natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the transitional rules, those operators would be allowed to continue their broadcasting activities after 30 April 1998 on a temporary basis, on condition that they broadcast on terrestrial frequencies and, at the same time, on cable or satellite television.
Po teh pravilih naj bi se tem operaterjem omogočilo začasno nadaljevanje opravljanja dejavnosti radiodifuzije po 30. aprilu 1998, pod pogojem, da oddajajo na zemeljskih frekvencah in hkrati po kabelski ali satelitski televiziji.
The Law provided that channels which breached the threshold were eventually to cease terrestrial broadcasting, following the adoption of a national plan for the allocation of frequencies.
Zakon je določal, da bi morali kanali, ki so presegli prag, po nacionalnem načrtu za dodelitev frekvenc celo prenehati oddajati zemeljsko.
The national allocation plan failed to materialise.
Nacionalni načrt dodelitve koncesij ni bil izdelan.
As a result, Europa 7 did not receive any frequencies and, despite having obtained broadcasting rights, was not able actually to start broadcasting.
Zato Europa 7 ni dobil frekvenc in dejavnosti in, čeprav mu je bila podeljena koncesija za radiodifuzijo, ni mogel začeti oddajati.
In the meantime, a series of successive laws and judicial
Medtem pa so zakoni in sodne
5 — Sentenza 57 December 1994, No 420/1994.
5 — Odločba z dne 5.–7. december 1994, �t. 420/1994.
The Gasparri Law effectively allowed incumbent operators to use frequencies for channels exceeding the antitrust threshold, thus blocking the release of those frequencies for new operators such as Europa 7, pending the implementation of a national plan for the allocation of frequencies for digital television.
Zakon Gasparri je namreč uveljavljenim operaterjem omogočil, da uporabijo frekvence za kanale, ki presegajo protikartelen prag, čeprav s tem onemogočijo frekvence novim operaterjem, kakr�en je Europa 7, ki je odvisen od izvedbe nacionalnega načrta za dodelitev frekvence za digitalno televizijo.
In addition, under the Gasparri Law, only active operators were eligible to apply for the right to use frequencies for digital television.
Dalje je pod zakonom Gasparri le pet aktivnih operaterjev lahko zaprosilo za koncesijo za digitalno televizijo.
Lastly, the Gasparri Law redefined the 20% threshold which had been introduced by the Maccanico Law.
Nazadnje je zakon Gasparri vnovič opredelil 20-odstotni prag, ki ga je uvedel zakon Maccanico.
That plan was supposed to come into effect on 31 December 2002 at the latest.
Ta načrt naj bi začel veljati najpoz -neje 31. decembra 2002.
The deadline expired, but no plan was ever drawn up.
Rok se je iztekel, vendar načrt nikoli ni bil izdelan.
Thus, at the material time, certain operators in national broadcast television had not obtained broadcasting rights, but were none the less allowed to continue their broadcasting activities, even though they exceeded the antitrust threshold.
Čeprav takrat določeni operaterji nacionalne televizije niso dobili koncesije za radiodifuzijo, so lahko �e naprej opravljali radiodifuzijske dejavnosti, tudi če so presegli protikartelni prag.
Europa 7, despite having obtained broadcasting rights, could not start operating since it had not received the necessary frequencies.
Čeprav je Europa 7 dobil koncesijo za radiodifuzijo, ni mogel začeti obratovati, saj ni dobil potrebnih frekvenc.
In addition, Europa 7, not being an active operator, could not obtain broadcasting rights for digital television.
Ker Europa 7 ni bil aktivni operater, tudi ni mogel dobiti koncesije za radiodifuzijo za digitalno televizijo.
In a ruling of 20 November 2002, the Corte Costituzionale held that the transfer of channels that exceeded the 20% antitrust threshold from terrestrial television to cable or satellite television should take place no later than 31 December 2003, regardless of the state of developments with respect to digital television.
Z odločbo z dne 20. novembra 2002 je Corte Costituzionale odločilo, naj bi do prenosa kanalov, ki so prekoračili 20-odstotni protikartelni prag od zemeljske televizije do kabelske ali satelitske televizije, pri�lo najpozneje 31. decembra 2003, ne glede na razvoj digitalne televizije.
After the period of 24 months following the notification of its broadcasting licence had expired, Europa 7 brought proceedings before the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Lazio (Latium Regional Administrative Court).
Po 24-mesečnem obdobju od obvestila, da je njegova televizijska licenca potekla, je Europa 7 začel postopek na Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Lazio (upravno sodi�če regije Lacije).
It asked that the competent administrative authorities be ordered to allocate the necessary frequencies and to pay compensation in respect of the losses
Predlagal je, da se pristojnim upravnim organom naloži, naj mu dodelijo
In the alternative, in case the allocation of frequencies should prove impossible, Europa 7 claimed reparation.
Če pa dodelitev frekvenc ne bi bila mogoča, je bila za Europa 7 druga možnost od�kodnina.
The Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Lazio held that Europa 7 did not have an enforceable claim (‘diritto soggettivo’) to have specific frequencies allocated to it and dismissed the action in its entirety.
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Lazio je odločilo, da Europa 7 ni imel subjektivne pravice („diritto soggettivo“) do dodelitve določenih frekvenc, in tožbo v celoti zavrnilo. Europa 7 se je nato pritožil pri Consiglio di Stato.
Throughout the national legal proceedings, the Italian authorities invoked Decreelaw No 352/2003 and the Gasparri Law in their defence.
V nacionalnem zakonskem postopku so italijanski organi v obrambi navajali uredbozakon �t. 352/2003 in zakon Gasparri.
In that context, the Consiglio di Stato has referred a raft of questions to the Court of Justice:
V tem kontekstu je Consiglio di Stato sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
(3) With effect from 25 July 2003, does Article 17 of [Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of
Ali od 25. julija 2003 člen 17 [Direktive 2002/20/ES Evropskega parlamenta in
10 — This appears to be a mistake: the Decreelaw in question was in fact converted into Law No 43/2004 of 24 February 2004.
10 — Gre za napako: zadevna uredbazakon je bila namreč spremenjena v zakon �t. 43/2004 z dne 24. februarja 2004.
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-380/05 the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive)] render that directive directly effective in the internal legal order and oblige a Member State which has granted broadcasting rights (right to install networks or provide electronic communication services or the right to use frequencies) to bring them into line with Community rules; and does that entail the need actually to allocate the frequencies necessary for carrying on the activity in question?
Sveta z dne 7. marca 2002 o odobritvi elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij in storitev (Direktiva o odobritvi)] učinkuje neposredno v notranjem pravu in predpisuje obveznost uskladitve za državo članico, ki je dodelila koncesije za dejavnost televizijske radiodifuzije (ki obsega pravico do namestitve omrežij in zagotavljanja storitev elektronskih komunikacij ali pravico do uporabe radijskih frekvenc), s skupnostno ureditvijo in ali navedena dolžnost obsega tudi zahtevo, da se dejansko dodelijo frekvence, ki so potrebne za opravljanje dejavnosti?
(5) Do Article 9 of Directive 2002/21 …, the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/20 …, and Article 4 of [Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services], require the Member States to arrange for the cessation, at least as from 25 July 2003 (see Article 17 of the Authorisation Directive), of a situation of de facto use of frequencies (use of facilities without grant of rights or authorisations issued following a selection procedure), on the basis of the broadcasting system already in place, so that broadcasting cannot be undertaken where there is no proper planning in regard to matters concerning the airwaves and no logical increase in pluralism, in contravention of rights awarded by the Member State following a public procedure?
Ali člen 9 Direktive 2002/21/ES, členi 5(2), pododstavek 2, 7(3) Direk -ti ve 2002/20/ES in člen 4 [Direktive Komisije 2002/77/ES z dne 16. septembra 2002 o konkurenci na trgih za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve] od držav članic zahtevajo, da odpravijo, vsaj od 25. julija 2003 naprej (glej člen 17 Direktive o odobritvi), situacijo dejanske zasedenosti radijskih frekvenc(delovanje naprav brez koncesij ali odobritve, izdane po primerjavi med kandidati) na področju dejavnosti televizijske radiodifuzije, kot je obravnavana dejavnost, in tako, da ne dovolijo, da se ta dejavnost opravlja brez pravilnega načrtovanja uporabe razpoložljivih frekvenc in brez logike povečanja pluralizma in s koncesijami, ki jih je država članica podelila na podlagi javnega razpisa?
(6) Is the derogation in the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Directive 2002/20 …, and in Article 4 of Directive 2002/77 …, available to be relied on by the Member State solely in order to protect pluralism of information and to guarantee the protection of cultural or linguistic diversity and not in favour of operators of networks in breach of the antitrust limits laid down in national competition legislation?
Ali člen 9 [Direktive 2002/21/ES o skupnem regulativnem okviru za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve (Okvirna direktiva)] in člen 5 Direktive o odobritvi s tem, da zagotavljata javne, pregledne in nediskriminatorne postopke (člen 5), ki se izvedejo na podlagi objektivnih, preglednih, nediskriminatornih in sorazmernih meril (člen 9), nasprotujeta ureditvi splo�ne odobritve, ki ga določa nacionalno pravo (člen 23(5) zakona 112/2004), ki s tem, da dovoljuje nadaljevanje oddajanja ‚pre -sežnim kanalom‘, ki niso bili izbrani na javnih razpisih, �kodi pravicam, ki jih imajo druga podjetja na podlagi zakonodaje Skupnosti (člen 17(2) Direktive 2002/20/ES), in katerim je, čeprav so bila izbrana v postopkih odprtih za konkurenco, preprečena možnost delovanja?
(4) Do Article 9 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)] and Article 5 of the Authorisation Directive providing for transparent and nondiscriminatory public procedures (Article 5) conducted on the basis of objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria (Article 9) preclude a system providing for general authorisation under national law (Article 23(5) of Law No 112/2004); by permitting the continued operation, under that system of networks in breach of limits and not selected under a competitive procedure, do those provisions ultimately impinge on the Community-law rights under (Article 17(2) of Directive 2002/20 …) of other undertakings which are prevented from operating even though they have been successful in competitive procedures?
Ali se je država članica lahko sklicevala in se �e lahko sklicuje na odstopanje, določeno v členu 5(2), pododstavek 2, Direktive 2002/20/ES in členu 4 Direktive 2002/77/ES le zaradi varstva kulturne ali jezikovne raznovrstnosti, ne pa tudi v dobro operaterjev, ki presegajo protikartelne omejitve, določene v nacionalni zakonodaji?
(7) attendant accentuating of the scarcity of available frequencies owing to the existence of analogue and digital transmission in parallel (simulcast)?
začetka prehoda na digitalni zemeljski sistem obstaja tveganje, da bo pomanjkanje razpoložljivih radijskih frekvenc �e večje zaradi sočasnega (simulcast) analognega in digitalnega oddajanja?
In order to benefit from the derogation under Article 5 of Directive 2002/20 …, does the Member State have to indicate the objectives actually pursued by the national derogatory rules?
Ali mora država članica za uporabo odstopanja iz člena 5 Direktive 2002/20/ES navesti cilje, ki jim sledi z nacionalno zakonodajo, ki vsebuje odstopanje?
May that derogation be applied, in addition to the case of the concessionary of the public broadcasting service (RAI in Italy), in favour also of private operators who have been unsuccessful in competitive procedures and to the detriment of undertakings who may have duly been granted rights following a competitive procedure?
Ali navedeno odstopanje lahko velja tudi za druge primere poleg koncesionarskih storitev javne radiodifuzije (RAI v Italiji), torej v dobro zasebnih subjektov, ki niso bili izbrani v postopkih, odprtih za konkurenco, in v �kodo podjetij, ki jim je bila koncesija dodeljena na podlagi razpisa?
This criterion also brings in activities which do not affect media pluralism, whereas under antitrust law the “relevant market” is constructed normally by differentiating the markets in the broadcasting sector by drawing a distinction between pay/TV and non-pay TV operating via the airwaves (reference is made inter alia to [Commission Decision of 21 March 2000 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/JV.
112/2004), ki je precej �ir�a in vključuje tudi dejavnosti, ki ne vplivajo na medijski pluralizem, medtem ko je ‚upo�tevni trg‘ v protikartelnem pravu običajno določen z razlikovanjem med trgi, v radiodifuzijskem sektorju �e celo z razlikovanjem med plačljivo televizijo in neplačljivimi televizijami, ki oddajajo po etru [glej inter alia Odločbo Komisije z dne 21. marca 2000 o združljivosti koncentracije na skupnem trgu v zadevi �t. COMP/JV. 37-BSKYB proti Kirch Pay TV, ki temelji na Uredbi Sveta (EGS) �t.
Member State measures in order to assess their conformity with fundamental rights.
II – Uvodne ugotovitve glede sodne prakse Sodišča za preverjanje, ali so nacionalni akti v skladu s temeljnimi pravicami skladnosti s temeljnimi pravicami.
In his Opinion in Konstantinidis, Advocate General Jacobs expressed the view that any national of one Member State who pursues an economic activity in another Member State may, as a matter of Community law, invoke the protection of his fundamental rights:
V sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Konstantinidis je generalni pravobranilec Jacobs menil, da lahko vsak državljan države članice, ki opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost v drugi državi članici, v okviru prava Skupnosti uveljavlja varstvo svojih temeljnih pravic:
By its first question, the referring court seeks an interpretation of Article 10 of the ECHR and asks the Court of Justice to clarify the obligations that apply to the Member States by virtue of the right to freedom of expression and the corollary notion of pluralism of the media.
V prvem vpra�anju predložitveno sodi�če želi razlago člena 10 EKČP in Sodi�če napro�a, naj pojasni obveznosti, ki jih imajo države članice glede pravice izražanja in z njo povezane pravice medijskega pluralizma.
‘In my opinion, a Community national who goes to another Member State as a worker or selfemployed person … is entitled not just to pursue his trade or profession and to enjoy the same living and working conditions as nationals of the host State; he is in addition entitled to assume that, wherever he goes to earn his living in the European Community, he will be treated in accordance with a common code of fundamental values, in particular those laid down in the European Convention of Human Rights.
„Menim, da državljan Skupnosti, kadar opravlja delo kot zaposlena ali samozaposlena oseba v drugi državi članici, […] ni upravičen le do opravljanja svoje dejavnosti ali poklica ter enakih življenjskih in delovnih razmer, kot jih imajo državljani države gostiteljice; ampak poleg tega lahko tudi upravičeno domneva, da bo, če gre delat v Evropsko skupnost, obravnavan v skladu s splo�nimi temeljnimi vrednotami, zlasti tistimi, ki jih določa Evropska konvencija za človekove pravice.
In other words, he is entitled to say “civis europeus sum” and to invoke that status in order to oppose any violation of his fundamental rights.’ 12
Povedano drugače, z vso pravico lahko izjavi civis europeus sum, in če so kr�ene njegove temeljne pravice, ta status uveljavlja.“ 12
However, that does not automatically mean that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to examine whether a Member State has violated the right to freedom of expression.
Vendar to ne pomeni že, da je Sodi�če pristojno za presojo, ali je država članica kr�ila svobodo izražanja.
As the Court has held on numerous occasions, it only has power to examine the compatibility with fundamental rights of national rules which fall within the scope of Community law. 11
Kot je Sodi�če odločilo v �tevilnih primerih, je pristojno zgolj za presojo o skladnosti s temeljnimi pravicami nacionalnih pravil, ki spadajo v okvir prava Skupnosti. 11
Arguments have been made in the past to extend the role of the Court in reviewing
V preteklih letih so se pojavili argumenti za raz�iritev vloge Sodi�ča glede presoje ukrepov držav članic zaradi presoje njihove
The Court, however, did not follow this suggestion.
Vendar Sodi�če tega predloga ni upo�tevalo.
In other words, the Court did not endorse the view that any violation, by the host State, of a fundamental right of a national from another Member State may hamper the exercise of the right to free movement.
Povedano drugače, Sodi�če ni potrdilo mnenja, da vsaka kr�itev ene države članice temeljne pravice državljana druge države članice lahko omejuje pravico do svobode
Though I do not wish to propose
I-1191, točka 46).
CENTRO EUROPA 7 that the Court reverse its long-established viewpoint in this matter, I believe that the time is ripe to introduce a refinement into this line of case-law.
CENTRO EUROPA 7 gibanja. Čeprav ne želim predlagati, naj Sodi�če v tej zadevi spremeni svoje dolgoletno stali�če, menim, da je čas, da se ta sodna praksa oplemeniti.
and unfeasible.
nekoristna in neizvedljiva. V tem smislu obstoj Evropske unije temelji na spo�tovanju temeljnih pravic.
Protection of the ‘common code’ of fundamental rights accordingly constitutes an existential requirement for the EU legal order.
Varstvo „splo�nega zakonika“ temeljnih pravic v skladu s tem ustvarja pogoj za obstoj pravnega reda EU.
Since the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam, respect for fundamental rights is a formal legal requirement for membership of the European Union.
Od sprejetja Amsterdamske pogodbe je spo�tovanje temeljnih pravic formalno zakonita zahteva za članstvo v Evropski uniji.
13Article 6 EU, as amended by that Treaty, now firmly proclaims that the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.
13Člen 6 EU, kot je bil spremenjen s to pogodbo, zdaj slovesno razgla�a, da Unija temelji na načelih svobode, demokracije, spo�tovanja človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin ter pravne države, na načelih, ki so skupna vsem državam članicam.
Article 7 EU sets out a mechanism for imposing sanctions on a Member State where there is a clear risk of a serious breach of those principles, thus confirming that respect for fundamental rights is an indispensable condition of EU membership.
Člen 7 EU določa mehanizme za ukrepanje proti državi članici, če obstaja nedvoumna nevarnost za resno kr�itev teh načel, kljub potrditvi, da je spo�tovanje temeljnih pravic neobhoden pogoj za članstvo Evropske unije.
Against this background, the Court fulfils its function of ensuring the observance, by the Member States, of fundamental rights as general principles of law.
S takim ozadjem Sodi�če izpolnjuje svojo nalogo, saj zagotavlja, da države članice spo�tujejo temeljne pravice kot splo�na pravna načela.
14 In this respect, a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, jurisdiction to review any national measure in the light of fundamental rights and, on the other hand, jurisdiction to examine whether Member States provide the necessary level of protection in relation to fundamental rights in order to be able adequately to fulfil their other obligations as members of the Union.
14 Zato je treba ločevati med pristojnostjo nadzora nad vsemi nacionalnimi ukrepi, ki zadevajo temeljne pravice, in pristojnostjo preučiti, ali država članica dovolj varuje temeljne pravice, da lahko ustrezno izpolni ostale obveznosti, ki jih imajo članice Unije.
The first type of review does not yet exist and is not within the Union’s current competences.
Prvi tip nadzora �e ne obstaja in ni v zdaj�njih pristojnostih Unije.
However, the second type of review flows logically from the nature of the process of European integration.
Drugi tip nadzora izhaja iz narave procesa evropske integracije.
It serves to guarantee that the basic conditions are in place for the proper functioning of the EU legal order and for the effective exercise of many of the rights granted to European citizens.
Njegov namen je zagotovitev temeljnih pogojev za pravilno delovanje pravnega reda EU in za učinkovito uresničevanje mnogih pravic evropskih državljanov.
Though the degree of protection of fundamental rights at national level does not have to be exactly
Čeprav ni nujno, da je stopnja varstva temeljnih pravic na nacionalni ravni enaka stopnji varstva temeljnih pravic na
Certainly, these provisions do not aim to extend the scope of application of fundamental rights, as a matter of EU law, to any Member State measure.
Namen teh določb seveda ni, da presežejo domet uporabe temeljnih pravic kot predmeta prava EU za vsak ukrep države članice.
Yet, it cannot be denied that they give expression to the profound conviction that respect for fundamental rights is intrinsic in the EU legal order and that, without it, common action by and for the peoples of Europe would be unworthy
Tako ni mogoče zanikati, da izražajo globoko prepričanje, da je spo�tovanje temeljnih pravic v pravnem redu EU bistveno in da bi bila brez njih skupna dejanja evropskih ljudstev in za evropska ljudstva
For good measure, it should be noted that these last three cases concerned the obligation of Community institutions to respect fundamental rights.
Natančneje, povedati je treba, da se zadnji trije primeri nana�ajo na obveznost institucij Skupnosti, spo�tovati temeljne pravice.
13 — Article 49 EU.
13 — Člen 49 EU.
as the protection of fundamental rights in a Member State is not gravely inadequate in that sense, I believe the Court should review national measures for their conformity with fundamental rights only when these measures come within the scope of application of the Court’s jurisdiction as defined in its caselaw to date. 15
Čeprav varstvo temeljnih pravic v državi članici v tem smislu ni bistveno neustrezno, bi moralo Sodi�če preveriti, ali so nacionalni ukrepi v skladu s temeljnimi pravicami le, če ti ukrepi spadajo v pristojnost Sodi�ča, kot je opredeljena v sedanji sodni praksi. 15
As to the present case, I propose that the Court remain faithful to its conventional approach.
Zato v tem primeru predlagam, da se Sodi�če drži svojega običajnega pristopa.
This is not to say that the first question asked by the national court, as regards the right to freedom of expression, is devoid of relevance.
To ne pomeni, da je prvo vpra�anje, ki ga zastavlja nacionalno sodi�če, o svobodi izražanja nepomembno.
However, as we shall see, its relevance is auxiliary to the issue whether there has been a restriction of free movement.
Vendar se njegova relevantnost, kot bomo videli, upo�teva le, če je �lo za omejitev prostega gibanja.
The scenario may seem unlikely at first sight, but I do not discount, offhand, the idea that a serious and persistent breach of fundamental rights might occur in a Member State, making it impossible for that State to comply with many of its EU obligations and effectively limiting the possibility for individuals to benefit fully from the rights granted to them by EU law.
Stvari so sicer lahko drugačne, kot je videti na prvi pogled, vendar ne dvomim, da v državi članici lahko pride do resne in trajne kr�itve temeljnih pravic, zaradi česar se ne zmore uskladiti z mnogo obveznostmi EU in posameznikom dejansko omeji možnost, da polno uresničujejo pravice, ki jim jih zagotavlja pravo EU.