natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The concept of unauthorised use of the electronic communication system essentially allows two interpretations with regard
Pojem nedovoljene uporabe elektronskih komunikacijskih sistemov v bistvu dopu�ča dve razlagi glede zadevnih načinov ravnanja, in sicer uporabo v nedovoljene namene in
Moreover, communication may also come into conflict with duties not subject to criminal sanctions, arising from specific legal relationships, such as, for example, with employment relationships or duties towards the family.
ki kazenskopravno niso sankcionirane, na podlagi določenih pravnih razmerij, na primer z delovnim razmerjem ali družinskimi obveznostmi.
There would even be the possibility that the provider of the electronic communication service could object to access to certain content or its dissemination.
Obstajala bi celo lahko možnost, da ponudnik elektronske komunikacijske storitve ne bi odobraval dostopa do določenih vsebin ali njihovega �irjenja.
It would therefore be virtually impossible to define which of those legal relationships could allow storage and communication of traffic data or perhaps even of communication content.
Katero od teh pravnih razmerij bi lahko dovoljevalo shranjevanje in sporočanje podatkov o prometu ali morda celo vsebin komunikacij, tako skoraj ne bi bilo mogoče določiti.
As a result, this ground of restriction would not, on a wide interpretation, be reconcilable with the requirement of foreseeability.
S tega stali�ča ta omejitveni razlog s �iroko razlago ne bi bil skladen z zahtevo po predvidljivosti.
While Article 15(1) does also justify exceptions to the confidentiality of communications, the other grounds of exception expressly mentioned would, on a wide interpretation of the concept of unauthorised use, be superfluous and largely deprived of their practical effectiveness, since acts endangering national security, public security or defence and criminal offences committed by the use of electronic communications systems are normally accompanied by an unauthorised purpose.
Člen 15(1) sicer upravičuje tudi izjeme od zaupnosti sporočil, vendar pa bi bili pri �iroki razlagi pojma nedovoljene uporabe odveč preostali izrecno navedeni razlogi za izjeme, odvzeta pa jim bi bila tudi njihova praktična učinkovitost, saj so ogrožanje nacio nalne varnosti, javne varnosti in obrambe ter kazniva dejanja z uporabo elektronskih komunikacijskih sistemov redno povezani z nedovoljenim namenom.
In addition, a wide interpretation would render largely meaningless not only the protection of personal traffic data, but also the protection of confidentiality of communications.
Poleg tega bi �iroka razlaga v pretežni meri izvotlila varstvo osebnih podatkov o prometu in tudi varstvo zaupnosti sporočil.
In order to be able effectively to verify whether electronic communication systems were being used for unauthorised purposes, it would be necessary to store the entire communication and process it intensively with regard to the content.
Celotno komunikacijo bi bilo treba shraniti in intenzivno obdelati glede vsebine, da bi se lahko učinkovito preučilo, ali se elektronski komunikacijski sistemi uporabljajo v nedovoljene namene. „Stekleni“ državljan bi tako postal stvarnost.
At the same time, a broadly worded exception for communications for unauthorised purposes would hardly be foreseeable in its application and would largely render meaningless the right to protection of personal traffic data.
Hkrati bi bilo pri �iroko opredeljeni izjemi v zvezi s komunikacijo v nedovoljene namene skoraj nemogoče predvideti njeno uporabo, taka izjema pa bi v pretežni meri izvotlila pravico do varstva osebnih podatkov o prometu.
The range of unauthorised communication operations under criminal law is already
Že krog kazenskopravno nedovoljenih komunikacijskih postopkov je sorazmerno velik.
PROMUSICAE system covers only use contrary to the system, but not use for unauthorised purposes.
PROMUSICAE le uporabo v nasprotju s sistemom, ne pa uporabe v nedovoljene namene.
As the Court has already held, those are activities of the State or of State authorities.
Pri tem gre, kot je Sodi�če že ugotovilo, za specifične dejavnosti držav ali državnih organov.
53It is true that State authorities may oblige private individuals to assist them, 54 but autonomous action by private individuals against infringements of rights no longer falls under those exceptions.
53 Državni organi sicer lahko zavežejo zasebne osebe k podpori, 54vendar pa pregon pravnih kr�itev na lastno odgovornost s strani zasebnih oseb ne spada več pod te izjeme.
For that reason alone, the first four alternatives of Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 can permit only communication to State authorities, but not the direct communication of traffic data to Promusicae. 55
Že zato lahko prve �tiri možnosti iz člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 omogočijo le sporočanje državnim organom, ne pa neposredne predložiti podatkov o prometu Promusicae. 55
The grounds of exception in the first four alternatives in Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58
Razlogi za izjeme iz prvih �tirih možnosti člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58
Consequently, only the first four alternatives in Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, in particular the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, and public security now remain as a basis for communication of the connection data.
S tem kot podlaga za sporočanje podatkov o povezavah ostanejo le �e prve �tiri možnosti iz člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58, zlasti preprečevanje, preiskovanje, odkrivanje in pregon kaznivih dejanj in javna varnost.
Whether communication to State authorities would be possible in the present case under the fourth alternative in Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, that is to
Prav tako je vpra�ljivo, ali bi bilo v obravnavanem primeru mogoče sporočanje državnim organom v skladu s četrto možnostjo iz člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58,
53 — Lindqvist, cited in footnote 32, paragraph 43.
53 — V opombi 32 navedena sodba Lindqvist, točka 43.
54 — Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04 Parliament v Council and Commission [2006] ECR I-4721, paragraph 58.
54 — Sodba z dne 30. maja 2006 v združenih zadevah Parlament proti Svetu in Parlament proti Komisiji (C-317/04 in C-318/04, ZOdl., str. I-4721, točka 58).
55 — According to Promusicae, the conclusion thus reached on the third and fourth alternatives in Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 corresponds to the legal position in France, Italy and Belgium, where, it claims, the legislation provides that the competent State authorities may require the surrender of personal traffic data.
55 — Po navedbah Promusicae ustreza tak sklep glede tretje in četrte možnosti člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 pravnemu stanju v Franciji, Italiji in Belgiji, kjer naj bi bilo predvideno, da lahko pristojni državni organi zahtevajo izročitev osebnih podatkov o prometu.
The Data Protection Working Party, in Working Document WP 104 (cited in footnote 36, p.
Delovna skupina za varstvo posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov, delovni dokument WP 104 (naveden v opombi 36, str.
8), even goes a step further and restricts communication to the prosecuting authorities: ‘On the basis of the compatibility principle as well as in compliance with the confidentiality principle included in Directives 2002/58 and 95/46, data detained by ISPs processed for specific purposes including mainly the performance of a telecommunication service cannot be transferred to third parties such as right holders, except, in defined circumstances provided by law, to public law enforcement authorities.’
8), gre �e korak dlje in omejuje sporočanje na organe kazenskega pregona: „Načelo združljivosti in upo�tevanje načela zaupnosti iz direktiv 2002/58/ES in 95/46/ES prepovedujeta, da bi se podatkovne zbirke ponudnikov internetnih storitev, ki se obdelujejo za posebne namene in v bistvu zadevajo tudi telekomunikacijsko storitev, posredovale tretjim osebam, na primer imetnikom pravic; iz tega so pod jasnimi zakonskimi pogoji izvzeti organi kazenskega pregona.“
Recital 11 in the preamble to Directive 2002/58 explains the first four alternatives in Article 15(1).
Enajsta uvodna izjava Direktive 2002/58 pojasnjuje prve �tiri možnosti iz člena 15(1).
According to that recital, the Directive does not apply to activities which are not governed by Community law.
V skladu z njo se Direktiva ne uporablja na področjih, ki jih ne ureja pravni red Skupnosti.
Therefore it does not alter the existing balance between the individual’s right to privacy and the possibility for Member States to take the measures referred to in Article 15(1), necessary for the protection of public security, defence, State security (including the economic wellbeing of the State when the activities relate to State security matters) and the enforcement of criminal law.
Zato ne spreminja obstoječega ravnotežja med posameznikovo pravico do zasebnosti in možnostjo držav članic, da sprejmejo ukrepe iz člena 15(1), potrebne za za�čito javne varnosti, obrambe, državne varnosti (vključno z gospodarsko blaginjo države, kadar se dejavnosti nana�ajo na zadeve državne varnosti) in izvajanje kazenske zakonodaje.
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-275/06 only be invoked if a genuine and sufficiently serious threat exists, affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.
V skladu s sodno prakso s področja temeljnih svobo�čin se je mogoče na javni red in varnost sklicevati le, če obstaja dejansko in dovolj resno ogrožanje, ki zadeva temeljni interes družbe.
57 say, for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, is also doubtful.
57 to pomeni za preprečevanje, preiskovanje, odkrivanje in pregon kaznivih dejanj.
As the Commission rightly submits, that presupposes that the copyright infringements alleged by Promusicae must also be regarded as criminal offences.
Komisija pravilno navaja, da to predpostavlja, da so kr�itve avtorskih pravic, ki jih zatrjuje Promusicae, obenem kazniva dejanja.
The protection of copyright is an interest of society, the importance of which has been repeatedly emphasised by the Community.
Varstvo avtorskih pravic je družbeni interes, katerega pomen je zlasti Skupnost že večkrat poudarila.
Consequently, even though the interest of rightholders is primarily not of a public, but of a private nature, this aim can be recognised as a fundamental interest of society.
Zato se lahko, čeprav interes imetnikov pravic v prvi vrsti ni javne, ampak zasebne narave, ta cilj prizna kot temeljni interes družbe.
Illegal file sharing also genuinely threatens the protection of copyright.
Protipravna izmenjava datotek tudi dejansko ogroža varstvo avtorskih pravic.
Under Community law, criminal liability is not excluded since — as is also apparent in Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/29 and Article 16 of Directive 2004/48 — the national legislature must decide whether and in what form infringements of copyright are penalised.
S stali�ča prava Skupnosti kaznivost ni izključena, saj mora – kot je razvidno tudi iz člena 8(1) Direktive 2001/29 in člena 16 Direktive 2004/48 – nacionalni zakonodajalec odločiti, ali in v kak�ni obliki bodo sankcionirane kr�itve avtorske pravice.
The legislature can therefore make infringement of copyright by file sharing a criminal offence.
Lahko torej predpi�e kazen za morebitno kr�itev avtorskih pravic prek izmenjave datotek.
According to the referring court, however, criminal liability for such acts in Spain presupposes the intention to make a profit.
Po navedbah predložitvenega sodi�ča pa kaznivost takih dejanj v Španiji predpostav- lja namen pridobivanja dobička.
56 No indications of that have been put forward up to now.
56Oporne točke za to zaenkrat niso bile predložene.
It is however not certain that private file sharing, in particular when it takes place without any intention to make a profit, threatens the protection of copyright sufficiently seriously to justify recourse to this
Vendar pa ni gotovo, da zasebna izmenjava datotek, zlasti brez namena pridobivanja dobička, dovolj resno ogroža varstvo avtorskih pravic, tako da bi se lahko upravičila uporaba te izjeme. Sporno je namreč,
In addition, among the exceptions in Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, the third alternative, namely public security, is a further possible legal basis.
Poleg tega pride v okviru izjem iz čle -na 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 v po�tev �e
56 — See point 28 above.
56 — Glej zgoraj navedeno točko 28.
PROMUSICAE exception.
PROMUSICAE koliko zasebna izmenjava datotek povzroča dejansko �kodo. 58
To what extent private file sharing causes genuine damage is in fact disputed. 58 account of the possible infringement of copyrights in trivial cases.
Ker temelji na tretji možnosti iz člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58, bi bilo prav tako treba upo�tevati, da je za�čita javne varnosti naloga državnih organov in da zato podatkov o prometu ni mogoče izročiti zasebnim imetnikom pravic brez sodelovanja takih organov – na primer sodi�č ali nadzornih organov za varstvo podatkov.
That assessment should — subject to review by the Court — be left to the legislature.
Vrednotenje tega naj – s pridržkom preizkusa s strani Sodi�ča – ostane zakonodajalcu.
In particular when Member States make the infringement of copyright by file sharing a criminal offence, they undertake a corresponding assessment, but in that case the fourth alternative in Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 already applies, so that there is no need for recourse to public security.
Države članice opravijo ustrezno vrednotenje zlasti takrat, ko predvidijo kazen za kr�itev avtorskih pravic z zasebno izmenjavo datotek, vendar pa se v tem primeru uporabi že četrta možnost iz člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58, tako da ni treba poseči po javni varnosti.
Criminal liability would admittedly be weighty evidence of a sufficiently serious threat to the protection of copyright, but criminal law is not necessarily the only form in which the legislature can give expression to an appropriate condemnation.
Kaznivost bi bila sicer močan pokazatelj za dovolj resno ogrožanje varstva avtorskih pravic, vendar pa kazensko pravo ni nujno edini način, kako lahko zakonodajalec izrazi ustrezno negativno vrednostno sodbo.
Rather, the legislature can also enforce that assessment by first providing only for communication of personal traffic data in order to enable civil proceedings to be brought.
Nasprotno lahko zakonodajalec to vrednotenje uveljavi tudi tako, da najprej predvidi le sporočanje osebnih podatkov o prometu, ki omogoči uvedbo civilnopravnega postopka.
However, the condition for such legislation remains that data protection should not be restricted on
Pogoj za tako ureditev pa ostane, da varstvo podatkov ne bo omejeno zaradi mogočih kr�itev avtorskih pravic v bagatelnih primerih.
The Community legislature has in any case not as yet taken any such decision on breaching data protection for the purpose of acting against copyright infringements.
Normodajalec Skupnosti vsekakor do zdaj ni sprejel nobene ustrezne odločitve glede preboja varstva podatkov za pregon kr�itev avtorskih pravic.
In particular, the directives mentioned by the referring court are not relevant since they, as already stated, 59do not affect data
Zlasti niso primerne direktive, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če, ker, kot je že bilo pojasnjeno, 59ne vplivajo na varstvo podatkov. To velja zlasti
58 — See the report DSTI/ICCP/IE(2004)12/FINAL of 13 December 2005 (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/2 /34995041.pdf, S. 76 ff.) to the Working Party on the Information Economy of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
58 — Glej poročilo DSTI/ICCP/IE(2004)12/FINAL z dne 13. decembra 2005 (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/2/ 34995041.pdf, str. 76 in naslednje) za delovno skupino za informacijsko gospodarstvo pri Organizaciji za gospodarsko sodelovanje in razvoj (OECD).
59 — See point 42 et seq. above.
59 — Glej zgoraj navedeno točko 42 in naslednje.
However, they are not obliged to do so.
Tega pa niso dolžne storiti.
protection. That applies in particular to the right of information under Article 8 of Directive 2004/48, the wording of which could also be construed as covering disclosure of the identity of Internet users.
za pravico do informacij v skladu s členom 8 Direktive 2004/48, katerega besedilo bi lahko vključevalo tudi razkritje identitete internetnih uporabnikov.
According to paragraph 3(e), that provision is to apply without prejudice to other statutory provisions which govern the processing of personal data.
Ta določba se v skladu s svojim odstavkom 3, točka e, uporablja brez poseganja v druge zakonske določbe, ki urejajo obdelavo osebnih podatkov.
Compared with the direct communication of personal traffic data to the holders of infringed rights, that is a more lenient method in the present situation, and at the same time ensures that communication remains appropriate in relation to the protected legal positions.
V primerjavi z neposrednim sporočanjem osebnih podatkov o prometu imetnikom kr�enih pravic je to v obravnavanem primeru milej�e sredstvo, ki hkrati zagotavlja, da je sporočanje v primernem razmerju z varovanimi pravnimi položaji.
It would therefore not be foreseeable to infer from those directives a purpose of traffic data storage which is not expressly laid down in them, as is necessary under the requirement of foreseeability and Article 6(1)(b) of Directive 95/46.
Torej ne bi bilo predvidljivo, če bi se iz teh direktiv izpeljalo namensko določilo glede shranjevanja podatkov o prometu, ki tam ni izrecno določeno, kot je to potrebno v skladu z zahtevo po predvidljivosti in čle nom 6(1)(b) Direktive 95/46.
60Nor is there any reference in them to involvement of State authorities in the communication of personal traffic data to private rightholders.
60 Prav tako manjka vsak namig o udeležbi državnih organov pri sporočanju osebnih podatkov o prometu zasebnim imetnikom pravic.
Involving State authorities is more lenient because, unlike private individuals, they are directly bound by fundamental rights.
Vključitev državnih organov je milej�e sredstvo, ker so ti, drugače kot zasebne osebe, neposredno vezani na temeljne pravice.
In particular, they must respect procedural safeguards.
Spo�tovati morajo zlasti postopkovna jamstva.
Moreover, they invariably also take into consideration circumstances which exonerate the user accused of an infringement of copyright.
Poleg tega redno upo�tevajo tudi okoli�čine, ki razbremenjujejo uporabnika, obdolženega kr�itve avtorskih pravic.
However, as Community law stands at present, under the third and fourth alternatives in Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, Member States may provide for personal traffic data to be communicated to State authorities in order to facilitate both criminal and civil proceedings against copyright
Vendar pa lahko glede na trenutno stanje prava Skupnosti države članice v skladu s tretjo in četrto možnostjo iz čle na 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 predvidijo, da se osebni
Accordingly, it does not follow conclusively from the fact that copyrights
Tako iz okoli�čine, da so bile pod konkretnim IP-naslovom v določenem
60 — See point 53 above.
60 — Glej zgoraj navedeno točko 53.
The legislature will provide for their intervention only where there is adequate suspicion of an infringement of rights.
Normodajalec bo njihovo ukrepanje predvidel le, če bo obstajal zadosten sum pravne kr�itve. Pri tem obstajata velik manevrski prostor in možnost proste presoje.
It is true that the sanctions under Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/29 and Article 16 of Directive 2004/48 must be appropriate, effective, proportionate and dissuasive, but the seriousness of the particular infringement of copyrights must also be taken into account in that regard.
Te sankcije morajo biti sicer v skladu s čle nom 8(1) Direktive 2001/29 in čle nom 16 Direktive 2004/48 primerne, učinkovite, sorazmerne in odvračilne, vendar pa je ob tem treba upo�tevati tudi težo konkretne kr�itve avtorskih pravic.
The holders of copyrights will — unlike State authorities — have no interest in allowing for or clarifying such circumstances.
Imetniki avtorskih pravic – drugače kot državni organi – nimajo interesa, da bi upo�tevali ali razjasnili take okoli�čine.
The appropriateness of communication of personal traffic data will also be more
Tudi primernost sporočanja osebnih podatkov o prometu je bolje zagotovljena, če so vključeni državni organi.
98, on the survey date in Germany, approximately 23% of all wireless networks were not protected at all and approximately 60% were inadequately protected.
98, razlaga, da v času raziskave v Nemčiji približno 23 % vseh brezžičnih omrežij sploh ni bilo za�čitenih, približno 60 % teh pa je bilo premalo za�čitenih.
With regard to the methods of attack, see Erik Tews, Ralf-Philipp Weinmann and Andrei Pyshkin, Breaking 104 bit WEP in less than 60 seconds, http://eprint.iacr.org/2007/120.pdf.
Glede načinov vdorov glej Erik Tews, Ralf-Philipp Weinmann in Andrei Pyshkin, Breaking 104 bit WEP in less than 60 seconds, http://eprint.iacr.org/2007/120.pdf.
Consequently, the possibility of communication of personal traffic data may be restricted to particularly serious cases such as, for example, offences committed with a view to making a profit, that is, an illegal use of protected works which substantially impairs their economic exploitation by the holder of the right.
Zato se lahko možnost sporočanja osebnih podatkov o prometu omeji na posebno težke primere – na primer na dejanja, katerih namen je pridobivanje dobička, to pomeni protipravno uporabo za�čitenih del, ki občutno vpliva na njihovo ekonomsko izkori�čanje s strani imetnika pravice.
The intention that the enforcement of copyrights in the face of infringements on the Internet should be geared specifically to serious impairments is also apparent from the ninth recital in the preamble to Directive 2004/48.
Na to, da naj se k uveljavitvi avtorskih pravic v razmerju do kr�itev na internetu stremi prav pri težkih primerih, kaže tudi deveta uvodna izjava Direktive 2004/48.
on the Internet, but such distribution is mentioned in connection with organised crime.
na to, da je tam navedeno razpo�iljanje piratskih izdelkov po internetu, vendar pa se to navaja v zvezi z organiziranim kriminalom.
The fundamental rights to property and to effective judicial protection do not call that assessment of appropriateness into question.
Temeljni pravici do lastnine in učinkovitega pravnega varstva ne omajata te presoje primernosti.
It is certainly necessary, in terms of fundamental rights, to establish the possibility for the holders of copyrights to defend themselves against infringements of those rights.
S stali�ča temeljnih pravic je gotovo potrebno, da imajo imetniki avtorskih pravic na razpolago možnost, da se na sodi�ču branijo proti pravnim kr�itvam.
The present case, however, unlike the case of Moldovan and Others v Romania 62cited by Promusicae, is not concerned with whether access to the courts is actually available, but with the means made available to rightholders in order to establish the infringement.
V obravnavanem primeru pa – drugače kot v sodbi Moldovan in drugi proti Romuniji 62, ki ga navaja Promusicae – ne gre za to, ali je pravna pot sploh odprta, ampak gre za sredstva, ki jih imajo na razpolago imetniki pravic za dokazovanje kr�itve.
Directive 2006/24 does not lead to a different conclusion so far as the present case is concerned.
Direktiva 2006/24 v obravnavanem primeru ne vodi do drugačnega sklepa.
Although, under that directive, Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 does not apply to data retained in accordance with Directive 2006/24, the data at issue here were not stored pursuant to the new directive.
Sicer se v skladu z njo člen 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 ne uporablja za podatke, katerih hramba je zahtevana v Direktivi 2006/24, vendar pa tu sporni podatki niso bili shranjeni v skladu z novo direktivo.
As Promusicae also submits, the Directive is therefore, ratione temporis, not applicable.
Kot navaja tudi Promusicae, Direktiva zato ratione temporis ni uporabna.