natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows the substitution of one defendant for another during proceedings from being applied in a way which permits a ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 3 of that directive, to be sued, after the expiry of the period prescribed by that article, as a defendant in proceedings brought within that period against another person.
, in pojasnilo, da je treba člen 11 Direktive 85/374/EGS tako, da nasprotuje temu, da se nacionalni predpisi, ki dovoljujejo nadomestitev ene tožene stranke z drugo med sodnim postopkom, uporabijo tako, da po poteku roka, ki ga določajo, omogočajo tožbo zoper„proizvajalca“ v smislu člena 3 te direktive kot toženo stranko v postopku, ki je bil v tem roku sprožen zoper drugo osebo.
However, ¤rst, Article 11 must be interpreted as not precluding a national court from holding that, in proceedings instituted within the period prescribed by that article against the wholly-owned subsidiary of the ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374, that producer can be substituted for that subsidiary if that court ¤nds that the putting into circulation of the product in question was, in fact, determined by that producer.
Vendar je treba po eni strani navedeni člen 11 razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje temu, da nacionalno sodišče v sodnem postopku, sproženem v roku, določenem s tem členom, zoper hčerinsko družbo, ki je v stoodstotni lasti„proizvajalca“ v smislu člena 3(1) Direktive 85/374, meni, da lahko ta proizvajalec nadomesti to hčerinsko družbo, če to sodišče ugotovi, da je dajanje zadevnega proizvoda v promet dejansko določil ta proizvajalec.
Second, Article 3(3) of Directive 85/374 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the person injured by an allegedly defective product was not reasonably able to identify the producer of that product before exercising his rights against the supplier of that product, that supplier must be treated as a ‘producer’ for the purposes, in particular, of the application of Article 11 of that directive, if it did not inform the injured person, on its own initiative and promptly, of the identity of the producer or its own supplier, which it is for the national court to determine in the light of the circumstances of the case.
Po drugi strani je treba člen 3(3) Direktive 85/374 razlagati tako, da kadar oškodovanec zaradi proizvoda, ki naj bi imel napako, razumno ni mogel identicirati proizvajalca tega proizvoda, preden je začel uresničevati svoje pravice zoper njegovega dobavitelja, je treba takega dobavitelja šteti za„proizvajalca“ za namene uporabe zlasti člena 11 navedene direktive, če ni oškodovancu na lastno pobudo in nemudoma sporočil identitete proizvajalca ali svojega dobavitelja, kar mora preučiti nacionalno sodišče ob upoštevanju okoliščin zadeve.
In relation to unfair commercial practices, the Court was required to interpret Directive
V zvezi z nepoštenimi poslovnimi praksami je Sodišče v združenih zadevah VTB-VAB (sodba z dne
2005/29/EC (23) in Joined Cases C-261/07 and C-299/07 VTB–VAB (judgment of 23 April 2009).
23.¥aprila¥2009, C-261/07 in C-299/07) razlagalo Direktivo 2005/29/ES23.
It held that that directive precludes national legislation which with certain exceptions and without taking account of the speci¤c circumstances — therefore generally and as a preventative measure — imposes a general prohibition of combined o¥ers made by a vendor to a consumer.
Presodilo je, da navedena direktiva nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, ki razen nekaterih izjem in brez upoštevanja posebnih okoliščin posameznega primera – torej na splošno in preventivno – prepoveduje vsako vezano ponudbo prodajalca potrošniku.
The legislation in question laid down the principle that combined o¥ers are prohibited, notwithstanding the fact that such practices are not referred to in Annex I to the directive which exhaustively lists the only commercial practices which are prohibited in all circumstances and accordingly do not have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Ta ureditev namreč določa načelo prepovedi vezanih ponudb, čeprav take prakse niso vključene v Prilogo I k navedeni direktivi, v kateri so taksativno naštete samo poslovne prakse, ki so prepovedane v vseh okoliščinah in jih zato ni treba proučiti v vsakem posameznem primeru.
The Court noted that that directive fully harmonises, at the Community level, the rules on unfair commercial practices.
Sodišče je spomnilo, da se je s to direktivo izvedla popolna uskladitev pravil o nepoštenih poslovnih praksah na ravni Skupnosti.
Therefore, Member States may not adopt stricter rules than those provided for in the directive, even in order to achieve a higher level of consumer protection.
Zato države članice niti zaradi doseganja višje ravni varstva potrošnikov ne smejo sprejeti bolj omejevalnih ukrepov, kot so opredeljeni z navedeno direktivo.
By establishing a presumption of unlawfulness of combined o¥ers, even though a certain number of exceptions to that prohibition are laid down, national legislation does not meet the requirements of the directive.
Nacionalna ureditev z vzpostavitvijo domneve nezakonitosti vezanih ponudb, tudi če nacionalni zakon določa več izjem od navedene prepovedi, ne izpolnjuje zahtev, ki jih določa ta direktiva.
In the ¤eld of intellectual property rights, two judgments are worthy of note.
Sodba z dne 9. februarja 2006, C-127/04, ZOdl., str. I-1313.
(22) Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29).
Direktiva Sveta z dne 25. julija 1985 o približevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic v zvezi z¥odgovornostjo za proizvode z napako (85/374/ES) (UL L 210, str. 29).
) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair busi- ness-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2005/29/ES z dne 11. maja 2005 o nepoštenih poslovnih praksah podjetij v razmerju do potrošnikov na notranjem trgu ter o spremembi Direktive Sveta 84/450/EGS, direktiv Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/7/ES, 98/27/ES in 2002/65/ES ter Uredbe (ES) št. 2006/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (UL L 149, str. 22).
First, in Case C-32/08 FEIA (judgment of 2 July 2009) the Court held that Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (24), which provides that the right to the Community design vests in the employer where a design is developed by an employee in the execution of his duties or following the instructions given by his employer, unless otherwise agreed or speci¤ed under national law, does not apply to a Community design that has been produced as a result of a commission.
Najprej je treba navesti zadevo FEIA (sodba z dne 2. julija 2009, C-32/08), v kateri je Sodišče presodilo, da se člen 14(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 6/200224, v skladu s katerim se pravica do modela Skupnosti prenese na delodajalca, če model razvije zaposleni pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti ali po navodilih delodajalca, razen če se ne dogovorita drugače ali če nacionalna zakonodaja ne določa drugače, ne uporablja za modele Skupnosti, razvite po naročilu.
The Community legislature intended to de¤ne the special system set out in Article 14(3) of the regulation by reference to a speci¤c type of contractual relationship, namely that of an employment relationship, which precludes the application of Article 14(3) to other contractual relationships, such as that relating to a Community design that has been produced as a result of a commission.
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti je namreč želel posebno ureditev, ki jo določa člen 14(3) navedene uredbe, opredeliti s posebno vrsto pogodbenega razmerja, to je z delovnim razmerjem, kar izključuje uporabo navedenega odstavka za druga pogodbena razmerja, kot so razmerja v zvezi z modelom Skupnosti, ustvarjenim po naročilu.
Where, ¤rst, there are unregistered Community designs produced as a result of a commission, second, the national legislation does not deem such designs to be the same as designs developed in the context of an employment relationship, Article 14(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the right to the Community design vests in the designer, unless it has been assigning by way of contract to his successor in title.
Kadar se, prvič, obravnavajo neregistrirani modeli Skupnosti, ki so bili razviti po naročilu, in, drugič, na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje taki modeli niso izenačeni s tistimi, ki so bili razviti v¥okviru delovnega razmerja, je treba člen 14(1) Uredbe št. 6/2002 razlagati tako, da ima pravico do modela Skupnosti oblikovalec, razen če je bila ta pravica s pogodbo prenesena na njegovega pravnega naslednika.
The possibility of assignment by way of contract of the right to the Community design from the designer to his successor in title within the meaning of Article 14(1) of the regulation both stems from the wording of that article and is consistent with the aims of the regulation.
Možnost pogodbenega prenosa pravice do modela Skupnosti z oblikovalca na njegovega pravnega naslednika v smislu člena 14(1) navedene uredbe je namreč razvidna iz besedila tega člena in je v skladu s cilji, ki jim navedena uredba sledi.
Adapting the protection of Community designs to the needs of all sectors of industry in the Community by means of a contractual assignment of the right to the Community design is likely to help to achieve the essential objective of the enforcement of the rights conferred by a Community design in an ecient manner throughout the territory of the Community.
Prilagoditev varstva modelov Skupnosti potrebam vseh industrijskih sektorjev v Skupnosti z uporabo pogodbenega prenosa pravice do modela Skupnosti lahko prispeva k bistvenemu cilju učinkovitega izvrševanja pravic, ki jih daje model Skupnosti, po vsem ozemlju Skupnosti.
Moreover, enhanced protection for industrial design not only promotes the contribution of individual designers to the sum of Community excellence in the ¤eld, but also encourages innovation and development of new products and investment in their production.
Poleg tega povečano varstvo industrijskega oblikovanja ne spodbuja le prispevanja posameznih oblikovalcev k odličnosti Skupnosti na tem področju, temveč spodbuja tudi inovativnost in razvoj novih izdelkov ter naložbe v njihovo izdelovanje.
It is, however, for the national court to ascertain the contents of such a contract and in that regard to determine whether the right to the unregistered Community design has in fact been transferred from the designer to his successor in title, applying, in the context of that assessment, the law on contracts in order to determine who owns the right to the unregistered Community design, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the regulation.
Nacionalno sodišče pa je pristojno, da prouči vsebino take pogodbe in ugotovi, ali je bila v konkretnem primeru pravica do neregistriranega modela Skupnosti dejansko prenesena z oblikovalca na njegovega pravnega naslednika, pri čemer nacionalno sodišče pri ugotavljanju, kdo ima v skladu s členom 14(1) navedene uredbe pravico do neregistriranega modela Skupnosti, uporabi pogodbeno pravo.
Second, in Case C-240/07 Sony Music Entertainment (judgment of 20 January 2009), the Court held that the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, in this case rights concerning the reproduction of phonograms, laid down by Directive 2006/116/EC (25), is also applicable, pursuant to Article 10(2) thereof, where the subject matter at issue has at no time been protected in the Member State in which the protection is sought.
Nato je treba navesti zadevo Sony Music Entertainment (sodba z dne 20. januarja 2009, C-240/07), v kateri je Sodišče presodilo, da trajanje varstva avtorske pravice in določenih sorodnih pravic, v¥obravnavanem primeru pravic do reprodukcije fonogramov, iz Direktive 2006/116/ES25, velja na podlagi člena 10(2) te direktive, tudi kadar zadevni predmet ni bil nikoli varovan v državi članici, v kateri se zahteva varstvo.
According to the wording of that provision, the ¤rst alternative requirement concerns the prior existence of protection for the subject matter at issue in at least one Member State.
Tako iz besedila te določbe izhaja, da prvi alternativni pogoj vsebuje zahtevo, da je bil zadevni predmet predhodno varovan v vsaj eni od držav članic.
That provision does not require that Member State to be the State in which the protection for which the directive provides is sought.
Z navedeno določbo se ne zahteva, da se varstvo po isti direktivi zahteva v tej državi članici.
Moreover, that directive is intended to harmonise the laws of the Member States so as to make terms of protection identical throughout the Community, and to interpret Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/116 as meaning that the application of that requirement is conditional on the prior existence of protection under the national legislation of the Member State in which the protection for which the directive provides is sought, even though such prior protection has been granted in another Member State, would comply neither with the terms of the provision at issue nor with the purpose of the directive.
Poleg tega, medtem ko je namen te direktive uskladitev zakonodaj držav članic, tako da se trajanje varstva izenači v vsej Skupnosti, pa razlaga člena 10(2) Direktive 2006/116, po kateri naj bi se za izpolnitev tega pogoja zahtevalo, da je bilo varstvo predhodno zagotovljeno v nacionalni zakonodaji države članice, v kateri se zahteva varstvo po navedeni direktivi, pa čeprav bi bilo tako predhodno varstvo priznano v drugi državi članici, ni v skladu niti z besedilom zadevne določbe niti z namenom te direktive.
(24) Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 6/2002 z dne 12. decembra 2001 o modelih Skupnosti (UL 2002, L 3, str. 1).
(25) Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 12)
Direktiva 2006/116/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 12. decembra 2006 o trajanju varstva avtorske pravice in določenih sorodnih pravic (UL L 372, str. 12).
The Court added that Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/116 is also to be interpreted as meaning that the terms of protection provided for by that directive apply in a situation where the work or subject matter at issue was, on 1 July 1995, protected as such in at least one Member State under that Member State’s national legislation on copyright and related rights and where the holder of such rights in respect of that work or subject matter, who is a national of a non-Member State, bene¤ted, at that date, from the protection provided for by those national provisions.
Razvoj in dejavnost od držav članic na podlagi nacionalnih določb o avtorski ali sorodnih pravicah te države članice in ko je bil imetnik takih pravic na tem delu ali predmetu, ki je državljan tretje države, na ta dan upravičen do varstva po teh nacionalnih določbah.
The question whether, in the context of the provision, a holder of copyright-related rights in a work or subject matter who is a national of a non-Member State was protected on 1 July 1995 in at least one Member State must be assessed in the light of the national provisions of that Member State and not in the light of the national provisions of the Member State in which the protection for which that directive provides is sought.
Vprašanje, ali je bil v okviru te določbe imetnik avtorski pravici sorodnih pravic na delu ali predmetu, ki je državljan tretje države, 1.¥julija¥1995 varovan v¥vsaj eni od držav članic, je treba namreč presojati na podlagi nacionalnih določb te države članice, ne pa na podlagi nacionalnih določb države članice, v kateri se zahteva varstvo po tej direktivi.
Such a conclusion is, moreover, supported by the objectives of harmonisation pursued by that directive and, in particular, that of providing for the same starting point for the calculation of the term of protection for copyright-related rights as well as the same term of protection for those rights throughout the Community.
Tako ugotovitev potrjujejo tudi cilji uskladitve iz navedene direktive in zlasti ta, da se določi ista začetna točka za izračun trajanja varstva avtorski pravici sorodnih pravic ter isto trajanje varstva teh pravic po vsej Skupnosti.
It follows that, in respect of a work or subject matter protected on 1 July 1995 in at least one Member State according to the national provisions of that Member State, the fact that the rightholder thus protected is a national of a non-Member State and is not entitled, in the Member State in which the term of protection provided for by Directive 2006/116 is sought, to protection under the national law of that Member State is not decisive for the application of Article 10(2) of that directive.
Iz tega izhaja, da za delo ali predmet, ki je bil 1. julija 1995 varovan v vsaj eni od držav članic v skladu z nacionalnimi določbami te države članice, dejstvo, da je imetnik tega varstva državljan tretje države in da v državi članici, v kateri se zahteva trajanje varstva po Direktivi 2006/116, ni varovan na podlagi nacionalnega prava te države članice, ni odločilno za vprašanje uporabe člena 10(2) te direktive.
What matters is whether the work or the subject matter at issue was covered by protection on 1 July 1995, under the national provisions of at least one Member State.
Pomembno je namreč, ali je bilo 1. julija 1995 zadevno delo ali predmet varovano na podlagi nacionalnih določb v vsaj eni od držav članic.
Other sectors which have been harmonised at Community level have also given rise to litigation.
Spori so se pojavljali tudi v drugih sektorjih, ki so bili usklajeni na ravni Skupnosti.
In Case C-421/07 Damgaard (judgment of 2 April 2009), the Court was required to de¤ne more precisely the notion of advertising in the ¤eld of medicinal products for human use.
V zadevi Damgaard (sodba z dne 2. aprila 2009, C-421/07) je Sodišče pojasnilo pojem oglaševanja na področju zdravil za uporabo v humani medicini.
Directive 2001/83/EC (26) provides for a high degree of consumer protection in the area of information and advertising relating to medicinal products. The Court was therefore asked how Article 86 of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC (27), should be interpreted.
Novinar je bil kazensko preganjan, ker je javno razširjal informacije o značilnostih in razpoložljivosti zdravila, katerega trženje ni dovoljeno v nobeni državi članici, Direktiva 2001/83/ES26pa določa visoko stopnjo varstva potrošnika na področju obveščanja o zdravilih in njihovega oglaševanja.
It held that dissemination by a third party of information about a medicinal product, including its therapeutic or prophylactic properties, may be regarded as advertising within the meaning of that article, even though the third party in question is acting on his own initiative and completely independently, de jure and de facto, of the manufacturer and the seller of such a medicinal product.
Sodišče, ki mu je bilo predloženo vprašanje o razlagi člena 86 Direktive 2001/83, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2004/27/ES27, je presodilo, da je razširjanje informacij o zdravilu, zlasti o njegovih zdravilnih in prolaktičnih lastnostih, s strani tretje osebe mogoče šteti za oglaševanje v smislu tega člena, čeprav ta tretja oseba deluje na lastno pobudo in v celoti pravno in dejansko neodvisno od proizvajalca ali prodajalca takega zdravila.
The Court added that it is for the national court to determine whether that dissemination constitutes a form of door-to-door information, canvassing activity or inducement designed to promote the prescription, supply, sale or consumption of medicinal products.
Sodišče je dodalo, da je presoja, ali to razširjanje pomeni obliko obveščanja, vključno z obveščanjem od vrat do vrat, agitiranja ali spodbujanja z namenom, da se spodbuja predpisovanje, izdajanje, prodaja ali potrošnja zdravil, v pristojnosti nacionalnega sodišča.
In UTECA, the Court held that Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of tele-
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi UTECA je Sodišče presodilo, da je treba Direktivo 89/552/EGS o¥usklajevanju nekaterih zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic o opravljanju dejavnosti razširjanja televizijskih programov, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/36/ES,28 in predvsem njen člen 3 ter člen 12 ES razlagati tako, da ne nasprotujejo španski zakonodaji, ki določa, da izdajatelji televizijskih programov 5 % svojih prihodkov iz poslovanja namenijo vnaprejšnjemu nanciranju evropskih kinematografskih in televizijskih lmov oziroma, natančneje, da 60 % od teh 5 % namenijo za dela, katerih jezik izvirnika je eden od uradnih jezikov te države članice.
28 vision broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC (
Čeprav tak ukrep v delu, v katerem se nanaša na obveznost, da se za dela, katerih jezik izvirnika je eden od uradnih jezikov zadevne države članice, nameni 60 % od 5 % prihodkov iz poslovanja, namenjenih vnaprejšnjemu nanciranju evropskih
) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
Direktiva 2001/83/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 6. novembra 2001 o zakoniku Skupnosti o zdravilih za uporabo v humani medicini (UL L 311, str. 67).
) Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Dir- ective 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34).
Direktiva 2004/27/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o spremembah Direktive 2001/83/ES o zakoniku Skupnosti o zdravilih za uporabo v humani medicini (UL L 136, str. 34).
) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).
Direktiva Sveta z dne 3. oktobra 1989 o usklajevanju nekaterih zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic o¥opravljanju dejavnosti razširjanja televizijskih programov (89/552/EGS) (UL L 298, str. 23).
Proceedings thereof, and Article 12 EC must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude Spanish legislation which requires television operators to earmark 5% of their operating revenue for the prefunding of European cinematographic ¤lms and ¤lms made for television and, more speci¤cally, to reserve 60% of that 5% for the production of works of which the original language is one of the of-¤cial languages of that Member State.
Sodišče kinematografskih in televizijskih lmov, pomeni omejitev več temeljnih svoboščin, in sicer svobode opravljanja storitev, svobode ustanavljanja, prostega pretoka kapitala in prostega gibanja delavcev, pa ga je mogoče upravičiti s ciljem zadevne države članice, da zaščiti in spodbuja enega ali več svojih uradnih jezikov.
In the Court’s view, irrespective of whether such a measure is in an area covered by that directive, the Member States retain, in principle, jurisdiction to adopt it, provided that they respect the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.
V zvezi s tem je tak ukrep, ker določa obveznost vlaganja v kinematografske in televizijske lme, katerih jezik izvirnika je eden od uradnih jezikov te države članice, primeren za zagotovitev uresničitve takega cilja.