natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
National regulatory authorities shall ensure that pricing for interconnection related to the provision of this facility is cost-orientated and that direct charges to consumers, if any, do not act as a disincentive for the use of this facility.’
Nacionalni regulativni organi zagotavljajo, da so tarife za medomrežno povezovanje, ki veljajo za zagotavljanje te storitve, stro�kovno naravnane in da morebitne cene, ki jih mora plačati potro�nik, tega ne odvračajo od uporabe navedene storitve.“
Paragraph 43(6) of the Law on telecommunications (Telekommunikationsgesetz) of 25 July 1996 (BGBl. 1996 I, p.
Člen 43(6) zakona o telekomunikacijah (Telekommunikationsgesetz) z dne 25. julija 1996 (BGBl. 1996 I, str. 1120, v nadaljevanju: TKG iz leta 1996), kot je bil spremenjen s prvim zakonom o spremembah zakona o telekomunikacijah (Erste Gesetz zur Änderung des Telekommunikationsgesetzes) z dne 21. oktobra 2002 (BGB1. 2002 I, str.
4186), provides:
4186), določa:
‘Operators of public telecommunications networks in a dominant position within the meaning of Paragraph 19 of the Law on restriction of competition [(Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen)] must, pursuant to the third sentence, ensure on their networks that each user has the opportunity to choose telecommunications services of all operators of public telecommunications networks which are directly interconnected, either by selecting the carrier on an individual basis by dialling a given prefix or by means of carrier preselection, provided however, in the latter case, that there is the facility on each call to override the preselected choice by dialling the prefix of another carrier.
„Operaterji javnih telekomunikacijskih omrežij s prevladujočim položajem v smislu člena 19 zakona o omejevanju konkurence (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen) morajo na podlagi tretjega stavka v svojih omrežjih vsakemu uporabniku zagotavljati možnost izbire med telekomunikacijskimi storitvami vseh neposredno medomrežno povezanih operaterjev javnih telekomunikacijskih omrežij, in sicer tako s posamično izbiro operaterja, ki se izvede z vnosom določene karakteristične �tevilke, kot tudi s predizbiro operaterja, pri čemer mora biti v slednjem primeru zagotovljena možnost, da se z vnosom karakteristične �tevilke drugega operaterja za vsak klic posebej izključi določena predizbira.
The user must also be able to introduce different presettings for local and long-distance calls.
Uporabnik mora imeti tudi možnost, da izbere različne vnaprej�nje nastavitve za krajevne in medkrajevne klice.
In the implementation of the interconnection of networks which must be carried out to meet that obligation, it must be ensured that, when decisions are taken pursuant to the third, fourth and sixth parts of this Law, there is no disincentive to effective investment in infrastructure equipment to guarantee stronger competition in the long term and it must also be ensured that the existing network is used effectively through interconnection at the lowest level.
Pri vzpostavljanju medomrežnega povezovanja omrežij, ki ga je treba izvesti za izpolnitev te obveznosti, je treba ob sprejemanju odločitev na podlagi delov 3, 4 in 6 tega zakona zagotoviti, da ne pride do odvračanja od učinkovitih naložb v infrastrukturno opremo, ki dolgoročno zagotavlja močnej�o konkurenco, zagotoviti pa je treba tudi, da se obstoječe omrežje učinkovito uporablja z vzpostavitvijo krajevnih priključkov.
In doing so, it is necessary in particular to ensure that the network operator [carrier] chosen by the user bears a reasonable share of the costs of the local loop provided to the user.
Pri tem je treba zagotoviti zlasti to, da operater omrežja, ki ga izbere uporabnik, ustrezno prispeva k stro�kom priključka, ki je na voljo uporabniku.
The regulatory authority may suspend, in whole or in part, the obligation laid down in the first sentence, for as long as and to the extent that this is technically justified.
Regulativni organ lahko deloma ali v celoti odloži obveznost iz prvega stavka, in sicer za tako dolgo in toliko, kot je to tehnično upravičeno.
As regards the operators of mobile telephone networks, the obligation to facilitate carrier selection or preselection shall be suspended.
Obveznost operaterjev omrežij mobilne telefonije, da omogočijo izbiro oziroma predizbiro operaterja, se odloži.
That obligation will be reconsidered on transposition of the requirements of Article 19(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and ser -vices [Universal Service Directive] (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).’
Ponovno bo preučena v okviru prenosa pogojev iz člena 19(2) Direktive 2002/22/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 7. marca 2002 o univerzalni storitvi in pravicah uporabnikov v zvezi z elektronskimi komunikacijskimi omrežji in storitvami (Direktiva o univerzalnih storitvah) (UL L 108, str. 51).“
It is clear from the orders for reference that, by decision of 29 April 2003, upon application by Deutsche Telekom, the regulatory authority approved, as from 1 July 2003 until 30 November 2003, a connection charge of EUR 0.004 per minute in respect of call charges for the Telekom-B2 (local) facility.
Iz predložitvenih odločb izhaja, da je regulativni organ na predlog družbe Deutsche Telekom z odločbo z dne 29. aprila 2003 za obdobje od 1. julija 2003 do 30. novembra 2003 odobril priključnino v vi�ini 0,004 EUR na minuto na ceno klicev za (krajevno) storitev Telekom-B2.
That approval extended to all the interconnections agreed or ordered up to 7 May 2003.
Ta odobritev je zajela vse medomrežne povezave, za katere je bil do 7. maja 2003 sklenjen ustrezen dogovor oziroma so bile predpisane.
The ground for that decision, taken on the basis of the fourth sentence of Paragraph 43(6) of the TKG 1996, was the fact that the costs of the local loop would not have been covered by revenue derived from provision of the loop, with the result that there would have been a deficit.
Ta odločba, sprejeta na podlagi četrtega stavka člena 43(6) TKG iz leta 1996, je bila utemeljena s tem, da naj prihodki od zagotovitve krajevne zanke ne bi krili stro�kov priključitve naročnikov, kar naj bi povzročilo primanjkljaj.
The regulatory authority, by decision of 23 September 2003, revoked the decision of 29 April 2003, on the ground that Deutsche Telekom no longer had any connection cost deficit, since an increase in the price paid by the end-user for provision of the local loop had been approved in the interim.
Regulativni organ je z odločbo z dne 23. septembra 2003 razveljavil odločbo z dne 29. aprila 2003 z obrazložitvijo, da družba Deutsche Telekom nima več primanjkljaja zaradi stro�kov priključitve, saj je bilo medtem odobreno povi�anje cene, ki jo končni uporabnik plača za zagotovitev krajevne zanke.
Arcor, TELE2 and 01051 Telekom each brought an action against the decision of 29 April 2003 before the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Administrative Court, Cologne).
Družbe Arcor, TELE2 in 01051 Telekom so pri Verwaltungsgericht Köln (upravno sodi�če v Kölnu) vložile tožbe zoper odločbo z dne 29. aprila 2003.
By judgments of 3 November 2005, that court annulled that decision.
To je s sodbami z dne 3. novembra 2005 razveljavilo to odločbo.
Appeals on a point of law (‘Revision’) against those judgments were brought before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) by all the parties to the main proceedings in Case C-152/07 and by the defendants and interveners in the main proceedings in Cases C-153/07 and C-154/07.
Vse stranke v zadevi C-152/07 in tožene stranke ter intervenienti v postopkih v glavni stvari v zadevah C-153/07 in C-154/07 so zoper te sodbe sprožili revizijski postopek pri Bundesverwaltungsgericht (zvezno upravno sodi�če).
In those circumstances, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, in the three cases in the main proceedings, decided to stay proceedings and to refer to the Court the following questions for a preliminary ruling:
Glede na to je Bundesverwaltungsgericht v treh postopkih v glavni stvari prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
By order of 1 June 2007, the President of the Court ordered the joinder of Cases C-152/07 to C-154/07 for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and the judgment.
S sklepom z dne 1. junija 2007 je predsednik Sodi�ča za pisni in ustni postopek ter izdajo sodbe odredil združitev zadev od C-152/07 do C-154/07.
By its first question, the referring court essentially asks whether Directives 90/388 and 97/33 preclude a national regulatory authority from being able to require an operator
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali direktivi 90/388 in 97/33 nasprotujeta temu, da lahko nacionalni regulativni organ operaterju omrežja,
ARCOR AND OTHERS of a network interconnected with a public network to pay to the market-dominant subscriber network operator a charge intended to compensate the latter operator for the deficit incurred as a result of providing the local loop.
ARCOR IN DRUGI ki je medomrežno povezano z javnim omrežjem, naloži obveznost, da operaterju naročni�kega omrežja s prevladujočim položajem plača prispevek za izravnavo primanjkljaja, ki slednjemu nastane zaradi zagotavljanja krajevnih zank.
It is undisputed that the connection charge at issue in the main proceedings, imposed pursuant to the fourth sentence of Paragraph 43(6) of the TKG 1996, is separate from and paid in addition to the interconnection charge, which is based on another provision of the TKG 1996, namely Paragraph 39.
Ugotovljeno je, da se priključnina v postopkih v glavni stvari, ki je bila uvedena na podlagi člena 43(6), četrti stavek, TKG iz leta 1996, razlikuje od cene medomrežnega povezovanja, ki temelji na drugi določbi TKG iz leta 1996, in sicer na členu 39 tega zakona, in da se plačuje poleg te cene.
The principle of that connection charge was introduced when Directive 98/61 was transposed into German law.
Načelo te priključnine je bilo uvedeno ob prenosu Direktive 98/61 v nem�ko pravo.
The amount of the connection charge is calculated by reference to the deficit incurred by Deutsche Telekom as a result of the fact that revenue generated by provision of the local loop does not cover the costs associated with the effective provision of that loop.
Vi�ina te priključnine je določena glede na primanjkljaj, ki družbi Deutsche Telekom nastaja zaradi tega, ker prihodki od zagotovitve krajevne zanke ne krijejo stro�kov, nastalih zaradi učinkovitega zagotavljanja navedenih zank.
According to the referring court, the obligation to contribute to the costs of the local loop falls on the interconnected network operator (carrier) chosen by the subscriber by direct selection or by preselection.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da je k stro�kom priključitve dolžan prispevati operater medomrežno povezanega omrežja, ki ga naročnik izbere neposredno ali s predizbiro.
That obligation can be seen however as compensation for the deficit arising from the costs of provision of the local loop on the part of Deutsche Telekom, the market-dominant subscriber network operator, and not as consideration for a service provided by Deutsche Telekom to the interconnected network operator.
Vendar je ta obveznost določena v obliki nadomestila za primanjkljaj v zvezi s stro�ki priključitve, ki jih ima Deutsche Telekom, operater naročni�kega omrežja s prevladujočim položajem, in ne kot nadomestilo za storitev, ki jo slednji operater zagotavlja operaterju medomrežno povezanega omrežja.
The purpose therefore of the connection charge at issue in the main proceedings is to provide additional remuneration in the form of a contribution to the costs of providing the local loop which are not covered by ‘customer’ charges.
Namen priključnine, ki se obravnava v postopkih v glavni stvari, je torej dodatno plačilo v obliki prispevka k stro�kom zagotavljanja krajevne zanke, ki se ne pokrijejo s plačili strank.
The charge is payable solely by the operators of networks which have concluded an interconnection agreement with Deutsche Telekom concerning carrier direct selection or pre-selection services on the local networks.
Plačevati jo morajo le operaterji medomrežno povezanih omrežij, ki so z družbo Deutsche Telekom sklenili sporazum o medomrežnem povezovanju glede storitev neposredne izbire ali predizbire operaterja v krajevnih omrežjih.
It is clear from Article 12(7) of Directive 97/33 that national regulatory authorities are to ensure that pricing for interconnection related to the provision of voice telephony services, which allow the subscriber to choose those services by means of preselection, with a facility to override any preselected choice on a call-by-call basis
Iz besedila člena 12(7) Direktive 97/33 izhaja, da nacionalni regulativni organi zagotavljajo, da so tarife za medomrežno povezovanje v zvezi z zagotavljanjem storitev govorne telefonije – ki naročniku ponuja izbiranje teh storitev s predizbiro in sistemom, ki mu omogoča, da z vnosom kratke karakteristične �tevilke za vsak klic
2008 — JOINED CASES C-152/07 TO C-154/07 by dialling a short prefix, is cost-oriented and that direct charges do not act as a disincentive to the consumer for the use of this facility.
2008 – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE OD C-152/07 DO C-154/07 posebej izključi predizbrano možnost – stro�kovno naravnane in da potro�nika ne odvračajo od uporabe te storitve.
It is however clear that the connection charge at issue in the main proceedings, which is dependent on the existence of an interconnection agreement in respect of carrier preselection services, is paid by the interconnected network operators and that it comes at a time of increased liberalisation of the telecommunications market.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da priključnino, ki se obravnava v postopkih v glavni stvari in je odvisna od obstoja sporazuma o medomrežnem povezovanju za storitve predizbire operaterja, plačujejo operaterji medomrežno povezanih omrežij in da spada v okvir večje liberalizacije telekomunikacijskega trga.
It follows that the charge is within the scope of Article 12(7) of Directive 97/33 and must therefore be subject to the same pricing conditions as the interconnection charge stricto sensu, namely with due regard to the principle of the cost orientation of tariffs.
Iz tega izhaja, da navedena tarifa sodi na področje uporabe člena 12(7) Direktive 97/33 in da za njeno določanje veljajo enaki pogoji kot za tarifo za medomrežno povezovanje v ožjem smislu, in sicer upo�tevanje načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen.
That principle, laid down in Article 7(2) of Directive 97/33, requires that charges be derived from actual costs.
To načelo, določeno v členu 7(2) Direktive 97/33, obvezuje k določanju tarife na podlagi dejanskih stro�kov.
Consequently, it is clear that Article 12(7) of Directive 97/33 does not allow a national regulatory authority to approve a connection charge the rate of which is not cost-oriented, when it has the same characteristics as an interconnection charge and is levied as a supplement to such a charge.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da člen 12(7) Direktive 97/33 nacionalnemu regulativnemu organu ne dovoljuje, da odobri priključnino, katere vi�ina ni stro�kovno naravnana, če ima enake lastnosti kot tarifa za medomrežno povezovanje in se zaračunava kot dodatek k tej tarifi.
Moreover, it is also undisputed that Deutsche Telekom’s tariff rebalancing, intended to adapt its rates to actual costs and to bring to an end the form of cross-subsidisa-tion from subscriber line rental fees, as reported by the referring court, consisting in the use of a proportion of the fees paid by end-users for connection services as compensation for the deficit relating to the costs of local loop provision, was initiated in 1996, but was not completed in 2002.
Poleg tega je ugotovljeno tudi to, da se je usklajevanje tarif družbe Deutsche Telekom, katerega namen naj bi bil, kot opisuje predložitveno sodi�če, prilagoditev tarif tega operaterja dejanskim stro�kom in prenehanje navzkrižnega subvencioniranja nadomestil za najem naročni�kih linij, s tem da bi se del nadomestil, ki jih plačujejo končni uporabniki za storitev medomrežnega povezovanja, namenil za nadomestilo primanjkljaja v zvezi s stro�ki priključitve, začelo leta 1996, vendar se leta 2002 �e ni končalo.
It is moreover equally uncontested that universal service obligations have not been defined in Germany and have therefore not been imposed on Deutsche Telekom, since the needs to be met by such obligations have been met through normal market forces.
Poleg tega se ne izpodbija, da obveznosti v zvezi z univerzalno storitvijo v Nemčiji niso bile opredeljene in zato tudi ne naložene družbi Deutsche Telekom, ker je bilo potrebam, ki bi jim bilo treba zadostiti, zado�čeno z običajnimi tržnimi silami.
None the less, to ensure that those needs continue to be met through the forces of the free market, it is necessary to ensure that the rules of competition are maintained and safeguarded.
Vendar pa se je, da bi bilo tem potrebam �e naprej zado�čeno z običajnimi tržnimi silami, treba prepričati, da se ohranjajo in zagotavljajo pravila konkurence.
It is evident, first, that the existence of a connection charge such as that at issue in the main proceedings makes it possible in fact for the deficit of the market-domi-nant subscriber network operator to be funded by the subscribers of the other operators of interconnected networks and, secondly, that such funding, which is separate from any funding of universal service obligations, is contrary to the principle of free competition.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da taka priključnina, kakr�na se obravnava v postopkih v glavni stvari, dejansko omogoča, da primanjkljaj operaterja naročni�kega omrežja s prevladujočim položajem na trgu financirajo naročniki drugih operaterjev medomrežno povezanih omrežij, in da tako financiranje, ki ne poteka v okviru financiranja obveznosti v zvezi z univerzalno storitvijo, ni združljivo z načelom svobodne konkurence.
Contrary to what is contended by Deutsche Telekom, it is not obvious that the charge serves to prevent distortions of competition between operators which have invested in a telecommunications network and other operators which are new entrants to the local market.
V zvezi s tem, nasprotno od tega, kar zatrjuje družba Deutsche Telekom, ni mogoče sklepati, da se s tako priključnino preprečuje izkrivljanje konkurence med operaterji, ki so vlagali v telekomunikacijsko omrežje, in drugimi, novimi subjekti na krajevnem trgu.
It is not disputed that the effect of the connection charge at issue in the main proceedings is only to protect the market-dominant subscriber network operator by enabling it to maintain a cost for the calls of its own subscribers which is below the actual cost and, accordingly, to fund its own deficit.
Ne izpodbija se namreč, da je posledica priključnine v postopkih v glavni stvari zgolj varovanje operaterja naročni�kega omrežja s prevladujočim položajem na trgu, s tem da mu ta omogoča, da za svoje naročnike ohranja nižje stro�ke klicev od dejanskih in tako financira lasten primanjkljaj.
Moreover, although Article 4c of Directive 90/388 does not lay down a period within which the obligation to rebalance tariffs must be fulfilled, the fact remains that several elements of Directive 96/19 indicate that the rebalancing was to be carried out at a sustained rate in order to facilitate the opening of the telecommunications market to competition.
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da čeprav člen 4c Direktive 90/388 ne določa roka za izvr�itev obveznosti uskladitve tarif, iz več točk Direktive 96/19 izhaja, da je treba to uskladitev dokončati s pospe�eno hitrostjo, da se tako pospe�i odprtje telekomunikacijskega trga za konkurenco.
Indeed, it is clear from recital 5 in the preamble to Directive 96/19 in conjunction with recital 20 therein, and from Article 4c of Directive 90/388, that the Member States were bound to bring an end to restrictions on rebalancing as soon as
Iz uvodnih izjav 5 in 20 Direktive 96/19 v zvezi s členom 4c Direktive 90/388 izhaja, da so bile države članice dolžne odpraviti ovire za uskladitev v najkraj�ih možnih rokih od začetka veljavnosti Direktive 96/19, in sicer do najpozneje 1. januarja 1998 (sodba z dne 7. januarja 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti
Failing completion of that rebalancing before 1 January 1998, the Member States were bound to send a report to the Commission on their plans for the phasing-out of the remaining tariff imbalances, that report to contain a detailed timetable for implementation of those plans.
Če te uskladitve niso mogle dokončati do 1. januarja 1998, so bile navedene države članice Komisiji dolžne predložiti poročilo o načrtih za postopno odpravo preostalih tarifnih neskladnosti, ki je moralo vključevati podroben časovni načrt za uresničenje teh načrtov. To fazo je bilo treba dokončati do 1. januarja 2000.
However, it is clear that Paragraph 43(6) of the TKG 1996, in the version taking effect on 1 December 2002, comes after 1 January 2000, the final date for completion of that tariff rebalancing, while the Federal Republic of Germany has not submitted any rebalancing plan to the Commission.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da člen 43(6) TKG iz leta 1996, kot je začel veljati 1. decembra 2002, izhaja iz obdobja po 1. januarju 2000, končnem datumu za dokončanje navedenega tarifnega usklajevanja – glede na to, da Zvezna republika Nemčija Komisiji ni predložila načrta usklajevanja.
In any event, a provision such as that in the fourth sentence of Paragraph 43(6) does not encourage the subscriber network operator in receipt of the connection charge to take steps to eliminate the deficit incurred by adjusting its rates.
Vsekakor pa določba, kakr�no vsebuje četrti stavek navedenega člena 43(6), operaterja naročni�kega omrežja, ki je na njeni podlagi upravičen do priključnine, ne spodbuja k temu, da bi svoj primanjkljaj odpravil z uskladitvijo svojih tarif.
It follows that Directive 90/388 does not allow a national regulatory authority to approve the levy, by the market-dominant subscriber network operator, of a connection charge which is additional to the interconnection charge for the year 2003.
Iz tega izhaja, da Direktiva 90/388 nacionalnemu regulativnemu organu ne dovoljuje, da operaterju naročni�kega omrežja s prevladujočim položajem na trgu za leto 2003 odobri priključnino, ki jo ta zaračunava kot dodatek k tarifi za medomrežno povezovanje.
It follows from all of the foregoing that the answer to the first question must be that Article 12(7) of Directive 97/33 and Article 4c of Directive 90/388, the latter read in conjunction with recitals 5 and 20 in the preamble to Directive 96/19, must be interpreted as precluding a national regulatory authority from requiring an operator of a network interconnected with a public network to pay to the market-dominant subscriber network operator a connection charge which is additional to an interconnection charge and is intended to compensate the latter operator for the deficit incurred as a result of providing the local loop for the year 2003.
Iz vsega navedenega izhaja, da je treba na prvo zastavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti tako, da je treba člen 12(7) Direktive 97/33 in člen 4c Direktive 90/388, slednjega v zvezi z uvodnima izjavama 5 in 20 Direktive 96/10, razlagati tako, da nacionalni regulativni organ operaterju omrežja, ki je medomrežno povezano z javnim omrežjem, ne more naložiti obveznosti, da operaterju naročni�kega omrežja s prevladujočim položajem za leto 2003 poleg tarife za medomrežno povezovanje plača tudi priključnino za izravnavo primanjkljaja, ki slednjemu nastane zaradi zagotavljanja krajevnih zank.
In the light of the answer given to the first question, an answer must be given to the second question, by which the referring court asks essentially whether, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, an individual can rely before that court on Article 4c of Directive 90/388 and Article 12(7) of Directive 97/33.
Glede na odgovor na prvo vpra�anje je treba odgovoriti tudi na drugo zastavljeno vpra�anje, s katerim predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali se lahko v takem primeru, kot se obravnava v postopkih v glavni stvari, posameznik pred tem sodi�čem sklicuje na člena 4c Direktive 90/388 in 12(7) Direktive 97/33.