natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
At the hearing, Quelle argued that the question referred for a preliminary ruling is not admissible, given that the national court has stated that the provisions of national law implementing the Directive are open to only one interpretation and that German constitutional law prohibits the national court from espousing an interpretation contra legem.
Na obravnavi je družba Quelle trdila, da je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje nedopustno, ker je predložitveno sodi�če navedlo, da nacionalne določbe, s katerimi je prenesena Direktiva, dopu�čajo zgolj eno razlago in da nem�ko ustavno pravo prepoveduje razlago v nasprotju z zakonom.
In consequence, if the Court of Justice were to place a different construction on Article 3 of the Directive, the national court would not be able to take account of the Court’s answer.
Če bi Sodi�če člen 3 Direktive razlagalo drugače, predložitveno sodi�če torej ne bi moglo upo�tevati njegovega odgovora.
In that regard, it must be recalled that, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je v okviru postopka, določenega v čle nu 234 ES, ki temelji na jasni ločitvi nalog med nacionalnimi sodi�či in Sodi�čem, le nacionalno
Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, and which must determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
QUELLE sodi�če, ki odloča o sporu in ki mora prevzeti odgovornost za sodno odločitev, pristojno, da glede na posebnosti zadeve presodi potrebo po izdaji predhodne odločbe, da bi lahko izdalo sodbo, kot tudi ustreznost vpra�anj, ki jih predloži Sodi�ču. Ker se predloženo vpra�anje nana�a na razlago prava Skupnosti, je Sodi�če v načelu dolžno odločati (glej zlasti sodbe z dne 22. junija 2006 v zadevi Conseil général de la Vienne, C-419/04, ZOdl., str.
Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling (see, inter alia, Case C-419/04 Conseil général de la Vienne [2006] ECR I-5645, paragraph 19, and Case C-119/05 Lucchini [2007] ECR I-6199, paragraph 43).
I-5645, točka 19, in z dne 18. julija 2007 v zadevi Lucchini, C-119/05, ZOdl., str. I-6199, točka 43).
The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, inter alia, Conseil général de la Vienne, paragraph 20, and Lucchini, paragraph 44).
Sprejetje predhodne odločbe o vpra�anju, ki ga postavi nacionalno sodi�če, je mogoče zavrniti le, kadar je očitno, da zahtevana razlaga prava Skupnosti nima nikakr�ne zveze z dejanskim stanjem ali predmetom spora o glavni stvari, kadar gre za hipotetičen problem oziroma kadar Sodi�če nima na voljo potrebnih dejanskih in pravnih elementov, da bi lahko koristno odgovorilo na postavljena vpra�anja (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi Conseil général de la Vienne, točka 20, in Lucchini, točka 44).
That is not the position in the present case.
V obravnavanem primeru ni tako.
Any other approach would be incompatible with the very aim of the powers given to the Court by Article 234 EC, which are intended, in essence, to ensure the uniform application
Vsaka drugačna re�itev bi bila v nasprotju z namenom pristojnosti, ki so Sodi�ču priznane v členu 234 ES in katerih bistveni cilj je zagotavljati, da nacionalna sodi�ča enotno
It follows that the reference for a preliminary ruling is admissible.
Iz tega izhaja, da je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje dopustno.
According to the Bundesverband, the Spanish and Austrian Governments and the Commission of the European Communities, Article 3(3) of the Directive clearly establishes that it is not only the repair of goods not in conformity that must be carried out for the consumer free of charge by the seller, but also — where appropriate — their replacement with goods which are in conformity.
Po mnenju Bundesverband, �panske in avstrijske vlade ter Komisije Evropskih skupnosti člen 3(3) Direktive jasno določa, da mora prodajalec potro�niku omogočiti ne le neodplačno popravilo blaga z napako, ampak tudi neodplačno zamenjavo takega blaga z blagom, skladnim s pogodbo.
In all the situations covered by that provision, the ‘free of charge’ requirement applies as a whole and in full, being intended to protect the purchaser from the risk of financial burdens which might dissuade him from asserting his rights.
Obveznost brezplačnosti naj bi bila nedeljiva celota, namenjena varstvu kupca pred morebitnimi finančnimi stro�ki, ki bi ga lahko odvrnili od uveljavljanja svojih pravic.
The German Government observes that the wording of the Directive gives no clear indication whether the seller may, in cases where goods not in conformity are replaced, claim payment for the use of those goods.
Nem�ka vlada navaja, da besedilo Direktive ne ureja vpra�anja, ali lahko prodajalec v primeru zamenjave blaga z napako zahteva nadomestilo za njegovo uporabo.
It points out that, in terms of internal logic, the 15th recital in the preamble to the Directive sets out a very general principle of law, leaving the Member States entirely free to legislate on the question concerning the situations in which the consumer is required to pay compensation for the use of goods.
Poudarja, da glede na zgradbo Direktive njena petnajsta uvodna izjava izraža splo�no pravno načelo, na podlagi katerega lahko države članice svobodno sprejmejo zakonodajo v zvezi z vpra�anjem, v katerih primerih je potro�nik dolžan plačati nadomestilo za uporabo blaga.
As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that, under Article 3(1) of the Directive, the seller is to be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity in the goods at the time when they are delivered.
Uvodoma je treba poudariti, da je v skladu s členom 3(1) Direktive prodajalec odgovoren potro�niku za vsako neskladnost s pogodbo, ki obstaja v času dobave blaga.
Article 3(2) of the Directive lists the rights which the consumer may rely on against the seller in cases where the goods delivered are not in conformity.
Člen 3(2) Direktive na�teva pravice, ki jih lahko potro�nik uveljavlja proti prodajalcu v primeru neskladnosti dobavljenega blaga s pogodbo.
Initially, the consumer has the right to require the goods to be brought into conformity.
Najprej ima potro�nik pravico zahtevati vzpostavitev skladnosti blaga s pogodbo.
If that is not possible, he may subsequently require a reduction in the price or rescission of the contract.
Če take skladnosti ni mogoče doseči, lahko nato zahteva znižanje kupnine ali odstop od pogodbe.
As regards the bringing into conformity of the goods, Article 3(3) of the Dir -ective states that the consumer is entitled to require the seller to repair the goods or to replace them — in either case free of charge — unless that is impossible or disproportionate.
Glede vzpostavitve skladnosti blaga s pogodbo člen 3(3) Direktive določa, da lahko potro�nik od prodajalca zahteva neodplačno popravilo ali neodplačno zamenjavo blaga, razen če je to nemogoče ali nesorazmerno.
The German Government argues that, in both Proposal 96/C 307/09 for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1996 C 307, p.
Nem�ka vlada navaja, da sta se tako besedilo predloga Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 96/C 307/09 o prodaji potro�ni�kega blaga in s tem povezanih garancijah (UL 1996, C 307, str.
8) and Amended Proposal 98/C 148/11 for a European Parliament and Council Directive (OJ 1998 C 148, p.
8) kot tudi besedilo spremenjenega predloga Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 98/C 148/11 (UL 1998, C 148, str.
12), submitted by the Commission, the text merely referred either to a repair of the goods free of charge or to a replacement thereof.
12), ki ju je predložila Komisija, omejili zgolj na „neodplačno popravilo blaga“ ali „zamenjavo“ navedenega blaga.
The fact that those proposals are silent as to the financial consequences of replacement goes to show that it was not intended that the Directive should govern the question of compensation for use.
Neomenjanje finančnih posledic zamenjave naj bi dokazovalo, da ni bilo predvideno, da bi Direktiva urejala vpra�anje morebitnega nadomestila za uporabo.
However, that is entirely irrelevant since it is the expression ‘in either case free of charge’ — used in Common Position (EC) No 51/98, adopted by the Council on 24 September 1998 with a view to adopting the Directive (OJ 1998 C 333, p.
Vendar ta okoli�čina ni pomembna, ker je bil v končnem besedilu sprejet izraz iz Skupnega stali�ča Sveta (ES) �t. 51/98, sprejetega 24. septembra 1998 zaradi sprejetja Direktive (UL C 333, str.
46) — which was retained in the definitive text, thus reflecting the intention of the Community legislature to strengthen consumer protection.
46), in sicer „neodplačno popravilo ali neodplačna zamenjava blaga“, s katerim se kaže volja zakonodajalca Skupnosti, da utrdi varstvo potro�nika.
2008 — CASE C-404/06 cost of postage, labour and materials’.
2008 – ZADEVA C-404/06 po�iljanja, dela in materiala“.
It follows from the use by the Community legislature of the adverb ‘particularly’ that that list is illustrative, not exhaustive.
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti je uporabil prislov „zlasti“, kar pomeni, da je to na�tevanje zgolj indikativno, ne pa izčrpno.
The fact, relied upon by the German Government, that Press Release C/99/77 of the ‘Parliament — Council’ Conciliation Committee of 18 March 1999 on agreement on consumer guarantees gives a restrictive definition of the term ‘free of charge’ is irrelevant in that regard.
Okoli�čina, ki jo je navedla nem�ka vlada, da sporočilo poravnalnega odbora „Parlament – Svet“ za medije C/99/77 z dne 18. marca 1999 o sporazumu o garancijah potro�nikom vsebuje omejeno definicijo izraza „neodplačno“, v zvezi s tem ni pomembna.
Thus it follows from the wording of the Directive, as well as from the related travaux préparatoires, that the Community legislature intended to make the ‘free of charge’ aspect of the seller’s obligation to bring goods into conformity an essential element of the protection afforded to consumers by the Directive.
Iz besedila in upo�tevnih pripravljalnih besedil Direktive torej izhaja, da je bil namen zakonodajalca Skupnosti, da je neodplačna uskladitev prodajalca blaga s pogodbo bistvena sestavina varstva, ki ga potro�niku daje ta direktiva.
The ‘free of charge’ requirement attaching to the seller’s obligation to bring the goods into conformity, whether by repair or replacement, is intended to protect consumers from the risk of financial burdens which, as the Advocate General observed in point 49 of her Opinion, might dissuade them from asserting their rights in the
Namen te obveznosti prodajalca, da neodplačno uskladi blago s pogodbo, pa naj bo v obliki popravila ali zamenjave blaga z napako, je varstvo potro�nika pred morebitnimi finančnimi stro�ki, ki bi ga, kot je poudarila generalna pravobranilka v toč -ki 49 sklepnih predlogov, odvrnili od uveljavljanja svojih pravic, če takega varstva ne
QUELLE absence of such protection.
QUELLE bi bilo.
The certain nature of the ‘free of charge’ aspect, which was intentional on the part of the Community legislature, means that the seller cannot make any financial claim in connection with the performance of its obligation to bring into conformity the goods to which the contract relates.
Ta zagotovitev neodplačnosti, ki jo je želel doseči zakonodajalec Skupnosti, preprečuje kakr�nokoli finančno zahtevo prodajalca v okviru izvr�itve svoje obve -znosti uskladitve blaga s pogodbo.
Support for that interpretation is to be found in the intention, manifested by the Community legislature in the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Directive, to provide effective protection to consumers.
Ta razlaga je podkrepljena z željo, ki jo je zakonodajalec Skupnosti izrazil v točki 3(3), tretji pododstavek, Direktive, da se potro�niku zagotovi učinkovito varstvo.
That provision states that any repair or replacement is to be completed not only within a reasonable time but also without significant inconvenience to the consumer.
Ta določba določa, da mora biti vsako popravilo ali zamenjava opravljeno v razumnem roku, pa tudi brez znatnih neprijetnosti za potro�nika.
That interpretation is also consistent with the purpose of the Directive which, as stated in the first recital in the preamble thereto, is to ensure a high level of consumer protection.
Ta razlaga je tudi v skladu z namenom Direktive, ki je glede na njeno prvo uvodno izjavo prispevati k doseganju visoke ravni varstva potro�nikov.
As follows from Article 8(2) of the Directive, the protection provided by it is minimal and, although Member States may adopt more stringent provisions, they may not undermine the guarantees laid down by the Community legislature.
Kot izhaja iz člena 8(2) te direktive, je varstvo, ki ga določa, minimalno; države članice lahko sprejmejo strožje določbe, vendar s tem ne smejo ogroziti garancij, ki jih je predvidel zakonodajalec Skupnosti.
The other arguments advanced by the German Government against that interpretation are not such as to call it into question.
Druge trditve, ki jih je navedla nem�ka vlada zoper tako razlago, ne izpodbijajo zadevne razlage.
2008 — CASE C-404/06 of the goods not in conformity, it should be noted that the first part of that recital refers to a ‘reimbursement’ to be made to the consumer, whereas the second part mentions the ‘detailed arrangements whereby rescission of the contract is effected’.
2008 – ZADEVA C-404/06 poudariti, da se prvi del te uvodne izjave nana�a na „nadomestilo“, ki ga je treba dati potro�niku, medtem ko se drugi del nana�a na „podrobnej�o ureditev odstopa od pogodbe“.
Those expressions are identical to those used in the Common Position of the Council to which the German Government also referred.
Ti pojmi so enaki pojmom, uporabljenim v skupnem stali�ču Sveta, na katerega se sklicuje nem�ka vlada.
That terminology makes it clear that the situation envisaged in the 15th recital is restricted to cases where the contract is terminated, as provided for in Article 3(5) of the Directive, and where, pursuant to the principle that the contracting parties must each give up the benefits they have received, the seller must reimburse to the consumer the selling price of the goods.
Ta terminologija jasno izraža, da je primer iz petnajste uvodne izjave omejen na primer odstopa od pogodbe, ki ga določa člen 3(5) Direktive, v katerem mora prodajalec v skladu z načelom vzajemne povrnitve prejetih koristi potro�niku vrniti kupnino blaga.
Contrary to the contentions of the German Government, the 15th recital cannot, therefore, be interpreted as a general principle enabling the Member States to take account, in any situation they wish, including that of a mere request for replacement submitted pursuant to Article 3(3) of the Directive, of the use which the consumer has had of goods not in conformity.
V nasprotju z navedbami nem�ke vlade se petnajste uvodne izjave ne sme razlagati kot splo�no načelo, ki državam članicam omogoča, da v vseh primerih po svoji izbiri, vključno s primerom, ko se zahteva zamenjava na podlagi člena 3(3) Direktive, upo�tevajo potro�nikovo uporabo blaga z napako.
As regards, secondly, the German Government’s assertion that the fact that, by virtue of the replacement of goods not in conformity, the consumer has the benefit of new goods without having to make proper payment constitutes unjust enrichment, it should be borne in mind that Article 3(1) of the Directive makes the seller liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods are delivered.
Na drugi strani je treba glede trditve nem�ke vlade, da bi dejstvo, da ima potro�nik pravico do zamenjave blaga z napako z novim blagom, ne da bi za to moral plačati finančno nadomestilo, pomenilo neupravičeno obogatitev, poudariti, da člen 3(1) Direktive prodajalcu nalaga odgovornost v razmerju do potro�nika za vsako neskladnost s pogodbo, ki obstaja v času dobave blaga.
If a seller delivers goods which are not in conformity, it fails correctly to perform the obligation which it accepted in the contract of sale and must therefore bear the consequences of that faulty performance.
Če je prodajalec dobavil blago z napako, ni pravilno izvr�il obveznosti, h kateri se je zavezal s prodajno pogodbo, in mora torej trpeti posledice nepravilne izvr�itve pogodbe.
By receiving new goods to replace the
Potro�nik, ki je plačal prodajno ceno in je torej pravilno izvr�il svojo
QUELLE goods not in conformity, the consumer — who, for his part, paid the selling price and therefore correctly performed his contractual obligation — is not unjustly enriched.
QUELLE pogodbeno obveznost, s prejetjem novega blaga, s katerim se zamenja blago z napako, ni neupravičeno obogaten.
He merely receives, belatedly, goods in conformity with the specifications of the contract, which he should have received at the outset.
Potro�nik zgolj z zamudo prejme blago v skladu z določbami pogodbe, kot bi ga bil moral prejeti že na začetku.
The fact remains that the seller’s financial interests are protected, on the one hand, by the two-year time-limit laid down in Article 5(1) of the Directive and, on the other, by the fact that, under the second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Direct- ive, it may refuse to replace the goods where that remedy would be disproportionate in that it would impose unreasonable costs on the seller.
Sicer pa so finančni interesi prodajalca varovani z zastaralnim rokom dveh let, določenim v členu 5(1) Direktive, in z možnostjo, ki jo ima po členu 3(3), drugi pododstavek, Direktive, da odkloni zamenjavo blaga, če bi se tako sredstvo pokazalo za nesorazmerno, ker bi mu povzročilo nesorazmerne stro�ke.
In the light of all the foregoing, the answer to the question referred must be that 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.
Glede na celotno zgoraj navedeno presojo je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 3 Direktive razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, ki prodajalcu omogoča, da v primeru, ko je prodal blago, ki ni v skladu s pogodbo, od potro�nika zahteva nadomestilo za uporabo tega blaga do njegove zamenjave z novim blagom.
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 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.
Člen 3 Direktive 1999/44/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. maja 1999 o nekaterih vidikih prodaje potrošniškega blaga in z njim povezanih garancij je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, ki prodajalcu omogoča, da v primeru, ko je prodal blago, ki ni v skladu s pogodbo, od potrošnika zahteva nadomestilo za uporabo tega blaga do njegove zamenjave z novim blagom.
Case C-456/06
Zadeva C-456/06
Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Cassina SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)
Peek & Cloppenburg KG proti Cassina SpA (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesgerichtshof)
(Copyright — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 4(1) — Distribution to the public by sale or otherwise of the original of a work or a copy thereof — Use of reproductions of copyrightprotected furniture as items of furniture exhibited in a sales area and in display windows — No transfer of ownership or possession)
„Avtorska pravica – Direktiva 2001/29/ES – Člen 4(1) – Javno distribuiranje s prodajo ali drugače izvirnika ali kopij del – Uporaba primerkov pohi�tva, ki je za�čiteno z avtorskimi pravicami, kot kosov pohi�tva, razstavljenih v prodajnem prostoru, in kot okras v izložbi – Neobstoj prenosa lastnine ali posesti“
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 17 January 2008 . . . . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni 17. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 17 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 17. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29 — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Distribution rights
Približevanje zakonodaj – Avtorska pravica in sorodne pravice – Direktiva 2001/29 – Usklajevanje določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi – Pravica distribuiranja
SUMMARY — CASE C-456/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-456/06
The wording of the provisions relating to the exhaustion of the right of distribution in the Copyright Treaty and Directive 2001/29 points to the same conclusion.
Ta ugotovitev izhaja tudi iz razlage zadevnih določb v zvezi z izčrpanjem pravice do distribuiranja v MSOILAP in Direktivi 2001/29.
Thus, since Article 4(2) of that directive provides for the exhaustion of the distribution right within the Community in respect of the original or copies of the work on the first sale or other transfer of ownership, the same interpretation should be given to the term ‘otherwise’ in Article 4(1), because the two provisions form a whole.
Ker člen 4(2) navedene direktive določa, da se pravica distribuiranja v zvezi z izvirnikom ali kopij dela izčrpa, kadar se izvr�i prva prodaja ali drug prenos lastni�tva tega predmeta, je treba pojem „drugače“ iz člena 4(1) Direktive razlagati enako, saj ti dve določbi tvorita celoto.
The concept of distribution to the public, otherwise than through sale, of the original of a work or a copy thereof, for the purpose of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, applies only where there is a transfer of the ownership of that object.
Pojem javnega distribuiranja na drugačen način kot s prodajo izvirnika ali kopije tega dela v smislu člena 4(1) Direktive 2001/29 o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi pomeni izključno prenos lastninske pravice nad tem predmetom.
As a result, neither granting to the public the right to use reproductions of a work protected by copyright nor exhibiting to the public those reproductions without actually granting a right to use them can constitute such a form of distribution.
Zato niti omogočanje javnosti uporabe primerkov dela, ki je za�čiteno z avtorsko pravico, niti javno razstavljanje navedenih primerkov, ne da bi bila dana možnost njihove uporabe, ne pomenita tak�ne oblike distribuiranja.
Those findings are not affected by recitals 9 to 11 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29, which state that harmonisation of copyright must take as a basis a high level of protection, that authors have to receive an appropriate reward for the use of their work and that the system for the protection of copyright must be rigorous and effective.
Deveta, deseta in enajsta uvodna izjava Direktive 2001/29 – v skladu s katerimi mora usklajevanje avtorske pravice temeljiti na visoki stopnji varstva, avtorji morajo za uporabo svojega dela prejeti primerno nagrado, sistem varstva avtorske pravice pa mora biti dejanski in strog – teh ugotovitev ne izpodbijajo.
That protection can be achieved only within the framework put in place by the Community legislature.
To za�čito je namreč mogoče uresničiti le v okviru zakonodaje Skupnosti.