natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘The author has the exclusive right to exploit his work in a material form; that right includes in particular:
„Avtor ima izključno pravico materialnega izkori�čanja svojega dela, kar vključuje zlasti:
…, the right of distribution (Paragraph 17),
[…], pravico distribuiranja (člen 17),
Paragraph 17(1) of that Law provides:
Člen 17(1) tega zakona določa:
‘The right of distribution is the right to offer to the public or put into circulation the original work or copies thereof.’
„Pravica distribuiranja je pravica ponuditi javnosti ali dati v promet izvirno delo ali njegovo kopijo.“
Cassina manufactures chairs.
Družba Cassina je proizvajalec oblazinjenega pohi�tva.
Its collection includes furniture manufactured according to the designs of Charles-Édouard Jeanneret (Le Corbusier).
Njihova ponudba zajema izdelke po načrtih Charlesa-Édouarda Jeannereta, imenovanega Le Corbusier. To
2008 — CASE C-456/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-456/06 pohi�tvo zajema naslanjače in kavče serije LC 2 in LC 3, ter sistem mizic LC 10-P.
Peek & Cloppenburg operates menswear and womenswear shops throughout Germany. It has set up in one of its shops a rest area for customers, fitted out with armchairs and sofas from the LC 2 and LC 3 range and a low table from the LC 10-P table system. In a display window of its outlet, Peek & Cloppenburg placed an armchair from the LC 2 range for decorative purposes. Those items of furniture did not come from Cassina but were manufactured without Cassina’s consent by an undertaking in Bologna (Italy). According to the referring court, such furniture was not protected at the time by copyright in the Member State in which it was manufactured. 16
Družba Peek & Cloppenburg ima po vsej Nemčiji trgovine z ženskimi in mo�kimi oblačili. V eni izmed trgovin je uredila prostor za počitek strank, v katerem je namestila naslanjače in kavče serije LC 2 in LC 3 ter nizko mizico iz sistema mizic LC 10-P. Družba Peek & Cloppenburg je v izložbeno okno svoje podružnice v dekorativne namene razstavila fotelj serije LC 2. Ti kosi pohi�tva ne izvirajo iz družbe Cassina, ampak jih je brez njenega dovoljenja proizvedlo podjetje s sedežem v Bologni (Italija). Po mnenju predložitvenega sodi�ča to pohi�tvo takrat v državi članici, v kateri je bilo proizvedeno, ni bilo za�čiteno z avtorsko pravico. 16
As it considered that Peek & Cloppenburg had infringed its rights by so doing, Cassina brought an action against it before the Landgericht Frankfurt (Frankfurt Regional Court) (Germany) seeking an order that it must desist from that practice and provide Cassina with information, in particular as regards the distribution channels for those items of furniture. In addition, Cassina sought an order that Peek & Cloppenburg pay damages. 17
Družba Cassina je, ker je menila, da je družba Peek & Cloppenburg s tem kr�ila njene pravice, pri Landgericht Frankfurt vložila tožbo, s katero je zahtevala naložitev opustitve teh dejanj in posredovanje informacij, zlasti v zvezi z distribucijsko potjo navedenega pohi�tva. Družba Cassina je poleg tega zahtevala tudi naložitev plačila od�kodnine tej družbi. 17
After the Landgericht Frankfurt had granted Cassina’s application and the appeal court had, essentially, confirmed the judgment given at first instance, Peek & Cloppenburg brought an appeal on a point of law before the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) (Germany). 18
Ker je Landgericht Frankfurt ugodilo zahtevi družbe Cassina in je pritožbeno sodi�če v bistvenem potrdilo sodbo izrečeno na prvi stopnji, je družba Peek & Cloppenburg pri Bundesgerichtshof vložila zahtevo za „revizijo“. 18
That court states that, since Cassina has an exclusive right of distribution for the purpose of Paragraph 17 of the Law on copyright of 9 September 1965, its decisions turns on whether the conduct of Peek & Cloppenburg referred to above infringed that right. I - 2758
Bundesgerichtshof navaja, da ker ima družba Cassina izključno pravico distribuiranja v smislu člena 17 zakona o avtorskih pravicah z dne 9. septembra 1965, je njegova odločitev odvisna od vpra�anja ali so zgoraj navedena dejanja družbe Peek & Cloppenburg kr�ila to pravico. I - 2758
It takes the view that there is normally a distribution where the original of a work or copies thereof cease to form part of the undertaking and are made publicly available through transfer of ownership or possession.
Po mnenju Bundesgerichtshof distribuiranje običajno nastopi, ko se izvirnik ali primerki dela na podlagi prenosa lastni�tva ali posesti prenesejo iz območja notranjega delovanja podjetja v javnost.
In this connection, a transfer of possession for a merely temporary period may suffice.
Glede tega lahko zadostuje že začasen prenos posesti.
The issue arises, however, of whether conduct consisting in making publicly available reproductions protected by copyright without a transfer of ownership or possession, and thus without a transfer of the de facto power of disposal, can also be classified as a distribution to the public otherwise than by sale for the purpose of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29, those reproductions being, as in the main proceedings, installed in sales areas merely for the purpose of being used by customers.
V zvezi s tem pa se postavlja vpra�anje, ali je treba kot distribuiranje na drugačen način od prodaje v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive 2001/29, označiti tudi dejanje dajanja na voljo javnosti kopij, za�čitenih z avtorsko pravico, brez prenosa lastni�tva ali posesti, in torej brez prenosa dejanske pravice do razpolaganja, pri čemer so te kopije, kot v postopku v glavni stvari, name�čene v prodajnih prostorih le zato, da bi jih uporabljale stranke.
In addition, the Bundesgerichtshof raises the question whether merely exhibiting a reproduction of a work in a shop display window, without making it available for use, also constitutes a form of distribution to the public within the meaning of that provision.
Bundesgerichtshof se poleg tega spra�uje ali zgolj razstavljanje kopije določenega dela v izložbi trgovine, ne da bi se jo dajalo na razpolago za uporabo, prav tako pomeni javno distribuiranje v smislu navedenihdoločb.
Furthermore, it submits that the issue also arises of whether the requirements of the protection of the free movement of goods laid down in Articles 28 EC and 30 EC restrict, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, the exercise of that right of distribution.
Poleg tega se po mnenju Bundesgerichtshof pojavi vpra�anje, ali zahteva po za�čiti prostega pretoka blaga iz členov 28 ES in 30 ES, v okoli�činah v postopku v glavni stvari, ne omejuje izvajanja navedene pravice distribuiranja.
In those circumstances, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Bundesgerichtshof prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
‘(1) (a) Can it be assumed that there is a distribution to the public otherwise than by sale, within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 …, in the case
„1. a) Ali je treba primere, v katerih je tretjim osebam omogočena uporaba primerkov z avtorsko pravico za�čitenih del, ne da bi bil s prepustitvijo v
2008 — CASE C-456/06 where it is made possible for third parties to make use of items of copyrightprotected works without the grant of user involving a transfer of de facto power to dispose of those items?
2008 – ZADEVA C-456/06 uporabo povezan prenos dejanske pravice do razpolaganja s temi primerki, �teti za kakr�nokoli distribuiranje na drugačen način [od prodaje] v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive 2001/29/ES […]?
(b) Is there a distribution under Article 4(1) of [Directive 2001/29] also in the case in which items of copyrightprotected works are shown publicly without the possibility of using those items being granted to third parties?
b) Ali gre za distribuiranje v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive 2001/29 tudi, če se primerki z avtorsko pravico za�čitenih del javno prikazujejo, ne da bi bila tretjim osebam dana možnost njihove uporabe?
Can the protection accorded to the free movement of goods preclude, in the abovementioned cases, exercise of the distribution right if the items presented are not under copyright protection in the Member State in which they were manufactured and placed on the market?’
Ali spo�tovanje načela prostega pretoka blaga v zgoraj navedenih primerih lahko nasprotuje uresničevanju pravice distribuiranja, če razstavljeni primerki v državi članici, kjer so bili izdelani in dani v promet, niso za�čiteni z avtorsko pravico?“
The application for the reopening of the oral procedure
Predlog za ponovno odprtje ustnega postopka
By letter received at the Court on 7 March 2008, Cassina requested the reopening of the oral procedure pursuant to Article 61 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court following the delivery of the Advocate General’s Opinion.
Družba Cassina je z dopisom, ki je prispel na Sodi�če 7. marca 2008, na podlagi člena 61 Poslovnika Sodi�ča predlagala ponovno odprtje ustnega postopka na podlagi sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke.
Cassina submits, in particular, that the Advocate General founded her Opinion on a number of incorrect arguments, that she misinterpreted the Court’s caselaw and that she failed to take into account all the facts relevant to the proceedings.
Družba Cassina zlasti trdi, da je generalna pravobranilka utemeljila svoje ugotovitve na več zmotnih trditvah, da ni upo�tevala sodne prakse Sodi�ča in da ni upo�tevala vseh okoli�čin, pomembnih za spor.
Cassina accordingly wishes to submit further information to the Court.
Družba Cassina je poleg tega hotela predložiti Sodi�ču dodatne informacije.
In this connection, it must be pointed out that neither the Statute of the Court of Justice nor its Rules of Procedure make provision for the parties to submit observations in response to the Advocate General’s Opinion (see, inter alia, Case C-259/04 Emanuel [2006] ECR I-3089, paragraph 15).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da niti Statut niti Poslovnik Sodi�ča strankam ne omogočata, da predložijo stali�ča v odgovor na sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 30. marca 2006 v zadevi Emanuel (C-259/04, ZOdl., str. I-3089, točka 15)).
Admittedly, the Court may, of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General, or at the request of the parties, order the reopening of the oral procedure in accordance with Article 61 of the Rules of Procedure if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties (see, inter alia, Case C-209/01 Schilling and Fleck-Schilling [2003] ECR I-13389, paragraph 19, and Case C-30/02 Recheio — Cash & Carry [2004] ECR I-6051, paragraph 12). 26
Sodi�če lahko nedvomno po uradni dolžnosti, na predlog generalnega pravobranilca ali na predlog strank v skladu s členom 61 Poslovnika, odredi ponovno odprtje ustnega postopka, kadar meni, da ni bilo predstavljenih dovolj pojasnil ali da je o zadevi treba razsoditi na podlagi trditve, o kateri stranki nista razpravljali (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 13. novembra 2003 v zadevi Schilling in Fleck-Schilling (C-209/01, Recueil, str.
However, the Court, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General, considers that in the present case it has all the information necessary to answer the questions referred.
Sodi�če zato, po opredelitvi generalne pravobranilke, ugotavlja, da ima v obravnavanem primeru na voljo vse potrebne podatke za odgovor na zastavljeni vpra�anji.
Consequently, there is no need to order the reopening of the oral procedure.
Zato ni treba odrediti ponovnega odprtja ustnega postopka.
Question 1(a) and (b)
Prvo vprašanje a) in b)
By Question 1(a) and (b), the referring court is essentially asking whether the concept of distribution to the public otherwise than through the sale of the original
S prvim vpra�anjem a) in b) predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba pojem javnega distribuiranja na drugačen način kot s prodajo izvirnika ali primerka tega
2008 — CASE C-456/06 of a work or a copy thereof, for the purpose of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29, must be interpreted as meaning that it includes, first, granting to the public the right to use reproductions of a work protected by copyright without that grant of use entailing a transfer of ownership and, secondly, exhibiting those reproductions to the public without actually granting a right to use them.
2008 – ZADEVA C-456/06 dela, v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive 2001/29, razlagati tako, da zajema, po eni strani, omogočanje javnosti uporabe primerka dela, ki je za�čiteno z avtorsko pravico, ne da bi se preneslo poleg pravice uporabe tudi lastni�tvo, in, po drugi strani, javno razstavljanje navedene kopije, ne da bi bila dana možnost njihove uporabe.
Neither Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 nor any other provision of that directive gives a sufficient explanation of the concept of distribution to the public of a work protected by copyright.
Niti člen 4(1) 2001/29, niti nobena druga določba te direktive dovolj ne pojasnjuje pojma javnega distribuiranja dela za�čitenega z avtorsko pravico.
That concept is, on the other hand, defined more clearly by the CT and the PPT.
Nasprotno pa je ta bolj jasno določen v MSOILAP in MSOILIF.
It is common ground that, as recital 15 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 makes clear, that directive is intended to implement at Community level the Community’s obligations under the CT and the PPT.
Dejstvo je, kot izhaja iz petnajste uvodne izjave Direktive 2001/29, da je slednja namenjena izvajanju obveznosti, ki izhajajo za Skupnost iz MSOILAP in MSOILIF, na ravni Skupnosti.
In those circumstances, the concept of distribution in Article 4(1) of that directive must be interpreted, as far as is possible, in the light of the definitions given in those Treaties.
V skladu s tem je treba pojem distribucije iz člena 4(1) navedene direktive razlagati, kolikor mogoče, glede na opredelitve, ki izhajajo iz teh pogodb.
Article 6(1) of the CT defines the concept of the right of distribution enjoyed by the authors of literary and artistic works as the exclusive right of authorising the making
V členu 6(1) MSOILAP je pojem pravica distribuiranja opredeljen tako, da avtorji književnih in umetni�kih del uživajo izključno pravico dovoljevati, da izvirnik in
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG available to the public of the original and copies of their works through sale or ‘other transfer of ownership’. Moreover, Articles 8 and 12 of the PPT contain the same definitions of the right of distribution enjoyed by performers and producers of phonograms. Thus, the relevant international Treaties link the concept of distribution exclusively to that of transfer of ownership. 33
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG primerki njihovih del postanejo dostopni javnosti s prodajo ali „drugačnim prenosom lastninske pravice“. Poleg tega člena 8 in 12 MSOILIF določata isti opredelitvi pravice distribuiranja, ki jo imajo izvajalci za posnetke njihovih izvedb ali proizvajalci fonogramov za njihove fonograme. Tako upo�tevni mednarodni pogodbi pojem distribuiranja povezujeta izključno s prenosom lastni�tva. 33
Since Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 provides, in such a context, for ‘distribution by sale or otherwise’, that concept should be interpreted in accordance with those Treaties as a form of distribution which entails a transfer of ownership.
Zato ker določb člena 4(1) Direktive 2001/29 v zvezi s tem določa distribuiranje „s prodajo ali drugače“, je treba ta pojem v skladu z navedenima pogodbama razlagati tako, da gre za obliko distribuiranja, ki vključuje prenos lastni�tva.
The wording of the provisions relating to the exhaustion of the right of distribution in the CT and Directive 2001/29 also points to that conclusion.
Ta ugotovitev izhaja tudi iz razlage zadevnih določb v zvezi z izčrpanjem pravice do distribuiranja v MSOILAP in Direktivi 2001/29.
Exhaustion is dealt with in Article 6(2) of the CT, which links it to the acts referred to in Article 6(1).
Ta je predvidena v členu 6(2) MSOILAP, ki jo veže na ista dejanja kot so navedena v odstavku 1 tega člena.
Thus, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 6 of the CT form a whole and should be interpreted together.
Tako odstavka člena 6 MSOILAP tvorita celoto, ki jo je treba razlagati skupno.
Those two provisions refer expressly to acts entailing a transfer of ownership.
Torej ti dve določbi izrecno predvidevata dejanja, ki vključujejo prenos lastnine.
Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29 follow the same scheme as Article 6 of the CT and are intended to implement it.
Člen 4(1) in (2) Direktive 2001/29 imata isto strukturo kot člen 6 MSOILAP in sta namenjena njegovemu prenosu.
Like Article 6(2) of the CT, Article 4(2) of the directive provides for the exhaustion of the distribution right within the Community in respect of the original or copies of the work on the first sale or other transfer of ownership of that object.
Po zgledu člena 6(2) MSOILAP, člen 4(2) te direktive določa, da se pravica distribuiranja v zvezi z izvirnikom ali primerki dela izčrpa, kadar se izvr�i prva prodaja ali drug prenos lastni�tva tega predmeta.
Since Article 4 implements Article 6 of the CT and should be interpreted, like Article 6 of the CT, as a whole, it follows that the term ‘otherwise’ in Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted in accordance with the meaning given to it in Article 4(2), that is to say, as entailing a transfer of ownership.
Ker navedeni člen 4 Direktive prena�a člen 6 MSOILAP, in ker je treba člen 4 direktive tako kot člen 6 MSOILAP razlagati kot celoto, je zato treba pojem „drugače“ iz člena 4(1) Direktive 2001/29 razlagati v smislu, ki muje dan v odstavku 2 tega člena, torej da vključuje prenos lastni�tva.
It follows that the concept of distribution to the public, otherwise than through sale, of the original of a work or a copy thereof, for the purpose of Article 4(1) of Direct- ive 2001/29, covers acts which entail, and only acts which entail, a transfer of the ownership of that object.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da je pojem javnega distribuiranja na drugačen način kot s prodajo izvirnika ali primerka tega dela, v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive 2001/29, zajema le dejanja, ki vključujejo prenos lastni�tva tega predmeta.
The information provided by the referring court shows that that clearly does not apply to the acts at issue in the main proceedings.
Vendar iz navedb predložitvenega sodi�ča izhaja, da to očitno ni primer dejanj v glavni stvari.
Contrary to what Cassina asserts, those findings are not affected by recitals 9 to 11 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29, which state that harmonisation of copyright must take as a basis a high level of protection, that authors have to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their work and that the system for the protection of copyright must be rigorous and effective.
Poudariti je treba, da v nasprotju s tistim kar trdi družba Cassina, deveta, deseta in enajsta uvodna izjava Direktive 2001/29 –, v skladu s katerimi mora usklajevanje avtorske in pravice temeljiti na visoki stopnji varstva, avtorji morajo za uporabo svojega dela prejeti primerno nagrado, sistem varstva avtorske in sorodnih pravic pa mora biti dejanski in strog – teh ugotovitev ne izpodbijajo.
Therefore, it is not for the Court to create, for authors’ benefit, new rights which have not been provided for by Directive 2001/29 and by so doing to widen the scope of the concept of distribution of the original of a work or a copy thereof beyond that envisaged by the Community legislature.
Zato Sodi�če ni pristojno, da v korist avtorjev ustvarja nove pravice, ki niso bile predvidene z Direktivo 2001/29 in tako tudi �iri smisel pojma javnega distribuiranja na drugačen način kot s prodajo izvirnika ali primerka tega dela, preko opredelitve zakonodajalca Skupnosti.
It would be for the Community legislature to amend, if necessary, the Community rules on protection of intellectual property if it considered that protection of authors is not assured to an adequate level by the legislation in force and that uses such as those at issue in the main proceedings should be subject to authors’ consent.
V pristojnosti slednjega je tudi, da kadar je to potrebno prilagodi ureditev Skupnosti v zvezi z za�čito intelektualne lastnine, če meni, da varstvo avtorjev z veljavno ureditvijo ni zagotovljeno na dovolj visoki stopnji in je treba uporabo kot izhaja iz zadeve v glavni stvari podrediti dovoljenju avtorjev.
For the same reasons, Cassina’s arguments according to which the concept of distribution of the original of a work or a copy thereof should be interpreted widely, on the ground that the actions at issue in the main proceedings are objectionable because the copyright owner obtained no remuneration for the use of copies of his work, which is protected under the legislation of the Member State where those copies are used, cannot be accepted.
Zaradi istih razlogov ne moremo sprejeti utemeljitve družbe Cassina, v skladu s katero bi bilo treba pojem javnega distribuiranja na drugačen način kot s prodajo izvirnika ali primerka tega dela razlagati �iroko, ker so zadevna dejanja v glavni stvari kazniva, saj imetnik avtorske pravice ni prejel nobenega nadomestila za uporabo primerka njegovega dela, ki je za�čiteno z zakonodajo države članice v kateri so ti primerki uporabljeni.
Therefore, the answer to Question 1 is that the concept of distribution to the public, otherwise than through sale, of the original of a work or a copy thereof, for the purpose of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29, applies only where there is a transfer of the ownership of that object.
Zato je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da pojem javnega distribuiranja na drugačen način kot s prodajo izvirnika ali primerka tega dela, v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive 2001/29 pomeni izključno prenos lastninske pravice nad tem predmetom ki vključujejo prenos lastni�tva tega predmeta.
As a result, neither granting to the public the right to use reproductions of a work protected by copyright nor exhibiting to the public those reproductions without actually granting a right to use them can constitute such a form of distribution.
Zato niti omogočanje javnosti uporabe primerka dela, ki je za�čiteno z avtorsko pravico, niti javno razstavljanje navedene kopije, ne da bi bila dana možnost njihove uporabe, ne pomenita tak�ne oblike distribuiranja.
The concept of distribution to the public, otherwise than through sale, of the original of a work or a copy thereof, for the purpose of Article 4(1) of Direct- ive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, applies only where there is a transfer of the ownership of that object.
Pojem javnega distribuiranja na drugačen način kot s prodajo izvirnika ali primerka tega dela, v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive 2001/29/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2001 o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi, pomeni izključno prenos lastninske pravice nad tem predmetom.
As a result, neither granting to the public the right to use reproductions of a work protected by copyright nor exhibiting to the public those reproductions without actually granting a right to use them can constitute such a form of distribution.
Zato niti omogočanje javnosti uporabe kopije dela, ki je zaščiteno z avtorsko pravico, niti javno razstavljanje navedene kopije, ne da bi bila dana možnost njihove uporabe, ne pomenita takšne oblike distribuiranja.
Case C-408/04 P
Zadeva C-408/04 P