natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By the second part of its first question the referring court asks whether there is a distribution to the public within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Copyright Directive where pieces of copyrightprotected furniture 35 are displayed in the window of a shop without the public being able to use or acquire them.
Z drugim delom prvega vpra�anja predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali gre takrat, kadar so kosi z avtorsko pravico za�čitenega pohi�tva 35razstavljeni v izložbi trgovine, ne da bi bila tretjim osebam dana možnost, da jih uporabljajo ali pridobijo, za javno distribuiranje v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive o avtorski pravici.
34As Cassina concedes, it applies only to goods introduced into the Community customs territory from third countries.
uporablja le za blago, vneseno iz tretjih držav na carinsko ozemlje Skupnosti.
Moreover, the present case is based on the premiss that the items of furniture in question were not pirated but lawfully manufactured and acquired in Italy.
Poleg tega obravnavani primer temelji na predpostavki, da zadevni kosi pohi�tva niso bili piratski, ampak zakonito proizvedeni in pridobljeni v Italiji.
I accordingly conclude in answer to Question 1(a) that there is not a distribution to the public within the meaning of
Zato v odgovor na vpra�anje 1(a) ugotavljam, da kadar so kosi z avtorsko pravico
In my view, the answer to that question follows a fortiori from the answer I have proposed to the first part of the first question, for the reasons given above.
Po mojem mnenju odgovor na to vpra�anje izhaja a fortiori iz odgovora, ki sem ga predlagala za prvi del prvega vpra�anja iz zgoraj predstavljenih razlogov.
I do not consider that either limb of the national court’s first question calls for an affirmative answer; I do not, therefore, intend to propose an answer to the second question.
Menim, da je treba na oba dela prvega vpra�anja nacionalnega sodi�ča odgovoriti nikalno, zato nimam namena predlagati odgovora na drugo vpra�anje.
I will, however, say a few words about it.
Kljub temu pa bom v povezavi s tem povedala nekaj besed.
I am accordingly of the view that there is not a distribution to the public within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Copyright Directive where pieces of copyrightprotected furniture are displayed in the window of a shop without the public being able to use or acquire them.
Zato menim, da v primeru, ko so kosi z avtorsko pravico za�čitenega pohi�tva razstavljeni v izložbi trgovine, ne da bi bila tretjim osebam dana možnost, da jih uporabljajo ali pridobijo, ne gre za javno distribuiranje v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive o avtorski pravici.
It appears from the order for reference that the national court is concerned that, in a case such as the present, which concerns works which are subject to copyright protection in Germany even though they were lawfully manufactured in Italy without the rightholder’s consent, the exercise in Germany of the right to prohibit distribution to the public within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Directive might lead to a partitioning of national markets.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je predložitveno sodi�če zaskrbljeno, da bi v primeru, kot je obravnavani – ki se nana�a na dela, ki so, čeprav so bila zakonito proizvedena v Italiji brez soglasja imetnika pravice, v Nemčiji za�čitena z avtorsko pravico –, izvr�evanje pravice do javnega distribuiranja v Nemčiji v smislu člena 4(1) lahko povzročilo delitev nacionalnih trgov.
If that were the case, the exercise of that right, prima facie contrary to Article 28 EC, could not be justified on the basis of Article 30 EC.
Če bi pri�lo do tega, izvr�evanja te pravice, ki je prima facie v nasprotju s členom 28 ES, ne bi bilo mogoče upravičiti na podlagi člena 30 ES.
The national court’s second principal question is put only in the event that the first questions are answered in the affirmative, namely to the effect that there is a distribution to the public within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Copyright Directive where pieces of copyrightprotected furniture are made available for temporary use by third parties without those third parties being able to dispose of the items or are displayed in the window of a shop without the public being able to use or acquire them.
Drugo vpra�anje nacionalnega sodi�ča je zastavljeno le v primeru, če je odgovor na prvi vpra�anji pritrdilen, to je, kadar gre za javno distribuiranje v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive o avtorski pravici in so kosi z avtorsko pravico za�čitenega pohi�tva začasno dani v uporabo tretjim osebam, ne da bi bile te upravičene razpolagati z njimi, ali so razstavljeni v izložbi trgovine, ne da bi bila tretjim osebam dana možnost, da jih uporabljajo ali pridobijo.
In that case, the referring court asks whether the protection accorded to the free movement of goods precludes exercise of the right to prohibit distribution if the items presented are not under copyright protection in the Member State in which they were manufactured and placed on the market.
V tem primeru predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali varstvo, zagotovljeno za prost pretok blaga, lahko ovira uresničevanje pravice do distribuiranja, če razstavljeni primerki v državi članici, v kateri so bili izdelani in dani v promet, niso za�čiteni z avtorsko pravico.
The holder of an intellectual or industrial property right cannot therefore rely on it to oppose the import of goods put lawfully on the market in another Member State by or with the consent of that rightholder.
Komisija trdi, da si ni mogoče predstavljati, da bi bilo treba pravico do distribuiranja, določeno v členu 4(1), razlagati tako, da načelo prostega pretoka blaga prepoveduje izvr�evanje te pravice.
Cassina states that that is not tce it did not consent to the furniture being placed on the market in Italy.
Komisija zato izhaja s stali�ča, da se želi z drugim vpra�anjem ugotoviti, ali člena 28 in 30 ES onemogočata, da bi se določbo nacionalnega prava razlagalo tako, da dejanja, kot so ta v obravnavanem postopku, pomenijo distribuiranje, varovano z avtorsko pravico.
It accordingly proceeds on the basis that the second question asks whether Articles 28 and 30 EC preclude an interpretation of a provision of national law such that acts such as those at issue in the present case constitute a distribution protected by copyright.
Družba Cassina navaja, da v tem primeru ni tako, ker se ni strinjala s tem, da se pohi�tvo sprosti v promet v Italiji.
The Polish Government submits that the scope of copyright protection is not harmonised at Community level.
Poljska vlada ugotavlja, da namen varstva avtorske pravice ni usklajen na ravni Skupnosti.
In the absence of harmonisation the scope of protection is a matter of national law.
Zaradi neobstoja usklajenosti je namen varstva predmet nacionalnega zakona.
Again, however, this argument seems misconceived to me.
Vendar pa se mi tudi ta argument zdi napačen.
The second question is explicitly put on the basis that the acts in question do constitute distribution within the meaning of Article 4(1).
Drugo vpra�anje je bilo izrecno postavljeno ob predpostavki, da zadevna dejanja pomenijo distribuiranje v smislu člena 4(1).
If that is the case, then of necessity (given that Article 4 is mandatory) national law implementing that provision will be to the same effect.
V tem primeru bo potem nacionalno pravo, ki prena�a to določbo, nujno (ker je člen 4 zavezujoč) imelo enak učinek.
I therefore do not understand what distinction the Commission seeks to draw.
Zato ne razumem, kak�no razliko opisuje Komisija.
Given that analysis, I consider that both Article 4(1) of the Directive and national law implementing it must stand or fall together: if one falls foul of the Treaty rules on the
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega menim, da člen 4(1) Direktive in nacionalno pravo, s katerim je prenesena, delita enako usodo: če
Neither of those submissions seems to me to be particularly helpful.
Nobena od teh navedb se mi ne zdi posebno koristna.
The reference in general and the second question in particular are based on the premiss that the items of furniture were lawfully manufactured in Italy.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe nasploh, zlasti njegovo drugo vpra�anje temelji na predpostavki, da so bili kosi pohi�tva zakonito izdelani v Italiji.
Cassina’s submissions are therefore not to the point.
Trditve družbe Cassina zato niso pravilne.
The Polish Government’s submission seems to me to be misconceived: even if the scope of protection were a matter of national law, that law would naturally have to comply with Articles 28 and 30 EC.
Trditev poljske vlade se mi zdi napačna: čeprav je namen varstva predmet nacionalnega zakona, mora biti ta zakon seveda v skladu s členoma 28 in 30 ES.
free movement of goods, so must the other.
en ne spo�tuje pravil Pogodbe glede prostega pretoka blaga, jih tudi drugi ne.
I have already explained in the context of the first limb of the first question referred why, to my mind, Articles 28 and 30 EC dictate a narrow reading of ‘distribution to the public’ in Article 4(1). 36
Pri prvem delu prvega vpra�anja sem že razložila, zakaj po mojem mnenju člena 28 in 30 ES nalagata ozko razlaganje „javnega distribuiranja“ iz člena 4(1). 36
Finally, I repeat that the fact that the furniture was first put on the market in the Community without the consent of the rightholder is irrelevant in the context of the present case.
Na koncu ponavljam, da dejstvo, da je bilo pohi�tvo najprej dano na trg v Skupnosti brez soglasja imetnika pravice, za obravnavani primer ni pomembno.
It is settled caselaw that, as Community law now stands, and in the absence of Community provisions harmonising national laws, it is for the Member States to establish the conditions and detailed rules for the protection of literary and artistic property, subject to observance of the applicable international conventions.
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da je glede na zdaj�nje stanje prava Skupnosti in glede na neobstoj določb Skupnosti, ki bi usklajevale nacionalne zakone, naloga držav članic, da določijo pogoje in podrobna pravila za varovanje literarne in umetni�ke lastnine, s spo�tovanjem veljavnih mednarodnih konvencij.
38As I have indicated, before implementation of Directive 98/71 39the legal protection of designs was not harmonised; nor did the Berne Convention require such protection.
38Kot sem navedla, pravno varstvo modelov pred prenosom Direktive 98/71 39ni bilo uskla- jeno; tudi Berska konvencija ni zahtevala tega varstva.
40 The fact that, at the relevant time, the legal protection of designs was different in Germany and Italy is simply a consequence of that situation.
40 Dejstvo, da je bilo v tem času pravno varstvo modelov v Nemčiji in Italiji različno, je zgolj posledica teh okoli�čin.
The analysis of the second question referred thus confirms in my view that the answer I propose to the first question must be correct.
Preučitev drugega zastavljenega vpra�anja po mojem mnenju tako potrjuje, da je odgovor, ki ga predlagam glede prvega vpra�anja, pravilen.
As is implicit in my earlier analysis of the first question, I broadly accept the submissions of Peek & Cloppenburg 37that too wide an interpretation of ‘distribution to the public’ in Article 4(1) would not be compatible with the free movement of goods enshrined in Article 28 EC and would not be justified in accordance with Article 30 EC. A derogation will be permitted under Article 30 EC only if the exercise of the distribution right in question safeguards the specific subjectmatter of the copyright. In the present case, that condition is not satisfied: the acts in question are not concerned 38 — Joined Cases C-92/92 and C-326/92 Phil Collins [1993] ECR I-5145, paragraph 19.
Iz mojih prej�njih ugotovitev v zvezi s prvim vpra�anjem izhaja, da v veliki meri sprejemam trditev družbe Peek & Cloppenburg, 37 da pre�iroka razlaga „javnega distribuiranja“ iz člena 4(1) ne bi bila v skladu z načelom prostega pretoka blaga iz člena 28 ES in ne bi bila utemeljena v skladu s členom 30 ES. Odstopanje je s členom 30 ES dopustno le, če izvr�evanje pravice do distribuiranja varuje poseben predmet avtorske pravice. V obravnavanem primeru ta pogoj ni izpolnjen: zadevna dejanja se ne nana�ajo na prodajo ali ponovno prodajo ali kakr�no koli 38 – Sodba z dne 20. oktobra 1993 v združenih zadevah Phil Collins (C-92/92 in C-326/92, Recueil, str.
36 — See points 35 and 36 above.
I-5145, točka 19).
39 — Cited in footnote 12.40 — See footnote 4.
36 – Glej točki 35 in 36 zgoraj.37 – Podredno, glede na predlagani odgovor na prva vpra�anja.
For the reasons given above, I consider that the questions referred by the Bundesgerichtshof should be answered as follows:
Iz teh razlogov menim, da je treba na vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki jih je zastavilo Bundesgerichtshof, odgovoriti:
There is not a ‘distribution to the public by sale or otherwise’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society where pieces of copyrightprotected furniture are either made available for temporary use by third parties without those third parties having the right to dispose of them or displayed in the window of a shop without the public being able to use or acquire them.
Kadar so kosi z avtorsko pravico za�čitenega pohi�tva začasno dani v uporabo tretjim osebam, ne da bi bile te upravičene z njimi razpolagati, ali razstavljeni v izložbi trgovine, ne da bi bila tretjim osebam dana možnost, da jih uporabljajo ali pridobijo, ne gre za „javno distribuiranje s prodajo ali drugače“ v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive 2001/29/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2001 o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi.
2008 — CASE C-456/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-456/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 17. aprila 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), made by decision of 5 October 2006, received at the Court on 16 November 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-456/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Bundesgerichtshof (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 5. oktobra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 16. novembra 2006, v postopku
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG Advocate General: E. Sharpston, Registrar: M.-A. Gaudissart, head of unit, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 15 November 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG generalna pravobranilka: E. Sharpston, sodni tajnik: M.-A. Gaudissart, vodja oddelka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 15. novembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili: – za Peek & Cloppenburg KG A. Auler, odvetnik, – za Cassina SpA A.
2008 — CASE C-456/06 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-456/06 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 4(1) Direktive 2001/29/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2001 o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi (UL L 167, str. 10).
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg KG (‘Peek & Cloppenburg’) and Cassina SpA (‘Cassina’) concerning the making available to the public and display of furniture which, according to Cassina, infringed its exclusive right of distribution. Legal context
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Peek & Cloppenburg KG (v nadaljevanju: Peek & Cloppenburg) in družbo Cassina SpA (v nadaljevanju: Cassina) glede pohi�tva danega na voljo javnosti in njegovega razstavljanja, ki po mnenju družbe Cassina kr�i njeno izključno pravico distribuiranja. Pravni okvir
International legislation
Mednarodna ureditev
The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (‘CT’) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (‘PPT’), adopted in Geneva on 20 December 1996, were approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2000/278/EC of 16 March 2000 (OJ 2000 L 89, p. 6).
Pogodba Svetovne organizacije za intelektualno lastnino o avtorski pravici (v nadaljevanju: MSOILAP) in Pogodba Svetovne organizacije za intelektualno lastnino o izvedbah in fonogramih (v nadaljevanju: MSOILIF), sprejeti v Ženevi 20. decembra 1996, sta bili priznani v imenu Evropske skupnosti s Sklepom Sveta 2000/278/CE z dne 16. marca 2000 (UL L 89, str. 6).
Article 6 of the CT, entitled ‘Right of distribution’, provides:
Člen 6 MSOILAP z naslovom „Pravica do distribuiranja“, določa:
Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorising the making available to the public of the original and copies of their works through sale or other transfer of ownership.
Avtorji književnih in umetni�kih del uživajo izključno pravico dovoljevati, da izvirnik in primerki njihovih del postanejo dostopni javnosti s prodajo ali drugačnim prenosom lastninske pravice.
Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the right in paragraph 1 applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the work with the authorisation of the author.’
Nič v tej pogodbi ne vpliva na svobodo pogodbenic, da določijo morebitne pogoje, pod katerimi se �teje, da je po prvi prodaji ali drugačnem prenosu lastninske pravice izvirnika ali primerka dela z dovoljenjem avtorja pravica iz odstavka 1 izčrpana.“
Article 8 of the PPT, entitled ‘Right of distribution’, confers on performers the exclusive right of authorising the making available to the public of the original and copies of their performances fixed in phonograms through sale or other transfer of ownership.
Člen 8 MSOILIF, z naslovom „Pravica do distribuiranja“, daje izvajalcem izključno pravico dovoljevati, da izvirnik in primerki njihovih izvedb, posneti na fonogramih, postanejo dostopni javnosti s prodajo ali drugačnim prenosom lastninske pravice.
Article 12 of the PPT provides for a similar right in favour of producers of phonograms.
Člen 12 MSOILIF določa podobno pravico za proizvajalce fonogramov.
Recitals 9 to 11, 15 and 28 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 state:
Uvodne izjave od devet do enajst, petnajst in osemindvajset Direktive 2001/29 navajajo:
‘(9) Any harmonisation of copyright and related rights must take as a basis a high level of protection, since such rights are crucial to intellectual creation.
„(9) Vsakr�no usklajevanje avtorske in sorodnih pravic mora temeljiti na visoki stopnji varstva, kajti tak�ne pravice so za intelektualno ustvarjanje bistvenega pomena.
Their protection helps to ensure the maintenance and development of creativity in the interests of authors, performers, producers, consumers, culture, industry and the public at large. …
Njihovo varstvo pomaga zagotoviti ohranjanje in razvoj ustvarjalnosti v interesu avtorjev, izvajalcev, producentov, potro�nikov, kulture, industrije in javnosti nasploh. […]
(10) If authors or performers are to continue their creative and artistic work, they have to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their work, as must producers in order to be able to finance this work. …
(10) Če naj avtorji ali izvajalci nadaljujejo z ustvarjalnim in umetni�kim delom, morajo za uporabo svojega dela prejeti primerno nagrado, prav tako pa tudi producenti, da lahko to delo financirajo. […]
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG (15) The Diplomatic Conference held under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in December 1996 led to the adoption of two new Treaties, the [CT] and the [PPT] … .
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG (15) Diplomatska konferenca, ki se je odvijala pod pokroviteljstvom Svetovne organizacije za intelektualno lastnino (WIPO) decembra 1996, je vodila k sprejetju dveh novih pogodb, [MSOILAP] in [MSOILIF] […].
This Directive also serves to implement a number of the new international obligations.
Ta direktiva je namenjena tudi uresničevanju �tevilnih novih mednarodnih obveznosti.
(28) Copyright protection under this Directive includes the exclusive right to control distribution of the work incorporated in a tangible article.
(28) Avtorsko-pravno varstvo pravic po tej direktivi vključuje izključno pravico nadzora distribuiranja dela, utele�enega v materialnem predmetu.
The first sale in the Community of the original of a work or copies thereof by the rightholder or with his consent exhausts the right to control resale of that object in the Community. … ’
Prva prodaja izvirnika ali primerkov dela s strani imetnika pravice ali z njegovim privoljenjem v Skupnosti izčrpa pravico do nadzora ponovne prodaje tega predmeta v Skupnosti. […]“
Article 4 of that directive, entitled ‘Distribution right’, states:
Člen 4 te direktive, z naslovom „Pravica distribuiranja“, določa:
Member States shall provide for authors, in respect of the original of their works or of copies thereof, the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any form of distribution to the public by sale or otherwise.
Države članice predvidijo za avtorje v zvezi z izvirnikom ali primerki del izključno pravico, da dovolijo ali prepovedo kakr�no koli javno distribuiranje s prodajo ali drugače.
Under Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61):
Na podlagi členov 1(1) in (2) Direktive Sveta 92/100/EGS z dne 19. novembra 1992 o pravici dajanja v najem in pravici posojanja ter o določenih pravicah, sorodnih avtorski, na področju intelektualne lastnine (UL L 346, str. 61):
In accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, Member States shall provide, subject to Article 5, a right to authorise or prohibit the rental and lending of originals and copies of copyright works …
V skladu z določbami iz tega poglavja države članice v skladu s členom 6 predvidijo pravico do dovoljenja ali prepovedi dajanja v najem in posojanja izvirnikov ter primerkov avtorsko-pravno varovanih del […]
For the purposes of this Directive, “rental” means making available for use, for a limited period of time and for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage.’
V tej direktivi se uporabljajo naslednje opredelitve pojmov: ‚najem‘ pomeni dajanje na voljo za uporabo za omejeno časovno obdobje zaradi neposredne ali posredne gospodarske ali komercialne koristi.“
Under Article 9(1) of Directive 92/100, ‘Member States shall provide [for performers, phonogram producers, producers of the first fixations of films and for broadcasting organisations] the exclusive right to make available [protected objects], including copies thereof, to the public by sale or otherwise, hereafter referred to as the “distribution right”’.
V skladu s členom 9(1) Direktive 92/100, „[d]ržave članice predvidijo [za izvajalce, proizvajalce fonogramov, producente prvega posnetka filmov in RTV organizacije] izključno pravico do dajanja na voljo javnosti [varovanih predmetov], vključno z njihovimi kopijami, s prodajo ali kako drugače, v nadaljnjem besedilu ‚pravica distribuiranja‘“.
Directive 92/100 was repealed by Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 28).
Direktiva 92/100 je bila razveljavljena z Direktivo 2006/115/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 12. decembra 2006 o pravici dajanja v najem in pravici posojanja ter o določenih pravicah, sorodnih avtorski pravici, na področju intelektualne lastnine (UL L 376, str. 28).
The latter directive reproduces, in similar terms, the abovementioned provisions of Directive 92/100.
Slednja na podoben način povzema zgoraj navedene določbe Direktive 92/100.
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG National legislation
PEEK & CLOPPENBURG Nacionalna ureditev
1273) provides:
1273), določa: