natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
27 — Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 1999/44 defines consumer goods as, ‘any tangible movable item, with the exception of: — goods sold by way of execution or otherwise by authority of law, — water and gas where they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, — electricity’.
27 – Potro�ni�ko blago v skladu s členom 1(2)(b) Direktive 1999/44 „pomeni premične materialne predmete, razen:– blaga, prodanega v okviru izvr�be ali drugih sodnih ukrepov,– vode in plina, če se ne prodajata v omejeni prostornini ali določeni količini,– elektrike“.
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-404/06 require the consumer to pay compensation for use of the defective goods.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI V. – ZADEVA C-404/06 prodajalec od potro�nika ne sme zahtevati nadomestila za uporabo stvari z napako.
and proportionate.
Pri tem mora potro�nik, po mojem mnenju, med popravilom in zamenjavo izbrati tisti zahtevek, ki je mogoč in sorazmeren.
28If neither repair nor replacement is both possible and proportionate, the consumer may demand a reasonable reduction of the price or rescind the contract.
28Če niti popravilo niti zamenjava nista mogoča ali sorazmerna, lahko potro�nik zahteva ustrezno znižanje kupnine ali odstopi od pogodbe.
29 Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44 expressly reiterates that both repair and replacement must be ‘free of charge’.
29Člen 3(3) Direktive 1999/44 �e enkrat posebej omenja, da morata biti tako popravilo kakor tudi zamenjava blaga „neodplačna“.
The normal meaning of the expression ‘free of charge’ in Article 3 of the Directive is itself enough to indicate that the German provisions are not compatible with the Directive. 30The expression ‘free of charge’ is defined in
Že običajni pomen besede „neodplačen“ iz tega člena daje izhodi�če za to, da nem�ka ureditev ni v skladu
On a literal interpretation, it must first be pointed out that under Article 3(1) of Directive 1999/44 ‘[t]he seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered’.
V okviru jezikovne razlage je uvodno treba poudariti, da je v skladu s členom 3(1) Direktive 1999/44 prodajalec „odgovoren […] potro�niku za vsako neskladnost s pogodbo, ki obstaja v času dobave blaga“.
The Directive thus clearly provides that the seller is to bear responsibility for any lack of conformity, at the time of delivery, in the goods delivered and that he must accept liability for his faulty performance.
Direktiva torej jasno določa, da je odgovornost za neskladnost dobavljenega blaga s pogodbo, ki obstaja v času dobave, na strani prodajalca in da mora prodajalec odgovarjati za svojo nepravilno izpolnitev.
If legislation were to be approved under which the seller may require compensation for the use of the goods, the seller would no longer bear full responsibility for the lack of conformity which existed at the time of delivery, and part of the liability which ought to be borne by the seller would ultimately be transferred to the consumer.
Če bi dopustili ureditev, v kateri lahko prodajalec zahteva nadomestilo za uporabo blaga, bi s tem prodajalca razbremenili popolne odgovornosti za neskladnost izpolnitve s pogodbo, ki obstaja v času dobave blaga, in bi del odgovornosti, ki bi jo moral nositi prodajalec, pravzaprav prenesli na potro�nika.
28 — To similar effect, see S. Grundmann and C.M. Bianca, EU Kaufrechts-Richtlinie. Kommentar, Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Cologne, 2002, p.
28 – Podobno Grundmann, S., Bianca, C. M., EU Kaufrechts­Rich­tlinie. Kommentar, Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln 2002, str.
82, paragraph 108.
82, točka 108.
According to the authors, in electing between repair and replacement the consumer cannot require anything disproportionate; whether the remedy is disproportionate depends on what it costs for the seller.
Avtorja navajata, da potro�nik pri izbiri med popravilom in zamenjavo ne sme izbrati nesorazmernega zahtevka; pri ugotavljanju, ali je zahtevek nesorazmeren, se upo�tevajo predvsem stro�ki, ki jih ima prodajalec.
Westermann also emphasises that the consumer’s election between repair and replacement is subject to what is asked for being possible and proportionate. See H.P. Westermann, ‘Das neue Kaufrecht einschlieβlich des Verbrauchsgüterkaufs’, Juristenzeitung, No 10/2001, p. 537.
Tudi Westermann poudarja, da je potro�nikova izbira med popravilom in zamenjavo pogojena z možnostjo in sorazmernostjo zahtevka. Glej Westermann, H. P., Das neue Kaufrecht enschlieβlich des Verbrauchsgüterkaufs, Juristenzeitung, �t. 10/2001, str. 537.
According to Grundmann and Bianca, it is possible to argue that the right of replacement under Directive 1999/44 presupposes a serious breach of contract.
Grundmann in Bianca poudarjata, da je mogoče argumentirati, da zahtevek za zamenjavo iz Direktive 1999/44 predpostavlja bistveno kr�itev pogodbe. Glej Grundmann, S., Bianca, M. C., EU Sales Directive. Commen­tary, Intersentia, Antwerp, Oxford, New York 2002, str. 162.
Similarly, Možina states that there must be more than a merely insignificant breach of contract before replacement may be claimed. D. Možina, Kršitev pogodbe, GV Založba, Ljubljana, 2006, p. 229.
Podobno Možina navaja, da za uveljavljanje zahtevka za zamenjavo neskladnost s pogodbo ne sme biti nepomembna.
Article 46(2) of the Vienna Convention for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) provides that the buyer may require delivery of substitute goods only if the lack of conformity constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. This is also underlined by P. Schlechtriem, Internationales UN-Kaufrecht, 4th edition, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2007, p.
Tudi v Dunajski konvenciji o mednarodni prodaji blaga (CISG) je v členu 46(2) predvideno, da lahko kupec zahteva zamenjavo blaga le, če neskladnost blaga s pogodbo pomeni bistveno kr�itev pogodbe. To poudarja tudi Schlechtriem, P., Internationales UN­Kaufrecht, 4. izdaja, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2007, str.
134, paragraph 185.
134, točka 185.
As regards the Vienna Convention, Grundmann also states that although the purchaser has a right to choose, he cannot choose one remedy if it is disproportionate to the other.
V zvezi z Dunajsko konvencijo Grundmann poudarja, da ima kupec sicer pravico izbire, vendar ne more izbrati zahtevka, ki je v primerjavi z drugim zahtevkom nesorazmeren. Grundmann, S., Regulating Breach of Contract – The Right to Reject Performance by the Party in Breach, European Review of Contract Law, �t. 2/2007, str. 132 in 133.
Article 9:102(1) of the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) provides that the aggrieved party is entitled to the remedying of a defective performance.
Načela evropskega pogodbenega prava (PECL) v členu 9:102(1) omogočajo zahtevek za pravilno izpolnitev pogodbe (remedying of a defective performance).
Article 9:102(2)(a) and (b), which likewise concerns the right to proper performance of the contract, provides that specific performance cannot be obtained where performance would be unlawful or impossible or would cause the debtor unreasonable effort or expense.
Odstavek 2 tega člena, ki se uporablja tudi za zahtevek za pravilno izpolnitev pogodbe, v točkah (a) in (b) določa, da izpolnitve ni mogoče zahtevati, če bi bila ta izpolnitev protipravna ali nemogoča ali če bi dolžniku povzročila neupravičen napor ali stro�ke. Lando, O., Beale, H. (ur.), Principles of European Contract Law, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, London, Boston 2000, str. 394, 395.
29 — Article 3(3) and (5) of Directive 1999/44 provides a two-stage scheme for enforcing consumer claims.
29 – Direktiva 1999/44 v členu 3(3) in (5) predvideva dvostopenjsko uveljavljanje pravic potro�nika.
First, the consumer may require repair or replacement free of charge.
Primarno lahko potro�nik zahteva neodplačno popravilo ali neodplačno zamenjavo blaga.
His subsidiary remedy is an appropriate reduction of the price or rescission of the contract.
Šele podrejeno lahko zahteva ustrezno znižanje kupnine ali pa odstopi od pogodbe.
Article 3(2) gives the consumer the right ‘to have the goods brought into conformity free of charge’, which means that at the request of the consumer the goods may in the first instance be brought into conformity, free of charge, by repair or replacement.
Člen 3(2) daje potro�niku pravico zahtevati „neodplačno vzpostavitev skladnosti
Article 3(4) of Directive 1999/44.
30Člen 3(4) Direktive 1999/44 vsebuje opredelitev pojma „neodplačno“.
That definition precludes the German legislation for two reasons.
Ta opredelitev nasprotuje nem�ki ureditvi iz dveh razlogov.
it was simply identifying the most typical examples of costs which could be incurred in replacing goods, and was not limiting the scope of the provision in question.
navesti najbolj tipične primere stro�kov, ki lahko nastanejo ob zamenjavi, ni pa želel omejiti področja uporabe te določbe.
On the basis of the maxim exempla illustrant non restringunt legem, it may therefore be held that the term ‘costs’ covers not just the costs of delivering the goods which are in conformity with the contract.
Če torej izhajamo iz načela exempla illustrant non restringunt legem, lahko ugotovimo, da „stro�ki“ ne vključujejo samo stro�kov dostave s pogodbo skladnega blaga.
31 The definition in question indicates that ‘free of charge’ covers the costs incurred for the purposes of bringing the goods into conformity with the contract, encompassing the listed examples of costs, as well as all other costs which might be incurred where replacement goods are delivered.
31Iz navedene opredelitve torej izhaja, da pojem „neodplačno“ zajema vse stro�ke vzpostavitve skladnosti s pogodbo, kar vključuje tako primeroma na�tete vrste stro�kov kakor tudi vse druge stro�ke, ki bi utegnili nastati pri zamenjavi blaga.
First, Article 3(4) of Directive 1999/44 states very clearly that ‘free of charge’ covers ‘the necessary costs incurred to bring the goods into conformity’.
Prvič, ta določba zelo jasno določa, da pojem „neodplačno“ zajema „vse stro�ke, potrebne za vzpostavitev skladnosti s pogodbo“.
Regardless of whether the seller demands payment of compensation for use as a precondition for replacing the goods or replaces the goods and subsequently requires compensation for use, this may be regarded as a cost incurred for the purposes of bringing the goods into conformity with the contract.
Ne glede na to, ali bo prodajalec plačilo nadomestila za uporabo postavil kot pogoj za zamenjavo blaga ali bo blago zamenjal in nadomestilo zahteval kasneje, ga lahko obravnavamo kot stro�ek za vzpostavitev skladnosti s pogodbo.
The expression ‘free of charge’ is to be interpreted in the light of Article 3(1) of Directive 1999/44, under which the seller is to be liable for any lack of conformity which existed at the time the goods were delivered; however, that means that the seller must bear all the costs incurred for the purposes of bringing the goods into conformity.
Opredelitev neodplač -nosti moramo razlagati v povezavi s čle -nom 3(1) Direktive 1999/44, ki določa, da je prodajalec v celoti odgovoren za neskladnost s pogodbo, ki obstaja v času dobave blaga, iz tega pa sledi, da prodajalec nosi vse stro�ke, povezane z vzpostavitvijo te skladnosti.
Clarification is also required as to whether the claim for payment of compensation for use causes the consumer ‘significant inconvenience’ within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Direct- ive 1999/44.
Pojasniti je treba tudi, ali zahteva za plačilo nadomestila za uporabo potro�niku povzroča „znatne neprijetnosti“ v smislu člena 3(3), tretji pododstavek, Direktive 1999/44.
In that regard, I agree with the Austrian Government’s view that paying compensation for use entails ‘significant inconvenience’ within the meaning of the Directive.
V zvezi s tem pritrjujem argumentaciji avstrijske vlade, da plačilo nadomestila za uporabo pomeni „znatno neprijetnost“ v smislu te direktive. Pojem „znatna neprijetnost“ ne obsega samo praktičnih ovir pri
31 — In the literature, Oppermann warns against such distortion of the meaning of legal norms by means of interpretation.
31 – V teoriji proti tovrstnemu izkrivljanju pomena določb z razlago svari Oppermann, T., Europarecht, 3. izdaja, Verlag C. H. Beck, München 2005, str.
209, paragraph 23.
209, točka 23.
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-404/06 sufficient protection while at the same time enabling the consumer to enforce his rights effectively.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI V. – ZADEVA C-404/06
32 general, and financial ‘inconvenience’ is an additional inconvenience which, to my mind, can be even more significant than the practical obstacles facing the consumer where the goods are replaced.
�niku omogoča, da učinkovito uveljavi svoje pravice. 32 izvajanju zamenjave, temveč neprijetnosti nasploh in finančna „neprijetnost“ je dodatna neprijetnost, ki je lahko, po moji oceni, celo večja neprijetnost od praktične ovire, na katero lahko naleti potro�nik pri zamenjavi blaga.
Consideration must also be given to how the claim for payment of compensation for use operates in practice.
Premisliti je treba tudi, kak�ne so praktične posledice zahtevka za plačilo nadomestila za uporabo.
If the seller requires the consumer to pay compensation for use and repair is not possible, the consumer ultimately has little choice.
V primeru, ko prodajalec od potro�nika zahteva plačilo nadomestila za uporabo in popravilo ni možno, potro�nik nima prav veliko možnosti.
If the seller makes payment of compensation for use a precondition for replacing the goods, the consumer can either pay compensation for use and get new goods, or not get new goods.
Če prodajalec plačilo nadomestila postavi kot pogoj za zamenjavo, lahko potro�nik bodisi plača nadomestilo in prejme novo stvar bodisi ostane brez nove stvari.
Even if the seller does not make payment of compensation for use a precondition for replacing the goods but requires it subsequently, the consumer may be uncertain whether or not to request replacement of the goods.
Tudi če prodajalec plačila nadomestila za uporabo ne postavi kot pogoj za zamenjavo, temveč nadomestilo zahteva kasneje, je možno, da bo potro�nik v dvomih, ali naj sploh zahteva zamenjavo ali ne.
That being so, it can happen in practice that because of the claim for compensation for use the consumer simply does not enforce his claim to replacement of the goods, and such a result would in any event run counter to the wording and purpose of Directive 1999/44.
V praksi se zato lahko zgodi, da potro�nik zaradi zahtevka za plačilo nadomestila za uporabo sploh ne bo uveljavljal svoje pravice do zamenjave, kar vsekakor nasprotuje smislu in namenu Direktive 1999/44.
In theory, on the basis of the third indent of Article 3(5) of Directive 1999/44, the consumer could rely on the fact that replacing the goods would
Teoretično bi se lahko potro�nik na podlagi člena 3(5), tretja alinea, Direktive 1999/44 skliceval na to, da mu zamenjava povzroča znatne nepri-
32 — In this context it must also be mentioned that Directive 1999/44 protects the seller also by means of a time-limit on his liability.
32 – V zvezi s tem naj omenim tudi, da Direktiva 1999/44 prodajalca varuje tudi s časovno omejitvijo njegove odgovornosti.
See the 17th recital in the preamble to and Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/44.
Glej sedemnajsto uvodno izjavo in člen 5(1) Direktive 1999/44.
Furthermore, as the Commission rightly emphasised in its written observations, the seller’s financial interests are adequately protected by the possibility open to him of claiming that the remedy chosen by the consumer is disproportionate.
Poleg tega so finančni interesi prodajalca, kakor pravilno poudarja Komisija v svojih pisnih stali�čih, v zadostni meri zavarovani z možnostjo, da se sklicuje na nesorazmernost sredstva, ki ga je izbral potro�nik.
Under the second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44, the remedy is disproportionate ‘if it imposes costs on the seller which, in comparison with the alternative remedy, are unreasonable’.
Člen 3(3), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 1999/44 določa, da je sredstvo nesorazmerno, če „v primerjavi z drugim sredstvom prodajalcu povzroči nesprejemljive stro�ke“.
If replacement of the goods would entail unreasonable costs for the seller, he can reject the consumer’s request for replacement.
Če bi imel prodajalec z zamenjavo torej nesprejemljive stro�ke, bi lahko zavrnil potro�nikovo zahtevo za zamenjavo.
By the same token, if repair of the goods is also impossible or disproportionate, the consumer may choose the subsidiary remedy and require reduction of the price or rescission of the contract.
Če bi bilo tudi popravilo blaga nemogoče ali nesorazmerno, bi lahko na ta način dosegel, da potro�nik izbere podrejen zahtevek in zahteva znižanje kupnine ali odstopi od pogodbe.
Thus, the Directive gives the seller
Direktiva torej prodajalca v zadostni meri varuje, hkrati pa potro-
QUELLE court’s question quite plain, 34 it is merely a starting point which requires to be confirmed by the other methods of interpretation. 35
QUELLE nega sodi�ča, 34 je ta razlaga zgolj izhodi�če, ki ga je treba utemeljiti �e z drugimi vrstami razlage.
A teleological and a contextual interpretation both lead clearly to the conclusion that Directive 1999/44 precludes the German legislation.
35Tudi s teleolo�ko in sistema- tično razlago nedvomno pridemo do sklepa, da Direktiva 1999/44 nasprotuje ureditvi, kakr�na je nem�ka.
That is supported by a number of arguments.
V podporo tej trditvi lahko navedem več argumentov.
cause him significant inconvenience and either require the seller to reduce the price or rescind the contract.
jetnosti, in od prodajalca zahteval znižanje kupnine ali od pogodbe odstopil.
However, it is doubtful whether any notice would in fact be taken of such an objection, given the current German legislation.
Vendar je vpra�ljivo, ali bi bil, glede na sedanjo nem�ko ureditev, tovrsten ugovor dejansko upo�tevan.
Such a situation could deter the consumer from exercising any of his rights under Directive 1999/44.
Taka situacija bi lahko potro�nika odvrnila od uveljavljanja kateregakoli zahtevka na podlagi Direktive 1999/44.
Account should also be taken of the fact that, in practice, the claim for compensation for use is particularly problematic in relation to products which depreciate quickly in value and whose price can fall significantly between sale and replacement on account of the development of a new model; that is so in the case of computers, mobile telephones and cars, for example.
S praktičnega vidika moramo upo�tevati tudi, da je zahteva za nadomestilo za uporabo zlasti problematična pri proizvodih, katerih vrednost hitro pada in se njihova cena zaradi razvoja novih modelov od nakupa do zamenjave lahko znatno zniža, na primer računalniki, mobilni telefoni in avtomobili.
33In those circumstances, the consumer receives a model which, at the time of replacement, is worth less than at the time of purchase; and, in addition, he still has to pay compensation for use.
33 V tem primeru kupec prejme model, ki je v času zamenjave vreden manj kot v času nakupa, poleg tega pa mora plačati �e nadomestilo za uporabo.
A teleological interpretation of Direct- ive 1999/44 indicates that its aim is to achieve a high level of consumer protection.
Iz teleolo�ke razlage Direktive 1999/44 izhaja, da je njen cilj prizadevanje za visoko raven varstva potro�nikov.
That is clear from Article 3(1)(t) EC and Article 153(1) EC; 36under the latter provision, the Community — in order to promote
To izhaja iz čle -na 3(1)(t) ES in člena 153(1) ES; 36 v skladu s slednjim Skupnost, zato da bi podprla inte -rese potro�nikov in zagotovila njihovo visoko
Thus, it is already clear from a literal interpretation of Article 3 of Direct- ive 1999/44 that the Directive precludes legislation as the German legislation at issue.
Že iz jezikovne razlage člena 3 Direktive 1999/44 torej izhaja, da ta direktiva nasprotuje ureditvi, kakr�na je nem�ka.
Although, to my mind, a literal interpretation already makes the answer to the national
Čeprav bi po mojem mnenju že jezikovna razlaga zelo jasno dala odgovor na vpra�anje predložitve-
34 — A literal interpretation is sufficient in itself if there is no doubt that the provision can be interpreted in only one way.
34 – Zgolj jezikovna razlaga zado�ča, ko je pravno pravilo nedvomno mogoče interpretirati samo na en način.
However, this happens only infrequently (for example, in the case of time-limits).
Vendar je treba opozoriti, da so taki primeri redki (npr. ko gre za roke).
To this effect, see Case 79/77 Kühlhaus Zentrum [1978] ECR 611, paragraph 6, in which the Court relied only on a literal interpretation in interpreting a provision of Community law.
V tem smislu glej npr. sodbo z dne 9. marca 1978 v zadevi Kühlhaus Zentrum (C-79/77, Recueil, str. 611, točka 6), v kateri se je Sodi�če pri razlagi predpisa Skupnosti oprlo le na jezikovno razlago.
If a literal interpretation does not provide an entirely clear answer, the other methods of interpretation are also to be applied.
Če z jezikovno razlago ni mogoče priti do popolnoma nedvoumnega rezultata, se je treba opreti tudi na druge vrste razlage.
See inter alia the Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Case C-64/05 P Sweden v Commission, pending before the Court, point 37, in which a literal interpretation of a provision of Community law did not give an undisputable answer, which meant that the provision was to be placed in the overall legislative context in which it was situated and the objectives of the set of norms of which it formed a part were to be referred to.
Glej npr. tudi sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Madura z dne 18. julija 2007 v zadevi Švedska proti Komisiji (C-64/05 P, �e ner�eana zadeva pred Sodi�čem točka 37), v katerih dobesedna razlaga določbe prava Skupnosti ni dala nespornega odgovora, zato jo je bilo treba umestiti v normativni okvir celote in upo�tevati cilje predpisa, ki jih vsebuje.
Schulze and Ebers refer to the following example: the purchaser buys a computer with an average life of two years for EUR 2 000; one month before the two-year guarantee period expires it is discovered that the hard drive suffers from an irreparable fault, but the seller is willing to deliver a replacement only if the purchaser pays EUR 1 916 by way of compensation for use.
Schulze in Ebers opozarjata na primer, ko kupec kupi računalnik za 2000 evrov s povprečno življenjsko dobo dve leti in se en mesec pred iztekom dveletnega garancijskega roka na trdem disku pokaže napaka, ki je ni mogoče popraviti, prodajalec pa je pripravljen stvar zamenjati samo, če kupec plača nadomestilo za uporabo v vi�ini 1916 evrov.
I would point out that at the time the fault appeared the price of the new computer on the market could be only EUR 500, because of technological advancement. See R. Schulze and M. Ebers, ‘Streitfragen im neuen Schuldrecht’, Juristische Schulung, No 4/2004, p. 369.
Sama pri tem opozarjam, da se lahko zgodi, da je cena novega računalnika na trgu v času nastanka napake zaradi napredka tehnologije le �e 500 evrov. Glej Schulze, R., Ebers, M., Streitfragen im neuen Schuldrecht, Juristische Schulung, �t. 4/2004, str. 369.
36 — This concerns the purpose which the provision appears to have when considered objectively.
36 – Gre torej za cilj, ki ga je mogoče objektivno izlu�čiti iz predpisa.
As regards the objectivity of the purpose as the central focus of teleological interpretation, see R. Alexy, A Theory of Legal Argumentation.
O objektivnosti cilja kot jedra teleolo�ke razlage glej npr. Alexy, R., A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989, str. 241.
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-404/06 the interests of consumers and to ensure a high level of consumer protection — is to contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI V. – ZADEVA C-404/06 raven varstva, prispeva k varovanju zdravja, varnosti in ekonomskih interesov potro�nikov.