natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(g) the protection of the data subject or of the rights and freedoms of others.’
(g) posameznika, na katerega se nana�ajo osebni podatki, ali pravic in svobo�čin drugih.“
Directive 2006/24 requires Member States to retain inter alia traffic data relating to Internet traffic.
Direktiva 2006/24 zavezuje države članice k temu, da med drugim hranijo podatke o prometu v internetnem prometu.
Under Article 15, it must be transposed by 15 September 2007 but allows retention in relation to Internet traffic to be postponed by a further 18 months.
V skladu z njenim členom 15 jo je treba prenesti do 15. septembra 2007, dovoljuje pa, da se hramba v internetnem prometu odloži za nadaljnjih 18 mesecev.
Spain has not made use of that possibility.
Španija te možnosti ni izkoristila.
In addition, it should be pointed out that an independent working party composed of representatives of the data protection supervisory authorities of the Member States (‘the Data Protection Working Party) 8 was set up under Article 29 of Directive 95/46.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti na to, da je bila v skladu s členom 29 Direkti ve 95/46 ustanovljena neodvisna skupina, ki jo sestavljajo predstavniki nadzornih organov držav članic, zadolženih za varstvo podatkov (v nadaljevanju: delovna skupina za varstvo posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov).
Its task is to give opinions on questions covering data protection legislation.
8Njena naloga je podati mnenje glede pravnih vpra�anj v zvezi z varstvom podatkov.
A similar function is assigned to the Data Protection Supervisor established under Article 286 EC and Regulation No 45/2001. 9
Podobno nalogo ima nadzornik za varstvo podatkov, ki ga opredeljujeta člen 286 ES in Uredba �t. 45/2001. 9
Article 11 of Directive 2006/24 inserts a new paragraph 1a in Article 15 of Directive 2002/58:
S členom 11 Direktive 2006/24 je bil vstavljen v člen 15 Direktive 2002/58 nov odstavek 1a:
Finally, Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data
Za obravnavani primer je končno zanimiva tudi Direktiva 2006/24/ES z dne 15. marca 2006 o hrambi podatkov, prido-
‘Paragraph 1 shall not apply to data specifically required by Directive 2006/24/EC … to be retained for the purposes referred to in Article 1(1) of that Directive.’
„Odstavek 1 se ne uporablja za podatke, katerih hramba je posebej zahtevana v Direktivi 2006/24/ES […] za namene iz člena 1(1) navedene direktive.“
8 — The documents of the Data Protection Working Party are available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/workinggroup/index_en.htm.
8 — Dokumenti delovne skupine za varstvo posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov so dostopni na internetnem naslovu http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/workinggroup/index_de.htm.
9 — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
9 — Uredba (ES) �t. 45/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 18. decembra 2000 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov v institucijah in organih Skupnosti in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov (UL 2001, L 8, str. 1).
The communication of data retained under Directive 2006/24 is regulated in Article 4:
Člen 4 ureja sporočanje hranjenih podatkov v skladu z Direktivo 2006/24: družbe in o elektronskem poslovanju) z dne 11. julija 2002:
‘Article 12.
„Člen 12.
Duty to retain traffic data relating to electronic communications
Dolžnost shranjevanja podatkov o prometu v zvezi z elektronskimi povezavami
‘Member States shall adopt measures to ensure that data retained in accordance with this Directive are provided only to the competent national authorities in specific cases and in accordance with national law.
„Države članice sprejmejo ukrepe za zagotovitev, da se podatki, hranjeni v skladu s to direktivo, zagotovijo samo pristojnim nacionalnim organom za vsak primer posebej in v skladu z nacionalnim pravom.
The procedures to be followed and the conditions to be fulfilled in order to gain access to retained data in accordance with necessity and proportionality requirements shall be defined by each Member State in its national law, subject to the relevant provisions of European Union law or public international law, and in particular the ECHR as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights.’
Vsaka država članica v nacionalnem pravu določi postopke in pogoje za pridobitev dostopa do hranjenih podatkov v skladu z zahtevami glede nujnosti in sorazmernosti, in sicer ob upo�tevanju ustreznih določb prava Evropske unije ali mednarodnega javnega prava, zlasti pa EKČP, kakor jo razlaga Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice.“
Operators of electronic communications networks and services, providers of access to telecommunications networks and providers of data storage services must retain for a maximum of 12 months the connection and traffic data generated by the communications established during the supply of an information society service, under the conditions established in this article and the regulations implementing it.
Operaterji elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij in storitev, ponudniki dostopov do telekomunikacijskih omrežij ter ponudniki storitev gostovanja morajo podatke o povezavah in prometu, nastale na podlagi sporočil, ki se pridobijo med opravljanjem storitve informacijske družbe, hraniti do dvanajst mesecev v obsegu, ki je določen v tem členu in v ustreznih izvedbenih predpisih.
B — Spanish law
B – Špansko pravo
2. … The operators of electronic communications networks and services and the service providers to which this article refers may not use the data retained for purposes other than those indicated in the paragraph below or other purposes permitted by the Law and must adopt appropriate security measures to avoid the loss or alteration of the data and unauthorised access to the data.
2. […] Operaterji elektronskih komunikacijskih omrežij in storitev in ponudniki storitev, na katere se nana�a ta člen, ne smejo shranjenih podatkov uporabiti v druge namene, kot so tisti, navedeni v naslednjem odstavku, ali tisti, ki so dovoljeni z zakonom in morajo sprejeti ustrezne varnostne ukrepe, da se preprečita izguba ali sprememba podatkov in nepoobla�čen dostop do njih.
PROMUSICAE against a Spanish provider of Internet access, Telefónica de España SAU, requesting that the company be ordered to disclose the names and addresses of certain Internet users.
PROMUSICAE je zahtevalo, naj ji �panski ponudnik internetnih dostopov Telefónica de España SAU razkrije imena in naslove nekaterih internetnih uporabnikov.
Promusicae identified those persons by IP addresses and by the date and time of their use.
Promusicae je te osebe identificirala s tako imenovanimi IP-naslovi ter z dnevom in uro njihove uporabe.
The data shall be retained for use in the context of a criminal investigation or to safeguard public security and national defence, and shall be made available to the courts or the public prosecutor at their request.
Podatki se shranjujejo, da bi se lahko uporabili v okviru kazenskopravne preiskave ali za za�čito javne varnosti in za nacionalno obrambo. Na podlagi zahtevka so na razpolago sodnikom ali sodi�čem ali državnemu tožilstvu.
Communication of the data to the forces of order shall be effected in accordance with the provisions of the rules on personal data protection.’
Sporočanje teh podatkov varnostnim službam in organom se izvaja v skladu z določbami o varstvu podatkov.“
The referring court also states that the infringement of copyright is a criminal offence in Spain only if the act is committed with the intention to make a profit. 11
Predložitveno sodi�če je �e pojasnilo, da je kr�itev avtorskih pravic v Španiji kazniva le, če je dejanje storjeno za pridobivanje dobička. 11
The IP address is a numerical address format, comparable to a telephone number, which enables networked devices such as webservers, e-mail servers or private computers to communicate with one another on the Internet.
IP-naslov je numerična oblika naslova, primerljiva s telefonsko �tevilko, ki omogoča komunikacijo mrežnih naprav, kot so spletni strežnik, po�tni strežnik ali zasebni računalnik z dostopom do interneta.
Thus, the server via which Court of Justice pages are retrieved has the IP address 147.67.243.28.
Tako je 147.67.243.28 IP-naslov strežnika, po katerem se dostopa do spletnih strani Sodi�ča.
12When a page is retrieved, the address of the retrieving computer is communicated to the computer on which the page is stored, so that the data can be routed from one computer to the other via the Internet.
12 Pri dostopu do spletne strani je računalnik, na katerem je stran shranjena, obve�čen o naslovu kličočega računalnika, zato da se lahko podatki po internetu po�ljejo od enega k drugemu računalniku.
III — Technical background, facts and main proceedings
III – Tehnično ozadje, dejansko stanje in spor o glavni stvari
The applicant in the main proceedings (Productores de Música de España, ‘Promusicae’) is a non-profit-making association of producers and publishers of musical recordings and audiovisual presentations which are essentially musical.
Tožeča stranka iz postopka v glavni stvari (Productores de Música de España, v nadaljevanju: Promusicae) je združenje, katerega namen ni pridobivanje dobička, povezuje pa producente in izdajatelje glasbenih posnetkov ter – v bistvenem glasbenih – avdiovizualnih posnetkov. Na sodi�ču
Static IP addresses may be assigned in order to connect private users to the Internet, in similar fashion to connection to the telephone network.
Za povezavo zasebnih uporabnikov z internetom se lahko – podobno kot za priključek v telefonsko omrežje – dodelijo stalni IP-naslovi.
However, that is rather rare, since the Internet is at present still organised in such a way that each access provider has only a limited number of addresses avail-
To pa je prej redkost, saj je internet trenutno �e organiziran tako, da ima vsak ponudnik dostopa na
able to it. 13Consequently, in most cases, including this one, dynamic IP addresses are used, which means that the access provider assigns its customers an address, on an ad hoc basis, from its quota of addresses every time they access the Internet.
vanem primeru – uporabljajo dinamični IP-naslovi, to pomeni, da ponudnik dostopa svojim strankam pri vsakem dostopu ad hoc dodeli naslov iz svojega pripadajočega deleža naslovov.
That address may naturally change each time a customer dials up.
Zato se lahko ta pri vsakem dostopu spremeni.
In order to take action against such users, Promusicae claims that the access provider concerned, Telefónica, should inform it which users were assigned the IP addresses identified by it at the times specified by it.
Promusicae od zadevnega ponudnika internetnega dostopa Telefónice zahteva podatek o tem, katerim uporabnikom so bili ob navedenih časih dodeljeni IP-naslovi, ki jih je identificirala, da bi lahko ukrepala proti ustreznim uporabnikom.
Telefónica is able to find out which connection was used in each case, since it retains, after the connection has ended, the details concerning to whom and when it assigned a particular IP address.
Telefónica lahko določi vsakokrat uporabljeni priključek, saj tudi po prekinitvi povezave hrani podatek o tem, komu je kdaj dodelila določen IP-naslov.
Promusicae claims that it identified a number of IP addresses which were used at certain times for the purpose of ‘file sharing’ in respect of music files to which the its members hold the exploitation rights.
Promusicae je navedla, da je identificirala več IP-naslovov, ki so bili v določenih trenutkih uporabljeni za izmenjavo glasbenih datotek, za katere imajo njeni člani avtorske in licenčne pravice.
File sharing is a form of exchange of files containing, for example, pieces of music or films.
Filesharing je oblika izmenjave datotek, na primer glasbenih del ali filmov.
Users first copy the files onto their computers and then offer them to anyone who is in contact with them via the Internet and a particular program, in this case Kazaa.
Uporabniki najprej kopirajo datoteke na svoje računalnike in jih pozneje ponudijo vsakomur, ki je z njimi povezan prek interneta in posebnega programa, v tem primeru Kazaa.
Normally, in such cases, 14the IP address
Pri tem se običajno 14 uporabi IP-naslov tistega,
The referring court first gave a ruling requiring Telefónica to provide the desired information.
Predložitveno sodi�če je najprej izdalo sklep, s katerim je Telefónici naložilo, naj sporoči želene podatke. Telefónica pa je ugovarjala, da v skladu s členom 12 Ley de Servicios de la Sociedad de la Información y de Comercio Electrónico sodi�ču nikakor ne more dati podatkov.
The electronic communications operator or service provider is allowed to supply the information which he is required by law to retain only in connection with a criminal investigation, or if it is necessary in order to protect public safety, or if national security is involved.
Ponudnik elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev ali izvajalec storitev naj bi lahko le v okviru kazenskopravne preiskave ali če je to potrebno za za�čito javne varnosti oziroma če je ogrožena državna varnost predložil informacije o podatkih, ki jih mora hraniti na podlagi zakona.
13 — See, in that regard, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — Next Generation Internet — priorities for action in migrating to the new Internet protocol IPv6, COM(2002) 96.
13 — K temu glej sporočilo Komisije Svetu in Evropskemu parlamentu: Internet prihodnje generacije – Prednostni ukrepi pri prehodu na nov internetni protokol IPv6 (COM(2002) 96).
14 — Technically it also appears to be possible to conceal one’s own IP address.
14 — Tehnično je očitno tudi mogoče, da se lastni IP-naslov skrije.
However, such services involve a cost and/or are slow.
Ustrezne ponudbe pa so plačljive in/ali počasne.
See the Wikipedia entry Anonymous P2P, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_p2p, and Working Document WP 37 of the Data Protection Working Party of 21 November 2000, Privacy on the Internet, p.
Glej vpis v Wikipedio Anonymous P2P, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_p2p in �e brez upo�tevanja izmenjave datotek delovni dokument WP 37 delovne skupine za varstvo posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov z dne 21. novembra 2000, Zasebnost na internetu, str.
86 et seq., which does not yet take file sharing into account.
86 in naslednja.
The referring court considers it possible that that view is correct under Spanish law, but takes the view that the provision in ques-
Predložitveno sodi�če ocenjuje, da je mogoče, da je to stali�če v skladu s �panskim pravom, vendar pa meni, da potem zadevna
It therefore refers the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Zato Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predlaga to vpra�anje:
However, since they are able to make an important contribution to the discussion of legal issues concerning data protection, I have devoted particular attention at least to their published opinions on the questions raised here.
Ker pa lahko pomembno prispevata pri obravnavi pravnih vpra�anj v zvezi z varstvom podatkov, sem posebno pozornost namenila vsaj njunima objavljenima stali�čema glede tu sproženih vpra�anj.
The Court is required to clarify whether it is compatible with the directives mentioned by the referring court to restrict the obligation to communicate connection data to criminal prosecutions and similar proceedings, but to exclude from it civil proceedings.
Sodi�če naj razjasni, ali je z direktivami, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če, skladno, da se obveznost predložitve podatkov o povezavah omeji na kazenski pregon in podobne postopke, ob tem pa se ta obveznost izključi za civilnopravne postopke.
The referring court thus takes the view that there is a contradiction between Spanish law and Community law.
Predložitveno sodi�če tako zastopa stali�če, da obstaja protislovje med �panskim
15 — See point 22 above.
15 — Glej zgoraj navedeno točko 22.
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-275/06 that the provision of Spanish law referred to is based on Article 15 of Directive 2002/58 and largely incorporates its wording.
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-275/06 pravom in pravom Skupnosti. S tem pa spregleda, da temelji obravnavana določba �panskega prava na členu 15 Direktive 2002/58, katerega besedilo v veliki meri povzema.
That directive contains provisions on data protection in the electronic communications sector and in that respect supplements Directive 95/46 containing general provisions on data protection.
Ta direktiva vsebuje določbe o varstvu podatkov pri elektronski komunikaciji in v tem smislu raz�irja Direktivo 95/46, ki vsebuje splo�ne določbe o varstvu podatkov.
17If Spanish law unquestionably precluded communication of the data at issue, even the interpretation of directives requested by the referring court could not lead to Telefónica’s being obliged to communicate them.
17Če bi �pansko pravo nedvomno nasprotovalo sporočanju spornih podatkov, tudi razlaga direktiv, ki jo želi predložitveno sodi�če, ne bi mogla povzročiti, da bi se Telefónica zavezala k predložitve.
On the basis of the available information, however, it is conceivable that Spanish law could be interpreted in conformity with the directives.
Na podlagi predloženih podatkov pa ni mogoče izključiti, da je mogoče �pansko pravo razlagati v skladu z direktivami.
As long as that possibility exists, a request for a preliminary ruling such as this one cannot be regarded as irrelevant. 18
Dokler obstaja ta možnost, predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, kot je obravnavani, ni mogoče �teti za nepomembnega. 18
It must therefore be examined whether it is compatible with the provisions mentioned by the referring court, having regard to the provisions on data protection, to prohibit providers of Internet access from identifying the holders of subscriber lines in order to enable civil proceedings for copyright infringements.
Torej je treba preučiti, ali je z določbami, ki jih navaja predložitveno sodi�če, ob upo�tevanju določb o varstvu podatkov, skladno, da se ponudnikom internetnih dostopov prepove, da identificirajo imetnike določenih krajevnih zank, da bi se omogočila izvedba civilnopravnega postopka zaradi kr�itev avtorskih pravic.
B — The relationship of the various directives to each other
B – Medsebojno razmerje med različnimi direktivami
Certain parties concentrate — almost exclusively — on the interpretation of the directives mentioned by the referring court.
Nekateri udeleženci se osredotočajo – skoraj izključno – na razlago direktiv, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če.
In so doing, they invariably emphasise the necessity of effective legal protection against infringements of copyright.
Pri tem redno poudarjajo potrebo po učinkovitem pravnem varstvu pri kr�itvah avtorske pravice.
The Commission, on the other hand, rightly points out that none of the three directives affects the law on data protection.
Komisija, nasprotno, pravilno poudarja, da nobena od teh treh direktiv ne vpliva na predpise o varstvu podatkov.
There could be doubts as to the admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling in terms of its relevance to a decision.
Dvomi o dopustnosti predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe bi lahko obstajali glede pomembnosti njegove odločitve. 16
16 A directive cannot of itself impose obligations
Direktiva ne more sama določiti obveznosti
16 — See Case C-3/04 Poseidon Chartering [2006] ECR I-2505, paragraph 14, and Case C-217/05 Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio [2006] ECR I-11987, paragraph 17, both with further references.
16 — Glej sodbi z dne 16. marca 2006 v zadevi Poseidon Chartering (C-3/04, ZOdl., str. I-2505, točka 14) in z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio (C-217/05, ZOdl., str. I-11987, točka 17) in navedene reference.
Under Article 1(5)(b) of Directive 2000/31 on electronic commerce, the Directive does not apply to questions relating to information society services covered by Directive 95/46 on data protection and Directive 97/66 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector.
V skladu s členom 1(5)(b) Direk -tive 2000/31 o elektronskem poslovanju se direktiva ne uporablja za vpra�anja v zvezi s storitvami informacijske družbe, ki jih zajemata Direktiva 95/46 o varstvu podatkov in Direktiva 97/66 o obdelavi osebnih podatkov in varstvu zasebnosti na področju telekomunikacij.
The lastmentioned directive has since been replaced by Directive 2002/58 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector.
Slednja direktiva je bila medtem nadome�čena z Direktivo 2002/58 o obdelavi osebnih podatkov in varstvu zasebnosti na področju elektronskih komunikacij.
That argument could be intended to mean that, under the principle lex posterior derogat legi priori, Directive 2004/48 takes precedence over Directive 2002/58, but not over Directive 95/46 which is expressly made an exception.
To navedbo bi bilo mogoče razumeti tako, da ima Direktiva 2004/48 v skladu z načelom lex posterior derogat legi priori prednost pred Direktivo 2002/58, ne pa pred izrecno izvzeto Direktivo 95/46.
However, that argument must be answered by pointing out that, according to Article 1(2), Directive 2002/58 is intended to particularise and complement Directive 95/46.
Temu pa je treba nasprotovati s tem, da naj bi Direk -tiva 2002/58 v skladu s členom 1(2) podrobno opredeljevala in dopolnjevala Direktivo 95/46.
Directive 2004/48 does not lay claim to that function.
Direktiva 2004/48 te naloge zase ne določa.
Rather, according to the second recital in the preamble, the protection of intellectual property which it brings about should not hamper the protection of personal data, including on the Internet.
Nasprotno, z njo zagotovljeno varstvo intelektualne lastnine, v skladu z njeno drugo uvodno izjavo, ne bi smelo ovirati varstva osebnih podatkov, vključno z internetom.
However, it would be inconsistent to allow particularising and complementing provisions which relate, in particular, to the protection of data on the Internet, which expressly must not be impaired, to be overridden without being replaced, but to continue to accord respect to the general provisions.
Protislovno pa bi bilo, če bi se podrobno opredeljene in dopolnjene določbe, ki se nana�ajo zlasti na varstvo podatkov, ki se ga izrecno ne sme okrniti, brez nadomestila umaknile, splo�ne določbe pa bi se �e naprej upo�tevalo.
Instead, it is more logical to extend the reservation in favour of Directive 95/46 to Directive 2002/58.
Nasprotno je bolj smiselno, da se pridržek v korist Direktive 95/46 raz�iri na Direktivo 2002/58.
In the same way, Article 9 of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society expressly states that the directive is without prejudice to, inter alia, provisions concerning data protection and privacy.
Prav tako člen 9 Direktive 2001/29 o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi izrecno določa, da direktiva med drugim ne vpliva na predpise, ki zadevajo varstvo podatkov in zasebnost.
A further point in favour of that conclusion, as regards the right of information under Article 8(1) and (2) to be considered here, is that, according to Article 8(3)(e), those paragraphs apply without prejudice to other statutory provisions which govern the processing of personal data.
Ta sklep v zvezi s pravico do informacij v skladu s členom 8(1) in (2) Direktive 2004/48, ki jo je treba tu obravnavati, potrjuje tudi to, da se ta v skladu s členom 8(3)(e) uporablja brez poseganja v druge zakonske določbe, ki urejajo obdelavo osebnih podatkov. Predlog
The relationship of Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights to data protection is somewhat less clear.
Nekoliko manj jasno je razmerje med Direktivo 2004/48 o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine in varstvom podatkov.
Article 2(3)(a) provides that that directive does not affect Directive 95/46.
Člen 2(3)(a) določa, da ta direktiva ne vpliva na Direktivo 95/46.