natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Hellenic Government takes the view that the prohibition on using the protected terms also applies to use for wines from States of origin other than that of the protected term.
Gr�ka vlada meni, da prepoved uporabe za�čitenih izrazov velja tudi za uporabo pri vinih iz drugih držav izvora, kot je država za�čitenega izraza.
The Land Rheinland-Pfalz did not comment on the third question in its written observations.
Zvezna dežela Porenje-Pfalz se v svojih pisnih stali�čih ni izrekla glede tretjega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
At the hearing Rheinland-Pfalz supported the submissions on the third question made by Italy, Greece and the Commission.
Na obravnavi se je v zvezi s tretjim vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje strinjala s stali�či Italije, Grčije in Komisije.
The Italian Government argues that under Article 24 of Regulation No 753/2002 traditional terms are protected against any imitation or evocation throughout the European Union.
Italijanska vlada navaja, da naj bi bili tradicionalni izrazi v skladu s členom 24 Uredbe �t. 753/2002 za�čiteni pred vsakim ponarejanjem in namigovanjem v celotni Evropski uniji.
Within that framework the protection applies exclusively to wines which are eligible for protection and come from a certain producer Member State. In
V tem okviru naj bi za�čita veljala izključno za vina, ki naj bi bila
In the opinion of the Commission, the third question must be construed more narrowly.
Po mnenju Komisije je treba tretje vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje razumeti ožje.
The interpretation of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 753/2002 essentially revolves around whether the use of the terms ‘Reserve’ and ‘PrivatReserve’ is prohibited for wines in the category ‘quality wine psr’ produced in Germany because the designation ‘Reserve’ is listed in Annex III as an ‘other traditional term’ for wines in the same category produced in Austria.
Pri razlagi člena 24(2) Uredbe �t. 753/2002 gre v bistvu za to, ali naj bi bila uporaba izraza „Reserve“ oziroma „Privat-Reserve“ za vina kategorije „kvalitetno vino pdpo“, proizvedena v Nemčiji, prepovedana, saj naj bi se navedla označba „Reserve“ v Prilogi III kot dodatni tradicionalni izraz za vina iste kategorije, proizvedena v Avstriji.
In the view of the Commission, which is also endorsed by the Spanish Government, that question should be answered in the affirmative because under Article 24(2) of Regulation No 753/2002 the traditional terms listed in
Na to vpra�anje je treba po mnenju Komisije, ki se mu pridružuje �panska vlada, odgovoriti pritrdilno, saj naj bi bili v skladu s členom 24(2) Uredbe �t. 753/2002 tradicionalni izrazi, navedeni v Prilogi III, pridržani vinom, s katerimi naj bi bili povezani, to pomeni vinom, ki pripadajo
Thus the designation ‘Reserve’ is reserved for wines in the category ‘quality wine psr’ produced in Austria and is protected against unlawful misuse, imitation or evocation for wines in the same category from other Member States, including wines in the category ‘quality wine psr’ produced in Germany.
Tako naj bi bila označba „Reserve“ pridržana vinom kategorije „kvalitetno vino pdpo“, proizvedenim v Avstriji, in za�čitena pred protipravno prilastitvijo, ponarejanjem ali namigovanjem pri vinih iste kategorije iz drugih držav članic, torej tudi glede na vina kategorije „kvalitetno vino pdpo“, proizvedena v Nemčiji.
In the interpretation given below it is therefore important to bear in mind the historical background to Regulation No 1493/1999, in particular the deliberate structural modification of the fundamental principles of the legislation on wine designations compared with its predecessor, Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89.
ki bo sledila, je zato treba upo�tevati zgodovino nastanka Uredbe �t. 1493/99, zlasti namerno strukturno spremembo temeljnih načel predpisov o označevanju glede na prej�njo Uredbo (EGS) �t. 2392/1989.
7 On the other hand, under Article 11 and the first subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Regulation No 2392/89 all designations not listed in the regulation were originally prohibited, with a few exceptions, until Regulation No 1427/96 8introduced a certain relaxation. 9
7Prvotno so bile v skladu s členoma 11 in 12(1), prvi stavek, Uredbe �t. 2392/89 – do določene omilitve z Uredbo �t.
The blocked development of optional wine designations feared by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht does not justify any other interpretation either.
Tudi togost neobveznih označb vina, na katero opozarja BVerwG, naj ne bi utemeljila nobene druge razlage.
This follows inevitably from any prohibition on unlawful misuse and also covers only identical, and not merely similar or derived terms, like the term ‘Privat-Reserve’.
Taka togost naj bi izhajala nujno iz vsake prepovedi protipravne prilastitve in naj bi zajemala samo enake, ne pa zgolj podobnih ali izpeljanih izrazov, kot je izraz „Privat-Reserve“.
That term may be used freely provided there is no unlawful imitation or evocation, which is to be assessed by the national court.
Ta izraz naj bi se lahko prosto uporabljal, dokler ne bi obstajalo protipravno ponarejanje ali namigovan -je – kar pa mora presoditi nacionalno sodi�če.
Ultimately the interpretation favoured by that court is necessary for reasons of the effectiveness (effet utile) of the protection of wine designations in the Common Market.
Nazadnje naj bi bila razlaga, ki jo zagovarja, nujna zaradi učinkovitosti za�čite označb vina na skupnem trgu (effet utile).
That regulation was followed by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3201/90 of 16 October 1990 laying down detailed rules for the description and presentation of wines and grape musts (OJ 1990 L 309, p. 1).
Tej uredbi se je pridružila �e Uredba Komisije (EGS) �t. 3201/90 z dne 16. oktobra 1990 o izvedbenih pravilih za označevanje in predstavitev vin in vinskega mo�ta (UL L 309, str. 1).
A — Preliminary remarks
A – Uvodne ugotovitve
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-285/06
TRSTENJAK – ZADEVA C-285/06 trga, ga je po že omenjeni omilitvi leta 1996 v Uredbi �t.
The legislation on designations for still wines was thus harmonised with the legislation on sparkling wines. 10
Avtor uredbe se je zavedal, da imajo pravila o označevanju proizvodov iz vinskega sektorja pomembne učinke na njihovo trženje.
From this point of view too, the replacement of the principle of prohibition by the principle of authorisation or misuse with the wider freedom enjoyed by distributors in labelling is to be seen as a rearticulation of the balance between the legitimate interests of producers and of consumers. 14
13 Tudi s tega vidika se lahko nadomestitev načela prepovedi z načelom dopustnosti ali načelom prepovedi zlorabe z raz�irjeno svobodo trgovca pri označevanju obravnava kot nov izraz ravnovesja med legitimnimi interesi proizvajalca in potro�nika. 14
It should be borne in mind, first of all, in interpreting the rules of the legislation on wine designations, that national labelling rules affect not only the commercial interests of consumers, but also entail a restriction on the free movement of goods.
Že vnaprej je treba pri razlagi pravil predpisov o označevanju vina paziti na to, da se nacionalni predpisi o označevanju ne nana�ajo le na komercialne interese potro�nikov, ampak bi lahko imeli za posledico tudi omejitev prostega pretoka blaga.
According to the principle of authorisation or misuse, in addition to the optional designations listed in Regulation No 1493/1999, all other useful information for still wines is permitted unless it is prohibited by law or misleads consumers.
V skladu z načelom dopustnosti ali načelom prepovedi zlorabe so za mirna vina poleg neobveznih označb, navedenih v Uredbi �t. 1493/1999, dovoljene vse nadaljnje koristne navedbe, če niso zakonsko prepovedane ali če ne vodijo k zavajanju potro�nikov.
11This relaxation has also been described as liberalisation.
11Ta omilitev je bila označena tudi kot liberalizacija.
The liberalisation of the legislation on wine designations served the overriding aim of the reform, which was to guarantee the necessary flexibility of the common organisation of the market in wine to adapt smoothly to new developments. 12
Ta liberalizacija predpisov o označevanju vin je bila namenjena nadrejenemu cilju reforme, da se skupna ureditev trga za vino oblikuje tako prožno, da lahko sledi novemu razvoju. 12
13 — Recital 50 in the preamble to Regulation No 1493/1999 states: ‘The description, designation and presentation of products covered by this Regulation can have significant effects on their marketability; this Regulation should therefore lay down rules in this connection which take into account the legitimate interests of consumers and producers and promote the smooth operation of the internal market and the production of quality products; the fundamental principles of these rules should provide for the obligatory use of certain terms so as to identify the product and provide consumers with certain important items of information and the optional use of other information on the basis of Community rules or subject to rules concerning the prevention of fraudulent practices.’
13 – V uvodni izjavi 50 Uredbe �t. 1493/1999 je določeno: „Opis, označevanje in predstavitev proizvodov, ki so zajeti v tej uredbi, pomembno vplivajo na njihovo trženje; ta uredba naj zato s tem v zvezi določi pravila, ki upo�tevajo legitimne interese potro�nikov in proizvajalcev in pospe�ujejo nemoteno delovanje notranjega trga in proizvodnjo kakovostnih proizvodov; temeljna načela teh pravil naj zagotovijo obvezno uporabo nekaterih podatkov, s katerimi se lahko opredeli proizvod in se potro�nikom lahko priskrbijo nekatere pomembne informacije, in optimalno uporabo drugih informacij na podlagi predpisov Skupnosti ali ob upo�tevanju predpisov o preprečevanju goljufij.“
The rules for implementing this Regulation should therefore also be harmonised in the same way, using the model established for sparkling wines, while ensuring that there is no risk of these other terms being confused with the terms covered by Community legislation and that such terms may be used only if operators can prove their accuracy where there is any doubt.’
Pravila za izvajanje te uredbe bi zato bilo treba prav tako uskladiti z uporabo vzorca za peneča vina, hkrati pa zagotoviti, da ni nobenega tveganja zamenjave teh drugih izrazov z izrazi, urejenimi z zakonodajo Skupnosti, in da je njihova uporaba dopustna samo, če nosilci dejavnosti, ki dvomijo, lahko dokažejo njihovo točnost.“
The author stresses that the liberalisation of the legislation on wine designations was generally intended to create more transparency and information for consumers, with positive effects on sales.
Avtor poudarja, da naj bi liberalizacija predpisov o označevanju vzpostavila več transparentnosti in informacij za potro�nika s pozitivnimi učinki za prodajo.
However, he also points out that this had not made it any easier to answer the question what information is permitted or is limited only by the prohibition on misleading consumers and what is not permitted because of particulars already regulated.
Vendar opozarja tudi na to, da naj s tem odgovor na vpra�anje, katere informacije so omejeno dopustne na podlagi prepovedi zavajanja ali pa nedopustne zaradi že normiranih navedb, ne bi postal preprostej�i.
12 — Recital 7 in the preamble to Regulation No 1493/1999.
12 – Uvodna izjava 7 Uredbe �t. 1493/1999.
Community legislation must also be interpreted specifically in the light of the free movement of goods.
Clinique 15prepoved zavajanja v predpisih Skupnosti razlagati tudi in predvsem glede na prosti pretok blaga.
16 The risk of misleading consumers cannot override the requirements of the free movement of goods unless that risk is sufficiently serious.
16Nevarnost zava- janja potro�nikov ima lahko glede na zahteve prostega pretoka blaga prednost le takrat, kadar ima dovolj veliko težo.
17 For that reason I would warn against a very broad interpretation of the criteria relating to misleading information.
17 Iz tega razloga bi želela posvariti pred zelo �iroko razlago dejanskih stanj zavajanja.
B — The first question
B – Prvo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
Article 47(2) of Regulation No 1493/1999 mentions three types of particulars: certain compulsory terms, 18optional terms subject to conditions and other optional terms, including information which may be useful for consumers.
1493/1999 so navedene tri vrste podatkov. To so določeni obvezni podatki, 18dovoljeni podatki pod določenimi pogoji in dovoljeni drugi podatki, vključno z informacijami, ki so lahko koristne za potro�nike.
The scope of the protection afforded to those particulars is determined according to their substance.
Obseg za�čite teh podatkov se določi glede na njihovo vsebino.
In this case, however, only the two optional terms are of relevance.
Vendar sta v tej zadevi pomembni le obe vrsti dovoljenih podatkov.
In paragraph 14 of that judgment, the Court found that Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now Article 28 EC) prohibits obstacles to the free movement of goods resulting from rules that lay down requirements to be met by such goods (such as requirements as to designation, form, size, weight, composition, presentation, labelling, packaging), even if those rules apply without distinction to all products, unless their application can be justified by a public-interest objective taking precedence over the free movement of goods.
I-317, točka 12 in naslednje). V točki 14 te sodbe je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da člen 30 Pogodbe ES (postal člen 28 ES) prepoveduje ovire za prosti pretok blaga, ki izhajajo iz tega, da bi moralo blago ustrezati določenim predpisom (kot denimo v zvezi z njihovim označevanjem, obliko, dimenzijami, težo, sestavo, predstavitvijo, etiketiranjem in embalažo), celo takrat, ko ti predpisi veljajo za vse proizvode brez razlikovanja, če uporabe teh predpisov ni mogoče utemeljiti z ciljem, ki je v splo�nem interesu in ima prednost pred zahtevami prostega pretoka blaga.
In that judgment the Court makes express reference to the judgment in Clinique.
1493/1999 so na primer take navedbe prodajno označevanje proizvoda, nominalni volumen, dejanski volumenski delež alkohola, �tevilka serije v skladu z Direktivo Sveta 89/396/EGS z dne 14. junija 1989 o podatkih ali oznakah za omogočanje identifikacije serije, ki ji živilo pripada.
An abstract approach would also affect disproportionately the legitimate interests of producers.
Abstraktno obravnavanje bi tudi nesorazmerno poseglo v legitimne interese proizvajalcev.
Other traditional terms are optional particulars subject to conditions (regulated ‘optional particulars’ in the words of the order for reference).
Dodatni tradicionalni izrazi so neobvezne navedbe pod določenimi pogoji (regulirane neobvezne navedbe v predložitvenem sklepu).
Under Article 23 of Regulation No 753/2002, other traditional terms are ‘additional terms traditionally used … to designate … the production or ageing method or the quality, colour, type of place, or a particular event linked to the history of the wine concerned and defined in a Member State’s legislation for the purposes of designating the wines concerned originating in its territory’.
Pri dodatnih tradicionalnih izrazih v skladu s členom 23 Uredbe �t. 753/2002 gre za „izraze, ki se običajno uporabljajo […] in se nana�ajo na postopek proizvodnje, priprave ali staranja oziroma kakovost, barvo ali vrsto vina ali na kraj ali posebni dogodek, povezan z zgodovino vina, in so opredeljeni v zakonodajah držav članic o poimenovanju kakovostnih vin pdpo s poreklom na njihovem ozemlju“.
Article 6 of Regulation No 753/2002 is the protective clause governing other particulars and other traditional terms.
Člen 6 Uredbe �t. 753/2002 je za�čitna klavzula za druge navedbe in za dodatne tradicionalne izraze.
The use of other particulars within the meaning of point B(3) of Annex VII to Regulation No 1493/1999 is clarified by Article 6 of Regulation No 753/2002.
Uporaba drugih navedb v smislu Priloge VII, točka B(3), k Uredbi �t.
Under that provision, the use of other particulars is subject to the condition that there is no risk that such particulars might mislead consumers with regard to compulsory or regulated optional particulars.
1493/1999 je namreč natančneje opredeljena s členom 6 Uredbe �t. 753/2002.
That process of balancing the interests involved would be seriously
V skladu s tem pravilom je uporaba drugih navedb pogojena s tem, da ne sme nastati tveganje, da bi se potro�nika zavajalo v zvezi z obveznimi in reguliranimi neobveznimi navedbami.
In my opinion, the wording of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 753/2002 does not refer to an abstract risk of misleading consumers.
Člen 6(1) Uredbe �t. 753/2002 po mojem mnenju ne napotuje na abstraktno nevarnost zavajanja.
An interpretation of Article 6 of Regulation No 753/2002 as indicating an
Razlaga člena 6 Uredbe �t. 753/2002, da ta člen ureja abstraktno
In that respect, it is for the national court to have regard to the presumed expectations, in regard to that information, of an average consumer who
SCHNEIDER preudaren potro�nik to navedbo verjetno zaznal.“ 21
The wording of Article 6 of Regulation No 753/2002 which refers to the specific risk of misleading consumers therefore makes clear that the possibility of an overlap with situations covered by regulated particulars does not mean per se that an ‘other particular’ is not permitted.
Formulacija člena 6 Uredbe �t. 753/2002, ki temelji na konkretni nevarnosti zavajanja, zato ponazarja, da sama možnost prekrivanja z dejanskimi stanji, ki jih zajemajo regulirane navedbe, ne utemeljuje nedopustnosti druge navedbe.
22 As the Commission convincingly argues, in view of the broad scope for particulars under the fifth indent of point B(1)(b) of Annex VII to the regulation, this would significantly restrict the scope for the other particulars. 23
22Kot Komisija prepričljivo navaja, bi to zaradi ob�irnega področja uporabe navedb v skladu s točko B(1)(b), peta alinea, Priloge VII k uredbi občutno omejilo področje uporabe drugih navedb.
19 — Case C-303/97 Sektkellerei Kessler [1999] ECR I-513, paragraph 32.
19 – Sodba z dne 28. januarja 1999 v zadevi Sektkellerei Kessler (C-303/97, Recueil, I-513, točka 32).
That case concerned the risk of confusion in connection with the labelling of German Sekt.
Ta zadeva se je nana�ala na verjetnost zmede pri označevanju nem�kega sekta.
The question was whether the general use of a Sekt brand name ‘Kessler Hochgewächs’ is prohibited because of an abstract risk of confusion with the designation ‘Riesling-Hochgewächs’, which is reserved for wines produced exclusively from grapes of the Riesling variety under both Community law and national law.
Vpra�anje je bilo, ali je uporaba znamke sekta „Kessler Hochgewächs“ zaradi abstraktne verjetnosti zmede z označbo „Riesling-Hochgewächs“ na splo�no prepovedana, ki je tako po pravu Skupnosti kot po nacionalnem pravu pridržana vinom, ki so proizvedena izključno iz grozdja sorte vinske trte riesling.
Advocate General Fennelly also took the view that a purely abstract risk of confusion was not sufficient (Opinion in Case C-303/97 Sektkellerei Kessler [1999] ECR I-513).
Tudi po mnenju generalnega pravobranilca Fenellyja ne zado�ča abstraktna verjetnost zmede (sklepni predlogi, predstavljeni 29. septembra 1998 v zadevi Sektkellerei Kessler).
Any other interpretation would also run counter to the aim of the reform, which is to create marketing freedom by authorising other unregulated particulars, and virtually reverse the intended liberalisation of the legislation on wine designations by the back door.
Drugačna razlaga bi bila tudi v nasprotju s ciljem reforme, ki je vzpostaviti svobodo pri trženju z dopustitvijo drugih nereguliranih navedb, in bi nameravano liberalizacijo predpisov o označevanju skoraj izničila skozi zadnja vrata.
The main purpose of the new legislation
Bistven namen novih predpisov o označevanju je navsezadnje ravno v tem, da dovoljenost uporabe ni več togo odvisna od tega, ali je podano določeno regulirano
21 — Case C-303/97 Sektkellerei Kessler (cited above in footnote 19, paragraph 38).
21 – Sodba Sektkellerei Kessler (navedena v opombi 19, točka 38).
22 — In the specialist literature too, specific examples of ‘other particulars’ permitted under point B(3) are particulars on ‘production methods and processes etc.’, that is, particulars which certainly overlap, in terms of the situation covered, with the particulars under the fifth indent of point B(1)(b): Koch, loc. cit. (footnote 15), p. 2136.
22 – Tudi v strokovni literaturi se kot primer za „druge navedbe“, dopustne v skladu s točko B(3), navajajo zlasti navedbe o „načinu pridobivanja, postopku izdelave itd.“, to pomeni navedbe, ki se glede urejenega dejanskega stanja prekrivajo z navedbami v skladu s točko B(1)(b), peta alinea: Koch, n. n. m. (opomba 14), str. 2136.
Article 13(2) of that regulation provides: ‘Where the description, presentation and advertising of the products referred to in Article 1(1) are supplemented by brand names, such brand names may not contain any words, syllables, signs or illustrations which(a) are likely to cause confusion or mislead the persons to whom they are addressed within the meaning of paragraph 1; or(b) are liable to be confused with all or part of the description of a table wine, a quality wine produced in a specified region, including a quality sparkling wine psr or an imported wine whose description is governed by Community provisions or with the description of any other product referred to in Article 1(1), or are identical to the description of any such product, unless the products used for constituting the cuvée of the sparkling wine in question are entitled to such description or presentation.’
V členu 13(2) te uredbe je določeno: „Kjer so označevanje, predstavitev in ogla�evanje proizvodov iz člena 1(1) raz�irjeni z blagovnimi znamkami, ne smejo te blagovne znamke vsebovati nobenih besed, zlogov, znakov ali slik, ki: a) lahko povzročijo zmedo ali zavedejo osebe, katerim so namenjene, v smislu člena odstavka 1, ali b) jih je možno zamenjati z oznako ali delom oznake namiznega vina, kakovostnega namiznega vina, pridelanega na določenem pridelovalnem območju, vključno s kakovostnim penečim vinom pdpo ali uvoženim vinom, katerega označevanje urejajo določbe Skupnosti, ali z oznako katerega koli proizvoda iz člena 1(1) ali pa so enake oznakam tak�nih proizvodov, razen če so proizvodi, uporabljeni za pripravo cuvéeja teh penečih vin, upravičeni do tak�ne oznake ali predstavitve.“
on wine designations is ultimately to ensure that authorisation to use a designation is no longer strictly dependent on whether or not a certain regulated situation exists, but solely on whether there is a risk of misleading consumers.
dejansko stanje, ampak zgolj od tega, ali obstaja nevarnost zavajanja.
Following the reform, optional particulars were to be permitted outside the area covered if possible.
Neobvezne navedbe naj bi bile po reformi po možnosti dovoljene zunaj reguliranega področja.
Assessing whether a certain designation is misleading is a point of fact which will have to be clarified by the national court in the main proceedings.
Presoja, ali je določena označba zavajajoča, je dejansko vpra�anje, ki ga bo pojasnilo nacionalno sodi�če v postopku v glavni stvari.
25 However, this is not
25 Ravno nasprotno, ne obstaja noben
24 — This interpretation has the advantage that it promotes the development of traditional terms.
24 – Ta razlaga ima prednost, da spodbuja nadaljnji razvoj tradicionalnih izrazov. Tako se je ravno glede na Prilogo III k Uredbi �t.
The use of the traditional term ‘cuvée’ was regulated in the repealed French Code du vin (cf. Article 284(4)(2) of the Code du vin) and related to the methods of production.
Uporaba tradicionalnega izraza „cuvée“ je bila urejena v razveljavljenem francoskem Code du vin (glej člen 284(4), drugi pododstavek, Code du vin) in se je nana�ala na metode pridelave.