natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That provision had expressly and exceptionally excluded the use of the term ‘cuvée’ from the principle of prohibition which applied in the legislation on wine at that time (cf. Lamborelle, J.-C., Pillot, J., Code du vin 1999 commenté et annoté, Causse, 1999, p. 241 et seq.).
Ta predpis je izrecno in izjemoma izvzel uporabo izraza „cuvée“ iz načela prepovedi, ki je prevladoval v takratnih predpisih o vinu (glej Lamborelle, J.-C., Pillot, J., Code du vin 1999 commenté et annoté, Causse, 1999, str.
The new French legislation on wine contains similar provisions in Article L 644-2 of the Code rural, but that particular is not registered in Annex III to Regulation No 753/2002.
Novi francoski predpisi o vinu vsebujejo podobna pravila v členu L 644-2 Code rural, vendar ta navedba ni vnesena v Prilogo III k Uredbi �t. 753/2002.
Nor is this affected by the consideration that the use of an ‘other particular’ for the labelling of wines could possibly lead an uninformed consumer wrongly to assume that it is a regulated, i.e. legally defined, particular.
Pri tem ne spremeni ničesar niti argumentacija, da bi zaradi uporabe „druge navedbe“ pri označevanju vin neobve�čeni potro�nik morda napačno domneval, da gre za regulirano, to pomeni zakonsko opredeljeno navedbo.
The prohibition on misleading information under the legislation on wine designations does serve the purpose of preventing, in the marketing of wine, all practices which are of such a nature as to create false appearances.
Sicer je namen prepovedi zavajanja v predpisih o označevanju ta, da se pri prodaji vina izključi vsa ravnanja, ki bi lahko povzročila napačen vtis.
26However, as has already been mentioned above, the Court has consistently held that a factual approach should be taken.
26Vendar je pri tem, kot je bilo že omenjeno, v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča nakazan konkreten način obravnavanja.
27The purely abstract risk of the appearance of a protected designation cannot mean that the use of an unregulated particular is not permitted, as long as consumers are not actually misled in a specific case: that would not be consistent with the balancing of the interests involved, as desired by the Commission legislature, that is to say between consumer protection and the protection of the intellectual property rights of the person marketing
27 Popolnoma abstraktna nevarnost vtisa za�čitene označbe ne more povzročiti, da bi bila uporaba nereguliranih navedb nedopustna, dokler ni podano konkretno dejansko zavajanje potro�nika – to bi nasprotovalo tehtanju interesov med varstvom potro�nikov in varstvom lastninskih pravic trgovca, za katerega si
26 — Case 56/80 Weigand [1981] ECR 583, paragraph 18.
26 – Sodba z dne 25. februarja 1981 v zadevi Weigand (56/80, Recueil, str.
27 — Case C-303/97 Sektkellerei Kessler (cited above in footnote 19, paragraph 32 et seq.); Case C-81/01 Borie Manoux [2002] ECR I-9259, paragraph 27 et seq.
27 – Sodba Sektkellerei Kessler (navedena v opombi 19, točki 32 in 33); sodba z dne 24. oktobra 2002 v zadevi Borie Manoux (C-81/01, Recueil, str. I-9259, točka 27 in naslednje).
25 — Case C-303/97 Sektkellerei Kessler (cited above in footnote 19, paragraph 36).
25 – Sodba Sektkellerei Kessler (navedena v opombi 19, točka 36).
It is for the national court to assess whether an appellation, brand name or advertising statement may be misleading.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora presoditi, ali je označevanje, znamka ali ogla�evanje morda zavajajoče.
In this case, it is for the national court to assess in the light of the circumstances whether, bearing in mind the consumers to whom it is addressed, a brand name or its component parts are liable to be confused with all or part of the description of certain wines.
Na podlagi okoli�čin posameznega primera mora preizkusiti, ali se lahko znamka ali njeni sestavni deli ob upo�tevanju pričakovanja potro�nika, ki mu je namenjena, zamenja s celotno označbo ali le enim delom te označbe določenih vin.
In that respect, it is also apparent from the Court’s caselaw that the national court must take into account the presumed expectations of an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.
Pri tem se mora, kot izhaja tudi iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča, nacionalno sodi�če opreti na domnevno pričakovanje povprečno obve�čenega, pozornega in preudarnega potro�nika.
the wine.
prizadeva zakonodajalec Skupnosti.
28This statement must hold a fortiori in the reformed legislation on wine designations.
28Ta izjava mora veljati toliko bolj v reformiranih predpisih o označevanju vin.
Otherwise the principle of prior authorisation of unregulated particulars would be completely undermined: The argument that the appearance of a regulated term might be produced can be made with regard to any other particular. 29
V nasprotnem primeru bi se načelo a priori dopustnosti nereguliranih navedb popolnoma zaob�lo: argument, da bi bilo mogoče vtis reguliranega izraza ustvariti, se navsezadnje lahko navede zoper vsako drugo navedbo. 29
C — The second question
C – Drugo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
Lastly I would like to make clear that the fact that the term ‘Réserve’ refers to the production or ageing method for the wine is not sufficient to prohibit its use for German wines.
Končno bi želela pojasniti �e to, da dejstvo, da se izraz „Réserve“ nana�a na postopek proizvodnje, priprave ali staranja vina, �e ne zado�ča za to, da bi se prepovedala njegova uporaba za nem�ka vina.
In order to be able to prohibit it, either a specific risk of misleading consumers would have to be established or an express provision would have to prohibit its use.
Za tako prepoved bi bilo treba bodisi dokazati konkretno nevarnost zavajanja bodisi bi morala uporabo izrecno prepovedati predpis.
With its second question the Bundesverwaltungsgericht is seeking to ascertain whether Article 24(2)(a) of Regulation No 753/2002 is to be interpreted as meaning that imitation or evocation exists only if it is in the same language as that of the protected traditional term.
BVerwG želi z drugim vpra�anjem izvedeti, ali je treba člen 24(2)(a) Uredbe �t. 753/2002 razlagati tako, da gre za protipravno ponarejanje ali namigovanje le takrat, če do njega pride v istem jeziku, v katerem je za�čiteni tradicionalni izraz.
The answer to the first question must therefore be that a particular which refers to the production or ageing method or the quality of the wine may be permitted not only as a regulated ‘optional particular’ in accordance with the fifth indent of
Na prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje je torej treba odgovoriti tako, da je lahko navedba, ki se nana�a na postopek proizvodnje, priprave ali staranja oziroma na kakovost vina, dopustna kot regulirana
Under Article 24(2) of Regulation No 753/2002 traditional terms are protected against ‘all misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the protected term is accompanied by an expression such as “kind”, “type”, “style”, “imitation”, “brand” or similar’.
V skladu s členom 24(2) Uredbe �t. 753/2002 je tradicionalni izraz za�čiten pred „vsako protipravno prilastitvijo, ponarejanjem ali namigovanjem na povezanost z njimi, tudi če se za�čiteni izraz uporablja z izrazi, kakor so ‚vrsta‘, ‚tip‘, ‚slog‘, ‚ponaredek‘, ‚znamka‘ ali podobno“.
28 — Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed in Case C-81/01 Borie Manoux (cited above in footnote 9, point 47).
28 – Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Geelhoeda k sodbi Borie Manoux (navedena v opombi 9, točka 47).
As in national legal orders, Community law includes the principle that the text should be interpreted by itself according to
Podobno kot v nacionalnih pravnih redih velja v pravu Skupnosti načelo, da je treba besedilo razlagati dobesedno. Treba je
30Only where, by reason of the divergences that exist between the versions of the text in different languages, it does not lend itself to a clear and uniform interpretation on the point in question must it be interpreted by reference to the purpose and the general scheme of the provisions.
Šele ko iz besedila določbe zaradi odstopanj, ki obstajajo med različnimi jezikovnimi različicami, ni mogoče doseči jasne in enotne razlage v spornem vpra�anju, je treba pri razlagi izhajati iz cilja in celotnega sistema pravila.
31When the wording of secondary Community law is open to more than one interpretation, preference should be given to ‘the interpretation which renders the provision consistent with the Treaty.
31Določbo sekundarnega prava Skupnosti, ki potrebuje razlago, je treba po možnosti razlagati tudi tako, „da je združljiva s pravili Pogodbe.
An implementing regulation must also be given, if possible, an interpretation consistent with the provisions of the basic regulation’. 32
Poleg tega je treba izvedbeno uredbo, če je mogoče, razlagati tako, da je združljiva z določbami temeljne uredbe“. 32
The silence of an implementing regulation regarding a certain situation which is regulated (differently) in the basic regulation is not always a gap in the law contrary to the legislative scheme.
Molk izvedbene uredbe v zvezi z določenim dejanskim stanjem, ki je v temeljni uredbi (drugače) urejeno, ni vedno nenačrtovana pravna praznina. 35Poleg tega je lahko ravno namen razlike med besedilom temeljne Uredbe �t.
35 Rather, the difference in the wording of the basic Regulation No 1493/1999 and the implementing Regulation No 753/2002 may also, according to the spirit and purpose of the rules, be intended to restrict the scope of the prohibition.
1493/1999 in izvedbene Uredbe �t. 753/2002, zlasti glede na smisel in namen ureditve, tudi omejitev področja uporabe prepovedi.
32 — Case C-90/92 Tretter [1993] ECR I-3569, paragraph 11.
32 – Sodba z dne 24. junija 1993 v zadevi Tretter (C-90/92, Recueil, str.
33 — This statement applies not only to the German language version, but also, for example, to the Slovenian, English, French, Spanish and Italian versions.
33 – Ta ugotovitev ne velja le za nem�ko jezikovno različico, ampak na primer tudi za slovensko, angle�ko, francosko, �pansko in italijansko.
35 — See my Opinion in Case [2007] ECR I-5609, point 40.
I-5609, točka 40).
SCHNEIDER which are listed in that Annex alongside the wine categories: The Annex equally specifies the scope of the prohibition on imitation with regard to all categories listed therein.
SCHNEIDER vin – priloga je v zvezi z vsemi kategorijami, ki so v njej navedene, v enaki meri specifikacija področja uporabe prepovedi ponarejanja.
In addition to the differences already highlighted in the wording of Regulations No 1493/1999 and No 753/2002, the scope of the protection for traditional terms is typically different, as far as translations are concerned, from that in the case of protected designations of origin. 36
753/2002 je za tradicionalne izraze značilen drugačen obseg za�čite v zvezi s prevodi kot v primeru za�čitenih označb porekla. 36
Article 24 of Regulation No 753/2002 itself confirms this interpretation, because under the second paragraph of Article 24(4) the protection of a traditional term expressly applies only for the language(s) in which it appears in Annex III.
Člen 24 Uredbe �t. 753/2002 potrjuje to razlago, saj v skladu z njegovim odstavkom 4, drugi pododstavek, velja za�čita tradicionalnega izraza izrecno samo za jezik(-e), v katerem(-ih) je naveden v Prilogi III.
In connection with the deliberate omission of translations from the prohibition on imitation under Article 24(2) of Regulation No 753/2002, it is clear that only the use of the protected term in its own language, that is, in the registered original language, may be prohibited.
V povezavi z zavestno izpustitvijo prevoda v prepovedi ponarejanja člena 24(2) Uredbe �t. 753/2002 iz tega jasno izhaja, da je lahko prepovedana le uporaba za�čitenega izraza v njegovem jeziku, to pomeni registriranem izvirnem jeziku.
Regulation No 753/2002 lists the protected traditional terms in Annex III in the form of a table in which, alongside the wines concerned and the category of wine, express mention is also made of the language concerned in which the term in question is protected.
Uredba �t. 753/2002 navaja za�čitene tradicionalne izraze v Prilogi III v tabeli, v kateri je poleg zadevnih vin in kategorij proizvodov izrecno naveden tudi jezik, v katerem je posamezen izraz za�čiten.
Where the Commission rightly points out in its submissions on the third question that the protection of traditional designations applies only to the categories of wine mentioned in the Annex 37 (quality wine psr), the same must apply to the languages,
Če Komisija v svojih navedbah k tretjemu vpra�anju za predhodno odločanje pravilno opozarja na to, da velja za�čita tradicionalnih označb samo za kategorije vin, navedenih v Prilogi 37 (kvalitetno vino pdpo), ni mogoče, da bi drugače veljalo za jezike, ki so v tej prilogi navedeni enakovredno s kategorijo
According to the general principle of ‘lex specialis derogat legi generali’ 38the special provision takes precedence.
V skladu s splo�nim pravnim načelom lex specialis derogat legi generali 38ima specialni predpis prednost.
Article 48 of Regulation
Člen 48 Uredbe �t.
36 — Judgment in Case C-66/00 Dante Bigi [2002] ECR I-5917, Opinion of Advocate General Léger in that case, point 50, to which the reference is made in the Opinion of Advocate General Mazák in Case C-132/05 Commission v Germany, pending before the Court, point 42.
36 – Sodba z dne 25. junija 2002 v zadevi Dante Bigi (C-66/00, Recueil, str. I-5917), sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Légerja, predstavljeni 9. oktobra 2001 v tej zadevi, točka 50, na to se sklicujejo sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Mazáka, predstavljeni 28. junija 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (C-132/05, �e nere�ena zadeva pred Sodi�čem, točka 42).
In support of the fact that the translation of a protected designation of origin is protected to the same extent as the registered protected designation of origin itself, Advocate General Mazák relies on the clear wording of Article 13(1) 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 (OJ 1992 No L 208, p.
Generalni pravobranilec Mazák se za obrazložitev, da je prevod za�čitene označbe porekla za�čiten v enakem obsegu kot registrirana za�čitena označba porekla sama, sklicuje na jasno besedilo člena 13(1) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 2081/92 z dne 14. julija 1992 o za�čiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila (UL L 208, str.
1), repealed and replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p.
1), ki je bila razveljavljena in nadome�čena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 510/2006 z dne 20. marca 2006 o za�čiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila (UL L 93, str.
12), which contains an express prohibition on translations.
12), ki vsebuje izrecno prepoved prevajanja.
See also Case C-283/02 Italy v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 40.
Glej tudi sodbo z dne 3. marca 2005 v zadevi Italija proti Komisji (C-283/02, neobjavljena v ZOdl., točka 40).
No 1493/1999 contains the general prohibition on misleading consumers as regards all possible particulars under the regulation.
navedbe, ki so mogoče glede na uredbo. Člen 24 Uredbe �t.
Article 24 of Regulation No 753/2002, on the other hand, specifies the prohibition on misleading consumers restrictively for just one category of particulars — other traditional terms.
753/2002 pa nasprotno omejevalno konkretizira prepoved zavajanja samo za eno kategorijo navedb – dodatne tradicionalne izraze.
That conclusion is also supported by an interpretation in the light of the spirit and purpose of the rule.
Tudi razlaga, ki upo�teva smisel in namen pravila, podpira ta izid.
The spirit and purpose of introducing unregulated ‘other particulars’ like other traditional terms is to liberalise the legislation on wine designations for the purposes of the prohibition on misuse.
Smisel in namen uvedbe nereguliranih „drugih navedb“ kot dodatnih tradicionalnih izrazov je liberalizacija predpisov o označevanju v smislu prepovedi zlorabe.
39If the regulation itself therefore seeks only to
39Če sku�a torej sama uredba preprečiti le �e izrecno prepovedane navedbe, je očitno, da se dejanska
39 — The regulation thus takes up a general structural principle of public law under which the individual enjoys freedom to act in principle provided the specific act is not expressly prohibited or forbidden.
39 – S tem se uredba loti splo�nega strukturnega načela javnega prava, v skladu s katerim posameznik načelno lahko svobodno ravna, če konkretno dejanje ni izrecno prepovedano.
In this respect a link can be found with the general legal principle of ‘nullum crimen sine lege certa, praevia, scripta et stricta’ because in criminal law and also in public law that principle takes account of the idea of limitation stemming from the general freedom to act enjoyed by the individual.
Tu je mogoče najti povezavo s splo�nim pravnim načelom „nullum crimen sine lege certa, praevia, scripta et stricta“. S tem načelom se namreč v kazenskem pravu in v nadaljnjem tudi v javnem pravu upo�teva ideja o omejitvah, ki izvirajo iz splo�ne svobode ravnanja posameznika. V pravu ES velja splo�na svoboda delovanja kot del temeljnih svobo�čin, ki se jih obravnava kot sredstvo varstva pred ravnanjem vseh javnih organizacij držav članic ter načelno tudi organov Skupnosti, ki bi odstopalo od pravil (glej Müller-Graff, P.-C., Die konstitutionelle Rolle der binnenmarktlichen Grundfreiheiten im neuen europäischen Verfassungsvertrag, v: Köck, H.-F., Lengauer A., Ress G. (ur.), Europarecht im Zeitalter der Globalisierung: Festschrift für Peter Fischer, Dunaj, 2004, str. 373.
Rather, the paradigm shift to the misuse principle is to be taken into consideration on a teleological interpretation to the effect that an abstract prohibition on translations is justified only where they give rise per se to a risk of misleading consumers.
Nasprotno je treba spremembo v paradigmi, usmerjeno proti načelu prepovedi zlorabe, pri teleolo�ki razlagi upo�tevati v tem smislu, da je abstraktna prepoved prevodov upravičena samo takrat, kadar ti prevodi per se utemeljujejo nevarnost zavajanja.
This premise is, for example, the basis for the prohibition on the translation of protected designations of origin and other geographical indications since most particulars thus protected, in particular indications, of origin, mean the same to consumers in other languages as in the original language.
Na tej premisi temelji na primer prepoved prevajanja za�čitenih označb porekla in drugih geografskih označb, saj večina tako za�čitenih navedb, zlasti navedb o poreklu, pomeni potro�niku v drugih jezikih isto kot v izvirnem jeziku.
Translations of those terms undoubtedly generally indicate the protected goods or services and are therefore liable per se to mislead.
Tudi prevodi teh izrazov kažejo večinoma nedvomno na za�čiteno blago oziroma storitev in že zato per se lahko zavajajo.
For example, consumers will immediately think of a cheese produced in a certain Italian region if they hear the term ‘Parmigiano’, but they will also have the same association for the translation ‘Parmesan’.
Tako bo potro�nik takoj pomislil na sir, proizveden v določeni italijanski regiji, kadar bo sli�al izraz „Parmigiano“, enako asociacijo pa bo imel tudi pri prevodu „Parmesan“. Ravno ta enakovrednost prevoda z za�čitenim pojmom je ratio
SCHNEIDER on translations in the legislation on wine designations.
SCHNEIDER legis splo�ne prepovedi prevodov v predpisih o označevanju.
40 the regulation) the regulation protects those terms only in a certain language.
40 v Prilogi II k uredbi) te izraze �čiti samo v določenem jeziku.
Whilst the indication of a variety or a certain geographical origin means the same in each language, as has been stated above, a traditional term has quite different connotations in different languages because it is based on or refers to different local traditions.
Medtem ko navedba sorte vinske trte ali določenega geografskega porekla, kot omenjeno, pomeni v vseh jezikih isto, ima tradicionalni izraz v različnih jezikih popolnoma različne konotacije, saj temelji na posameznih lokalnih tradicijah oziroma nanje napotuje.
The risk of confusion and thus the risk of misleading consumers inherent in the translation of other particulars do not exist in the case of traditional terms.
Verjetnost zmede in s tem nevarnost zavajanja, ki je značilna za prevod pri drugih navedbah, pri tradicionalnih izrazih ni podana.
It is not possible to assume such equivalence of protective scope specifically in the case of traditional terms, in contrast with protected designations of origin, 41and for that reason a prohibition on translations is not justified here.
Iz take enakovrednosti obsega za�čite ni mogoče izhajati zlasti pri tradicionalnih izrazih, v nasprotju z za�čitenimi označbami porekla 41, zaradi česar tu prepoved prevajanja ni upravičena.
Traditional terms are distinctive precisely because they are firmly established as such in a certain language in the tradition of the country of origin and also have a special significance for consumers and create the associations linked with them only in that language.
Tradicionalni izraz se odlikuje ravno po tem, da je kot tak v določenem jeziku v tradiciji države izvora trdno zasidran in ima tudi samo v tem jeziku za potro�nika poseben pomen in izzove z njim povezane asociacije.
That is the reason why (unlike, for example, the wine varieties with geographical indication in Annex II to
To je razlog, zakaj uredba (v nasprotju na primer s sortami vinske trte, ki vsebujejo geografsko označbo,
40 — This was made very clear by Advocate General Léger in his Opinion in Case C-66/00 Dante Bigi [2002] ECR I-5917.
40 – To je zelo jasno poudaril generalni pravobranilec Léger v sklepnih predlogih, predstavljenih 9. oktobra 2001 v zadevi Dante Bigi (C-66/00, Recueil, str. I-5917).
Rather he explains that the translated term is a faithful translation of the protected term ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, in that it ‘expresses the historic, cultural, legal and economic reality that attaches to the registered name and to the product covered by that registration’ (point 50) and thus links directly to the associative effect of the translation.
Nasprotno utemeljuje, da je prevedeni izraz zvest prevod za�čitenega izraza „Parmigiano Reggiano“, saj „izraža zgodovinske, kulturne, pravne in gospodarske danosti, ki so povezane z registrirano označbo in proizvodi, ki spadajo pod to registracijo“ (točka 50), in s tem neposredno naveže na asociativni učinek prevoda.
This becomes immediately clear if we ask with which of the different protected terms the French term ‘Grande Réserve’, for example, creates a specific risk of confusion: with the Greek term ‘Ειδικά Επιλεγμένος (Grand réserve)’, the Spanish term ‘Gran Reserva’ or the Portuguese term ‘grande reserva’ or ‘Super reserva’?
To razumemo takoj, če se vpra�amo, s katerim od različnih za�čitenih izrazov naj bi bila utemeljena konkretna verjetnost zmede, na primer z navedbo francoskega izraza „Grande Réserve“, gr�kega izraza „Ειδικά Επιλεγμένος (Grand réserve)“, �panskega izraza „Gran Reserva“ ali portugalskega izraza „grande reserva“ ali „Super reserva“?
That intellectual game clearly confirms that the traditional term is unique and distinguishable only on the basis of the language in which it is protected.
Miselna igra nazorno potrjuje, da je tradicionalni izraz edinstven in razločljiv samo na podlagi jezika, v katerem je za�čiten.
42A prohibition on translations for those terms would run counter to the spirit of the regulation which, furthermore, allows each country to be able to have the
42Prepoved prevajanja teh izrazov bi nasprotovala duhu uredbe, ki dopu�ča, da se lahko pravzaprav v vsaki državi isti izraz v lastnem jeziku ločeno
42 — On the differences between the designations ‘Ruby’ and ‘Rubino’ for port see Case C-283/02 Italy v Commission (cited above in footnote 37), paragraph 77 et seq.
42 – K različnosti označb „Ruby“ in „Rubino“ za porto glej sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 3. marca 2005 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji (C-283/02, neobjavljena v ZOdl., točka 77 in naslednje).