natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court added that, if a Member State was not called upon to make any legislative choices and had only considerably reduced, or even no, discretion, the mere infringement of Communitylaw may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of Communitylaw .
Sodišče je dodalo, da če država članica nima normativne izbire in ima le precej omejeno polje proste presoje ali je celo nima, lahko sama kršitev prava Skupnosti zadostuje za dokaz dovolj resne kršitve prava Skupnosti.
Accordingly, since Article 28 of Directive 2001/83 confers on a Member State in receipt of an application for mutual recognition only a very limited discretion in relation to the reasons for which it is entitled to refuse to recognise the marketing authorisation in question, the failure on the part of the Member State to recognise such an authorisation, on the ground that the relevant medicinal product either is not essentially similar to the reference product or belongs to a category of medicinal products for which the Member State concerned has a general policy which does not allow it to be considered as essentially similar, constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of Communitylaw capable of rendering that Member State liable in damages.
Ker da je člen 28 navedene direktive državi članici, ki prejme vlogo za medsebojno priznanje, le omejeno polje proste presoje glede razlogov, zaradi katerih tej državi ni treba priznati zadevnega dovoljenja za promet z zdravilom, to, da država članica ne prizna tega dovoljenja, ker zadevno zdravilo bodisi ni bistveno podobno referenčnemu bodisi spada v kategorijo zdravil, za katera splošna praksa zadevne države članice izključuje, da bi se lahko obravnavala kot bistveno podobna referenčnemu zdravilu, pomeni dovolj resno kršitev prava Skupnosti, zaradi katere je država članica lahko odškodninsko odgovorna.
Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
Direktiva 2001/83/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 6. novembra 2001 o zakoniku Skupnosti o zdravilih za uporabo v humani medicini (UL L 311, str. 67).
Furthermore, the effect of such a charge is only to protect the market-dominant subscriber network operator, enabling it to fund its own deficit from the subscribers of the other operators of interconnected networks.
DirektivaKomisije90/388/EGSzdne28.junija1990okonkurencinatrgihtelekomunikacijskihstoritev(ULL192, str.
Such funding, which is separate from any funding of universal service obligations, is contrary to the principle of free competition.
10), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Komisije 96/19/ES z dne 13. marca 1996 (UL L 74, str. 13).
Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of open network provision (ONP) (OJ 1997 L 199, p.
Razvoj in dejavnost zaradi zagotavljanja krajevnih zank. Člen 12(7) Direktive 97/33 namreč nacionalnemu regulativnemu organu ne dovoljuje, da odobri priključnino, katere višina ni stroškovno naravnana, če ima enake lastnosti kot tarifa za medomrežno povezovanje in se zaračunava kot dodatek k tej ta ri ê .
32), as amended by Directive 98/61/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 (OJ 1998 L 268, p. 37).
Navedena člena neposredno učinkujeta in se lahko posamezniki nanju pred nacionalnimi sodišči neposredno sklicujejo, da bi s tem izpodbili odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa.
Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p.
Sodišče je v zadevi Sabatauskas in drugi (sodba z dne 9. oktobra 2008, C-239/07), ki se nanaša na notranji trg z električno energijo, razsodilo, da je treba člen 20 Direktive 2003/5444 razlagati tako, da določa obveznosti držav članic le glede dostopa, in ne glede priključitve tretjih na prenosna in distribucijska omrežja električne energije ter da ne določa obveznosti, da mora sistem dostopa do omrežij, ki ga morajo uvesti države članice, upravičenemu odjemalcu omogočiti, da prosto izbere vrsto omrežja, na katero se želi priključiti.
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).
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).
Which grants any user or undertaking providing electronic communications networks and/or services a right to appeal against a decision taken by a national regulatory authority by which it is affected.
S katerim je vsakemu uporabniku ali podjetju, ki zagotavlja elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in/ali storitve, podeljena pravica do pritožbezoper odločbo, ki jo sprejme nacionalni regulativni organ in ki ga zadeva.
Which grants to such a person the right to begiven an appropriate period of notice of a decision towithdraw sector-specific regulatory obligations.
Ki zadnjenavedenemu podeljuje pravico, da je v ustreznem roku obveščeno o odločbi opreklicu regulativnih obveznosti, ki so značilne za sektor.
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the freemovement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 95/46/ES z dne 24. oktobra 1995 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov (UL L 281, str. 31).
In Case C-265/07 Caffaro (judgment of 11 September 2008), the Court held that that directive is to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision pursuant to which a creditor in possession of an enforceable title in respect of an unchallenged claim against a public authority as remuneration for a commercial transaction cannot proceed to forced execution against the public authority before a period of 120 days has elapsed since service of the enforceable title on the authority. As regards the recovery procedures for unchallenged claims, the directive
Direktiva 2000/31/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 8. junija 2000 o nekaterih pravnih vidikih storitev informacijske družbe, zlasti elektronskega poslovanja na notranjem trgu (UL L 178, str. 1).
1), Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p.
Direktiva 2001/29/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2001 o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi (UL L 167, str.
10) and Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).
10) in Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/48/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine (UL L 157, str. 45).
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the freemovement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p.
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 95/46/ES z dne 24. oktobra 1995 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov (UL L 281, str.
31) and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).
31) in Direktiva 2002/58/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 12. julija 2002 o obdelavi osebnih podatkov in varstvu zasebnosti na področju elektronskih komunikacij (UL L 201, str. 37).
Date : m );
Sodišče
Court of Justice harmonises only the period within which an enforceable title can be obtained, but does not govern forced execution procedures, which remain subject to the national law of the Member States.
Razvoj in dejavnost zgoraj navedene direktive razlagati tako, da zavezujejo države članice, naj določijo tako obveznost.
With regard to consumer protection, there are again two judgments which merit consideration.
V dveh zadevah je moralo Sodišče obravnavati Direktivo 2000/35 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih48.
In Case C-412/06 Hamilton (judgment of 10 April 2008), the Court stated that Directive 85/577 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (49) must be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is entitled to provide that the right of cancellation laid down in Article 5(1) of the directive, which provides that the consumer can renounce the effects of his undertaking by sending notice within a period of not less than seven days from the date on which the trader notified him of that right, may be exercised no later than one month from the date on which the contracting parties performed in full their obligations under a contract for long-term credit, where the consumer has been given defective notice concerning the exercise of that right.
V zadevi 01051 Telecom (sodba z dne 3. aprila 2008, C-306/06) v okviru spora zaradi plačila zamudnih obresti, ki se zahtevajo zaradi domnevno prepoznega plačila računov, je Sodišče odločilo, da je treba člen 3(1)(c)(ii) navedene direktive razlagati tako, da mora biti pri plačilu zapadlega zneska, izvršenem z bančnim nakazilom, ta znesek pravočasno knjižen v dobro na upnikovem računu, da prepreči tek zamudnih obresti ali ga ustavi.
In Case C-404/06 Quelle (judgment of 17 April 2008), a reference was made to the Court by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) concerning a dispute between a consumers’ association and Quelle, which had, in accordance with German legislation, requested and obtained payment from a consumer for use of a defective appliance which was replaced with a new appliance.
V zadevi Ca ì ar o (sodba z dne 11. septembra 2008, C-265/07) je Sodišče razsodilo, da je treba navedeno direktivo razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje nacionalni določbi, na podlagi katere upnik, ki je pridobil izvršilni naslov za izterjavo nesporne terjatve do javne uprave, nastale na podlagi trgovinskega posla, nemore začeti izvršbe proti tej upravi pred potekom 120-dnevnega roka od vročitve izvršilnega naslova navedeni upravi.
The Court considered that Directive 1999/44 on consumer goods (50) precludes national legislation under which a seller who has sold consumer goods which are not in conformity may require the consumer to pay compensation for the use of the defective goods until their replacement with new goods.
Z navedeno direktivo je namreč v zvezi s postopkom izterjave nespornih terjatev usklajen le rok za pridobitev navedenega izvršilnega naslova, ne da bi bil urejen postopek prisilne izvršbe, ki je še vedno podvržen nacionalnemu pravu držav članic.
Moreover, the ‘free of charge’ aspect of the seller’s obligation is consistent with the purpose of that directive, which is to ensure a high level of consumer protection.
V zvezi z varstvom potrošnikov je prav tako treba poudariti dve zadevi.
The seller, who, in contrast with the consumer who has already paid the selling price, does not perform his contractual obligation correctly if he delivers goods which are not in conformity, must bear the consequences of that faulty performance. The seller’s financial interests are nevertheless protected, on the one hand, by the two-year time limit and, on the other, by the fact that it may refuse to replace the goods where that remedy would be disproportionate in that it would impose unreasonable costs on the seller.
Sodišče je v zadevi Hamilton (sodba z dne 10. aprila 2008, C-412/06) navedlo, da je treba Direktivo 85/577 za varstvo potrošnika v primeru pogodb, sklenjenih zunaj poslovnih prostorov49 razlagati tako, da nacionalni zakonodajalec lahko določi, da se pravica do odstopa iz člena 5(1) te direktive, ki predvideva, da lahko potrošnik, če je prejel napačen pouk o uveljavljanju te pravice, odstopi od pogodbe tako, da pošlje pisno obvestilo v roku, ki ni krajši od sedmih dni in začne teči od trenutka, ko ga je prodajalec obvestilo tej pravici, lahko uveljavlja najpozneje en mesec po tem, ko obe pogodbeni stranki vceloti izpolnita obveznosti iz pogodbe o dolgoročnem kreditu.
Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31).
Direktiva 2000/35/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. junija 2000 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih (UL L 200, str. 35).
Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12).
Direktiva Sveta z dne 20. decembra 1985 za varstvo potrošnika v primeru pogodb, sklenjenih zunaj poslovnih prostorov (85/577/EGS) (UL L 372, str. 31).
Trademarks
Sodišče nega z novim.
With regard to the case-law on trade marks, two cases dealing with the possibility under Arti- cles 5(1)(b) and 6(1)(b) of Directive 89/104 (51) for the proprietor of a trademark to prevent the use of a sign that is similar to his mark merit particular attention.
Sodišče je menilo, da Direktiva 1999/44 o potrošniškem blagu50 nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, ki prodajalcu, ki je prodal blago, ki ni v skladu s pogodbo, omogoča, da od potrošnika zahteva nadomestilo za uporabo tega blaga do njegove zamenjave z novim.
2 two UnitedKingdom trademarks consisting of a static picture of bubbles, used that image to promote its services both as a static and a moving image. In an advertisement compar- ing its services with those of O
V sodni praksi na področju znamk je treba posebno pozornost nameniti zadevama, v katerih je bila obravnavana možnost imetnika znamke, kot izhaja iz členov 5(1)(b) in 6(1)(b) Direktive št. 89/10451, da prepove uporabo znaka, ki je podoben njegovi znamki.
, Hutchison 3G used moving black-and-white bubble imagery.
V zadevi O2 Holdings in O2 (UK) (sodba z dne 12. junija 2008, C-533/06) je družba O2, imetnica dveh britanskih znamk, ki sta sestavljeni iz negibne podobe mehurčkov, uporabila za oglaševanje svojih storitev to podobo, negibno in v gibanju.
, which were dismissed by the High Court at first
Družba Hutchison 3G je v oglasu, v katerem je primerjala svoje storitve s storitvami družbe O2, uporabila podobe črnih in belih mehurčkov v gibanju.
2 instance, the Court of Appeal asked, in essence, whether the proprietor of a trademark is en- titled to prevent the use of a sign which is identical with, or similar to, his mark in a comparative advertisement.
Court of Appeal je v okviru tožbe zaradi kršitve, ki jo je vložila družba O2 in jo je High Court zavrnilo na prvi stopnji, v bistvu spraševalo, ali lahko imetnik znamke prepove, da se pri primerjalnem oglaševanju uporabi znak, ki je enak ali podoben njegovi znamki.
Pointing out, first of all, the conditions laid down in Article 3 a of Directive 84/450 (52), as amended by Directive 97/55 (53), under which the proprietor of a trademark is permitted to prevent such use, the Court ruled that Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/104 is to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a registered trademark is not entitled to prevent the use by a third party, in a comparative advertisement, of a sign similar to that mark in relation to goods or services identical with, or similar to, those for which that mark was registered where such use does not give rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, and that is so irrespective of whether the comparative advertisement satisfies all the conditions under which such advertising is permitted.
Sodišče je najprej spomnilo na pogoje za dopustnost, določene v členu 3a Direktive št. 84/45052, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/5553, ki imetniku znamke dovoljuje, da prepove navedeno uporabo, in nato razsodilo, da je treba člen 5(1)(b) Direktive 89/104 razlagati tako, da imetnik registrirane znamke nima pravice tretji osebi prepovedati, da pri primerjalnem oglaševanju uporabi znak, podoben tej znamki, za proizvode ali storitve, ki so enaki ali podobni tistim, za katere je bila znamka registrirana, če ta uporaba pri javnosti ne ustvarja verjetnosti zmede, in sicer ne glede nato, ali navedeno primerjalno oglaševanje izpolnjuje vse pogoje za dopustnost.
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).
Prva direktiva Sveta 89/104/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1988 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami (UL L 40, str. 1).
Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17).
Direktiva Sveta 84/450/EGS z dne 10. septembra 1984 o približevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članico zavajajočem oglaševanju (UL L 250, str. 17).
Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18).
DirektivaEvropskegaparlamentainSveta97/55/ESzdne6.oktobra1997ospremembiDirektive84/450/EGS o zavajajočem oglaševanju, tako da vključuje primerjalno oglaševanje (UL L 290, str. 18).
Among the Court’s judgments given in the field of social policy, attention should be focused on a number of cases that deal with the implementation of the principle of equal treatment and with provisions designed to protect workers, as well as a case dealing with institutional issues which are of particular interest.
V zvezi s sodno prakso na področju socialne politike je treba omeniti več zadev v zvezi z izvajanjem načela enakega obravnavanja in določbami za zagotavljanje varstva delavcev ter zadevo, ki je zlasti zanimiva z institucionalnega vidika.
First of all, the Court developed its case-law on the interpretation of Directive 2007/78 on equal treatment in employment and occupation (54) in the context of two references for preliminary rulings.
Sodišče je najprej v okviru dveh vprašanj za predhodno odločanje poglobilo sodno prakso v zvezi z razlagoDirektive 2000/78/ES54 o enakem obravnavanju pri zaposlovanju in delu.
In Case C-303/06 Coleman (judgment of 17 July 2008), the Court stated that the principle of equal treatment enshrined in that directive applies not to a particular category of person but by reference to the grounds of discrimination mentioned in Article 1 there of and the prohibition of direct discrimination is not therefore limited only to people who are themselves disabled.
V zadevi Coleman (sodba z dne 17. julija 2008, C-303/06) je Sodišče navedlo, da se načelo enakega obravnavanja, določeno sto direktivo, ne uporablja za določeno skupino oseb, ampak na podlagi razlogov diskriminacije iz člena 1 te direktive, in da prepoved neposredne diskriminacije torej ni omejena le na invalidne osebe.
Accordingly, where an employer treats an employee who is not himself disabled less favourably than another employee in a comparable situation and it is established that the less favourable treatment of that employee is based on the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such treatment is contrary to the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by Article 2 of that directive.
Če delodajalec obravnava zaposlenega, ki ni invalid, manj ugodno od drugega zaposlenega v primerljivem položaju in če se dokaže, da se tega zaposlenega obravnava manj ugodno zaradi invalidnosti njegovega otroka, ki mu da je bistveni del oskrbe, ki jo ta potrebuje, se s takšnim obravnavanjem krši prepoved neposredne diskriminacije iz člena 2 iste direktive.
Any other interpretation is liable to deprive the directive of an important element of its effectiveness and to reduce the protection which it is intended to guarantee.
Z vsakršno drugačno razlago bi ta direktiva lahko izgubila pomemben del polnega učinka in bi se lahko varstvo, ki naj bi bilo z njo zagotovljeno, zmanjšalo.
The same reasoning applies with regard to harassment, since it is deemed to be a form of discrimination within the meaning of the directive.
Enaki razlogi veljajo za nadlegovanje, ki se lahko šteje za obliko diskriminacije v smislu navedene direktive.
The prohibition of harassment cannot therefore be limited only to persons who are themselves disabled but extends to persons who are subject to conduct amounting to harassment related to the disability of their child.
Prepovedi nadlegovanja torej ni mogoče omejiti le na invalidne osebe, ampak velja tudi za osebe, ki so žrtve ravnanja, ki pomeni nadlegovanje v zvezi z invalidnostjo njihovega otroka.
In Case C-267/06 Maruko (judgment of 1 April 2008), the Court held that a survivor’s benefit granted under an occupational pension scheme managed by a pension fund for a particular category of workers falls within the scope of Directive 2000/78.
V zadevi Maruko (sodba z dne 1. aprila 2008, C-267/06) je Sodišče razsodilo, da se za izplačilo za preživele osebe, dodeljeno v okviru sistema poklicnega socialnega zavarovanja, ki ga upravlja pokojninski zavod posebne skupine delavcev, uporablja Direktiva 2000/78.
Such a benefit must be classified as ‘pay’within the meaning of Article 141 EC on account of the fact, in particular, that it is derived from the employment relationship of the deceased person.
Tako izplačilo je treba namreč opredeliti kot „plačilo“ v smislu člena 141 ES, predvsem ker izhaja iz delovnega razmerja umrle osebe.
According to the Court, the refusal to grant life partners a survivor’s benefit constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. It is for the national court to determine whether a surviving life partner is in a situation comparable to that of a spouse who is entitled to the survivor’s benefit provided for under the occupational pension scheme managed by the pension fund concerned.
Poleg tega člena 1 in 2 navedene direktive nasprotujeta ureditvi, v skladu s katero preživeli partner po smrti življenjskega partnerja ne prejme izplačila za preživele osebe, enakega izplačilu, ki ga prejme preživeli zakonec, čeprav življenjska partnerska skupnost v skladu z nacionalnim pravom postavlja osebe istega spola v položaj, ki je primerljiv položaju zakoncev, kar zadeva omenjeno izplačilo
Date : m );
Razvoj in dejavnost
Court of Justice
I-1017), ki se nanaša na žensko, pri kateri je bila opravljena oploditev in vitro.
92/85 (55), which provides, inter alia, for the protection of female workers against dismissal, must be interpreted as not extending to a female worker who is undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment where, on the date she is given notice of her dismissal, her ova have already been fertilised by her partner’s sperm cells, so that in vitro fertilised ova exist, but they have not yet been transferred into her uterus.
V sodbi tako pojasnjuje, da je treba Direktivo 92/85/EGS55, s katero je bilo uvedeno varstvo nosečih delavk pred odpustom, razlagati tako, da se ne nanaša na delavko, pri kateri je bila opravljena oploditev in vitro, kadar se je na dan, ko je bila odpuščena, oploditev njenih jajčnih celic s semenskimi celicami njenega partnerja že zgodila, tako da že obstajajo jajčne celice, oplojene in vitro, vendar še niso bile prenesene v maternico te delavke.
The protection established by Article 10 of Directive 92/85 cannot, for reasons connected with the principle of legal certainty, given the period of time for which fertilised ova may potentially be conserved, be extended to such a worker.
Varstvo iz člena 10 Direktive 92/85 se iz razlogov pravne varnosti namreč nemore razširiti na tako delavko glede na rok potencialne hrambe oplojenih jajčec.