natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, the Court found that, since it cannot be ruled out that organisations representing the workers of the undertakings bene¤ting from aid may, as parties concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, submit observations to the Commission on considerations of a social nature which it can take into account if appropriate, in the present case the Community judicature must, in order to assess whether the appellant’s arguments based on the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport suce to establish its status of a party concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC, examine the social aspects of the measure at issue with regard to those guidelines, which contain the legal conditions for assessing the compatibility of the State aid in question.
Zadeva iz postopka v glavni stvari se je nanašala na predlog glavnega sindikata danskih delavcev za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije, s katero je bila za združljivo s¥skupnim trgom razglašena pomoč v obliki oprostitev plačila dohodnine za pomorščake – zaposlene na ladjah, ki so vpisane v danski mednarodni ladijski register – namenjenih temu, da ladje, ki bi lahko plule pod zastavo ugodnosti, ohranijo nacionalno zastavo, ne da bi se začela formalna faza preiskave iz člena 88(2) ES. Splošno sodišče je tožbo sindikata zavrglo kot nedopustno, ker je menilo, da se izpodbijana odločba ne nanaša posamično niti na pritožnika niti na njegove člane.
On appeal against a judgment of the General Court which annulled a Commission decision for failure to state reasons, the Court held, in Case C-494/06 P Commission v Italy and Wam (judgment of 30 April 2009), that the General Court had rightly found that general reasoning based on the rearmation of the principles ªowing from the Tubemeuse judgment (C-142/87 [1990] ECR I-959) could not, by itself, be considered to satisfy the requirements arising under Article 253 EC, in the light of the case at hand.
Sodišče je v sodbi najprej spomnilo, da je tožba zoper odločbo o neuvedbi formalne faze preiskave dopustna, kadar je tožeči stranki treba priznati status zadevne stranke v smislu člena 88(2) ES, katere tožba je namenjena zaščiti postopkovnih interesov.
Thus, the mere fact that the recipient undertaking took part in intra-Community trade by exporting a large part of its production within the Union was not sucient, in respect of such aid, to demonstrate those e¥ects.
Iz tega je razvidno, da ni izključeno, da se sindikat delavcev šteje za zadevno stranko v smislu člena 88(2) ES, če dokaže, da dodelitev pomoči morebiti vpliva na njegov interes ali na interes njegovih članov.
The Court explained that it is not apparent that the advantage given by way of such a measure to the cinematographic industry of the Member State concerned constitutes an advantage granted directly by the State or by a public or private body designated or established by the State.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče poudarilo, da je treba odgovoriti na vprašanje, ali je bil z dodelitvijo navedene pomoči prizadet konkurenčni položaj pritožnika glede na druge sindikate.
The advantage is the result of general legislation requiring television operators, whether public or private, to earmark a percentage of their operating revenue for the prefunding of European cinematographic ¤lms and ¤lms made for television.
Iz okoliščine, da bi bil lahko sporazum med sindikati in delodajalci zaradi svoje narave, predmeta in ciljev socialne politike, ki jim sledi, izvzet s področja uporabe določb člena 81(1) ES, namreč ni mogoče sklepati, da se za kolektivna pogajanja ali vanje vključene stranke prav tako v celoti in samodejno ne uporabljajo pravila Pogodbe s področja državnih pomoči ali da bi se ničnostna tožba, ki bi jo te stranke lahko morebiti vložile, skoraj samodejno štela za nedopustno zaradi njihove udeležbe pri teh pogajanjih.
In addition, in the Court’s view, it does not appear, in the present instance, that the advantage in question is dependent on the control exercised by the public authorities over such operators or on instructions given by those authorities to such operators.
Vnaprejšnja izključitev možnosti − da bi sindikat lahko dokazal, da je zadevna stranka v smislu člena 88(2) ES s tem, da bi uveljavljal svojo vlogo pri kolektivnih pogajanjih in učinke, ki jih imajo na to vlogo nacionalni davčni ukrepi, ki jih Komisija šteje za pomoči, združljive s¥skupnim trgom − bi namreč ogrozila iste cilje socialne politike, in sicer iz členov 136, prvi odstavek, ES in 138(1) ES.
Worthy of mention in this ¤eld is Case C-357/07 TNT Post UK (judgment of 23 April 2009) which, in the context of value added tax, provided the Court with the opportunity to specify the scope of the
Sodišče je na podlagi pritožbe zoper sodbo Splošnega sodišča, s katero je bila odločba Komisije zaradi nezadostne obrazložitve razglašena za nično, v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji in Wam (sodba z dne 30. aprila 2009, C-494/06 P) presodilo, da je Splošno sodišče pravilno menilo, da ni mogoče šteti, da splošna obrazložitev, ki temelji na sklicevanju na načela, ki izhajajo iz sodbe Tubemeuse (C-142/87, Recueil, str.
16 exemption of ‘public postal services’, laid down in Article 13A(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC (
I-959), sama po sebi izpolnjuje zahteve iz člena 253 ES v zvezi z obravnavanim primerom.
In the main proceedings, the company TNT Post, which o¥ers ‘upstream services’ for business mail
Tako samo dejstvo, da je podjetje, upravičeno do pomoči, udeleženo v trgovini v Skupnosti s tem, da večji del svoje proizvodnje izvaža znotraj Skupnosti, v zvezi s takimi pomočmi ne more zadoščati za ugotovitev navedenih učinkov.
Page 36
Sodišče
Court of Justice
Obdavčitev
Proceedings subject to value added tax, challenged the legality of the exemption from tax of postal services supplied by Royal Mail, which is the sole universal postal service provider in the United Kingdom and whose status and obligations were not amended following the liberalisation of the postal market in the United Kingdom in 2006.
V sporu o glavni stvari je družba TNT Post, ki ponuja „storitve v predhodni fazi“ za poslovno pošto, ki so obdavčene z davkom na dodano vrednost, izpodbijala zakonitost oprostitve plačila davka na poštne storitve, ki jih ponuja Royal Mail, edini izvajalec univerzalne poštne storitve v Združenem kraljestvu, katerega status in obveznosti se niso spremenile po popolni liberalizaciji trga poštnih storitev v tej državi leta 2006.
Giving judgment on a reference for a preliminary ruling, the Court held that the term ‘public postal services’ in Article 13A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive covers operators, whether they are public or private, who undertake to provide, in a Member State, all or part of the universal postal service, as de¤ned in Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC (17).
Na podlagi predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe je Sodišče presodilo, da pojem„javne poštne službe“ iz navedenega člena 13(A)(1)(a) zajema javne in zasebne operaterje, ki se zavežejo, da bodo v državi članici zagotavljali univerzalno poštno storitev, kot je določena v členu 3 Direktive 97/67/ES17, v celoti ali njen del.
In that regard, the exemption provided for in Article 13A(1)(a) has been maintained in the form in which it was originally enacted, notwithstanding the liberalisation of the postal sector.
V zvezi s tem je oprostitev iz navedenega člena 13(A)(1)(a) kljub liberalizaciji poštnega sektorja ostala enaka.
The Court also stated that that exemption applies to the supply by the public postal services acting as such — that is, in their capacity as an — operator who undertakes to provide all or part of the universal postal service in a Member State of services other than passenger transport and telecommunications se rvices, and the supply of goods incidental thereto.
Sodišče je poleg tega pojasnilo, da ta oprostitev velja za storitve in dobave blaga v zvezi z opravljanjem teh storitev, razen prevoza potnikov in telekomunikacijskih storitev, ki jih izvajajo javne poštne službe kot take, in sicer na podlagi svojega statusa operaterja, ki se zaveže, da bo v državi članici zagotavljal univerzalno poštno storitev v¥celoti ali njen del.
It does not apply to supplies of services or of goods incidental thereto for which the terms have been individually negotiated.
Oprostitev se ne nanaša na storitve in dobavo blaga v zvezi z opravljanjem teh storitev, katerih pogoji so bili individualno določeni s pogajanji.
Once again, the case-law in this ¤eld has been plentiful. Reference will ¤rst be made to two judgments relating to the award of public contracts.
S tega področja, na katerem je bila sodna praksa znova obširna, je treba najprej navesti sodbi v¥zvezi z oddajo javnih naročil.
In Case C-573/07 Sea (judgment of 10 September 2009) relating to the award of a service of collecting, transporting and disposing of urban waste, the Court noted that it is not contrary to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality or the obligation of transparency arising therefrom for a public service contract to be awarded directly to a company limited by shares with wholly public capital so long as the public authority which is the contracting authority exercises over that company control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and so long as the company carries out the essential part of its activities with the authority or authorities controlling it.
V zadevi Sea (sodba z dne 10. septembra 2009, C-573/07) v zvezi z oddajo naročila storitev zbiranja, prevoza in odstranjevanja komunalnih odpadkov je Sodišče spomnilo, da člena 43 ES in 49 ES, načeli enakega obravnavanja in prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva ter obveznost preglednosti, ki izhaja iz njih, ne nasprotujejo neposredni oddaji javnega naročila storitev delniški družbi s stoodstotnim javnim kapitalom, če javnopravna korporacija, ki je naročnik, nad to družbo
Opening of the capital to private investors may not be taken into consideration unless there exists, at the time of the award of the public contract, a real prospect in the short term of such an opening.
Direktiva Sveta z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (77/388/EGS) (UL L 145, str. 1).
) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p.
Direktiva 97/67/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 15. decembra 1997 o skupnih pravilih za razvoj notranjega trga poštnih storitev v Skupnosti in za izboljšanje kakovosti storitve (UL 1998, L 15, str.
14), as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 (OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21).
14), kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/39/ES z dne 10. junija 2002 (UL L 176, str. 21).
In Case C-480/06 Commission v Germany (judgment of 9 June 2009) concerning a contract relating to the disposal of waste in a new incineration facility concluded between four Landkreise (administrative districts) and the City of Hamburg Cleansing Department without a tendering procedure, the Court held that a contract which forms both the basis and the legal framework for the future construction and operation of a facility intended to perform a public service, namely thermal incineration of waste, in so far as it has been concluded solely by public authorities, without the participation of any private party, and does not provide for or prejudice the award of any contracts that may be necessary in respect of the construction and operation of the waste treatment facility, does not fall within the scope of Directive 92/50/EEC (18).
Zato je mogoče ob upoštevanju, da predložitveno sodišče preveri učinkovitost zadevnih statutarnih določb, nadzor, ki ga korporacije delničarke izvajajo nad navedeno družbo, šteti za podoben tistemu, ki ga izvajajo nad svojimi službami, če je dejavnost navedene družbe omejena na ozemlje navedenih korporacij in se v pretežnem delu izvaja v njihovo korist ter če te korporacije prek statutarnih organov, ki jih sestavljajo njihovi predstavniki, izvajajo odločilen vpliv na strateške cilje in na pomembne odločitve navedene družbe.
A public authority has the possibility of performing the public interest tasks conferred on it either by using its own resources or in cooperation with other public authorities, without being obliged to call on outside entities not forming part of its own departments.
Sodišče je prav tako pojasnilo, da čeprav ni mogoče izključiti, da se lahko deleži družbe prodajo zasebnim vlagateljem, pa ne bi bilo v skladu z načelom pravne varnosti, če bi priznali, da bi bilo mogoče samo na podlagi te možnosti za nedoločen čas zadržati presojo glede javnosti ali zasebnosti kapitala družbe, ki je izbrani ponudnik.
In that connection, ¤rst, Community law does not require public authorities to use any particular legal form in order to carry out jointly their public service tasks.
Odprtje kapitala zasebnim vlagateljem je mogoče upoštevati le, če ob oddaji javnega naročila obstajajo dejanski in neposredni obeti za tako odprtje.
Reference will now be made to a series of judgments in which the Court was required to interpret Community legislation which seeks to supervise commercial practices with a view to consumer protection.
V zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (sodba z dne 9. junija 2009, C-480/06) v zvezi s pogodbo o¥odstranjevanju odpadkov v novi sežigalnici, sklenjeni med štirimi Landkreise in službo za odvoz odpadkov mesta Hamburg brez uporabe postopka javnega razpisa, je Sodišče presodilo, da¥pogodba, ki je tako temelj kakor pravni okvir za zgraditev in bodoče izkoriščanje obrata, namenjenega izvajanju javne službe, in sicer sežiga odpadkov, ne spada na področje uporabe Direktive 92/50/EGS18, ker je bila sklenjena izključno med javnimi organi, brez sodelovanja zasebnikov, in ne predvideva niti ne določa vnaprej oddaje morda potrebnih javnih naročil za gradnjo in izkoriščanje obrata za ravnanje z odpadki.
In Case C-489/07 Messner (judgment of 3 September 2009) concerning the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, the Court dealt with the possibility of claiming compensation from a consumer who, after signing, withdraws from such a contract.
Javni organ lahko namreč naloge v javnem interesu, ki so mu naložene, izvaja z lastnimi sredstvi ali pa v sodelovanju z drugimi javnimi organi, ne da bi se bil dolžan obrniti na zunanje subjekte, ki niso del njegovih služb.
The Court held that the provisions of the second sentence of Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC (19) must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides in general that, in the case of withdrawal by a consumer within the withdrawal period, a seller may claim compensation from him for the value of the use of the consumer goods acquired under a distance contract.
Glede tega po eni strani pravo Skupnosti nikakor ne nalaga javnim organom, da morajo za skupno zagotovitev opravljanja nalog javnih služb uporabiti posebno pravno obliko.
If the consumer were required to pay such compensation merely because he had the possibility of using the goods whilst they were in his possession, he would be able to exercise his right of withdrawal only against payment of that compensation.
Po drugi strani takšno sodelovanje med javnimi organi ne more spodkopati glavnega namena pravil Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil, namreč prostega pretoka storitev ter odpiranje neizkrivljeni konkurenci v vseh državah članicah, če je izvajanje takšnega sodelovanja urejeno izključno na podlagi preudarkov in zahtev, ki so lastne uresničevanju ciljev v javnem interesu, in če je načelo enakega obravnavanja zainteresiranih strank iz Direktive 92/50 zagotovljeno, tako da nobeno zasebno podjetje ni postavljeno v položaj, ki bi mu dajal prednost pred tekmeci.
That would be clearly at variance with the wording and purpose of Directive 97/7 and would, in particular, deprive the consumer of the possibility of making completely free and independent use of the period for reªection granted to him by that directive.
Nato je treba navesti več sodb, v katerih je Sodišče razlagalo zakonodajo Skupnosti, katere namen je omejiti poslovne prakse zaradi varstva potrošnika.
Likewise, the functionality and ecacy of the right of withdrawal would be impaired if the consumer were obliged to pay compensation simply as a result of having examined and tested the goods.
V zadevi Messner (sodba z dne 3. septembra 2009, C-489/07) o varstvu potrošnikov pri sklepanju pogodb ob prodaji na daljavo je Sodišče obravnavalo možnost zahtevati nadomestilo od potrošnika, ki je po podpisu take pogodbe od nje odstopil.
Since the right of withdrawal is intended precisely to give the consumer that possibility, the fact of having made use thereof cannot have the consequence that the consumer is able to exercise that right only if he pays compensation.
Presodilo je, da je treba določbe člena¥6(1), drugi stavek, in (2) Direktive 97/7/ES19 razlagati tako, da nasprotujejo nacionalni ureditvi, ki splošno določa, da lahko prodajalec od potrošnika zahteva nadomestilo za uporabo blaga,
) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).
Direktiva Sveta 92/50/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev (UL L 209, str. 1).
) Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of con- sumers in respect of distance contracts (OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19).
Direktiva 97/7/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 20. maja 1997 o varstvu potrošnikov glede sklepanja pogodb pri prodaji na daljavo (UL L 144, str. 19).
However, those provisions do not prevent the consumer from being required to pay compensation for the use of the goods in the case where he has made use of them in a manner incompatible with the principles of civil law, such as those of good faith or unjust enrichment, on condition that the purpose of that directive and, in particular, the functionality and ecacy of the right of withdrawal are not adversely a¥ected, this being a matter for the national court to determine.
Vendar te določbe ne nasprotujejo temu, da se potrošniku naloži plačilo nadomestila za uporabo blaga, če ga je uporabljal na način, ki ni združljiv z načeli civilnega prava, kot sta dobra vera ali neupravičena obogatitev – če se s tem ne posega v namen navedene direktive in zlasti ne v¥funkcionalnost in učinkovitost pravice do odstopa, kar pa mora preveriti nacionalno sodišče.
In Case C-243/08 Pannon GSM (judgment of 4 June 2009), the Court noted that the consumer protection provided by Directive 93/13/EEC (20) extends to cases in which a consumer who has concluded with a seller or supplier a contract containing an unfair term fails to raise the unfairness of the term, whether because he is unaware of his rights or because he is deterred from enforcing them on account of the costs which judicial proceedings would involve.
V zadevi Pannon GSM (sodba z dne 4. junija 2009, C-243/08) je Sodišče spomnilo, da je varstvo, ki je potrošnikom zagotovljeno z Direktivo 93/13/EGS20 razširjeno tudi na primere, v katerih potrošnik, ki je s prodajalcem ali ponudnikom sklenil pogodbo, ki vsebuje nedovoljen pogoj, ne uveljavlja nedovoljenosti tega pogoja, ker bodisi ne pozna svojih pravic bodisi ga od njihovega uveljavljanja odvračajo stroški, ki bi nastali zaradi sodnega postopka.
The role of the national court in the area of consumer protection is thus not limited to a mere power to rule on the possible unfairness of a contractual term, but also consists of the obligation to examine that issue of its own motion where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task, including when it is assessing whether it has territorial jurisdiction.
Vloga nacionalnega sodišča na področju varstva potrošnikov zato ni omejena zgolj na možnost izreči se o morebitni nedovoljenosti pogodbenega pogoja, ampak vsebuje tudi obveznost po uradni dolžnosti proučiti to vprašanje, če ima na voljo potrebne dejanske in pravne elemente, tudi ko presoja svojo krajevno pristojnost.
Where the national court considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except if the consumer, after having been informed of it by that court, does not intend to assert its unfair or non-binding status.
Če nacionalno sodišče tak pogoj šteje za nedovoljen, ga ne uporabi, razen če potrošnik po opozorilu sodišča ne namerava uveljavljati dejstva, da je ta pogoj nedovoljen in neobvezujoč.
Likewise, a national rule if it is not compatible with the directive provides that it is only where the consumer has successfully challenged an unfair contract term before a national court that he is not bound by it.
Prav tako nacionalno pravilo, ki določa, da nedovoljen pogodbeni pogoj potrošnika ne zavezuje le, če ga je uspešno izpodbijal pred nacionalnim sodiščem, ni združljivo s to direktivo.
Such a rule excludes the possibility for the national court to assess of its own motion whether a contractual term is unfair.
Tako pravilo namreč izključuje možnost nacionalnega sodišča, da po uradni dolžnosti presodi nedovoljenost pogodbenega pogoja.
The Court also stated that a term, contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which has been included without being individually negotiated and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business may be considered to be unfair.
Sodišče je prav tako poudarilo, da je mogoče pogoj v pogodbi, sklenjeni med potrošnikom in ponudnikom ali prodajalcem, ki je bil dodan, ne da bi se stranki o njem dogovorili posamično, in ki daje izključno pristojnost sodišču, na območju katerega ima ponudnik ali prodajalec sedež, obravnavati kot nedovoljen.
Similarly, in Case C-40/08 Asturcom Telecomunicaciones (judgment of 6 October 2009), the Court held that a national court hearing an action for enforcement of an arbitration award which has become ¤nal and was made in the absence of the consumer is required, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task, to assess of its own motion whether an arbitration clause in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, in so far as, under national rules of procedure, it can carry out such an assessment in similar actions of a domestic nature.
Podobno je Sodišče v zadevi Asturcom Telecomunicaciones (sodba z dne 6.¥oktobra 2009, C-40/08) presodilo, da mora nacionalno sodišče, ki odloča o predlogu za izvršbo na podlagi pravnomočne arbitražne odločbe, izdane v odsotnosti potrošnika – če razpolaga z za to potrebnimi pravnimi in dejanskimi elementi – po uradni dolžnosti preizkusiti nedovoljenost arbitražne klavzule iz pogodbe, sklenjene med prodajalcem ali ponudnikom in potrošnikom, če lahko v skladu z¥nacionalnimi postopkovnimi pravili ta preizkus opravi v okviru podobnih predlogov na podlagi nacionalnega prava.
If that is the case, it is for that court or tribunal to establish all the consequences thereby arising under national law, in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by that clause.
Če to velja, mora to sodišče ugotoviti vse posledice, ki lahko v skladu z¥nacionalnim pravom zaradi tega nastanejo, zato da zagotovi, da navedena klavzula za tega potrošnika ni zavezujoča.
) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Direktiva Sveta 93/13/EGS z dne 5. aprila 1993 o nedovoljenih pogojih v potrošniških pogodbah (UL L 95, str. 29).
Page 39
Sodišče
In Case C-358/08 Aventis Pasteur (judgment of 2 December 2009), the Court, after recalling the
V zadevi Aventis Pasteur (sodba z dne 2. decembra 2009, C-358/08) je Sodišče spomnilo na sodno
22 judgment in O’Byrne (
22 razlagati prakso, ki izhaja iz sodbe O’Byrne