natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For instance, it would be difficult to envisage citizens of the Union exercising their rights of free movement in a Member State where there are systemic shortcomings in the protection of fundamental rights.
Na primer, težko bi se bilo soočiti z državljani Unije, ki uveljavljajo pravico do prostega gibanja v državi članici, če obstajajo sistemske pomanjkljivosti varstva temeljnih pravic.
Such systemic shortcomings would, in effect, amount to a violation of the rules on free movement.
Tak pomanjkljiv sistem bi namreč kr�il pravila prostega gibanja.
III — Rephrasing the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
III – Preoblikovanje vprašanj za predhodno odločanje
This brings us to the other questions asked by the national court.
To nas vodi k ostalim vpra�anjem, ki jih zastavlja nacionalno sodi�če.
Unfortunately,
Na žalost je način, kako so ta vpra�anja zastavljena,
15 — See, in particular, Case 5/88 Wachauf [1989] ECR 2609; ERT, cited in footnote 14; Case C-71/02 Karner [2004] ECR I-3025; and Pupino, cited in footnote 14.
2609), v opombi 14 navedeno sodbo ERT proti DEP, sodbo z dne 25. marca 2004 v zadevi Karner (C-71/02, Recueil, str. I-3025) in v opombi 14 navedeno sodbo Pupino.
My suggestion is not that any violation of fundamental rights within the meaning of Article 6(2) EU constitutes, of itself, an infringement of the rules on free movement.
Ne želim povedati, da vsaka kr�itev temeljnih pravic v pomenu člena 6(2) EU kot taka povzroča kr�itev pravil prostega gibanja.
Another part of the request for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible for a different reason.
Naslednji del predloga za predhodno odločanje ni dopusten zaradi drugega razloga.
In the context of the preliminary ruling procedure, it is important that the referring court defines the factual circumstances of the questions it asks, so that the Court of Justice can give a useful interpretation of the relevant provisions of Community law.
V okviru postopka za predhodno odločanje je pomembno, da predložitveno sodi�če opredeli dejstva glede vpra�anj, ki jih zastavlja, tako da lahko Sodi�če poda koristno razlago upo�tevnih določb prava.
18As the Court held in Telemarsica- the way in which those questions are formulated is problematic in several respects.
18Kot je odloči, ali je njegovo nacionalno pravo v skladu s temi določbami. 16
First of all, the referring court essentially asks the Court of Justice to determine the compatibility of national legislation with Community law.
Sodi�če odločilo v sodbi Telemarsicabruzzo, je to „posebnega pomena za konkurenco, kar se izraža z dejanskimi in pravnimi stanji“. 19
Its role is confined to providing an interpretation of the relevant provisions of Community law. It is up to the referring court to determine if its national law is compatible with those provisions.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča država članica kr�i prepovedi, ki jih določata ti določbi, v katerih sta posebni in izključni pravici zaupani podjetju, ki „zgolj zaradi samega izvr�evanja [teh pravic] začne zlorabljati svoj prevladujoči položaj, ali če lahko te pravice ustvarijo položaj, ki bi podjetje vodilo k zlorabi“.
16 bruzzo, this is ‘of particular importance in the field of competition, which is characterised by complex factual and legal situations.’ 19
20 Vendar predlog za predhodno odločanje ne vsebuje nobenega podatka, zlasti glede opredelitve tržnih
Moreover, it is necessary to moderate the scope of the referring court’s request for a preliminary ruling.
Nujno je tudi, da se uredi razsežnost predloga predložitvenega sodi�ča za predhodno odločanje. Vpra�anja Consiglio di Stato se nana�ajo na različne vidike italijanske zakonodaje.
However, it would be inappropriate for the Court to deal with questions of Community law that are not necessary to resolve the dispute in the main proceedings.
Vendar ne bi bilo primerno, da bi se Sodi�če ukvarjalo z vpra�anji prava Skupnosti, ki niso nujna za re�itev spora v glavnih postopkih. Sodi�če je presodilo, da so tak�na vpra�anja nedopustna.
17In conformity with that caselaw, I shall not deal with the referring court’s questions pertaining to the eligibility criteria for obtaining rights for digital television and the new definition, under the Gasparri Law, of the relevant broadcasting market.
17 V skladu s to sodno prakso se ne bom ukvarjal z vpra�anji predložitvenega sodi�ča glede meril za dodelitev koncesij za digitalno televizijo in nove definicije zadevnega trga radiodifuzije v skladu z zakonom Gasparri.
19 — Joined Cases C-320/90, C-321/90 and C-322/90 Telemarsicabruzzo [1993] ECR I-393, paragraph 7.
I-11421, točka 25), z dne 13. marca 2001 v zadevi PreussenElektra (C-379/98, Recueil, str.
See also Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04 Cipolla and Others [2006] ECR I-11421, paragraph 25; Case C-379/98 Preussen- Elektra [2001] ECR I-2099, paragraph 39; and Case C-466/04 Acereda Herrera [2006] ECR I-5341, paragraph 48.
I-2099, točka 3) in z dne 15. junija 2006 v zadevi Acereda Herrera (C-466/04, ZOdl., str. I-5341, točka 48).
In those circumstances, the enquiry of the referring court concerning the Treaty rules on competition must be held to be inadmissible. 21
V takih okoli�činah se mora vsaka presoja predložitvenega sodi�ča o določbah Pogodbe glede konkurence �teti za nedopustno. 21
It might be argued that, rearticulated in this way, the reference for a preliminary ruling none the less founders on the rock of inadmissibility in so far as Article 49 EC is concerned, because the facts at issue in the main proceedings appear to have no crossborder implications.
Lahko bi sicer ugovarjali, da tako spremenjen predlog za predhodno odločanje na testu nedopustnosti, če gre za člen 49 ES, kljub temu pade saj je videti, da dejstva na začetku postopka nimajo medmejnih elementov.
However, that argument is not convincing.
Vendar ta trditev ne prepriča.
In Guimont 24as well as in Anomar and Others, 25the Court accepted questions
V sodbi Guimont 24kot tudi v sodbi Anomar in drugi 25je Sodi�če sprejelo kot
In so far as the reference for a preliminary ruling is admissible, it essentially raises the following overarching issue: ‘Does Community law preclude national legislation that enables incumbent providers of national television broadcast services to continue to broadcast over radio frequencies, thereby blocking the release of radio frequencies for new entrants who have obtained a right to provide the same services?’ I shall address this question with reference to Article 49 EC 22 and the common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services. 23
Če je predlog za predhodno odločanje nedopusten, nujno zastavlja to vseobsegajoče vpra�anje: „Ali pravo Skupnosti nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, ki omogoča uveljavljenim ponudnikom nacionalnih radiodifuznih storitev nemoteno oddajanje prek radijske frekvence, čeprav je s tem onemogočena dodelitev radijske frekvence novim ponudnikom, ki so dobili koncesijo za enake storitve?“ To vpra�anje bom zastavil ob sklicevanju na člen 49 ES 22 ter skupni regulativni okvir za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve. 23
21 — See also, for instance, Case C-134/03 Viacom Outdoor [2005] ECR I-1167, paragraphs 25 to 29.
21 — Glej tudi na primer sodbo z dne 17. februarja 2005 v zadevi Viacom Outdoor (C-134/03, ZOdl., str. I-1167, točke od 25 do 29).
22 — It might be argued that Article 43 EC is also of relevance.
22 — Lahko se prereka, da je tudi člen 43 ES upo�teven.
However, I do not consider it necessary to examine the present case under Article 43 EC as well as under Article 49 EC, since both, in my view, would lead to the same result.
Vendar nisem mnenja, da je treba ta primer preučiti v skladu s členom 49 ES kot tudi s členom 43 ES, ker bi po mojem mnenju oba vodila k enakem rezultatu.
referred by the national court relating to the Treaty rules on free movement, although they were raised in a case that had no crossborder element.
24 — Sodba z dne 5. decembra 2000 v zadevi Guimont (C-448/98, Recueil, str. I-10663).
23 — Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (‘Framework Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).
23 — Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/21/ES z dne 7. marca 2002 o skupnem regulativnem okviru za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve (Okvirna direktiva) (UL L 108, str. 33).
See also Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘Authorisation Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p.
Glej tudi Direktivo 2002/20/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 7. marca 2002 o odobritvi elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij in storitev (Direktiva o odobritvi) (UL L 108, str.
21); and Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (‘Access Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7).
21) in Direktivo 2002/19/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 7. marca 2002 o dostopu do elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij in pripadajočih naprav ter o njihovem medomrežnem povezovanju (Direktiva o dostopu) (UL L 108, str. 7).
CENTRO EUROPA 7 treatment of a Member State’s own nationals.
CENTRO EUROPA 7 obravnave državljanov držav članic.
27Therefore, the Court should, also in the present case, provide an interpretation of Article 49 EC.
27Tako mora Sodi�če tudi v tem primeru zagotoviti razlago člena 49 ES.
Treaty precludes limitations that would make it more difficult for operators in other Member States than for domestic operators to gain access to the national market.
onalnega trga bolj otežile operaterjem v ostalih državah članicah kot domačim operaterjem.
30Under the free movement rules, any Member State measure which would, actually or potentially, have such an effect, can be upheld only if the measure is suitable and necessary for the pursuit of a legitimate public interest and if the disparate impact on domestic operators and operators in other Member States is proportionate to objective differences between those operators. 31
30 V skladu s pravili o prostem gibanju vsak ukrep držav članic, ki bi zdaj ali v prihodnosti lahko povzročil tak učinek, lahko vzdrži le, če je ukrep primeren in potreben za nadaljevanje zakonitega javnega interesa in če je različen učinek na domače operaterje in operaterje v drugih državah članicah sorazmeren z objektivnimi razlikami med temi operaterji. 31
Member States are not obliged under the Treaty to privatise particular sectors of the market.
Pogodba držav članic ne zavezuje, da morajo nekatere sektorje trga olastniniti.
In principle, the Treaty allows them to maintain State monopolies or public ownership of certain companies.
Načeloma jim omogoča, da ohranijo državni monopol ali javno lastni�tvo nekaterih podjetij.
28Never-theless, it does not entitle them selectively to curtail the access of market operators to certain economic sectors once those sectors have been privatised. 29
28Vendar pa ne dovoljuje, da selektivno onemogočijo dostop operaterjev na trgu do posameznih gospodarskih sektorjev, ko so ti sektorji že olastninjeni. 29
National measures which limit the number of operators in a particular market sector are liable to restrict free movement, since such measures carry the risk that they may solidify domestic market structures and protect the position of operators who have obtained a stronghold in that sector.
Nacionalni ukrepi, ki omejujejo �tevilo operaterjev na nekem sektorju trga, lahko omejijo prosto gibanje le, če ti ukrepi pomenijo tveganje, da lahko utrdijo strukture domačega trga in zavarujejo položaj operaterjev, ki so imeli močan položaj v sektorju.
Such operators, moreover, are likely to be domestic operators.
Gre po navadi za domače operaterje.
Restrictions on the number of operators in a sector of the national market must therefore be justified.
Omejitve glede �tevila operaterjev v sektorju nacionalnega trga je treba torej upravičiti.
As a consequence, Community law usually does not grant operators a right to operate in a particular sector.
Iz tega izhaja, da pravo Skupnosti operaterjem navadno ne daje pravice za delovanje v določenem sektorju.
However, the
Vendar Pogodba nasprotuje omejitvam, ki bi dostop do naci-
As the judgment in Placanica illustrates, it is possible for a licensing system which limits the total number of operators in the national territory to be justified in the
Kot je prikazano v sodbi Placanica, je licenčni sistem, ki omejuje skupno �tevilo operaterjev na nacionalnem ozemlju, mogoče upravičiti z upo�tevanjem javnega
27 — See also points 121 to 154 of the Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-212/06 Gouvernement de la Communauté française and Gouvernement wallon, currently pending before this Court, and my own Opinion in Case C-72/03 Carbonati Apuani [2004] ECR I-8027, points 61 to 63.
27 — Glej tudi točke od 121 do 154 sklepnih predlogov, ki jih je predstavila generalna pravobranilka Sharpston v zadevi Gouvernement de la Communauté française et Gouvernement wallon (C-212/06), ki �e teče pred Sodi�čem, in tudi mojih predlogov, ki sem jih predstavil v zadevi Carbonati Apuani (C-72/03, ZOdl., str. I-8027, točke od 61 do 63).
30 — See, for instance, Joined Cases C-544/03 and C-545/03 Mobistar and Belgacom Mobile [2005] ECR I-7723, paragraphs 31 to 33.
30 — Glej na primer sodbo z dne 8. septembra 2005 v združenih zadevah Mobistar in Belgacom Mobile (C-544/03 in C-545/03, ZOdl., str. I-7723, točke od 31 do 33).
31 — See, for instance, Case C-322/01 Deutscher Apotheker-verband [2003] ECR I-14887 and my Opinion in Case C-434/04 Ahokainen and Leppik [2006] ECR I-9171.
29 — Glej točko 26 mojih sklepnih predlogov, predstavljenih 7. septembra 2006 v združenih zadevah Federconsumatori in drugi (C-463/04 in C-464/04), ki �e tečeta pred Sodi�čem.
29 — See point 26 of my Opinion in Joined Cases C-463/04 and C-464/04 Federconsumatori and Others, currently pending before this Court.
I-14887) in moje sklepne predloge, predstavljene 13. julija 2006 v zadevi Ahokainen and Leppik (C-434/04, str. I-9171).
32Thus, a national limit on the total number rules, the Court has held that Member States must respect the principles of non-discrimi-nation and transparency by virtue of primary Community law.
Vendar je Sodi�če kljub pogodbam, ki presegajo razsežnost teh usklajenih pravil, odločilo, da morajo države članice spo�tovati načeli prepovedi diskriminacije in preglednosti že po primarnem pravu Skupnosti. 34 interesa.
34 of operators in a particular market sector for services could, in principle, be held permissible under Article 49 EC.
32 Nacionalna omejitev vseh operaterjev v nekem sektorju trga za storitve se torej lahko dovoli v skladu s členom 49 ES.
However, that would require not only a legitimate reason for limiting the number of operators, but also a selection process which excludes arbitrary discrimination by providing sufficient guarantees that the right to operate is awarded on the basis of objective criteria.
Vendar bi to zahtevalo ne le legitimni razlog za omejitev �tevila operaterjev, ampak tudi postopek selekcije, ki izključuje arbitrarno diskriminacijo z zadostnim zagotovilom, da je koncesija za delovanje podeljena na podlagi objektivnih meril.
Therefore, when a Member State grants such a right, it must do so pursuant to transparent and nondiscriminatory procedures.
Ko torej država članica podeli tako koncesijo, mora to storiti v skladu s preglednimi in nediskriminatornimi postopki.
The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that operators throughout the Community have equal opportunities to gain access to any part of the internal market.
Namen te zahteve je zagotoviti enake možnosti za dostop do kateregakoli dela notranjega trga vsem operaterjem v Skupnosti.
The same holds true in a situation where a Member State awards, to a limited number of private operators, the right to provide national television broadcasting services by radio frequency.
Tako je tudi v položaju, ko država članica omejenemu �tevilu zasebnih operaterjev podeli koncesijo za nacionalno televizijsko radiodifuzijo prek radijske frekvence.
Member States may want to restrict access to that particular market, thus hindering the freedom to provide services.
Države članice lahko kljub oviranju svobode opravljanja storitev omejijo dostop do tega trga.
The restriction may be justified on grounds of public policy if it is suitable and necessary in order to reduce the risk of harmful radio interference, unless the restriction results in arbitrary discrimination.
Omejitev se lahko upraviči z javnim redom, če je to primerno in potrebno, da se zmanj�a tveganje za �kodljivo radijsko interferenco, razen če se omejitev izkaže za arbitrarno diskriminacijo.
Consequently, the tender procedure for awarding rights to provide national broadcasting services must, by virtue of Article 49 EC, comply with the principle of non-discrimination and the ensuing duty of transparency.
Zato mora biti razpis za dodelitev koncesij za nacionalne radiodifuzne storitve v skladu s členom 49 ES usklajen z načelom prepovedi diskriminacije in obveznosti preglednosti.
The same reasoning underpins the Community rules governing the procedures for the award of public contracts and concessions.
Tako razmi�ljanje podpira pravila Skupnosti glede postopkov oddaje javnih naročil in koncesij.
Those procedures are governed by the principles of non-discrimination and transparency.
Za te postopke veljata načeli prepovedi diskriminacije in preglednosti.
In certain fields, secondary legislation fleshes out those principles and lays down specific public procurement rules.
Na nekaterih področjih sekundarna zakonodaja ta načela izraža in določa posamezna pravila o oddaji javnih naročil. 33
These principles also occupy an important position in the common regulatory framework for electronic communications
Ta načela imajo tudi pomemben položaj v skupnem regulativnem okviru za elek-
32 — Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04 [2007] ECR I-1891, paragraph 53.
32 — Sodba z dne 6. marca 2007 v združenih zadevah C-338/04 in C-360/04 (ZOdl., str. I-1891, točka 53).
See also the judgment of the EFTA Court of 30 May 2007 in Case E-3/06 Ladbrokes, paragraphs 40 to 48.
Glej tudi sodbo Sodi�ča EFTA z dne 30. maja 2007 v zadevi Ladbrokes (E-3/06, točke od 40 do 48).
33 — Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p.
34 — Sodbe z dne 6. aprila 2006 v zadevi ANAV (C-410/04, ZOdl., str.
114), last amended by Council Directive 2006/97/EC of 20 November 2006 (OJ 2006 L 363, p.
I-3303, točka 21); z dne 21. julija 2005 v zadevi Coname (C-458/03, ZOdl., str.
107); Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p.
I-7287, točka 17); z dne 13. oktobra 2005 v zadevi Parking Brixen (C-458/03, ZOdl., str.
1), last amended by Council Directive 2006/97/EC of 20 November 2006 (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 107).
I-8612, točki 48 in 49), in z dne 7. decembra 2000 v zadevi Telaustria in Telefonadress (C-324/98, Recueil, str.
See also Commission interpretative communication of 23 June 2006 on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provisions of the Public Procurement Directives (OJ 2006 C 179, p. 2).
Glej tudi Razlagalno sporočilo Komisije z dne 23. junija 2006 o zakonodaji Skupnosti, ki velja za oddajo javnih naročil, ki niso zajeta ali so samo delno zajeta v direktivah o javnih naročilih (UL C 179, str. 2).
CENTRO EUROPA 7 indefinitely, thus frustrating the application of the rules on free movement.
CENTRO EUROPA 7 tronske komunikacijske mreže in storitve.
networks and services. 35The common framework, which the Member States were under a duty to implement by 25 July 2003, sets out rules for the management of radio frequencies and the procedure for limiting the rights of use of those frequencies.
prenesti v svojo zakonodajo do 25. julija 2003, določa pravila za upravljanje radijskih frekvenc in postopka za omejevanje pravic glede uporabe teh frekvenc.
Article 9(1) of the Framework Directive provides that ‘Member States shall ensure that the allocation and assignment of … radio frequencies by national regulatory authorities are based on objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate criteria.’
Člen 9(1) Okvirne direktive določa, da morajo „države članice zagotoviti, da nacionalni regulativni organi razporedijo in dodelijo take radijske frekvence na podlagi objektivnih, preglednih, nediskriminatornih in sorazmernih meril“.
Likewise, Article 7(3) of the Authorisation Directive provides that ‘where the granting of rights of use for radio frequencies needs to be limited, Member States shall grant such rights on the basis of selection criteria which must be objective, transparent, nondiscriminatory and proportionate.’
Člen 7(3) Direktive o odobritvi določa, da „kadar je treba podelitev pravic uporabe radijskih frekvenc omejiti, države članice podelijo take pravice na podlagi izbirnih meril, ki morajo biti objektivna, pregledna, nediskriminatorna in sorazmerna“.
Thus, the common regulatory framework expands on principles that flow from the Treaty.
Skupni regulativni okvir se tako opira na načela, ki izhajajo iz Pogodbe.
It is all the more imperative that these requirements be met in a situation such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, where the public tender procedure for broadcasting rights was conducted to assure pluralism of the media.
Te zahteve je treba upo�tevati v položaju, kot je ta iz postopka v glavni stvari, ko naj bi postopek javnega razpisa za koncesijo radiodifuzije zagotovil medijski pluralizem.
The part often played by the media as editors of the public sphere 37is vital to the promotion and protection of an open and inclusive society in which different ideas of the common good are presented and discussed.
Vloga, ki jo imajo pogosto mediji kot „glasilo javnosti“, 37je bistvena za promocijo in varstvo odprte in vsevključujoče družbe, v kateri obstajajo različne ideje o tem, kaj je javno dobro, in se o njih tudi razpravlja.
In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has stressed that the fundamental role of freedom of expression in
Glede tega je Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice poudarilo, da se glavna vloga svobode izražanja v demokratični družbi, zlasti kadar je njen namen raz�irjanje informacij in idej
Respect for these principles naturally entails that Member States must follow through on the decision to grant operating licences to those operators who have been selected pursuant to transparent, nondiscriminatory procedures.
Iz spo�tovanja teh načel po naravi izhaja, da morajo države članice upo�tevati odločbo za podeljevanje operativnih licenc tistim operaterjem, ki so bili izbrani v skladu s preglednim, nediskriminatornim postopkom.
It would negate the very purpose of those procedures if a Member State were to fail to respect their outcome and, instead, allow incumbent private operators to occupy the market
Namen teh postopkov bi izničen, če država članica ne bi spo�tovala njihovega rezultata in bi namesto tega uveljavljenim operaterjem dovolila, da neomejeno obvladujejo trg in tako preprečijo uveljavitev pravil o prostem
36 — Commission interpretative communication on concessions under Community law (OJ 2000 C 121, p. 2).
36 — Razlagalno sporočilo Komisije glede koncesij v pravu Skupnosti (UL 2000, C 121, str. 2).
38Accordingly, the application of Community law in the area of national broadcasting services is guided by the principle of pluralism and, moreover, assumes special significance where it strengthens the protection of that principle. 39
38Zato uporabo prava Skupnosti na področju dejavnosti nacionalne radiodifuzije vodi načelo pluralizma in ta uporaba daje poseben pomen pri okrepitvi varstva tega načela.