natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
65It therefore follows that, where a competing operator has a contractual relationship with a notified operator for access to the latter’s local loop, with rates set by an approval decision of the national regulatory authority, the
65 Iz tega sledi, da se mora konkurenčnemu obratovalcu, upravičenemu do dostopa, kadar ima s prigla�enim obratovalcem pogodbeno razmerje za dostop do krajevne zanke zadnjenavedenega po cenah,
I further consider that, in view of the aims of fostering competition set by the regulation and of the instrumental role which the requirement that charges for access must be set on the basis of costorientation plays in connection with this, even operators which are competitors of the notified operator but do not have a contractual relationship with the latter must also effectively have a real possibility of bringing an action to contest access charges which have not been set on the basis of costorientation.
Poleg tega mislim, da morajo ob upo�tevanju ciljev spodbujanja konkurence, določenih z Uredbo, in vloge instrumenta, ki ga ima v zvezi s tem zahteva po stro�kovni naravnanosti cen, celo obratovalci, ki so konkurenti prigla�enega obratovalca in nimajo pogodbenega razmerja z njim, imeti dejansko možnost, da pred sodi�čem izpodbijajo cene dostopa, ki niso stro�kovno naravnane.
Such competing operators, who do not yet have a contractual relationship with the notified operator, are also the direct beneficiaries of the provisions of the regulation, which are designed to foster competition in the segment of the telecommunications market comprising the local access network.
Taki konkurenčni obratovalci, ki �e nimajo pogodbenega razmerja s prigla�enim obratovalcem, so tudi neposredni upravičenci določb Uredbe o spodbujanju konkurence v tem segmentu telekomunikacijskega trga, to je v omrežju krajevnega dostopa.
66In other words, it is not necessary to have any kind of contractual relationship with the notified operator in order to be classed as a ‘beneficiary’ of the unbundled local loop access introduced by the regulation. 67
66Povedano drugače, da je obratovalec opredeljen kot „upravičenec“ do razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, določen z Uredbo, ni treba, da ima kakr�no koli pogodbeno razmerje s prigla�enim obratovalcem. 67
64 — See, by analogy, Case 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki and Others [1985] ECR 207, paragraphs 19 and 31.
64 – Glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 17. januarja 1985 v zadevi Piraiki-Patraiki in drugi proti Komisiji (11/82, Recueil, str. 207, točki 19 in 31).
66 — See also my Opinion in Tele2 UTA Telecommunication, cited above, points 37 to 40.
66 – Glej tudi moje sklepne predloge k zgoraj navedeni sodbi Tele2 UTA, točke od 37 do 40.
67 — On this point, it is sufficient to look at the concept of ‘beneficiary’ contained in Article 2(b) of the Regulation, which defines it as ‘a third party duly authorised … or entitled to provide communications services … and which is eligible for unbundled access to a local loop.’
67 – V zvezi s tem je treba upo�tevati pojem „upravičenec“ iz člena 2(b) Uredbe, v katerem je ta opredeljen kot „tretj[a] oseb[a], ki je ustrezno poobla�čena […] ali upravičena do opravljanja komunikacijskih storitev […] in ima pravico do razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke“.
65 — See, to that effect, the Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed in the Connect Austria case (cited at point 48 above) in which he stated that ‘[i]t certainly cannot be the case that interested third parties who are directly affected by the decision do not have a right of appeal.
65 – Glej v tem smislu v točki 48 navedene sklepne predloge Connect Austria, v katerih je generalni pravobranilec Geelhoed trdil, da se „zainteresirane tretje stranke, ki jih odločbe neposredno zadevajo, ne morejo pritožiti zoper te odločbe.
Indeed, Article 5a(3) [of Directive 90/387] is, precisely, intended partly to protect the interests of newcomers to the market such as Connect Austria’.
Še več, namen člena 5a(1) [Direktive 90/387] je prav za�čititi tudi interese novih udeležencev na trgu, kot je Connect Austria“.
ARCOR costorientation lies, both during the course of the administrative procedure preceding the rates approval decision and during an appeal lodged against the regulatory authority’s decision by a competitor affected by it.
ARCOR postopku, v katerem se izda odločba o odobritvi cen, in v okviru pravnega sredstva, ki ga prizadeti konkurent vloži zoper odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa.
Where a rates approval decision imposes rates which have not been set on the basis of costorientation, that decision will also have a negative impact on those competing operators who might wish to obtain access to the notified operator’s local loop.
Če odločba o odobritvi cen nalaga cene, ki niso stro�kovno naravnane, bo negativno vplivala tudi na te konkurenčne obratovalce, ki bi želeli dostopati do krajevne zanke prigla�enega obratovalca.
In fact, where a competitor is faced with a rates approval decision which makes it more difficult for it to establish a proposed contractual relationship with the notified operator, it must also have the possibility of bringing proceedings to contest the fact that those rates have not been set on the basis of costorientation, where appropriate.
Če je namreč konkurent soočen z odločbo o odobritvi cen, ki mu otežuje vzpostavitev pogodbenega razmerja s prigla�enim obratovalcem, mora imeti tudi možnost, da pred sodi�čem izpodbija dejstvo, da cene niso stro�kovno naravnane.
Consequently, those competing operators must also have the right of appeal, in the same way as operators which already have a contractual relationship with the notified operator.
Tako morajo konkurenčni obratovalci imeti pravico do pravnega sredstva enako kot obratovalci, ki že imajo pogodbeno razmerje s prigla�enim obratovalcem.
The regulation contains no provision stipulating where the burden of providing proof of the costs on which the charges must be based lies.
Uredba ne vsebuje nobene določbe, ki določa, kdo mora nositi breme dokazovanja stro�kov, na podlagi katerih se morajo naravnati cene.
It is Article 7(2) of Dir -ective 97/33, which forms part of the regulatory framework for telecommunications that the regulation is designed to complement, which expressly states that ‘[t]he burden of proof that charges are derived from actual costs including a reasonable rate of return on investment shall lie with the organisation providing interconnection to its facilities.’ 68
V členu 7(2) Direktive 97/33, ki je del regulativnega okvira za telekomunikacije, ki ga dopolnjuje Uredba, je izrecno določeno, da „dokazno breme, da se cene določijo na podlagi dejanskih stro�kov, vključno s primernim donosom od vlaganj, nosi organ, ki s svojimi objekti zagotavlja medomrežno povezovanje“. 68
I therefore propose that the Court reply to the referring court to the effect that Community law requires that competitors as beneficiaries of the right of access to the notified operator’s local loop have the right to bring proceedings to contest rates for access approved by a national regulatory authority, on the ground that they were not set on the basis of costorientation.
Sodi�ču tako predlagam, naj predložitvenemu sodi�ču odgovori, da pravo Skupnosti nalaga, da imajo konkurenti, ki so upravičeni do dostopa do krajevne zanke prigla�enega obratovalca, pravico, da pred sodi�čem izpodbijajo cene dostopa, odobrene z odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa, če menijo, da niso stro�kovno naravnane.
H — The seventh question
H – Sedmo vprašanje
In view of the fact that the concept of costorientation relates to the notified operator’s costs, that is to say the costs ‘connected with’ the provision of access to an existing local loop owned by that operator, it is obviously the notified operator that is best placed to provide information concerning its costs.
Ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da pojem stro�kovne naravnanosti zadeva stro�ke prigla�enega obratovalca, se pravi „ustrezne“ stro�ke njegovega zagotavljanja dostopa do njegove obstoječe krajevne zanke, je očitno prigla�eni obratovalec najprimernej�i za po�iljanje podatkov o svojih stro�kih.
In the context of the supervision of chargesetting, which, in accordance with Article 4 of the regulation, is to be carried out by the
Prigla�eni obratovalec mora tako v postopku nadzora
68 — In the new regulatory framework, Article 13(3) of Directive 2002/19 states that ‘[w]here an operator has an obligation regarding the cost orientation of its prices, the burden of proof that charges are derived from costs including a reasonable rate of return on investment shall lie with the operator concerned.’
68 – V novem regulativnem okviru člen 13(3) Direktive 2002/19 določa, da „[k]adar mora obratovalec pri svojih cenah upo�tevati stro�kovno naravnanost, mora zadevni obratovalec dokazati, da so cene izračunane iz stro�kov, vključno iz primerne stopnje donosnosti naložbe“.
The referring court is, basically, seeking to ascertain where the burden of proof that rates have been set on the basis of
Predložitveno sodi�če želi v bistvu vedeti, kdo mora nositi dokazno breme glede stro�kovne naravnanosti cen v upravnem
Member States must, therefore, ensure that evidential rules — and, in particular the rules on where the burden of proof applicable to actions relating to a breach of Community law lies — are, firstly, not less favourable than those that apply to similar domestic actions and, secondly, that they do not make it impossible or excessively difficult in practice for individuals to exercise rights conferred by Community law. 69
POIARESA MADURA – ZADEVA C-55/06 oblikovanja cen, ki ga v skladu s členom 4 Uredba opravi nacionalni regulativni organ, dokazati ustrezne stro�ke svojega zagotavljanja dostopa do svoje krajevne zanke, na podlagi katerih se morajo naravnati cene, ki jih zahteva od konkurentov.
As regards the problem of ascertaining where the burden of proof that charges are cost-orientated lies, in the context of legal proceedings consequent on an appeal against a rates approval decision, neither the regulation nor the other legal instrument within the former regulatory framework provide any guidance on this point.
Nacionalno pravo bo moralo pri re�evanju porazdelitve onus probandi v vsakem primeru upo�tevati Skupnostni načeli učinkovitosti in enakovrednosti.
Consequently, it will be for the relevant national procedural law to determine the evidential rules applicable, including where the burden of proof lies as between the national regulatory authority which gave the rates approval decision and the party affected by that decision which has brought proceedings to contest whether the approved rates are orientated in line with the notified operator’s costs.
Države članice morajo tako zagotavljati, da podrobna pravila o dokazovanju in zlasti pravila o porazdelitvi dokaznega bremena, ki veljajo za pravna sredstva, ki zadevajo spore v zvezi s kr�enjem prava Skupnosti, prvič, niso manj ugodna od pravil, ki zadevajo podobna nacionalna pravna sredstva, in drugič, v praksi ne onemogočajo ali pretirano otežujejo posameznikovega izvajanja pravic, ki mu jih podeljuje pravni red Skupnosti. 69
I therefore propose that the Court reply to the seventh question to the effect that the regulation should be understood as meaning that, during a procedure for the supervision of charge-setting conducted by a national regulatory authority in accordance with Article 4 of the regulation, it is for the notified operator to provide evidence of its costs connected with the provision of access to its local loop, those costs having to be used in the costorientation of the rates which it charges its competitors.
Sodi�ču tako predlagam, naj na sedmo vpra�anje odgovori, da je treba Uredbo razlagati tako, da v postopku nadzora oblikovanja cen, ki ga v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe vodi nacionalni regulativni organ, prigla�enemu obratovalcu nalaga dokazno breme glede njegovih ustreznih stro�kov zagotavljanja dostopa do njegove krajevne zanke, na podlagi katerih se morajo naravnati cene, ki jih zahteva od konkurentov.
It will be for the national procedural law to determine, in accordance with the Community principles of the effectiveness and equivalence of legal protection, where the burden of proof lies in the context of legal proceedings contesting the costorientation of rates for access set by a decision of the national regulatory authority.
Nacionalno procesno pravo mora ob upo�tevanju Skupnostnih načel učinkovitosti in enakovrednosti sodnega varstva določiti sistem porazdelitve dokaznega bremena v sodnem postopku izpodbijanja stro�kovne naravnanosti cen dostopa, določenih z odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa.
In deciding where the burden of proof lies, national law must, in any event, respect the Community principles of effectiveness
Pravo Skupnosti tako ne nalaga, da se pravilo, po katerem prigla�eni obratovalec nosi dokazno breme glede stro�kov, na podlagi katerih morajo biti naravnane cene dostopa, ki jih zahteva, v upravnem postopku, v katerem nacionalni regulativni organ izda odločbo o odobritvi cen, uporablja tudi v morebitnem poznej�em sodnem postopku.
On the basis of the arguments set out above, I propose that the Court reply as follows to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Köln:
Ob upo�tevanju zgornjih ugotovitev predlagam Sodi�ču, naj na vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki jih je postavilo Verwaltungsgericht Köln, odgovori:
In the light of this, it will be for the national court
Nacionalno sodi�če mora s tega vidika preveriti, ali odločba o odobritvi cen, ki se obravnava v tem primeru, vsebuje ustrezne dokaze
In the absence of such justification, the Community concept of costorientation of charges requires that charges for access should be set at a figure below that obtained by applying such a method of calculating capital costs, in particular by deducting depreciation already made before the valuation date.
Če taki dokazi ne obstajajo, Skupnostni pojem stro�kovne naravnanosti cen nalaga, da se določijo nižje cene dostopa od cene, ki izhaja iz uporabe take metode izračuna finančnih stro�kov, zlasti z od�tetjem odpisov, že opravljenih v trenutku vrednotenja.
Effective judicial review of a rates approval decision must make it possible to ascertain whether or not the rates approval decision in question is in breach of the aims of Regulation No 2887/2000 and the criteria of nondiscrimination and equal treatment.
Učinkovit sodni nadzor odločbe o odobritvi cen mora omogočiti, da se preveri, ali zadevna odločba o odobritvi cen ne kr�i ciljev, določenih z Uredbo �t. 2887/2000, ter meril prepovedi diskriminacije in enakega obravnavanja.
It must also make it possible to ascertain whether the limits arising from the interpretation of the Community concept of costorientation have been respected and, in particular, whether the decision shows that an appropriate balance has been struck between the essential aim of fostering competition within the local network and the aim of ensuring the necessary level of investment in infrastructure.
Omogočati mora tudi, da se preveri, ali so se upo�tevale omejitve, ki izhajajo iz razlage Skupnostnega pojma stro�kovne naravnanosti, in zlasti, ali odločba dokazuje, da se je zagotovilo ravnovesje med bistvenim ciljem spodbujanja konkurence na krajevnem omrežju in ciljem zagotavljanja potrebne ravni vlaganj v infrastrukture.
It will be for the national procedural law to determine, in accordance with the Community principles of the effectiveness and equivalence of legal protection, where the burden of proof lies in the context of legal proceedings contesting the costorientation of rates for access set by a decision of the national regulatory authority.
Vendar pa mora nacionalno procesno pravo ob upo�tevanju Skupnostnih načel učinkovitosti in enakovrednosti sodnega varstva določiti sistem porazdelitve dokaznega bremena v sodnem postopku izpodbijanja stro�kovne naravnanosti cen dostopa, določenih z odločbo nacionalnega regulativnega organa.
JUDGMENT OF 24. 4.
SODBA Z DNE 24. 4.
2008 — CASE C-55/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-55/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 24. aprila 2008*
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 21 March 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Strömholm, administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 21. marca 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 1(4), 3(3) and 4(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on unbundled access to the local loop (OJ 2000 L 336, p. 4).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 1(4), 3(3) in 4 od (1) do (3) Uredbe (ES) �t. 2887/2000 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 18. decembra 2000 o razvezanem dostopu do krajevne zanke (UL L 336, str. 4).
The reference was made in the context of a dispute between Arcor AG & Co. KG (‘Arcor’) and the Federal Republic of Germany concerning partial approval of the rates of Deutsche Telekom AG (‘Deutsche Telekom’) for access to the local loop. I - 2978
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Arcor AG & Co. KG (v nadaljevanju: Arcor) in Bundesrepublik Deutschland zaradi delne odobritve cen družbe Deutsche Telekom AG (v nadaljevanju: Deutsche Telekom) za dostop do krajevne zanke. I - 2978
Regulation No 2887/2000
Uredba �t. 2887/2000
‘(5) The provision of new loops with high capacity optical fibre directly to major users is a specific market that is developing under competitive conditions with new investments.
„(5) Polaganje novih zank z zelo zmogljivimi optičnimi kabli neposredno do glavnih uporabnikov je poseben tržni segment, ki se razvija pod konkurenčnimi pogoji z novimi vlaganji.
This Regulation therefore addresses access to metallic local loops, without prejudice to national obligations regarding other types of access to local infrastructures.
Ta uredba zato obravnava dostop do žičnih krajevnih zank, ne da bi to posegalo v nacionalne obveznosti v zvezi z drugimi vrstami dostopa do krajevnih infrastruktur.
(6) It would not be economically viable for new entrants to duplicate the incumbent’s metallic local access infrastructure in its entirety within a reasonable time.
(6) Za nove udeležence na trgu ne bi bilo gospodarno izvedljivo v razumnem roku v celoti podvojiti infrastrukturo krajevnega žičnega dostopa prvotnega obratovalca.
Alternative infrastructures such as cable television, satellite, wireless local loops do not generally offer the same functionality or ubiquity for the time being, though situations in Member States may differ.
Alternativne infrastrukture, kot so kabelska televizija, satelitske povezave, brezžične krajevne zanke, zdaj na splo�no ne ponujajo enake funkcionalnosti ali vsesplo�ne raz�irjenosti, čeprav se lahko razmere med posameznimi državami razlikujejo.
(11) Costing and pricing rules for local loops and related facilities should be transparent, non-discriminatory and objective to ensure fairness.
(11) Pravila za izračun stro�kov in oblikovanje cen za krajevne zanke in pripadajoče zmogljivosti naj bodo pregledna, nediskriminacijska in objektivna, da bi zagotovila po�tenost.
Pricing rules should ensure that the local loop provider is able to cover its appropriate costs in this regard plus a reasonable return, in order to ensure the long term development and upgrade of local access infrastructure.
Pravila oblikovanja cen naj zagotavljajo, da lahko ponudnik krajevne zanke pri tem pokrije svoje ustrezne stro�ke in doseže primeren donos, da bi se zagotovil dolgoročni razvoj in nadgradila infrastruktura krajevnega dostopa.
Pricing rules for local loops should foster fair and sustainable competition, bearing in mind the need for investment in alternative infrastructures, and ensure that there is no distortion of competition, in particular no margin squeeze between prices of wholesale and retail services of the notified operator.
Pravila oblikovanja cen za krajevne zanke naj pospe�ujejo po�teno in [trajnostno] konkurenco, pri čemer se upo�teva potreba po vlaganju v alternativne infrastrukture in zagotovi, da ni izkrivljanja konkurence, zlasti naj ne bi bilo pritiska na zmanj�evanje razlik med cenami veleprodajnih in maloprodajnih storitev prigla�enega obratovalca.
In this regard, it is considered important that competition authorities be consulted.
V zvezi s tem bi se bilo treba posvetovati z organi, odgovornimi za konkurenco.
(13) In its Recommendation 2000/417/EC of 25 May 2000 on unbundled access to the local loop enabling the competitive provision of a full range of electronic communications services including broadband multimedia and highspeed Internet (OJ 2000 L 156, p.
(13) Komisija je v svojem Priporočilu 2000/417/ES z dne 25. maja 2000 o razvezanem dostopu do krajevne zanke, ki omogoča konkurenčno zagotavljanje vseh elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev, vključno s �irokopasovnimi večpredstavnostnimi in internetnimi storitvami za hitri prenos (UL L 156, str.
44) and its Communication of 26 April 2000 (OJ 2000 C 272, p.
44), ter v svojem sporočilu z dne 26. aprila 2000 (UL C 272, str.
55), the Commission set out detailed guidance to assist national regulatory authorities on the fair regulation of different forms of unbundled access to the local loop.
55) dala podrobne smernice za podporo nacionalnim regulativnim organom glede po�tenega urejanja različnih oblik razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke.
(14) In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the [EC] Treaty, the objective of achieving a harmonised framework for unbund- led access to the local loop in order to enable the competitive provision of an inexpensive, world-class communications infrastructure and a wide range of services for all businesses and citizens in the Community cannot be achieved by the Member States in a secure, harmonised and timely manner and can therefore be better achieved by the Community. In accordance with the principle
(14) V skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti iz člena 5 Pogodbe [ES] države članice ne morejo na varen, usklajen način in pravočasno doseči cilja usklajenega okvira za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke, da bi omogočile konkurenčno zagotavljanje stro�kovno ugodne komunikacijske infrastrukture svetovnega razreda in veliko izbiro storitev za vsa podjetja in državljane Skupnosti, zato se lahko ta cilj
ARCOR of proportionality as set out in that Article, the provisions of this Regulation do not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve this objective for that purpose.
ARCOR najbolje doseže na ravni Skupnosti. V skladu z načelom sorazmernosti iz navedenega člena določbe te uredbe ne presegajo okvira, ki je potreben za dosego cilja za ta namen.
They are adopted without prejudice to national provisions complying with Community law which set out more detailed measures …
Sprejmejo se brez poseganja v nacionalne predpise, ki izpolnjujejo zakonodajo Skupnosti in določajo podrobnej�e ukrepe […]
(15) This Regulation complements the regulatory framework for telecommunications, in particular Directives 97/33/EC and 98/10/EC. …’
(15) Ta uredba dopolnjuje regulativni okvir za telekomunikacije, zlasti Direktivi 97/33/ES in 98/10/ES. […]“
Article 1 of Regulation No 2887/2000, entitled ‘Aim and Scope’, is worded as follows:
Člen 1 te uredbe z naslovom „Cilj in področje uporabe“ določa:
This Regulation aims at intensifying competition and stimulating technological innovation on the local access market, through the setting of harmonised conditions for unbundled access to the local loop, to foster the competitive provision of a wide range of electronic communications services.
Cilj te uredbe je okrepiti konkurenco in spodbuditi tehnolo�ke inovacije na trgu krajevnega dostopa z določitvijo usklajenih pogojev za razvezani dostop do krajevne zanke, da bi se pospe�ilo konkurenčno zagotavljanje �irokega nabora elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev.