natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this case, statements by an ocial describing machinery certied as conforming to Directive 98/37 (25) as contrary to the relevant harmonised standard and dangerous are capable of hindering, at least indirectly and potentially, the placing on the market of such machinery and cannot be justied either on the basis of the objective of protection of health or on the basis of the freedom of expression of ocials.
Povedano natančneje, izjave uradnika, da stroj, ki je certiciran za skladnega z Direktivo 98/37/ES25, ne ustreza standardom, ki se nanj nanašajo, in da je nevaren, lahko vsaj posredno in potencialno ovirajo dajanje teh strojev v promet in jih ni mogoče upravičiti niti s ciljem varovanja zdravja niti s svobodo izražanja uradnika.
Article 4(1) of Directive 98/37 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, it confers rights on individuals and, second, it leaves the Member States no discretion in this case as regards machinery that complies with the directive or is presumed to do so.
Člen 4(1) Direktive 98/37 je treba namreč razlagati tako, da v obravnavanem primeru po eni strani posameznikom daje pravice in po drugi strani državam članicam ne dopušča nobene diskrecijske pravice, kar zadeva stroje, ki so skladni s to direktivo ali se štejejo za take.
Failure to comply with that provision as a result of statements made by an ocial, assuming that they are attributable to the Member State, constitutes a suciently serious breach of Community law for the Member State to incur liability.
Nespoštovanje te določbe, ki je posledica izjav uradnika države članice, če jih lahko pripišemo tej državi, pa pomeni dovolj resno kršitev prava Skupnosti, da povzroči odgovornost te države.
Case C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others (judgment of 26 June 2007) raised the question whether the imposition on lawyers of obligations of information and of cooperation with the authorities responsible for combating money laundering, laid down in Article 6(1) of Directive 91/308 (26), when they act in certain transactions of a financial nature not linked to judicial proceedings, infringes the right to a fair trial.
V zadevi Ordre des barreaux francophones in germanophone in drugi (sodba z dne 26. junija 2007, C-305/05) je bilo postavljeno vprašanje, ali je z obveznostjo obveščanja in sodelovanja z organi, pristojnimi za boj proti pranju denarja, ki je s členom 6(1) Direktive 91/30826 naložena odvetnikom, kadar so vključeni v nančne ali poslovne transakcije, ki nimajo zveze s sodnim postopkom, kršena pravica do poštenega sojenja.
The Court ruled that there was, in those circumstances, no breach of the right to a fair trial, recalling first that the obligations of information and cooperation apply to lawyers only in so far as they advise their client in the preparation or execution of certain transactions,
Sodišče je presodilo, da v tem primeru ni bila kršena pravica do poštenega sojenja, in je najprej spomnilo na to, da se obveznost obveščanja in sodelovanja za odvetnike uporablja zgolj takrat, ko strankam pomagajo pri pripravi ali izvedbi določenih transakcij, zlasti nančnih in nepremičninskih, ali ko delujejo v imenu in za račun svoje stranke pri kakršni koli nančni ali nepremičninski transakciji.
Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery (OJ 1998 L 207, p. 1).
Po splošnem pravilu te dejavnosti spadajo v kontekst, ki nima zveze s sodnim postopkom, in zato ne spadajo na področje pravice do poštenega sojenja.
Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (OJ 1991 L 166, p. 77).
Takrat ko se za odvetnikovo pomoč zaprosi zaradi izvedbe obrambe ali zastopanja pred sodišči ali zaradi svetovanja o sprožitvi sodnega postopka ali njegovi izognitvi, je odvetnik
As a general rule, the nature of such activities is such that they take place in a context with no link to judicial proceedings and, consequently, outside the scope of the right to a fair trial.
Sodišče oproščen obveznosti obveščanja in sodelovanja in v tem pogledu ni pomembno, ali so bili podatki prejeti ali pridobljeni pred postopkom, med njim ali po njem.
An exemption of that kind safeguards the client’s right to a fair trial.
Taka oprostitev ohranja pravico stranke do poštenega sojenja.
In Joined Cases C-439/05 P and C-454/05 P Land Oberösterreich v Commission (judgment of 13 September 2007), the Commission had rejected the Republic of Austria’s request for derogation from harmonisation measures, notied to it on the basis of Article 95(5) EC, and concerning a draft law seeking a derogation from the provisions of Directive 2001/18 (27) by prohibiting genetically modied organisms in the Land Oberösterreich.
V zadevi Land Oberösterreich proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 13. septembra 2007, C-439/05 P in C-454/05 P) je Komisija Evropskih skupnosti zavrnila predlog za odobritev izjeme od usklajevalnih ukrepov, ki ga je Republika Avstrija vložila na podlagi člena 95(5) ES in se je nanašal na zakonski osnutek, katerega predmet je bila pridobitev odobritve odstopanja od določb Direktive 2001/1827in prepoved gensko spremenjenih organizmov v deželi Zgornja Avstrija.
In support of their appeal, when the Court of First Instance had dismissed the application for annulment of the Commission’s decision, the appellants argued, first, infringement of the right to be heard and, second, infringement of Article 95(5) EC.
Potem ko je Sodišče prve stopnje zavrnilo predlog za razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe Komisije, sta pritožnici v utemeljitev pritožbe navedli nespoštovanje načela kontradiktornosti in kršitev člena 95(5) ES.
It is not apparent from the wording of that article that the Commission is required to hear the notifying Member State before it takes its decision to approve or reject the national provisions in question.
Iz tega člena namreč ne izhaja, da bi Komisija državi članici prijaviteljici morala dati možnost opredeliti se pred sprejetjem odločitve o odobritvi ali zavrnitvi zadevnih nacionalnih določb.
The Community legislature merely laid down the conditions to be fullled in order to obtain a Commission decision, the period within which the Commission must issue its decision to approve or reject and possible extensions to that period.
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti je v členu 95 ES predvidel zgolj pogoje, ki jih je treba izpolniti za pridobitev odločbe Komisije, roke, v katerih mora slednja sprejeti odločbo o odobritvi ali zavrnitvi, ter morebitna podaljšanja roka.
The procedure is initiated not by a Community institution or a national body but by a Member State, the Commission’s decision being taken only in response to that initiative.
Dalje, postopka ne začne institucija Skupnosti ali nacionalna institucija, temveč država članica, odločitev Komisije pa je zgolj odgovor na to pobudo.
In its request, the Member State is at liberty to comment on the national provisions it asks to have adopted, as is quite clear from Article 95(5) EC, which requires the Member State to state the grounds on which its request is based.
S predlogom ima država članica vse možnosti, da se opredeli do nacionalnih določb, ki jih želi uvesti, kot izrecno izhaja iz navedenega člena 95(5) ES, ki zavezuje državo članico, da navede razloge, ki njen predlog upravičujejo.
Further, the Court stated that the introduction of provisions of national law derogating from a harmonisation measure must be based on new scientic evidence relating to the protection of the environment or of the working environment, made necessary by reason of a problem specic to the Member State concerned arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure, and that the proposed provisions as well as the grounds for introducing them must be notied to the Commission.
Sodišče je tudi pojasnilo, da mora uvedba nacionalnih določb, ki odstopajo od usklajevalnega ukrepa, temeljiti na novih znanstvenih spoznanjih o varstvu okolja ali delovnega okolja zaradi problema, ki je značilen za to državo članico in je posledica sprejetja usklajevalnega ukrepa, in da mora biti Komisija uradno obveščena tako o načrtovanih določbah kot tudi o razlogih za njihovo uvedbo.
In Case C-429/05 Rampion and Godard (judgment of 4 October 2007), concerning the protection of consumers in the sphere of consumer credit and the consumer’s right to
V zadevi Rampion in Godard (sodba z dne 4. oktobra 2007, C-429/05), ki se nanaša na varstvo potrošnikov na področju potrošniških kreditov in na pravico potrošnika, da uveljavlja pravice proti kreditodajalcu, je Sodišče presodilo, da se Direktiva 87/10228 uporablja tako za kredit, namenjen nanciranju enega samega pravnega posla, kot tudi za odprtje kredita, ki potrošniku omogoča večkratno uporabo kredita.
Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modied organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).
Direktiva Sveta z dne 22. decembra 1986 o približevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic v zvezi s potrošniškimi krediti (87/102/EGS) (UL L 42, str. 48).
Proceedings pursue remedies against the lender, the Court held that Directive 87/102 (28) applies both to credit designed to finance a single transaction and to a credit facility allowing the consumer to use the credit granted on a number of occasions.
Tega člena, ki določa, da države članice določijo, koliko in pod kakšnimi pogoji se pravice nasproti kreditodajalcu lahko uveljavljajo, namreč ni mogoče razlagati tako, da državam članicam dovoljuje, da za pravico potrošnika do uveljavljanja pravic določijo dodatne pogoje poleg tistih, ki so v tem členu že taksativno našteti.
Moreover, the Court decided that on a proper construction of Articles 11 and 14 it is contrary to those provisions for the right to pursue remedies, provided for in Article 11(2) of that directive and which the consumer enjoys against the grantor of credit, to be made subject to the condition that the prior oer of credit should indicate the goods or services nanced.
To razlago potrjuje člen 14 te direktive, ki nasprotuje zlasti temu, da bi nacionalna zakonodaja omogočila kreditodajalcu, da se izogne potrošnikovemu uveljavljanju pravic na podlagi navedenega člena 11, zgolj zato, ker ni omenjeno nancirano blago ali storitve.
In Case C-457/05 Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie (judgment of 4 October 2007), the Court held that, having regard to the general scheme and purpose of Directive 75/106 (29) and the principle of the free movement of goods guaranteed by Article 28 EC, it is contrary to that provision for a Member State to prohibit the marketing of pre-packages with a nominal volume of 0.071 litre, not included in the Community range but lawfully manufactured and marketed in another Member State, unless such a prohibition is justied by an overriding requirement, applies without distinction to national and imported products alike, is necessary in order to meet the requirement in question and is proportionate to the objective pursued, and that objective cannot be achieved by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade.
V zadevi Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie (sodba z dne 4. oktobra 2007, C-457/05) je Sodišče spomnilo na to, da ob upoštevanju splošnega pomena in namena Direktive 75/10629ter načela prostega pretoka blaga, zagotovljenega s členom 28 ES, člen 28 ES nasprotuje temu, da bi država članica prepovedala trženje predpakiranega proizvoda z nazivno prostornino 0,071 litra, ki ni v okviru stopenj Skupnosti, se pa zakonito proizvaja in trži v drugi državi članici, razen če se izkaže, da je taka prepoved upravičena z nujno zahtevo, ki se brez razlikovanja uporablja tako za nacionalne kot za uvožene proizvode in je potrebna za izpolnitev zadevne zahteve in sorazmerna z zastavljenim ciljem, ter da se tega cilja ne da doseči z ukrepi, ki manj omejujejo trgovino znotraj Skupnosti.
Once again the several directives relating to the award of public procurement contracts have given rise to proceedings.
Več direktiv s področja oddaje javnih naročil je tudi tokrat povečalo število sporov.
Case C-295/05 Asociación Nacional de Empresas Forestales (judgment of 19 April 2007) dealt with the question whether a Member State might confer on a public undertaking a legal regime enabling it to carry out operations without being subject to Directives
V zadevi Asociación Nacional de Empresas Forestales (sodba z dne 19. aprila 2007, C-295/05) se je postavilo vprašanje, ali lahko država članica javnemu podjetju dodeli pravno ureditev, ki mu dovoljuje opravljanje dejavnosti, ne da bi ga pri tem zavezovale direktive 92/5030, 93/3631in 93/3732o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil.
) on the award of public procurement contracts. The particular public undertaking in question enjoys a special status enabling it to carry out a large number of works at the direct demand of the administration, it being a technical service of the administration, so bypassing the award procedures laid down by law, and it has no choice, either as to the acceptance of a demand made by the competent authorities in question, or as to the tari for its services.
Zadevno javno podjetje ima poseben položaj, ki mu kot tehnični službi uprave omogoča opravljanje veliko dejavnosti na podlagi neposrednega naročila uprave brez sodelovanja na razpisih, ki jih določa zakon, in nima svobode niti glede posledic naročila, ki ga je dal pristojni organ, niti glede cen za svoje storitve.
The Court ruled that those directives do not preclude a body of legal rules such as that governing that public undertaking which enable the latter, as a public undertaking acting as an instrument and technical service of several public authorities, to execute operations without being subject to the regime laid down by those directives, since, first, the public authorities concerned exercise over that undertaking a control similar to that which they exercise
Sodišče je presodilo, da navedene direktive ne nasprotujejo pravni ureditvi, kot jo uživa to javno podjetje, ki deluje kot sredstvo in tehnična služba različnih javnih organov, ki mu omogoča opravljati dejavnosti, ne da bi ga pri tem zavezovala ureditev, ki je določena v teh direktivah, tako da na eni strani zadevni javni organi nad tem podjetjem izvajajo nadzor, ki je podoben tistemu, ki ga izvajajo nad svojimi službami, in na drugi strani tako podjetje večino svojih dejavnosti opravlja s temi organi.
Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48).
V zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (sodba z dne 18. julija 2007, C-503/04) v zvezi s pogodbo o odvozu odpadkov, ki jo je sklenilo mesto Brunswick brez javnega naročila na ravni Skupnosti, potem ko Zvezna republika Nemčija ni izvršila sodbe o ugotovitvi te neizpolnitve
Council Directive 75/106/EEC of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids (OJ 1974 L 42, p. 1).
Direktiva Sveta z dne 19. decembra 1974 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi s pripravo določenih predpakiranih tekočin glede na prostornino (75/106/EGS) (UL L 42, str. 1).
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).
Direktiva Sveta 92/50/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev (UL L 209, str. 1).
Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1).
Direktiva Sveta 93/36/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga (UL L 199, str. 1).
Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).
Direktiva Sveta 93/37/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil za gradnje (UL L 199, str. 54).
In Case C-503/04 Commission v Germany (judgment of 18 July 2007), concerning a contract for waste disposal concluded by the City of Brunswick without following the tendering procedure at Community level and in consequence of the Federal Republic of Germany’s failure to comply with a judgment finding that failure to full obligations pursuant to Article 226 EC, the Court ruled that, while the second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665 (33) permits the Member States to preserve the eects of contracts concluded in breach of directives relating to the award of public contracts and thus protects the legitimate expectations of the parties thereto, its eect cannot be, unless the scope of the EC Treaty provisions establishing the internal market is to be reduced, that the contracting authority’s conduct vis-à-vis third parties is to be regarded as in conformity with Community law following the conclusion of such contracts.
Sodišče obveznosti na podlagi člena 226 ES, je Sodišče presodilo, da čeprav lahko države članice na podlagi določbe člena 2(6), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 89/66533ohranijo učinke pogodb, sklenjenih ob kršitvi direktiv s področja oddaje javnih naročil, in s tem ščitijo legitimna pričakovanja pogodbene stranke, posledica te določbe ne more biti taka – ne da bi omejila obseg določb Pogodbe glede vzpostavitve notranjega trga – da se ravnanje naročnika do tretjih po sklenitvi teh pogodb šteje za skladno s pravom Skupnosti.
Moreover, that provision relates, as is apparent from its wording, to the compensation which a person harmed by an infringement committed by a contracting authority may obtain from the latter and cannot be regarded also as regulating the relations between a Member State and the Community in the context of Articles 226 EC and 228 EC.
Poleg tega se ta določba nanaša, kot izhaja iz njenega besedila, na nadomestilo za škodo, ki jo je utrpela določena oseba zaradi kršitve naročnika, in se zaradi njene posebnosti ne sme razumeti, kot da ureja tudi odnose med državo članico in Skupnostjo, na kar se nanašata člena 226 ES in 228 ES.
Even if it were to be accepted that the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle pacta sunt servanda and the right to property could be used against the contracting authority by the other party to the contract in the event of rescission, Member States cannot in any event rely thereon to justify the failure to comply with a judgment establishing a failure to full obligations under Article 226 EC and thereby evade their own liability under Community law.
Tudi če se pogodbena stranka pri odpovedi pogodbe, sklenjene ob kršitvi Direktive 92/50, v razmerju do naročnika sklicuje na načeli pravne varnosti in varstva legitimnih pričakovanj, načelo pacta sunt servanda ter temeljno pravico do lastnine, se država članica na ta načela in to pravico v nobenem primeru ne more sklicevati, zato da bi upravičila neizvršitev sodbe, s katero je ugotovljena neizpolnitev obveznosti na podlagi člena 226 ES, in se tako izogniti svoji dolžnosti na podlagi prava Skupnosti.
Case C-337/06 Bayerischer Rundfunk and Others (judgment of 13 December 2007) dealt with the question whether the German public broadcasting bodies are contracting authorities for the purposes of application of the Community rules on the award of public contracts.
V zadevi Bayerischer Rundfunk in drugi (sodba z dne 13. decembra 2007, C-337/06) je Sodišče obravnavalo vprašanje, ali so nemški javni izdajatelji programov naročniki za namen uporabe Skupnostnih pravil na področju uporabe javnih naročil.
Article 1 of Directive 92/50 regards as contracting authorities, inter alia, bodies governed by public law and nanced, for the most part, by the State.
Na podlagi člena 1 Direktive 92/50 šteje za naročnika med drugim organizacija javnega prava, ki jo večinoma nancira država.
The Court ruled that there is ‘nancing, for the most part, by the State’when the activities of public broadcasting bodies such as those at issue in the main proceedings are nanced for the most part by a fee payable by persons who possess a receiver, which is imposed, calculated and levied in accordance with the rights and powers of public authority.
Sodišče je presodilo, da „je večinsko nanciranje državno“, ko se dejavnosti javnih izdajateljev programov nancirajo večinoma z naročnino imetnikomv radijskega ali televizijskega sprejemnika, ki je določena, izračunana in pobrana v skladu z javnimi pooblastili.
When the activities of those public broadcasting bodies are nanced according to the procedures referred to above, the condition of ‘nancing … by the State’does not require there to be direct interference by the State or by other public authorities in the awarding, by such bodies, of a contract for the provision of cleaning services.
V primeru nanciranja dejavnosti zgoraj navedenih javnih izdajateljev programov, na zgoraj predstavljen način, pogoj „državnega nanciranja“ ne zahteva neposrednega vpliva države ali drugih javnih organov na oddajo naročila javnih izdajateljev programov na področju storitev čistilnih servisov.
The Court states that only the public contracts having the subject matter specied in Article 1 of the directive, that is to say, procurement contracts which fall within the essential function of broadcasting bodies, namely the creation and production of programmes, are excluded from the scope of that directive.
Sodišče pojasnjuje, da so samo javna naročila v zvezi s storitvami iz člena 1 navedene direktive, torej javna naročila storitev v zvezi z značilno nalogo izdajateljev programov, to je ustvarjanje in izvedba programov, izključena s področja uporabe navedene direktive.
On the other hand, the Community rules apply in full to public contracts for services which have no connection to the activities which form part of the performance of the publicservice duties.
Nasprotno pa za javna naročila storitev, ki niso povezane z dejavnostjo izvrševanja značilne naloge javne službe javnih izdajateljev programov, veljajo vsa pravila Skupnosti.
Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).
Na tem področju je Sodišče obravnavalo uredbo, s katero je bila uvedena znamka Skupnostiin direktivo o približevanju nacionalnih zakonodaj.35
Court of Justice
V sodbi v zadevi UUNT proti Kaul (sodba z dne 13. marca 2007, C-29/05 P, ZOdl., str.
In this eld the Court examined both the regulation establishing the Community trade
I-2213) so opredeljeni pogoji za upoštevanje novih dejstev in dokazov, ki so bili predloženi v
The judgment given in Case C-29/05 P OHIM v Kaul [2007] ECR I-2213 claried the conditions in which account may be taken of new facts and evidence when they are submitted in support of an appeal in opposition proceedings.
Direktiva Sveta z dne 21. decembra 1989 o usklajevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov o uporabi revizijskih postopkov oddaje javnih naročil za preskrbo in javnih naročil za gradnje (89/665/EGS) (UL L 395, str. 33).
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 40/94 z dne 20. decembra 1993 o znamki Skupnosti (UL L 11, str. 1).
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).
Prva Direktiva Sveta z dne 21. decembra 1988 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami (89/104/EGS) (UL L 40, str. 1).
Court of Justice that trade mark as a mark registered in respect of toys.
Razvoj in dejavnost utemeljitev pritožbe v okviru postopka z ugovorom.