natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Deutsche Telekom is a notified operator of fixed public telephone networks within the meaning of Regulation No 2887/2000.
Družba Deutsche Telekom je prigla�eni obratovalec fiksnega javnega telefonskega omrežja v smislu Uredbe �t. 2887/2000.
Arcor, formerly Mannesmann Arcor AG & Co, is a beneficiary within the meaning of that regulation and, on that basis, it supplies, inter alia, ISDN telephone extensions for end consumers. Those connections can, however, be used only if Arcor has unbundled access to the respective local loop in Deutsche Telekom’s telecommunications network. 34
Družba Arcor, nekdanja družba Mannesmann Arcor AG & Co, je upravičenec v smislu te uredbe in na tej podlagi zagotavlja telefonske priključke ISDN končnim uporabnikom. Te priključke je mogoče uporabljati le, če ima družba Arcor dostop do ustrezne krajevne zanke v telekomunikacijskem omrežju družbe Deutsche Telekom. 34
As is apparent from the decision to refer, on 30 September 1998 Arcor signed a first contract with Deutsche Telekom on unbundled access to the latter’s local loops.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je družba Arcor 30. septembra 1998 z družbo Deutsche Telekom sklenila prvo pogodbo o dostopu do krajevnih zank zadnjenavedene družbe.
On 8 March 1999 Arcor lodged a complaint with the Commission based on Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) against Deutsche Telekom concerning the prices it charged for access to its local networks, each of which contains a number of local loops connecting end-users.
Družba Arcor je 8. marca 1999 pri Komisiji vložila pritožbo na podlagi člena 86 Pogodbe ES (sedaj člen 82 ES) zoper družbo Deutsche Telekom zaradi cen, ki jih je slednja zaračunavala za dostop do svojih krajevnih omrežij, od katerih vsako zajema več krajevnih zank do uporabnikov.
By a decision of 30 March 2001, amended on 17 April 2001, the NRA, namely the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network for Electricity, Gas, Telecommunications, Post and Rail) partially approved Deutsche Telekom’s rates for unbundled access to its local loop (monthly licence fee for use of the line and a one-off provision and cancellation fee) from 1 April 2001. Those rates included numerous types of access charged at varying amounts.
[NRO], in sicer Bundesnetzagentur (agencija za zvezna električna, plinska, telekomunikacijska, po�tna in železni�ka omrežja), je z odločbo z dne 30. marca 2001, popravljeno 17. aprila tega leta, za obdobje od 1. aprila 2001 deloma odobril cene družbe Deutsche Telekom za dostop do krajevne zanke (mesečna naročnina za uporabo linije, enotni stro�ki vzpostavitve in odpovedi), ki so omogočale �tevilne možnosti dostopa po različnih cenah.
According to the decision to refer, the approval for the monthly licence fee expired on 31 March 2003, and, as for the rest, the approval expired on 31 March 2002 at the latest.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da je za mesečno naročnino odobritev potekla 31. marca 2003, za vse preostalo pa najkasneje 31. marca 2002.
On 30 April 2001 Arcor brought an action before the competent court seeking partial annulment of the approval decision referred to above on the ground that the approved rates are too high.
Družba Arcor je 30. aprila 2001 pri pristojnem sodi�ču vložila tožbo, s katero je zahtevala delno razveljavitev zgoraj navedene odločbe o odobritvi, ker naj bi bile odobrene cene previsoke.
In that regard, it claims, inter alia, that the investment value of the local loop was incorrectly determined by applying the analytical cost model and the annuity method and by failing to take account of other costs and expenses.
V zvezi s tem je navedla, da je bila ocena vi�ine vlaganj, ki ustrezajo krajevni zanki, napačna, ker je bil uporabljen analitični model stro�kov in metode letnin in ker niso bili upo�tevani drugi stro�ki in izdatki.
According to Arcor, that evaluation made it possible to calculate the rates for unbundled access to the local loop not on the basis of the costs of the existing network but on the basis of fictitious costs relating to the putting in place of a new local network.
Družba Arcor je menila, da so se zaradi te ocene cene za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke izračunavale na podlagi fiktivnih stro�kov vzpostavitve novega krajevnega omrežja in ne na podlagi stro�kov obstoječega omrežja.
By Commission Decision 2003/707/EC of 21 May 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [of the] EC [Treaty] (Cases COMP/C-1/37.451, 37.578, 37.579 — Deutsche Telekom AG) (OJ 2003 L 263, p.
Komisija je z Odločbo 2003/707/ES z dne 21. maja 2003 v zvezi s postopkom na podlagi člena 82 Pogodbe ES (zadeva �t. COMP/C-1/37.451, 37.578, 37.579 – Deutsche Telekom AG) (UL L 263, str.
9), Deutsche Telekom AG was fined EUR 12.6 million for infringement of Article 82(a) EC by charging its competitors and
9) družbi Deutsche Telekom naložila globo v vi�ini 12,6 milijona EUR, in sicer zaradi kr�itev člena 82, točka a, ES, ki jih je ta storila, s tem da je svojim konkurentom in naročnikom zaračunavala nepravične cene za
2008 — CASE C-55/06 end-users unfair monthly and one-off charges for access to the local network, thus significantly impeding competition on the market for access to the local network.
2008 – ZADEVA C-55/06 vzpostavitev dostopa do krajevne zanke in mesečno naročnino za ta dostop, s čimer je znatno ovirala konkurenco na trgu dostopa do krajevne zanke.
It is in those circumstances that the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Administrative Court, Cologne) (Germany) decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Verwaltungsgericht Köln je zato prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
(a) Is the calculation basis for that interest and depreciation the replacement value of the assets after the depreciation made prior to the time of valuation, or is the calculation basis exclusively the current replacement value, expressed in terms of current daily prices at the time of valuation?
(a) Ali je osnova za izračun teh obresti in amortizacije nadomestna vrednost naložbe, zmanj�ana za amortizacijo, izkazano do trenutka vrednotenja, ali pa izključno trenutna nadomestna vrednost, izražena v dnevnih cenah v trenutku vrednotenja?
(b) In any event, do the costs used as the calculation basis for imputed interest and costaccounting depreciation, in particular those which are not directly associated with service (overheads), have to be proven by comprehensible documents detailing the costs of the notified operator?
(b) Ali morajo biti stro�ki, ki se uveljavljajo kot osnova za izračun pripisanih obresti in amortizacije, zlasti tisti, ki se jih ne da neposredno pripisati storitvi (skupni stro�ki), v vsakem primeru izkazani z zanesljivimi listinami prigla�enega obratovalca?
(c) If Question 3(b) is to be answered either entirely or partially in the negative:
(c) Če je odgovor na [tretje] vpra�anje, [točka] (b), deloma ali v celoti nikalen:
May the costs alternatively be proven by a valuation made on the basis of an analytical cost model?
Ali se stro�ki lahko izkazujejo z oceno, za katero je podlaga analitični model stro�kov?
Which methodological and other substantive requirements do those alternative methods of valuation have to satisfy?
Katere metodolo�ke in druge vsebinske zahteve morajo biti pri alternativnem načinu vrednotenja izpolnjene?
(d) Is the [NRA] entitled, when assessing costorientation in the context of its authority under Article 4(1) to (3) of Regulation … No 2887/2000, to a “margin of discretion” which is subject only to limited judicial control?
(d) Ali ima [NRO] v okviru svojih pooblastil v skladu s členom 4 od (1) do (3) Uredbe […] �t. 2887/2000 pri preizkusu stro�kovne naravnanosti ‚diskrecijsko pravico‘, ki je predmet zgolj omejenega sodnega nadzora?
(e) If Question 3(d) is to be answered in the affirmative:
(e) V primeru pritrdilnega odgovora na [tretje] vpra�anje, [točka] (d):
Is that margin also applicable, in particular, to methods of cost calculation and questions of determining the appropriate amount of imputed interest (for borrowed and/or own capital) and appropriate depreciation periods?
Ali se ta diskrecijska pravica nana�a zlasti tudi na metodo izračuna stro�kov in na vpra�anje določitve pripisanih obresti (za tuj kapital in/ali lasten kapital) ter ustreznih amortizacijskih dob?
Where do the boundaries of that margin of discretion lie?
Kje so meje te diskrecijske pravice?
(f) Do the costorientation requirements at least serve to protect the rights of competitors as beneficiaries, with the consequence that those competitors can claim legal protection against rates for access which are not set on the basis of cost-orientation?
(f) Ali zahteve v zvezi s stro�kovno naravnanostjo prispevajo tudi k varstvu pravic konkurentov kot upravičencev, tako da lahko ti konkurenti sodno izpodbijajo cene za dostop, ki niso stro�kovno naravnane?
(g) Does the notified operator bear the burden of unprovability (burden of proof) if, in the supervisory procedure under Article 4 of Regulation … No 2887/2000 or in the subsequent judicial proceedings, costs are totally or partially unverifiable?
(g) Ali nosi prigla�eni obratovalec breme neizkazljivosti stro�kov (dokazno breme), če teh ne more v celoti ali deloma izkazati v nadzornem postopku iz člena 4 Uredbe […] �t. 2887/2000 ali v naknadnem sodnem postopku?
(h) If Questions 3(f) and 3(g) are to be answered in the affirmative:
(h) V primeru pritrdilnih odgovorov na [tretje] vpra�anje, [točki] (f) in (g):
Is the burden of proof for the costorientation also on the notified operator if a beneficiary competitor brings an action against rates approved by a regulatory authority under national law on the ground that, since they were not set on the basis of costorientation, the approved rates for access are too high?’
Ali nosi prigla�eni obratovalec dokazno breme za stro�kovno naravnanost tudi tedaj, če konkurent kot upravičenec vloži tožbo zoper odobritev, ki jo v skladu z nacionalnim pravom izda regulativni organ, ker naj bi bile odobrene cene dostopa, zato ker niso stro�kovno naravnane, previsoke?“
By a series of questions the national court asks the Court of Justice to interpret several provisions of Regulation No 2887/2000 and, in particular, those relating to the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation.
Predložitveno sodi�če s to serijo vpra�anj Sodi�ču predlaga, da poda razlago več določb Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, zlasti tistih, ki se nana�ajo na načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke.
As is apparent from the decision to refer, the questions referred raise four distinct issues.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da odpirajo zastavljena vpra�anja �tiri različne problemske sklope.
The first concerns the definition of the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation, as laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000.
Prvi se nana�a na opredelitev načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, kot je to določeno v členu 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000.
The second concerns the scope of that principle in the light of Article 1(4) of that regulation.
Drugi zadeva področje uporabe tega načela glede na določbe iz člena 1(4) te uredbe.
The third relates to the discretion of the NRAs in the application of the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation.
Tretji se nana�a na pristojnost odločanja NRO v okviru uporabe načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke.
The fourth and final question concerns procedural aspects and, in particular, review by the courts where that principle is to be applied.
Četrti in zadnji je povezan s procesnimi vidiki, zlasti s sodnim nadzorom, kadar je treba uporabiti to načelo.
It is thus on that basis that the questions referred by the national court need to be answered.
To je torej podlaga za odgovore na vpra�anja, ki jih je zastavilo predložitveno sodi�če.
Questions 2 and 3(a) and (c): the definition of the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation
Drugo in tretje vprašanje, točke od (a) do (c), v zvezi z opredelitvijo načela stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke
Without expressly seeking a definition of the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop and related facilities are to be set on the basis of costorientation, as
Ne da bi izrecno predlagalo, da se opredeli načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, kot je določeno v členu 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000,
2008 — CASE C-55/06 laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000, the national court invites the Court of Justice to adopt a position on the costs which have to be taken into consideration in order to orientate the rates for unbundled access to the local loop (Question 2), on the calculation basis for those costs (Question 3(a)), and on the proof of those costs (Question 3(b) and (c)).
2008 – ZADEVA C-55/06 predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem Sodi�ču predlaga, naj se opredeli glede stro�kov, ki jih je treba upo�tevati pri zaračunavanju cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke; s tretjim vpra�anjem, točka (a), mu predlaga, naj se opredeli glede podlage za izračun teh stro�kov; s tretjim vpra�anjem, točki (b) in (c), pa, naj se opredeli glede utemeljevanja teh stro�kov.
As is apparent from the wording of Article 3(3), that regulation is merely drafted in general terms to the effect that notified operators are to charge prices for unbundled access to the local loop set on the basis of costorientation.
Kot izhaja iz besedila člena 3(3) te uredbe, se ta pravzaprav omejuje na splo�no določilo, v skladu s katerim prigla�eni obratovalci zaračunavajo cene za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke na podlagi stro�kovne naravnanosti.
In those circumstances, it must be examined whether there are any indications concerning the principle of costorientation in the directives of the FRF and, in particular, in Directives 97/33 and 98/10, applicable in the case in the main proceedings, which, according to recital 15 in its preamble, Regulation No 2887/2000 is intended to complement.
Glede na te okoli�čine je treba preučiti navedbe, ki se na načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti sklicujejo v direktivah NekdRO, zlasti v direktivah 97/33 in 98/10, ki ju je treba uporabiti v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ju v skladu s svojo uvodno izjavo 15 dopolnjuje Uredba �t. 2887/2000.
In that regard, it should be noted that the principle of costorientation is referred to, in a general way, in several directives of the FRF, such as Directives 97/33 and 98/10.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da je načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti na splo�no vključeno v več direktiv NekdRO, na primer v direktivi 97/33 in 98/10.
Article 7(2) of Directive 97/33, which does not refer to rates but to charges for interconnection, states that those charges are to follow the principles of transparency and costorientation.
Člen 7(2) Direktive 97/33, ki se ne nana�a na cene, temveč na pristojbine za medomrežno povezovanje, tako določa, da te upo�tevajo načeli preglednosti in stro�kovne naravnanosti.
Article 17(2) of Directive 98/10 provides that tariffs for use of the fixed public telephone network and fixed public telephone services are to follow the basic principles of costorientation set out in the annex to Directive 90/387.
Člen 17(2) Direktive 98/10 pa določa, da cene za uporabo javnega fiksnega telefonskega omrežja in javnih fiksnih telefonskih storitev upo�tevajo temeljna načela stro�kovne naravnanosti iz priloge k Direktivi 90/387.
In that regard, the second paragraph of point 3 of that annex provides that tariffs must be based on objective criteria and, in principle, be set on the basis of costorientation.
V zvezi s tem točka 3, drugi odstavek, navedene priloge določa, da morajo cene temeljiti na objektivnih merilih in morajo biti načeloma stro�kovno naravnane.
It is apparent from the above that, generally, Community law lays down, in various areas of the telecommunications sector, the principle of costorientation of rates or prices without specifying what that means in each of the areas concerned (interconnection, voice telephony or the local loop).
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da pravo Skupnosti na različnih področjih telekomunikacijskega sektorja na splo�no vključuje načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti cen, pri čemer pa vsebina tega načela na posameznih zadevnih področjih, med drugim na področjih medomrežnega povezovanja, govorne telefonije in krajevne zanke, ni podrobneje opredeljena.
In those circumstances, to define the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation, account must be taken not only of the wording of that principle but also of its context and the objectives pursued by the legislation laying down that principle.
V teh okoli�činah je treba za opredelitev načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke upo�tevati ne le uporabljene pojme, temveč tudi ume�čenost tega načela v celotno besedilo in cilje zakonodaje, v katero je vključeno.
In that regard, it should be pointed out, first, that, according to recital 7 in the preamble to Regulation No 2887/2000, unbundled access to the local loop allows new entrants to compete with notified operators in offering high bit-rate data transmission services for continuous internet access and for multimedia applications based on digital subscriber line technology.
V zvezi s tem je treba najprej opozoriti, da razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke v skladu z uvodno izjavo 7 Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 novim udeležencem na trgu omogoča, da konkurirajo prigla�enim obratovalcem s ponudbo storitev prenosa podatkov z visoko bitno hitrostjo za neprekinjeni dostop do interneta in za večpredstavnostne aplikacije, ki temeljijo na tehnologiji digitalnih naročni�kih vodov (DSL).
In addition, according to Article 1(1) thereof, the aim of Regulation No 2887/2000 is to intensify competition, through the setting of harmonised conditions for unbundled access to the local loop, in order to foster the competitive provision of a wide range of electronic communications services.
Poleg tega je v skladu s členom 1(1) Uredba �t. 2887/2000 namenjena krepitvi konkurence in spodbujanju tehnolo�ke inovacije na trgu krajevnega dostopa z določitvijo usklajenih pogojev za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke, da bi se pospe�ilo konkurenčno zagotavljanje �irokega nabora elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev.
However, that regulation does not lay down, to that end, a principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are set freely, in the spirit of an open competitive market, by the rules of supply and demand.
Kljub temu pa navedena uredba v ta namen ne določa načela, po katerem bi se cene za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke v skladu z logiko odprtega konkurenčnega trga prosto oblikovale po pravilih ponudbe in povpra�evanja.
As is apparent from the wording used in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000, operators charge prices on the basis of the costs which they have incurred and not on the basis of free competition.
Kot izhaja iz pojmov, uporabljenih v členu 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, cene pravzaprav določa prigla�eni obratovalec, in sicer ne po pravilih igre proste konkurence, temveč na podlagi svojih stro�kov.
In that regard, it should be noted that Article 4(4) of that regulation provides that, when the NRA determines that the local access market is sufficiently competitive, it is to relieve the notified operators of the obligation for prices to be set on the basis of costorientation.
Natančneje, v zvezi s tem člen 4(4) te uredbe določa, da če NRO ugotovi, da je trg krajevnega dostopa dovolj konkurenčen, prigla�ene obratovalce razre�i obveznosti, v skladu s katero morajo cene določati na podlagi stro�kovne naravnanosti.
It is also in that sense that, in Article 1(6) of Recommendation 2000/417, which is referred to in recital 13 in the preamble to Regulation No 2887/2000, the Commission states that, for as long as the level of competition in the local access network is insufficient to prevent excessive pricing of unbundled access to local loops, it is recommended that prices for unbundled access to local loops follow the principle of costorientation.
V tem smislu je tudi Komisija v členu 1(6) Priporočila 2000/417, navedenega v uvodni izjavi 13 Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, podrobno opredelila, da se, če konkurenca v omrežju krajevnega dostopa ni dovolj močna, da bi lahko preprečila pretirano visoke cene za razvezanje dostopa do krajevne zanke, priporoča, da se cene oblikujejo v skladu z načelom stro�kovne naravnanosti.
It follows that the pricing principle laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000 does not follow the rules of an open competitive market driven by the rules of supply and demand.
Iz tega izhaja, da načelo oblikovanja cen iz člena 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 ne sledi pravilom odprtega konkurenčnega trga, ki ga narekujejo pravila ponudbe in povpra�evanja.
On the contrary, that principle imposes the obligation on notified operators to set their rates for access to the local loop on the basis of costorientation for a given period and with the aim of enabling the market concerned to be opened up to competition gradually.
Vendar pa to načelo prigla�ene obratovalce zavezuje k stro�kovni naravnanosti cen za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke za določen čas, z namenom omogočiti postopno odpiranje zadevnega trga za konkurenco.
Second, it is apparent from recital 11 in the preamble to Regulation No 2887/2000, read in conjunction with Article 3(3) thereof, that, for unbundled access to the local loop, rates must be set on the basis of costorientation, in the sense that the rules on rates must enable the provider of the local loop, in this case the notified operator, such as Deutsche Telekom, to be able to cover the costs already incurred in relation to the provision of that loop.
Drugič, iz uvodne izjave 11 Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 v zvezi s členom 3(3) te uredbe izhaja, da morajo biti cene za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke stro�kovno naravnane v tem smislu, da morajo pravila oblikovanja cen ponudniku krajevne zanke, v tem primeru prigla�enemu obratovalcu, kot je družba Deutsche Telekom, zagotavljati, da lahko pokrije svoje stro�ke.
It thus follows from those provisions that the pricing rule laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000 requires that, when setting rates for unbundled access to the local loop on the basis of costorientation, the notified operator must take account of quantitative elements which are in line with the costs which he incurred in putting that loop in place.
Iz teh določb tako izhaja, da pravilo oblikovanja cen iz člena 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 prigla�enega obratovalca zavezuje, da pri oblikovanju cen za razvezani dostop do svoje krajevne zanke upo�teva količinske dejavnike, povezane s stro�ki, ki jih je imel pri vzpostavljanju te zanke.
Third, and as is also apparent from recital 11 in the preamble to Regulation No 2887/2000, the notified operator must derive a reasonable return from the setting of rates for unbundled access to its local loop in order to ensure the longterm development and upgrade of local access infrastructure.
Tretjič, prigla�eni obratovalec mora, kot prav tako izhaja iz uvodne izjave 11 Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, s cenami, ki jih določi za razvezani dostop do svoje krajevne zanke, doseči primeren donos, da bi se s tem zagotovil dolgoročni razvoj in nadgradila infrastruktura krajevnega dostopa.
Therefore, in the context of unbundled access to the local loop, the pricing principle laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000 allows the notified operator to charge other telecommunications operators suitable fees to enable it, at least, to ensure the proper functioning of the local infrastructures in the case of unbundled access to them.
V okviru razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke zato načelo oblikovanja cen iz člena 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 prigla�enemu obratovalcu omogoča, da od drugih obratovalcev na področju telekomunikacij pridobiva donos, s katerim lahko v primeru razvezanega dostopa do krajevne infrastrukture zagotavlja najmanj dobro delovanje te infrastrukture.