natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(1) For the purposes of this Part, television programme services and [European Economic Area (“EEA”)] satellite services shall be divided into two categories as follows:
(1) V tem poglavju so storitve televizijskih programov in storitve satelitskega raz�irjanja programov v zvezi z [Evropskim gospodarskim prostorom (v nadaljevanju: EGP)] razdeljene v dve vrsti:
(a) those television programme services and EEA satellite services which for the time being satisfy the qualifying conditions, and
(a) storitve televizijskih programov in storitve satelitskega raz�irjanja programov v zvezi z EGP, ki do sprejetja nove ureditve izpolnjujejo zahtevane pogoje, in
(b) all other television programme services and EEA satellite services.
(b) vse druge storitve televizijskih programov in storitve satelitskega raz�irjanja programov v zvezi z EGP.
(2) In this section “the qualifying conditions”, in relation to a service, means the conditions:
(2) V okviru tega člena so ‚zahtevani pogoji‘, ki morajo biti izpolnjeni, naslednji:
(a) that the service is provided without any consideration being required for reception of the service, and
(a) sprejem storitve ne sme biti odplačen, in
(b) that the service is received by at least 95% of the population of the United Kingdom.
(b) storitev mora sprejeti vsaj 95 % prebivalstva Združenega kraljestva.
Restriction on televising of listed event
Omejitve predvajanja navedenega dogodka
(1) A television programme provider providing a service falling within either of the categories set out in subsection (1) of section 98 (“the first service”) for reception in the United Kingdom or in any area of the United Kingdom shall not, without the previous consent of the [Independent Television Commission (“the ITC”)], include in that service live coverage of the whole or any part of a listed event unless:
(1) Vsak ponudnik televizijskih programov, ki zagotavlja katero od storitev, določenih v členu 98(1) (‚prva storitev‘) in je namenjena sprejemu na celotnem ozemlju Združenega kraljestva ali njegovem delu, v okviru omenjene storitve ne more neposredno prena�ati celotnega ali dela dogodka, vpisanega na seznamu, ne da bi pridobil predhodno soglasje [neodvisne televizijske komisije, (v nadaljevanju: ITC)], razen:
(a) another person, who is providing a service falling within the other category set out in that subsection (“the second service”) has acquired the right to include in the second service live coverage of the whole of the event or of that part of the event, and
(a) če drug ponudnik televizijskih programov, ki je zagotovil storitev druge vrste, določene v tem odstavku (‚druga storitev‘), ni pridobil pravice, da v to storitev vključi neposredno prena�anje celotnega ali dela omenjenega dogodka, in
(b) the area for which the second service is provided consists of or includes the whole, or substantially the whole, of the area for which the first service is provided.
(b) če področje, na katerem se raz�irja druga storitev, pokriva ali združuje (skoraj) celotno področje, na katerem se sprejema prva storitev.
Those provisions were notified to the Commission on the basis of Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552 and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJ 2000 C 328, p. 2).
Ti določbi sta bili prigla�eni Komisiji v skladu s členom 3a(2) Direktive 89/552 in objavljeni v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti (UL 2000, C 328, str. 2).
The factors to be considered in giving the consent referred to in Section 101(1) are specified in the Independent Television Commission Code on Sports and other Listed Events, as amended.
Dejavniki, ki jih je treba upo�tevati za posredovanje soglasja, navedenega v členu 101(1), so določeni v kodeksu neodvisne televizijske komisije o �portnih in drugih dogodkih s seznama, kot je bil spremenjen (Independent Television Commission Code on Sports and other Listed Events).
The facts which gave rise to this dispute, as set forth in paragraphs 7 to 22 of the judgment under appeal, can be summarised as follows.
V nadaljevanju sledi povzetek dejanskega stanja tega spora, kot izhaja iz točk od 7 do 22 izpodbijane sodbe.
Infront WM AG (‘Infront’), formerly FWC Medien AG which became KirchMedia WM AG, is involved in the acquisition, management and marketing of television broadcasting rights for sporting events.
Družba Infront WM AG (v nadaljevanju: Infront), prej FWC Medien AG, ki je postala KirchMedia WM AG, opravlja dejavnost pridobivanja, upravljanja in trženja pravic televizijskega prenosa �portnih dogodkov.
Typically it purchases such rights from the organiser of the sporting event concerned and resells the rights thus acquired to broadcasters.
Te pravice običajno kupuje od organizatorja zadevnega �portnega dogodka ter tako pridobljene pravice prodaja izdajateljem televizijskih programov.
On 10 September 1996, its parent company signed a contract with the Fédération internationale de football association (‘FIFA’) for the exclusive television broadcasting rights to the final-stage matches of the 2002 and 2006 FIFA World Cups.
Njena matična družba je 10. septembra 1996 podpisala pogodbo z Mednarodno nogometno zvezo (FIFA) o prenosu izključnih pravic za televizijsko prena�anje tekem sklepnega dela svetovnega prvenstva FIFE za leti 2002 in 2006.
It acquired, among others, the exclusive television broadcasting rights to those matches in the countries of Europe.
Med drugim je pridobila izključne pravice za televizijski prenos teh dogodkov za države evropske celine.
Those rights were subsequently assigned to Infront.
Te pravice so bile pozneje prenesene na družbo Infront.
By letters of 25 September 1998 and 5 May 2000, the United Kingdom notified the Commission, in accordance with Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552, of the measures adopted pursuant to Article 3a(1).
Z dopisoma z dne 25. septembra 1998 in z dne 5. maja 2000 je Združeno kraljestvo v skladu s členom 3a(2) Direktive 89/552 Komisijo obvestilo o ukrepih, ki jih je sprejelo ob uporabi odstavka 1 tega člena.
On 28 July 2000, the Director-General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture sent the United Kingdom the contested decision, stating as follows:
Generalni direktor generalnega direktorata Komisije „Izobraževanje in kultura“ je 28. julija 2000 na Združeno kraljestvo naslovil sporni akt, v katerem je navedeno:
‘By letter dated 5 May 2000, received by the European Commission on 11 May 2000, the [United Kingdom] Permanent Representation to the European Union notified [to] the Commission a set of national measures concerning the television coverage of events of national interest in the United Kingdom. …
„Z dopisom z dne 5. maja 2000, ki ga je Komisija prejela 11. maja 2000, je Stalno predstavni�tvo [Združenega kraljestva] pri Evropski uniji Komisijo obvestilo o svežnju nacionalnih ukrepov v zvezi s televizijskim pokritjem dogodkov nacionalnega pomena za Združeno kraljestvo. […]
I have the honour to inform you that pursuant to the examination of the conformity of the measures taken with … [D]irective [89/552] and on the basis of the facts available in relation to the audiovisual landscape in the United Kingdom, the … Commission does not intend to object to the measures notified by your authorities.
Z veseljem vas obve�čam, da po preučitvi skladnosti ukrepov, določenih z Direktivo 89/552, in ob upo�tevanju razpoložljivih dejstev o avdiovizualni podobi Združenega kraljestva, […] Komisija ne namerava izpodbijati ukrepov, ki so jih priglasili va�i organi.
As required by Article 3a(2) of … [D]irective [89/552], the Commission will proceed with the publication of the notified measures in the [Official Journal].’
V skladu s tem, kar določa člen 3(a)(2) Direktive 89/552, bo Komisija objavila prigla�ene ukrepe v [Uradnem listu].“
The Commission published those measures in the Official Journal on 18 November 2000.
Komisija je 18. novembra 2000 objavila te ukrepe v Uradnem listu.
They include Sections 98 and 101 of the Broadcasting Act and the list of events of major importance for society designated by the United Kingdom (‘the designated events’).
Ti vsebujejo člena 98 in 101 poglavja IV zakona o radiodifuziji in seznam dogodkov velikega družbenega pomena, ki ga je sestavilo Združeno kraljestvo (v nadaljevanju: seznam dogodkov).
Among those events are the FIFA World Cup Finals.
Med temi dogodki je tudi sklepni del svetovnega prvenstva FIFE.
During the verification procedure of those measures by the Commission, Infront sent it two letters in which it claimed that the list of designated events could not be approved because of its incompatibility with both Article 3a of Directive 89/552 and other provisions of Community law.
Med potrditvenim postopkom Komisije je družba Infront nanjo naslovila dva dopisa, v katerih je predlagala, naj se seznam Združenega kraljestva ne odobri, ker ni združljiv niti s členom 3a Direktive 89/552 niti z drugimi določbami prava Skupnosti.
Subsequently, by letter of 7 December 2000, Infront asked the Commission to confirm that it had completed the verification process under Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552 in connection with the list of designated events and to inform Infront of the outcome of the process, including any relevant Commission measures.
Družba Infront je nato z dopisom z dne 7. decembra 2000 Komisijo zaprosila za potrditev končanja postopka preizkusa, določenega v členu 3a(2) Direktive 89/552, glede seznama dogodkov ter za to, da jo obvesti o izidu tega postopka, tudi o morebitnih ukrepih, ki jih je o tem sprejela Komisija.
The Commission replied to Infront that the procedure had been completed and that the list of designated events had been accepted as compatible with that directive.
Ta je družbi Infront odgovorila, da je potrditveni postopek končan in da se je seznam dogodkov �tel za skladnega z navedeno direktivo.
Consequently, Infront brought an action before the Court of First Instance for the annulment of the contested decision.
Družba Infront je zato pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje vložila tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti spornega akta.
The Commission raised a plea of inadmissibility.
Komisija je podala ugovor nedopustnosti tožbe.
It contended that it had not adopted the contested decision pursuant to Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552 and that the contested decision was not of direct or individual concern to Infront.
Meni, da izpodbijanega akta ni sprejela na podlagi člena 3a(2) Direktive 89/552 in da izpodbijani akt družbe Infront ne zadeva niti neposredno niti posamično.
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance rejected the plea of inadmissibility and declared the action admissible.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je z izpodbijano sodbo zavrnilo ugovor nedopustnosti ter tožbo razglasilo za dopustno.
It found, first, that the contested decision closed the procedure under Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552, by virtue of which the Commission is required to verify the compatibility with Community law of national measures adopted pursuant to Article 3a(1).
Menilo je, prvič, da sporni akt končuje postopek, določen v členu 3a(2) Direktive 89/552, na podlagi katerega mora Komisija preveriti, ali so nacionalni ukrepi, sprejeti na podlagi odstavka 1 tega člena, skladni s pravom Skupnosti.
The publication in the Official Journal of those measures approved by the Commission informed the other Member States of their existence and, therefore, enabled them to comply with their obligations under Article 3a(3) of that directive as part of the mechanism for mutual recognition of those measures instituted by the latter provision.
Objava navedenih ukrepov, ki jih je Komisija odobrila, v Uradnem listu omogoča drugim državam članicam, da se z njimi seznanijo in se torej lahko uskladijo z zahtevami iz člena 3a(3) Direktive v okviru mehanizma vzajemnega priznavanja ukrepov iz tega člena.
The contested letter therefore produced, in the Court of First Instance’s view, legal effects for the Member States, in so far as it envisaged the publication in the Official Journal of the national measures in question, since the effect of that publication is to trigger the mechanism for mutual recognition laid down by Article 3a(3) of Directive 89/552.
Sodi�če prve stopnje torej meni, da ima sporni akt pravne učinke nasproti državam članicam, določa objavo zadevnih državnih ukrepov v Uradnem listu, ta objava pa vpliva na sprožitev mehanizma za vzajemno priznavanje, določenega v členu 3a(3) Direktive 89/552.
It is thus a decision within the meaning of Article 249 EC, although Article 3 of Directive 89/552 does not expressly refer to the adoption by the Commission of a ‘decision’.
Tako predstavlja odločbo v smislu člena 249 ES, čeprav se člen 3a ne sklicuje izrecno na to, da je Komisija sprejela „odločbo“.
Secondly, the Court of First Instance considered whether that decision is of direct concern to Infront.
Drugič, Sodi�če prve stopnje je preučilo, ali ta akt družbo Infront neposredno zadeva.
It noted the caselaw according to which, in order to be of direct concern to an individual within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC the contested Community measure must directly affect the applicant’s legal situation and its implementation must be purely automatic and result from Community rules alone without the application of other intermediate rules (see Case C-386/96 P Dreyfus v Commission [1998] ECR I-2309, paragraph 43 and the caselaw cited).
Sklicevalo se je na sodno prakso, v skladu s katero mora imeti akt Skupnosti, da zadeva posameznika neposredno v smislu člena 230 ES, četrti odstavek, neposredne učinke na njegov pravni položaj, njegova izvr�itev mora biti povsem avtomatična in mora izhajati samo iz predpisov Skupnosti brez uporabe drugih izvedbenih predpisov (glej sodbo z dne 5. maja 1998 v zadevi Dreyfus proti Komisiji, C-386/96 P, Recueil, str. I-2309, točka 43 in navedena sodna praksa).
The Court of First Instance held, first of all, that where Infront assigns its television broadcasting rights to a broadcaster established in the United Kingdom for the purposes of television broadcasting in that Member State, the measures adopted by the United Kingdom authorities exist in law independently of the contested decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je najprej presodilo, da takoj ko družba Infront prenese svoje pravice prena�anja televizijskih programov na izdajatelja televizijskih programov, ustanovljenega v Združenem kraljestvu, da bi te tekme televizijsko prena�al v tej državi članici, imajo v razmerju do spornega akta ukrepi, ki jih sprejmejo oblasti
In so far as the measures notified are applicable to broadcasters established in the United Kingdom under the national law on broadcasting in force in that Member State and not by virtue of the contested decision, Infront is not directly concerned.
Združenega kraljestva, lasten pravni obstoj. V okviru, v katerem se prigla�eni ukrepi uporabljajo za izdajatelje televizijskih programov, ustanovljene v Združenem kraljestvu, na temelju v tej državi veljavnega nacionalnega zakona o radiodifuziji in ne na temelju odločbe Komisije, sporni akt družbe Infront ne zadeva neposredno.
On the other hand, only the contested decision finding that the measures notified by the United Kingdom are compatible with Community law and providing for the subsequent publication of those measures in the Official Journal enables the mechanism of mutual recognition under Article 3a(3) of Directive 89/552 to operate effectively.
Nasprotno, samo sporni akt, ki ugotavlja skladnost ukrepov, ki jih je priglasilo Združeno kraljestvo, s pravom Skupnosti in ki predvideva poznej�o objavo teh ukrepov, dopu�ča učinkovito izvajanje sistema vzajemnega priznavanja, uvedenega s členom 3a(3) Direktive 89/552.
It follows that, in that situation, the contested decision validates those measures for the sole purposes of their recognition by the other Member States.
Iz tega sledi, da ob tej predpostavki ta akt potrjuje navedene ukrepe samo zaradi vzajemnega priznavanja drugih držav članic.
Furthermore, the Court of First Instance decided that since such mutual recognition of the national measures adopted pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 is subject to their approval by the Commission and their subsequent publication in the Official Journal, the contested decision does not leave the Member States any discretion, once that publication has occurred, as to the performance of their obligations.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo – glede na to, da je vzajemno priznavanje nacionalnih ukrepov, sprejetih na podlagi člena 3a(1) Direktive 89/552, podrejeno odobritvi Komisije in njihovi kasnej�i objavi v Uradnem listu – da sporni akt državam članicam po tej objavi ne dopu�ča prostega preudarka v okviru izvr�evanja njihovih obveznosti.
Although the detailed rules for the control which the national authorities are required to exercise under the mechanism of mutual recognition established by Article 3a(3) of Directive 89/552 are determined by each Member State in the framework of its legislation implementing that provision, those authorities must ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction comply with the conditions for broadcasting the events designated in the national measures approved and published in the Official Journal by the Commission.
Čeprav načine nadzora, na katere so v okviru sistema vzajemnega priznavanja, uvedenega s členom 3a(3) Direktive 89/552, vezani nacionalni organi, določa vsaka država članica v okviru svoje zakonodaje s prenosom tega člena, morajo ti organi zagotoviti, da izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njihovo sodno pristojnostjo spo�tujejo pogoje prena�anja dogodkov, kot so določeni v nacionalnih ukrepih, ki jih Komisija odobri in objavi v Uradnem listu.
The Court of First Instance concluded, therefore, that Infront is directly concerned by the contested decision in so far as it enables the implementation of the mechanism of mutual recognition by the other Member States of the measures adopted by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 .
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zato sklenilo, da izpodbijani akt družbo Infront zadeva neposredno, s tem da drugim državam članicam omogoča izvedbo sistema vzajemnega priznavanja ukrepov, ki jih je priglasilo Združeno kraljestvo na podlagi člena 3a(1) Direktive 89/552.
Thirdly, the Court of First Instance held that Infront is, likewise, individually concerned by the contested decision.
Tretjič, Sodi�če prve stopnje je presodilo, da družbo Infront navedeni akt zadeva tudi posamično.
That decision concerns Infront by reason of a characteristic peculiar to it, namely its capacity as the exclusive holder of the television broadcasting rights for one of the designated events.
Navedeni akt naj bi jo zadeval zaradi njene posebne lastnosti, saj je namreč izključna imetnica pravic raz�irjanja enega od določenih dogodkov.
Although Infront, in its capacity as broker of the relevant television broadcasting rights is not expressly covered by the national measures approved and published in the Official Journal by the Commission, they impede its ability freely to dispose of its rights by restricting their transfer exclusively to a broadcaster established in a Member State other than the United Kingdom which wishes to broadcast that event in the latter State.
Čeprav družba Infront s temi predpisi kot posrednica pravic zadevnih televizijskih prenosov ni izrecno navedena v nacionalnih ukrepih, ki jih je Komisija odobrila in objavila v Uradnem listu, jo ti ovirajo pri možnosti prostega razpolaganja s pravicami, s tem da pogojujejo njihov izključni prenos na izdajatelja televizijskih programov, ki ima sedež v državi članici, ki ni Združeno kraljestvo, in ki želi raz�irjati navedeni dogodek v slednji državi.
Moreover, although the legal validity of the contracts concluded with FIFA is not affected by the contested decision, it is of importance that Infront acquired exclusively the television broadcasting rights in question before the entry into force of Article 3a of Directive 89/552 and, a fortiori, before the adoption of the contested decision.
Poleg tega, čeprav s spornim aktom ni ogrožena pravna veljavnost pogodb, sklenjenih s FIFO, je pomembno, da je družba Infront pridobila izključne pravice za zadevne televizijske prenose pred začetkom veljavnosti člena 3a Direktive 89/552 in a fortiori pred sprejetjem navedenega akta.
On the substance, the Court of First Instance annulled the contested decision, on the ground that, being a decision within the meaning of Article 249 EC, it was vitiated by lack of powers.
Zato je Sodi�če prve stopnje sporni akt razglasilo za ničnega, ker glede na to, da pomeni odločbo v smislu člena 249 ES, ni podana pristojnost.
The College of Commissioners had not been consulted and the Director-General who signed the contested decision had received no specific power from the College.
Kolegij članov Komisije se namreč ni posvetoval in generalni direktor, podpisnik tega akta, od tega kolegija ni dobil posebnega pooblastila.
— give final judgment by declaring that the application before the Court of First Instance was inadmissible, and
– izda končno sodbo, s tem da odloči, da je bila tožba, vložena pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje, nedopustna, in
— order Infront to pay the Commission’s costs at first instance and on appeal.
– družbi Infront naloži plačilo stro�kov, ki jih je priglasila Komisija v postopku na prvi stopnji in v pritožbenem postopku.
Infront contends that the Court should:
Družba Infront Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— dismiss the appeal, or
– zavrne pritožbo ali
— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to law; and
– vrne zadevo Sodi�ču prve stopnje, da ponovno odloči v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča, in
— order the Commission to pay its own and Infront’s costs relating to the proceedings before this Court and the Court of First Instance.
– Komisiji naloži plačilo njenih stro�kov ter stro�kov, ki jih je priglasila družba Infront v postopku pred Sodi�čem in Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
The fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC provides that any natural or legal person may institute proceedings against a decision which, although in the form of a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former.
V skladu s členom 230 ES, četrti odstavek, lahko fizične ali pravne osebe sprožijo postopke zoper odločbe, ki jih zadevajo neposredno in posamično, čeprav so sprejete v obliki odločbe, ki je naslovljena na drugo osebo.
In support of its appeal, the Commission pleads two grounds of appeal alleging misapplication of the two latter requirements.
Komisija se v utemeljitev svoje pritožbe sklicuje na dva pritožbena razloga, ki izhajata iz kr�itve zadnjih dveh pogojev.
Prior to examining those grounds of appeal, it is necessary to define the scope and effect of Article 3a of Directive 89/552 and of the contested decision.
Pred preučitvijo teh pritožbenih razlogov je treba pojasniti učinke in obseg člena 3a Direktive 89/552.
Under Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552, each Member State may take measures in accordance with Community law to ensure that broadcasters under its jurisdiction do not broadcast on an exclusive basis events which are regarded by that Member State as being of major importance for society in such a way as to deprive a substantial proportion of the public in that Member State of the possibility of following them via live coverage or deferred coverage on free television.
V skladu s členom 3a(1) te direktive sme vsaka država članica sprejeti ukrepe v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, s katerimi zagotovi, da izdajatelji televizijskih programov pod njeno sodno pristojnostjo ne raz�irjajo dogodkov, ki so po njenem mnenju velikega družbenega pomena, na ekskluzivni osnovi, s čimer bi večji delež javnosti prikraj�ali za možnost spremljanja tak�nih dogodkov prek neposrednega prenosa ali prek poznej�ega prenosa na brezplačni televiziji.
To that end, the Member State concerned is to draw up a list of such events.
Zato mora zadevna država članica sestaviti seznam takih dogodkov.
Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552 requires the Commission to verify that those measures are compatible with Community law and to publish them in the Official Journal.
Člen 3a(2) navedene direktive Komisiji nalaga, da preveri, ali so navedeni ukrepi skladni s pravom Skupnosti, ter da jih objavi v Uradnem listu.