natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Likewise, pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Authorisation Directive, ‘[w]here the granting of rights of use for radio frequencies needs to be limited, Member States shall grant such rights on the basis of selection criteria which must be objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate’.
Prav tako člen 7(3) direktive o odobritvi določa, da „[k]adar je treba podelitev pravic uporabe radijskih frekvenc omejiti, države članice podelijo take pravice na podlagi izbirnih meril, ki morajo biti objektivna, transparentna, nediskriminacijska in sorazmerna“.
That requirement is backed up by point 2 of Article 4 of the Competition Directive, under which ‘the assignment of radio frequencies for electronic communication services shall be based on objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria’.
Ta zahteva je potrjena v členu 4, točka 2, direktive o konkurenci, ki določa, da dodeljevanje radijskih frekvenc za elektronske komunikacijske storitve temelji na objektivnih, preglednih, nediskriminacijskih in sorazmernih merilih.
In the main proceedings, according to the information supplied by the national court, under Law No 249/1997 the allocation of radio frequencies to a limited number of operators was not carried out in accordance with such criteria.
V postopku v glavni stvari iz dejstev in dokazov, ki jih je predložilo predložitveno sodi�če, izhaja, da na podlagi zakona �t. 249/1997 dodeljevanje radijskih frekvenc omejenemu �tevilu operaterjev ni bilo izvedeno po teh merilih.
First, those radio frequencies were allocated de facto to the incumbent networks under the transitional arrangements adjusted in Article 3(7) of Law No 249/1997, even though some of those networks had not been granted rights under that Law.
Po eni strani so bile te radijske frekvence namreč dodeljene obstoječim kanalom na podlagi prehodne ureditve, določene po členu 3(7) zakona �t. 249/1997, čeprav nekaterim od teh kanalov niso bile dodeljene koncesije v okviru tega zakona.
Secondly, operators such as Centro Europa 7 were not allocated radio frequencies even though they had been granted rights under that Law.
Po drugi strani operaterjem, kot je družba Centro Europa 7, niso bile dodeljene radijske frekvence, čeprav so jim bile dodeljene koncesije v okviru tega zakona.
The same conclusion must be drawn as regards the system for the grant of radio frequencies to a limited number of operators under Law No 112/2004, in the sense that that scheme was not implemented on the basis of objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria, in breach of Article 49 EC and, from the date on which they became applicable, Article 9(1) of the Framework Directive, the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 7(3) of the Authorisation Directive and point 2 of Article 4 of the Competition Directive.
Enaka presoja velja tudi glede ureditve dodeljevanja radijskih frekvenc omejenemu �tevilu operaterjev v skladu z zakonom �t. 112/2004, saj se ta ureditev ni izvajala na podlagi objektivnih, transparentih, nediskriminacijskih in sorazmernih meril, ob kr�itvi člena 49 ES ter, od začetka veljavnosti, člena 9(1) okvirne direktive, člena 5(2), drugi pododstavek, in člena 7(3) direktive o odobritvi ter člena 4, točka 2, direktive o konkurenci.
In any event, the restrictions established above cannot be justified by the need to ensure a swift transformation to digital television broadcasting.
V nobenem primeru zgoraj ugotovljenih omejitev ni mogoče upravičiti s potrebo, da se zagotovi hiter prestop na digitalno televizijsko radiodifuzijo.
Having regard to all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second, fourth and fifth questions, taken together, must be that Article 49 EC and, from the date on which they became applicable, Article 9(1) of the Framework Directive, Article 5(1), the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 7(3) of the Authorisation Directive and Article 4 of the Competition Directive must be interpreted as precluding, in television broadcasting matters, national legislation the application of which makes it impossible for an operator holding rights to broadcast in the absence of broadcasting radio frequencies granted on the basis of objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria.
Glede na zgoraj povedano je treba na drugo, četrto in peto vpra�anje skupaj odgovoriti, da je treba člen 49 ES ter od začetka njihove veljavnosti člen 9(1) okvirne direktive, člen 5(1) in (2), drugi pododstavek, in člen 7(3) direktive o odobritvi, kot tudi člen 4 direktive o konkurenci razlagati tako, da na področju televizijske radiodifuzije nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, na podlagi katere operater koncesionar ne more oddajati, ker nima radijskih frekvenc za oddajanje, dodeljenih na podlagi objektivnih, transparentnih, nediskriminacijskih in sorazmernih meril.
The first and third questions
Prvo in tretje vprašanje
By its first question, the national court asks the Court, essentially, to state whether the provisions of Article 10 of the ECHR, in so far as Article 6 EU refers thereto, preclude, in television broadcasting matters, national legislation the application of which makes it impossible for an operator holding rights, such as Centro Europa 7, to broadcast without the grant of broadcasting radio frequencies.
V prvem vpra�anju predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje Sodi�če, naj pove, ali določbe člena 10 EKČP v delu, v katerem se nanjo sklicuje člen 6 EU, na področju televizijske radijske difuzije nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, na podlagi katere operater koncesionar, kot je družba Centro Europa 7, ne more oddajati, ker nima radijskih frekvenc za oddajanje.
By its third question, the national court questions the Court in regard to the obligation, arising from the possible direct effect of Article 17 of the Authorisation Directive from the date on which it became applicable, on the Member State which has granted rights for television broadcasting activity, to bring those rights into line with Community law and, therefore, to allocate to Centro Europa 7 the broadcasting radio frequencies necessary for it to carry on that activity.
V tretjem vpra�anju predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje Sodi�če glede obveznosti, ki izhaja iz morebitnega neposrednega učinka člena 17 direktive o odobritvi, od začetka njegove veljavnosti, ki predpisuje obveznost uskladitve za državo članico, ki je dodelila koncesije za dejavnost televizijske radiodifuzije, z ureditvijo Skupnosti, in ali navedena dolžnost obsega tudi zahtevo, da se družbi Centro Europa 7 dodelijo frekvence, ki so potrebne za opravljanje te dejavnosti.
By those questions, the national court is thus seeking to determine whether there are infringements of Community law for the purpose of ruling on an application for compensation for the losses flowing from such infringements.
S tema vpra�anjema želi predložitveno sodi�če torej ugotoviti obstoj kr�itev prava Skupnosti, da bo lahko odločilo o od�kodninskem zahtevku.
It follows from the answer to the second, fourth and fifth questions that Article 49 EC and, from the date on which they became applicable, Article 9(1) of the Framework Directive, Article 5(1), the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 7(3) of the Authorisation Directive and Article 4 of the Competition Directive must be interpreted as precluding, in television broadcasting matters, national legislation the
Iz odgovora na drugo, četrto in peto vpra�anje izhaja, da je treba člen 49 ES ter od začetka njihove veljavnosti člen 9(1) okvirne direktive, člen 5(1) in (2), drugi pododstavek, in člen 7(3) direktive o odobritvi ter tudi člen 4 direktive o konkurenci razlagati tako, da na področju televizijske radiodifuzije nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji,
2008 — CASE C-380/05 application of which makes it impossible for an operator holding rights to broadcast in the absence of broadcasting radio frequencies granted on the basis of objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria.
2008 – ZADEVA C-380/05 na podlagi katere operater koncesionar ne more oddajati, ker ni radijskih frekvenc za oddajanje, dodeljenih na podlagi objektivnih, transparentnih, nediskriminacijskih in sorazmernih meril.
That answer, by itself, thus enables the national court to rule on the application made by Centro Europa 7 for compensation for the losses suffered.
Zato ta odgovor omogoča, da predložitveno sodi�če samo odloči o od�kodninskem zahtevku, ki ga je vložila družba Centro Europa 7.
Consequently, regard being had to the Court’s answer to the second, fourth and fifth questions, it is not necessary to rule on the first and third questions.
Zato ob upo�tevanju odgovora na drugo, četrto in peto vpra�anje ni treba odgovoriti na prvo in tretje vpra�anje.
The sixth, seventh and eighth questions
Šesto, sedmo in osmo vprašanje
By its sixth, seventh and eighth questions, the national court questions the Court, essentially, in regard to the conditions for the application by the Member States of the derogation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) of the Authorisation Directive and Article 4 of the Competition Directive.
V �estem, sedmem in osmem vpra�anju predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje Sodi�če o pogojih, pod katerimi države članice izvajajo odstopanje, določeno v členu 5(2), drugi pododstavek, direktive o odobritvi in v členu 4 direktive o konkurenci.
It follows from the answer to the fourth and fifth questions that, from the date on which they became applicable, the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) of the Authorisation Directive and Article 4 of the Competition Directive must be interpreted as precluding, in television broadcasting matters, national legislation the application of
Iz odgovora na četrto in peto vpra�anje izhaja, da je treba člen 5(2), drugi pododstavek, direktive o odobritvi in člen 4 direktive o konkurenci od začetka njune veljavnosti razlagati tako, da na področju televizijske radiodifuzije nasprotujeta nacionalni zakonodaji, na podlagi katere operater koncesionar ne more oddajati, ker ni radijskih
CENTRO EUROPA 7 which makes it impossible for an operator holding rights to broadcast in the absence of broadcasting radio frequencies granted on the basis of objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria.
CENTRO EUROPA 7 frekvenc za oddajanje, dodeljenih na podlagi objektivnih, transparentnih, nediskriminacijskih in sorazmernih meril.
Accordingly, it follows from that reply that compliance with objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria constitutes a necessary condition for the application of the derogation laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) of the Authorisation Directive and Article 4 of the Competition Directive.
Tako iz tega odgovora izhaja, da je upo�tevanje objektivnih, transparentnih, nediskriminacijskih in sorazmernih meril nujni pogoj za izvajanje izjeme, določene v členu 5(2), drugi pododstavek, direktive o odobritvi in v členu 4 direktive o konkurenci.
There is therefore no need to rule on any other potential conditions for the application of that derogation, such as those referred to in the sixth, seventh and eighth questions.
Zato se ni treba izreči o ostalih morebitnih pogojih izvajanja tega odstopanja, ki so omenjeni v �estem, sedmem in osmem vpra�anju.
Consequently, having regard to the Court’s answer to the fourth and fifth questions, taken together with the second question, there is no need to give a ruling on the sixth, seventh and eighth questions.
Glede na odgovor, ki ga je Sodi�če podalo v četrtem in petem vpra�anju, obravnavanem skupaj z drugim vpra�anjem, zato ni treba odločiti o �estem, sedmem in osmem vpra�anju.
Article 49 EC and, from the date on which they became applicable, Article 9(1) 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 (Framework Directive), Article 5(1), the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), and Article 4 of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services must be interpreted as precluding, in television broadcasting matters, national legislation the application of which makes it impossible for an operator holding rights to broadcast in the absence of broadcasting radio frequencies granted on the basis of objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria.
Člen 49 ES ter od začetka njihove veljavnosti člen 9(1) Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/21/ES z dne 7. marca 2002 o skupnem regulativnem okviru za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve (okvirna direktiva), člen 5(1) in (2), drugi pododstavek, in člen 7(3) Direktive 2002/20/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 7. marca 2002 o odobritvi elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij in storitev (direktiva o odobritvi) ter člen 4 Direktive Komisije 2002/77/ES z dne 16. septembra 2002 o konkurenci na trgih za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve je treba razlagati tako, da na področju televizijske radiodifuzije nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, na podlagi katere operater koncesionar ne more oddajati, ker ni radijskih frekvenc za oddajanje, dodeljenih na podlagi objektivnih, transparentnih, nediskriminacijskih in sorazmernih meril.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE DECISIONS PUBLISHEDFOR THE YEAR 2008
KRONOLOŠKO KAZALO ODLOČITEV, OBJAVLJENIH V LETNIKU 2008
Section I — Court of Justice
Del I – Sodna praksa Sodišča
Part 1
Zvezek 1
Case C-70/06: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Noncompliance — Financial penalty) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-70/06: Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Portugalski republiki („Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Sodba Sodišča, s katero je ugotovljena neizpolnitev obveznosti – Neizpolnitev – Denarna kazen“) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Opinion of Advocate General Mazák delivered on 9 October 2007 . . . .
Mazáka, predstavljeni 9. oktobra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 10 January 2008 . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (prvi senat) z dne 10. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-152/05: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC — National legislation — Conditions for the grant of a subsidy for the construction or purchase of a dwelling for personal occupation — Dwelling required to be situated in the territory of the Member State concerned) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-152/05: Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Zvezni republiki Nemčiji („Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Členi 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES – Nacionalna zakonodaja – Pogoji za dodelitev subvencije za gradnjo ali nakup stanovanja za lastno prebivanje – Stanovanje, ki mora biti na ozemlju zadevne države članice“) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 28 June 2007 . . . . . . .
Bota, predstavljeni 28. junija 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 17 January 2008 . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 17. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06: Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH and Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Regulation (EC) No 615/98 — Directive 91/628/EEC — Export refunds — Protection of bovine animals during transport — Payment of export refunds for bovine animals subject to compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC — Principle of proportionality — Forfeiture of export refunds) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg) .
Združeni zadevi C-37/06 in C-58/06: Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH in Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) proti Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas („Uredba (ES) št. 615/98 – Direktiva 91/628/EGS – Izvozna nadomestila – Zaščita goveda med prevozom – Pogoj spoštovanja določb Direktive 91/628/EGS za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil za govedo – Načelo sorazmernosti – Izguba pravice do nadomestila“) (Predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ju je vložilo Finanzgericht Hamburg) . .
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 17 January 2008 . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 17. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-246/06: Josefa Velasco Navarro v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC — Direct effect — Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under a judicial conciliation settlement — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-246/06: Josefa Velasco Navarro proti Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) („Socialna politika – Varstvo delavcev ob plačilni nesposobnosti delodajalca – Direktiva 80/987/EGS, spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74/ES – Neposredni učinek – Odškodnina za protipravno odpoved delovnega razmerja, določena v okviru sodne poravnave – Izplačilo, ki ga zagotovi jamstvena ustanova – Izplačilo, ki je pogojeno s sprejetjem sodne odločbe“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras) . . . . .
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 17 January 2008 . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 17. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-256/06: Theodor Jäger v Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl (Free movement of capital — Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) — Inheritance tax — Valuation of assets forming part of the estate — Agricultural and forestry assets in another Member State — Less favourable method of valuation of assets and calculation of the tax payable) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)
Zadeva C-256/06: Theodor Jäger proti Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl („Prosti pretok kapitala – Člena 73b in 73d Pogodbe ES (postala člena 56 ES in 58 ES) – Davek na dediščino – Vrednotenje premoženja, vključenega v dediščino – Premoženje v obliki kmetijskega zemljišča in gozdov, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici – Manj ugodna metoda za vrednotenje premoženja in izračun dolgovanega davka“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesfinanzhof) . . . . . .
Opinion of Advocate General Mazák delivered on 11 September 2007 .
Mazáka, predstavljeni 11. septembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-19/07: Heirs of Paul Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone and Others (Approximation of laws — Directive 86/653/EEC — Selfemployed commercial agents — Right of an agent entrusted with a specific geographical area to a commission — Transactions concluded without any action on the part of the principal) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-19/07: Héritiers de Paul Chevassus-Marche proti Groupe Danone in drugim („Približevanje zakonodaj – Direktiva 86/653/EGS – Samozaposleni trgovski zastopniki – Pravica zastopnika, pristojnega za določeno območje, do provizije – Posli, sklenjeni brez posredovanja naročitelja“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Cour de cassation (Francija)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 17 January 2008 . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (prvi senat) z dne 17. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-105/07: Lammers & Van Cleeff NV v Belgische Staat (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Interest paid by a subsidiary on funds lent by the parent company established in another Member State — Reclassification of the interest as taxable dividends — No such reclassification where interest payments are made to a resident company) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen) . . . . . . . . I - 173
Zadeva C-105/07: Lammers & Van Cleeff NV proti državi Belgiji („Svoboda ustanavljanja – Prosti pretok kapitala – Davčna zakonodaja – Davek od dohodka pravnih oseb – Obresti, ki jih hčerinska družba izplača kot plačilo posojila matične družbe, ustanovljene v drugi državi članici – Opredelitev obresti kot obdavčljivih dividend – Neopredelitev v primeru obresti, izplačanih družbi rezidentki“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 173
Case C-257/06: Roby Profumi Srl v Comune di Parma (Article 28 EC — Directive 76/768/EEC — Protection of health — Cosmetic products — Importation — Communication of information on cosmetic products to the authorities of the State of importation) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-257/06: Roby Profumi Srl proti Comune di Parma („Člen 28 ES – Direktiva 76/768/EGS – Varovanje zdravja – Kozmetični izdelki – Uvoz – Predložitev podatkov v zvezi s kozmetičnimi izdelki organom države uvoznice“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Corte suprema di cassazione) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 24 January 2008 . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 24. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-294/06: The Queen, on the application of: Ezgi Payir and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of movement for workers — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — First indent of Article 6(1) — Worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force — Leave to enter as a student or as an au pair — Effect on the right to remain) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-294/06: The Queen, na predlog: Ezgi Payir in drugih proti Secretary of State for the Home Department („Pridružitveni sporazum EGS-Turčija – Prosto gibanje delavcev – Sklep Pridružitvenega sveta št. 1/80 – Člen 6(1), prva alinea – Delavec, vključen v zakoniti trg dela – Dovoljenje za vstop kot študent ali oseba ‚au-pair‘ – Vpliv na pravico do prebivanja“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)) . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 203
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 18 July 2007 . . . . .
Kokott, predstavljeni 18. julija 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 24 January 2008 . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 24. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-532/06: Emm.
Zadeva C-532/06: Emm. G.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 24 January 2008 . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (prvi senat) z dne 24. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .