natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that regard, according to the wording of Article 5a(3) of Directive 90/387, Member States are to ensure that suitable mechanisms exist at national level under which a party affected by a decision of the NRA has a right of appeal to a body independent of the parties involved.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da glede na besedilo člena 5a(3) Direktive 90/387 države članice na nacionalni ravni zagotavljajo delovanje ustreznih mehanizmov, ki stranki, prizadeti zaradi odločitve NRO, omogočajo, da se pritoži pri organu, ki deluje neodvisno od zainteresiranih strank.
That provision is an expression of the principle of effective judicial protection, which is a general principle of Community law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and which has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, pursuant to which it is for the courts of the Member States to ensure judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Community law (see, by way of analogy, Case C-426/05 Tele2 Telecommunication [2008] ECR I-685, paragraph 30 and the caselaw cited).
Navedena določba je odraz načela učinkovitega sodnega varstva, ki je splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti, ki izhaja iz skupnih ustavnih tradicij držav članic in je potrjeno v členih 6 in 13 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin, podpisane v Rimu 4. novembra 1950; na podlagi tega načela morajo sodno varstvo pravic, ki jih imajo posamezniki na podlagi prava Skupnosti, zagotoviti sodi�ča držav članic (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 21. februarja 2008 v zadevi Tele2 Telecommunication, C-426/05, ZOdl., str. I-685, točka 30 in navedena sodba praksa).
Given that a decision of the NRA taken in relation to Article 4 of Regulation No 2887/2000 falls within the scope of Directive 90/387, Article 5a(3) of that dir -ective requires that national law provides for suitable mechanisms under which the ‘party affected’ by that decision has a right of appeal to an independent body.
Ob upo�tevanju tega, da sodi odločitev NRO, sprejeta v zvezi s členom 4 Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, na področje uporabe Direktive 90/387, člen 5a(3) te direktive zahteva, da se v nacionalnem pravu predvidijo ustrezni mehanizmi, ki „stranki, ki je prizadeta“ s to odločitvijo, omogočajo pritožbo pred neodvisnim organom.
That guarantee applies to both the addressee of that decision and the beneficiaries within the meaning of Regulation No 2887/2000.
To jamstvo velja tako za naslovnika navedene odločitve kot tudi za upravičence v smislu Uredbe �t. 2887/2000.
As regards the right of appeal of third parties, it must be held that, since a beneficiary is not the addressee of a decision of the NRA, he acquires the status of ‘party affected’
V zvezi s pravico tretjih oseb do pritožbe je treba ugotoviti, da upravičenec, ki ni naslovnik odločitve NRO, pridobi položaj „prizadete stranke“, če bi taka odločitev
ARCOR when his rights are potentially affected by such a decision by reason of its content and the activity exercised or envisaged by that party (see, by way of analogy, Tele2 Telecommunication, paragraph 39).
ARCOR lahko vplivala na njegove pravice zaradi svoje vsebine ali dejavnosti, ki jo izvaja oziroma namerava izvajati ta stranka (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Tele2 Telecommunication, točka 39).
In the case in the main proceedings, it must be found that Arcor, having concluded with the notified operator a contract concerning access to the local loops, is a party affected within the meaning of Article 5b(3) of Directive 90/387, because a decision of the NRA concerning the requirements regarding the costorientation of rates for unbundled access to the local loop necessarily affects its rights as a party to such a contract.
V postopku v glavni stvari je treba ugotoviti, da je družba Arcor, ki je s prigla�enim obratovalcem sklenila pogodbo o razvezanem dostopu do krajevnih zank, prizadeta stranka v smislu člena 5a(3) Direktive 90/387, saj odločitev NRO o zahtevah glede stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke neizogibno vpliva na pravice, ki jih ima kot stranka pogodbe.
However, the Court points out that a contractual link such as the one in the case in the main proceedings is not required for the rights of a beneficiary to be potentially affected by such a decision.
Vendar pa je treba podrobneje pojasniti, da pogodbena vez, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ni nujna za to, da lahko taka odločitev vpliva na pravice upravičenca.
It follows from the above that the answer to Question 3(f) must be that Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2887/2000, read in conjunction with Article 5a(3) of Directive 90/387, requires that the national courts interpret and apply the domestic rules of proced- ure governing the bringing of appeals in such a way that a decision of the NRA concerning the authorisation of rates for unbundled access to the local loop may be challenged before the courts, not only by the undertaking to which such a decision is addressed but also by beneficiaries within the meaning of that regulation whose rights are potentially affected by it.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je treba na tretje vpra�anje, točka (f), odgovoriti tako, da člen 4(1) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 v zvezi s členom 5a(3) Direktive 90/387 zahteva, da nacionalna sodi�ča notranja procesna pravila, ki urejajo vlaganje pritožb, razlagajo in uporabljajo tako, da lahko odločitev NRO o odobritvi cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke sodno izpodbija ne le podjetje, ki je naslovnik take odločitve, temveč tudi upravičenci v smislu navedene uredbe, na katerih pravice lahko take odločitve vplivajo.
By Question 3(g) and (h) the national court asks the Court of Justice to determine who is to bear the burden of proving that the principle that rates for unbundled access
Predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem, točki (g) in (h), Sodi�ču predlaga, naj presodi, kdo nosi dokazno breme upo�tevanja načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen
2008 — CASE C-55/06 to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation has been respected, in the context of the supervisery procedure laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 2887/2000 or during judicial proceedings brought against the decision of the NRA authorising the rates of a notified operator.
2008 – ZADEVA C-55/06 razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke v nadzornem postopku, določenem v členu 4 Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, ali v sodnem postopku zoper odločitev NRO o odobritvi navedenih cen prigla�enega obratovalca.
As regards, first, the burden of proving that the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation has been respected in the supervisory procedure laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 2887/2000, it should be noted that neither that regulation nor Recommendation 2000/417 contains any provision to that effect.
Prvič, kar zadeva dokazno breme upo�tevanja načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke v okviru nadzornega postopka iz člena 4 Uredbe �t. 2887/2000, je treba uvodoma ugotoviti, da ne ta uredba ne Priporočilo 2000/417 ne vsebujeta nobene določbe v tem smislu.
It must therefore be examined whether such an inference can be made from the directives of the FRF.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali je mogoče določbo v tem smislu izvesti iz direktiv NekdRO.
In that regard, Article 7(2) of Directive 97/33 provides that the burden of proof that charges are derived from actual costs, including a reasonable rate of return on investment, is to lie with the organisation providing interconnection to its facilities.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da člen 7(2) Direktive 97/33 določa, da dokazno breme, da so pristojbine določene na podlagi dejanskih stro�kov, vključno s primerno stopnjo donosnosti naložbe, nosi podjetje, ki s svojimi napravami zagotavlja medomrežno povezovanje.
It thus follows that that directive contains provisions from which it may be concluded that, in the context of administrative proceedings for the authorisation of rates, it is the task of the notified operator to establish the quantitative elements on which its proposed pricing is based.
Iz tega izhaja, da so v tej direktivi določbe, na podlagi katerih je mogoče ugotoviti, da mora v okviru upravnega postopka odobritve pristojbin prigla�eni obratovalec izkazati količinske dejavnike, na katerih temelji njegov predlog cen.
In addition to that unambiguous statement in the FRF, it should also be pointed out, in respect of unbundled access to the local loop, that, first, the notified operator is required to submit its rates to the NRA for authorisation, and that, second, that operator alone is capable of providing information on the costs relating to the putting in place of its network.
Poleg te nedvoumne ugotovitve glede NekdRO je treba poudariti tudi to, da mora prigla�eni obratovalec v okviru razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke predložiti svoje cene NRO v odobritev in da lahko le on zagotovi informacije o stro�kih, povezanih z vzpostavitvijo svojega omrežja.
In those circumstances, and given that the elements on which the proposed pricing is based concern primarily the notified operator, it must be concluded that it is the task of the latter, in the course of the supervisory procedure laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 2887/2000, to supply evidence that the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation has been respected.
Glede na to in upo�tevajoč, da se dejavniki, na katerih temeljijo predlagane cene, nana�ajo zlasti na prigla�enega obratovalca, je treba skleniti, da mora v okviru nadzornega postopka iz člena 4 Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 sam dokazati upo�tevanje načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke.
By contrast, that finding does not concern beneficiaries within the meaning of Regulation No 2887/2000.
Ta ugotovitev pa se ne nana�a na upravičence v smislu Uredbe �t. 2887/2000.
Since Community law does not provide for any rule relating to the burden of proving that the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation has been respected in the supervisory procedure, it is the task of the Member States to establish in accordance with their rules of pro -cedure, in the context of the supervisory procedure laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 2887/2000, the rules of evidence applicable, including the allocation of the burden of that proof between the NRA which made the decision to authorise the rates of the notified operator and the beneficiary challenging that decision.
Glede na to, da pravo Skupnosti ne določa nobenih pravil o dokaznem bremenu glede upo�tevanja načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, so v okviru nadzornega postopka države članice pristojne za to, da v skladu s svojimi procesnimi pravili za nadzorni postopek iz člena 4 Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 določijo pogoje, ki jih je treba upo�tevati v zvezi z dokazovanjem, vključno s porazdelitvijo bremena tega dokazovanja med NRO, ki je sprejel odločitev o odobritvi cen prigla�enega obratovalca, in upravičencem, ki to odločitev izpodbija.
As regards, second, the burden of proving that the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation has been respected in judicial proceedings brought against the decision of the NRA authorising the tariffs of a notified operator, it must be pointed out that neither Regulation No 2887/2000 nor the FRF provide any assistance in that regard.
Drugič, kar zadeva dokazno breme glede upo�tevanja načela stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke v okviru sodnega postopka zoper odločitev NRO o odobritvi navedenih cen prigla�enega obratovalca, je treba podrobneje pojasniti, da o tem ni nobene določbe ne v Uredbi �t. 2887/2000 ne v NekdRO.
It follows that, since Community law does not lay down any rule concerning the burden of proving that that principle has been respected in such judicial proceedings, it is for the Member States to establish, in accordance with their rules of procedure,
Iz tega izhaja, da so glede na to, da pravo Skupnosti ne določa nobenih pravil o dokaznem bremenu glede upo�tevanja navedenega načela v okviru takega sodnega postopka, države članice pristojne za to, da v skladu s svojimi procesnimi pravili določijo pogoje, ki jih je treba upo�tevati v zvezi z dokazovanjem, vključno s porazdelitvijo
2008 — CASE C-55/06 the rules of evidence applicable, including the allocation of that burden of proof between the NRA which made the decision to authorise the rates of the notified operator and the party challenging that decision.
2008 – ZADEVA C-55/06 bremena tega dokazovanja med NRO, ki je sprejel odločitev o odobritvi cen prigla�enega obratovalca, in stranko, ki to odločitev izpodbija.
In that regard, it must be pointed out that the competence reserved to the Member States must be exercised in accordance with the Community principles of effectiveness and equivalence of judicial protection.
V zvezi s tem je treba podrobneje pojasniti, da je treba to pristojnost, ki je pridržana državam članicam, izvr�evati ob upo�tevanju skupnostnih načel učinkovitosti in enakovrednosti sodnega varstva.
It is apparent from the caselaw that the Member States must ensure that evidential rules — and, in particular the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof applicable to actions relating to a breach of Community law — are, firstly, not less favourable than those that apply to similar domestic actions and, secondly, that they do not make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult for individuals to exercise rights conferred by Community law (see Case C-228/98 Dounias [2000] ECR I-577, paragraph 69 and the caselaw cited).
Iz sodne prakse namreč izhaja, da morajo države članice zagotavljati, da pravila o dokazovanju, zlasti tista o porazdelitvi dokaznega bremena, ki veljajo za pravna sredstva, ki se nana�ajo na spore v zvezi s kr�enjem prava Skupnosti, prvič, niso manj ugodna od pravil, ki se nana�ajo na podobna nacionalna pravna sredstva, in drugič, v praksi ne onemogočajo ali pretirano otežujejo posameznikovega izvajanja pravic, ki mu jih podeljuje pravni red Skupnosti (glej sodbo z dne 3. februarja 2000 v zadevi Dounias, C-228/98, Recueil, str. I-577, točka 69 in navedena sodna praksa).
On the other hand, it is for the Member States to allocate the burden of proof between the NRA which made the decision to authorise the rates of the notified operator and the beneficiary challenging that decision.
Države članice pa morajo določiti, kak�na je porazdelitev dokaznega bremena med NRO, ki je sprejel odločitev o odobritvi cen prigla�enega obratovalca, in upravičencem, ki to odločitev izpodbija.
It is also for the Member States to establish, in accordance with their rules of procedure and the Community principles of effectiveness and equivalence of judicial protection, the rules on the allocation of that burden of proof when a decision of the NRA authorising the rates of a notified operator for unbundled access to its local loop is challenged before the courts.
Države članice morajo v skladu s svojimi procesnimi pravili in ob upo�tevanju skupnostnih načel učinkovitosti in enakovrednosti sodnega varstva določiti tudi pravila porazdelitve tega dokaznega bremena za primer sodnega izpodbijanja odločitve NRO o odobritvi cen prigla�enega obratovalca za razvezani dostop do njegove krajevne zanke.
The interest on the capital invested and the depreciation of the fixed assets deployed for the initial implementation of the local loop are among the costs to be taken into account in accordance with the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation, laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on unbundled access to the local loop.
Obresti na vloženi kapital in amortizacija osnovnih sredstev, uporabljenih za vzpostavitev krajevne zanke, se prištevajo med stroške, ki jih je treba upoštevati v skladu z načelom stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke iz člena 3(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 2887/2000 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 18. decembra 2000 o razvezanem dostopu do krajevne zanke.
When applying the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation, laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000, in order to determine the calculation basis of the costs of the notified operator, the national regulatory authorities have to take account of actual costs, namely costs already paid by the notified operator, and forward looking costs, the latter being based, where relevant, on an estimation of the costs of replacing the network or certain parts thereof.
Nacionalni regulativni organi morajo v okviru uporabe načela stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke iz člena 3(3) Uredbe št. 2887/2000 pri določanju osnove za izračun stroškov priglašenega obratovalca upoštevati dejanske stroške, in sicer stroške, ki jih je priglašeni obratovalec že plačal, ter predvidene stroške, pri čemer slednji po potrebi temeljijo na oceni stroškov zamenjave omrežja ali nekaterih njegovih elementov.
Pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 2887/2000, the national regulatory authority may request notified operators to supply relevant information
Nacionalni regulativni organ lahko na podlagi člena 4(2)(b) Uredbe št. 2887/2000 od priglašenega obratovalca zahteva, da mu predloži primerne
2008 — CASE C-55/06 on the documents justifying the costs taken into account when applying the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation.
2008 – ZADEVA C-55/06 informacije o listinah, ki izkazujejo stroške, ki se upoštevajo v okviru uporabe načela stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke.
Since Community law does not contain any provision concerning the accounting documents to be checked, it is the task of the national regulatory authorities alone, in accordance with the law applicable, to examine whether, for the purposes of cost-accounting, the documents produced are the most appropriate ones.
Glede na to, da v pravu Skupnosti ni določb v zvezi z računovodskimi listinami, ki bi se preverjale, o tem, ali so predložene listine najprimernejše za potrebe stroškovnega računovodstva, v skladu z veljavnim pravom odločajo izključno nacionalni regulativni organi.
When national regulatory authorities are applying the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation, Community law does not preclude them, in the absence of complete and comprehensible accounting documents, from determining the costs on the basis of an analytical bottomup or top-down cost model.
Pravo Skupnosti ne izključuje možnosti, da se nacionalni regulativni organi v okviru uporabe načela stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, če ni na voljo popolnih in razumljivih računovodskih listin, pri določanju stroškov oprejo na analitični model stroškov od spodaj navzgor ali od zgoraj navzdol.
The possibility granted to the Member States, in Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2887/2000, to adopt detailed national measures cannot render inapplicable the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation as laid down in Article 3(3) of that regulation.
Podrobnejši nacionalni ukrepi, katerih uvedbo državam članicam omogoča člen 1(4) Uredbe št. 2887/2000, ne smejo preprečiti učinkovanja načela stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke iz člena 3(3) navedene uredbe.
It is apparent from Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2887/2000 that, when examining the rates of notified operators for the provision of unbundled access to their local loop in light of the pricing principle laid down in Article 3(3) of that regulation, the national regulatory authorities have a
Iz določb člena 4(1) in (2) Uredbe št. 2887/2000 izhaja, da imajo nacionalni regulativni organi pri preizkušanju cen, ki jih priglašeni obratovalci zaračunavajo za zagotavljanje razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, glede na načelo oblikovanja cen iz člena 3(3) navedene uredbe, široke pristojnosti, ki
ARCOR broad discretion concerning the assessment of the various aspects of those tariffs, including the discretion to change prices, and thus the proposed tariffs.
ARCOR obsegajo presojo različnih vidikov teh cen in celo spreminjanje predlaganih cen.
That broad discretion also relates to the costs incurred by the notified operators, such as interest on invested capital and depreciation of fixed assets, the calculation basis of those costs and the costaccounting models used to prove them.
Te široke pristojnosti se nanašajo tudi na stroške, ki jih imajo priglašeni obratovalci, na primer na obresti na vloženi kapital in amortizacijo osnovnih sredstev, na osnovo za izračun teh stroškov in na modele računovodskega izkaza navedenih stroškov.
It is a matter solely for the Member States, within the context of their procedural autonomy, to determine, in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of judicial protection, the competent court, the nature of the dispute and, consequently, the detailed rules of judicial review with respect to decisions of the national regulatory authorities concerning the authorisation of rates of notified operators for unbundled access to their local loop.
Države članice so v okviru procesne avtonomije, ki jo uživajo, ob upoštevanju načel enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti sodnega varstva izključno pristojne za določanje pristojnih sodišč, vrste spora in zato tudi oblike sodnega nadzora v zvezi z odločitvami nacionalnih regulativnih organov o odobritvi cen priglašenih obratovalcev za razvezani dostop do njihove krajevne zanke.
In those circumstances, the national courts must ensure that the obligations resulting from Regulation No 2887/2000 regarding unbundled access to the local loop by means of procedures consistent with the pricing principle laid down in Article 3(3) of that regulation are in fact complied with in transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions.
Glede na to mora nacionalno sodišče zagotoviti, da se obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz Uredbe št. 2887/2000 glede razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke v skladu z načelom oblikovanja cen iz člena 3(3) navedene uredbe, dejansko upoštevajo, in sicer pod preglednimi, pravičnimi in nediskriminacijskimi pogoji.
Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2887/2000, read in conjunction with Article 5a(3) of Council Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the establishment of the internal market for telecommunications services through the implementation of open network provision, as amended by Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, requires that the national courts interpret and apply the domestic rules of procedure governing the bringing of appeals in such a way that a decision of the national regulatory authority concerning the authorisation of rates for unbundled access to the local loop may be challenged before the courts, not only by the undertaking to which such a decision is addressed but also by beneficiaries within the meaning of that regulation whose rights are potentially affected by it.
Člen 4(1) Uredbe št. 2887/2000 v zvezi s členom 5a(3) Direktive Sveta 90/387/EGS z dne 28. junija 1990 o vzpostavitvi notranjega trga za telekomunikacijske storitve z uvedbo zagotavljanja odprtosti omrežij, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/51/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 6. oktobra 1997, zahteva, da nacionalna sodišča notranja procesna pravila, ki urejajo vlaganje pritožb, razlagajo in uporabljajo tako, da lahko odločitev nacionalnega regulativnega organa o odobritvi cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke sodno izpodbija ne le podjetje, ki je naslovnik take odločitve, temveč tudi upravičenci v smislu navedene uredbe, na katerih pravice lahko take odločitve vplivajo.