natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court wisely placed the emphasis on the function of a directive, holding that, in order to be relied on, it must be unconditional and sufficiently precise, 70 and that no measures must have been adopted within the prescribed period or the national legislation must be incompatible as a result of defective or inadequate transposition. 71
Sodi�če je teži�če teorije modro postavilo na funkcionalnost direktive in za to, da se je nanjo mogoče sklicevati, zahtevalo, da je brezpogojna in dovolj natančna 70 ter da se ukrepi za prenos niso sprejeli v roku oziroma da so podana neskladja z nacionalnim pravom, ki so posledica napačnega ali nepopolnega prenosa. 71
65 — Case 26/62 [1963] ECR 1.66 — Case 41/74 [1974] ECR 1337.
1).66 – Sodba z dne 4. decembra 1974 (41/74, Recueil, str. 1337).
68 — Case 148/78 [1979] ECR 1629.69 — Case 8/81 [1982] ECR 53.
68 – Sodba z dne 5. aprila 1979 (148/78, Recueil, str.
It is clear from the disputed provisions that it was illegal to impose the additional connection cost contribution in Germany after 1 January 1998 (Article 4c of Dir -ective 90/388), in accordance with the cost orientation rule (Articles 7(2) and 12(7) of Directive 97/33).
Iz spornih določb izhaja, da je bila uvedba dodatnih prispevkov k stro�kom medomrežne povezave v Nemčiji zaradi kr�itve pravila stro�kovne naravnanosti (člena 7(2) in 12(7) Direktive 97/33) nezakonita od 1. januarja 1998 (člen 4c Direktive 90/388).
The present case does not concern abstract principles but rather specific legislative provisions which confer on telecommunications operators the right to include only the costs of connection to the local loop in the interconnection charge.
Tu ne gre za abstraktna načela, temveč za konkretne zakonske obveznosti, ki dajejo telekomunikacijskemu operaterju pravico, da cena medomrežne povezave obsega zgolj stro�ke povezave s krajevno zanko.
Accordingly, the national regulatory authority sets the amount of the charge using a legal basis which is so precise and unconditional (the prohibition of unnecessary additional charges to cover the cost) that it does not need to be supplemented by any further Community or national legislation.
Tako nacionalni regulativni organ določi vi�ino prispevka, vendar ob upo�tevanju pravne podlage, ki je tako natančna in brezpogojna (prepoved doplačil, nepotrebnih za kritje stro�kov), da ne potrebuje nobene pravne dopolnitve, ne v pravu Skupnosti ne v nacionalnem.
Opinion in Palacios de la Villa, that, in ive rights, including in (horizontal) relations between individuals, which the national courts are responsible for safeguarding.
Vsekakor pa je treba upo�tevati, kot opozarja generalni pravobranilec Mázak v sklepnih predlogih 76v zadevi Félix Palacios de la Villa 77, da sodna praksa ne izklju- podlaga za nastanek pravic z neposrednim učinkom, med drugim tudi v razmerjih med posamezniki (horizontalno), in katerih pravno varstvo je naložilo sodnikom nacionalnih sodi�č.
accordance with caselaw, the fact that provisions of a directive are subject to exceptions or provide for justifications does not mean that the directive lacks direct effect.
čuje neposrednega učinka niti za določbe iz direktiv, ki so pogojene z izjemami ali morajo biti dodatno utemeljene.
The specific definition of the concept of ‘cost orientation for tariffs’ is held up as a mirror when the final price is set, although it does not cloud the substance of the right concerned.
Konkretizacija pojma „stro�kovna naravnanost cen“ obvelja kot zrcalna slika dokončno določene cene, čeprav ne zamegljuje vsebine zadevne pravice.
Vertical, relationships
Vertikalna, razmerja
The forceful argument put forward by the German Government and Deutsche Telekom in an attempt to conceal the fact that those provisions are precise is vitiated by serious confusion in its drafting, which is dispelled by the realisation that it contains the error of likening the task of ‘incorporating’ an indeterminate concept to that of ‘implementing’ a directive.
Napadalna retorika nem�ke vlade in Deutsche Telekoma, s katero sta si stranki prizadevali zamegliti natančnost teh določb, je v zasnovi resno zmedena, vendar jo je moč razjasniti, če se popravi napaka v enačenju postopka „opredelitve“ nekega nedoločenega koncepta s pojmom „izvedbe“ direktive.
74 — Article 82 EC.
74 – Člen 82 ES.
76 — In which he referred to paragraph 105 of the judgment in Pfeiffer and Others. In the second opinion in Pfeiffer (paragraph 36), I emphasised that it is important not to undo the progress made in relation to direct effect.
76 – Sklepni predlogi z dne 15. februarja 2007, v katerih je omenjena točka 105 zgoraj navedene sodbe Pfeiffer in drugi, kjer v drugih sklepnih predlogih, v točki 36, opozarjam na pomen ohranitve doseženega napredka glede neposrednega učinka.
78 — Joined Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 X [1996] ECR I-6609.79 — Case 152/84 Marshall I [1986] ECR 723.
79 – Sodba z dne 26. februarja 1986 v zadevi Marshall I (152/84, Recueil, str. 723).
ARCOR AND OTHERS ship, giving rise to the theory of triangular relationships. 87
ARCOR IN DRUGI kalnem razmerju, iz česar se je razvila teorija trikotnih razmerij 87.
According to the Court, extending the doctrine of the direct effect of directives to the sphere of relations between individuals would be tantamount to conferring on the Community a power to enact obligations for individuals, whereas that competence is limited to the adoption of regulations or decisions. 80
Po mnenju Sodi�ča bi raz�iritev doktrine neposrednega učinka direktiv na področje razmerji med posamezniki pomenila, da se Skupnosti da pristojnost ustvarjati obveznosti, ki bi veljale za državljane, čeprav so njene pristojnosti omejene le na sprejemanje uredb in odločb 80.
which the interests at stake are vague, the Court provided firmer guidance. Despite pointing out that ‘an individual may not rely on a directive against a Member State where it is a matter of a State obligation directly linked to the performance of another obligation falling, pursuant to that directive, on a third party’ (paragraph 56), the Court went on to state, for the first time, that ‘adverse repercussions on the rights of third parties, even if the repercussions are certain, do not justify preventing an individual from invoking the provisions of a directive against the Member State concerned’ (paragraph 57).
Toda z zadevo Wells 88, s področja varstvo okolja 89, kjer so vpleteni interesi razpr�eni, je sodna praksa izdelala jasnej�a vodila, kajti kljub razlagi, da se „posameznik ne more sklicevati na direktivo v postopku proti državi članici, v primerih kadar gre za obveznost države, neposredno povezane z izvajanjem druge obveznosti, ki je na podlagi te direktive naložena tretjemu“ (točka 56), je bilo pozneje prvič določeno, da „negativne posledice na pravice tretjih, tudi v primerih, ko jih lahko z gotovostjo predvidimo, ne morejo opravičiti odvzema možnosti posamezniku, da se sklicuje na določbe direktive proti državi članici“ (točka 57).
The finding that the TKG is incompatible with Community law
Ugotovitev neustreznosti TKG
The feeling that an opportunity has been lost appears to hover over those writers, 85 despite the fact that the Court has not hesitated to apply the doctrine 86 where a directive affects the rights of individuals who are not part of the vertical relation-
Omenjene avtorje obdaja občutek izgubljene priložnosti 85, čeprav je Sodi�če brez omahovanja uveljavilo njihovo doktrino 86, v primerih ko je direktiva vplivala na pravice posameznikov, ki niso udeleženi v verti-
There is no room for disharmony in the repertoire of Community caselaw, although,
V repertoarju sodne prakse Skupnosti se ne dopu�čajo disonance, vendar se lahko,
80 — Judgment in Case C-192/94 El Corte Inglés [1996] ECR I-1281.
82 – Sodba z dne 14. julija 1994 (C-91/92, Recueil, str. I-3225).
87 — In the field of public procurement, see the judgment in Fratelli Costanzo; on the marketing of proprietary medicinal products, see Case C-201/94 Smith & Nephew and Primecrown [1996] ECR I-5819; and, with regard to technical regulations, see Case C-194/94 CIA Security International [1996] ECR I-2201 and Case C-443/98 Unilever [2000] ECR I-7535. 88 — Case C-201/02 Wells [2004] ECR I-723.
87 – Na področju javnih naročil glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Fratelli Costanzo; glede trženja farmacevtskih preparatov glej sodbo z dne 12. novembra 1996 v zadevi Smith & Nephew in Primecrown (C-201/94, Recueil, str. I-5819); glede tehničnih predpisov glej sodbi z dne 30. aprila 1996 v zadevi CIA Security Internacional (C-194/94, Recueil, str. I-2201) in z dne 26. septembra 2000 v zadevi Unilever (C-443/98, Recueil, str. I-7535). 88 – Sodba z dne 7. januarja 2004 (C-201/02, Recueil, str. I-723).
89 — Although the Court had already confirmed the application of indirect horizontal effect to the field of the environment in Case C-435/97 World Wildlife Fund and Others [1999] ECR I-5613.
89 – Čeprav je bil neposredni učinek na področju varstva okolja že potrjen s sodbo z dne 16. septembra 1999 v zadevi World Wildlife Fund in drugi (C-435/97, Recueil, str. I-5613).
relationship) and it acquires substantive connotations such that it becomes a separate problem.
kot v pričujočem primeru, podredi melodiji trikotnih razmerij.
It is important to recall that the factual and legal relationships underlying the present references for a preliminary ruling involve private persons (Arcor, TELE2 and Telekom GmbH) who have taken action not against another private person but against the State (Regulierungsbehörde für Telekommunikation und Post).
Treba je poudariti, da so v dejanskih in pravnih razmerjih, ki so predmet teh vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje, udeleženi posamezniki (Arcor, TELE2 in Telekom GmbH), ki niso v sporu z drugimi posamezniki, temveč z Državo (Regulierungsbehörde für Telekommunikation und Post).
There is no reason for the Bundesverwaltungsgericht to be disheartened because the right invoked in the present case is not one which is free of any link to the public authorities and liable to cause damage to another individual, as occurred in Busseni; 90instead, like in Wells and Fratelli Constanzo, the damage flows from the action of the State.
Ni razlogov za skrbi, ki vznemirjajo Bundesverwaltungsgericht, saj v tem primeru ni uveljavljana pravica, ki bi ne imela nikakr�ne povezave z javno oblastjo in ki bi mogla povzročiti �kodo drugi osebi, kot je to v primeru Busseni 90, temveč gre za �kodo, ki, podobno kot v zadevah Wells in Fratelli Constanzo, izhaja s strani države.
Therein lies the essential difference between this and other cases, particularly Telefónica O2 Czech Republic, which concerned a dispute between two telecommunications operators over access to the network, resulting in civil proceedings between them, while the regulatory authority was confined to the role of mediator.
V tem se ta zadeva bistveno razlikuje od drugih, med njimi predvsem od zadeve Telefónica O2 Czech Republic, kjer je bil v sredi�ču spor med dvema operaterjema glede dostopa do omrežja, ki je privedel do civilnega postopka, v katerem je regulativni organ prevzel vlogo posrednika.
Accordingly, the dominant undertaking suffers no horizontal direct effects or genuine damage.
Torej ni niti neposrednih horizontalnih učinkov niti dejanskih �kod za podjetje s prevladujočim položajem.
Moreover, the right that undertaking seeks to enforce was created by a provision which is contrary to Community law and its position is affected only indirectly, in that it is unable to impose unlawful charges.
Poleg tega je pravica, na katero se sklicuje, nastala na podlagi predpisa, ki ni v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, položaj podjetja pa je poslab�an samo navidezno, namreč ker ni prejelo prispevkov, zahtevanih v nasprotju z zakonom.
However, in the dispute which gave rise to the present case, there is no latitude for freedom of action or, therefore, for private law when it comes to setting the charge in question because, in accordance with Community and German law, exclusive competence in that regard rests with the State.
Vendar v pravnem sporu, ki je v ozadju obravnavane zadeve, glede določitve cene ni prostora niti za avtonomijo volje niti za zasebno pravo, saj tako po pravu Skupnosti kot Nemčije izključna pristojnost pripada državi.
An affirmative reply to the second question appears unavoidable in the light of the primacy of Community law, pursuant to which the national court must guarantee to individuals the rights flowing from directives where national law precludes respect for those rights.
Zdi se, da je pritrdilen odgovor na drugo vpra�anje neizogiben, saj upo�tevanje načela primarnosti prava Skupnosti od nacionalnega sodi�ča zahteva, naj posameznikom zagotovi pravice, ki izhajajo iz direktiv, kadar predpis nacionalnega prava preprečuje njihovo izvr�evanje.
In those circumstances, the setting of the additional charge is independent of the prior approval of the interconnection charge (which certainly gave rise to a contractual
V tem kontekstu je določitev vi�ine plačila ločena od predhodne odobritve medomrežne povezave (ki sploh omogoči pogod-
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, declaring that:
Glede na navedene preudarke predlagam, naj Sodi�če na vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje, ki ju je zastavilo zvezno upravno sodi�če, odgovori:
2008 — JOINED CASES C-152/07 TO C-154/07
2008 – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE OD C-152/07 DO C-154/07
THREE REFERENCES for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decisions of 13 December 2006, received at the Court on 20 March 2007, in the proceedings
V združenih zadevah od C-152/07 do C-154/07, katerih predmet so trije predlogi za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki jih je vložilo Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Nemčija) z odločbami z dne 13. decembra 2006, ki so prispele na Sodi�če 20. marca 2007, v postopkih
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: K. Sztranc-Sławiczek, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 19 February 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Sztranc-Sławiczek, administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 19. februarja 2008, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
These references for a preliminary ruling relate to the interpretation of, first, Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p.
Predlogi za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�ajo na razlago Direktive Komisije 90/388/EGS z dne 28. junija 1990 o konkurenci na trgih telekomunikacijskih storitev (UL L 192, str.
10), as amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 (OJ 1996 L 74, p.
10), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Komisije 96/19/ES z dne 13. marca 1996 (UL L 74, str.
13) (‘Directive 90/388’), and, secondly, Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of open network provision (ONP) (OJ 1997 L 199, p.
13, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 90/388), in Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/33/ES z dne 30. junija 1997 o medomrežnem povezovanju v telekomunikacijah za zagotavljanje univerzalne storitve in medobrato -valnosti z uporabo načel zagotavljanja odprtosti omrežja (ONP) (UL L 199, str.
32), as amended by Directive 98/61/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 (OJ 1998 L 268, p.
32), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 98/61/ES z dne 24. septembra 1998 (UL L 268, str.
37) (‘Directive 97/33’).
37, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 97/33).
The references were made in three sets of appeal proceedings on a point of law (‘Revision’) in which the parties were (i) Arcor AG & Co. KG (‘Arcor’), (ii) Communication Services TELE2 GmbH (‘TELE2’) and (iii) Firma 01051 Telekom GmbH (‘01051 Telekom’), all operators of public telecommunications networks, on the one hand, the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen (Federal Agency for Electricity, Gas, Telecommunications, Post and Rail Networks; ‘the regulatory authority’), on the other, and, as an intervening party, Deutsche Telekom AG (‘Deutsche Telekom’), and which concerned a decision of the regulatory authority of 29 April 2003 approving, as from 1 July 2003, a connection charge of EUR 0.004 per minute in respect of call charges for the provision of calls originating in Deutsche Telekom’s national telephone network to an interconnection partner operating as a carrier for local calls (‘the Telekom-B2 (local) facility’). Legal context
Ti predlogi so bili vloženi v okviru treh revizijskih postopkov, ki so jih družbe Arcor AG & Co. KG (v nadaljevanju: Arcor), Communication Services TELE2 GmbH (v nadaljevanju: TELE2) oziroma Firma 01051 Telekom GmbH (v nadaljevanju: 01051 Telekom), operaterji javnih telekomunikacijskih omrežij, sprožile zoper Zvezno republiko Nemčijo, ki jo zastopa Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen (zvezna agencija za električna, plinska, telekomunikacijska, po�tna in železni�ka omrežja, v nadaljevanju: regulativni organ), ob udeležbi družbe Deutsche Telekom AG (v nadaljevanju: Deutsche Telekom), zaradi odločbe regulativnega organa z dne 29. aprila 2003, s katero je ta za obdobje od 1. julija 2003 odobril priključnino v vi�ini 0,004 EUR na minuto na ceno klicev za povezavo iz nacionalnega telefonskega omrežja družbe Deutsche Telekom, ki se zagotavlja partnerju pri medomrežnem povezovanju kot operaterju povezovalnega omrežja za krajevne klice (v nadaljevanju: (krajevna) storitev Telekom-B2). Pravni okvir
2008 — JOINED CASES C-152/07 TO C-154/07 adjustments. The Member States which may request such an exception are Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal with regard to less developed networks and Luxembourg with regard to very small networks. …’
2008 – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE OD C-152/07 DO C-154/07 predlagajo, naj se jim omogoči ta možnost, so Španija, Irska, Grčija in Portugalska z manj razvitimi omrežji ter Luksemburg z zelo majhnim omrežjem; […]“
‘… Member States should phase out as rapidly as possible all unjustified restrictions on tariff rebalancing by the telecommunications organisations and in particular those preventing the adaptation of rates which are not in line with costs and increase the burden of universal service provision….’
„[…] države članice morajo v najkraj�em možnem času postopoma odpraviti preostale neupravičene omejitve v zvezi z usklajevanjem tarif, ki ga izvajajo subjekti na področju telekomunikacij, zlasti tiste, ki preprečujejo prilagoditev tarif, ki niso povezane s stro�ki in povečujejo obremenitve v zvezi z zagotavljanjem univerzalne storitve; […]“
The third paragraph of Article 4c of Directive 90/388, inserted by Article 1(6) of Directive 96/19, provides:
Člen 4c, tretji odstavek, Direktive 90/388, ki je bil dodan s členom 1, točka 6, Direktive 96/19, določa:
‘Member States shall allow their telecommunications organisations to rebalance tariffs taking account of specific market conditions and of the need to ensure the affordability of a universal service, and, in particular, Member States shall allow them to adapt current rates which are not in line with costs and which increase the burden of universal service provision, in order to achieve tariffs based on real costs.
„Države članice svojim subjektom na področju telekomunikacij dovolijo, da uskladijo svoje tarife, pri čemer morajo upo�tevati posebne tržne pogoje in nujnost zagotovitve finančno dostopne univerzalne storitve, zlasti pa jim dovolijo prilagoditev obstoječih tarif, ki niso vezane na stro�ke in ki povečujejo obremenitev v zvezi z zagotavljanjem univerzalne storitve, da s tem svojo tarifno strukturo utemeljijo na podlagi dejanskih stro�kov.
Where such rebalancing cannot be completed before 1 January 1998 the Member States concerned shall report to the Commission on the future phasing-out of the remaining tariff imbalances.
Če te uskladitve ni mogoče izvesti do 1. januarja 1998, zadevne države članice Komisiji poročajo o postopni odpravi preostalih tarifnih neskladnosti.
This shall include a detailed timetable for implementation.’
To poročilo vsebuje podroben časovni načrt za njeno uresničitev.“
Article 7(2) of Directive 97/33 is worded as follows:
Člen 7(2) Direktive 97/33 določa:
‘Charges for interconnection shall follow the principles of transparency and cost orientation.
„Pri cenah medomrežnega povezovanja se upo�tevata načeli preglednosti in stro�kovne naravnanosti.
The burden of proof that charges are derived from actual costs including a reasonable rate of return on investment shall lie with the organisation providing interconnection to its facilities.
Subjekt, ki s svojimi napravami zagotavlja medomrežno povezovanje, mora dokazati, da so cene določene na podlagi dejanskih stro�kov, vključno s primerno stopnjo donosnosti naložb.
National regulatory authorities may request an organisation to provide full justification for its interconnection charges, and where appropriate shall require charges to be adjusted.
Nacionalni regulativni organi lahko od subjekta zahtevajo, da v celoti utemelji cene medomrežnega povezovanja, in po potrebi zahtevajo njihovo prilagoditev.
This paragraph shall also apply to organisations set out in Part 3 of Annex I which have been notified by national regulatory authorities as having significant market power on the national market for interconnection.’
Določbe tega odstavka se uporabljajo tudi za subjekte iz dela 3 priloge I, ki so jih nacionalni regulativni organi priglasili kot subjekte s pomembno močjo na nacionalnem trgu medomrežnega povezovanja.“
Article 12(7) of Directive 97/33, added by Directive 98/61, states:
Člen 12(7) Direktive 97/33, ki je bil dodan z Direktivo 98/61, določa:
‘National regulatory authorities shall require at least organisations operating public telecommunications networks as set out in Part 1 of Annex I and notified by national regulatory authorities as organisations having significant market power, to enable their subscribers, including those using ISDN [integrated services digital network], to access the switched services of any interconnected provider of publicly available telecommunications services.
„Nacionalni regulativni organi vsaj od subjektov, ki upravljajo javna telekomunikacijska omrežja iz dela 1 priloge I in so jih nacionalni regulativni organi priglasili kot subjekte s pomembno tržno močjo, zahtevajo, da svojim naročnikom, vključno z uporabniki ISDN (digitalno omrežje z integriranimi storitvami), omogočijo dostop do komutiranih storitev vseh medomrežno povezanih ponudnikov telekomunikacijskih storitev, ki so na voljo javnosti.
For this purpose facilities shall be in place by 1 January 2000 at the latest or, in those countries which have been granted an additional transition period, as soon as possible thereafter, but no later than two years after any later date agreed for full liberalisation of voice telephony services, which allow the subscriber to choose these services by means of preselection with a facility to override any preselected choice on a call-by-call basis by dialling a short prefix.
Mehanizme za to je treba vzpostaviti najpozneje do 1. januarja 2000, v državah, ki so upravičene do dodatnega prehodnega obdobja, pa takoj, ko je to mogoče po tem datumu, vendar najpozneje dve leti po poznej�em datumu, določenem za popolno liberalizacijo storitev govorne telefonije, da se tako naročniku omogoči izbiranje teh storitev s predizbiro in sistemom, ki mu omogoča, da z vnosom kratke karakteristične �tevilke za vsak klic posebej izključi predizbrano možnost.