natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48 admittedly requires Member States to ensure that, in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right and in response to a justified and proportionate request of the claimant, the competent judicial authorities may order that information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services which infringe an intellectual property
Res je, da člen 8(1) Direktive 2004/48 zahteva, da države članice zagotovijo, da lahko pristojni sodni organi v okviru postopkov v zvezi s kr�itvijo pravice intelektualne lastnine in na podlagi utemeljene in sorazmerne zahteve vlagatelja odredijo, da se priskrbijo informacije o izvoru in distribucijskih omrežjih blaga ali storitev, ki kr�ijo pravico intelektualne lastnine. Vendar pa iz teh določb, ki jih je treba brati skupaj
PROMUSICAE right be provided. However, it does not follow from those provisions, which must be read in conjunction with those of paragraph 3(e) of that article, that they require the Member States to lay down, in order to ensure effective protection of copyright, an obligation to communicate personal data in the context of civil proceedings.
PROMUSICAE z odstavkom (3)(e) istega člena, ne izhaja, da nalagajo državam članicam določitev obveznosti predložitve osebnih podatkov v okviru civilnega sodnega postopka za zagotovitev učinkovitega varstva avtorske pravice.
Nor does the wording of Articles 15(2) and 18 of Directive 2000/31 or that of Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29 require the Member States to lay down such an obligation.
Z besedilom členov 15(2) in 18 Direktive 2003/31 in člena 8(1) in (2) Direktive 2001/29 se od držav članic ne zahteva, da določijo tovrstno obveznost.
The national court refers in its order for reference to Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter, the first of which concerns the protection of the right to property, including
Poudariti je treba, da predložitveno sodi�če v svojem predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe navaja člena 17 in 47 Listine, ki se nana�ata, prvič, na varstvo lastninske
2008 — CASE C-275/06 intellectual property, and the second of which concerns the right to an effective remedy.
2008 – ZADEVA C-275/06 pravice, zlasti intelektualne lastnine, in drugič, na pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva.
By so doing, that court must be regarded as seeking to know whether an interpretation of those directives to the effect that the Member States are not obliged to lay down, in order to ensure the effective protection of copyright, an obligation to communicate personal data in the context of civil proceedings leads to an infringement of the fundamental right to property and the fundamental right to effective judicial protection.
Upo�tevati je treba, da s tem navedeno sodi�če sku�a izvedeti, ali razlaga treh navedenih direktiv – v skladu s katerimi države članice za zagotovitev učinkovitega varstva avtorske pravice niso dolžne določiti obveznosti zagotovitve osebnih podatkov v okviru civilnega sodnega postopka – ne pripelje do kr�itve temeljne lastninske pravice in temeljne pravice do učinkovitega sodnega varstva.
However, the situation in respect of which the national court puts that question involves, in addition to those two rights, a further fundamental right, namely the right that guarantees protection of personal data and hence of private life.
Ugotoviti pa je treba, da sporni položaj, glede katerega predložitveno sodi�če zastavlja to vpra�anje, poleg dveh zgoraj navedenih pravic sestavlja �e ena temeljna pravica, in sicer tista, ki zagotavlja varstvo osebnih podatkov in torej zasebnega življenja.
In particular, the directive seeks to ensure full respect for the rights set out in Articles 7 and 8 of that Charter.
Namen Direktive je predvsem zagotavljanje popolnega spo�tovanja pravic, navedenih v členih 7
The present reference for a preliminary ruling thus raises the question of the need to reconcile the requirements of the protection of different fundamental rights, namely the right to respect for private life on the one hand and the rights to protection of property and to an effective remedy on the other.
Tako ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe zastavlja vpra�anje potrebne uskladitve zahtev, povezanih z varstvom temeljnih pravic, in sicer, po eni strani, pravice do spo�tovanja zasebnega življenja, in, po drugi strani, pravic do varstva lastnine in do učinkovitega sodnega varstva.
The mechanisms allowing those different rights and interests to be balanced are contained, first, in Directive 2002/58 itself, in that it provides for rules which determine in what circumstances and to what extent the processing of personal data is lawful and what safeguards must be provided for, and in the three directives mentioned by the national court, which reserve the cases in which the measures adopted to protect the rights they regulate affect the protection of personal data.
Tehnike, ki omogočajo ugotovitev pravilnega ravnovesja med temi pravicami in interesi, so navedene po eni strani v sami Direktivi 2002/58 – s tem, da vsebuje pravila, ki določajo, v katerih primerih in v kak�nem obsegu je obdelava podatkov dopustna ter kak�no varstvo mora biti določeno – ter v treh direktivah, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če, v katerih so navedeni primeri, v katerih bi ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti za varovanje v njih urejenih pravic, vplivali na varstvo osebnih podatkov.
Second, they result from the adoption by the Member States of national provisions transposing those directives and their application by the national authorities (see, to that effect, with reference to Directive 95/46, Lindqvist, paragraph 82).
Po drugi strani bi morali ti mehanizmi izhajati iz sprejetja s strani držav članic nacionalnih določb, ki bi zagotavljale prenos teh direktiv in njihovo uporabo s strani nacionalnih organov (glej v zvezi z Direktivo 95/46 zgoraj navedeno sodbo Lindqvist, točka 82).
As to those directives, their provisions are relatively general, since they have to be applied to a large number of different situations which may arise in any of the Member States.
Določbe zgoraj navedenih direktiv so relativno splo�ne, ker jih je treba uporabljati v �tevilnih različnih položajih, do katerih lahko pride v vseh državah članicah.
They therefore logically include rules which leave the Member States with the necessary discretion to define transposition measures which may be adapted to the various situations possible (see, to that effect, Lindqvist, paragraph 84).
Zato je logično, da vsebujejo pravila, ki dopu�čajo državam članicam potrebno možnost proste presoje pri določitvi ukrepov prenosa, ki bi lahko bili prilagojeni različnim možnim položajem (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Lindqvist, točka 84).
That being so, the Member States must, when transposing the directives mentioned above, take care to rely on an interpretation of the directives which allows a fair balance to be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order.
Glede na to morajo države članice ob prenosu zgoraj navedenih direktiv paziti, da se oprejo na razlago teh direktiv, ki omogoča zagotovitev pravilnega ravnovesja med različnimi temeljnimi pravicami, varovanimi s pravnim redom Skupnosti.
Further, when implementing the measures transposing those directives, the authorities and courts of the Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with those directives but also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them which would be in conflict with those fundamental rights or with the other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality (see, to that effect, Lindqvist, paragraph 87, and Case C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others [2007] ECR I-5305, paragraph 28).
Organi in sodi�ča držav članic morajo ob uporabi ukrepov za prenos teh direktiv ne zgolj razlagati nacionalno pravo v skladu z direktivami, temveč tudi paziti, da se ne opirajo na tako razlago besedila teh direktiv, ki bi bila v nasprotju s temeljnimi pravicami ali z drugimi splo�nimi načeli prava Skupnosti, kot je načelo sorazmernosti (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Lindqvist, točka 87, in sodbo z dne 26. junija 2007 v zadevi Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone in drugi, C-305/05, ZOdl., str. I-5305, točka 28).
Moreover, it should be recalled here that the Community legislature expressly required, in accordance with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, that the measures referred to in that paragraph be adopted by the Member States in compliance with the general principles of Community law, including those mentioned in Article 6(1) and (2) EU.
Poleg tega je treba v zvezi s tem opozoriti, da je normodajalec Skupnosti v skladu z določbami člena 15(1) Direktive 2002/58 izrecno zahteval, da morajo države članice sprejeti vse ukrepe iz tega odstavka v skladu s splo�nimi načeli zakonodaje Skupnosti, vključno s tistimi iz člena 6(1) in (2) EU.
In the light of all the foregoing, the answer to the national court’s question must be that Directives 2000/31, 2001/29, 2004/48 and 2002/58 do not require the Member States to lay down, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an obligation to communicate personal data in order to ensure effective protection of copyright in the context of civil proceedings.
Glede na vse zgoraj navedene preudarke je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da direktive 2000/31, 2001/29, 2004/48 in 2002/58 državam članicam ne nalagajo, da v primeru, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, določijo obveznost sporočanja osebnih podatkov, da bi se zagotovilo učinkovito varstvo avtorske pravice v okviru civilnega sodnega postopka.
However, Community law requires that, when transposing those directives, the Member States take care to rely on an interpretation of them which allows a fair balance to be struck between the various fundamental rights
Vendar pa pravo Skupnosti od navedenih držav zahteva, da ob prenosu zgoraj navedenih direktiv pazijo, da se oprejo na tak�no razlago teh direktiv, ki omogoča zagotovitev pravilnega ravnovesja med temeljnimi pravicami, varovanimi s pravnim redom Skupnosti. Ob uporabi ukrepov za prenos teh direktiv
PROMUSICAE protected by the Community legal order. Further, when implementing the measures transposing those directives, the authorities and courts of the Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with those directives but also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them which would be in conflict with those fundamental rights or with the other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality.
PROMUSICAE morajo organi in sodi�ča držav članic ne samo razlagati nacionalno pravo v skladu s temi direktivami, ampak tudi paziti, da se ne oprejo na tako razlago besedila teh direktiv, ki bi bila v nasprotju s temeljnimi pravicami ali z drugimi splo�nimi načeli prava Skupnosti, kot je načelo sorazmernosti.
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (veliki senat) razsodilo:
Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights
Direktiva 2000/31/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 8. junija 2000 o nekaterih pravnih vidikih storitev informacijske družbe, zlasti elektronskega poslovanja na notranjem trgu (Direktiva o elektronskem poslovanju), Direktiva 2001/29/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2001 o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski
2008 — CASE C-275/06 in the information society, Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) do not require the Member States to lay down, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an obligation to communicate personal data in order to ensure effective protection of copyright in the context of civil proceedings.
2008 – ZADEVA C-275/06 družbi, Direktiva 2004/48/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. aprila 2004 o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine in Direktiva 2002/58/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 12. julija 2002 o obdelavi osebnih podatkov in varstvu zasebnosti na področju elektronskih komunikacij (Direktiva o zasebnem življenju in elektronskih komunikacijah) državam članicam ne nalagajo, da v primeru, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, določijo obveznost predložitv osebnih podatkov, da bi se zagotovilo učinkovito varstvo avtorske pravice v okviru civilnega sodnega postopka.
However, Community law requires that, when transposing those directives, the Member States take care to rely on an interpretation of them which allows a fair balance to be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order.
Vendar pa pravo Skupnosti od navedenih držav zahteva, da ob prenosu teh direktiv pazijo, da se oprejo na takšno razlago teh direktiv, ki omogoča zagotovitev pravilnega ravnovesja med temeljnimi pravicami, varovanimi s pravnim redom Skupnosti.
Further, when implementing the measures transposing those directives, the authorities and courts of the Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with those directives but also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them which would be in conflict with those fundamental rights or with the other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality.
Ob uporabi ukrepov za prenos navedenih direktiv morajo organi in sodišča držav članic ne samo razlagati nacionalno pravo v skladu s temi direktivami, ampak tudi paziti, da se ne oprejo na tako razlago teh direktiv, ki bi bila v nasprotju s temeljnimi pravicami ali z drugimi splošnimi načeli prava Skupnosti, kot je načelo sorazmernosti.
Case C-380/05
Zadeva C-380/05
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Consiglio di Stato)
(Freedom to provide services — Electronic communications — Television broadcasting activities — New common regulatory framework — Allocation of radio frequencies)
„Prosto opravljanje storitev – Elektronske komunikacije – Dejavnosti raz�irjanja televizijskih programov – Novi skupni regulativni okvir – Dodelitev radijskih frekvenc za oddajanje“
Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 12 September 2007 I - 352Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 31 January 2008 . . . . . . .I - 368
Sodba Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 31. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Dopustnost – Vprašanja, ki so zastavljena, ne da bi bil dovolj natančno opredeljen dejanski in pravni okvir
(Art. 234 EC)
(člen 234 ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-380/05
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-380/05
Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Dopustnost – Nujnost, da se Sodišču predložijo dovolj natančna dejstva in pravni okvir
Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 234 EC)
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Pristojnosti Sodišča (člen 234 ES)
Freedom to provide services — Electronic communications networks and services — Regulatory framework, authorisation and competition — Directives 2002/21, 2002/20 and 2002/77
Prosto opravljanje storitev – Elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve – Regulativni okvir, odobritev in konkurenca – Direktive 2002/21, 2002/20 in 2002/77
(Art. 49 EC; European Parliament and Council Directives 2002/20, Arts 5(1) and (2), second subpara., and 7(3), and 2002/21, Art. 9(1); Commission Directive 2002/77, Art. 4)
(člen 49 ES; Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/20, člena 5(1) in (2), drugi pododstavek, in 7(3), in Direktiva 2002/21, člen 9(1); Direktiva Komisije 2002/77/ES, člen 4)
to be interpreted or any explanation of the link it establishes between those provisions and the dispute in the main proceedings or the subject-matter of that dispute.
ki se uporablja v sporu o glavni stvari, nedopustno.
(see paras 54-56)
(Glej točke od 54 do 56.)
In the context of the cooperation between the Court and national courts established by Article 234 EC, the decision making the reference must set out the precise reasons why the national court was unsure as to the interpretation of Community law and why it considered it necessary to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
V okviru sodelovanja med Sodi�čem in nacionalnimi sodi�či, ki ga določa člen 234 ES, je treba v predložitveni odločbi navesti jasne razloge, ki so nacionalnemu sodi�ču vzbudili dvom o razlagi prava Skupnosti in zaradi katerih meni, da je treba na Sodi�če nasloviti vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
Against that background, it is essential that the national court provide at the very least some explanation of the reasons for the choice of the Community provisions which it requires to be interpreted and of the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.
V teh okoli�činah je nujno, da nacionalno sodi�če vsaj minimalno obrazloži razloge, zakaj je izbralo določbe Skupnosti, katerih razlago predlaga, in povezavo, ki jo je ugotovilo med temi določbami in nacionalno zakonodajo, ki se uporablja v sporu o glavni stvari.
In that respect, a question referred by a national court is inadmissible where it does not give any indication as to the Community provisions which it requires
Zato je vpra�anje, ki ga je zastavilo predložitveno sodi�če, v katerem ni nobenega podatka glede določb prava Skupnosti, katerih razlago zahteva, niti povezave, ki jo je ugotovilo med temi določbami in nacionalno zakonodajo,
The need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary that the referring court should define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based.
Nujnost razlage prava Skupnosti, ki je koristna za nacionalno sodi�če, zahteva, da to sodi�če opredeli pravni in dejanski stan teh vpra�anj, ki jih zastavlja, ali vsaj razloži dejstva, ki so bila podlaga za ta vpra�anja.
In that regard, questions concerning, by implication, Article 86(1) EC, read in conjunction with Article 82 EC, are inadmissible if the decision making the reference does not contain any indication regarding, inter alia, the definition of the relevant market, the calculation of the market shares held by the various undertakings operating on that market, and the supposed abuse of a dominant position.
V zvezi s tem so nedopustna vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki se nana�ajo implicitno na člen 86(1) ES v povezavi s členom 82 ES, ker predlog za predhodno odločanje ne vsebuje nobenega podatka, zlasti glede opredelitve tržnih deležev, ki jih imajo različna podjetja, delujoča na tem trgu, in domnevne zlorabe prevladujočega položaja.
(see paras 57-59, 61-63)
(Glej točke od 57 do 59 in od 61 do 63.)
As regards a question referred for a preliminary ruling, where all aspects of the main proceedings before the national court are confined within only one Member State, a reply might nonetheless be useful to that national court if its national law were to require that a national of that Member State must be
Če so v okviru vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje vsi elementi spora, o katerem odloča predložitevno sodi�če, omejeni na eno samo državo članico, bi lahko ta odgovor koristil predložitvenemu sodi�ču, če bi pravo v postopku, kot je ta v obravnavani zadevi, določalo, da bi državljan zadevne države članice užival enake pravice kot državljan iz druge države članice na podlagi prava Skupnosti v enakem položaju.
(see para.
(Glej točki 64 in 69.)
116, operative part)
(Glej točko 116 in izrek.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALPOIARES MADURO delivered on 12 September 2007 1
1 predstavljeni 12. septembra 2007
I — Facts, national legal framework and reference for a preliminary ruling
Ta postopek se nana�a na televizijsko družbo, ki več let po tem, ko je na javnem razpisu pridobila koncesijo za nacionalno radiodifuzijo, �e vedno ni dobila potrebnih frekvenc za izvajanje te koncesije.
The Maccanico Law was adopted in July 1997, after the Corte Costituzionale (Constitutional Court) (Italy) had held, by a
185, 9. avgust 1990, redni dodatek �t. 53.3 — GURI �t.
Due to technical limitations, the number of terrestrial channels could not exceed 11.
Zaradi tehničnih omejitev �tevilo zemeljskih kanalov ne sme preseči �tevila 11.
Three channels were reserved for public television, while a maximum of eight channels were available for private operators.
Trije kanali so bili rezervirani za javno televizijo, osem kanalov pa je bilo na voljo zasebnim operaterjem.
ruling of December 1994, 5 that the antitrust provisions in the Mammì Law were inadequate to prevent dominant positions which could threaten pluralism of the media.
Mammì zaradi neustreznosti niso zmogle preprečiti prevladujočih položajev, ki bi lahko ogrozili medijski pluralizem.
The Maccanico Law created the Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni (Communications Regulatory Authority, ‘AGCom’) and introduced new restrictions on concentration in the market for national broadcast television, with a view to ensuring competition and respect for the principle of pluralism.
Z zakonom Maccanico je bil ustanovljen Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni (organ za urejanje komunikacij, v nadaljevanju: AGCom) in uvedene so bile nove omejitve glede koncentracije trga za nacionalno televizijsko radiodifuzijo s ciljem zagotoviti konkurenco in spo�tovati načelo pluralizma.
Under the Maccanico Law, no one was to be allowed to operate more than 20% of national broadcast channels as from 30 April 1998.
Ta zakon določa, da od 30. aprila 1998 nihče ne sme obvladovati več kot 20 odstotkov nacionalnih radiodifuznih programov.
Having participated successfully in the tender procedure, Centro Europa 7 Srl (‘Europa 7’) obtained national television broadcasting rights.
Ker je bil v postopku javnega razpisa izbran Centro Europa 7 Srl (v nadaljevanju: Europa 7), je dobil koncesijo za nacionalno televizijsko radiodifuzijo.
The rights were granted by Ministerial Decree of 28 July 1999, issued on 28 October of the same year.
Koncesija je bila podeljena z ministrsko uredbo z dne 28. ju lija 1999 in izdana 28. oktobra istega leta.
Regarding the specific frequencies, the Decree referred to the national allocation plan which had yet to be implemented.
Glede nekaterih specifičnih frekvenc se je uredba sklicevala na nacionalni načrt dodelitve frekvenc, ki ga je bilo treba �e sprejeti.
According to the Decree, the AGCom and the Ministry of Communications were to implement the national allocation plan within 24 months from the notification of the Decree.
Uredba je določala, da sta morala AGCom in ministrstvo za telekomunikacije sprejeti nacionalni načrt dodelitve koncesij v 24 mesecih po notifikaciji uredbe.
In the event of ‘objective impediments’ that period could be extended for another 12 months.
V primeru „objektivnih ovir“ je mogoče to obdobje podalj�ati za nadaljnjih 12 mesecev.
The Maccanico Law also provided transitional rules for incumbent operators with existing channels exceeding the 20% threshold.
Zakon Maccanico je določil tudi prehodna pravila za uveljavljene operaterje z obstoječimi kanali, ki presegajo prag 20 odstotkov.