natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
TELECOM ITALIA the telecommunications market and of not imposing on undertakings more restrictions or charges than necessary, thereby complying with the principle of proportionality.
TELECOM ITALIA omejitev in bremen, kot je nujno, s čimer torej spo�tujeta načelo sorazmernosti. 11
11 They are headed, respectively, ‘Fees and charges for general authorisation procedures’ and ‘Fees and charges for individual licences’.
Njuna naslova sta „Dajatve in pristojbine za izdajanje splo�nih dovoljenj“ in „Dajatve in pristojbine za posamične licence“.
1998, 9 and Directive 97/13 proved to be one of the most effective tools in that regard.
Direktiva 97/13 eno najbolj učinkovitih orodji.
That directive combined the essential requirement of state control of those resources, embodied in the authorisation procedure, with the unavoidable need to liberalise the sector in order to create the conditions in which freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services would promote the entrenchment of competition.
Ta predpis je vzpostavil ravnotežje med neizogibnim nadzorom države nad temi viri, ki se je izrazil v sistemu „pooblastil“, in očitno prilagodljivostjo sektorja, da bi se ustvarili pogoji, v katerih bi svoboda ustanavljanja in svoboda opravljanja storitev vzpodbujali nastanek konkurence.
With that aim in mind, the directive laid down a uniform framework, founded on the principles of proportionality, transparency and nondiscrimination, in which the absence of restrictions constitutes the general rule for the supply of telecommunications and the operation of telecommunications networks.
S tem namenom je ustvaril enoten pravni okvir, ki temelji na načelih sorazmernosti, preglednosti in prepovedi diskriminacije, v katerem je neobstoj omejitev skupna smernica za zagotavljanje telekomunikacij in uporabo telekomunikacijskih omrežij.
The Community legislature intended them to be distributed and used without hindrance or, where appropriate, in accordance with ‘general authorisations’, reducing ‘individual licences’ to the status of exceptions or additions to the universal permits. 10
Zakonodajalec skupnosti je želel, da se distribuirajo in uporabljajo brez ovir oziroma v skladu s „splo�nimi dovoljenji“ ter da se omejijo „posamične licence“ v zvezi z izjemami ali dodatki k splo�nim dovoljenjem. 10
Article 11 of that directive prohibits Member States from charging the holders of individual licences fees other than those which seek to cover the administrative costs incurred in the issue, management, control and enforcement of such licences (paragraph 1), without prejudice to the right, where scarce resources are to be used, to require the holders to pay non-discrimina-tory charges to ensure the optimal use of these resources (paragraph 2).
Člen 11 prepoveduje državam članicam, da od imetnikov posamičnih licenc zahtevajo pristojbine, ki niso namenjene kritju administrativnih stro�kov, ki nastanejo z njihovo dodelitvijo, upravljanjem, nadzorom in uporabo (prvi odstavek) brez poseganja v pravico, da v primeru redkih virov zahtevajo nediskriminatorne dajatve za zagotovitev najugodnej�e uporabe (drugi odstavek).
Articles 6 and 11 of Directive 97/13 follow the same route of promoting competition in
Člena 6 in 11 Direktive 97/13 sledita ideji o vzpodbujanju konkurence na trgu telekomunikacij in o nenalaganju podjetjem več
In accordance with Article 25, the Member States had to comply with the directive not later than 31 December 1997.
V skladu s členom 25 so morale države članice prenesti direktivo do 31. decembra 1997.
Member States shall make all necessary efforts to bring authorisations in force at the date of entry of this Directive into line with its provisions before 1 January 1999.
Države članice do 1. januarja 1999 storijo, kar je potrebno za zagotovitev skladnosti dovoljenj, veljavnih na dan, ko začne veljati ta direktiva, z določbami te direktive.
B — Italian legislation: the fee applicable to individual licences
B – Italijanska ureditev: dajatev za posamične licence
Where application of the provisions of this Directive results in amendments to the terms of authorisations already in existence, Member States may extend the validity of terms, other than those giving special or exclusive rights which have been or are to be terminated under Community law, provided that this can be done without affecting the rights of other undertakings under Community law, including this Directive.
Če uporaba določb iz te direktive povzroči spremembe pogojev v zvezi z obstoječimi dovoljenji, lahko države članice raz�irijo veljavnost teh pogojev, razen pogojev, ki dajejo posebne ali izključne pravice, ko so prenehale ali morajo prenehati v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, če je to mogoče, ne da bi se poseglo v pravice podjetji, za katere velja pravo Skupnosti, vključno s to direktivo.
In such cases, Member States shall notify the Commission of the action taken to that end and shall state the reasons therefor.
V takih primerih države članice sporočijo Komisiji ukrepe, sprejete v zvezi s tem, in razloge zanje.
The Codice postale e delle telecomunicazioni (Postal and Telecommunications Code) of 1973 13established that telecommunications services were reserved to the State (Article 1), while allowing them to be indirectly managed by means of concessions (Article 4). In the latter case, a concession holder was required to pay an annual fee (Article 188) proportional to the gross receipts from the service, less the amounts paid to the operator of the public network. 14
Codice postale e delle telecomunicazioni (zakonik o po�ti in telekomunikacijah) iz leta 1973 13je razglasil, da so komunikacije na daljavo v javni lasti (člen 1), čeprav je dovolil posredno upravljanje s pomočjo koncesij (člen 4), pri čemer je koncesionarju naložil plačilo letne dajatve (člen 188), ki je bila sorazmerna bruto dohodku iz dejavnosti, zmanj�anem za znesek, ki ga plača upravljavec javnega omrežja. 14
Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2, obligations in authorisations existing at the date of entry into force of this
Brez poseganja v določbe drugega odstavka prenehajo veljati obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz dovoljenj, veljavnih na dan, ko začne veljati ta direktiva, in ki 1. januarja 1999 niso v skladu s to direktivo.
14 — The information about the calculation of the fee is set out in the order for reference (pp. 6 and 7).
12 – V besedilo je vključen člen 22 iz �panske različice Direktive 97/13, čeprav je uradni prevod slab.
12 — Footnote not relevant to the English-language version.
14 – Podatek o izračunu dajatve izhaja iz predložitvene odločbe (str. 6 in 7).
After the process of liberalising the sector in the European Union had begun, Decree-Law No 545 of 23 October 1996 15 transposition of Directive 97/13.
Potem ko se je v Evropski uniji začel proces liberalizacije tega sektorja, je uredbazakon �t. 545 z dne 23. oktobra 1996 15 je prenesla Direktivo 97/13.
It fixed 1 January 1998 as the timelimit for the abolition of the former special and exclusive rights (Article 2(3)), and then went on to reproduce Article 22 of Directive 97/13 (Article 2(4) to (6)).
Kot časovni rok za nekdanje posebne in izključne pravice je določila 1. januar 1998 (člen 2(3)) in v nadaljevanju ponovila člen 22 Direktive 97/13 (člen 2(4), (5) in (6)).
ordered Italian legislation to be brought into line with Community law and became, with amendments, Law No 650 of 23 December 1996. 16
določila prilagoditev italijanske zakonodaje pravu Skupnosti in je bila z nekaj spremembami spremenjena v zakon �t. 650 z dne 23. decembra 1996. 16
Presidential Decree No 318 further provided that the charge payable for individual licences would be used only to cover the administrative costs of issuing the licences (Article 6(20)), 19as a result of which Article 188 of the Codice postale was rendered inoperative.
Poleg tega je določila, da se dajatve iz posamičnih licenc namenijo le pokrivanju administrativnih stro�kov dodelitve (člen 6(20)) 19, zaradi česar je postal člen 188 Codice postale zastarel.
The new legislation abolished exclusive and special rights and acknowledged the right of every undertaking to provide telecommunications services and install telecommunications networks, subject to administrative authorisations.
Nova ureditev je ukinila izključne in posebne pravice ter vsem podjetjem priznala možnost ponujanja storitev in izgradnje telekomunikacijskih omrežij, če so pridobila upravno dovoljenje.
Article 4(1) and (2) of Law No 249 of 31 July 1997 17 on the designation of the Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni (Communications Regulatory Authority), and the establishment of rules in the telecommunications and broadcasting sector, confirmed that approach.
Člen 4(1) in (2) zakona �t. 249 z dne 31. julija 1997 17, ki ustanavlja Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni (organ za zagotavljanje komunikacije) in določa predpise o radiotelevizijskih in telekomunikacijskih sistemih, je potrdil ta pristop.
Presidential Decree No 318 of 19 September 1997 18made that adjustment of
318 z dne 19. septembra 1997 18je uresničila napovedano prilagoditev italijanskega prava zahtevam pravnega reda Skupnosti, s tem da
However, in order to ensure a smooth transition to the new system, the validity of Article 188 of the Codice postale was extended for such time as the Autorità considered necessary (Article 21(2)).
Kljub temu je bila zaradi postopnega prehoda na novo ureditev podalj�ana veljavnost tega člena Codice postale dokler Autorità meni, da je to potrebno (člen 21(2)).
That provision was repealed by Article 20(4) of Law No 448 of 23 December 1998 introducing public finance provisions for stabilisation and development (Law on budgets for
To pravilo je prenehalo veljati s členom 20(4) zakona �t. 448 z dne 23. decembra 1998
19 — By order of 5 February 1998 (GURI No 63 of 17 March 1998, p.
318 iz leta 1997 z odlokom z dne 5. februarja 1998 (GURI �t. 63, 17.3.1998, str.
27), the Minister for the Treasury, Budgets and Economic Planning, on the basis of Article 6 of Presidential Decree No 318 of 1997, required a holder of an individual licence to pay the Treasury: (a) a charge in respect of the costs of issuing and granting the licence, to be paid at the time of the application (Article 3); (b) an annual fee for monitoring and inspection (Article 4); (c) another annual fee for the use of scarce resources (Article 5); and (d) an annual charge for the allocation of the numbers required to operate the service (Article 6).
27) imetniku posamične licence naložil, da v javno blagajno plača a) prispevek za stro�ke dodelitve in izdaje licence, ki se ga plača ob vložitvi vloge (člen 3), b) letno dajatev za nadzor in preverjanje (člen 4), c) letno dajatev za uporabo redkih virov (člen 5) in d) letni davek za dodelitev �tevilčenja, potrebnega za delovanje (člen 6).
The order for reference was received at the Court Registry on 3 July 2006.
To vpra�anje je bilo 3. julija 2006 vloženo pri tajni�tvu Sodi�ča.
The applicant in the main proceedings, the Italian Government and the Commission lodged written observations, and oral argument was presented by their representatives at the hearing held on 4 October 2007.
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, italijanska vlada in Komisija so vložile pisna stali�ča, njihovi predstavniki pa so na obravnavi 4. oktobra 2007 predstavili ustna stali�ča.
III — The facts of the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
III – Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje vprašanja za predhodno
V — Analysis of the question referred
V – Presoja odločanje
Telecom Italia SpA, which had had an exclusive licence to provide public telecommunications services in Italy since 1964, currently holds an individual licence for activities relating to the provision of such services and paid, for 1998, a fee of EUR 385 896 593 plus interest.
Družba Telecom Italia SpA, od leta 1964 izključni koncesionar javnih telekomunikacijskih storitev v Italiji, sedaj pa ima posamično licenco za dejavnosti, ki so neločljivo povezane s temi storitvami, je za leto 1998 plačala dajatev v znesku 385.896.593 EUR ter obresti.
A — Delimitation of the dispute
A – Razmejitev razprav
The Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio frequently seeks preliminary rulings but, at the moment of truth, it is sparing with words and has submitted to the Court a question with more substance than its wording suggests.
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio je zagret udeleženec, vendar se ob uri resnice izkaže za redkobesednega, saj Sodi�ču zastavlja bolj žgoče vpra�anje, kot se zdi na prvi pogled.
In order to secure the reimbursement of that sum, Telecom Italia brought an action before the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, which, by order of 10 May 2006 and on the basis of the judgment in Albacom and Infostrada, asked the Court of Justice for a ruling ‘on the interpretation and scope’ of Articles 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13, and, in particular, on whether Article 20(3) of Law No 448 of 1998 is consistent with those provisions.
Da bi dosegla povračilo tega zneska, se je obrnila na Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, ki se je z odločbo z dne 10. maja 2006 in sklicujoč se na sodbo v zadevi Albacom in Infostrada obrnilo na Sodi�če v zvezi z „razlago in obsegom“ členov 11, 22 in 25 Direktive 97/13, predvsem pa o skladnosti člena 20(3) zakona �t. 488 iz leta 1998 z njimi.
The referring court is so restrained that, without being more specific, it merely asks
Njegovo ravnanje je tako skromno, da se omeji, ne da bi bilo bolj natančno, na razlago
Article 11 thereof, is a premise to such a question. That task is for the national court and the Court of Justice must restrict itself to providing that court with the relevant guidelines for interpreting Community law, which it has already done in the judgments in Albacom and Infostrada, ISIS Multimedia and Firma 02, Nuova Società di Telecomunicazioni, and i-21 Germany and Arcor.
TELECOM ITALIA sodi�ča; Sodi�če pa se mora omejiti le na to, da mu preskrbi ustrezne smernice razlage prava Skupnosti, kar je že storilo v sodbah Albacom in Infostrada, ISIS Multimedia in Firma 02, Nuova società di telecomunicazioni ter i-21 Germany in Arcor.
the Court to rule on the interpretation and scope of Articles 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13, with a view to comparing those provisions with Article 20(3) of Italian Law No 448 of 1998.
in obseg členov 11, 22 in 25 Direktive 97/13 v primerjavi s členom 20(3) italijanskega zakona �t. 448 iz leta 1998.
That conciseness, rather than precision, obscures the real reasons for the reference and hinders a proper understanding of the question.
Ta jedrnatost, če ne že strogost, vpra�anja kali pristne razloge za predložitev in zapleta njegovo polno razumevanje.
In fact, the focus of the question is Article 22 of the directive, while the undeniably useful function of the other two articles is to delimit that provision.
Vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje se pravzaprav osredotoči na člen 22 navedene direktive, medtem ko preostalima določbama prepu�ča ne nepomembno nalogo razmejitve.
The object of the main proceedings is to determine whether, in accordance with Article 22 of Directive 97/13, a fee which is contrary to Article 11 of that directive may continue to be levied until 31 December 1998, in other words beyond the timelimit set by Article 25 for the transposition of the directive (31 December 1997). 21
Spor o glavni stvari v bistvu terja pojasnitev, ali lahko na podlagi člena 22 Direktive 97/13 obdavčitev, ki je v nasprotju z njenim členom 11, ostane v veljavi do 31. decembra 1998, kar je dlje, kot je rok, določen v členu 25 za prenos te direktive (31. december 1997). 21
An analysis of the conflict between the fee paid by Telecom Italia (and the national measures which provide for that fee) and the scheme of Directive 97/13, and in particular
Preučitev neskladnosti dajatve, ki jo je plačala družba Telecom Italia (ter nacionalnih določb, ki so podlaga zanjo), s sistemom iz Direktive 97/13, zlasti členom 11, deluje kot razlog za podoben pristop. To je povsem v pristojnosti predložitvenega
21 — That date is consistent with the aim of the Community legislature to complete the liberalisation of the telecommunications market by 1 January 1998, as set out in Article 2 of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p.
21 – Ta rok je skladen z željo zakonodajalca Skupnosti v zvezi z dokončanjem liberalizacije trga telekomunikacij do 1. januarja 1998, izraženo v členu 2 Direktive 90/388/EGS z dne 28. junija 1990 o konkurenci na trgih za telekomunikacijske storitve (UL L 192, str.
10), in the version of Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 (OJ 1996 L 74, p. 13).
10), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Komisije 96/19/ES z dne 13. marca 1996 (UL L 74, str. 13).
Recital 1 in the preamble to Directive 97/13 reflects that objective, to which the Court (judgment in Albacom and Infostrada, paragraph 35) and I myself (Opinion in Nuova Società di Telecomunicazioni, points 45 and 46) have also drawn attention.
Prva uvodna izjava Direktive 97/13 izraža ta namen, ki ga je poudarilo Sodi�če (sodba Albacom in Infostrada, točka 35) in tudi jaz sam (sklepni predlogi v zadevi Nuova società di telecomunicazioni, točki 45 in 46).
In any event, it is easy to predict the outcome since, pursuant to the caselaw cited, pecuniary charges which, in accordance with Article 11 of the directive, are imposed on undertakings holding individual telecommunications licences are intended to cover the administrative costs incurred in the issue and enforcement of those licences, unless they concern scarce resources, in which case a fee may be charged to ensure the optimal use of such resources.
V vsakem primeru pa se zlahka domneva rezultat, ker so denarna bremena, ki se v skladu z omenjenim členom 11 nalagajo podjetjem, imetnikom posamičnih licenc za telekomunikacije, glede na sodno prakso namenjena pokrivanju administrativnih stro�kov, nastalih z dodelitvijo in uporabo, razen če zadevajo redke vire, kar je položaj, v katerem se dopu�ča davek za zagotovitev najugodnej�e uporabe.
In line with that approach, the following do not comply with that scheme: a fee calculated by taking into account the forecast of the general costs, over a period of 30 years, of the body which issues the licences (i-21 Germany and Arcor); charges which are based on the turnover of the licence holders (Albacom and Infostrada); and an additional charge levied in respect of the private use of the public telecommunications network allocated to the licence holder, fixed in accordance with criteria other than those laid down in Article 11 (Nuova Società di Telecomunicazioni).
V skladu s tem stali�čem ne spadajo v sistem dajatev, izračunanih glede na predvidene običajne tridesetletne administrativne stro�ke organa, ki dodeljuje licence (sodba i-21 Germany in Arcor), pristojbin, odvisnih od obsega prometa imetnikov (sodba Albacom in Infostrada), ali dodatnih dajatev, določenih za zasebno uporabo javnega telekomunikacijskega omrežja, če so določene na podlagi meril, ki niso vsebovana v omenjenem členu 11 (sodba Nuova società di telecomunicazioni).
It is certain (at least in the minds of the referring court and the parties to these preliminary-ruling proceedings) that the same outcome is warranted by the charge levied on Telecom Italia for its licence in 1998, the amount of which was proportional to the gross revenue from its activity.
Ni dvoma (vsaj ne omenjajo ga niti predložitveno sodi�če niti udeleženci v tem postopku sprejetja predhodne odločbe), da ista sreča doleti protivrednost, ki se zahteva od družbe Telecom Italia v proračunskem letu 1998 za licenco, v znesku, ki je sorazmeren bruto dohodku iz njene dejavnosti.
first indication that its aim is to protect former concessions which were still in existence under the harmonised system, in order to safeguard certain values inherent in any community governed by the rule of law, namely, the stability and continuity of legal relationships.
jeni ureditvi �e v veljavi, zaradi varovanja vrednot, ki so neločljivo povezane z vsako pravno skupnostjo: trdnost in neprekinjenost pravnih razmerij.
To that end, Article 22(2) entrusts the Member States with deciding whether to extend the validity of the authorisations 23 affected by the new arrangements.
S to namero člen 2 zaupa državam članicam odločitev o podalj�anju veljavnosti dovoljenj 23, na katera se nana�a nova ureditev.
However, once that finding has been made, the question arises whether, notwithstanding that the fee is contrary to Directive 97/13, it was appropriate to extend that fee for one year pursuant to Article 22, the wording of which is anticipated in recitals 26 and 27 in the preamble to the directive.
Vendar se iz te ugotovitve poraja vpra�anje, ali bi bilo treba na podlagi člena 22, čigar besedilo razgla�ata �estindvajseta in sedemindvajseta uvodna izjava te direktive, podalj�ati dajatev za eno leto, čeprav je v nasprotju z Direktivo 97/13.
Nevertheless, that desire to preserve the past 24is not without limits.
Kljub temu je ta skrb za ohranitev preteklosti 24 omejena.
At the outset, Article 22(1) lays down a time-limit, 25
Prvi odstavek najprej opredeljuje rok 25, ki zavezuje nacionalne zako-
B — The aim of Article 22 of Directive 97/13 requiring national legislatures to bring such authorisations into line with the provisions of the Directive before 1 January 1999, a timelimit which is repeated in the first subparagraph of Article 22(3), pursuant to which any obligations in such authorisations which have not been brought into line by that date are rendered inoperative.
B – Namen člena 22 Direktive 97/13 nodajalce, da do 1. januarja 1999 prilagodijo taka dovoljenja zahtevam iz direktive, s tem da od tega dne dalje razveljavijo vsebino, ki ni ustrezna, kar je cilj, ki ga poudari prvi pododstavek tretjega odstavka.
23 — Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 97/13 defines authorisations as ‘any permission setting out rights and obligations specific to the telecommunications sector and allowing undertakings to provide telecommunications services and, where applicable, to establish and/or operate telecommunications networks for the provision of such services, in the form of a “general authorisation” or “individual licence” …’.
23 – Člen 2(1)(a) Direktive 97/13 opredeljuje dovoljenje kot „vsako dovoljenje, s katerim so določene posebne pravice in obveznosti v sektorju telekomunikacij in ki podjetjem dovoljuje zagotavljanje telekomunikacijskih storitev in, kjer je to potrebno, vzpostavitev in izkori�čanje telekomunikacijskih mrež, z namenom ponujanja navedenih storitev v obliki ‚splo�nih dovoljenj‘ ali ‚posamičnih licenc‘ […]“.
The heading of that article (‘Authorisations existing at the date of entry into force of this Directive’), read in conjunction with the beginning of Recital 26, 22provides the
Naslov te določbe („Dovoljenja, veljavna na dan, ko začne veljati ta direktiva“) v povezavi z začetkom �estindvajsete uvodne izjave 22razkriva prvi znak njenega namena, da se �čiti nekdanje koncesije, ki so v uskla-
24 — That yearning for times past reminds me of the sentence with which Thomas Mann opens his monumental tetralogy Joseph and His Brothers: ‘Deep is the well of the past.
24 – Ta skrb za pretekli čas mi prikliče v spomin besede, s katerimi Thomas Mann začne svojo veličastno tetralogijo Jožef in njegovi bratje (ur. B., S.A., prevod Juan Parra, Madrid 2002, str. 15): „Globok je vodnjak preteklosti.
22 — ‘… this Directive applies to both existing and future authorisations; … certain licences have been granted for periods which go beyond 1 January 1999 …’
22 – „[…] Direktiva se nana�a na dovoljenja, ki so v veljavi, in bodoča dovoljenja; […] nekatere licence so bile dodeljene za obdobje, ki se konča po 1. januarju 1999 […]“
25 — Which may be deferred pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 22(3).
25 – Tega se lahko v skladu s tretjim odstavkom podalj�a.