natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That proximity and the phonetic and visual similarities referred to in paragraph 46 above are such as to bring to the mind of the consumer the cheese protected by the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, when he is confronted by a hard cheese, grated or intended to be grated, bearing the name ‘Parmesan’.
Taka bližina ter fonetične in vidne podobnosti, navedene v točki 46 te sodbe, lahko privedejo potro�nika do tega, da kadar se sreča s trdim sirom, ki se strga ali je namenjen strganju in se imenuje „parmezan“, pomisli na sir, ki uživa ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
In those circumstances, the use of the name ‘Parmesan’ must be regarded, in the sense of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 2081/92, as an evocation of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
V teh okoli�činah je treba uporabo imena „parmezan“ opredeliti kot navajanje ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ v smislu člena 13(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 2081/92.
The question whether the name ‘Parmesan’ is a translation of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ is therefore of no relevance for the assessment of the present action.
Vpra�anje, ali je ime „parmezan“ prevod ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, zato za presojo te tožbe ni pomembno.
The Federal Republic of Germany nevertheless submits that, since the name ‘Parmesan’ has become a generic name, its use cannot amount to an unlawful evocation of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Vendar Zvezna republika Nemčija meni, da ker je ime „parmezan“ postalo generično ime, njegova uporaba ne bi mogla pomeniti nezakonitega navajanja ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“.
It is for the Federal Republic of Germany to prove that argument to be well founded, all the more so because the Court has already held that it is far from clear that the designation ‘Parmesan’ has become generic (Bigi, paragraph 20).
Zvezna republika Nemčija bi morala predložiti dokaze o utemeljenosti te trditve, �e zlasti zato, ker je Sodi�če že razsodilo, da sploh ni očitno, da bi označba „parmezan“ postala generična (zgoraj navedena sodba Bigi, točka 20).
As indicated by the Advocate General in points 63 and 64 of his Opinion, the Federal Republic of Germany restricted itself to providing quotations from dictionaries and specialist literature which do not provide any comprehensive view of how the word ‘Parmesan’ is perceived by consumers in Germany and other Member States, and
Vendar je Zvezna republika Nemčija, kot je v točkah 63 in 64 sklepnih predlogov poudaril generalni pravobranilec, posredovala le povzetke iz slovarjev in strokovne literature, ki ne zagotavljajo celovitega vpogleda v to, kako besedo „parmezan“
2008 — CASE C-132/05 failed even to give any figures as to the production or consumption of the cheese marketed under the name ‘Parmesan’ in Germany or in other Member States.
2008 – ZADEVA C-132/05 dojemajo potro�niki v Nemčiji in drugih državah članicah, ne da bi vsaj predložila kakr�nekoli �tevilke v zvezi s proizvodnjo ali potro�njo sira, ki se trži pod označbo „parmezan“ v Nemčiji ali drugih državah članicah.
According to the documents in the case, in Germany, certain producers of cheese called ‘Parmesan’ market that product with labels referring to Italian cultural traditions and landscapes.
Poleg tega iz spisa, predloženega Sodi�ču, izhaja, da določeni proizvajalci sira z imenom „parmezan“ ta proizvod tržijo z nalepkami, ki se sklicujejo na italijansko kulturo in italijanske pokrajine.
It is legitimate to infer from this that consumers in that Member State perceive ‘Parmesan’ cheese as a cheese associated with Italy, even if in reality it was produced in another Member State (see to that effect Germany and Denmark v Commission, paragraph 87).
Iz tega je mogoče upravičeno sklepati, da potro�niki v tej državi članici sir „parmezan“ dojemajo kot sir, povezan z Italijo, čeprav je bil v resnici proizveden v drugi državi članici (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Nemčija in Danska proti Komisiji, točka 87).
Finally, at the hearing, the Federal Republic of Germany was also unable to provide information on the quantity of cheese produced in Italy under the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ and imported into Germany, making it impossible for the Court to use the factors relating to the consumption of that cheese as indicators of the generic character of the name ‘Parmesan’ (see, to that effect, Germany and Denmark v Commission, paragraph 88).
Nazadnje, Zvezni republiki Nemčiji na obravnavi ni uspelo predložiti podatkov v zvezi s količinami sira, proizvedenega v Italiji pod ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, ki je uvožen v Nemčijo, tako da Sodi�če zato ni moglo uporabiti elementov v zvezi z potro�njo tega sira, ki kažejo na generičnost imena „parmezan“ (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Nemčija in Danska proti Komisiji, točka 88).
Since the Federal Republic of Germany has therefore failed to show that the name ‘Parmesan’ has become generic, use of the word ‘Parmesan’ for cheese which does not comply with the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ must be regarded for the purposes of the present proceedings as infringing the protection provided for that PDO under Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 2081/92 .
Ker Nemčija ni dokazala, da je ime „parmezan“ generično, je treba uporabo besede „parmezan“ za sire, ki ne ustrezajo specifikaciji ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, v obravnavani zadevi �teti kot kr�itev za�čite, ki izhaja iz člena 13(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 2081/92.
Obligation on the Federal Republic of Germany to proceed against infringements of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 2081/92
Obveznost Zvezne republike Nemčije, da sankcionira kršitve člena 13(1) Uredbe št. 2081/92
The Commission contends that the Federal Republic of Germany is bound, under Articles 10 and 13 of Regulation No 2081/92, to take on its own initiative the measures necessary to deal with conduct which infringes a PDO.
Komisija zatrjuje, da je Zvezna republika Nemčija na podlagi členov 10 in 13 Uredbe �t. 2081/92 zavezana po uradni dolžnosti sprejeti ukrepe, potrebne za preprečevanje ravnanj, ki �kodujejo ZOP.
According to the Commission, Member State intervention should include administrative and penal measures such as to enable the objectives referred to in that regulation concerning the protection of designations of origin to be achieved.
Po mnenju Komisije vključuje posredovanje držav članic na upravni in kazenski ravni ustrezne ukrepe, ki omogočajo uresničevanje ciljev iz te uredbe na področju za�čite označb porekla.
Products which do not comply with the requirements of the regulation cannot be marketed.
Proizvodi, ki ne ustrezajo zahtevam navedene uredbe, se ne bi smeli tržiti.
The Commission points out that its complaints are directed not at the German legislation or at any lack of a right of action before the national courts, but at the administrative practice of the German authorities which is contrary to Community law.
Komisija pojasnjuje, da se njeni očitki ne nana�ajo na nem�ko zakonodajo niti na kakr�enkoli neobstoj možnosti tožbe pred nacionalnimi sodi�či, ampak na upravno prakso nem�kih organov, ki je v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
If the Member States were exempted from their obligation to intervene and if, as a consequence, economic operators themselves had to bring legal proceedings each time their exclusive right to use the PDO at issue throughout the territory of the European Union were infringed, the objectives of Regulation No 2081/92 could not be achieved.
Če državam članicam ne bi bilo treba posredovati in če bi zato gospodarski subjekti morali vsakokrat, ko bi bila ogrožena njihova izključna pravica uporabe zadevne ZOP na celotnem ozemlju Evropske unije, sami sprožiti sodne postopke, ciljev Uredbe �t. 2081/92 ne bi bilo mogoče doseči.
Again from the point of view of the Commission, the central question in legal proceedings between private economic operators is that of compliance with the intellectual property rights enjoyed by the producers established in the region of origin of the product concerned, whereas the purpose of action by the public authorities against infringements of Article 13 of Regulation No 2081/92 is not to protect private economic interests but those of consumers, whose expectations as to the quality and geographic origin of that product should not be disappointed.
Komisija tudi meni, da je osrednje vpra�anje v sporu med zasebnimi gospodarskimi subjekti vpra�anje spo�tovanja pravic intelektualne lastnine, ki jih imajo proizvajalci s sedežem v pokrajini porekla zadevnega proizvoda, medtem ko namen preprečevanja kr�itev člena 13 Uredbe �t. 2081/92 s strani javnih oblasti ni varstvo zasebnih gospodarskih interesov, ampak interesov potro�nikov, katerih pričakovanjem glede kakovosti in geografskega porekla navedenega proizvoda se ne sme izneveriti.
The protection of consumers intended by the regulation would be compromised if the enforcement of the prohibitions laid down by the regulation were completely dependent on the taking of legal action by private economic operators.
Varstvo potro�nikov iz te uredbe bi bilo ogroženo, če bi bila uvedba prepovedi, določenih v navedeni uredbi, popolnoma odvisna od ravnanj zasebnih gospodarskih subjektov na področju sodnega pregona.
The Commission concludes that the Federal Republic of Germany’s conduct must be treated as an infringement of Community law by omission.
Komisija je zaključila, da je treba ravnanje Zvezne republike Nemčije obravnavati kot kr�itev prava Skupnosti z opustitvijo.
For its part, the Federal Republic of Germany submits that Article 13 of Regulation No 2081/92 determines the scope of protection of registered geographical indications and designations of origin.
Zvezna republika Nemčija trdi, da člen 13 Uredbe �t. 2081/92 določa področje uporabe za�čite geografskih označb in registriranih označb porekla.
Owing to the direct applicability of the regulation, that article confers rights on holders or legitimate users of the PDO which the national courts must protect.
Zaradi neposrednega učinka te uredbe naj bi lahko imetniki ali legitimni uporabniki ZOP na podlagi tega člena pridobili pravice, ki bi jih morala nacionalna sodi�ča varovati.
The direct applicability of Regulation No 2081/92 admittedly does not release the Member States from the obligation to take national measures in order to ensure the application of the regulation.
Neposredna uporaba Uredbe �t. 2081/92 naj nikakor ne bi oprostila držav članic obveznosti, da sprejmejo nacionalne ukrepe za zagotovitev uporabe te uredbe. V vsakem primeru pa naj bi Zvezna republika Nemčija sprejela �tevilne zakonske določbe, na podlagi katerih je mogoče ukrepati proti nezakoniti uporabi ZOP, zlasti zakon o preprečevanju nelojalne konkurence (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb) z dne 7. junija 1909 in zakon o varstvu znamk in drugih razlikovalnih znakov (Gesetz über den Schutz von Marken und sonstigen Kennzeichen) z dne 25. oktobra 1994 (BGBl. 1994 I, str. 3085).
Moreover, the possibility of taking legal action in respect of any conduct that would be contrary to the rights derived from a PDO is not reserved solely to the holder of that designation.
Poleg tega naj bi možnost vložitve tožbe proti vsakemu ravnanju, ki je v nasprotju s pravicami, ki izhajajo iz ZOP, ne bila omejena le na imetnika navedene označbe.
That possibility is, on the contrary, open to competitors, business associations and consumer organisations.
Nasprotno, odprta naj bi bila konkurentom, podjetni�kim združenjem in združenjem potro�nikov.
The very large class of persons entitled to
Dovolj velik krog oseb, ki lahko vložijo tožbo, naj bi zadostoval za dokaz,
COMMISSION v GERMANY bring an action suffices to demonstrate that the provisions in force in the Federal Republic of Germany are not limited to enabling producers established in the region of origin of the product concerned to enforce their intellectual property rights.
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI da se veljavne določbe v Zvezni republiki Nemčiji ne omejujejo le na omogočanje proizvajalcem v pokrajini porekla zadevnega proizvoda, da za�čitijo svoje pravice intelektualne lastnine.
Those provisions establish a general and efficient system which makes it possible to prevent infringements of Article 13 of Regulation No 2081/92 and to punish them effectively by means of judicial decisions.
Te določbe naj bi ustvarile splo�en in učinkovit sistem, ki bi omogočal preprečevanje kr�itev člena 13 Uredbe �t. 2081/92 in učinkovito sankcioniranje z ustreznimi sodnimi odločbami.
By granting those civil law rights, the Federal Republic of Germany has taken all the measures necessary to guarantee full application of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 2081/92.
Zvezna republika Nemčija naj bi s podelitvijo zgoraj navedenih pravic civilnoprav -nega značaja sprejela vse ukrepe, potrebne za zagotavljanje polne uporabe člena 13(1) Uredbe �t. 2081/92.
It is not necessary for the public authorities to take administrative action on their own initiative against infringements of that provision, and that is also not required under Articles 10 and 13 of the regulation.
Javnim organom naj ne bi bilo treba z ukrepi po uradni dolžnosti sankcionirati kr�itev te določbe, česar ne zahtevata niti člena 10 in 13 navedene uredbe.
According to the Federal Republic of Germany, it follows from a comparison of the different language versions of Article 10(4) of Regulation No 2081/92 that, given the Italian origin of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, it is the Consorzio del formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano and not the German inspection structures which must ensure compliance with the specification for that designation when it is used.
Po mnenju Zvezne republike Nemčije iz primerjave različnih jezikovnih različic člena 10(4) Uredbe �t. 2081/92 izhaja, da mora zaradi italijanskega porekla ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ spo�tovanje specifikacije navedene označbe pri njeni uporabi preveriti Consorzio del formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano, ne pa nem�ki nadzorni organi.
According to the Federal Republic of Germany, while the Commission observes that the action taken by the Member State concerned against infringements of Article 13 of Regulation No 2081/92 must ensure not only the protection of private economic interests but also that of consumers, that does not stem from any particularity of the regulation of such a kind as to render insufficient — in contrast to the position regarding other intellectual property rights or regarding competition law — the system of protection of designations of origin by providing civil law remedies.
Zvezna republika Nemčija meni, da čeprav Komisija poudarja, da mora sankcija zadevne države članice za kr�itve člena 13 Uredbe �t. 2081/92 zagotoviti varstvo ne le zasebnih gospodarskih interesov, ampak tudi interesov potro�nikov, ta ugotovitev ne izhaja iz nikakr�ne posebnosti navedene uredbe, na podlagi katere bi bil – v nasprotju s primeri drugih pravic intelektualne lastnine ali določbami varstva konkurence – sistem varstva označb porekla s pravnimi sredstvi civilnega prava pomanjkljiv.
Finally, the Federal Republic of Germany contends that if, in Germany, use of the name ‘Parmesan’ for products which do not comply with the requirements of the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ is not subject to proceedings brought on the authorities’ initiative or to criminal penalties, even supposing that such use infringes Article 13(1) of Regulation No 2081/92, that situation arises simply because of a decision not to use some penalties which the Member States may impose, but are not obliged to impose, in compliance with the current state of Community law.
Nazadnje, Zvezna republika Nemčija zatrjuje, da položaj v Nemčiji, kjer se uporaba imena „parmezan“ za proizvode, ki ne ustrezajo zahtevam iz specifikacije ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, ne preganja po uradni dolžnosti niti kazensko ne sankcionira, čeprav ta uporaba pomeni kr�itev člena 13(1) Uredbe �t. 2081/92, izhaja preprosto iz opustitve načinov sankcioniranja, ki jih države članice lahko določijo, vendar jim jih v skladu s sedanjim stanjem prava Skupnosti ni treba naložiti.
In that regard, it should be pointed out that the right of individuals to rely on the provisions of a regulation before their national courts cannot release the Member States from their duty to take the national measures which may be needed to ensure its full application (see, inter alia, Case 72/85 Commission v Netherlands [1986] ECR 1219, paragraph 20).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da pravica posameznikov, da se pred nacionalnimi sodi�či sklicujejo na določbe uredbe, ne bi mogla odvezati držav članic, da sprejmejo nacionalne ukrepe, ki bi omogočali njihovo polno uporabo, če bi bilo to potrebno (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 20. marca 1986 v zadevi Komisija proti Nizozemski, 72/85, Recueil, str. 1219, točka 20).
It is not disputed that the German legal system provides legal instruments such as the legislative provisions mentioned in paragraph 63 above which are designed to ensure the effective protection of the rights which individuals derive from Regulation No 2081/92.
Ni sporno, da so v nem�kem pravnem redu taki pravni instrumenti – kakr�ne so zakonske določbe, navedene v točki 63 te sodbe – ki so namenjeni zagotavljanju učinkovitega varstva pravic, ki jih imajo posamezniki na podlagi Uredbe �t. 2081/92.
It is, on the contrary, open to competitors, business associations and consumer organisations.
Nasprotno, odprta je konkurentom, podjetni�kim združenjem in združenjem potro�nikov.
In those circumstances, such legislation is capable of guaranteeing the protection of interests other than those of the producers of the goods protected by a PDO, in particular the interests of consumers.
V teh okoli�činah lahko taka ureditev zagotavlja varstvo drugih interesov, ne pa interesov proizvajalcev blaga, ki uživa ZOP, zlasti interesov potro�nikov.
At the hearing, the Federal Republic of Germany moreover pointed out that several cases concerning the use in Germany of the name ‘Parmesan’ are currently pending before the German courts, one of which was brought by the Consorzio del formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano.
Zvezna republika Nemčija je na obravnavi poleg tega navedla, da se zdaj pred nem�kimi sodi�či obravnava več zadev v zvezi z uporabo imena „parmezan“ v Nemčiji, med katerimi je eno sprožila Consorzio del formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano.
With regard to the Commission’s complaint concerning the obligation on the Member States to take on their own initiative the measures necessary to penalise infringements of Article 13(1) of that regulation, the following points must be made.
Glede očitka Komisije, ki se nana�a na obveznost držav članic, da morajo po uradni dolžnosti sprejeti potrebne ukrepe za sankcioniranje kr�itev člena 13(1) navedene uredbe, je treba ugotoviti naslednje.
First of all, there is no such obligation under Article 10 of Regulation No 2081/92.
Najprej, ta obveznost ne izhaja iz člena 10 Uredbe �t. 2081/92.
It is true that, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the provisions of Regulation No 2081/92, Article 10(1) of that regulation provides that the Member States shall ensure that inspection structures are in place not later than six months after its entry into force.
Res je, da je za zagotovitev učinkovitosti določb Uredbe �t. 2081/92 v njenem členu 10(1) določeno, da države članice zagotovijo, da bodo najpozneje v �estih mesecih po začetku veljavnosti te uredbe vzpostavljene strukture nadzora.
Nevertheless, Article 10(4) of Regulation No 2081/92, by providing that ‘[i]f a designated inspection authority and/or private body in a Member State establishes that an agricultural product or a foodstuff bearing a protected name of origin in that Member State does not meet the criteria of the specification, they shall take the steps necessary to ensure that this Regulation is complied with …’, indicates that the designated inspection authority and/or private body in a Member State is that of the Member State from which the PDO comes.
Vendar člen 10(4) Uredbe �t. 2081/92 s tem, da določa, da „[č]e pristojni kontrolni organ in/ali zasebni subjekt ugotovita, da kmetijski proizvod ali živilo, ki nosi za�čiteno ime s poreklom, v tisti državi članici ne izpolnjuje kriterijev in zahtev specifikacije, bosta izvedla potrebne ukrepe, da se zagotovi skladnost s to uredbo. […]“, kaže na to, da pristojni kontrolni organ in/ali zasebni subjekt države članice izhajata iz države članice, iz katere izhaja ZOP.
The reference to the ‘producers or processors subject to their control’ in Article 10(3) of that regulation, like the producers’ right of access to the inspection system provided for in Article 10(6) and their obligation under Article 10(7) to bear the costs of the inspections, confirm that Article 10 of Regulation No 2081/92 concerns the obligations of the Member States from which the PDO comes.
Navedba „proizvajalcev ali predelovalcev, ki jih ta kontrola zadeva“ v členu 10(3) navedene uredbe in pravica proizvajalcev, da imajo dostop do kontrolnega sistema iz odstavka 6 tega člena, ter njihova obveznost, da nosijo stro�ke kontrole iz odstavka 7 istega člena, potrjujejo, da so v členu 10 Uredbe �t. 2081/92 obravnavane obveznosti držav članic, iz katerih izhaja ZOP.
That interpretation is further reinforced by the provisions of Articles 4(2)(g) in conjunction with Article 5(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2081/92, which require that the application for registration includes the specification, that that application is addressed to the Member State in which the geographical area is located, and that the specification includes ‘details of the inspection structures provided for in Article 10’.
Taka razlaga je potrjena tudi s kombiniranimi določbami členov 4(2)(g) in 5(3) in (4) Uredbe �t. 2081/92, iz katerih izhaja, da mora vloga za registracijo vsebovati specifikacijo, da je treba to vlogo poslati državi članici, v kateri se nahaja zadevno geografsko območje, in da mora navedena specifikacija vsebovati „podrobnosti o strukturi kontrole iz člena 10“.
It follows that the inspection structures whose task it is to ensure compliance with the PDO specification are those of the Member State from which the PDO in question comes.
Iz tega izhaja, da se obveznost zagotavljanja spo�tovanja specifikacije nana�a na tisto strukturo nadzora, ki je v državi članici, iz katere izhaja zadevna ZOP.
The responsibility for monitoring compliance with the specification when the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ is used therefore does not lie with the German inspection authorities.
Nadzor spo�tovanja specifikacije pri uporabi ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“ zato ne spada v pristojnost nem�kih nadzornih organov.
It is true that Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 2081/92 requires that registered names be protected against any ‘misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or if the protected name is translated or accompanied by an expression such as “style”, “type”, “method”, “as produced in”, “imitation” or similar’.
Res je, da člen 13(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 2081/92 določa za�čito proti vsaki „zlorabi, posnemanju ali navajanju, četudi je pravo poreklo proizvoda označeno ali če je za�čiteno ime prevedeno ali mu je dodan izraz[,] kot je ‚slog‘, ‚tip‘, ‚metoda‘, ‚kakor se proizvaja v‘, ‚imitacija‘ in podobno“.
Nevertheless, the Commission has not demonstrated that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to comply with the obligations under Regulation No 2081/92, and it has not furnished proof that measures such as those referred to in paragraph 63 above were not taken or were not such as to protect the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’.
Vendar Komisija ni dokazala, da je Zvezna republika Nemčija kr�ila obveznosti iz Uredbe �t. 2081/92, niti ni predložila dokazov, da ukrepi, kot so navedeni v točki 63 te sodbe, niso bili sprejeti oziroma niso bili taki, da bi za�čitili ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“.