natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘Where an employed or selfemployed person has been subject successively to the legislation of two Member States during the period separating two dates for the payment of family benefits as provided for by the legislation of one or both of the Member States concerned, the following rules shall apply:
„Kadar za zaposleno ali samozaposleno osebo zaporedoma velja zakonodaja dveh držav članic v obdobju med dvema datumoma za izplačilo družinskih dajatev, kot sta določena z zakonodajo ene ali obeh držav članic, se uporabljajo naslednja pravila:
(a) the family benefits which the person concerned may claim by virtue of being subject to the legislation of each one of these States shall correspond to the
(a) Družinske dajatve, ki jih lahko oseba zahteva na podlagi tega, da je zanjo veljala zakonodaja vsake od teh držav, ustrezajo �tevilu izplačljivih dnevnih dajatev, ki
2008 — CASE C-507/06 number of daily benefits due under the relevant legislation.
2008 – ZADEVA C-507/06 izhajajo iz te zakonodaje.
Where such legislation does not provide for daily benefits, the family benefits shall be granted in proportion to the length of time during which the person concerned has been subject to the legislation of each one of the Member States in relation to the period fixed by the legislation concerned;
Kadar katera od zakonodaj ne določa dnevnih dajatev, se družinske dajatve dodelijo glede na sorazmerni del časa, v katerem je za osebo veljala zakonodaja vsake od držav članic v obdobju, ki ga določa zakonodaja.
(b) where the family benefits have been provided by an institution during a period when they should have been provided by another institution, there shall be an adjustment of accounts between the said institutions;
(b) Kadar družinske dajatve zagotavlja nosilec v obdobju, ko bi jih moral zagotoviti drugi nosilec, se računi med omenjenima nosilcema ustrezno poravnajo.
Austrian law
Avstrijska ureditev
Paragraph 5 of the Law on childcare allowance (Kinderbetreuungsgeldgesetz) of 8 August 2001 (BGBl.
Člen 5 zakona o nadomestilu za varstvo otroka (Kinderbetreuungsgeldgesetz) z dne 8. avgusta 2001 (BGBl.
I 103/2001, the ‘KBGG’) provides:
I, 103/2001, v nadaljevanju: KBGG) določa:
Childcare allowance shall be paid at the most until the child reaches the age of 36 months unless otherwise provided below.
Ob upo�tevanju spodaj navedenih določb pripada nadomestilo za varstvo otroka najdlje do takrat, dokler otrok ne dopolni starosti 36 mesecev.
If only one parent claims childcare allowance it shall be paid at the most until the child reaches the age of 30 months.
Če nadomestilo za varstvo otroka uveljavlja le eden od star�ev, pripada to nadomestilo najdlje do takrat, dokler otrok ne dopolni starosti 30 mesecev.
If the second parent also claims childcare allowance then the duration of entitlement is extended beyond the age of 30 months for such period as the second parent claims childcare allowance, but not later than the date on which the child reaches the age of 36 months.
Če nadomestilo za varstvo otroka uveljavlja tudi drugi od star�ev, se trajanje upravičenosti do nadomestila podalj�a za obdobje, za katero drugi od star�ev uveljavlja to nadomestilo, vendar najdlje do takrat, dokler otrok ne dopolni starosti 36 mesecev.
Both parents may take it in turns to draw childcare allowance, in the course of which two changes per child are permitted. …’
Nadomestilo za varstvo otroka lahko oba star�a prejemata le izmenoma, pri čemer je za vsakega otroka dopustna dvakratna izmenjava. […]“
Until 18 August 2004, she was resident in Germany, where, on 11 April 2004, her daughter was born.
Do 18. avgusta 2004 je stalno prebivala v Nemčiji, kjer se je 11. aprila 2004 rodila njena hči. C. Kraler, avstrijski državljan, partner M.
For that purpose, Mr Kraler’s employer, the University of Innsbruck, granted him unpaid leave.
Kraler pri univerzi v Innsbrucku, ki je njegov delodajalec v Avstriji, koristil neplačan dopust. M.
Her application for payment of that allowance to be extended until 10 April 2007 was rejected by a decision of the Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse of 3 May 2006.
Njena vloga za podalj�anje prejemanja tega nadomestila do 10. aprila 2007 je bila z odločbo Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse z dne 3. maja 2006 zavrnjena.
2008 — CASE C-507/06 where only one parent claims childcare allowance, it is to be paid for a maximum of 30 months following the birth of the child concerned, but that if the second parent also claims (or has claimed) childcare allowance, the right to that allowance can be granted for 36 months, with both parents taking it in turns to draw that allowance.
Ta zavrnitev temelji na členu 5(2) KBGG, ki določa, da če nadomestilo za varstvo otroka uveljavlja le eden od star�ev, mu to nadomestilo pripada najdlje za obdobje 30 mesecev od rojstva zadevnega otroka, da pa se lahko, če to nadomestilo uveljavlja tudi drugi od star�ev, pravico do nadomestila dodeli za obdobje 36 mesecev, pri čemer lahko star�i navedeno nadomestilo prejemajo le izmenoma.
KLÖPPEL way as domestic periods of drawing for the purposes of entitlement in that second Member State, if, during those periods of drawing, both parents are to be regarded as employed persons under Article 1(a)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71?’
KLÖPPEL državi članici (v tem primeru Avstrija, dodatek za nego otroka (Kinderbetreuungsgeld)) obravnavati enako in jih zato opredeliti kot lastna obdobja prejemanja, če se v teh obdobjih oba star�a �tejeta za delavca v skladu s členom 1(a)(i) Uredbe �t. 1408/71?“
Accordingly, if Mr Kraler had cared for his child in Austria and had, on that basis, drawn childcare allowance in that Member State, Ms Klöppel would have a right to claim that allowance for a longer period.
Kraler za svojega otroka skrbel v Avstriji in bi na podlagi tega v tej državi članici prejemal nadomestilo za varstvo otroka, bi bila M. Klöppel upravičena do uveljavljanja navedenega nadomestila za dalj�e obdobje.
In this respect, first of all, it must be observed — as the Austrian Government submits — that Community law does not limit the power of the Member States to organise their social security schemes and that, in the absence of harmonisation at Community level, it is for the legislation of each Member State to lay down the
V zvezi s tem je treba najprej navesti, da, kot zatrjuje avstrijska vlada, pravo Skupnosti ne vpliva na pristojnost držav članic, da organizirajo svoje sisteme socialne varnosti, in da v odsotnosti usklajenosti na ravni Skupnosti vsaka država članica določi pogoje pridobitve dajatev s področja socialne varnosti ter znesek in trajanje le-teh.
However, when exercising that power, the Member States must comply with Community law and, in particular, the EC Treaty provisions on freedom of movement for workers or again the freedom of every citizen of the European Union to move and reside in the territory of the Member States (Case C-135/99 Elsen [2000] ECR I-10409, paragraph 33).
Skupnosti, predvsem določbe Pogodbe ES o prostem gibanju delavcev ali tudi tiste, ki vsakemu državljanu Evropske unije priznavajo pravico, da se giblje in prebiva na ozemlju držav članic (sodba z dne 23. novembra 2000 v zadevi Elsen, C-135/99, Recueil, str. I-10409, točka 33).
Accordingly, conditions imposed by national law must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory where, although applicable irrespective of nationality, they affect essentially migrant workers or the great majority of those affected are migrant workers, where they are applicable without distinction but can more easily be satisfied by national workers than by migrant workers, or where there is a risk that they may operate to the particular detriment of the latter (Celozzi, paragraph 24).
Tako je treba �teti, da so posredno diskriminatorni, čeprav veljajo brez razlikovanja glede na državljanstvo, pogoji nacionalnega prava, ki v glavnem ali v veliki večini prizadenejo delavce migrante, kot tudi pogoji, ki veljajo brez razlikovanja, a jih domači delavci lažje izpolnijo kot delavci migranti, in pogoji, pri katerih obstaja nevarnost, da bodo učinkovali v breme zlasti delavcev migrantov (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Celozzi, točka 24).
It should be noted that the Court does not possess the information that would allow it to examine a possible justification for such a difference in treatment to the detriment of migrant workers.
Poudariti je treba, da Sodi�če nima podatkov, ki bi mu omogočali preučitev morebitne utemeljitve takega različnega obravnavanja v �kodo delavcev migrantov.
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 precludes a Member State from refusing to take into account, for the purposes of granting a family benefit such as the Austrian childcare allowance, the period during which a comparable benefit was drawn in another Member State as if that period had been completed in its own territory.
Glede na navedene ugotovitve je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da člen 3(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 nasprotuje temu, da država članica pri odobritvi družinske dajatve, kakr�no je avstrijsko nadomestilo za varstvo otroka, ne upo�teva obdobja prejemanja primerljive dajatve v drugi državi članici na enak način, kot če bi bilo dopolnjeno na njenem ozemlju.
Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended in turn by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001, precludes a Member State from refusing to take into account, for the purposes of granting a family benefit such as the Austrian childcare allowance, the period during which a comparable benefit was drawn in another Member State as if that period had been completed in its own territory.
Člen 3(1) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 1408/71 z dne 14. junija 1971 o uporabi sistemov socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti, v različici, kot je bila spremenjena in posodobljena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 118/97 z dne 2. decembra 1996, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1386/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 5. junija 2001, nasprotuje temu, da država članica pri odobritvi družinske dajatve, kakršno je avstrijsko nadomestilo za varstvo otroka, ne upošteva obdobja prejemanja primerljive dajatve v drugi državi članici na enak način, kot če bi bilo dopolnjeno na njenem ozemlju.
Case C-132/05
Zadeva C-132/05
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese — Use of the name ‘Parmesan’ — Obligation on a Member State to proceed on its own initiative against the abuse of a protected designation of origin)
„Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Uredba (EGS) �t. 2081/92 – Za�čita geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila – Sir ‚Parmigiano Reggiano‘ – Uporaba imena ‚parmezan‘ – Obveznost države članice, da po uradni dolžnosti sankcionira zlorabo za�čitene označbe porekla“
Opinion of Advocate General Mazák delivered on 28 June 2007 . . . . . .
Mazáka, predstavljeni 28. junija 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 962
I - 962Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 26 February 2008 . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (veliki senat) z dne 26. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 988
Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation No 2081/92
Kmetijstvo – Enotne zakonodaje – Zaščita geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila – Uredba št. 2081/92
(Council Regulation No 2081/92, Arts 13 and 17; Commission Regulation No 1107/96)
(Uredba Sveta št. 2081/92, člena 13 in 17; Uredba Komisije št. 1107/96)
SUMMARY — CASE C-132/05
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-132/05
Acts of the institutions — Regulations — Direct applicability (Art. 249 EC; Council Regulation No 2081/92)
Akti institucij – Uredbe – Neposredna uporaba (člen 249 ES; Uredba Sveta št. 2081/92)
practices referred to in Article 13 of that regulation may be concerned, are matters which fall for determination by the national court on the basis of a detailed analysis of the facts presented before it by the parties concerned.
na področje presoje, ki jo mora izvesti nacionalno sodi�če na podlagi podrobne analize dejanskega stanja, ki mu ga predstavijo zadevne stranke.
(see paras 28-30)
(Glej točke od 28 do 30.)
With regard to a ‘compound’ designation of origin registered pursuant to the simplified procedure provided for under Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, the lack of a declaration for that designation in the form of a reference to footnotes contained in the annex to Regulation No 1107/96, demonstrating that, for certain elements of a designation, the protection conferred by Article 13 of Regulation No 2081/92 was not requested, cannot constitute a sufficient basis for determining the scope of that protection.
Glede „sestavljene“ označbe porekla, registrirane po poenostavljenem postopku, določenem v členu 17 Uredbe �t. 2081/92 o za�čiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila, neobstoj izjave za to poreklo v obliki sklicevanja na opombe v prilogi k Uredbi �t.
The use of the name ‘Parmesan’ must be regarded as an evocation of the protected
Uporabo imena „parmezan“ je treba opredeliti kot navajanje za�čitene označbe porekla „Parmigiano Reggiano“
designation of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ in the sense of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, which protects registered names against any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or if the protected name is translated.
v smislu člena 13(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 2081/92 o za�čiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila, ki �čiti registrirana imena zlasti proti zlorabi, posnemanju ali navajanju, čeprav je pravo poreklo proizvoda označeno ali če je za�čiteno ime prevedeno.
(see paras 46-49)
(Glej točke od 46 do 49.)
When assessing the generic character of a name, it is necessary, under Article 3(1) of Regulation 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, to take into account the places of production of the product concerned both inside and outside the Member State which obtained the registration of the name at issue, the consumption of that product and how it is perceived by consumers inside and outside that Member State, the existence of national legislation specifically relating to that product, and the way in which the name has been used in Community law.
V okviru presoje generičnosti imena je treba na podlagi člena 3(1) Uredbe �t. 2081/92 o za�čiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila upo�tevati kraje proizvodnje zadevnega proizvoda v državi članici in zunaj nje, ki je pridobila registracijo zadevnega imena; potro�nje tega proizvoda in način, kako potro�niki sprejemajo to ime v navedeni državi članici in zunaj nje; obstoj posebne nacionalne zakonodaje v zvezi z navedenim proizvodom in način uporabe navedenega imena v pravu Skupnosti.
There is phonetic and visual similarity between the names ‘Parmesan’ and ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, and that in a situation where the products at issue are hard cheeses, grated or intended to be grated, namely, where they have a similar appearance.
Med imenoma „parmezan“ in „Parmigiano Reggiano“ namreč obstaja fonetična in vidna podobnost, in sicer ko so zadevni proizvodi trdi siri, ki se jih strga ali so namenjeni strganju, torej ko so si na videz podobni.
In addition, regardless of whether the name ‘Parmesan’ is or is not an exact translation of the protected designation of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ or of the term ‘Parmigiano’, the conceptual proximity between those two terms emanating from different languages must also be taken into account.
Poleg tega se mora, neodvisno od vpra�anja, ali je ime „parmezan“ natančen prevod za�čitene označbe porekla „Parmigiano Reggiano“ ali izraza „Parmigiano“ ali ne, prav tako upo�tevati konceptualna bližina med dvema izrazoma v različnih jezikih.
That proximity and those phonetic and visual similarities are such as to bring to the mind of the consumer the cheese protected by the protected designation of origin ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, when he is confronted
Taka bližina ter fonetične in vidne podobnosti lahko privedejo potro�nika do tega, da kadar se sreča s trdim sirom, ki se strga ali je namenjen strganju in se imenuje „parmezan“, pomisli na sir, ki uživa
SUMMARY — CASE C-132/05 by a protected designation of origin, in particular the interests of consumers.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-132/05 teno označbo porekla, zlasti interesov potro�nikov.
national courts cannot release the Member States from their duty to take the national measures which may be needed to ensure its full application.
uredbe, ne bi mogla odvezati držav članic, da sprejmejo nacionalne ukrepe, ki bi omogočali njihovo polno uporabo, če bi bilo to potrebno.
(see paras 68-70)
(Glej točke od 68 do 70.)
There is no obligation on the Member States under Article 10 of Regulation No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs to take on their own initiative the measures necessary to penalise infringements of Article 13(1)(b) of that regulation, which protects registered names against any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or if the protected name is translated.
2081/92 o za�čiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila ne izhaja obveznost držav članic, da morajo po uradni dolžnosti sprejeti potrebne ukrepe za sankcioniranje kr�itev čle -na 13(1)(b) navedene uredbe, ki �čiti registrirana imena zlasti proti zlorabi, posnemanju ali navajanju, čeprav je pravo poreklo proizvoda označeno ali če je za�čiteno ime prevedeno. Res je, da je za zagotovitev učinkovitosti določb Uredbe �t.
It is true that, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the provisions of Regulation No 2081/92, Article 10(1) of that regulation provides that the Member States shall ensure that inspection structures are in place not later than six months after its entry into force.
2081/92 v njenem členu 10(1) določeno, da države članice zagotovijo, da bodo najpozneje v �estih mesecih po začetku veljavnosti te uredbe vzpostavljene strukture nadzora.
They are therefore obliged to create such structures.
Torej so zavezane za uvedbo takih struktur.
Nevertheless, Article 10(4) of that regulation, by providing that ‘if a designated inspection authority and/or private body in a Member State establishes that an agricultural product or a foodstuff bearing a protected name of origin in
Vendar člen 10(4) te uredbe s tem, da določa, da „[č]e pristojni kontrolni organ in/ali zasebni subjekt ugotovita, da kmetijski proizvod ali živilo, ki nosi za�čiteno ime s poreklom, v tisti državi članici ne izpolnjuje kriterijev in zahtev specifikacije, bosta izvedla potrebne ukrepe, da se zagotovi skladnost s to uredbo. […]“, kaže na to, da pristojni kontrolni organ in/ali zasebni subjekt države članice i™ata iz države članice, iz katere izhaja za�čitena
COMMISSION v GERMANY conjunction with Article 5(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2081/92, which require that the application for registration includes the specification, that that application is addressed to the Member State in which the geographical area is located, and that the specification includes ‘details of the inspection structures provided for in Article 10’.
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI nahaja zadevno geografsko območje, in da mora navedena specifikacija vsebovati „podrobnosti o strukturi kontrole iz člena 10“.
It follows that the inspection structures whose task it is to ensure compliance with the protected designation of origin specification are those of the Member State from which the protected designation of origin in question comes.
Iz tega izhaja, da se obveznost zagotavljanja spo�tovanja specifikacije nana�a na tisto strukturo nadzora, ki je v državi članici, iz katere izhaja zadevna za�čitena označba porekla.
The reference to the ‘producers or processors subject to their control’ in Article 10(3) of that regulation, like the producers’ right of access to the inspection system provided for in Article 10(6), and their obligation under Article 10(7) to bear the costs of the inspections, confirm that Article 10 concerns the obligations of the Member States from which the protected designation of origin comes.
Navedba „proizvajalcev ali predelovalcev, ki jih ta kontrola zadeva“ v členu 10(3) navedene uredbe in pravica proizvajalcev, da imajo dostop do kontrolnega sistema iz odstavka 6 tega člena, ter njihova obveznost, da nosijo stro�ke kontrole iz odstavka 7 istega člena, potrjujejo, da so v navedenem členu 10 obravnavane obveznosti držav članic, iz katerih izhaja za�čitena označba porekla.
That interpretation is reinforced by the provisions of Articles 4(2)(g) in
Taka razlaga je potrjena tudi s kombiniranimi določbami členov 4(2)(g) in 5(3) in (4) Uredbe �t.
(see paras 72-78)
(Glej točke od 72 do 78.)
MAZÁKdelivered on 28 June 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAJÀNA MAZÀKA, predstavljeni 28. junija 2007 1
Assuming the protection granted to the registered PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ extends to the German word ‘Parmesan’, is a Member State required to prosecute ex officio an infringement of the Basic Regulation such as the marketing under the name ‘Parmesan’ of cheese which does not comply with the specification for ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’?
Ta zadeva odpira tudi vpra�anje ukrepov, ki jih morajo države članice sprejeti za uveljavitev za�čite po Temeljni uredbi. Ali mora država članica po uradni dolžnosti preganjati kr�itev Temeljne uredbe, kot je trženje sira pod imenom „Parmesan“, ki ne ustreza specifikaciji za „Parmigiano Reggiano“, če domnevamo, da se za�čita registrirane ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ razteza na nem�ko besedo „Parmesan“?
In the present case the Commission seeks a declaration under Article 226 EC that, by formally refusing to prosecute on its territory the placing on the market of cheese, under the designation ‘Parmesan’, which does not comply with the specification for the protected designation of origin (‘PDO’) ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, Germany infringes Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs 2 (the ‘Basic Regulation’).
V tej zadevi zahteva Komisija ugotovitev na podlagi člena 226 ES, da Nemčija s formalno zavrnitvijo pregona dajanja na trg sira z označbo „Parmesan“, ki ne ustreza specifikaciji za�čitene označbe porekla (ZOP) „Parmigiano Reggiano“, na svojem ozemlju kr�i člen 13(1)(b) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 2081/92 z dne 14. julija 1992 o za�čiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila 2(v nadaljevanju: Temeljna uredba).
A — Regulation No 2081/92
A – Uredba št. 2081/92
Article 2 of Regulation No 2081/92 provides:
2081/92 določa:
Moreover, the present case also raises the question of the measures which Member States are required to take in order to enforce the protection provided by the Basic
Ali se za�čita registrirane ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ razteza tudi na nem�ko besedo „Parmesan“? To vpra�anje je jedro tega postopka o neizpolnitvi obveznosti, ki ga je Komisija sprožila proti Nemčiji.
Community protection of designations of origin and of geographical indications of
Za�čita Skupnosti za označbe porekla in geografske označbe kmetijskih proizvodov in živil se pridobi v skladu s to uredbo.
For the purposes of this Regulation:
„Imena, ki so postala generična, se ne smejo registrirati.