natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
61Thus, in Schulte, the Court accepted a provision of national law which applied the principle that the contracting parties must each give up the benefits received.
61 Pri tej odločitvi je Sodi�če torej dopustilo ureditev v nacionalnem pravu, ki sledi načelu, da si morata pogodbeni stranki vzajemno vrniti prejete koristi.
However, the position is different as regards a claim for replacement of defective goods.
Pri zahtevku za zamenjavo stvari z napako pa je položaj drugačen. Zahtevek za zamenjavo
According to Schermers and Waelbroeck too, it is only by way of exception that travaux préparatoires are used in interpreting Community law.
Tudi Schermers in Waelbroeck poudarjata, da se travaux prépa­ratoires le izjemoma uporabljajo za razlago prava Skupnosti. Glej Schermers, H. G., Waelbroeck, D. F., Judicial Protec­tion in the European Union, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, London, New York 2001, str. 16.
58 — See inter alia Case 237/84 Commission v Belgium [1986] ECR 1247, paragraph 17, and Case C-306/89 Commission v Greece [1991] ECR I-5863, paragraph 8.
60 – Direktiva Sveta 85/577/EGS z dne 20. decembra 1985 za varstvo potro�nika v primeru pogodb, sklenjenih zunaj poslovnih prostorov (UL L 372, 31.12.1985, str.
60 — Council directive of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31).
31–33, slovenska posebna izdaja, poglavje 15, zvezek 1, str. 262).
59 — Cited above, footnote 17.
58 – Glej, na primer, sodbo z dne 15. aprila 1986 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji (237/84, Recueil, str.
For a similar decision see Case C-229/04 Crailsheimer Volksbank [2005] ECR I-9273.
1247, točka 17) in sodbo z dne 10. decembra 1991 v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji (C-306/89, Recueil, str. I-5863, točka 8).
61 — Schulte (cited above, footnote 17), paragraph 93.
61 – Točka 93 sodbe v zadevi Schulte, supra.
QUELLE ciple of mutual surrender of benefits received but on the principle that contracts are to be interpreted favor contractus, in accordance with which the contract is maintained in force so far as is possible; the purpose of replacing the goods is performance of the contract.
QUELLE stvari z napako ne sledi načelu vzajemne vrnitve prejetih koristi, temveč načelu razlage pogodbe favor contractus, v skladu s katerim naj se pogodba ohrani v veljavi, če je le mogoče; namen zamenjave stvari je torej izpolnitev pogodbe.
unjustifiably enriched.
obogaten.
62By paying the purchase price, the consumer has properly fulfilled his obligation under the contract for the sale of consumer goods, whereas the seller has not performed his contractual obligation.
62 Potro�nik je s plačilom kupnine pravilno izpolnil svojo obveznost iz sinalagmatske pogodbe o prodaji potro�ni�kega blaga, prodajalec pa svoje obveznosti ni izpolnil tako, kot se je zavezal s pogodbo.
Accordingly, in the light of the principle pacta sunt servanda, the claim for replacement of the goods is no more than a claim that the seller should perform his contractual obligations.
Zahteva za zamenjavo blaga zato v luči načela pacta sunt servanda pomeni zgolj zahtevo za izpolnitev pogodbenih obveznosti prodajalca.
Each party to the contract must accept the risk that it may not perform its obligations thereunder properly and in full.
Vsaka pogodbena stranka mora namreč sama nositi tveganje svoje nepravilne izpolnitve.
Responsibility for the fact that goods have to be replaced does not lie with the consumer: all he wants is to use the goods normally, and the seller is required to enable him to do so.
Odgovornost za to, da je pri�lo do zamenjave, ni na strani potro�nika; potro�nik želi le normalno uporabljati stvar, kar mu mora prodajalec omogočiti.
In the second place, Schulte clearly establishes the principle that where a contract is rescinded the consumer is not necessarily obliged to return the loan plus interest if the other contracting party has not properly fulfilled its obligations.
Po drugi strani je iz sodbe v zadevi Schulte razvidno načelo, da potro�nik v primeru odstopa od pogodbe nima nujno obveznosti vrnitve posojila skupaj z obrestmi, če druga pogodbena stranka ni brezhibno izpolnila svoje obveznosti.
In paragraph 94 of the judgment in Schulte, the Court held that it was not incompatible with Direct- ive 85/577 for rules of national law under which a consumer who cancels a credit agreement must immediately repay the loan in full with interest at the market rate not to apply in cases where the trader has failed to comply with his obligation under the direct- ive to provide information.
V točki 94 te zadeve je Sodi�če odločilo, da ni v nasprotju z Direktivo 85/577, če se nacionalni predpisi, ki določajo, da mora potro�nik ob odstopu vrniti posojilo skupaj z obrestmi, ne uporabljajo takrat, ko posojilodajalec ni spo�toval obveznosti poučitve, ki jo je imel na podlagi te direktive.
In the context of the principle that the contracting party who has not properly fulfilled his obligations is himself liable for his faulty performance, it is accordingly possible to compare rescission of the contract with replacement of defective goods.
V okviru pravila, da mora pogodbena stranka, ki svoje obveznosti ni pravilno izpolnila, sama nositi odgovornost za svojo nepravilno izpolnitev, je zato mogoče primerjati tudi odstop od pogodbe z zamenjavo stvari z napako.
However, that again supports the view that, in the case of the replacement of defect- ive goods, the seller must bear full responsibility for his faulty performance, and in consequence pay all the related costs.
Vendar je to spet argument za to, da mora v primeru zamenjave stvari z napako prodajalec nositi vso odgovornost svoje nepravilne izpolnitve in s tem tudi vse stro�ke, povezane z njo.
It would therefore be unacceptable if the consumer, having properly performed his contractual obligation, were required to pay compensation to the seller, who has not properly performed his obligation, for use of defective goods.
Zato bi bilo nesprejemljivo, če bi moral potro�nik, ki je svojo pogodbeno obveznost izpolnil pravilno, prodajalcu, ki svoje obveznosti ni izpolnil pravilno, plačati nadomestilo za uporabo stvari z napako.
The receipt of the new goods signifies merely that the consumer is receiving what he is entitled to receive — namely goods which are in conformity with the contract — and, accordingly, it is not seriously arguable in the present case that the consumer has been unjustifiably enriched.
S prejemom nove stvari bo potro�nik zgolj prejel to, do česar je upravičen, to je blago, skladno s pogodbo, zato v konkretnem primeru nikakor ne moremo govoriti o neupravičeni obogatitvi potro�nika.
62 — Because Community law does not expressly make provision for this area, questions as to unjustified enrichment arise in the Court’s caselaw principally in connection with the requirements for the repayment of taxes and duties which have been unlawfully demanded.
62 – Ker na tem področju ni izrecnih določb v pravu Skupnosti, se vpra�anja neupravičene obogatitve v sodni praksi Sodi�ča pojavljajo predvsem v zvezi s pogoji za vrnitev neupravičeno pobranih davkov in carin.
On this, see inter alia Case C-343/96 Dilexport [1999] ECR I-579.
V zvezi s tem glej, na primer, sodbo z dne 9. februarja 1999 v zadevi Dilexport (C-343/96, Recueil, str. 579).
Nor is it possible in the present case to maintain that the consumer has been
Prav tako v pričujoči zadevi ni mogoče zatrditi, da je bil potro�nik neupravičeno
For all those reasons, I am of the opinion that Directive 1999/44 precludes the German legislation under which, in cases where consumer goods are replaced, the seller has the right to require the consumer to pay compensation for use of those goods.
Ob upo�tevanju vseh navedenih ugotovitev menim, da Direktiva 1999/44 nasprotuje nem�ki ureditvi, v skladu s katero ima prodajalec v primeru zamenjave blaga od potro�nika pravico zahtevati nadomestilo za uporabo tega blaga.
On the basis of the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court should reply that Article 3(2) of 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, read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) and Article 3(4) of that directive, or the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) thereof, is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, where consumer goods are brought into conformity with the contract by means of their replacement, the seller may require the consumer to pay compensation for use of the goods originally supplied, which were not in conformity with the contract.
Glede na navedene ugotovitve predlagam Sodi�ču, naj ugotovi, da je treba člen 3(2) v povezavi s členom 3(3), prvi pododstavek, in členom 3(4) ali člen 3(3), tretji pododstavek, Direktive 1999/44/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. maja 1999 o nekaterih vidikih prodaje potro�ni�kega blaga in z njim povezanih garancij razlagati tako, da nasprotuje določbi nacionalne zakonodaje, v skladu s katero lahko prodajalec v primeru, ko z zamenjavo vzpostavi skladnost dobavljenega blaga s pogodbo, od potro�nika zahteva nadomestilo za uporabo prvotno dobavljenega, s pogodbo neskladnega blaga.
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), made by decision of 16 August 2006, received at the Court on 28 September 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-404/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Bundesgerichtshof (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 16. avgusta 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 28. septembra 2006, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-404/06 having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 4 October 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
2008 – ZADEVA C-404/06 na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 4. oktobra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
QUELLE gives the following
QUELLE izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Article 3 of 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.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 3 Direktive 1999/44/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. maja 1999 o nekaterih vidikih prodaje potro�ni�kega blaga in z njim povezanih garancij (UL L 171, str.
12; ‘the Directive’).
12, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Quelle AG (‘Quelle’), a mailorder company, and the Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände (‘the Bundesverband’), an authorised consumers’ association acting on behalf of Ms Brüning, one of Quelle’s customers.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Quelle AG (v nadaljevanju: družba Quelle), podjetjem za katalo�ko prodajo, in Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände (v nadaljevanju: Bundesverband), priznano zvezo potro�nikov, ki jo je pooblastila S. Brüning, stranka tega podjetja.
The Directive was adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC.
Direktiva je bila sprejeta na podlagi člena 95 ES.
The first recital in the preamble thereto states that, in accordance with Article 153(1) and (3) EC, the European Community must contribute to the achievement of a high level of consumer protection by the measures it adopts pursuant to Article 95 EC.
V njeni prvi uvodni izjavi je poudarjeno, da mora Evropska skupnost v skladu s členom 153(1) in (3) Pogodbe z ukrepi, ki jih sprejme po členu 95 Pogodbe, prispevati k doseganju visoke ravni varstva potro�nikov.
2008 — CASE C-404/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-404/06
Article 3 of the Directive, entitled ‘Rights of the consumer’, provides:
Člen 3 Direktive z naslovom „Pravice potro�nika“ določa:
A remedy shall be deemed to be disproportionate if it imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison with the alternative remedy, are unreasonable, … .
Sredstvo �teje za nesorazmerno, če v primerjavi z drugim sredstvom prodajalcu povzroči nesprejemljive stro�ke […].
The consumer may require an appropriate reduction of the price or have the contract rescinded:
Potro�nik lahko zahteva ustrezno znižanje kupnine ali odstopi od pogodbe:
— if the seller has not completed the remedy within a reasonable time, or
– če prodajalec ni uporabil sredstva v razumnem roku, ali
The 15th recital in the preamble to the Directive states that ‘Member States may provide that any reimbursement to the consumer may be reduced to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods since they were delivered to him; … the detailed arrangements whereby rescission of the contract is effected may be laid down in national law’.
V skladu s petnajsto uvodno izjavo Direktive „lahko države članice predvidijo, da se nadomestilo potro�niku lahko zniža, da bi se tako upo�tevala potro�nikova raba blaga od dobave naprej; […] nacionalno pravo [lahko] določi podrobnej�o ureditev odstopa od pogodbe“.
Under the first sentence of Article 5(1) of the Directive (that article being entitled ‘Time limits’):
Prvi stavek člena 5(1) Direktive z naslovom „Roki“ določa:
‘The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods.’
„Prodajalec je odgovoren po členu 3, če se neskladnost pokaže v dveh letih od dobave blaga. Če za pravice iz člena 3(2) po nacionalni zakonodaji velja zastaralni rok, se ta ne izteče pred iztekom dveh let od dobave blaga.“
Article 8(2) of the Directive (that article being entitled ‘National law and minimum protection’), provides:
Člen 8(2) Direktive z naslovom „Nacionalno pravo in minimalno varstvo“ določa:
‘Member States may adopt or maintain in force more stringent provisions, compatible with the Treaty in the field covered by this Directive, to ensure a higher level of consumer protection.’
„Države članice lahko na področju, ki ga ureja ta direktiva, sprejmejo ali ohranijo strožje določbe, ki so združljive s Pogodbo, da zagotovijo vi�jo raven varstva potro�nikov.“
Paragraphs 439 and 346 are among the provisions of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch; ‘the BGB’) adopted in order to transpose the Directive into German domestic law.
Med določbami nem�kega civilnega zakonika (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, v nadaljevanju: BGB), sprejetimi zaradi prenosa Direktive v nem�ki pravni red, sta pomembna zlasti člena 439 in 346 tega zakonika.
Paragraph 439(4) of the BGB, entitled ‘Subsequent performance’, states:
Člen 439(4) BGB, naslovljen „Naknadna izpolnitev“, določa:
‘Where a seller delivers goods free from defects for the purposes of subsequent performance, he may require the purchaser to return the defective goods pursuant to Paragraphs 346 to 348.’
Če prodajalec za namene naknadne izpolnitve dobavi stvar brez napake, lahko od kupca zahteva vrnitev stvari z napako v skladu s členi od 346 do 348.“
Paragraph 346(1) to (3) of the BGB, entitled ‘Effects of termination of the contract’, states as follows:
Člen 346, od (1) do (3), BGB, naslovljen „Učinki odstopa od pogodbe“, določa:
If one party to a contract has reserved the right to terminate the contract or if he has a statutory right of termination, then, if termination occurs, any performance received shall be returned, and the benefits derived from such performance shall be surrendered.
Če si je pogodbena stranka v pogodbi pridržala pravico do odstopa ali ima pravico do odstopa po zakonu, mora v primeru odstopa vrniti prejete izpolnitve in izročiti pridobljene koristi.
The debtor shall pay compensation for value, in lieu of restitution or surrender, where:
Namesto vrnitve izpolnitve ali izročitve koristi mora dolžnik plačati denarno nadomestilo, če:
(1) restitution or surrender is excluded by virtue of the nature of what has been obtained;
(1) je vrnitev izpolnitve ali izročitev koristi izključena zaradi narave stvari;
(2) he has used up, transferred, encumbered, processed or transformed the object received;
(2) je prejeti predmet potro�il, odsvojil, obremenil, predelal ali preoblikoval;
(3) the object received has deteriorated or has been destroyed, any deterioration resulting from the proper use of the object for its intended purposes being disregarded.
(3) se je prejeti predmet poslab�al ali je bil uničen; pri tem se ne upo�teva poslab�anje, ki je nastalo zaradi običajne uporabe.
If the contract specifies a counter-performance, such counter-performance shall be taken as a basis for calculation of the compensation for value; if compensation is to be paid for the benefit deriving from a loan, it shall be sufficient to show that the value of such benefit was lower.
Če je v pogodbi predvidena nasprotna dajatev, se vrednost denarnega nadomestila izračuna na njeni podlagi; če je treba vrniti denarno nadomestilo za koristi, pridobljene zaradi uporabe posojila, se lahko dokaže, da je bila vrednost koristi nižja.
No obligation to pay compensation for value shall arise:
Dolžnost plačila denarnega nadomestila odpade:
(1) if the defect which gives the right to termination became apparent only during the processing or transformation of the object;
(1) če se je napaka, ki daje pravico do odstopa, pokazala �ele med predelavo ali preoblikovanjem predmeta,
(2) in so far as the creditor is responsible for the deterioration or destruction, or in so far as the damage would also have occurred in his hands;
(2) če je za poslab�anje ali uničenje odgovoren upnik ali če bi tudi njemu nastala �koda,
(3) if, in the case of a statutory right of termination, the deterioration or destruction has occurred in the hands of the person entitled, even though he has taken the care that he customarily exercises in relation to his own affairs.
(3) če je v primeru pravice do odstopa po zakonu poslab�anje ali uničenje nastalo pri upravičencu, čeprav je ta ravnal s tako skrbnostjo, s kakr�no običajno ravna v svojih zadevah.
Any remaining enrichment must be surrendered.’
Trajna obogatitev se mora povrniti.“
Paragraph 100 of the BGB, headed ‘Benefits’, provides that:
Člen 100 BGB z naslovom „Plodovi“ določa:
‘Benefits are the fruits of a thing or of a right, including the benefits arising from use of the thing or exercise of the right’.
„Plodovi so proizvodi stvari ali pravice ter koristi od uporabe stvari ali pravice.“
In August 2002, Quelle delivered a ‘stove-set’ to Ms Brüning for her private use.
Družba Quelle je avgusta 2002 S. Brüning dobavila �tedilnik za osebno uporabo.
In early 2004, Ms Brüning noticed that the appliance was not in conformity.
V začetku leta 2004 je S. Brüning ugotovila, da je imel aparat napako.
Since repair was not possible, Ms Brüning returned the appliance to Quelle, who replaced it with a new appliance.
Popravilo ni bilo možno, zato je S. Brüning aparat vrnila družbi Quelle, ki ga je zamenjala z novim.
However, Quelle required Ms Brüning to pay EUR 69.97 by way of compensation for the benefit which she had obtained from use of the appliance initially delivered.
Vendar je ta družba od S. Brüning zahtevala, naj ji plača znesek 69,97 EUR kot nadomestilo za koristi, ki jih je imela od uporabe prvotno dobavljenega aparata.
The Bundesverband, acting as Ms Brüning’s authorised representative, demanded reimbursement to her of that amount.
Bundesverband je kot poobla�čenec S. Brüning zahteval, naj se ji navedeni znesek vrne.
In addition, it applied for an order prohibiting
Poleg tega je zahteval, naj družba Quelle v primeru zamenjave blaga, ki ni v
Quelle, in cases where goods not in conformity with the contract of sale (‘not in conformity’) are replaced, from invoicing consumers for the use of those goods.
QUELLE skladu s prodajno pogodbo (v nadaljevanju: blago z napako), preneha zaračunavati znesek za uporabo navedenega blaga.
The court hearing the case at first instance granted the application for reimbursement, but dismissed the arguments seeking an order directing Quelle not to invoice customers for the use of goods not in conformity.
Prvostopenjsko sodi�če je ugodilo zahtevku za vračilo in zavrnilo predlog, naj se družbi Quelle naloži prenehanje zaračunavanja uporabe blaga z napako.
The appeals brought against that judgment — both by Quelle and by the Bundesverband — were dismissed.
Pritožbi družbe Quelle in Bundesverbanda zoper to sodno odločbo sta bili zavrnjeni.
The Bundesgerichtshof, before which appeal proceedings have been brought on a point of law, notes that, under Paragraph 439(4) of the BGB, read in conjunction with Paragraph 346(1) and (2)(1) thereof, the seller is entitled, in cases where goods not in conformity are replaced, to payment by way of compensation for the benefits derived by the purchaser from the use of those goods until their replacement with new goods.
Bun -desgerichtshof, ki je odločalo o reviziji, je menilo, da iz določb člena 439(4) v povezavi s členom 346(1) in (2), točka 1, BGB izhaja, da ima prodajalec v primeru zamenjave blaga z napako pravico do nadomestila za koristi, ki jih je kupec imel od uporabe tega blaga do njegove zamenjave z novim blagom.
While expressing doubts regarding the unilateral burden thus placed on the purchaser, the Bundesgerichtshof states that it sees no way of correcting the national legislation by means of interpretation.
Bundesgerichtshof, ki je izrazilo pomisleke glede enostranske obremenitve kupca, je navedlo, da ne vidi nobene možnosti, da bi z razlago lahko popravilo nacionalno zakonodajo.
An interpretation to the effect that the seller could not claim payment from the purchaser for use of the replaced goods would be at odds with the wording of the relevant provisions of the BGB and the clear intention of the legislature, and is prohibited by Paragraph 20(3) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), according to which judicial authority is bound by legislation and by the law.
Razlaga, po kateri prodajalec ne bi mogel od kupca zahtevati nadomestila za uporabo zamenjanega blaga, bi bila namreč v nasprotju z upo�tevnimi določbami BGB in z jasno izraženo voljo zakonodajalca ter prepovedana s členom 20(3) Grundgesetz (ustava), v skladu s katerim je sodna oblast vezana na zakon in pravo.
Being unsure, however, whether the provisions of the BGB are in compliance with Community legislation, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Ker je Bundesgerichtshof podvomilo o skladnosti določb BGB z ureditvijo Skupnosti, je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Are the provisions of Article 3(2) of [the Directive], read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) and Article 3(4) thereof, or of the third subparagraph of
„Ali je treba člen 3(2) v povezavi s členom 3(3), prvi pododstavek, in členom 3(4) ali člen 3(3), tretji pododstavek, Direktive […] razlagati tako, da nasprotuje določbi
Article 3(3) of [the Directive] … to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where consumer goods are brought into conformity with the contract by means of delivery of replacement goods, the seller may require compensation from the consumer for use of the goods originally delivered, which were not in conformity with the contract?’
2008 – ZADEVA C-404/06 nacionalne zakonodaje, v skladu s katero lahko prodajalec v primeru, ko z zamenjavo vzpostavi skladnost dobavljenega blaga s pogodbo, od potro�nika zahteva nadomestilo za uporabo prvotno dobavljenega, s pogodbo neskladnega blaga?“
By its question, the national court essentially asks whether Article 3 of the Directive is to be interpreted as precluding 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 those defective goods until their replacement with new goods.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 3 Direktive razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, ki prodajalcu omogoča, da v primeru, ko je prodal potro�ni�ko blago z napako, od potro�nika zahteva nadomestilo za uporabo blaga z napako do njegove zamenjave z novim blagom.