natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
37Legislation such as the German legislation at issue clearly runs counter to the Community’s attempt to achieve the highest possible level of consumer protection and, in particu- lar, to the aim of protecting the economic interests of consumers.
37Ureditev, kakr�na je nem�ka, jasno nasprotuje prizadevanjem Skupnosti za čim vi�jo raven varstva potro�nikov, zlasti prizadevanjem za za�čito njihovih ekonomskih interesov.
39The requirement of a minimum level of harmonisation is clear not only from the 24th recital in the preamble to the Direct ive, but also from Article 8(2) thereof, which state that Member States are free to adopt or maintain in force more stringent provisions than those provided for by the Directive, in order to ensure a higher level of consumer protection.
39Zahteva za minimalno harmonizacijo je razvidna tako iz �tiriindvajsete uvodne izjave kakor tudi iz člena 8(2) Direktive 1999/44, ki državam članicam omogočata, da za varstvo potro�nikov sprejmejo ali ohranijo strožje določbe, kot jih predvideva ta direktiva.
A teleological interpretation leads to the clear conclusion that the German legislation, under which the consumer is guaranteed a lower level of protection than under Directive 1999/44, is therefore clearly incompatible with the Directive.
S teleolo�ko razlago jasno pridemo do sklepa, da je nem�ka ureditev, ki potro�niku zagotavlja nižjo raven varstva od Direktive 1999/44, zato a fortiori v nasprotju z njo.
In addition, it should be noted that Directive 1999/44 guarantees mandatory standards for consumer rights and that the parties to a contract are not permitted to agree a lower level of consumer protection in accordance with which the replacement of goods would no longer be free of charge. 40
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da določbe Direktive 1999/44 zagotavljajo kogentne standarde pravic potro�nikov in se stranki tudi s pogodbo ne moreta dogovoriti za nižjo raven varstva potro�nikov ter tako izključiti neodplačnosti zamenjave. 40
In the context of consumer protection, the specific purpose 38 of Directive 1999/44 is to ensure a minimum level of harmonisation of the provisions relating to sale of consumer
V okviru varstva potro�nikov je specifični namen 38 Direktive 1999/44 zagotoviti mini- malno harmonizacijo določb glede prodaje potro�ni�kega blaga in z njim povezanih
39 — In this regard, Directive 1999/44 is different from, for example, Directive 85/374/EEC, the purpose of which is to ensure total harmonisation of the provisions concerning liability for defective products.
39 – Glede tega se Direktiva 1999/44, na primer, loči od Direktive 85/374/EGS, katere namen je zagotoviti popolno harmonizacijo določb v zvezi z odgovornostjo za proizvode z napako.
See Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29).
Glej Direktivo Sveta z dne 25. julija 1985 o približevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic v zvezi z odgovornostjo za proizvode z napako (UL L 210, 7.8.1985, str. 29, slovenska posebna izdaja, poglavje 15, zvezek 1, str. 257).
See also the Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed in Commission v France and in González Sánchez (both cited above), point 56.
Glej tudi sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Geelhoeda z dne 20. septembra 2001 v zadevah Komisija proti Francoski republiki in González Sánchez (C-52/00 in C-183/00, Recueil, str. 3879, točka 56).
37 — Improvement of the functioning of the internal market is also to remain the principal aim of consumer policy in the future.
37 – Izbolj�anje delovanja notranjega trga bo glavni cilj potro�ni�ke politike tudi v prihodnosti.
In its consumer policy strategy for 2007 to 2013, it emphasises that ‘[t]he internal market remains the fundamental context for consumer policy. Consumer policy is also key to improving the functioning of the internal market.’
Komisija v Strategiji potro�ni�ke politike za obdobje 2007–2013 poudarja, da je notranji trg „�e vedno temeljni okvir za potro�ni�ko politiko, ki pa je prav tako bistvenega pomena za izbolj�evanje delovanja notranjega trga“.
See the communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee — EU consumer policy strategy 2007-13 — Empowering consumers, enhancing their welfare, effectively protecting them (COM(2007) 99 final).
Glej Sporočilo Komisije Svetu, Evropskemu parlamentu in Evropskemu ekonomsko-soci-alnemu odboru – Strategija potro�ni�ke politike EU 2007–2013 – Usposabljanje potro�nikov, izbolj�evanje blaginje potro�nikov, učinkovito varstvo potro�nikov, KOM (2007) 99 konč.
It is likely that the provisions of Directive 1999/44 will be adopted in the draft of the European Civil Code in which the importance of consumer protection will be given expression very clearly.
Določbe Direktive 1999/44 bodo predvidoma povzete tudi v osnutek evropskega civilnega zakonika, v katerem bo pomen varstva potro�nikov zelo jasno izražen. V zvezi s tem glej Heutger, V., Konturen des Kauf -rechtskonzepts der Study Group on a European Civil Code – Ein Werkstattbericht, European Review of Private Law, �t. 2/2003, str. 159.
38 — Reisenhuber explains that teleological interpretation depends not only on the framework purpose but also on the specific purpose of the provision in question. See K. Reisenhuber, ‘Die Auslegung’, in K. Reisenhuber (ed.), Europäische Methodenlehre. Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis, De Gruyter Recht, Berlin, 2006, p.
38 – Reisenhuber poudarja, da je v okviru teleolo�ke razlage pomembno določiti specifični, in ne le okvirni namen predpisa. Glej Reisenhuber, K., Die Auslegung, v Reisenhuber, K., Europäische Methodenlehre. Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis, De Gruyter Recht, Berlin 2006, str.
261, paragraph 41.
261, točka 41.
40 — Mandatory rules of law set down the limits of freedom of contract which the parties to a contract may not cross. See inter alia M. Schmidt Kessel, ‘Europäisches Vertragsrecht’, in K. Reisenhuber (cited above, footnote 38), p.
40 – Kogentno pravo predstavlja meje pogodbene svobode, ki jih pogodbeni stranki ne smeta prekoračiti. Glej npr. Schmidt Kessel, M., Europäisches Vertragsrecht, v Reisenhuber, K., Europäische Methodenlehre. Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis, De Gruyter Recht, Berlin 2006, str.
397, paragraph 15.
397, točka 15.
So far as German legal literature is concerned, the mandatory nature of Article 3 of Directive 1999/44 is referred to by S. Grundmann, ‘Internationalisierung und Reform des deutschen Kaufrechts’, in S. Grundmann, D. Medicus and W. Rolland, Europäisches Kaufgewährleistungsrecht. Reform und Internationalisierung des deutschen Schuldrechts, Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne, Berlin, Bonn, Munich, 2000, p. 317.
Kogentno naravo člena 3 Direktive 1999/44 v nem�ki teoriji poudari npr. Grundmann, Internationalisierung und Reform des deutschen Kaufrechts, v Grundmann, S., Medicus, D., Rolland, W., Europäisches Kaufgewährleistungsrecht. Reform und Internationalisierung des deutschen Schuldrechts, Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln, Berlin, Bonn, München 2000, str. 317.
QUELLE
QUELLE nadomestila za uporabo stvari z napako.
Furthermore, it is clear from the second, fourth and fifth recitals in the preamble to Directive 1999/44 that the ultimate aim of the attempt to achieve a high level of consumer protection is the smooth functioning of the internal market, 41which allows consumers to obtain consumer goods in other Member States freely.
Nadalje iz druge, četrte in pete uvodne izjave Direktive 1999/44 jasno izhaja, da je končni cilj prizadevanj za visoko raven varstva potro�nikov nemoteno delovanje notranjega trga, 41ki potro�nikom omogoča druge države članice, ki je imel v Nemčiji izku�njo z zahtevo za plačilo nadomestila za uporabo, pred naslednjim nakupom v tej državi članici okleval.
In that context, it is to be noted that in some Member States the seller cannot require the consumer to pay compensation for the use of defective goods.
prosto nakupovanje potro�ni�kega blaga v drugih državah članicah.
44It is conceivable that a consumer from another Member State who has suffered having to pay compensation for use in Germany will hesitate to shop there again.
42Vi�ja raven varstva potro�nikov lahko torej spodbudi t. i. pasivni prosti pretok blaga in storitev, pri katerem potro�nik kupi blago ali prejme storitev v drugi državi članici.
of consumer protection can promote what is known as ‘passive’ free movement of goods and freedom to provide services, in terms of which consumers purchase goods or receive services in other Member States.
43Za zagotovitev prostega pretoka blaga in storitev morajo imeti potro�niki čim bolj izenačene pogoje za nakup blaga in prejem storitev, kar velja tudi za pogoje glede neodplačnosti zamenjave.
43In order to ensure free movement of goods and freedom to provide services, the conditions applied to consumers in relation to the purchase of goods and the receipt of services must be as uniform as possible, including the conditions relating to the ‘free of charge’ requirement attaching to the replacement of goods.
Ti pogoji so lahko zaradi možnosti prodajalčevega zahtevka za plačilo nadomestila za uporabo v Nemčiji manj ugodni, kar lahko privede do motenj na notranjem trgu in omejitev prostega pretoka blaga in storitev.
Those conditions may be less favourable in Germany, because the seller is able to demand compensation for use, and that
V zvezi s tem naj omenim, da v nekaterih drugih državah članicah prodajalec od potro�nika ne more zahtevati
The fact that the aim of Direct- ive 1999/44 45 is to improve the functioning of
Da je izbolj�anje delovanja notranjega trga namen Direktive 1999/44, 45izhaja tudi
42 — On this point, I would refer to the fifth recital in the preamble to Directive 1999/44, according to which a common set of minimum rules of consumer law will strengthen consumer confidence and enable consumers to make the most of the internal market.
42 – V tem smislu naj navedem peto uvodno izjavo Direktive 1999/44, ki opozarja, da bodo minimalna pravila na področju prava varstva potro�nikov okrepila zaupanje potro�nikov, ki bodo lahko lažje izkoristili prednosti notranjega trga.
28, paragraph 16.
28, točka 16.
In its Green Paper on the review of the consumer acquis (COM(2006) 744 final, p.
Tudi Komisija v Zeleni knjigi o pregledu pravnega reda Skupnosti o varstvu potro�nikov, KOM (2006) 744 konč., str.
4), the Commission stated that ‘consumers’ confidence in the internal market must be stimulated by ensuring a high level of protection across the EU’.
4, poudarja, da je „zaupanje potro�nikov v notranji trg […] treba krepiti z zagotavljanjem visoke ravni varstva po vsej EU“.
44 — See, for example, Austrian, French, Irish, Slovenian and Spanish law.
44 – Glej, na primer, avstrijsko, francosko, irsko, slovensko in �pansko zakonodajo. V Avstriji glej člen 8(3) Konsumentenschutzgesetz in člen 932(1) do (3) Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Obči državljanski zakonik); v Franciji glej člena L. 211-9 in L. 211-10 code de la consommation (Potro�ni�ki zakonik); na Irskem glej Reg.
43 — In its caselaw the Court has frequently mentioned the importance of the passive side of free movement of goods and freedom to provide services.
V zvezi s pasivnim prostim pretokom storitev glej, na primer, sodbo z dne 31. januarja 1984 v združenih zadevah Luisi in Carbone (286/82 in 26/83, Recueil, str.
As regards passive freedom to provide services, see inter alia Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone [1984] ECR 377, paragraph 10, and Case C-318/05 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-6957, paragraph 65.
377, točka 10) in sodbo z dne 11. septembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (C-318/05, ZOdl., str. I-6957, točka 65).
As regards passive free movement of goods, see inter alia Case C-362/88 GB-INNO-BM [1990] ECR I-667.
V zvezi s pasivnim prostim pretokom blaga glej, na primer, sodbo z dne 7. marca 1990 GB-INNO-BM (362/88, Recueil, str. I-667).
On the same problem, see also J.C. Wichard, in C. Calliess and M. Ruffert (eds), EUV/EGV. Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta.
V zvezi s to problematiko glej tudi Wichard, J. C., v Calliess, C., Ruffert, M. (ur.), EUV/EGV. Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta.
According to the caselaw and academic comment, Article 95 EC can provide a legal basis for a Community measure only if that measure is intended to improve the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market and genuinely has that object, actually contributing to the elimination of obstacles to the free movement of goods or to the freedom to provide services, or to the removal of distortions of competition.
46 Iz sodne prakse in teorije izhaja, da je lahko člen 95 ES pravna podlaga za predpis Skupnosti le, če je njegov namen dejansko prispevati k vzpostavitvi in izbolj�anju pogojev delovanja notranjega trga in če prispeva k odstranitvi ovir za prosti pretok blaga ali storitev ali k preprečevanju izkrivljanja konkurence.
47Measures which harmonise those tual structure of this recital that it refers only to rescission of the contract.
47Na podlagi tega člena ni mogoče sprejeti predpisov, ki imajo zgolj postranski učinek na harmonizacijo teh pogojev.
conditions merely by way of incidental effect cannot be enacted on the basis of Article 95 EC. 48
48 zahtevek za nadomestilo za uporabo. Prvič je treba opozoriti na formalni (zunanji) vidik te določbe.
Nor can a contextual interpretation support the conclusion that, by virtue of the 15th recital in the preamble thereto, Direct- ive 1999/44 makes it permissible to claim compensation for use. It is necessary to
Tudi s sistematično razlago ne moremo priti do sklepa, da Direktiva 1999/44 na podlagi petnajste uvodne izjave dopu�ča
46 — K. Reisenhuber (cited above, footnote 38), p.
46 – Na to, da lahko pravna podlaga nakazuje na cilj predpisa, opozarja tudi Reisenhuber, K., Die Auslegung, v Reisenhuber, K., Europäische Methodenlehre. Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis, De Gruyter Recht, Berlin 2006, str.
Second, a contextual interpretation must have regard to the overall conceptual (internal) structure of Directive 1999/44, which must be assumed to form a coherent whole with no internal inconsistencies.
Drugič pa je v okviru sistematične razlage treba upo�tevati vsebinsko (notranjo) sistematiko celotne Direktive 1999/44, ki mora biti koherentna celota, v kateri ni notranjih protislovij.
50If, on the basis of the 15th recital, the Direct- ive were construed as permitting the seller to claim compensation for use, that would mean that there is an internal inconsistency as between that recital and Article 3 of the Directive which provides that the delivery of
50 Če bi na podlagi petnajste uvodne izjave dopustili zahtevek prodajalca za nadomestilo za uporabo, bi pri�li v notranje protislovje med to uvodno izjavo in členom 3 te direktive, ki zahteva neodplačnost zamenjave. Poleg tega moram poudariti, da petnajsta uvodna izjava v takem pomenu,
49 — On arguments relating to the ‘external’ scheme, see by way of literature inter alia Larenz, Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft, 6th edition, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991, p. 326.
49 – O argumentaciji v zvezi z „zunanjim“ sistemom v pravni teoriji glej npr. Larenz, Methodenlehre der Rechtswissen­schaft, 6. izdaja, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 1991, str. 326.
50 — In the literature, the absence of inconsistencies as an argument of contextual interpretation is referred to by R. Alexy (cited above, footnote 36), p. 240.
50 – Na odsotnost protislovij kot argument sistematične razlage v pravni teoriji opozarja Alexy, R., A Theory of Legal Argumen­tation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989, str. 240.
QUELLE replacement goods is to be free of charge. In addition, it should be pointed out that, if the 15th recital does indeed carry the meaning attributed to it by the German Government, its content is not reflected in the enacting terms of Directive 1999/44.
QUELLE kot ji ga pripisuje nem�ka vlada, nima ustreznice v določbi normativnega dela Direktive 1999/44.
evidence for the fact that the Community legislature clearly intended to provide that not only repair but also replacement of goods should be free of charge, and that it therefore did not follow the original wording used in the Commission’s proposal.
Skupnosti nedvomno hotel zahtevati tudi neodplačnost zamenjave blaga, in ne le neodplačnosti popravila ter s tem ni sledil prvotnemu besedilu predloga Komisije.
A corresponding conclusion may also be drawn from the press release prepared by the Conciliation Committee, 54 on which the German Government relies and which is said to prove that the expression ‘free of charge’ covers only the costs of repair, in particular the cost of postage, labour and materials.
Do podobnega sklepa lahko pridemo v zvezi z izjavo za tisk spravnega odbora, 54 na katero se sklicuje nem�ka vlada in ki naj bi dokazovala, da se pojem „neodplačnost“ omejuje na stro�ke popravila, zlasti stro�ke po�iljanja, dela in materiala.
The wording of Directive 1999/44 differs from the wording of that press release, which is further proof of the fact that Directive 1999/44 was clearly intended to provide that the replacement of goods is to be free of charge. 55
Besedilo Direktive 1999/44 se od besedila te izjave razlikuje, kar je spet dokaz za to, da je Direktiva 1999/44 hotela nedvoumno vpeljati tudi neodplačnost zamenjave blaga. 55
I find it just as difficult to agree with the German Government’s argument that a historical interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 1999/44 shows that the seller can require the consumer to pay compensation for use.
Prav tako se ne morem strinjati z navedbami nem�ke vlade, da zgodovinska razlaga člena 3(2) Direktive 1999/44 kaže na to, da lahko prodajalec od potro�nika zahteva plačilo nadomestila za uporabo.
The fact that the wording used in the Commission’s last proposal — ‘to repair the goods free of charge … or to replace the goods’ 51 — was changed in Direct- ive 1999/44 to ‘to repair the goods or … to replace them, in either case free of charge’ 52
Dejstvo, da se je od zadnjega predloga Komisije formulacija v Direktivi 1999/44 spremenila iz „neodplačno popravilo ali zamenjava blaga“ 51v „neodplačno popravilo ali neodplačna zamenjava blaga“ 52, je
It should also be emphasised that even if a historical interpretation is thought to point to the result suggested by the German Government, that method of interpretation is not sufficient in itself and cannot be is in any event an argument in favour of the view that the replacement of goods must also be free of charge in every respect.
Treba pa je poudariti tudi, da – četudi bi zgodovinska razlaga nakazovala na re�itev, kakr�no predlaga nem�ka vlada – ta vrsta razlage sama zase ne zado�ča in ne more kvečjemu argument v prid temu, da mora biti tudi zamenjava blaga v vseh pogledih neodplačna.
53I regard that change of wording as additional
53 V tej spremembi dikcije vidim dodaten dokaz za to, da je zakonodajalec
54 — Conciliation Committee of the European Parliament and the Council, Joint text on guarantees for consumer goods, Brussels, 18 March 1999, C/99/77.
54 – Spravni odbor Evropski parlament – Svet, Soglasje o garancijah za potro�ni�ko blago, Bruselj, 18. marec 1999, dok. �t. C/99/77.
51 — Article 3(4) of the amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (COM(1998) 217 final — COD 96/0161, OJ 1998 C 148, p. 12).
51 – Člen 3(4) Spremenjenega predloga Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o prodaji potro�ni�kega blaga in garancijah (KOM(1998) 217 konč. – 96/0161(COD), UL C 148, 14.5.1998, str.
52 — Emphasis added.
52 – Poudarek dodan.
53 — See Case 15/60 Simon v Court of Justice [1961] ECR 115, in which the Court held that in the absence of evidence to the contrary any difference between the wording of a proposal for a provision and its final version involves a difference in meaning. In the literature, see C. Baldus, ‘Historische und vergleichende Auslegung im Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht — Zur Konkretisierung der geringfügigen Vertragswidrigkeit’, in C. Baldus and P.-C. Müller-Graff (eds), Die Generalklausel im Europäischen Privatrecht, Sellier.
Poudarilo je, da se izjave iz zapisnika Sveta, če ni povzeta v besedilo določbe sekundarne zakonodaje, ne sme navajati za razlago omenjene določbe. Glej sodbe z dne 26. februarja 1991 v zadevi Antonissen (C-292/89, Recueil, str. I-745, točka 18); v zadevi Epson Europe (C-375/98, Recueil, str.
European Law Publishers, Munich, 2006, p. 4.
I-199, točka 42) in z dne 19. aprila 2007 v zadevi Farrell (C-356/05, ZOdl., str.
55 — Similarly, the Court has held in its caselaw that the content of preparatory documents cannot be drawn upon in interpreting a provision of secondary legislation if it has not found any expression in the provision in question.
53 – Glej sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 1. junija 1961 v zadevi Gabriel Simon (15/60, Recueil, str.
The Court has held that a declaration adopted in a Council protocol cannot be used for the purpose of interpreting a provision of secondary legislation where no reference is made to it in the wording of the provision in question.
225), v kateri je poudarilo, da razlika v besedilu predloga določbe in njene končne različice pomeni tudi razliko v pomenu, razen ko obstajajo dokazi za drugačno sklepanje. V teoriji prim. Baldus, C., Historische und vergleichende Auslegung im Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht – Zur Konkretisierung der geringfügigen Vertragswidrigkeit, v Baldus, C., Müller-Graff, P.-C. (ur.), Die Generalklausel im Europäischen Privatrecht, Sellier. European Law Publishers, München 2006, str. 4.
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-404/06
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI V. – ZADEVA C-404/06 biti odločilna, 56saj ima pri razlagi predpisov Skupnosti le postransko vlogo.
57 The true meaning of rules of Commu- cannot be invoked in the context of the problem of entitlement to compensation for use.
57 Pravi
nity law can be derived only from those rules themselves, in the light of their context and purpose. 58
pomen določbe prava Skupnosti se lahko izpelje samo iz določbe same, ob upo�tevanju njenega konteksta in namena. 58
The first relates to the case of Schulte, and the second to the question whether the consumer is unjustifiably enriched by the exchange of the goods.
Prvi se nana�a na zadevo Schulte, drugi pa na vpra�anje, ali je potro�nik ob zamenjavi stvari neupravičeno obogaten.
56 — See the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-284/04 T-Mobile Austriaand Others [2007] ECR I-5189, point 88, and in Robins and Others (cited above, footnote 55), points 80 and 81.
I-5189, točka 88) ter z dne 13. julija 2006 v zadevi Robins in Burnett (C-278/05, ZOdl., str. I-1053, točki 80 in 81).
In the first place, Schulte concerned the protection of consumers in situations where the contract is rescinded, that is to say, rights wholly distinct from the replacement of goods.
Po eni strani se zadeva Schulte nana�a na varstvo potro�nikov v primeru odstopa od pogodbe, ki je zahtevek z drugačnimi značilnostmi kakor zamenjava stvari.
In addition, Schulte did not concern rescission of the contract on account of a lack of conformity in the goods purchased — as is provided for in Article 3(5) of Direct- ive 1999/44 — but cancellation of a loan agreement.
Pri tem moram poudariti tudi, da v zadevi Schulte ni �lo za odstop od pogodbe zaradi napake stvari, kakor je urejen v členu 3(5) Direktive 1999/44, temveč za običajen odstop od pogodbe.
In Schulte, the Court held that Directive 85/577/EEC 60does not preclude national legislation ‘which provides for an obligation on the consumer, in the event of cancellation of a secured credit agreement, not only to repay the amounts received under the contract but also to pay to the lender interest at the market rate’.
Sodi�če je v zadevi Schulte odločilo, da Direktiva 85/577 60ne nasprotuje temu, da nacionalno pravo določa, da „mora potro�nik ob odstopu od kreditne pogodbe za nakup nepremičnine ne samo vrniti zneske, ki jih je prejel na podlagi te pogodbe, temveč posojilodajalcu izplačati obresti po tržni obrestni meri“.