications with effect from 1 September 2007, so as to provide that from now on operators are to provide the information at issue free of charge to the Joint Emergency Services Centre and that the costs of acquiring, installing, adapting, refurbishing and operating the equipment necessary for that purpose are to be reimbursed from public funds.
V zvezi s tem je bilo po prvotnem nesoglasju med operaterji in litovskimi organi v zvezi s kritjem stro�kov glede teh naložb poudarjeno, da je zakonodajalec spremenil člen 65(4) zakona o elektronskih komunikacijah, ki je začel veljati 1. septembra 2007, ki odslej določa, da operaterji zadevne informacije brezplačno posredujejo skupni centrali dežurnih služb in da se stro�ki za pridobitev, namestitev ali prilagoditev, obnovitev in delovanje opreme, ki je potrebna za ta namen, povrnejo iz javnih sredstev.
It follows from that evidence, without there being any need to examine the agreement concluded on 4 December 2006 between the Joint Emergency Services Centre and the providers of public mobile telephone network services, the interpretation of which is a matter of dispute between the parties, that the reason for the failure to transmit information on the location of calls from those networks does not arise from technical characteristics of those networks, which would prevent the transmission of that information, but from the lack of the investment required in order to acquire or adapt the equipment so as to allow that transmission.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da – ne da bi bilo treba analizirati sporazum o storitvah lociranja kličočega, sklenjen 4. decembra 2006 med skupno centralo dežurnih služb in ponudniki storitev iz javnih omrežij mobilne telefonije, katerega razlaga je med strankama sporna – razlog za neposredovanje informacij o lokaciji klicev, ki prihajajo iz teh omrežij, niso tehnične značilnosti teh omrežij, ki bi objektivno preprečevale posredovanje navedenih informacij, ampak neobstoj naložb, ki se zahtevajo za pridobitev in prilagoditev naprav, ki omogočajo tako posredovanje.